Laserfiche WebLink
la"L <br />B) Communication No. 11 -011 County of Hawai`i's Opposition to <br />Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration of Decision Denying Appeal Filed <br />December 8, 2010. <br />Communication Nos. 10 -06 and 11 -01 were considered simultaneously as <br />they pertained to the same matter. <br />Ms. Botelho was present and stated the following in support of her motion <br />for reconsideration: <br />In asking for the Board's reconsideration on the termination from the <br />Prosecutor's Office in October 2009, she stated that on May 29, 2009, the <br />Honorable Judge Hara did uphold that this Board has the jurisdiction to hear <br />and decide matters regarding probationary terminations. <br />The statements of Ms. Joyce Seelen in the September 2010 hearing <br />regarding Ms. Botelho upending witnesses in State v. McDonald in July of 2009 <br />is not a credible statement. Ms. Botelho has submitted to the Board for <br />reconsideration the statements of three individuals that were at the meeting in <br />July of 2009. They state that they were not offended by anyone, and they were <br />treated by respect by the Prosecutor's Office. <br />At the hearings, Mr. Dean Sumida stated that he weighed Ms. Botleho's <br />evaluations heavily on Ms. Seelen's statements. Ms. Seelen stated in the <br />September 2009 meeting with the Merit Appeals Board that Ms. Botelho had <br />offended these witnesses so badly that Ms. Seelen had to stop the meeting. This <br />is not true. Ms. Botelho's evaluation process never included these allegations by <br />Ms. Seelen throughout the evaluation process preceding July through October. <br />This was never brought to Ms. Botelho's attention and therefore she doesn't feel <br />that the evaluation process was just. Now with the statements from the Fosters <br />and Mr. Perez, it shows that Ms. Seelen rewrote history and that she was not a <br />credible witness. <br />Ms. Botelho asked the Board to reconsider this because justice hasn't been <br />served in her evaluation process. <br />Ms. Noda stated the following in response: <br />There is no rule for reconsideration in either the Merit Appeals Board <br />rules, nor is there a state statute that addresses it. The proper recourse, <br />V <br />