Laserfiche WebLink
The Chair stated that the Mayor's Office had contacted him to write a letter in support of <br />these bills. He consulted with Ms. Schoen, who informed him the matter needed to be agendized <br />for input from the other Board members. It was not known when or if the bills would be heard, <br />but the Chair was seeking the Board's approval to write a support letter at the appropriate time, <br />which could be at short notice. <br />Motion: Ms. Gentry moved to approve sending a letter in support of the bills, whether <br />by re- sending their letter from the previous legislative session or a new letter. Ms. Nicholson <br />seconded the motion. <br />The members discussed whether they wanted to authorize sending a letter on their behalf <br />even if they did not have a chance to explicitly review and discuss it. The Chair explained that <br />as the bills move through committees, they could be killed or deferred or calendared at very short <br />notice. The Board decided to authorize the Chair to send a letter in support of the bills as <br />needed. <br />Vote: All members present voted aye. <br />b. Discussion on whether Hawaii County Code Section 2 -91.1 (the definition of <br />"regulatory employee ") should be amended to include inspectors and <br />supervisors of inspectors employed by the Planning Department, or a general <br />catch -all definition like "regulatory employees with inspection duties." <br />Ms. Schoen explained that she had received numerous phone calls from employees about <br />whether they were required to file disclosures. In addition, the director of the Planning <br />Department asked her to discuss with the Board whether the Code should be amended to include <br />inspectors and supervisors of inspectors at Planning. Currently the Code specifies that Public <br />Works inspectors and supervisors of inspectors are required to file, but it does not specify the <br />equivalent employees at Planning. In addition, there are inspectors in other departments who are <br />not yet required to file. It is possible that when the Code was written, these positions did not yet <br />exist. <br />The Board discussed the matter and decided the Code should be amended to include a <br />catch -all phrase such as "all regulatory employees who perform inspection duties." <br />Ms. Nicholson said there could be other employees with potential conflicts and that they <br />should look at the larger issue of who should be filing. Ms. Schoen pointed out that at Public <br />Works, the inspectors and their supervisors are required to file, but not the division head who <br />supervises them. Division heads may not do inspections themselves, but they supervise those <br />who do. <br />Ms. Schoen discussed the format of Section 2 -91.1 and where the additional employees <br />should be listed. It was decided that supervisors of planners employed by the department of <br />planning should be added to (a)(4)(A), and inspectors employed by the department of planning to <br />(a)(4)(B). <br />Ms. Schoen noted that planners also exist in the Department of Parks and Recreation and <br />may exist elsewhere. The Board decided that any planners who are involved with inspecting, <br />2 <br />