2012-07-11 Board of Ethics minutes

Home

MR. DILL: Then the decision will be up to the board whether it meets that threshold of being a violation, if it pertains to the code, if it can be applied to the code. And in some cases, if our code is not addressing an issue that we have, then we need to look at rule changes in our code itself, and that’s also on the agenda for today, if you noticed. So there’s a variety of things that can happen. The first and most important is the majority of the board has to vote to move forward. So until we can get to that point, we’re kind of stuck at the starting gate, if you know what I mean. But you followed the correct procedure so far, and everything is the way it’s supposed to be. That’s all. MS. NAPEAHI: Okay, I will continue then. MR. DILL: You can start the three minutes now. And if you need more, just let us know. Okay? MS. NAPEAHI: Okay, thank you. You know, my complaint had nothing to do with the character of a person. I myself know Mr. Fresh Onishi personally. However, it has nothing to do with his character. It has nothing to do with personal reasons, or how he benefits the community which I live in. I’m in his district, and I am very familiar with the people that live in it. I was born and raised in Keaukaha, and I continue to live there. So it has nothing—I just wanted to let you know that it had nothing to do with character. But it had a lot to do with what I think is integrity, also what’s important for a county council to have, when people do present themselves with issues that are very important to their lives. And that is the reason why I made the complaint. I had experienced the times that I was sitting here with issues that are important to community members, as well as myself. I just wanted to make sure that everyone here understood why the complaint was made. And a lot of it to me is that it’s important for our leaders to be able to give our constituents that live in our community a listening ear, and to be able to engage with the people that are actually taking time to make their testimonies in regards to the issues that are being presented to the council. And I don’t—with my experience, I just wondered and I questioned, when someone makes a decision as we’re giving testimony, do they need to be present? And I’d like to speak to someone. That is my—to me it’s important to be able to engage with the person, see them eye-to-eye, so that they can understand what I’m presenting. And I didn’t see that with the hours that we were here giving our testimony. And that is the reason why I brought this up. And I think, with yourself too, if you did have the opportunity to present something that was important to you, you would like them to engage in a conversation. And so I questioned the attendance and if it was important, and the answer to some of them was well, we do have a computer and a video that we can choose to use and not be present here, and that they’re listening to our conversations. We don’t know that. I’d like to know that when we are giving testimony, all who should be there making decisions are engaging in what we’re talking about. That to me is just showing some moral integrity, and it’s showing some respect for the people that are actually taking the time to be here and to put forward their concerns. And I don’t think that’s too much to ask for, only because I think that’s how our legislation is done. We engage with the people. We are the people that make the law. And that’s what we’re here for. And so these are some of the things that I wanted to bring up. Councilmen Onishi and Ikeda has not sat in any of the day-long testimonies that I’ve sat in, and there were quite a few. It appears to be that when the votings are being—when it’s time to vote, they appear. And sometimes I think that is unfair, to be making a vote if