|
Merit Appeals Board March 13, 2025
<br />On Questions And Issues Pertaining To The Board's Powers, Duties, Privileges,
<br />Immunities, And Liabilities. A 2/3 Vote Of The Members Present Pursuant To HRS
<br />Section 92-4 Is Necessary To Hold An Executive Meeting
<br />CHR. CABANAS: So, we are now on Number B, Communication number 25-02. I've been
<br />advised by Glynis that what I mentioned earlier is not correct —pertaining to the Communication
<br />number 24-14it should be number 25-01.0I'm sorry25-02.03, and this pertains to
<br />Jonah Kaye02.03so, we'll start with Communication number 25-02.
<br />(At this time, Mr. Jonah Kaye, WSO II, Fire Department, appearing via Zoom, and
<br />Mr. Ted H. S. Hong, Legal Counsel for Mr. Kaye; and Ms. Sherilyn K. Tavares, Deputy
<br />Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, and Ms. Sommer J. Tokihiro,
<br />Director, Human Resources Department, came forward.)
<br />CHR. CABANAS: And then, of course, we have the latest communication from Mr. Hong,
<br />25-02.03, where the Appellant's Notice of Objection to the Merit Appeals Board's Findings of
<br />Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, dated March 13, 2025, along with the Certificate of
<br />Service.
<br />Mr. Hong, do you want to state all your concerns, for the record.
<br />MR. HONG: Thank you. I would note that my client, Mr. Kaye, is appearing by Zoom. In
<br />addition to the objections that we noticed, we put in our "Notice of Objections"I would note
<br />that in the Turner Lyndon case —Lyndon Turner case the Board had indicated it was giving a
<br />remedy that was prospective —forward moving.
<br />However, in this case, for some reason regarding the cancellation of the recruitment —now it's
<br />actually being imposed retroactive. We would encourage the Board to look at it prospectively in
<br />that, with respect to my client, the remedy should be that he be given or reinstated to his WSO III
<br />position. And then, in our "Notice of Objections" we listed some of the other concerns we had
<br />with the remedy or the Order.
<br />We're not here, necessarily, to talk about or object regarding the Findings and Conclusions,
<br />necessarily; however, the implementation of the Board's Order could essentially moot out my
<br />client's appeal, in a sense that he would be ineligible for the position, which I think is not the
<br />purpose of our appeal.
<br />My client appealed as an individual. He wasn't appealing as a class or on behalf of anybody
<br />else. But the Order may have the effect of having other employees or co-workers elevated to the
<br />position and he'd be locked out, which I think is still fundamentally unfair.
<br />So, we would ask, obviously, the Board to reconsider that part or I think everybody knows what
<br />our next step would be after that. Thank you.
<br />CHR. CABANAS: Thank you, Mr. Hong. Ms. Tavares, any comments or concerns?
<br />Page 7
<br />
|