Laserfiche WebLink
CHAIR: Thank you. And I requested that Mr. Graham come in, only to offer his opinion <br />as the Planning Commission Chair as to that letter that was printed in the Hawaii Tribune - <br />Herald. <br />GRAHAM: Well, maybe you should talk to me a little more clearly about my opinion or <br />something, or whatever. <br />CHAIR: Well, as you know, Ms. Siracusa represents the Planning Commission, and she <br />is a member of the Planning Commission. And when she wrote that letter, she discussed what <br />could be determined as Planning Commission business. And did you see anything in that letter <br />that perhaps you feel as the chair maybe should not have been discussed by a Planning <br />Commission member? <br />GRAHAM: Okay, I think I understand kind of where you're coming from, so let me just <br />try to speak to that general subject. In reading the letter, I didn't feel like she was representing <br />the Planning Commission in any manner. She didn't sign as commission of the Planning <br />Commission, although she's a well -known person in Puna. Certainly a lot of Puna people <br />probably would know that she is a member of the Planning Commission. That particular <br />business, pet store business she's talking about, is not something that's ever been before the <br />Planning Commission, or as far as I know ever will appear before the Planning Commission, so <br />that as far as our general instructions are, you know, when we join the Planning Commission, <br />the general instructions are you don't participate in any way or speak to any item that's before <br />the Planning Commission. You don't speak to that in a private way, other than in a Commission <br />setting. Any and that's before the Planning Commission or that you could reasonably expect <br />will soon be before the Planning Commission. So my read of the situation is that she was <br />speaking as a private individual, that she was using her knowledge, which is accumulated <br />through working on the Planning Commission and all that. And obviously she showed that in <br />her letter. And in my own judgment, I wouldn't write a letter for that in that way, but, you <br />know, I don't feel that she's done harm to the Planning Commission or misrepresented the <br />Planning Commission or even represented the Planning Commission (inaudible). It just, you <br />know, it seems to be a little it seems to be lacking in tact (inaudible) but I don't see anything <br />more than that. <br />CHAIR: I see. Well, was this matter ever discussed at a Planning Commission meeting? <br />GRAHAM: No. It's never been on the Planning Commission agenda. We only discuss <br />what's on the agenda. I'm not aware of it ever coming up on the agenda in the future, either. <br />CHAIR: And <br />LUM: So you didn't feel there was I don't know your we have our rules of <br />CHAIR: -- ethics <br />LUM.• -- ethics, but our other rules of how we act in our meetings. Rules of procedures <br />you didn't see a violation of your rules of procedures for the Planning Commission? <br />