Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0044.076 2020-2022 cam t$ �j COMM. 44 Diane Blancett-Maddock Aloha, I am submitting written testimony again based on additional information regarding Zendo's nomination. At the last nomination meeting, the County Personnel Director made it clear that the County Charter required experience to be considered for Planning Director was not to be considered concurrently. Section 6.7.2 of the Hawaii County Charter provides in pertinent part: Section 6-7.2. Planning Director. (a) The planning director shall have had a minimum of five years of training and experience in a responsible planning position, or a degree in planning, engineering architecture, geography, or another planning-related field and three years of experience in a responsible planning position. No less than three years of experience shall have been in an administrative capacity. The language in the County Charter requires 5 years + 3 years in a responsible planning position or a college degree in a related field + 3 years in a responsible planning position. The combination of 8 years is required to satisfy the minimum requirement if the nominee does not possess the requisite college degree in a related field. The minimum of 5 years as a substitute of college education and the minimum of 3 years in a responsible planning position in an administrative capacity. Also, at the last meeting there was discussion regarding the language of the Charter as it refers to the type of experience required to fulfill the 3 year minimum standard for a Planning Director. The proponents of this nominee repeatedly used the term reasonable experience when the Charter clearly states RESPONSIBLE. I will not go into the . e Ref.'� Pr—()G -- Ref. Date J N 1 9 2021 obvious difference in the plain English definitions of the 2 words as I am confident that each of you understand that the word responsible has different standards than reasonable. As remarked by a council member at the last meeting, words mean something especially in the law and the implementation of requirements in a government Charter As you know, Zendo appeared before the Ethics Board for an advisory opinion of his conflicts of representing clients before the County Planning Department. . In his petition, Zendo declared that he did NOT Intend to "dissolve" his consulting company. And as testimony presented at the hearing uncovered, Zendo is or was involved in many entities that could pose a conflict to his performing the duties of Planning Director and protecting the public's interest. Zendo's written declaration that he intended to maintain a company that could conflict with his duties as Planning Director again displays his blatant disregard and/or misunderstanding of the government position for which he is being considered. Because he has never been employed by a government entity (local state or federal) it appears that Zendo is unable or unwilling to make the sacrifice that all public servants are required and willing to do when choosing to serve the public. It appears that Zendo was not and is not willing to disclose and divest all known business interests prior to his appointment in order to insure the public that he will serve the public's interest and not benefit the development interests to the detriment of Hawaii Island's citizens. In conclusion, please listen to the public outcry; follow the County Charter and do not approve this nomination for Planning Director.