|
MR. DILL: Move it away from you a little.
<br />
<br />MS. SCHOEN: Yeah, move it a little bit away, Margaret. Thank you.
<br />
<br />MS. WILLE: Thank you. There are really two questions. One is, is there a violation?
<br />And second, if there is a violation, how can you best promptly and effectively mitigate the
<br />unfairness to those who were harmed by the violation? I think the violation here is
<br />obvious, and I’m not going to recite the exact County Code provisions. They’re in Cheryl
<br />King’s complaint. I don’t—the question as to how best to effectively mitigate the harm—I
<br />think your obligation would be to, what is the best and practical way to do that? And I
<br />think the only thing to do at this point would be to allow for employees, union employees
<br />or other employees, to meet with the County candidates that were harmed, that were not
<br />allowed to attend, and on whose behalf these employees were not urged to support and
<br />campaign for. I just want to say I don’t see this as a union issue. If it’s a union issue,
<br />then jurisdictionally you would have to be solely in a union issue. The County Code is
<br />not undermined by way of a—if it somehow affects the union or is involved with union
<br />negotiations, that would really undermine the whole government process. Just the
<br />general sense and general understanding is that, say at the senior meetings where they
<br />wanted to meet candidates, that no candidate could come alone—it could only be
<br />presentations or informational meetings where both candidates, everyone is treated
<br />fairly. And I think that’s the word and that’s the purpose. And I believe you really have
<br />an important choice before you. Either you uphold this law, or you really are enabling
<br />what I believe is unethical. It creates a culture of fear—fear the union people have if
<br />they’re allowed to do this, why aren’t they supporting some incumbent position. I mean
<br />in this case it’s really against the County, against the Mayor’s Office, the executive
<br />branch. Corporation Counsel, Lincoln Ashida, is not just an attorney for the _______. I
<br />think he also should be accountable here. He is also a member of the Mayor’s cabinet.
<br />And I don’t mean this as something anti any particular government official or anti the
<br />unions. I’ve been very supportive of the unions and their good works as a collective
<br />voice for the people. I testified on their behalf when the State, when Linda Lingle was
<br />manipulating union issues in terms of furloughs versus firing them. So I feel strongly
<br />about this. I’m clearly, I feel, been harmed by this and I hope that you take this seriously
<br />and realize how important your position is. Thank you.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Dill called up Dan Cole, who had signed up to speak on agenda items 5a, 6a, 7a, 7b,
<br />and 7c.
<br />
<br />MR. COLE: Good morning, Board members. I’m sure you’re as pleased at me in front
<br />of you as I am to be here. I speak on all agenda items, as they’re all related. However, I
<br />will now call your attention to the fact that I have been coming before this Board to
<br />expose public corruption, deprivation of rights under the color of law, and conspiracy
<br />against rights. I now wish to present a letter dated September the 12th, signed by Neil
<br />Abercrombie, Governor, State of Hawai‘i, from the Executive Chambers, thanking me for
<br />bringing to the attention of the governor and the State racketeering influence, corrupt
<br />organization violations of this Board and of the government of the County of Hawai‘i.
<br />This Board, including Chairman Dill, has participated in criminal violations of the
<br />federal RICO act, to include extortion, violation of Criminal Title 18, United States
<br />Code; Tampering with a Victim, Witness, or Informant, Title 18, United States Code;
<br />
<br />
<br />
|