2011-07-13 Board of Ethics Minutes

Home

actions of the council at that time constituted a violation when they disqualified themselves. Had that been done, then this matter should have been carried over until such time as the board had quorum and therefore Mr. Kimura would still be under the guise of the authority of the council. Also it is noted in the—I believe the petition—that the council, an employee has two years after leaving the county employ in which they’re subject to the actions of the county. In addition, this board has six years after said action in order to take actions. So as with counselor, I’m sure if I’m given some time, I can go through the Hawai‘i County rules, charters, rules and procedure of this body and state and federal law. But the effort was made in a timely manner. The actions, knowing and knowingly, of the board, convenient, whether true or not, constituted the decision they’re making now. In other words, you had the opportunity. It was filed properly, timely, concisely. The procedural matters in order to prevent this from coming forth must be constituted and identified under the United States Code, Criminal Title 18, Subsection 3, accessory after the fact. Knowing the— MR. HENRICKS: --Okay, my problem – I understand what the supreme court says in that matter. My problem is what they’re describing as a former employee. Now are they talking about they don’t have any—the board doesn’t have any jurisdiction over a former employee that’s no longer here, period, because of something he’s done after he’s gone? Or do they have jurisdiction over something he did while he was here and then is gone? MS. SCHOEN: Actually, that case—and I do have the cite, it’s John Doe vs. State Ethics Commission, 53 Hawai‘i 373, 494, P.2d 559 (1972) case. And actually that case is directly on point in that the ethics complaint was filed while the employees were employed as state employees. They subsequently terminated their employment, and then the supreme court said that the ethics board cannot pursue— MR. HENRICKS: --So they lose jurisdiction. MS. SCHOEN: They lose jurisdiction because they are no longer employed. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, that’s what my question was. Because I can see where it said because they’re a former employee they don’t have jurisdiction. But if they lose it, then okay. I have to _____ by that. MS. SCHOEN: Correct. And I think the court even enjoined the State Ethics Commission from pursuing prosecution. MR. HENRICKS: Okay. MR. COLE: Were those charges filed before the individuals left the service of the state? MS. SCHOEN: Yes. Yes. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, that clarification is what I needed on that, because I wanted to know what—you know, how they lost jurisdiction. If they lost it, they lost it. So be it. And based on that, you could make a motion. I’ll make a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction at this time. Any second? 16