HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0647.005 2022-2024 P /C OEAC
Rom.38q-24
GOMM.[-17
From: Donald Rudny
Sent: Wednesday,January 17, 2024 8:02 AM
To: Council Testimony; Kimball, Heather; Inaba, Holeka; Lee Loy, Sue; Kanea ii-Kleiril r,
Matt; Galimba, Michelle M.; Kagiwada,Jennifer; Villegas, Rebecca; Evans, ynth#ai VV.;
Kierkiewicz, Ashley
Cc: Henricks, Jon; Roth, Mitch D -a,
Subject: Res: 389-24 (Opposed)
FT-
NJ
Aloha Honorable Council Members,
I had a chance this past weekend to watch the committee meeting where Res 389-24 was discussed. I am opposed to this
resolution and the repealing of Council Rule No. 23, Item No. 1(d). As you may know, I filed a complaint with OIP about your
failure to postpone the final vote on Res 372-23 after it was substantially amended at the Dec. 20th Council meeting. My main
purpose was to bring the issue to light. I realize that the action may not be a technical violation of the Sunshine Laws and
Open Meetings Act, but,to me, it clearly violates the spirit and intent of those laws. Just shortly after I filed the complaint, I
received a message from the County Clerk,Jon Henricks,to call him at my convenience. I did so,and we had a very productive
conversation. He did advised me of the Council Rule requiring amended resolutions and bills to be postponed for final vote,
but that the Council at their discretion can suspend the rule as they did for Res 372-23 on Dec. 20th. He also advised me of
Res 389-23, now 389-24. I was totally unaware of the rule and the effort to repeal it. In fact, I had a hard time finding the
Council's vote to suspend the rule on Res 372-23. It was done quickly and quietly with no explanation. There is no record of it
in the meeting's actions as well.
At last week's committee meeting Chair Kimball,who introduced Res 389-24,stated that she did so because the rule is usually
suspended 99 out of 100 times. Therefore,she believes it shouldn't be a rule. Not sure that she actually did a verifiable
account of the number, but I would submit that maybe in many of those instances the Council should not have suspended it,
and should have complied with rule as intended. The recent amendment to Res 372-23 is such a case. I allege that the Council
actually violated their rule on Dec. 20th. The resolution was significantly amended and certainly would meet any standard for
substantial modification. I understand that there is a balance between functionality and transparency, but given the
insignificant time it takes to suspend the rule,transparency should take precedence in this case.
I urged the Council to reject Resolution 389-24 and ensure that the existing Council Rule 23, Item No. 1(d) is properly
followed. Not sure what the consequences are for not following.Council Rules, but I believe that the Council clearly violated it
when they suspended the rules on Dec. 20th. In order to maintain trust in government, it is imperative that there is no
perception of slipping things through without reasonable opportunity for citizens to give input. Please do the right thing and
vote no on Res 389-24. Suspension of Rule No. 23, Item No. 1(d)should only be done so when amendments clearly don't
change the meaning or intent of the bill or resolution.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Don
Don Rudny
P.O. Box 106
Pepeekeo, HI 96783-0106
312-209-5870
Comm. N.. 5
Ref. To: ElTati
Ref. Dote _EB _ 6 2024
1