My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-10-11 Regular Session Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2016
>
2016-10-11 Regular Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2016 10:06:02 AM
Creation date
11/10/2016 10:05:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
Ms. Kahakalau: I have the first one...I have the first one, but I don't have the <br /> second that you're talking about J. <br /> Ms. Hirayama: I sent it to you via email. I got it after I sent out the packet. <br /> Ms. Goodenow: I would note that however that there would be nothing to prohibit <br /> the department in writing their response to have copied Mr. Tucker <br /> so he could had it beforehand. <br /> Mr. Yoshimoto: That would be accurate if they knew who the petitioner was. Per <br /> our rules...because the documents are confidential until presented <br /> to the Board...names and confidential information are redacted <br /> prior to... <br /> Mr. Goodenow: So even if they had wanted to...they couldn't until today the way <br /> our rules are written. <br /> Mr. Yoshimoto: Right...it's...yes. <br /> Mr. Goodenow: Well that should be looked at in the future... <br /> Mr. Tucker: May I comment? <br /> Ms. Kahakalau: Go ahead...Sure...that's fine. <br /> Mr. Tucker: As I proceeded with this petition...I was...I assumed the <br /> respondents would have a copy of the complaint and they <br /> have...they apparently have received that copy which according to <br /> your confidentiality clause should be protected information...but I <br /> don't object to them knowing...we should all walk into this <br /> hearing prepared to save you time and me time...but in due <br /> process I would have expected to receive a copy of the response so <br /> that I could have the opportunity to see what legal underpinnings <br /> they may be relying on...have some time to research and present <br /> myself on that matter. Now I'm not here to say let's shred <br /> everything I'm prepared to proceed...however...the confidentiality <br /> code 4.13 in the Ethics Code doesn't mention anything about <br /> redacting anything. That would have been fine if they wanted to <br /> redact to the who the response was you know coming back to me. <br /> I mean it gets a little silly can and I understand... but nevertheless <br /> after some weeks of preparation on the building department...I'm <br /> sitting here with settle seconds to try to see what the response <br /> is...but I'll go ahead with my opening statement if you'll allow <br /> me. <br /> 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.