My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
03-15-17 Regular Session Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2017
>
03-15-17 Regular Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/8/2017 2:18:27 PM
Creation date
5/10/2017 11:42:52 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Mr. Yoshimoto: <br />Mr. Adams: <br />Ms. Kahakalau: <br />Right...because sounds like the Board would want to hear <br />additional testimony or something from the petitioner or whomever <br />else right so... <br />Right. Just to drag this out because we don't have anything else to <br />do...and of course that's being facetious for the minutes...when I <br />look at Rule 4...this was presented to us...actually that's probably <br />not accurate...we have a petition here...we are looking at an <br />informal advisory opinion that's in front of us and that's Rule 4. <br />When I go back to Rule 3...declaratory rulings...something that is <br />not seen by the way specifically in code but because it's part of the <br />rules...does exist. The mootness of the issue is irrelevant. <br />So...you know I look at 4.5...which is...really more about <br />entertaining a request and we didn't do that so that really doesn't <br />apply here. And so...when we go to 4.9...we have a thirty <br />day...we've had the final hearing and...we're rendering the <br />opinion in writing. The opinion though was rendered last meeting. <br />You know the only other thing is that...you know 3.6 which is on <br />the declaratory ruling I just would raise you know we may for <br />good cause refuse to issue a declaratory ruling but...so I guess...I <br />just bring those up because those are the rules that I think pertain <br />to this. I am...not really interested in reconsidering. <br />I'm also inclined in voted in favor of passing the informal advisory <br />opinion because it was...you know we based it on the facts that <br />were presented to us...the petition that was presented to us and this <br />is really more of an informal now matter in terms of as Vice -Chair <br />Goodenow said you know looking at just the accurate information <br />of what we ruled basically of what we decided the last time and <br />since there are no discrepancies with this particular informal <br />advisory opinion and our decision from last time. I don't see why <br />we shouldn't approve it and then it gets filed you know there's <br />really...there would be no action based on it but that's just how it <br />is and then it's in there for the record... I think even if you go <br />backwards it would still be there for the record right...it wouldn't <br />be deleted in anyway...so I don't see that it could have an adverse <br />effects one way or another in the outcome is the same...it's going <br />to be part of the record but there's gonna be no action taken <br />because you know on their side now there is no issue anymore. So <br />unless we have any other advice from Counsel or any further <br />discussion...then I'd like to call the question...I'11 you time here J <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.