Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN GOEAC 2025/01/21 (2024-2026)Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs 2" d Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii January 21, 2025 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Governmental Operations and ORDER: External Affairs was called to order at 9:02 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. James E. Hustace, Acting Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair (came in later) Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Mr. James E. Hustace, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member (via videoconference from Hilo) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Dennis "Fresh" Onishi, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: COMMUNI- C A TTONc The Acting Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. (There were none.) ACTING CHR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Araceley. Mr. Clerk, if you could read in the first item. The Acting Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. Comm. 89: NOMINATION OF GREG YAMADA TO THE POLICE COMMISS From Mayor C. Kimo Alameda, dated January 2, 2025, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 15, 2025 (Section 13-4(k), Hawaii County Charter) GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 Motion to Close File: Ms. Kimball moved to close file on Comm. 89. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. ACTING CHR. HUSTACE: Members, any discussion? And then, we have Mr. Micah Alameda and Mr. Yamada here on the floor to provide us some updates and information. Thank you, Mr. Alameda. Mr. Yamada, welcome. (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Micah Alameda and the nominee came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Relinquish Chair: At this time, Acting Chair Hustace relinquished the chair to Chair Kagiwada. Vote on Comm. 89: The motion to recommend confirmation of the nomination of (Approved) Mr. Greg Yamada to the Police Commission was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas and Chair Kagiwada — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder — 1. Excused: None. Mr. Alameda provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. KAGIWADA: The motion is to send Communication 89 to full Council with a favorable recommendation for nominating Greg Yamada to the Police Commission. Can we go on to Resolution 61-25. Thank you both. MR. ONISHI: Madame Chair. Just a moment. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHI: Would Mr. Yamada need to attend the next Council meeting. He can be just waived, right? CHR. KAGIWADA: I'm sorry, we don't do that anymore. We've been advised that it's not our job to decide that. MR. ONISHI: I mean you can at least acknowledge to him, right? Page 2 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 CHR. KAGIWADA: It is up to you if you want to be present or not for the Council meeting and discussion with the Administration. It's not up to the Council. We don't require it. Okay, thank you so much, appreciate that. MR. ONISHI: Okay, thanks, Greg. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, Mr. Clerk, can we please move on to Resolution 61-25. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON RES. 61-25: The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Hattie Gerrish: In support. Res. 61-25: URGES THE STATE OF HAWAPI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO CONSULT WITH LOCAL POULTRY FARMERS TO DEVELOP AN AVIAN FLU RESPONSE PLAN AND TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO DEPOPULATION AS A RESPONSE STRATEGY The Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza response plan would include preventative measures, testing and monitoring protocols, and strategies for public outreach, while promoting quarantine and vaccination as opposed to mass culling. Reference: Comm.90 Intr. by: Council Member Kimball (Note: Comm. 90.1 from Council Member Heather L. Kimball dated January 15, 2025, transmitting links to important information relevant to Res. 61-25, was circulated.) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend adoption of Res. 61-25. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. Council Member Kimball, please start us off. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. This resolution is a constituent request. And I just want to start off by saying mahalo to Hattie and her sister, Emma, for helping to provide some of the information that provides the background of this resolution. But the Bird Flu obviously, highly contagious and concerning disease among our bird Page 3 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 population, but also has the potential for carrying over to humans. So, it's something that we should take very seriously. I wanted to use this opportunity not only to present this resolution to Council, but to provide some information, because I know a lot of us are getting questions from constituents about this particular matter. So, I'd like to refer you to Communication 90.1 in your folders which has links and printouts of the websites that I was provided by Glenn Sako in R&D (Research and Development), our Agricultural Specialist, so that we can share that out with our constituents. The main ask of this resolution is, as we always say, we are different from the continent and the solutions that are appropriate here are different. But the main ask with this resolution is that the Department of Ag and the Department of Health have a plan to address this issue in an expedient way. But also take into consideration, consultation with our smaller local farmers before they institute any broad -ranging solution, because this is going to have different impacts on different agricultural situations. And I just want to again, thank everybody for their consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions on the resolution. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. From the dais, anybody have questions or comments they'd like to make? Over in Hilo, Council Member Kierkiewicz, do you have any questions or comments? No? Okay. Alright. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. Yes, go ahead, Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. I appreciate this resolution. And I do think we absolutely need to have a plan. This is a very concerning disease. I do think it's important that we follow the science as much as possible. So, not wanting to, you know, not weigh the consideration one way or the other, I think is an important element here. So, just wanted to say that, and I'm willing to support this at this time. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else on the dais? Council Member Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Having just navigated a global pandemic and the challenges caused by viruses, I share the concern about the impact that the Avian Flu could potentially have on our community and our species. However, I also recognize the shortage of eggs that we are experiencing and the value of backyard chickens for being our egg -layers. My parents have a farm, and their chickens provide dozens of eggs, and it helps support our resilience and sustainability. Page 4 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 So, I am grateful for any and all utilization of science and medicine and the technologies available to mitigate the spread of the Avian Flu while protecting the lives of these creatures that provide us with sustenance. So, thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you to the testifiers, and I'll be supporting today. I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else on the dais? No, okay, seeing none, I'd just like to echo what my colleagues have said here. You know, weighing the risks; but also, not getting in a panic and going for measures that are not proven by science to work, I think is important here. So, I really do appreciate this. You know, I was just at the store this weekend and couldn't find eggs. It was actually very challenging. And when I did find them, they're about up to a dollar an egg for small eggs right now. So, they `re definitely seeing it in the marketplace and appreciating those who have backyard chickens that are able to support those in the community that do need the eggs. So, thank you and agree with everyone that we need to follow the science. I'm in support as well. With that, I'd like to take a vote. All those in favor of moving Resolution 61-25 to Council with a favorable recommendation, please say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Res. 61-25: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 61-25, was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder —1. Excused: None. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 21: AMENDS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 15, OF THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO NEPOTISM Adds provisions and definitions consistent with standards set forth in Section 84-13.2 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which are intended to provide for fair and impartial hiring, personnel, and contracting practices within the workplace. Reference: Comm.91 Intr. by: Council Member Kimball Page 5 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend the passage of Bill 21 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright. Go ahead, Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I think the purpose statement if relatively clear. The State HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) was updated with regard to nepotism and ethics determination. So, this is bringing our Code in line with that. I would like to invite —I believe I can see them over there, the Director of Human Resources, and if available, Deputy Keyra Wong who assisted in the drafting of this particular measure. Director, you can go ahead and give us more foundation for this bill please. (Note: At this time, Human Resources Director Sommer Tokihiro, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. TOKIHIRO: Hi, good morning, Sommer Tokihiro, Director of Human Resources. I'm sorry Keyra is not available today, but this bill was drafted based on the recommendation; also of the County Auditor. So, the Department of Human Services was audited in 2017, or the Audit Report of 2017 directed the Department to address policies regarding prohibited personnel practices. In the follow-up report that the auditor did in 1922, there wasn't any legislation that they were able to put forth, because that hadn't yet been addressed at the State level. They addressed the recommendations through other means at that time through HR (Human Resources) best practices and other policies and procedures that were in place. The County Auditor again approached us in June of 2024 because there was a Whistle -Blower complaint regarding perceived unfair hiring practice and issue with nepotism in one of our departments. So before Mr. Benner presented the Whistle -Blower report to the Council, he came and he met with us and wanted to let us know that again, his recommendation was to solidify this in language within our Code and address it. Particularly, given that the State had addressed it in July 2023. So, this is our effort to, you know, bring our language in alignment with the State. And so, it expands the definition of Immediate Family. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much, appreciate that. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Director. And so, I just wanted to make one note before deliberations by the body, which is to say that you'll notice in the first line of the definition of Immediate Family Member, it's within the third degree of consanguinity, which is just a word I love. Thank you, Jacob (Perry) for proposing the use of it. But this actually goes just one degree, if you will, beyond what the Page 6 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 State law requires. We are, of course, able to do that. So, it would include second cousins in this definition. I should also note that this will move forward and become law if approved by this body, but it will not be retroactive. So, any previous hirings that do not meet this condition will not be impacted by this. Although it would be reflected by the Department of Human Services practices and norms. So, with that, I'll leave it to the body to deliberate. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you so much, Council Member. Any questions or comments from the dais? Over in Hilo, Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Sure, Chair. Thank you. Director, thank you so much for working with our auditor and Council Member Kimball to put this legislation forward and insure alignment with Hawaii Revised Statues. I'm just curious if your department has sufficient guidance, procedures, and protocols to ensure that departments are able to carry out this new section of Code. For instance, the Nepotism Clause where it talks about, "No employer or officer may supervise an immediate family member." If that is currently happening, is there guidance to ensure that that is not the case should this Code be adopted? MS. TOKIHIRO: So, as Council Member Kimball said, this wouldn't be retroactive, but we would need to develop ways in which to enforce that. And that's why FIR is here; is that we're going to need to develop policies for people to identify those family relationships, so that we can make sure that's not occuring. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So, it's not going to be retroactive. It just seems a little bit awkward to be in this situation. Say, for instance, my daughter is not able to work for the County, she's 12-years-old. But let's say, I was her direct supervisor, this law would not prevent me from continuing to be her direct supervisor? But say, my son was able to get a job, and he's potentially in the department. He can't work for the County, he's eight. I would not be able to supervise him, but I could supervise her. Again, they're in my department. I just want clarity so that everybody is aware of how this Code is going to be implemented going forward. (Note: At this time, Human Resources Deputy Director Danny Patel, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PATEL: Good morning, Council Members, Danny Patel, Deputy Director of Department of Human Resources. So, to answer your question, Council Member, it would not be retroactive. But our understanding is that it would apply going forward. So, in the scenario you just presented, unless the final version says otherwise, with exceptions, you would not be able to supervisor your son or daughter. So, that's where HR would come in, is that, depending on the final Page 7 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 language of this Code amendment, we would need to then issue policy and guidance to implement whatever the final version is. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Deputy, I'm still not clear because in your response you said that I would not be able to supervise my daughther. But she's already an employee of the County. And if it's not retroactive, I can still supevise her unless we make changes to this section of the Code; we make refinements. I'm just thinking of the cleanest way for this new policy to be implemented, so that no one in the County can be accused, right, of select implementation. MR. PATEL: I think that was one of the driving factors behind this as well, is because we do appreciate all our employees. And we understand that they do want to do things the appropriate way. So, the goal ultimately is to have brightline rules so that everyone's on the same page. Going back to your question about retroactive, putting the word, "retroactive" aside, I think very simply put to answer your question, you would not be able to supervise your son or daughter. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. If there's a current relationship; they're currently employed, once this Code is adopted, going forward, I cannot be a direct supervisor of an immediate family member. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you, that's very clear to me. If you could just help me underastand how we will be implementing nepotism, Section 2-9 (c), in relation to, "No employee or officer shall award a contract?" So, it seems as if you are in a deparment, the reviewing body of RFPs (Request for Proposals), if you know a family member that has applied, you must disclose that? Is that what I'm understanding here? You must disclose that, and you cannont be part of contracting that company organization for service. If they're applying for something within your department. MR. PATAL: Yes, and I believe that is the process currently. There's separate provisions in the Code currently with regards to conflicts of interest. One specifically regarding contracting. So, with this new language, you know, ultimately, when we get to the endpoint of this legislation, I think we need some guidance on if and how anything legally between the different provisions would be changed from our Corporation Counsel. One thing that I don't think was mentioned yet is, I think it would be our recommendation or suggestion that the draft language be put forth to the BOE (Board of Ethics) at some point for input. Page 8 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Could you say that agian? Did you use an acronym? I'm not familiar. MR. PATEL: Yes, the Board of Ethics. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. MR. PATEL: The reason being is that they are responsible for interpreting the Code and applying it. It, you know, makes sense that their input would be needed at some point before we get to the end of this. I think that would be our suggestion, if possible. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. So, right now, there are Conflict Disclosure forms that must be filed by anybody that is awarded a contract with the County, is that correct? Let's say, someone is awarded a Public Works contract and they're related to someone in Finance. This is disclosed at the frontend before an agreement is entered into. MR. PATEL: So, we don't know on our end, in Human Resources. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Oh, okay, MR. PATEL: It might be more the procurement end. So, for us, our involvement with this is really because our recruiting disclosure process that applies to hiring and supervising employees will need to change. I think some of the questions you're asking kind of relate more to procurement. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So, we should have maybe Finance and Corporation Counsel involved during the next round of questioning? MR. PATEL: If those provisions are going to be changed. Yes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, they look like entirely new provions, and I just want to make sure there's ample guidance given across the board for this new language, which I'm very supportive of. I yield for now, Chair, thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. Council Member Kimball, did you have something else? MS. KIMBALL: I'm not sure if this will clarify matters or muddy the waters. But just to be clear with regard to the retroactiveness, this is already mostly State law from the standpoint that it was adopted as part of the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes), with the exception, as I mentioned, that we're adding a degree of relationship in the definition of immediate family to include second cousins. So, Page 9 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 the law is not retroactive broadly, except for that one conditional expansion. Because that is a County -level expansion, it would not be retroactive. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Other people on the dais? Any Council Members care to comment or ask questions? Council Member Hustace, go ahead. MR. HUSTACE: Just a question about the degrees of consanguinity. It's at the second degree at the State. So, what was the reasoning to add that third degree then? MS. KIMBALL: I would actually, invite Council Member Onishi to weigh in on that. There was a conversation that he and I had in the interest of this bill prior to its introduction. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Onishi, would you like to answer? MR. ONISHI: In talking with Corporation Counsel, I just felt that if you have, you know, a first cousin; to me a second cousin would be just as close to the first cousin. Because it's like the parent's children, right? So, it's still in the realm of that connection. So, that's the only thing I wanted to see that put in. Like Ms. Kierkiewicz mentioned about supervising, right? So, if they're still there. Like, if they're like cousins and not siblings, you're still going to be supervising them, right? And to me, that's shouldn't be it. Like they should be in a separate section where you're not directly supervising that person. In the past, there have been situations where supervisors had been supervising like a relative or so. And sometimes when you talk to the other employees, you know, they have their conflicts, like they can see the favoritism. So, that's what I just wanted to see that we eliminate that part. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Hustace, did you have anything else? MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Council Member Onishi. I appreciate it. And I agree with the intent of this. You know, the only concerns I have right now are particularly with our low employment across the County. I know there's the concerns about nepotism and concerns about favoritism. But I worry that going that third degree could hinder some of our hiring practices. I don't know if that's a possibility, but especially, when we're looking at people that may develop the same trade skills as their parents or family members, in particular that area. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Inaba. Page 10 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. I have to agree with Council Member Hustace. In looking at the definition from HRS Section 84-13.2, I think it's a little bit cleaner. I support the bill, but I have issues with the definition. And I think the child of a second cousin. It's a little bit of a stretch. I don't even know that I know all of my second cousin's children. And there could be issue with recruiting for these positions. So, I prefer to see the definition used in the FIRS directly. And it helps us to be exactly in line with what the legislature, you know, set forth for nepotism clauses. But I do, again, like the policy parts that have been added here. Thank you, Chair. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Back to you, Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Chair. For me, like a second cousin, as long as they're not being supervised. That's the bottom line. They can be hired in any section of that department. But the main thing is, it's not under a supervisor, right, that is related. And that's what we want to see. Like I said, other employees look at that, and they go, he or she got the job because of the supervisor. And that's what we're trying to discourage, right? Then internally, you want them not to favor certain people, but it happens because everybody's human. And so, you're going to have that. Especially, if they're close, right? If they're like far distance where they don't like each other, then yeah, you're not going to have any problems. But you know, they go to parties together, and, you know, they're always hanging out. You're going to have that. And that's the disadvantage for the other workers. Even in getting promoted. I've seen where some people got promoted, even though they might not be the best candidate, right? But it's just because of, you know, the supervisor overlooking that certain area. But that's what I feel that you can still get hired but don't have to be under that supervisor. Like for example, Ms. Kierkiewicz mentioned, she's a supervisor; she hires her daughter. Okay. Now to me, and then we're talking about retroactive, right? To me, that should be where they need to separate. The daughter is in County Government, a Civil Service position. So, you cannot let her go. But it would be nice to see them transferred out or try to separate it from the mother, being the immediate supervisor, So, I don't know. HR, is that a possibility of happening if this passes? CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kimball. Page 11 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 MS. KIMBALL: Just to follow-up and provide some clarity. The third degree of consanguinity is not the child of the second cousin, it's the child of the first cousin. And so, the second cousins, they share great grandparents, is the definition. I would agree with Council Member Onishi that, you know, really what we're looking at is the hierarchy and the supervisory authority, and hiring authority, rather than —I mean these people can still come and work for the County. It's just that they have to be sensitive to these familiar relationships. I would say that I just happened to say that I just happened to be reading some of George Washington's letters recently, as we do. And this idea of consanguinity and the nepotism was part of the founding fathers' consideration with respect to the foundational documents that created our county. So, this is a very important measure and I would encourage the body to consider supporting it in its current form. If there's lack of clarity around the definition just because of the wording, I'm certainly willing to look at that. We did try to do our best. It is complicated, but, yes, thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else? Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: Okay, maybe I read it wrong. So, in (1)(B), "First cousin, second cousin, or a parent, grandparent, child, or grandchild thereof." Is that in relation to the employee or is the parent, grandparent, child, or grandchild; is that in reference to the first cousin and second cousin? MS. KIMBALL: It should be in reference to the first cousin. I see the lack of clarity, though. I will work on an amendment to make that more straightforward. MR. INABA: Okay, yeah, I think just when we're doing —I'll just restate, I know here in this section from the HRS, the words are not actually, immediate family member. They use the word relative. And it means an employee's parent, grandparent, step-parent, child, grandchild, step -child, foster child, adopted child, sibling, half -sibling, step -sibling, parent's sibling, first cousin, sibling's child, spouse, spouse's parent, and a few others. I think it's a little bit more clear, but I think sending it to the Board of Ethics would be a good idea. So that, they are very clear on what we're talking about here. And when they're going to have to interpret, you know, complaints that are submitted to them. We want to make sure that they know what's going on, and they're a part of this formulation. I do prefer just listing out the relations rather than —or grandchild thereof. I think should be as clear as possible. If we just list the actual relationship it's easier for folks to understand who and what we're talking about. Thank you, Chair, I yield. Page 1.2 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member Inaba. Council Member Kimball, would you like to weigh in? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I actually like the Clerk's guidance. Is forwarding this bill to the Ethics Commission for review a motion that we could make? MR. HENRICKS: That is a motion you can make. Motion to Refer: Ms. Kimball moved to refer Bill 21 to the Board of Ethics. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. MS. KIMBALL: I'd like to make the motion to forward Bill 21 to the Ethics Commission for review and feedback. Seconded by Council Member Inaba. MR. HENRICKS: So, this a motion for referral. It might be helpful to talk about expectations for timelines, since there are no actual regulatory provisions for this. MS. KIMBALL: If I can ask HR. I'm sorry, I didn't have a chance to look it up. Do we have quorum with the Ethics Board at this time? MR. PATEL: I believe all seats are filled but one. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, and do you know when their next regularly scheduled meeting will be held. MR. PATEL: We do not. MS. KIMBALL: Assistant. Corporation Counsel, (J) Yoshimoto will provide a response to that. (Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel J Yoshimoto, came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YOSHIMOTO: Good morning, Madame Chair. J Yoshimoto, Assistant Corporation Counsel. The Board of Ethics normally meets the second Wednesday of every month. We can double check on the County calendar real quick, but generally, it's the second Wednesday. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, so that would give us the time under Sunshine Law to have this reviewed and added to their next agenda? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yes. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, so, my expectation would be to have the Ethics Board review this at their next regular meeting and to provide feedback at the outcome of Page 13 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 that meeting. I think we need to move forward on this, so I don't want to give them too much time, but I think they can discuss and provide us with feedback within one meeting. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, do we know this meeting is going to happen before our next Council meeting. MS. KIMBALL: No, we'll just have to have it agendized when it comes back. CHR KAGIWADA: It looks like the next meeting in on the 28th of January and our next Council meeting is in February. MS. KIMBALL: It would come back to the Committee. CHR. KAGIWADA: Oh, you want it to come back to Committee. Okay, great. Alright. So, you want to just hold it here and ask for it to be reviewed and be on the next committee meeting agenda? MS. KIMBALL: The motion is to refer to the Ethics Committee for their next scheduled hearing, which means they would have to add it to the agenda, I believe, by tomorrow, if it's January 281h MR. HENRICKS: Madame Chair, may I ask you questions. Just for procedural matters. MR. HENRICKS: Is the expectation then, if this motion is approved, that there's no further discussion on the main motion today? That the referral disposes the matter until such time that the Board of Ethics has provided its review, assuming it does. Is that the anticipation of this committee? CHR. KAGIWADA: I believe so. I am concerned that if the Board of Ethics is meeting next week Tuesday, it's too late to get it on the agenda, for next Tuesday. MR. HENRICKS: So, this committee could operate in several ways. You've made the referral. If this motion is approved, then the matter would be referred to the Board of Ethics, and it would at its leisure and convenience in performance duties most likely, but again, that could require more than one meeting. Because there are no regulatory provisions on this, that this committee could continue its discussions however it felt comfortable. Until such time, if it does receive information from the Board of Ethics or it could postpone this matter to the Call of the Chair or to a date certain. Page 14 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 Again, realizing that there would be no requirement that the Board of Ethics either take this up soon, or when it does take it up, is able to provide a meaningful recommendation within one meeting. I just want to set those parameters. This is not something we've done in a while. So, just what the expectations are in an open meeting as opposed to trying to determine what procedures to follow behind closed doors if you will. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you so much. Assistant Corporation Counsel, did you have something to add? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yes, Madame Chair. The next meeting that I see on the calendar is February 13ti' So, that'll give you some context. So, if this Committee makes a request today, then they should be able to get it on that agenda. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you very much. Council Member Inaba. MR. INABA: I'm just hoping that the introducer can share the definition. It's referred to in Section 1 of the bill. But if we can share the definition directly from HRS just to provide extra context to the Board of Ethics in their review, that would be appreciated. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Onishi. MR. ONISHI: I just wanted to check with Mr. Yoshimoto. Can you come up again, please? I just wanted to find out, do they have quorum? MR. YOSHIMOTO: Yes, that's confirmed. So like Mr. Patel indicated, our office shows one vacancy out of seven. So, six members. MR. ONISHI: Okay. And then also, is it possible, like we can put a deadline on them when to get it back to us? MR. YOSHIMOTO: You can make the request. There's just some thoughts there too, though. I would recommend this committee refer it once this committee has pretty much addressed all of the issues here. What I mean by that is, if it's not ready to be referred, then finish it off here first. In other words, if there's any other changes you want to make, like Council Chair Inaba mentioned, maybe that's something that is better to be done now as well as other things. Because you know theoretically, you could have it go the Board of Ethics and then come back to this body. And then there's other questions; other changes you might want to make that may or may not be substantive. It sounds like it would be because you want to have statutes as clear as possible and is subject to interpretation. So, that's just a thought. MR. ONISHI: So, would you recommend that Ms. Kimball withdraw her motion right now to refer? Then we settle everything now, then make the motion to refer. Page 15 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 MR. YOSHIMOTO: I would, based on what I've heard. I haven't heard from everybody, but it sounds like this is still something that could have some changes. So, my recommendation would be to finish those first as a package. That way you don't have to go back and forth. But that's up to the committee. MR. ONISHI: Right. Thank you very much. I'll refer to Ms. Kimball. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. So, it looks like, given what we've heard, we have to make some decisions here. If we kept it in Committee until our February 41h meeting, we would have a hard time making that agenda for the Board of Ethics February 131h meeting. That's what I'm hearing from the Clerk. So, I'm going to ask —you know, I heard there's some concern about the timeline here. How does the introducer feel about that option, which would mean it would probably not get on until the Board of Ethics March meeting. And then we wouldn't get it back and be able to deliberate till the end of March for us. The alternative, I guess, would be to look at asking them to put it on there and then potentially having one more discussion on February 4th and giving them additional information. But get it on their agenda now. Can we do that, Mr. Clerk? Can we ask to get it on their agenda for February 13th, but still discuss in our Committee Meeting on February 4th . MS. KIMBALL: Chair, if I may interject with the proposal? CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. MS. KIMBALL: What I'd like to do is withdraw the motion so that we could go back to discuss the bill as it stands as a body. I don't think that there are vast concerns other than with this definition of immediate family. I would suggest that we send it to the Ethics Commission in this format so that they can have the conversation around those definitions. I will, as Council Member Inaba requested, provide them with the definition in the HRS to consider in a letter requesting the review. But at this time, I'd like to withdraw my motion to refer to the Ethics Board so we can continue to see if there are any significant or substantive changes. If there are not, I would suggest we forward today as is. Motion to Withdraw: Ms. Kimball withdrew her motion to refer to the Board of Ethics. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, motion withdrawn. Okay, with that, that was kind of similar to what I was saying, which is, I think the other things that were requested is that just we have DCC (Deputy Corporation Counsel) Keyra Wong here to give some input, and that we have somebody from Purchasing here to give some Page 16 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 feedback for some questions. So, without forwarding that immediately, I'm just wondering if we can have them come to the meeting on February 41h while still forwarding to the BOE. Is that something we can do, Mr. Clerk? MR. HENRICKS: Yes, the matter can be referred to the Board of Ethics and this committee can continue its work and even move it on to Council if it so desires. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, so that is what I would propose. Just a little tweak to what you were saying, Council Member Kimball. Are you okay with that moving forward? Okay. So, we would still need a motion —well, let's discuss. Anybody have feedback on doing it that way? Anybody have any issues? Okay, hearing none. MS. KIMBALL: I would suggest that we have the deliberation on the main motion at this time before making a decision on your recommendation. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Anybody else deliberating based on the information we have and who's here right now? Okay, just checking over in Hilo. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I'm good, Chair. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Alright. Would you like to make a motion? MS. KIMBALL: Yes, I'd like to make a motion that Bill 21 be referred to the Ethics Board with a timeline of 60 days to provide the Council with a response. Motion to Refer: Ms. Kimball moved to refer Bill 21 to the Board of Ethics. (Approved) Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 1. Excused: None. CHR. KAGIWADA: Alright, back to the main motion. Motion to Postpone Ms. Kimball moved to postpone Bill 21 to February 4, 2025. Seconded by Ms. Galimba. CHR. KAGIWADA: Any discussion. Council Member Inaba. Page 1.7 GOEAC-2 January 21, 2025 MR. INABA: Thank you. Just wanted to clarify. So, we're setting it for February 41h, but the Board of Ethics isn't likely to take it up till the 13th, is that correct? MS. KIMBALL: If I may respond, Chair? CHR. KAGIWADA: Go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: That's correct. I proposed the 4th so that we can use that meeting to hear from Deputy Wong and from the Purchasing folks with regard to Council Member Kierkiewicz's questions. MR. INABA: Understood. Thank you. In support. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else on this motion? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor of postponing Bill 21 to the February 4th, 2025 Committee meeting, please say "aye." Vote on Motion to The vote on the motion to postpone Bill 21 to the February 4, Postpone: 2025 Committee meeting was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Galimba, Hustace, Inaba, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Onishi, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder - 1. Excused: None. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you everybody for your input and deliberation today. ADJOURN- Seeing no further business, Chair Kagiwada adjourned the meeting at MENT: 10:02 a.m. Approved: Ms. Jean Kagiwada, Clfafr Committee on Governmental Operations and External Affairs JK/dt (Date) Page 18