Laserfiche WebLink
Juvik amended his motion to change percentage to ten <br /> percent. Ms . Cushnie seconded the motion. A vote of <br /> 411 commission members was taken. Greenwell , Juvik, and <br /> Cushnie were in favor; L'Orange, Nishikawa, Omonaka , Lum, <br /> Poppe, and Bethea opposed. Motion failed . <br /> Mr. Yuen mentioned that it appeared that agenda had not <br /> been mailed to members of the general public who had <br /> requested them, although notice of the meeting, with <br /> agenda, had been published in newspapers. <br /> VIII. ART. XIV: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON BOARD OF <br /> ETHICS, INCLUDING CONFIDENTIALITY AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. <br /> Yuen acknowledged letter from Hugh Clark, Big Island Press <br /> Club, which opposed increasing confidentiality at Board of <br /> Ethics meetings. 1971 court decision requires meetings be <br /> open except when there is matters of confidentiality <br /> affecting privacy of the individual because of Sect. <br /> 13-20(b) of Charter. Question here is whether we want to <br /> amend Charter so that Board of Ethics meetings be treated <br /> differently than other kinds of meetings. <br /> Bethea: Board of Ethics procedures are exempted by State <br /> Sunshine Law. <br /> Yuen: Although county ordinance says that Board of Ethics <br /> • meetings are to be confidential , and that it is a crime <br /> for the person making the complaint to make it public, <br /> Judge Doi struck down the ordinance in 1971 on the grounds <br /> of Section 13-20(b) of the Charter and on constitutional <br /> grounds . I would have to agree that it would violate <br /> someone' s First Amendment rights if it were made a crime <br /> for somebody to tell a newspaper that he had written to <br /> the Board of Ethics with an ethics complaint . If the <br /> Commission wants to allow more confidentiality in Board of <br /> Ethics meetings , it must amend Sect. 13-20(b) . <br /> Mr. Bethea favored confidentiality in Board of Ethics <br /> meetings. <br /> Bethea: Read Sect. 14-5 (e) . It prevents disclosure of <br /> identity of person involved. Why is confidentiality <br /> limited to county employees who specifically submit a <br /> written request? Why isn' t everybody entitled to same <br /> confidentiality just because some member of the public <br /> complained? What Sect. 14-5 (e) also illustrates is that <br /> there was a contemplation of confidentiality involved in <br /> this process and that certainly didn' t happen in the Mike <br /> Luce case. I think there is a technical correction that <br /> needs to be made. <br /> 411 <br /> 937 <br />