Laserfiche WebLink
GENTRY: You proposed a motion, there wasn't a second. <br />SCHOEN: Mr. Chair, your Board rules do not provide for this particular situation. <br />CHAIR: Yeah. <br />SCHOEN: I believe Rule 4.7 is a provision which states that any time a petition is filed, <br />the respondent should receive notice of the petition and —the idea behind that is so that <br />the respondent has an opportunity to know what he or she is charged with and then can <br />prepare. In this situation, Ms. Lum is proposing that an additional section be added on <br />to the petition, and so—I believe counsel is here, and maybe he can address the Board as <br />to whether or not Mr. Perreira or Mr. Udovic is prepared to defend that section as well. <br />UDOVIC: Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Michael Udovic, Deputy <br />Corporation Counsel for the County of Hawai `i, here today representing Mr. Perreira, <br />who is also present with me. We want to get this thing finished, quite frankly. It's our <br />position that there's no merit to this petition, but I do think that in fundamental fairness <br />and procedural due process requires that any matter which is being alleged with respect <br />to Mr. Perreira, that he receives advance notice of that. We'd be very happy to proceed <br />with the petition under 2 -83 and 2 -84 today, and that may quite frankly resolve the issue <br />that Ms. Lum raises with respect to 2 -91.4 as well. There may not be any need, but I just <br />don't think it's fundamentally fair for us to proceed with matters that we haven't been <br />advised of. <br />CHAIR: I agree with you, and I think that we need to try and stick to what has been <br />referenced specifically on the petition. If you're okay with that, if we do uncover other <br />items— <br />L UM: - -We can— <br />CHAIR: - -that warrant additional inquiry, then we can do that at that time. <br />L UM: Okay. <br />CHAIR: Since we are on the subject of this petition and what sections have been <br />referenced, I have a problem with Section 2 -84 that the petitioner referenced. I- <br />UDOVIC: - -That was going to be my next motion, as well— <br />CHAIR: - -Okay. <br />UDOVIC: I don't see any evidence that there's any allegation of a conflict of interest at <br />all, in any of the complaints which were made by Mr. Takamoto. <br />CHAIR. I share that same view. Board, do you have any comments? I think we need to <br />try and focus on Section 2 -83 specifically, and I think that that's what this is all about, <br />