Laserfiche WebLink
however I would be inclined to make sure that said ability to refuse <br /> or reject a request would not just be associated with rule 4...it be <br /> associated with any petition...right...and so in there it talks about <br /> except in the case of a written request by the elected or appointed <br /> officer or employee, former officer or former employee concerned, <br /> the board may for good cause refuse to entertain a request for an <br /> advisory opinion. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, <br /> the board may refuse to entertain a request where...sub one...the <br /> request is speculative or purely hypothetical and does not involve <br /> an actual situation...sub two...the request is frivolous or sub <br /> three...the request does not substantially comply with the <br /> requirements set out above...and in no case shall the board <br /> entertain a request that is no in writing and not signed by the <br /> person making the request his or her representative. And so we <br /> already have within our rules the ability to consider petitions for <br /> acceptance or for rejection based on these good cause measures. <br /> The questions than becomes...because it's only the board that can <br /> make these determinations...these petitions will show up on our <br /> agenda...right...and the concern then becomes is there a way to try <br /> and prevent the use of petitions particularly...now drawing up a <br /> hypothetical situation...particularly where you may have <br /> candidates...candidates become...find themselves once they have <br /> frled...they find themselves subject to our jurisdiction and it can be <br /> potentially used by whomever...to provide...you know to use <br /> petitions as bad publicity for example. There's no way that I'm <br /> aware of right now under our rules where the board has the ability <br /> to see these petitions prior to a Sunshine Law appropriate <br /> meeting...right...now there are other commissions in other <br /> jurisdictions within the State where the staff has the authority to <br /> review petitions and not bring them to agendas. That's not my <br /> understanding of the staff's authority currently...and we would <br /> to take a look at the code...I don't think it's out of the question for <br /> us to ask the staff to be able to do that if we decided we wanted to <br /> provide that authority within our rules. We'd have to take and <br /> make sure the code allows that but I'm not seeing places in the <br /> code that prevents that which is two different things. So I would <br /> ask the board to consider whether or not they would like see the <br /> staff have authority that it currently doesn't have which is <br /> reviewing petitions prior to us receiving them here in a Sunshine <br /> Law agendized meeting and making decisions on whether or not <br /> we should see them or not. That's really a question. <br /> Ms. Kahakalau: I just wanted to mention that you know the scenario that you talked <br /> about initially with us having to be here and to review whether <br /> something has merit...I think for me the issue is again hypothetical <br /> situation since we've already kind of had where there is a Hawai`i <br /> 13 <br />