2007-12-12 Board of Ethics Minutes Regular Session

Home

Regarding Rule 1. 1, Ms. Lum asked if the year for the Charter was now 2000 and about the date for the County Code. Mr. Ashida said yes and that the Code should be referred to as County Code 1983 (2005 Edition). The Board discussed Rule 1.4(6), about the word "officer" and who it includes. The Board members agreed on eliminating (A) through (E) and replacing it with the wording of County Code Section M2(8). Ms. Lum brought up Rule 1.9, regarding the maintenance and custody of files and records. She questioned the disposition procedure of files, and the Chair said there are rules governing the disposition of files with the Corporation Counsel, and he would recommend retaining the language as is. Regarding Rule 1.14(b), the hours of operation, Ms. Lum asked if they were still from 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and was informed they were. Also in Rule 1.14(b), Ms. Lum suggested they add "or other announced location" for the meeting location, and the Chair agreed. Ms. Lum asked whether they should change the regular meeting location, which is listed as "the meeting room of the Hawaii County Council," since they do not always meet there. Mr. Ashida recommended leaving it as is, because the Sunshine Law requires adequate notice of the date, time and place, and the current language is standard for all County boards and commissions. Each board needs a home base, and when they don't meet at the home base, they are actually having a "special meeting." Rule 4.6, regarding acknowledging the receipt of a request, was the next rule Ms. Lum questioned. She wanted clarity on the phrase "shall be sent," and whether that meant the date notice is mailed or the date it is received. She said the Board ran into a problem with the 2006 petition regarding Gary Safarik on the issue of receipt. Ms. Malanka pointed out that Rule 6.2(c) said that notice of hearing was to be via registered or certified mail at least fifteen days before the hearing, and Ms. Lum pointed out that a party has 20 days after receipt to respond. The problem is that the Board does not know when a party receives the notice. The Board members discussed the matter of the 20 days' notice and whether a deadline should be written into the notice. They also noted that if something is sent via certified mail, a person could refuse to sign for it, and that items can also get lost in the mail, whether sent certified or not. The Chair asked for Mr. Ashida's opinion, and Mr. Ashida said he would not recommend changing the rule because of what happened with the Safarik petition, as those were unusual circumstances and notice has not been a problem in other cases. He explained that respondents need to be afforded due process and that with court pleadings, responses are due "x" number of days upon receipt, not from mailing. A certain amount of honor is presumed. He also said that respondents are officers and employees, so he knows how to find them and can always follow up with them. Co