2011-01-12 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

HEA UKULANI: You got that, Mary? HENRICKS: I'll second that motion. CHAIR: Okay, so we have a motion to dismiss it and we have a second. Any discussion? SECRETARY: Who seconded it? I didn't hear that. CHAIR: Arne. All right, any discussion? Again hold on, Arne. My discussion is that it just my feelings of digging further is just because I feel I lack the information here, so that's why. Do you have any discussion? HENRICKS: Okay, I hate to reiterate again, but I think the important thing here, and I don't want to discourage you in any way, but I think the important thing is we have to know whatMalama's position on this was before you can say that he advocated that position. And when you come to a point where I asked myself the same questions that I asked you. What did Malama want at that point, when you're saying that he's stalling I guess that's what you're saying he was delaying it. CADAOAS: Yes. HENRICKS: Did they want him to delay it? I mean, was it to their benefit for delaying it? CADAOAS: Well, all I show is that he has interest with Malama Market, Food Pantry. They're all affiliated. HENRICKS: But if he was advocating that interest, I could see. But the fact that if Malama had no interest in what was going on, how could he advocate something that they had no interest in? You know what I mean? CHAIR: Well, I think it's unfair HENRICKS: --If they didn't care, one way or another, whether there was a delay or not, how can he advocate something that they didn't care about? That's the only thing that bothers me. CHAIR: I think it's unrealistic to ask the petitioner to answer for somebody else, you know. He's here to answer for himself. Counsel? HENRICKS: Why? CHAIR: Because he's hereto answer for himself in the conflict of interest. And to put him on the spot and ask him what the motivations ofMalama Market are, it's kind of unrealistic. Counsel, you had anything? SCHOEN: I don't have anything to add, Mr. Chair. 14