My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
11-13-18 Regular Session Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Board of Ethics
>
Minutes
>
2011-2018
>
2018
>
11-13-18 Regular Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/13/2018 7:32:53 AM
Creation date
12/12/2018 2:56:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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. Goodenow: <br />Ms. Kahakalau: <br />Mr. Goodenow: <br />Ms. Kahakalau: <br />Mr. Goodenow: <br />Ms. Kahakalau: <br />Mr. Robinson: <br />Oh yeah. There's no comparable provision cause they don't have <br />an investigation...it's like the board...you come to the board...you <br />have your hearings. That's how it works. <br />So just to be clear for myself. Is then what we are recommending <br />is that to delete 5 through 8...is that what your recommendation is? <br />My recommendation is that our language to me is not nearly as <br />clear. I think we should just take out all of our Big Island <br />provisions and insert Maui. And with a few things and I could go <br />over those now and hopefully I remember them all but...yeah. <br />Okay. No I just wanted to be clear. <br />And you know we kinda did that with an earlier chapter...that <br />relates to this because that earlier chapter had...it just flows better <br />to me. When I read the Maui language, I thought the feel for a <br />member of the public just reading it would be this is an informal <br />process and it seemed really honest to what actually happens. I <br />like that about Maui. <br />Okay. Any other points of discussion regards to this specific item <br />here? <br />Yeah on the investigation...investigatory hearings which is what <br />we do kind of out here in public with all the information presented. <br />My only concern Ken and I don't know how we address this in our <br />rules...is that the person who initiates the complaint of ethics <br />violation normally it's against a county department or a person <br />within the county and they have...they don't have any <br />counsel...whereas the county has their own counsel. So the county <br />department is showing up and they've been able to talk to corp. <br />counsel and they've been able to get review. Whereas this person <br />sitting at a desk somewhere and says oh I think there's an ethics <br />violation here and they don't have any support or they don't have <br />anybody that is advising them as to the roles and regulations of the <br />county and how they can file a complaint so I've always been <br />concerned that they don't have the support that they...that they...I <br />don't know if you could say should or if they would want to go out <br />and hire counsel. That would be a very expensive proposition is <br />they hired counsel because the counsel would have to be informed <br />about the operation of the county as well as HRS it would have to <br />start looking into the county rules and regulations. And so I've <br />always felt...how do you help them? You'd normally have public <br />defenders for people that are in a criminal case but in this case <br />where it's just an issuant complaint. How do they get support? <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.