|
Second issue is the witch hunt. That's why the resolution I suggest is
<br />important. Under your rules, the resolution will require you to narrow the
<br />scope of the investigation to whatever—to exactly—so everybody knows, the
<br />public, Ms. Nae`ole, Ms. Hale, everybody knows what specifically you guys
<br />are looking at. That actually prevents the witch hunt, prevents people from
<br />coming back later—at a later meeting and saying oh, another thing, and
<br />another thing. Mr. Strauss —we've communicated with him. He's not going
<br />to be here today, but he was given notice that today is the deadline, he needs to
<br />get in whatever allegations he wants. I've submitted that to you under separate
<br />cover. So actually, the process of the resolution avoids the witch hunt. And
<br />again, the reason I even brought this was because of what Mr. Lee Loy
<br />indicated—Ms. Nae`ole's willingness, or desire, to want to have her name
<br />cleared before this Board. So, you know, had he said, well maybe not,
<br />Lincoln, you know, then obviously maybe I would have backed off. I don't
<br />know. But again, a big part of why we're here is because of Mr. Lee Loy's-
<br />his representations to me about Ms. Nae`ole's desire to bring this forward.
<br />That's all I ask. Thank you.
<br />PRANKE: Thank you, and
<br />CHAIR: - -And I just want to say, a couple weeks ago, when I read this story in the
<br />media, I recall both parties mentioning they want it resolved in the Board of
<br />Ethics. So it doesn't surprise me that it has gotten here. And
<br />PRANKE: - -It doesn't surprise me, either. It's just that I don't believe it's come at the
<br />right place. The other part that I forgot to mention here that I wanted to make
<br />sure—it says the aforementioned formal resolution process —this is one, two,
<br />three, four, the fifth paragraph on the resolution—allows that the Board may
<br />subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, etcetera. Those things
<br />are only allowed in a formal advisory opinion, after having done an informal
<br />advisory opinion, and then only if the Board finds —and finds that there's a
<br />problem and that the remedy that the Board suggests isn't taken up by the
<br />person who is doing this. So this shows that there's a conflict here between the
<br />two types of resolutions that I think is a bad precedent to set. If someone with
<br />specific information about anything that might have gone on untoward would
<br />come forward and file, that would be one thing. But to me, having someone
<br />file simply because there are allegations out there, are a mistake. I don't think
<br />it's fair to Ms. Nae` ole that this is out there, but she does have redress through
<br />the court system, also, which is separate froma different kind of a situation
<br />than this. I'm sorry, I'll sit down and shut up.
<br />CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Pranke. Dr. Downing?
<br />DOWNING: Aloha kakahiaka, Chairman and members of the Board of Ethics. I'm here to
<br />voice my opposition to this petition and request for the hearing, the reason
<br />being that we are in a position now where a person who is on the Council is
<br />being burdened with all of this to -do, the time spent, the effort towards
<br />obtaining legal standing, and so forth. This all seems to me to be very out -of-
<br />31
<br />
|