Laserfiche WebLink
way for citizens to indicate their displeasure with the Council <br /> members if they don't occupy/demonstrate courteous, fair and <br /> impartial treatment of their constituents. Whereas, that isn't <br /> necessarily the case for our executive branch folks. In that <br /> particular case, I kind of look at that and I say executive branch <br /> folks we're kind of that way of city/county residents coming <br /> forward to say I wasn't treated well and so we're kind of the way <br /> that we can address that. At least one of the ways. When it comes <br /> to our legislators, our elected folks I have a little less of a stringent <br /> view on that. So where do we go, obviously if the extreme nature <br /> on this. If a Council person swears at somebody, swears at a <br /> witness in a Council meeting that's for me clearly discourteous and <br /> if brought to my attention here in this particular situation I would <br /> say so. I think that's an extreme case. Where do you draw the line <br /> when it comes to somebody not necessarily not getting back to <br /> you? How much time should be allotted? Those are really <br /> questions that I don't think this particular for me that this particular <br /> phrase of, all person to be treated in courteous, fair and impartial <br /> manner by the officers and employees of the County is intended to <br /> address. I think reasonable people can disagree on that particular <br /> thing and I think simply gray area. I would defer on the legislative <br /> side to our voters being able to address that in our elections which <br /> are pretty, every two years is pretty frequent. I'm inclined to say <br /> that in this case the fact that the Councilman didn't get back to you <br /> in what you would think would be a reasonable amount of time <br /> may not be a credit to the Councilman, but I don't think it's against <br /> the law which is what this would be. So that's my comment and <br /> how I feel about that. <br /> Mr. Balsis: That was a good comment. Do you have any comments? <br /> Ms. Kahakalau: Did you have a chance to read Mr. Kanuha's letter as well? No <br /> you didn't get that. So in the letter it states that it was an oversight <br /> and he apologizes in the letter and he apologized to you. He is <br /> willing to meet with you per his letter and discuss the issue. If that <br /> is a major part of it is for you to be heard. Right. The idea is you <br /> have a side of the story that you want to be heard and that you have <br /> a right to be heard. Mr. Kanuha at this point is offering to hear it. <br /> We're not going to say what time did you call, how many times did <br /> you call, did you write, did you email, did you leave messages and <br /> getting into what happened. The same way with Mr. Kanuha, did <br /> get the messages etc., but rather try to deal with the situation say <br /> that it was an oversight on his part and he definitely apologized for <br /> it. I think hopefully learn from that situation as well, that it's not <br />