2006-02-08 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular

Home

CAMBRA: Yeah. The statement I have is that I feel I've been, what is it, I feel that I've been, that I was—it is an ethical violation, that I've been—missed opportunity to a promotion, because if the ethical violation did occur before, you know, things was done differently, I feel maybe the outcome would have been different. By saying that it relates—if the trainer did not—they had two trainers in the County. If an ethical violation did occur, and a different trainer came and did the test for the the performance test —the outcome might be different because of different ways that they do it. Their style might have been a little different. Like say, one might go to this subject on the matter, or you would start on a different approach KK: Thank you. Members of the Board, are there any questions of Mr. Cambra? KAMELAMELA: I think he's going to have an opening statement here. PKO: Yeah, you know, the opening statement is not the evidence part yet, so you would Mr. Gilman's opening statements, and then they would present evidence or witnesses, and then perhaps you could question them at that point. KK: Mr. Gilman? GILMAN: I feel that, like Mr. Cambra, what he's trying to say, I guess is that it wasn't fair on the audit or testing, that we got treated fair. We really don't want to go where we're pointing fingers on this subject, but if we didn't get our audit or we passed it in the right stage, if there were other ways where that —okay, you know what, you folks didn't pass and you folks would have the training, where we didn't get trained, because both of us have license to drive but we didn't get—we didn't pass our audit tests. And we didn't even get a chance to get trained by the County. . So that's where both of us stand, in that we're looking for fairness in this. Why did the other people who was below us get the training and pass? They went out and get the license, or their permit, to operate a vehicle. KK: Do you have any questions of him? KAMELAMELA: I think the next step is that if we invite , because although I brought the pre- hearing statement, I want to make a short opening statement, if I may be allowed to do that? KK: Yes, you may. KAMELAMELA: Okay. Actually, the issue here is whether there's an ethical violation, and so I believe that the focus should be whether Hiram Keliikoa, who has a private business where he trains people to get commercial drivers' license, and who does not supervise either Gilman or Mr. Cambra, and who also doesn't decide who got audited prior to June of 2005, whether that's a violation of the separate section under the Code of Ethics, whether it's for conflict of interest or fair treatment. Sc that's the issue. Anything else doing with promotional impropriety, or D