Laserfiche WebLink
me just say that the consequences of how I feel about <br /> this...or my review on this are not good. Frankly, because <br /> you could be on Oahu and be given an award, go to that <br /> dinner, give a speech and accept the award and there's no <br /> cost. There's no travel that's been paid to that, but if <br /> you're on a neighbor island and you're being given a gift <br /> and it's in Oahu and you're traveling to Oahu. That doesn't <br /> seem to be fair play because it seems like well shoots the <br /> folks on Oahu they don't have to worry about any travel <br /> gift. The fact is the way the Code is written without an <br /> exception written into the Code means that you have to <br /> determine whether or not the acceptance of that gift in this <br /> case the travel is in the performance of the officer or <br /> employee's official duties. In Mr. Kanuha's case, he's <br /> going to accept an award. We didn't hear anything else <br /> that he's doing. Well acceptance of an award is great, but I <br /> don't see that in the performance of his official duties. <br /> Now I could be...maybe I'm wrong on that...maybe <br /> somebody else feels differently on that. This is in some <br /> degree...it kind of looks like a reward for actions that have <br /> been taken, but of course all of our legislators and our <br /> executive officers and even judiciary will receive awards <br /> from time to time based on the stuff that they've done. The <br /> travel is the gift piece here that I have difficulty with and <br /> because I can't find an exception in policy, because I can't <br /> find an exception in our Code that allows for our officers of <br /> the County being able to accept that gift for something <br /> that's not in the performance of their official duties. That <br /> makes it to me...then a violation of 91-4. I wish I could <br /> find one frankly, because I think that there are plenty of <br /> things that are officers and employees do that are worthy of <br /> recognition. And so then you have all kinds of <br /> organizations willing to do that, but because they have to <br /> travel unless that travel is being paid for personally or in a <br /> lot of times it's connected with some type of official action. <br /> Therefore is a tangential aspect to it, but when it just for <br /> going over there to do it. I don't know how you get around <br /> it frankly. When it comes to the employee, I'm of a <br /> different mind. The employee went over, it was training as <br /> I understand it for the employee and the training was going <br /> to benefit the County in terms of the aspects of what that <br /> employee was getting out of the training. In that case, <br /> there's an exception for that and I don't find that to be a <br /> violation. So that's my discussion and I'm definitely open <br /> to other thoughts. <br /> 13 <br />