The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0183.068 2020-2022 Cound9 From: test rnvpvCQ)hawraii rrcon) 5ubiect: Communication 153 Date.. August 5,2021 at 7:45 AM To: test mvpvv@;'hawai,u coin 1. INTRODUCTION The chairperson acknowledged his presence at the Committee meeting:allowed Mayor Roth to testify multiple tunes, allowed the verbal and written testimony of others, asked for opinions from Corporation Counsel Strance, and Commissioner Van Pernis (VP) asked several times to be heard,the chairperson did not allow VP to be heard.[. The result was a skewed hearing with incomplete, incorrect,or inadequate information, anfair to VP. 2, COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM RE COMMUNICKI]ON 183 MUST BE STRICKEN AND HNOT CONSIDERED.. This item was apparently added to that agenda at the last minute without prier notice to VP;and without indication of who placed it° There was no information presented with it, nor any known investigation by any Commissioner. VI5"s opposition included the Commission's lack of authorit and it was incomplete and inaccurate because the date and addressee and Communication 183 itself were not included. Nevertheless,the item proceeded with Commissioner DeFranco referring to former Commissioners Carr-Smith and Unger re matters before date of 183, nd Commissioner Vitousek referring to former Commission matters which were not pursuant Roberts Rules Of Order(RR)or Planning Commission Rules. Only a PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT of the July 15 Commission hearing, was provided. The partial transcript shows that NEW COMMISSIONER KANUHE WAS NOT PRESENT for the hearing(starting at 9:30 am)nor for the hearing of the subject item, until an hour after that hearing began at 3:26 p.m., and did not hear nor participate in any of.the evidence, statements and discussion. Pages 1 and 19 of the partial transcript. After new Commissioner Armbruster said she would abstain, there was no quorum! Commissioner Kanuha, who was NOT a Commissioner act the times 183 referred to,then appeared virtually at 4126., and accepted the Chair's invitation to vote. Deputy Planner,Jackson asked VP to vote. Partial Transcript page 21. Thus the item was NOT AT AL.I_RESEARCHED AND INVESTIGATED SO THAT IT WAS THE CONSIDERED DECISION OF ALL, County Charter Section 6-7.5 LIMI8TS Commission authority 1-0 advising the mayor, council, and Planning Director on LAND USE, PLANNING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION MATTERS,ERS, CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS, REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE GENERAL PLAN. Deputy Corporation Counsel, at page 3 of the partial transcript, stated that pursuant to County Charter Section 6.75 the Commission would have to first decide whether it had authority to discuss and make a recommendation of this matter! The Commission DID NOT DO THIS![ Instead, there was a proceeding UNDER SUBSERVIENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT RULE 1-4-(C),which merely identifies the Commission as having seven members and two ex officio members.Thus the Commission's action was wrong to proceed, and all references to the proceedings must be stricken and not considered. Planning Department Rule 1-4(b)also appears to support that consideration by the Commission o 183 was improper. 3.OLD MATTERS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. Criticism in Communication 183 concerned actions of 2020 and, BEFORE I WAS SCHOOLED BY COUNSEL YAMAMOTO AND PLANNER JACKSON last April and before I was given disability assistance, and I obtained and studied my own copies of RR.,The Planning Department Rules, and the Sunshine law. These I have tried to follow ever since,even when others don't do so. I also heard what was said in the committee hearings and spoke with some individual committee members, being careful to comply with the Sunshine law. There should be no legitimate concern about my present behavior. 4.APOLOGIES, Several verbal apologies were made. A written apology was distributed on May 26. 2021.A writing to Ms. Carr-Smith dated April 8, 20121 stated "I will take your statements ... into serious consideration. But my and other's searches for the truth, which might be absent or buried in misrepresentations, must be allowed for the Commission to effectively function. I am under the impression that my background as an attorney with 40 years experience was a reason I was nominated for the Commission, and the Kailua Design Commission before that." 5.TRANSCRIPTS ARE PROOF. I have submitted to VOL] writings and exhibits dated April 2, April 19,June 21,July 25 and July 23, 2021, The July 23 submittal includes TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARINGS FROM APRIL 25 TO JUNE: 16, 2021.A reading of those shows without a doubt that my actions since the prior Committee hearings have been reasonable and relevant, without any objection. Please review them to dispel any present"improper" claim. If there is anything, please point it out. (Particularly Mr. Chung, who stated I had not changed since before 2020 when h had. Please, sir, look at the 'ranscripts and point out where there was any improper QUESTIONING. Note that these transcripts are provided as proof, which your are all invited to see. No one else has presented you with complete transcripts as to their allegations. The full July 15 transcript, which also shows my proper actions on agenda items from before the above, has not yet been made available to me. These transcripts show i took very little time comported to others. 6.ARGUMENT/STATEMENTS PROTECTED. Communication 183 starts out in March of 2029, coincidentally at the sarne time as VP raised the issue of the Planning Director's conflict of interest and the publishing of a critical editorial,with a concern about my prior method of QUESTIONING OF APPLICANTS. This was solved by the schooling last April, SINCE.: THEN QUESTIONING OF APPLICANTS IS NOT AN ISSUE AND THIS HAS MORPHED INTO DISAGREEMENT OVER MY STATEMENTS AND ARGUMENTS which repetitive testifiers and the Department may not agree with, such as unauthorized extensions, a zoning ordinance"sunset"provision,and others. SECTION 2-83-(d)OF THE COUNTY CHARTER PROTECTS SUCGH ARGUMENTS AND STATEMENTS FROM CRITICISM, Cornnrb. No, irl cl To. W- _A R'ef. Date �AUGX2.1._ T NO PRIOR DISCIPLINE IMPOSED. Mr Vitousek refers to former matters he considered discipline. Such former matters DID NOT REFER TO OR INVOKE RR OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT RULES in any way, although both of those sets of Rules have provisions for discipline and control by the chair persoN.Thus UP's statement that no chair person ever invoked-RR or the Planning DepartmentRules is CORRECT. Reference to lesser chastisement of long ago may also be correct. The two statements do not conflict, and it's unfair to argue otherwise. NO CHAIR HAS EVER INVOKED OR USED RR OR COMMISSION RULES FOR CONTROL AND DISCIPLINE! NO"TOOLS" IN THE"TOOLBOX"OF THE COMMISSION CHAIR HAVE BEEN USED,much less exhausted, as suggested by this Committee. The CURRENT exemplary behavior of VP has eliminated any need to invoke the rules. 8. AGENDAIZING. In a July 30 letter, attempts at getting certain matters on Commission agenda is raised, and I believe misrepresented, A proposed provision to be added to all favorable recommendations, was placed on the agenda and discussed,but discussion was terminated before any resolution, Thereafter socratic method questions to the Planning Department was proposed as an agenda item,concerning discussion about what was meant by their phrase"beyond the control of the applicant".This proposal was refused by the Chair, and instead it was advised to have the Planning Department answer the questions. After that additional questions were requested to be agendaized and discussed, it Was suggested that the questions go to the Planning Department. This suggestion was courteously followed.See attached exhibit,email to Planner Jackson. No response to these questions has been received to date. At the July 15 Commission meeting attempt to get a matter agendaized was made,but Commissioner DeFranco said in essence she didn't want it heard, and the Chair then moved on towards adjournment. RR have not been complied with as to placing matters on an age.rda. This section of the July hearing was not included in the partial transcript. The opinion of Corporation Counsel as to whether such items can be agendaized by any Commissioner would be appropriate. 9.NE\/I MATTERSMULY 30 LETTER. My writing to you off July 25 completely explains and disposed of my role in the Ward matter at its paragraph 5. A. B.And C.,that the traffic issue was well inside the Sunshine law, the Chair's misunderstanding cleared up in a recess,the Chair's allowance to complete my point in argument, with reference to the Ward May 20 tran,cript as proof. You can judge for yourselves AFTER REVIEWING THAT, and you will my statements/argument were appropriate and on point, keeping Rule 2-83-(d)in mind. You can judge for yourselves as to everything in the July 30 letter,and see that there was no improprieties,particularly when the transcripts are reviewed. 10. BOARD Of ETHICS. It should be sufficient to says that all"Conflicts of interest"claims before this Board are dismissed, and the remaining"rudness'claim originating a very long time ago has not been acted upon to date to my knowledge. A review off the April 15 transcript(where my questioning and argument in favor of the motion invoked only about 2 of 27 pages, and shows no rudeness. Please review that transcript. 11.APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY? As of last April Councilman Richards' wife Terri published made public referrencte o me as"a (expletive) of a ole white man",and stated among other things,that"scores of complaints" have been filed against me, and stating""Matty Kealii Kleinfelder, Rebecca Vil,egas, Maiie Dvid, Heather Kimball, Holeka Inaba, Shame on you." Is this a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety as to his voting concerning me? 12.OBJECTIVES AND RESPECT. The objective is to make the Planning Department, Leeward Planning Commission and Council modern, better and more transparent, and to represent and carry out the trust of much of West Hawaii's placed on me including regarding the upcoming and important revisions and suggestions to the Kona Community Development Plan.This activism will not always be well received and may require some efforts, changes and modern land planning that puts West Hawaii people first. You can be part of this positivity and future, or go back to the 'same old"of archaic thinking, foolish deals,and not prioritizing our residents. The people of West Hawaii Have spoken loudly in my support. That's who you Kona folks represent and who you East side folks should listen to. The detractors are part of the"same old". Every Commissioner is entitled to their own vote and their vision of West Hawaii's futuYe. I respect that. Some past and present Commissioners,(even though our votes are often unanimous), and others may disagree with me. But I do not respect them any less for that. Diversity and the volunteering and working for betterment with the support OF much of the community,shculd also be respected. I am knowledgeable, respected, and vitally interested in West Hawaii. I know how to act and be a hard working,valuable asset to the Commission,Council and community. I emphasize that I want to serve Kona, my home for over 40 years. 13.CONCLUSIONt This is lengthy, but it is necessary for you to BE INFORMED OF THE WHOLE AND COMPLETE TRUTH WHICH DID NOT COME BEFORE YOU ON 3, where I was excluded This is not a desperate argument for A different interpretation of the facts.... THESE ARE THE FACTS! What you Heard on April 3 was woefully inadequate to make an informed decision. This matter should be deferred until every council person entirely reads and reviews tris writing and the exhibits,transcripts, Charter sections and Rules referred to in sections 2,5,9 and 10 above, most of which have already been delivered to you.which.This is too important a matter for West Hawaii to decide without being fully informed. Respectfully Submitted, Mark Van Pernis