MIN CHC 2009-10-09.tif - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

reapportionment to redistricting so that actually the redistricting can take place as it's supposed to without gerrymandering; which it did happen. Gerrymandering did happen when District 3 threw a leg - -a very thin leg- -into District 5, in order to keep Jimmy Arakaki in his seat. If that redistricting had been done correctly, Jimmy Arakaki wouldn't have had a seat. So, redistricting means changing the geographical boundaries to legally conform with population growth, without political, private interest gerrymandering creating non - contiguous districts with odd shapes. When you look at the maps, you are going to see that District 3 has kind of an odd shape right now, and District 5 has a odd in -road into it. We want that done away with. Reapportionment - -I'm just going to say this for the record - -as far as I understand it, means that you create a different number of representatives into a district for the set boundaries. Now, what happened ten years ago was the boundaries were changed. It didn't change the number of representatives in it. So, it was not reapportionment, it was redistricting, and it was illegal. So, please, will you please refer to that, and give us a fair chance in our island with the next redistricting to have it done properly, with a real redistricting committee. Thank you. Referring to the Ethics Board - -I don't know if all this is agendized in your present meeting but - -there is one communication that refers to penalties and how would they be imposed, how would they be collected, so on and so forth. I just want to say for the record, so the public will know that Ordinance 08 -57 has been languishing for 17 months. It was signed into law by Mayor Harry Kim, May 8, 2008. That ordinance gives the Ethics Board the power to impose fines of not more than $1,000 for each violation committed by a county official in violation of the Code of Ethics. Now, I spoke to Rene Schoen today, who is the Deputy Corporation Counsel for ethics matters. I asked Rene Schoen what the difference is between a formal hearing and an informal hearing, and how do we get a formal hearing; and is it true that only a formal hearing will result when this ordinance is implemented, for any county official being fined. And she said that is true. So what happens is that - -for instance we have matters before the Ethic Board -- anyone writing in a petition request, and filling out a petition stating, so and so did so and so and we want it heard, it's going to be an informal hearing. The first time a county official is found guilty of a particular type of ethics violation, according to Ms. Schoen, who is a very respectable lady, that person will be warned; don't do it again. But, if the person continues in that vernacular, and commits the same type of ethics violation, then there would be a formal hearing and that person would be fined. We are at an impasse here. Somewhere in your Charter - -- Although the County says it's burdensome to create an appeals agency on the County level in order to conform with HRS, there is a new law which says that violations to ethics, you have to have a County appeals agency, and so you can't use the circuit court. That is the big reason why the Ethics Board doesn't have any teeth and can't impose any penalties of any money. The public has been laughing at the Ethics Board saying we don't like what so and so does, but what's the good of taking it to the Ethics Board, they don't do anything about it. This coming Legislature, if that particular portion of HRS is not repealed, and if the County cannot use the circuit court as an appeals agency for County officials found in violation of ethics violations, then I think it should be mandated in the Charter that the County of Hawaii has to have an appeals agency. Either you are going to change our HRS- -and this is the D