2006-03-08 Board of Ethics Minutes regular

Home

RW: That is the next step? No program review, therefore impeach them? Is that ... RC: That's the way I see it, because I have personally delivered testimony, information, and many witnesses over many years to the Hawaii County Council at appropriate agendized meetings to take testimony about the eradication program. Uh, a few years back the chairman of the County Council saw fit to end those hearings, so they have kind of moved the goal post further away from citizen participation. The meetings were contentious, they got heated but it is democracy in action, and I think the County Council didn't like those meetings so much that they denied access for the citizenry to have, to be heard. RW: Did you try a referendum? RC: No. And then what happened was the Council decided that their yearly budget hearing was going to be enough of a program review, plus monthly reports. I don't think any accountant would verify that that is a mandatory program review. Voted into the County Charter in the late 1970's, after the abuses of Watergate, when the good people of the Big Island felt we needed another level of ethics here to watch our government, because they saw that the Federal Government could make some real bad moves, and they wanted to get a handle on it, and good for us, and good for them. RW: Okay, so you brought separate charges now because you are seeking defense, right? RC: Correct RW: Public defense? RC: I brought impeachment charges and then I know that part of the bringing of the charges is that Corp Counsel is not allowed to represent the defendants, the officers, and that they have to hire outside attorneys to pay their own legal bills, which, obviously, is a stress, and it is a cost for them, and it is part of the process. So, then, that led to, I wrote the impeachment charges. I filed it in court. We have a civil lawsuit, which is ongoing at this point and time, which led to an agenda item on October 18, 2005. Communication 461 of that day says that there is a petition for impeachment seeking the impeachment of the Mayor and eight City and Hawaii County council members, this was from Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida, dated September 28, 2005, recommending that this matter be agendized for the purpose of establishing, prior to the conclusion of the court case, the ground rules and process for hearing, considering, and then voting upon the reimbursement of legal expenses at the end of the impeachment case. Reimbursement, as if the Council would have to pay first, then get reimbursed. Now, I sat in the council room that day and witnessed it with my own two eyes and ears and the Council debated that issue and then voted upon it. The entire Council, nine members were there that day, eight of them voted, eight of them were my defendants in the impeachment case and they voted on getting reimbursed for themselves. So money that they paid out of their own pocket would come back..... RW: What was their rationalization, or justification for that? 7