My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-11-09 Regular Session Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2016
>
2016-11-09 Regular Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2016 9:34:54 AM
Creation date
12/6/2016 3:52:50 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
point as a part of the conversation that we actually received...we <br /> received public testimony...but we never actually got to testimony <br /> from the petitioner at that point. So...I'm just saying...so this <br /> process has been...we've been scraping along as we move along. <br /> Mr. Eddins: And I understand your point earlier Mr. Adams, but the other thing <br /> too that impacted our decision making was the August email from <br /> the petitioner when he's basically saying I'm not going to <br /> participate anymore and you know so then we don't hear anything <br /> until September 26 shortly before in the misted of a trial and then <br /> we get these late submissions by the petitioner who now jumps <br /> back into the case so to...put everything on us and I'm not <br /> suggesting that initially...I under their concerns and the points <br /> you're making I think is unfair. <br /> Mr. Adams: Thank you. If I may Madame Chair. I would comment that <br /> Counsel for the Mayor is accurate in their read of the rules <br /> particularly with 4.7, 4.8 and then Rule 5...particularly 5.2 where <br /> if we're going to hold an investigatory hearing then we would <br /> actually have a formal resolution to conduct such a hearing or <br /> investigation. This is not associated with Rule 6 which is formal <br /> hearing this has to do with having an investigatory hearing which <br /> is Rule 5 and so...I would...I guess would suggest that as a part of <br /> the conversation that we're having here outside of any motion <br /> whatsoever...that we have a couple of options here at least. One <br /> of those options is to schedule a special meeting for a period <br /> during this month. Have a resolution or make a motion for a <br /> resolution that indicates that we're going to conduct such a hearing <br /> and make sure that all parties are aware of that and request them to <br /> attend. Of course we always have the option that we have prior <br /> which is to dismiss or to continue. So I guess probably the way <br /> forward perhaps would be for me to make that motion and then for <br /> us to have conversation about the rest of that. So I would move <br /> that we...I would move that we resolve to hold an investigatory <br /> hearing regarding as a part of our informal hearing for 2015-03 on <br /> a date that would be a special meeting which according to our rules <br /> in 1-15(a) would need to be called prior to adjournment of this <br /> meeting. So we need to look at the calendar to do that. That's the <br /> motion. <br /> Ms. Kahakalau: Do I hear a second? <br /> Mr. Robinson: Madame Chair I will second that for the sake of discussion,but <br /> I'm really bothered by the fact that we don't have the petitioner nor <br /> the respondent here. If we're gonna do that, we're gonna have to <br /> petitioner and the respondent in this investigatory hearing correct? <br /> 33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.