Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN GOEAC 2023/03/21 (2022-2024)Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs 6th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii March 21, 2023 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Governmental Operations and ORDER: External Affairs was called to order at 10:03 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Cindy Evans, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Cindy Evans, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member (came in later) Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (came in later) Absent & Excused: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Amedeo Markoff Bill 32 (Comm. 149), opposed. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 142: NOMINATION OF SCOTT F. MARTIN TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 2, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 15, 2023 (Section 13-4(k) Hawaii County Charter GOEAC-6 Vote on Comm. 142: (Approved) Comm. 143 Vote on Comm. 143 (Approved) March 21, 2023 Ms. Kagiwada moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination of Mr. Scott Martin to the Board of Appeals. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba —1. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. NOMINATION OF THOMAS BROWN TO THE WATER BOARD From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 2, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 15, 2023 (Section 13-4(k) Hawaii County Charter) Ms. Kimball moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination of Mr. Thomas Brown to the Water Board. Second by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba —1. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Page 2 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 Comm. 144: REAPPOINTMENT OF PALANI GREENWELL TO THE KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 3, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 16, 2023 (Section 13-4(k) Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 144: Ms. Villegas moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) reappointment of Mr. Palani Greenwell to the Kailua Village Design Commission. Second by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba —1. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Comm. 145: NOMINATION OF TSING YOUNG TO THE KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 3, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 16, 2023 (Section 13-4(k) Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 145: Ms. Galimba moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) nomination of Ms. Tsing Young to the Kailua Village Design Commission. Second by Ms. Villegas and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba —1. Excused: None. Page 3 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Comm. 146: NOMINATION OF COLEMAN KEALOHA KA`OPUA TO THE KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 3, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 16, 2023 (Section 134(k) Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 146: Ms. Villegas moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) nomination of Mr. Coleman Kealoha Ka`opua to the Kailua Village Design Commission. Second by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba —1. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Comm. 147: NOMINATION OF REBEKAH LUSSIAA TO THE KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 3, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 16, 2023 (Section 134(k) Hawaii County Charter) Page 4 GOEAC-6 Vote on Comm. 147 (Approved) March 21, 2023 Ms. Villegas moved to recommend confirmation of the nomination of Ms. Rebekah Lussiaa to the Kailua Village Design Commission. Second by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba —1. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Comm. 148: NOMINATION OF BRONSTEN KOSSOW TO THE KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated March 3, 2023, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 16, 2023 (Section 13-4(k) Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 148: Ms. Villegas moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) nomination of Mr. Bronsten Kossow to the Kailua Village Design Commission. Second by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba —1. Excused: None Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order ORDINANCES: of Resolutions. Page 5 GOEAC-6 STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON BTLL 32 - March 21, 2023 The Chair called Eileen O'Hara, who registered in opposition to Bill 32 (Comm. 149), and came forward when called by the Chair. Bill 32: AMENDS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 25, SECTION 2-138, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Clarifies that public funds may only be used for the actual costs of expenditures directly applicable to the service or activity covered by the grant award agreement and that public funds may not be used for the repayment of debts. Reference: Comm. 149 Intr. by: Ms. Kimball Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 32 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. EVANS: Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I'll address the testimony right away, so that former Council Member Eileen O'Hara doesn't have to stay online. There's no intentionality behind this to remove that ability to use grant funding for administrative costs or as the other testifier mentioned, registration fees. For my colleagues that have been on the Council before and then the three new members, let me just give you a little refresher and the background of this and the history. We had a Contingency Relief Fund (CRF) request come through, that actually arrived after the event had already occurred. And what happened at that time is we had a discussion about Section 2-137 of the County Code, which states that the grant funding has to be used for services or activities to be provided. And so there's this timeliness element, that's associated with when we provide the grant funding and what it could be used for. And so, you know, the simple solution at the time seems to be okay, let's go back to Chapter two and take out words to be, to remove that temporal element. But then I ended up conversing more with Corporation Counsel, Auditor Benner, our Clerk, Clerk Henricks, as well as our Finance Director. And there's really more to it than that, it's not as simple as just taking out the words to be. In fact taking out those two words may actually open us as the decision makers, about issuing these grants to concerns for potential in -proper use of funds, under the public fund's doctrine. We are using, you know, taxpayer's monies to offer these grants. And so there's a larger doctrine at play that has to do with the proper use of public funds, and that became the discussion. Page 6 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 We also recognize in our conversations, we didn't want to do anything too heavy handed, like putting it in our rules that a resolution had to be passed prior to the event. Because there are other things that play, like we have to wait for the paperwork to come back from the departments to signatures from the Mayor. And we recognize that there's already an anticipation of funds going to these nonprofits, sometimes before the resolutions happen. And so, we didn't want to over legislate for something that is a rare occurrence, but we did want to protect the Council and protect the use of public funds. What I'd like to do at this time with the Chair's allowance, is actually invite Corporation Counsel, Judge Strance to come up. I believe we Auditor Benner on the call as well, and I believe Director Sako may be there in Hilo. Just to advise us a little bit. Again, wanting to make sure that we as a Council are protected in terms of how we will distribute these funds, and ensuring that we're following the public funds' doctrine. So Judge Strance, would you like to kick us off, please. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good morning, Committee Members and Chair. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. As Chair Kimball mentioned, we had a number of discussions regarding the scope purpose of Chapter 2. And just to kind of ground us a little bit in the discussion because I think sometimes as you come in new, or you start to read language in the County Code, you see words and they register, but sometimes they have a much deeper context. And so, the term public purpose isn't something that was just created as part of legislating Chapter 2. It has a very rich history grounded in the United States Constitution, it has expressed reference in our State Constitution, and there are provisions within the Hawaii Revised Statue (HRS) Chapter 46, that specifically prohibit counties from granting gifts. And so when we started to have discussions about after the event type of contingency fee discussions, the discussions surrounded around—well you're giving money to an organization that has already paid for the event. And so, they're not using the money for the purpose stated in the resolution, so it's an impermissible gift under the State's statute. And so, having these broader discussions about how to interpret it is really what led to an attempt to better describe what is permissible, and not permissible. The other kind of starting point with the grant and aid previsions of the County Code is important to note that both the contingency fund grants, the grant-in-aid program, and other grants that are issued by the County, are all governed by the same part of the Hawaii County Code. So with that, I just wanted to provide a little bit of information about the public purpose doctrine. It is a requirement of law that all appropriations or expenditures are public money and indebtedness be Page 7 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 created for some public or corporate purpose. And when they use the word corporate, they're referring to the County. The County of Hawaii is a municipal corporation. So—have to be utilized for those purposes as distinguished from private purposes. And there are some exceptions where the legislature has granted exceptions because it will define what public purpose is. So within the Hawaii Constitution, Article 7, Section 4, it specifically states that no tax shall be levied, or appropriation of public money or property made, except for a public purpose. And so, there isn't an exception unless there's some exception made by the government. So within the Hawaii Constitution for example, there is a whole list of uses of money that talks about what are some of the public purposes. So I'm just going to name a few because there's a lot. So, the power to provide funds for treatment and rehabilitation of handicapped persons, and so giving money to an individual for that would otherwise violate the public purpose doctrine. As this body well knows, Hawaii County was an innovator and one of the first counties to start providing rent relief when COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease) hit, that's because there are housing provisions within the State Constitution that prohibit that. There are provisions within the State Constitution regarding climate and environment. And so, the question about why them and not this involves more than just a discussion, it requires a look into the law, whether it's the State Constitution or the Hawaii Revised Statues. So, as I indicated before, under Chapter 46 of the Hawaii Revised Statues, as some of you know, that is a chapter within state law that creates counties and identifies their authority, powers, and responsibilities. And as I indicated a specific prohibition from counties making gifts or loans, absent explicit authority. My impression of the provisions within the Hawaii County Code is that it is an attempt to assist this body, and not having to think about every single request for money that comes in front of it. And so, it identifies organizations that are eligible to receive money and it identifies certain purposes for which grants can be given. This bill arose out of discussions that were held as Council Chair Kimball indicated, as well as other struggles that we had watched or at least I have noticed over the last year or so about what could the money be used for. And so, you know, the County Code is a way to allow this body to help itself make decisions. To conclude, the Hawaii Courts have not adopted a specific test. There is a desire by the judiciary to defer to governmental bodies, to determine what are public and not public purposes. And this is a separation of powers issues, but they will step in. There is some authority, the Attorney General has provided some opinions on some specific request. So, for example, the University of Page 8 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 Hawaii a number of years back wanted to use public money to grant some of its staff permanent residency or immigrant status. And the public purpose given was it benefits all of our students. But the Attorney General thought that was not a purpose and looked first to whether there was a law that allowed for it, and there wasn't. And then they looked at to whom it would primarily benefit, and it primarily benefited each of those staff members, and that there were other ways that the staff members could get their residency and still teach. So, for example, they could come in on a temporary contract, while they work their way through the process. But that opinion I think shows some of the nuance discussion, and as best you folks can have more concrete rules. I think that's what the attempt of the county code is trying to do. There are some tests that have been used in other jurisdiction. There's a four-part test, where we are asked to look at what is the ultimate goal or benefit to the public by the intended project; will the public or private parties be the primary beneficiaries looking at the speculative nature of the project, and analyze and balance the probability that the public interest will be ultimately served into what degree. The other test would be what is the primary purpose and is it to promote a private where a public end. And looking at the Attorney General's opinions and the scant case law in Hawaii, seems like they tend to go more for that. And there's a hope that there's a specific statute on top of the request, but those are just a couple of different ways to look at that. And so the discussion about Administrative fees, it's important to note that a grant-in-aid program is not a grant to organizations, it's a grant to a specific program and that program is by application, designed to show a public purpose and use. And so when organizations are talking about the impact on their total organization, there's a little bit of a disconnect, I think, with how the request for Administrative fees, for example, does promote the program itself. Making it tie into that, and whether sometimes things are more difficult or less difficult for organizations. The Public Purpose doctrine is really about the protection and use of public funds, and your role is kind of a fiduciary of those funds. So I'll leave it more to you folks as a policy matter on how to look at and analyze those. But I did want the—and appreciate the opportunity to provide you with sort of that general framework, and context for those two words because they're powerful and have a very steep meaning in the history of government. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you so much, Judge Strance. I'm sure my colleagues have questions, but I did want to invite Auditor Benner. I think it's a very good transition with the last comments there about protection of public funds and protection of our fiduciary responsibilities. So Auditor Benner, would you like to chime in on this conversation? I believe you're available there at the Hilo chambers. Page 9 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 (Note: At this time County Auditor Tyler Benner came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. BENNER: Sure, thank you for having me. My name is Tyler Benner, I'm with the office of County Auditor. So I was asked to share some information on risks inherent to Council, associated with the process. Just some reminders to be aware of, obviously, this isn't all encompassing and I'm not an attorney, so this is not legal advice. But I think as Corporation Counsel pointed out, public funds doctrine is a legal principle. It prohibits the use of public funds for private purposes. Public funds are intended to be used for a public purpose, not for the benefit of an individual and not for the benefit of private entities. Couple of different places that we can find it, we can find it in the Hawai `i State Constitution and HRS. It does vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so it's kind of why it sits as a principle. Public funds doctrine awareness element, so public benefit, the grant fund should be used for a public benefit rather than for a private gain of an individual or organization. Transparency, the grant award process should be transparent and opened to the public, including criteria used to evaluate grant applications in the process for awarding grants. Accountability, the grant award body should be accountable for the use of public funds and should have clear procedures in place for monitoring and recording and the use of grant funds. Compliance with laws and regulations, the grant award body should ensure that it's complying with the relevant laws and regulations related to the use of public funds, including those related to procurement. Conflict of interest, accounting and reporting, should be fair and equitable. The grant award body should ensure that the grant process is fair and equitable and that eligible applicants have equal opportunity to receive funding, and then it should be result oriented. The grant award body should establish clear goals and outcomes for the use of those grant funds and should track and report progress towards those goals and outcomes. My goal is just to plant a seed that will see Council approach this from a kind of a risk reverse angle. So to that end, to avoid violations of the doctrine, we would just ask that Council consider that there's legal risks. If Council violates the public funds doctrine, it could face legal consequences, fines, penalties, legal actions by interested parties. And that can lead to reputational damage and undermine public trust, financial risk. Misuse of public funds can result in financial losses of the County, and this can occur if public funds aren't used for private purpose or if there's lack of transparency and accountability in the use of the funds. There's a reputation risk. Violating the public funds doctrine can also lead to reputation damage for the Council, if the public perceives that the funds are being misused or can erode public trust and confidence. Then finally political risk. The misuse of public funds can have political consequences. Elected officials and Page 10 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 Council Members can face backlash and criticism and their impact or ability to govern effectively. So with regards to Council's role in the grant-in-aid process, we would just ask that you consider conflicts of interest. Council Members that have personal relationships with non -profits can create a conflict of interest when elevating grant applications. They may also have personal interests in certain non -profits receiving grant money, which could compromise the integrity of the decision making. Favoritism or bias, Council Members may favor certain non -profits over others for reasons that are not related to the non -profit's effectiveness or suitability for the grant. This could lead to a perception of bias or unfairness in the grant award process, and then misuse of the public funds by allowing ineligible non -profits to participate. So the Council Members may allocate grant funds to non -profits that don't meet the criteria for eligibility, or not using public funds for the intended purpose, and this could result in the mismanagement or misuse of public funds, which would be a violation of the public funds doctrine. One additional thing to consider here is in the context of government grants to non -profits. A difference between supplementing and supplanting, and I think this kind of reinforces what the Judge was touching on one of her last points here. In the context to government grants to non -profits, supplanting occurs when the grantee uses the funds to replace existing funds that would of otherwise been used by the grantee's own organization or from other sources such as private donations or fees. This is not allowed because the purpose of the grant is to provide additional support to an organization's programs or services rather than to replace or reduce existing support. I do come from the State of Washington. Washington has pretty well-defined public funds doctrine, and they do also have a two-tier litmus test on appropriate use of it. If I'm going to paint a visual for you, I think a potential litmus test just to consider is if you were asking the question of the applicant, assuming that you are not awarded any funds in this upcoming funding round, what are you going to be able to do for the community with your existing program? If the program feeds children and they say irregardless, we feed right now 50 children a day and if we don't receive any money, we will be able to continue to feed 50 children a day. If you award us these dollars, we will be able to increase that to, as an example, 150 a day. That would be scaling up the program, and that would be supplementing the program, as opposed to if we get the grant money, we're going to continue to feed 50 children a day, and instead, we're going to go out and buy something different and do something different with the funds that we're allocated for that initial purpose. That would be supplanting and that would be inappropriate use of funds. And then finally, with regards to evaluation and award, we would just ask you to consider the applicability direct. So it's important to ensure that salaries and Page 11 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 wages paid with a grant funds are reasonable and directly related to the purpose being performed for the grant project. Grant funding should not be used to pay for salary and wages that don't directly relate to the project or that are significantly higher than prevailing wages for similar work in the field. I just took a look this morning and the last funding round, I believe we did spend about 50 percent of the money $1,194,000 in salary and wages. And so we just want to make sure that those are appropriate and direct. With regards to the testifier, I would say that this bill put forth today the administrative costs were captured in 2-142.1 (Hawai`i County Code), and this bill doesn't touch that. So I think language stays status quote. And then finally, a consideration again with evaluation and award is a potential program overlap. And again, if I'm painting a visual here, are the same populations being served on the same day and funding being sought for those different aspects of it? So for example, if I'm conducting a childcare activity and part of that childcare includes transportation services, and then when I get them to the location I'm feeding them, and then we're providing educational opportunities, and we're doing all of that on the same day at the same time, are we funding the same activity in multiple ways? And I think that needs to be a consideration as you're looking at the applications and program descriptions. That's all that I have for you. And I hope the application process goes smoothly and everybody is successful in both awards and spend downs. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you so much Auditor, appreciate your thorough coverage of the matter and the use of public funds. I believe we also have Director Sako there in the Hilo Chambers. I don't know if you want to chime in on this, you were part of the conversations that we had as well. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: Good morning. No, I mean I agree with everything they've been saying. I think the confusion for me is in the bill and number (5), and how we would interpret that. Because I thought what I heard before I walked down here was that we would still allow that administrative cost if there was an agent or another non-profit helping one out. But you know, when you read the language very specifically like we sometimes do, I'm not sure if that would be allowed. So that I'm just a little perplexed right now and how we would carry out number (5). MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Director Sako. And then just in conclusion, I want to invite, sorry Clerk Henricks, I didn't queue you up for this, but you were part of these conversations. I don't know if you want to share anything about our discussions and the history, and why we decided not to go with just modifying the language to remove the temporal component to it. Page 12 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 (Note: At this time, County Clerk Jon Henricks came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. HENRICKS: Only that I understand the objective is to ensure that as the Council and the County continues to try to assist the community with non- traditional services, that the County perhaps cannot perform but would if it could, do that in the right way, but also not to be so restrictive that it would be impossible for the Council to participate. So the goal was to find a balance, and that's what you're seeking to do with this bill. That is all I'd like to share, thank you. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. And that's a great queue up for me to just kind of summarize this conversation here. Between all of the folks that discussed this, we were trying to find that middle road that's why the language is a little bit vague perhaps. And I'm willing to go back and look at number (5), Director Sako, make sure we're not doing something we don't intend to. So I'll do that with Judge Strance after. You know, we want to make sure that we are following the public purpose doctrine, and then making sure we're not paying the debts of these organizations, we're not having the supplanting situation take care of occurring. As far as like the whole temporal component though and our contingency relief funds in particular, I just encourage my colleagues, if there's ever any concerns about whether or not the program that you're being asked to fund doesn't meet this public purpose act, then of course reach out to Judge Stance for that. And then as much as possible let's try to get the CRFs done and through Council prior to the actual event. But the main thing is that we're not paying—we can do reimbursements, but the main thing is we're not paying back the debts or we're not having the supplanting occurring. So I'll open it up to you folks if you have questions, and thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. EVANS: Thank you. Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Just a quick question for clarification. Is this predominantly related to contingency relief funds as opposed to grant-in-aid? MS. KIMBALL: It actually applies to all because this is the section that has to do with the conditions for the grant. So it applies to both the CRF and to the grant- in-aid program. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. So just for a point of clarification then, so sitting on a board of an organization that either is being allocated contingency relief funds or grant-in-aid, if I understood Mr. Benner's readings appropriately, would be a conflict. Page 13 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 MR. BENNER: When in doubt declare early and declare often, and if necessary, seek an Ethics' opinion. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. But then—okay, you declare, then who decides? MR. BENNER: The Board of Ethics. I mean if you think that you have the potential to influence the conversation, I think that you should recuse yourself completely. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, so let's say I sit on a board and I'm participating in grant-in-aid and essentially, it would be wise to recuse myself from the participation and the allocation of any funds for that organization. MR. BENNER: I would be the most risk adverse activity to take, yes. MS. VILLEGAS: Alright. And how about if my staff sits on a board? MR. BENNER: I believe in a conflict-of-interest section of that Code; it does make overtures to Council and their staff. Although, you know, it's from the perspective of the applicants, it's not from the perspective of Council. Again, you know, I think if it doesn't have the potential to influence things then, I'm not one to provide the legal advice, but I think that being cognizant of it is the first step. MS. VILLEGAS: So it would behoove members of Council, who participate in the ad hoc committee that makes decisions about what is recommended to the Council for allocation of grant-in-aid funding, to not be on the boards that are parts of the organizations that are applying or recuse themselves from those specific allocation's recommendations? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: May I interject? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, please. Thank you, Judge Strance. MS. STRANCE: You may be conflating two different types of conflict of interest. So in your capacity in private nonprofit board, the application process already requires all organizations to have a conflict of interest policy. And so if there's a conflict there, the policy and the organization should govern. And then there's a separate conflict of interest that you may have as a sitting Council Member. And so when you sit on a nonprofit board the law has been interpreted that nonprofit boards are treated generally the same way as a for profit board. And so a grant to the nonprofit is an expenditure of funds and would fall within Page 14 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 the same guidelines as any other conflict of interest because you're sitting on that board, that private nonprofit board, asking for and then receiving money. And in your role as a Council Member, and Mr. Benner—most of the list of concerns that Mr. Benner described are all listed within the Code of Ethics, and so that's why, if you're in doubt, go to the Board of Ethics. My understanding is that generally, the practice of this body has been if you have a connection with the organization, you recuse yourself from consideration of awards to that organization to avoid any appearance of conflict. So I just want to be careful that we're talking about two different conflicts, one, the private organization, and two, the role as Council Member. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. I think it's clear. I'll fall back to common sense on some of it. It's like if you're a part of this, step back. If you have the authority to allocate resources to an organization that you are closely tied to, or your staff in Council is, in order to eliminate any potential perception of impropriety or giving special treatment, right? Okay, I'm going to yield at this time. I just want a quick side note, really quickly. Something that Ihaving worked in the grass roots nonprofit world for a long time and in fundraising, just having worked with Brew Fest and the Ke Kai Ola Foundation, which we've earned over a million dollars in the last 28 years. And how we allocated those resources, we identified the areas that we were going to focus on and what kinds of organizations we were going to support. I think for me, it's something that's become kind of vastly overwhelming, especially even in the grant-in-aid process now, is that the vast spectrum of nonprofit organizations we have on the island, they may be nonprofits that may be filed here within the county, but the hugely broad range of what they spend their monies on verses whatI would like some more clarity. And I don't know if that's within the authority of this body to define through code or rules or what not, but what these monies that we have the privilege of allocating to organizations within our community, what are the value systems or what are the priorities of service that those monies should be allocated to? Because at this point it's getting vastly confusing and all over the place. And while I appreciate the efforts being made to clarify through numerical systemic data driven surveys and filling out numerical things, I think that we are losing the connection to what our role is as leaders, which is knowing our communities, knowing the nonprofits within our communities, knowing the needs of our communities and utilizing our na'au and our internal knowledge as leaders, and how we allocate that funding. So those are some of the things that are overwhelming me in general with this process. Page 15 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 I appreciate you bringing this forward, Council Chair Kimball because it's highlighting the need for more clarity, and how do we align the value systems and the priorities of what is a considerable amount of money that's being allocated throughout our county, and how does it best serve? Thank you, I yield. CHR. EVANS: Okay members, I'm going to ask for a five-minute recess, bathroom break. So members, it's now 12:02, we will reconvene at 12:10. Thank you, we're in recess. Recess: At 12:02 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 12:10 p.m. CHR. EVANS: Welcome back, this is the Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs. We're reconvening at 12:10, we're in the Kona Chambers and we've been having discussion on Bill 32. So members, I think next was member Kagiwada, followed by Galimba. MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. So just to be—clarify this for me, does this proposed amendment allow for payment for administrative costs? I guess that's a question for you, Judge Strance. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: As I read the sub -section (5), it would have to be shown by the organization that those administrative expenses there has to be a nexus between them, and the cost of the activity or the program covered. So it would be up to the organization to provide that nexus and then for the Council to determine whether it's an appropriate nexus. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, so this amendment as written does not disallow that possibility for administrative cost? MS. STRANCE: It doesn't. But in response to one of the testifiers about making it harder, it does because it requires an explanation of the relationship to the grant or the program that's being sought. MS. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you. I understand, thanks. CHR. EVANS: Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI'I–KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Quick question, Ms. Strance, thank you for being here today. All I want to know is if an event Page 16 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 happens and due to some of the timing elements of a CRF, and a community ask for a nonprofit, if we come in after the fact and the timing is landing it as being approved after the event has happened, can we still do the contingency relief funding request? That's all I want to know. MS. STRANCE: It depends on the length of time. So we have been saying, let's say an event is going to happen at the end of May and you get the request before the end of May. And due to the—and you've told the applicant that you know pledge or, you know, subject to approval of Council a certain amount of money. But either because you're having trouble finding a department to administer the grant or the timing of getting something on the calendar, then we have been looking at that as a timely request because it's really administrative. We prefer not to—it definitely muddies the water, but it will avoid an argument that this is a gift after the fact for something that's already been paid because presumably the organization is advancing funds for the project or events in anticipation of getting the grant, which is different than something happened six months ago, we're asking for money for that where there's no connection between the timing. And it would be clear that the grant is either to pay a debt because they didn't have the money for the event or to gift to the organization for an event well done. So we've been trying to accommodate some of their requests. For a nexus, there are issues that came up last year around crossing over budget years, especially for events that are happening around the, or projects happening near the 4h of July. One of the ways we started looking at that is even though the event itself may be in the next budget year, the organization is going to be expending funds this year for that event. So in reality, the funds aren't really requested for the next fiscal year, they're being requested for this fiscal year because they'll have to be paid for well in advance of the event. It's an uncomfortable place to be and the further it gets away, the greater the length of time the more the request feels and looks like a gift. But if there are issues around governmental operations and processing, for the most part, Council Members, you have fairly broad authority to utilize your contingency funds so long as they're for a public purpose. There's some deference on that, but from the timing perspective, it would be a whole lot cleaner if the process was completed before the event. If it's not, then there's going to have to be an explanation, and there's probably going to have to be some level of conversation depending on the information that is provided to the Finance Department, which in turns gets forwarded to our office. MR. KANEALI`I—KLEINFELDER: Okay. Was really hoping for like a really clear, not an answer from you, but a really clear bill. And from your answer right now, there's a lot of kind of gray area, that's what I'll call a gray area. I would like—we're in committees and this has got three more hearings. I would like to see those gray areas just dissipated so that it's absolutely clear, because we kind Page 17 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 of got into this mess last year when we were trying to do CRFs and we had gotten the request from the community, which is usually like last minute, oh, ask the Council Members for money. MS. STRANCE: I would love to say no, you cannot do it. That would be the cleanest response. MR. KANEALI`I–KLEINFELDER: No reimbursing after the event has happened. MS. STRANCE: If the resolution passes after the event, then it's a gift and it will not be awarded. There has been an attempt to try to work with you folks because some of these are important to some of you. But it's been a very uncomfortable tight rope to walk. And we feel like with what we've been doing in terms of this proximity and looking at the commitment that we're sort of okay, but it's not a comfortable place to be. And if you would like a clear answer, the clear answer is no, but we're here to serve and to try to help you folks accomplish some of goals that you want, but it's an uncomfortable place to be. MR. KANEALI`I–KLEINFELDER: Okay. I think we have some other things we need to get to today, we have three more hearings. I'll be looking for more clarity on—well actually, I'm looking to get rid of any gray areas in this. Maybe I'm not just understanding, we can touch bases afterwards. If not, we can create real tight language that really defines when it's not acceptable, when it's okay because that's kind of how we got into this mess in the first place. It is community members come to us, it's last minute, we're trying to get to funding, we've got a month and a half, and it takes two and half months to get from start to finish with the CRF, and kind of out of our control sometimes. So that really was the issue in my eyes. Okay, thank you, Ms. Strance. I yield, Chair. CHR. EVANS: Okay. member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. Just a response quickly, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, to the desire. I, like you, want to have a really clear line in the sand. And that's actually where we started was, you know, looking at where could we make that point where it says this is no longer a risk of being a reimbursement, a debt payment, or paying a gift, right? But they actually walked back from it, and I'll tell you why. One of these reasons is the example you just brought up. When we go ahead and put in the contingency relief fund request to the department, it's out of our hands at that point. And the timing of that is not something we have any control over. So making it strict, that when the resolution passed didn't seem like the viable place. So then we looked at okay, do we legislate it that okay, to be timely it's okay the request goes in before the event. Page 18 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 Now we actually walked away from that as well because I think there was concern about that being also something that would be potentially there were no internal controls for that. Like you could put any date you wanted to on the request, right? It's not an official document like a resolution is. And then I think Clerk Henricks made a really great point in our discussion, which is we don't want to over legislate for something that is rare. I mean it is in fact rare that this untimeliness situation arises. You know, certainly around the holidays, we had some issues with that at the end of last year. For the most part we are able to do the CRFs in a timely way so that the resolutions are passed prior to the event. And so that's why we're here, but I'm certainly willing to accept that from the body. I know that Director Sako would actually agree with Judge Strance, I think, about the line in the sand is that the resolution has to pass before the event. But there are some tying of hands there, and there is some movement to the process being outside of our control. So that's why it's not very, very, clear in here about that, because it gives us flexibility. We do also have the opportunity to utilize our rules as a way that's it's not in law, it's not in code, but it is our rules that actually dictate. So that's something for this body to consider as well. I just respond quickly to Council Member Kagiwada's question to just make sure we're really clear that it is possible to use grant funding to pay for the administrative cost. And Auditor Benner referred to Section 2-142.1, which letter (c) says, "All application forms shall include, `As part of this application, you acknowledge that any funds awarded will be restricted for the purposes stated in the application except for a maximum ten percent for administrative overhead costs. , " So the rules of usage of funds allow for 10 percent for administrative cost, but as Judge Strance said, it has to be for the program that we're funding. So it can't be just general administrative cost of the Administration, for all of their programs, it can only be that portion of the administrative cost that are tied to the program that we are funding through the applications. We're funding programs and not organizations. Hope that clarifies things for folks. I yield, Chair. CHR. EVANS: Thank you, members, any other MS. LEE LOY: Chair? In Hilo. CHR. EVANS: Yes, Member Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kimball, for advancing this. I think we're all looking for bright lines of understanding, right? And so I had ask myself the question, what are we trying to solve for? And what I heard today is there's two parts, there's the CRF that we do, which is handled by a separate Page 19 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 section of Chapter 2. But then there's also all of our grant-in-aid along with R&D's (Research and Development) grant-in-aid and some of the other grants that the County advances for the public benefit. And so trying to stay in line with this particular bill it covers the latter, right? All the other grants-in-aid and awards that we provide. Deanna, my question is you specifically spoke about Section 5 here and not having any clarity on how to administer that. Can you elaborate on that a little bit more, please? (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: I think what the language says right now, is public funds should only be used for the actual cost of expenditures that are necessary and directly applicable to the service or activity covered by the grant agreement. And so if we're talking about directly, then we're going to be looking for invoices that are directly related to that program as established in the grant agreement. So in general, we all agree that not just for the executive directors, labor, and what not, but I think it's a little more confusing when there might be other administrative costs such as one nonprofit helping another, especially when it's in the beginning, you know, two to three years when that organization's waiting for their nonprofit letter from IRS (Internal Revenue Service). But I did hear Chair Kimball say she would work with Judge Strance on that. MS. LEE LOY: Great, thanks. And then, Auditor Benner, thank you so much for being here. I think you provided a lot of clarity as to some of the tests that our colleagues have to be asking ourselves, right? I had a question regarding, you know, you talked about public benefit verses like advancing private assets, and we've seen that. I've seen more than my fair share of grant-in-aid asking for all kinds of funding. Could you please elaborate on that specifically? When does it kind of tip the scales in going from a public benefit to the enhancement of a nonprofit asset or a private asset? (Note: As this time County Auditor Tyler Benner came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. BENNER: So one of the really basic scenarios, if I'm just trying to create visions here. I mean at the end of this the financial position shouldn't be improved by the organization, they should be back to their starting point, right? So that's what we're looking for, total spend down of the funds. Hopefully more of the population gets served as a result of the County contributing funds to them. Couple of bard scenarios, so this is again, comes from my stomping grounds in Washington. So these are three scenarios you know, County has a surplus of land that it wants to dispose of, and a nonprofit group would like the land to build a community Page 20 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 center for the adjacent residential area. The County decides this is allottable purpose for the otherwise undeveloped land and wants to donate it to the nonprofit. So the position is improved, not permissible. If that is where you reset and start from each applicant that you're addressing, how does this get spent down, and how does this bring them back to the starting position that they were at? How do we serve more community members? And I think that largely keeps you in the lane. MS. LEE LOY: Perfect, keeping us in the lane. Because you also mentioned about scaling up, right? Oftentimes they have a program serving 50, if you give us the money, we can now serve 150. What I'm seeing with some of our CRFs and even with our nonprofit grant-in-aid is to stay in the lane. Because of inflation, because of costs going up, they need a little bit more just to maintain the service of the program for 50. That would be a very bright line of funding, staying in the lane, maintaining the level of service even if it's requesting funds. MR. BENNER: Yeah, but that should be—if they're able to serve year one, 50 people and as a result of inflation that only allows them to serve 47 the next year, then that application packet should reflect what they're able to currently serve, and then how they would then move from there with the additional funds granted. MS. LEE LOY: Perfect. Because you know, Judge Strance provided us this bake the cake kind of—if we're looking for pictures, right? They ask for money to buy eggs, milk, and flour to bake the cake, but if we only give them partial funding to buy the eggs and milk, where is the rest of the money coming to buy the flour so they can bake the cake to feed the 50? Thank you for that very clear picture for me. I also listened very carefully to what you said about—the question I continue to ask is the service of the individual, right? What is a duplicated number or unduplicated number? So we have a number of nonprofits doing their various goals and objectives, however, they're actually only servicing the one with transportation, or food, or medical services. How do we lean in and get that unduplicated number? MR. BENNER: Unfortunately, my professional constraints don't allow me to give you the how. MS. LEE LOY: We're all chuckling. You know, I think this needs more work. I think there's a lot we have to do. I also want to lean in on something Council Member Kimball mentioned about rules. You know, we do a lot of work ourselves with our CRFs and then with our nonprofit grant-in-aid. And I know when we were tackling this work Judge Strance offered that maybe through our County Council Rules and Procedures, there are ways to create those tests that are carried forward in the County Council Rules and Procedures Page 21 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 And so for right now, Council Member Kimball, I would love to see this stay in committee. I think there's still work that can be done. I don't even know if this will continue to be the right place in the Code. But also looking at other ways where we can solve for and provide rules that can be carried forward outside of the confines of codifying. I think there's work that can be done in the Code, but also other safeguards we can create within our own rules and procedures. So that's my position of this, either we hold it here in committee or withdraw and keep working on it while we do some other work in other areas that we can do policy wise. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. EVANS: Thank you, members. Any other comments? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I have a couple of comments. CHR. EVANS: Yes, please. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. CHR. EVANS: Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And thank you, Council Chair Kimball, for working on this. I can appreciate the tough business we're in and crafting laws that are clear and concise and make sense to everyone. I think this is a good start. I appreciate all the conversations that have happened so far. Just a couple of things that I wanted to fly, because I did get calls from a number of my constituents. There's a weird echo in chambers, can we adjust my mic, sorry. Thank you. I did get some calls of concern from constituents, a couple of them did show up today, and I just want to make sure that their insights are being kept in mind as this bill continues to take new shape. We do have nonprofits that serve as fiscal sponsors for a number grass roots entities that don't have the bandwidth incapacity to ever be a 501(c)(3). I don't think they want that responsibility, so we do rely on key nonprofits to serve as their fiduciary sponsor. And so they do rely on that administrative cost to keep the lights on, to pay rent and be of service to various grassroots efforts. So wanting to make sure that we are keeping that admin fee and we're keeping their situations in mind. The other piece is related to repayment of debt. I've been in situations where the County has provided an initial grant and the budget that was provided at the time made sense. But with inflation, with the pandemic, with the shortage of workforce, there are cost overages that weren't anticipated, and so there is a debt that is incurred by the organization that wasn't anticipated. So just keeping that in mind as you wordsmith Section 4 as it relates to reimbursing folks for projects that the County had initially provided grants for and signed off on. But again, Page 22 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 unanticipated cost overages just dictated that they're going to need a little bit more financial support. With that, I do support my colleague's sentiments around keeping this in committee and having a little bit more wordsmithing done. Thank you, I yield. CHR. EVANS: Thank you. Any other members? Questions? Comments? have some questions, too, but do you want to, Member Kimball, go first? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I'm happy to keep this in committee for now, and I'll make the motion to postpone it once Chair has had a chance to chime in with questions or comments. There isn't any real urgency I would say around this, but I did want to have this discussion and get out on the tables the comments from Judge Strance and particularly our Auditor as we entered into the grant-in-aid season and that process. So I think that objective has been accomplished, but happy to work with anybody that has suggested amendments on this. But I will make the motion after you've had your chance to chime in, Chair. CHR. EVANS: Thank you, appreciate it. I want to take advantage of having the Auditor and the Finance Director and Corporation Counsel here. I want to focus in on the title of this section because titles are really critical to kind of what this section is about. So it says conditions for grants, would this apply if the Federal Government gave the County money and said this is grant money and we want you to disburse it out into the community. Will this Section 2-138 apply to that? MS. SAKO: If we use a grant to give it to a community, organization, to a community nonprofit, yes it will. There are many ways you can give the funding out to the community, but if it was chosen to give it through a nonprofit agency then this section would apply. CHR. EVANS: Okay. So I think it's really important to note that this is all encompassing if it applies to nonprofits. That would be your test, as a nonprofit, you'd go to this section. So having said that, I wanted to ask the Auditor under conditions for grants, how would we prove (sub) section (1), "Employ and appoint purses on the basis merit and ability"? How would we make sure that condition is met? MR. BENNER: Finance could probably speak to that. I might be misspeaking on this. My understanding is that relies largely on attestation. MS. SAKO: Right. So like when we do the nonprofit grant-in-aid program, and you know, the applications were due recently, then we do ask them for information, you know, like their policies and procedures and things like that. But otherwise, the Auditor is correct, for the smaller grants that we may give or the contingency relief grants, we would just have them say and attest to that. Page 23 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 CHR. EVANS: So would that imply that they have to have been a nonprofit for x amount of years to show that they have the ability? Question, is that something that is a condition? MR. BENNER: I believe one of the eligibility criteria states that they have to have conducted the activity for at least one year or to the satisfaction of the County. CHR. EVANS: And where does that appear? MR. BENNER: One moment. That is Section 2-137 Eligible organizations, and that is bullet number (6). CHR. EVANS: Thank you. And this is for Corporation Counsel. There's reference by the Auditor, he mentioned several times the public funds doctrine, and then also brought up public purpose a few times. So maybe it's there, but would it benefit us to have as a condition that it actually meets the public funds doctrine requirement as a condition? MS. STRANCE: The way that this article of Chapter 2 is written, there are a number of sections, you only have one before you on this bill, but they broadly state criteria which are generally excepted categories of public purpose. And so there's also reference to public purpose in the ordinance itself, so I'm not sure that anything more would be required. I haven't heard about, and I've reviewed a lot of the contracts that have come through. There doesn't really seem to be any question that the programs that applicants are asking for support of fall within the general categories. The devils in the details where you go into the description of the project and how they're allocating the expense and whether those expenses benefit an individual or the public at large. I mean there's been a couple of exceptions, I mean that we've had discussions about, in terms of applicants, but it's really far and few between. CHR. EVANS: Okay. So given that again, back to the title of this, conditions for grants, which would apply for all grants ona lot of the discussion we had is about scalability on the contingency relief fund grant, but this really applies to all grants. So if we want to get more specific about specific grants, should we put it in Administrative Rule or should we have a different section that addresses—or should there be a note in here that regarding contingency relief funds, that condition that it has be scalability? I just want the clarity because this applies to all grants. MS. STRANCE: I have had that thought. You know, I think you're still working with a construct that was for this body, set aside $10 million for homelessness before the really influx of a huge amount of money to the County from federal government. We have had some conversations about whether the Department of Page 24 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 Finance Administrative Rules should be amended. It's probably not a bad idea to have a broader inner departmental discussion about whether the rules for the nonprofit grant-in-aid program or appropriate for some of the R&D grants for example. So it's probably not a bad idea, probably the timing is good. CHR. EVANS: Okay, thank you. So I'll just close saying, you know, the title is really, to me, so important. A lot of ordinances and a lot of bills, you know, would die and the Attorney General would say they were unconstitutional because the title didn't meet what the content was in the language. So just feel that, you know, I'm really grateful to member Kimball for bringing this forward to try to create more clarity, and I too hope that you go back and work more on it. Thank you for the work on this. Okay, member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Just for my colleagues, there is one section in Section 2-139(a)2 that's specific to contingency relief funds. So we do have places where we're talking about specific kinds of grants. And if we wanted to limit this there we could, and we actually look at that, but then this public purpose is applicable to—it should apply to actually all the grants that we do. And so it was intentionally moved to be in this more encompassing part. And just to be clear that the title there, as you referred to it, that's just the section title, and it's under an article that has to do with the appropriation of funds to nonprofits. So it's exclusively covering any place where the County is appropriating these funds. It's intentional that this public purpose definition, which is, you know, we pulled out this language from that to make it clear to everybody what is public purpose mean and how do we meet that benchmark? So without any further ado, I know folks are interested to get on, I will motion to postpone this to the committee hearing on April 18. Vote on Motion Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 32 to To Postpone: April 18, 2023. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba –1. Excused: None. Page 25 GOEAC-6 March 21, 2023 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 12:46 p.m., Ms. Kimball moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Galimba and carried by the following voice vote: Approved: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Kagiwada, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Villegas, and Chair Evans — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Inaba — 1. Excused: None. CHR. EVANS : We're adjourned. i Ms. Cindy Evan , C it Committee on 6aVernment Operations and External Affairs CE/rk ( ate) Page 26