My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-07-16 Board of Ethics Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2014
>
2014-07-16 Board of Ethics Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2014 3:21:42 PM
Creation date
8/22/2014 3:21:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Henricks: Alright, let me say something first before we conclude. Normally, normally, I <br /> could in my experience in the law, I could see there would be absolutely no <br /> connection between a Prosecutor and a Planning Commission. If there were to be <br /> a connection it would have to be an exception, you understand that. <br /> <br />Mr. Kanuha: Correct. <br /> <br />Mr. Henricks: Okay, it would be exceptional circumstance. Now, do any of you, either of you, <br /> know of any exceptional circumstances where this might of occurred? <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Jamae? <br /> <br />Ms. Kawauchi: No. <br /> <br />Mr. Kanuha: I don’t. <br /> <br />Mr. Henricks: I don’t either. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Counsel, do we need to have a motion at this time or do we just have a finding <br /> that we all agree to? <br /> <br />Ms. Schoen: Well you’re in informal hearing right now, so your options you would probably <br /> undertake a motion at this point to do whatever it is you want to do. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Do you want to go ahead and make a motion Doug? <br /> <br />Mr. Adams: I mean I heard what Mr. Kanuha said and I think that this is narrow as well. <br /> Given the current representation in front of the Windward Planning Commission, <br /> I would, let me try that again, I would move that in light of Ms. Kawauchi’s <br /> representation in front of the Windward Planning Commission on this particular <br /> matter that there is no violation of Section 2-91.2(b), that’s what I recommend. <br /> <br />Mr. Henricks: I second the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: It’s been moved and seconded that there is no violation of Ms. Kawauchi in her <br /> representation of her client to the Windward Planning Commission to Section <br /> 2-91.2(b). Is there any further discussion on this motion? Hearing no further <br /> discussion, I call for a vote. All those in favor of this motion, say aye. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis, Ms. Kahakalau, Mr. Henricks, Mr. Adams (simultaneously): Aye. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: All those opposed, none. There are no oppositions. That clarifies, and also <br /> hopefully the discussion will help you in going back to the Planning Commission <br /> as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Kanuha: Thank you. <br /> <br />Mr. Balsis: Thank you for coming in. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.