Laserfiche WebLink
MR. HENRICKS: Exactly right. You’re making a ruling based on the policy of the department. That’s what you’d be doing. <br /> <br /> MR. BALSIS: So in essence it would determine whether the policy is right or wrong. <br /> <br /> MR. ADAMS: I guess I don’t know about that. I understand that there’s a policy. I mean, we’re not doing this in a vacuum. But I think that there’s situations, more rather than just this one, where that would be a potential case. And so the idea that there’s consequences to our decision, I think that that’s—of course there’s consequences to the decision. Most of the time those consequences are going to be to the individual, but sometimes the consequences are also going to be to the department or the County. So I wouldn’t necessarily be hesitant for that reason, to render some type of advisory opinion, necessarily. The question I have is, I look at the question that was presented to us by Michael in his statement. And the question specifically was do employees—should employees be allowed to disqualify themselves through 2-84(a), or should they not be allowed the right to have other financial interests. That question to me is not one we answer. That’s not an individually, fact-based situation sensitive question, which is I think what we’re supposed to answer in 2-84(a). Now he just asked us a different question in testimony, which was can I sell - ? <br /> <br /> MR. DRUTAR: Correct—could I sell one home and assess another home. <br /> <br /> MR. ADAMS: Sell one home where? Sell one home in Waimea, you said-- <br /> <br /> MR. DRUTAR: --Waimea, Waikoloa— <br /> <br /> MR. ADAMS: --and then assess a home where? <br /> <br /> MR. DRUTAR: Kona. <br /> <br /> MR. ADAMS: Okay. So it matters—see, to me those situations matter. If that’s the question you’re asking, well think I think we can give an informal advisory opinion to that. What he’s able to do with that later, that’s—maybe potentially he’s going to decide to use that further, I don’t know. But that kind of comes back to my question about asking the question to the department about their policy. But I think I see your point now. That really doesn’t matter when we’re answering this individual question. <br /> <br /> MR. HENRICKS: It would put it in the nature of a contested hearing. <br /> <br /> MR. ADAMS: It would. <br /> <br /> MR. HENRICKS: And we’re not in that. <br /> <br /> MR. ADAMS: No, that would be a different—that would be a different thing. That would be an 86(b) as opposed to 86(a).