The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0461.000 2004-2006 Lincoln S.T. Ashida Har Kim ~ Corporation Counsel ry Mayor Gerald Takase ;j.,, ~ Assistant Corporation a%'~~'~ Counsel COUNTY OF HAWAII OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-0262 (808) 961-8251 Fax (808) 961-8622 September 28, 2005 Corporation Counsel Published Opinion No. 2005-06 Honorable Harry Kim Mayor, County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni St. Hilo, HI 96720 Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chairman, and Members of the Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni St. Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mayor Kim, Chairman Higa, and Council Members: RE: Petition for Impeachment Our Entry No.: WRK 05-10404 We received a copy of the enclosed documents authored by Roger Christie, seeking the impeachment of the Mayor and eight sitting Hawaii County Council members. We understand from a communication received from County Clerk Constance Kiriu dated September 12, 2005 (enclosed, with Petition Audit Worksheets omitted), that her office has received a petition signed by over 100 qualified electors, as required by County law.1 Article XII, Chapter 2, Section 12-2.2, of the Hawaii County Charter (2000) (hereinafter "Charter"), provides as follows: Impeachment of Elected Officers. Any elected officer or officer appointed to a vacancy in any elected office may be impeached for malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, or maladministration in office. The circuit court shall be a court of impeachment for the trial of any such Our office has opined that "qualified electors" are the equivalent of "registered voters." Thus, the Clerk has verified that at least 100 signatories of the Petition for Impeachment were registered voters of the County of Hawaii. See discussion of this definition, infra. Comm. No. Ref. To: ~ Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider Raf. Date n~j 4 Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 2 officer who may be charged on any of the foregoing grounds. The charge shall be set forth in detail in writing in a verified petition for impeachment signed not less than one hundred (100) qualified electors of the county. The court shall sit without a jury and shall proceed according to the form required for the trial of all civil cases. If the court sustains the charge, the officer shall be deemed removed from office and the office declared vacant under this charter. Article XI, Chapter 2, Section 6-2.3, of the Charter provides in pertinent part as follows: The corporation counsel shall represent the county in all civil legal proceedings and shall perform all other services incident to the office as may be required by law. The corporation counsel shall, however, be prohibited from representing any elected officer in impeachment proceedings. (Emphasis supplied). Since the Corporation Counsel is prohibited by law from representing elected officials in impeachment proceedings, the purpose of this communication is simply to present (1) an analysis of the definition of "qualified elector," (2) an analysis of the question of whether special counsel may be hired to represent the Mayor and Council Members, pursuant to Article X{, Chapter 2, Section 6-2.5 of the Charter, and (3) a recommendation to the Hawaii County Council to establish a reimbursement hearing process prior to the conclusion of the Circuit Court case. Further, this letter will serve to provide you information as to what may be expected in upcoming legal proceedings relative to this case. A summary of our letter is as follows: 1. A "qualified elector' is the equivalent of a "registered voter." In other words, in order to be a "qualified elector" under our Charter, the individual must be registered to vote. 2. County government funds may not be used at the outset to pay for or subsidize the legal defense of the Mayor and Council Members. However, upon conclusion of the case, if there is a determination that the County officers acted in good faith and within the course and scope of their duty and were furthering a public purpose, and that public purpose was the corpus of the impeachment charge, reimbursement of legal expenses may be available, subject to the approval of the Hawaii County Council. Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 3 3. The Council is encouraged to establish a procedure for hearing and determining whether legal expenses may be reimbursed to the Mayor and the affected Council Members. This process should be established prior to the conclusion of the Circuit Court case. "Qualified Electors" The aforecited Charter provision provides that 100 "qualified electors" must sign the petition for impeachment. What is a "qualified elector?" Is it synonymous with a "registered voter?" Our research concludes a "qualified elector" is the equivalent of a "registered voter," and that both terms are used interchangeably in our Charter. Our laws instruct us that in construing the meaning of words and phrases in our statutes, deference must be given to the intent of the legislative body that created the statute. Koolau Agr. Co., Ltd. v. Commission of Water Resource Management, 83 Hawaii 484, 927 P.2d 1367 (1996). In our Charter, the term "qualified elector" appears in six (6) sections.z The term "registered voter" appears in four (4) sections.3 The terms "qualified elector" and "registered voter" appear in many of the same sections, and there is limited distinction between both phrases. Interestingly, Article XII, Chapter 1, Section 12-1.1 of the Charter, relating to the recall of elected officers by the voters, provides in pertinent part the method of recall as follows (emphasis supplied): (a) A petition demanding recall of an official elected at-large, or by voters of the entire county, as the case may be, shall be signed by qualified voters equal to or greater than twenty-five percent of the total number of persons who registered in the last general election. (b) A petition demanding recall of a district councilmember shall be signed by qualified voters equal to or greater than twenty-five z Section 3-3, relating to the qualifications of a candidate for the Hawaii County Council; Section 5-1.2, relating to the qualifications of a candidate for the office of the Mayor; Section 9-2, relating to the qualifications of a candidate for the office of the Prosecutor; Section 12-2.1, relating to impeachment proceedings; Section 13-1, relating to a vacancy in office upon a finding that the officer was not a "qualified elector;" and Section 15-1, relating to Charter amendments being initiated by "qualified electors" ' Section 3-3, relating to the qualifications of a candidate for the Hawaii County Council; Section 6-4.3, relating to the qualifications of a candidate for the Hawaii County Planning Commission; Section 6-10.2, relating to the qualifications of a candidate for the Hawaii County Board of Appeals; and Section 15-1, relating to Charter amendments. Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 4 percent of the total number of persons who registered in the fast general election. (c) The term "qualified voter' means a person who is registered to vote in the county on the day that the clerk begins the examination to determine the sufficiency of the signatures on the petition. There is limited case law in Hawaii concerning the definition of "qualified electors." One case of interest, however, is In re Chung, 44 Hawaii 220, 352 P.2d 846 (1960), wherein our conclusions are supported. In Chung, the Supreme Court of Hawaii examined whether the Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu had standing to appeal a decision by the Board of Registration of Electors for the City and County of Honolulu. In that case, the Clerk refused to register a citizen, claiming that a criminal conviction from Japan effectively disqualified him from voting in a territorial election, pursuant to the Hawaiian Organic Act, 48 U.S.C.A. Section 590. The Court was confronted with the task of defining "qualified elector," and stated as follows: It is to be noted that the provision quoted above (relating to the Session Laws of Hawaii, which transferred the duties of registration to the respective county clerks) gave the right of challenge to "any qualified elector," whereas under Section 47 (of the Revised Laws of Hawaii) the person who had the right of challenge was "any legal voter." We think that both expressions have the same meaning, and there is no significance in the mentioned change of language. 44 Haw. at 223. The Chung court further explained its reasoning as follows: In a strictly literal sense, the words "any legal voter" mean a person who has met all of the conditions precedent to the exercise of suffrage, including registration. 44 Haw. at 225. While this appeal is not concerned with the application of the words "any legal voter," as used in Section 11-23 (of the Revised Laws of Hawaii 1955), to a person whose right to be or remain registered as a voter is in Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 5 question, we shall briefly touch upon it in order to round out our consideration of the meaning of those words. As we noted earlier in this opinion, such person does not come within the literal meaning of those words. But, clearly under every concept of an orderly judicial process, if any person ought to have the right to appeal from an adverse board ruling to this court, it is the person ruled against by the board with respect to his right to be or remain registered as a voter. We think that the right of appeal of such person may be preserved by interpreting those words to mean any person who claims the right to be registered as a legal voter.' 44 Haw. at 227-228. Finally, the minutes of the Charter Commission from June 12, 1979, reveal that this very question was raised before the County commission. The following exchange occurred between Charter Commissioner Matsuo Yanaga and Charter Commission Counsel Stuart Oda: MR. YANAGA: Mr. Chairman. Stuart, or the qualified electors of the county, I think someplace I read in the minutes that the County Clerk Rudy Legaspi recommended that along with your signature, you get your home address, your social security number and all that sort of thing. I don't know for what purpose. What is the reason for this? MR. ODA: That is for verification purposes. In case you have to contact the individual. By qualified elector is meant a person has to be a registered voter. Let's say a person signs John Doe as one of the one- hundred and there is no registered John Doe with any address. That is not verified, so that is out. If there is a John Doe, address Kea'au, Hawaii, P.O. Box 927, or whatever it is, that can be traced, right? There may be some attempt made. You have to be qualified. The coordination has to be made with the County Clerk's registered list of voters. (Emphasis supplied). Based on the seemingly interchangeable use of the terms "qualified electors" and "registered voter" throughout our Charter, the majority opinion and reasoning found in In re Chung, supra, the above-cited Charter Commission minutes, and the lack of legal authority to the contrary, it is our considered opinion that a "qualified elector" is a "registered voter" for purposes of those referenced sections of the Hawaii County Charter (2000). There is atwo-member dissent which argues the terms "qualified elector" and "registered voter' are distinguishable. Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 6 It consequently follows that in order for an impeachment action pursuant to Article XII, Chapter 2, Section 12-2.1 of the Charter to be valid, the petition for impeachment must be signed by at least one hundred (100) registered voters of the County of Hawaii. Hiring Special Counsel or payment of legal expenses A recurring question raised by elected officials around the country is who pays for legal expenses incurred when the official is required to legally defend him/herself in lawsuits or other quasi-judicial actions, based upon challenges to the official's actions taken within the course and scope of their office. State and County statutory law is silent on this issue, and provides no guidance on whether elected officials are afforded the right of representation paid for with public funds. Similarly, there is limited case law relative to this narrow issue. One thing, however, is clear. Our Charter provides in no uncertain terms that the Corporation Counsel is prohibited from representing any official in impeachment proceedings. In our opinion, this presupposes that the use of public funds for this purpose is likewise generally prohibited. Article VI, Chapter 2, Section 6-2.5, of Charter, which provides for the hiring of special counsel, provides in pertinent part as follows: The council may, by two-thirds vote of its entire membership, authorize the employment of special counsel for any special matter presenting a real necessity for such employment. Any such authorization shall specify the compensation, if any, to be paid for said services. However, upon closer examination of the present case, this is really not a "special counsel" issue. This is because the use of special counsel presupposes that the government will pay for the legal fees and expenses incurred by the government official who acted within the course and scope of their duties.s s We note this office issued a letter dated August 31, 1999, to then Council Chair James Arakaki, wherein it was suggested that the special counsel procedure was available, even though the Charter specifically provided that the Corporation Counsel was prohibited from representing County officers in impeachment proceedings. Although we do not presently vacate that opinion, we do express concern that the use of special counsel presupposes that the County officer was acting within the course and scope of his duty, and was furthering a public purpose, while acting in goad faith. These facts have not yet been conclusively proven in the present case. Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 7 The more accurate and germane question is whether there is a legally recognized basis for the payment (or reimbursement) of legal expenses, even though the Corporation Counsel is statutorily prohibited from representing the County officers. Generally, no compensation can be recovered by the attorney or agent who represented the government official, where there was no authority to employ him or her, or when the employment was not validly effected, or when there is no provision in the law for compensation. Cahn v. Town of Hunnington, 29 N.Y.2d 451, 328 N.Y.S.2d 672, 278 N.E.2d 908 (1972). Further, attorneys' fees cannot be recovered by way or reimbursement of a municipal officer, where the attorney was employed to protect the private interest of the officer in his or her office and no public benefit inured to the municipality's benefit. Matthews v. City of Atlantic City, 196 N.J. Super. 145, 481 A.2d 842 (Law Div. 1984), iudgment affd, 196 N.J. Super. 338, 482 A.2d 530 (App. Div. 1984). However, a municipality may indemnify its officials only where expenses are incurred in the performance of official duties or in defense of actions challenging official acts. Matthews v. City of Atlantic City, supra. Further, the fact that the public official is involved in the suit is not diapositive of the issue, rather it is the subject matter of the underlying suit that determines whether the public must bear the burden of the expense. Matthews v. City of Atlantic City, supra. Thus, both an examination of the merits of the alleged malfeasance by the County's officers, and an examination of the outcome of the impeachment action itself is necessary in order to properly evaluate the County's responsibility in paying for attorneys' fees, per the above-cited Matthews opinion. With respect to the merits of the alleged malfeasance, no question the corpus of the impeachment claim lies with the continued funding of the County's marijuana eradication program, and the alleged failure of the Council to perform the mandatory program review as required by the Charter. As Mr. Christie points out in his moving papers: The obvious solution to ending the ongoing colossal failure of the (sic) 'war on drugs' on this island is to cause the trial for impeachment of Mayor Harry Kim and eight of the nine County Council members immediately. Why? Because the Mayor proposed, and the Council funded an increase in marijuana eradication grants for last fiscal year. They agreed to maintain those increased funds for this fiscal year with knowledge that there has never been a "mandatory program review" (a specialized, "mandatory' audit) of the controversial program. Zero. These elected Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 8 officials also know that there is at least one scientific study that links their marijuana eradication program, island poverty and the (sic) 'ice' epidemic, yet they continue to gamble with our lives. (sic) 'Malfeasance' in office? I think so. Again, whether these claims are meritorious or not is for the Circuit Court to decide, and our office offers no opinion. We simply point out what is abundantly clear: That Mr. Christie's claims of malfeasance are matters clearly within the course and scope of the duties of the County officials. An examination of the outcome of the Circuit Court proceeding is also necessary. Irrespective of the outcome of the case (whether Mr. Christie is successful in the impeachment of the Mayor and/or any of the Council members or not), an examination of the facts developed in the Circuit Court case is necessary. Questions such as whether the County officers acted within the course and scope of their responsibility, whether they adequately performed their Charter-mandated tasks, and whether there is any evidence of wanton neglect would be critical and diapositive in our analysis and conclusion of whether legal expenses may be reimbursed. An enlightening case is Maui County Council v. Thompson, 84 Hawaii 105, 929 P.2d 1355 (1996), reconsideration denied 84 Hawaii 496, 936 P.2d 191 (January 29, 1997). In that case, the Maui County Council sued the Maui County Finance Director, Corporation Counsel, and then Mayor Linda Lingle, alleging that the administration wrongfully exceeded their authority by unilaterally hiring special counsel to defend them in a wrongful termination case. The Maui Circuit Court initially dismissed this lawsuit. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawaii vacated the Circuit Court's order of dismissal, and found that Mayor Lingle and her co-defendants had in fact violated Maui County law in the unilateral hiring of special counsel to defend them. The Supreme Court summarized its decision as follows: And it is true, as a matter of policy, that "public indemnification of public officials serves in part to encourage public service." Howard v. Town of Burlington, 399 Mass. 585, 506 N.E.2d 102, 106 (1987). But this case is not about whether public officials should be reimbursed, but about which branch of government has the power to decide that question. Municipalities often reimburse officials for legal fees incurred in defending themselves from claims brought against them in their individual capacities. But there is no legal or moral duty to reimburse unless the disputed action affects the public interest, relates to the employee's official duties, and the Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawai i County Council September 28, 2005 Page 9 official was acting in good faith. (Citations omitted; emphasis in original text). 84 Hawaii at 108. With respect to the seminal question of whether public officials should be reimbursed, the Hawaii Supreme Court in Thompson, as we have similarly opined presently, recognized both the appropriateness of reimbursing public officials for legal expenses, and the relevant criteria to consider prior to making such a decision: It has long been the law in this and other jurisdictions that "[i]t is within the discretionary power of a municipality to indemnify one of its officers against liability incurred by reason of any act done by him while in the bona fide discharge of his official duties, and the municipality has the right to employ counsel to defend the officer or to appropriate funds for the necessary expenses incurred by him in such defense." However, a municipality is under no legal obligation to do so, even for actions within the scope of official duties: "It would seem to be wisest to leave the indemnification of the officer to the discretion of those who represent the interest of the city, that, on the one hand, they should not be without the power to indemnify a meritorious officer, acting in good faith, for the consequences of his conduct, and, on the other hand, they should not be obliged to protect every officer, though acting in good faith, under circumstances which seem to them to indicate a blamable want of care and caution." (Citations omitted throughout) 84 Hawaii at 107. Thus, the above passage espouses the need to examine the Circuit Court record after this case is concluded, to determine whether there is any evidence to suggest "blamable want of care and caution" on the part of any of the accused County officers. If there is no such evidence in the Circuit Court case, reimbursement of legal expenses may be justified, subject to Hawaii County Council approvals s We are mindful of the ethical implications of Council Members voting on whether to reimburse themselves for legal expenses incurred. Nonetheless, our Charter and the mandate of Maui County Council v. Thompson, supra, require this process. Hearing the matter in an open, public meeting, and allowing public input would provide some safeguards against impropriety. We also suggest as an option, as this office suggested in a letter dated August 31, 1999, to then Council Chairman James Arakaki, that the matter be presented to the Hawaii County Board of Ethics for their consideration. See further discussion of this issue, infra. Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 10 The initiation of an Impeachment Petition with the Circuit Court Our laws provide that the Third Circuit Court presides as a court of original jurisdiction over impeachment trials. The Court hears the case without a jury. The Court follows the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern the process of civil trials in Hawaii State courts. Generally, an action is commenced by the filing of a complaint or petition. Enclosed for reference purposes is a copy of Mr. Christie's petition filed in 1999, seeking the impeachment of former Mayor Stephen Yamashiro and six Council Members. Since the Corporation Counsel will not be representing the Mayor and Council, it is important that you immediately consult your attorney upon service of a complaint or petition upon you, or take the necessary action to answer the pleading within the statutorily mandated time. After the parties are served, you may expect the case to be brought forward by Mr. Christie, for a hearing before the Circuit Court. Again, the Mayor and affected Council Members are urged to consult their private attorneys or other legal representative. Establishing a process for reimbursement prior to the conclusion of the Circuit Court case As discussed in footnote 6, ante, there are ethical implications if the Council is called upon to vote upon the reimbursement of legal expenses for its own members. In 1999, in response to a request from the Hawaii County Council seeking advice whether special counsel would be made available to Council Members whose impeachment was sought, this office opined as follows: There are some potential problems presented under the unique circumstances of this case. While the County Council is the appropriate body to determine if public funds should be expended and whether a public purpose would be served by such expenditure under these circumstances, six members of the Council are themselves subject to the impeachment action. These members would have to vote then on a matter of financial interest to themselves as individuals. Provisions of the ethics code may apply. Section 2-83(d) provides that "[n]o officer or employee shall...have a financial interest, direct or indirect, which might reasonably tend to be incompatible with the proper discharge of his official Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 11 duties or to impair his independence of judgment in the performance of his official duties..." Section 2-83(b) provides that "[n]o officer or employee shall use or attempt to use his official position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts or treatment, for himself or others." At the onset, we note that the aforecited Section 2-83(d) of the former Ethics Code was effectively repealed by the Hawaii County Council in 2002 (Ordinance 02-109). Thus, the only provision of the present Ethics Code which raises concern is Section 2-83(b), cited in pertinent part in the passage above. However, a present conflict of laws is presented, since our laws also provide that it is the Council and the Council alone who may authorize the payment of legal expenses for County officials. Maui County Council v. Thompson, supra, conclusively laid this issue to rest. In the 1999 letter from this office, the following advisory was issued, which we believe provides wise counsel today: Section 14-3 of the Hawaii County Charter provides that: "It shall be incumbent upon all employees or officers of the county to: "(a) Make full disclosure in writing to the appointing authority or to the council in the case of an elective officer, the possession or acquisition of any interests, financial or othenruise as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with the public interest. Any member of the council who knows of a personal interest, direct or indirect, in any action proposed or pending before the council shall disclose such interest prior to the taking of any vote thereon. "(b) File a copy of such disclosure with the county clerk which shall become a matter of public record." Should the Council determine to vote on an expenditure of funds for these legal expenses, Council members affected should follow the disclosure requirements of the code (Section 2-91.1 [g]) and charter and further should determine if they wish to ask the Ethics Board for an advisory opinion on the propriety of voting on the issue. We believe it is likely that since necessity dictates that only Council members can vote on the issue, Honorable Harry Kim Honorable Stacy K. Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council September 28, 2005 Page 12 that it must be allowed. But the Ethics Code sets up the Ethics Board as the body to make these determinations. It is recommended that the Council consider agendizing the present communication from our office, for the purpose of establishing prior to the conclusion of the Circuit Court case, the "ground rules" and process for hearing, considering, and voting upon the reimbursement of legal expenses at the end of the impeachment case. This process will provide for transparency, and will allow the public to weigh in at (1) the formative portions of the proposed process, and (2) upon consideration of whether legal expenses should be reimbursed at the conclusion of the case (assuming the impeachment effort is unsuccessful). Although our laws do not provide for a specific process that cover this unique situation, our proposed remedy seeks to reconcile and balance the competing interests of (1) the legal requirement that the authority to grant reimbursement remain with the Council, (2) the legal maxim that government funds should be used to pay for legal expenses of government officials when they have acted within the course and scope of their responsibility, in good faith, and for a public purpose, in order to encourage persons to serve in public office, and (3) ethical issues raised, by requiring the matter to evolve before a public forum, allowing members of our community to weigh in on this important subject. Please contact me if I may be of further assistance to you in answering any other general questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, ~~JY W LINCOLN S. T. ASHIDA Corporation Counsel Encls. c: Honorable Constance Kiriu, County Clerk (w/ encls.) Roger Christie (w/ encls.) S: Depts/CC/LSA MiscJLetter to Mayor and Council re Christie impeachment 8-9-OS/LSAmr B- 9-05: B:OSAM; COH MAVOP CORP COUNSEL :BOB 96t 6553 # 3/ ~ Impeach the Mayor and County Council Now! i Aloha. Publisher Lane Wick asked last week, "can you help to save our F~E7i E t V E D children?" My answer is a strong, YFSI We eon. iDO~ AUG 8 PIS 3 26 The time has come to take effective action to and the'maeijuana eradicaEYgstC e ~ ~ i E tdAYO q program' on the Big Island forever. Prohibition of'marijuana' i8 the t'antGf tiAWAi i most of our criminal and social problems. IYs unconstitutional, il1e~~lEmmcual„_ counter-productive in the exts+eme to ib stated goals, and is tectnsi u'tkA. D.M.D. , 'Phe marijuana. eradication program is exlinctieatistic and it'santi-Christ Just look at its result. What to do about it? I propose the trial far impeachment oaf nine of our present elected County officials for "atalfeasance" in office as de&ned in the Hawaii County Charter specificualty far situations like this. Here's why. Scaneddng c~?tinues tD be desperately wrung on this island and I'm aoa?vinoed that it's the result of the bad actions our local adf ciais have atade ~ furadfng a semi-suet, Fare-military culture war known as the.'war on drugs'. WhaCs terribly wrong here was preventable and avoidable, if only the County Charter had been obeyed. Hawaii County is STILL the worst in the State per capita foe hard drug abuse, hunger, homelessness and mote. Prolu'bitionistsroust now be held respcataible for the horrendous results of their policy. Some eradicatioahelicopterpllots netlike terrorists, some act like cowboys. Most eradication helicopter pilots are just doing a job. VVlu~ever'they' are, there's no excuse far their violations of civil and human rights attjr longer. Past and current oversight of the program is a joke. What ever happened to "domestic tranquility", or the Canslitutional Right to Privacy, or the rt~tnbe lees fc+cm unreaeanabk search Sul seizure widtiout a warrant? The c~eriahed right is'tl7e >b be left aiond, aacadirg bo the wisdo®n of prior generations. Where did t go7 A "marijuana exception" to the Consfitutlom is a practice whose time is over. Did you read the s6oty this past week of the'Dcug Czar' visiting the island and praising eta anti-drugg as a'model' for the. USA.? Is he nuts? He hke a sociopatiY~aao regard for the huasan boll of thx prohibition. ire is no bigger 4alure m i~lawaw OI U.S. lnstcxy tlua? Om "war on drugs". Maybe you also saw the new Hawaii County Police Department recruiting ad in the Sunday Tribune-Herald featiuing flack-jacketEd, mmbat-booked, swat-team members. They're "geared-up to protect our commucut}~' Right And we'ne to believe that we aced MORE of them? What's going on here anyway? Why do we "need" them? Where did aloha go? The obvious solution bn ending the ongoing colossal failure of the'war on dniga' an this island is to cause the trial for impeachment of Mayor Harry I~im and e- 9-05; B; OSAM:COR MAYOR CORP COUNSEL :808 951 8553 # ai ~ eight of the nine Caen~y Crnurcil members immediately. Why2 Because the Mayor and the Ctiundl funded an increase in urarijuarra eradicatiary grants ~fis~al yeas TbeY agreed to maintain those increased funds for this fiscal year with knowledge that tdly?e~ree has never bees a "mandaboty pm8ram review' (a specifalized, "m audit) of the maytrovensial program. Zero. These elected officials also~t there is at least one scientific study that links their marijuana eradication program, island poverty and the'ioer epidemic, yet they corytinue to gamble with our lives.. 'Malfeasance' in affice2 I drink so. This subject ie definitely wertiry of a class action lawanit, but yrntil then this Local impeadhment trial can , effective in bringing Light m a very dark aobjeet In my opinion, the pn~ition of cannabis is a foray of continuing criminal enterprise by government that violates the taxpayers of this county every say. The upcoanirrg petition far impeac}y~oenkof.ourMayor and Coyyrrml is a paobected foray of citizen acior? ryywormeEyded bydye Hawaii royynty Chaa4er when one hundred or nysre of tiye registered voters of our county Geel that'maHeasanae' has taken place by elected ad[idals. Let's use it new, get to the both of t#iis mess, and ry>aHy hcel our island. 1 take this action while nyairrtairrirrg a deep respect far Mayce xim and au of the other Defendants. Bishop Desmond Tutu said, "People can do bad thiryga, but tlv=re's•no such tldr?g as a bad person." I believe that the Mayor and C'.eunoj members have done a bad , but I'm alsowell awarelhatdreq are good _ people who care about five island. I Section 3-16, MarrdaMry Program Review: "At least once every four years the oourycil shall critically review everyprogram supported wholly or par~kiaily by county funds, and un>ees dye ocwuyn1 gall favorably sutlyor4ze its caertinuation at curreEyt or syoditied levels, dye prograaa sha8 be terminated." Thin regyyirea?ent for elected officials was passed by die vatrss of Hawaii County in 1979 and in all the decades of the war cry drugs t}yere has never beer? a critdcai review of the marijuana eradication program! 1lyere oauld and should have been reviews in 1983, and in 2003, or "the program shall be terminated" . In my oPirrian a pr+~ram review would have alerted us to the corniyyg dang~erof ti?e'iae' epide~yie decd ago, sla}Ifiilly aveid+ng counties troyrblee and many yuuyeceasazy acrd preventable deathsta ooaz+e. in my opinion, zero'program review' has been done because the marijuana eradication program is so dehrsional, so earryr has tilled so many wallets with ill stolen) gain and has done so much human damage here that the peop~ ]min (chaslye are unwilling to bok at $yeir ~ r+esyylfa. I uad~d their concern; however I dory't buy their excuses ce evasions of the . Why impeachment? It's the recommended remedy of the Hawaii County Charter for problems of this nature to be solved by "we the people", and it's great leverage. With only 100 registered voters a~f this County needgd to cause B- 9-05: B~OSAM; COH MAYOR CORP COUNSEL ;BOB 98t 8553 # Si ~ the trial of elected County officials in Circuit Couu#, a minority of citizens can get the legal standing,they need to fight m ccx~rt for government aocougutability. To bring trust back into govemmen>; elected officals must earn it They have not, judging fcnn? the outrageous failure of their drug policy. Time's up! 'Feel- good' slogans don't cut it The stick game is over. Let the light of an impeachment m<puiry shine on the darkness of prohibition and help to deeply heal our wounded scut. To be the land of the free we must first be the home of the brave. Be brave! To save the children heFe we certainly pn do something costive and enligluiauiiig. Iask you tb flex your rights crud exercise your mane in flue face of incteasingtyranny - while we still csn. . Let's~tand bog~• to salve flats one,, byt- _ . Qace we succeed, Hce~l see that we can meet any challenge an true road mead. Seewww.pe ilaky.com far more information, ar call me at %1-0488. Mahalo and aloha m one and all. Roger' tfiristie THC www.th stry~¢ i B- 9-05: B:O5AM:COH MAYOR CORP COUNSEL :808 98t 8553 # 8/ ~ 1 ~ I I Verified Petition for Impeachment of Elected Officials August 5°, 2006 Aloha. With a vision of healthy island harmony as ors goat, a rnmpassiasiate heart that fads the pain of too many of ors ctizene, and a etrang wiFl far ail inhabitants bo survive and prosper, we, more than one hundred (108) qualified elecboss of Hawaii County take action by this veritied petition to cause the trial in Grout Court for the impesdmrent of spedfic Hawaii County elected o~fficas. For the well-being and 'ty aJ our island people and for the continuation of our republic to be a taitstax-paying oitlunq, we intend and pray far tl~ia matter j to be resolved in the light of forth and justice, for the defersdartts removal from office, and for their rehabilitation with aloha within the island community. Due respect end support far the spirit and letter oaf the law of the land causes ua 7p fix our sigtradues to this Verified Petitioa for Impcachmmt of the fallowing a~ffieers far malfeaeanoe, miefeaeeneS nonfeasmtoe and melsdnriniehation in affiae as called far in Iitawaii Cmmty (barter Chapter 2, Sectimr IZ•21, Impnchmmt of Ifiectad Qffioas: Mayor Barry ICtm Camctlroau Gary Safarfk Couwc7maa Stacy Hige Conneilman James ArakaW Coanallman Denald tinsels t'.omrdlmars Peter 1•krf~+nnr Camdlmaa Angel PHago Cemelmarr Fred Holactuai ~ Coondl~voman Virginia Isbell The charges: 1. After years of public testimony offiaally notifying the above defecrdanb of their failure W ooaeply with the requiremeirt of Ii;awaii County Charter SeeNm9-16 Mandatory Program Review oonoarring the marijuana eradiartiosr progtanr, the named offidala continue to willfully and repeatedly vlalabe the spirit and the letter of the law and their swam oath of office by authorizing, funding and levying apart-military dull war upon the geopk and the lands of dre County. Saxllr bad action constitutes, in our opinion, malfeasanop miafeasanae, rranfeasance endlbr mal~i:rishatiasrin office. Defendants actions and ttan-aetians have resulted in massive and sustained personal, familial, sodas, economic and ouliural damage>p the irrlrabitards of the County. Same of the damage done by the prolu`}ailian of the natural herb carmabie a+n be measured by the armual °Susvry of Social hrdicatora of Hawaii Coin published by the Fast Hawaii Mental Hralth Association. 'lire e~epar~ however, stay saa~hes fire surface of flu human toH caused by ddendarrta b~ actwsu in ceding die •ma eradirdtian program' and refnsmg ~ see it:evieawed properly. An aonrrate aoooentting 1 of the effects of the deeaded old progrmrr will take a paieretai3trg; aitical and independent program review and wi? likely forever remain irrcanrplete due in the enormous scope of the casualties i.e. famr'h'ea separated, property seized, caues 1 destroyed, lives rvredred try hard drug abuse, wideapremd poverty, denying the consdouarresa that cadres with reverent cultivation and use a~ the plan; the ~P?aY and live happy, healthy lives with i; etc. Enough! 2 Programs authorized azd funded by the defadarrts have denied justice, destroyed domestic tranquility, created terrarisQy reduced the general welfare, created acme, encouraged hard drug abuse and lessened the blessings of liberty for all intr3bitanta g- 9-05: 9:OSAM; COR MAYOR CORP COUNSEL :BOB 98t 8553 # ~ 3. County, Sbte and Pedaal'apiltopriaticma to fund $u atmijuan8 eradication program were not "duly made". Obligations knowutgly incurred and papnwnts krwwingly autlwriaed~ the above~zmmed de6a~dant were, and still are, tn.vialation of the provisions the Haaeaii Cocmtg ('Laster Section 1411, Payment and Oblisations Pmhibitad: Verifications; Penalties. We, the undeediyced, i~md and pray that A. the public at }u~e9s made aware of the defendant' abuse of power by this avic exa+dse of trial $oz impesd~mant B. rivfl and iriminal investigatiafs begin foe joicrt and several liability. C. the court Leers the complete recoad and sustains the d~arges. D. the defendants arse removed fi~am office and aloha is restored tb the land. Conclasioa We have suffered a long train of abuses and have witnessed the immoral peiaecution std wms?gful prooeattion of boo many et1?era It is our rig}rt and our duty bo take lawful actia? now to remove the defendant from public office and tp provide new safeguards for our future seaaity. To this end we desire a thorough airingof the charges set forth above in the court of public opinion and in a court oflaw. It is our belief that a timely, critical and mandatory program review, as required by the Charter every four years "or the program shall teia~inate", would Dave ended the 'marijuana eradicsties? program' decades ago and avoided amen-made disastea We know that.fhe defendant are aasioealinft the trudt of thdr actiarro fmrr? the dtizeoe a~cl are failing to uphold their swan oath office ro defend us against domestic enemies We know that with the ending of:the eoam~rodwcEive'marijnanaeradication the Send and lawful inlu}+lie<tb of Hawari Coupby wlH Snd hep>mg and ~veneas and ret+a~n tBthe cenditiost of hsnscany a~+d prosperity that nature and divitx will have entitled. Alaba. 1 am a duly registered elector (voter) of Hawaii County. Printed name: Signature: , Phone Number: Date. Comment Please read, ®gn and mail this completed petition to: Roger Christie P.O. Hax 202 FTilo. I-lawai'i 96721 www.peacefulskv.com (808) %1-0488 ' CONSTANCE R. KIR[U o. WILLIAM E. SMITH County Clerk ~ ~'~q Deputy Camty Clerk ' •i i •.~p ••~~oi'Mi1 L. n County of Hawai `i Office of the Cpunty Clerk 15 Aupuni Slreet Nilo, Hawaqq' 96710 Telephone: (808) 96/-8155 fiacsimile: (808J 961-8911 September 12, 2005 Mr. Roger Christie P.O. Box 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Dear Mr. Christie: RE: Verified Petition for Impeachment of Elected Officials This is in response to your submittal of 184 documents entitled "Verified Petition for Impeachment of Elected Officials." The Office of the County Clerk-Elections Division determined that 105 petitions contained valid electors who were registered to vote in the County of Hawaii. A Verification Summazy and several Petition Audit Worksheets aze provided for your information. The original 184 petitions submitted to the Elections Division in binders are also being returned to you. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Elections Program Administrator at (808) 961-8277 or me at (808) 961-8271. Sincerely, Constance R. Kiriu County Clerk Att. Enclosure h~ OS Hmvnr'r County /s An Equa! Opport:utity Provider ,-0nd Employer Impeachment Petition Verification Prepared by the County Clerk's -Elections Division September 9, 2005 Total Pages Submitted 184 Total Signatures Submitted 184 Total Signatures Verified I84 Less Not Registered 54 Less Not Hawaii County Electors 7 Less Deceased 0 Less Others 18 Net Invalid Electors 79 Net Valid Electors 105 ~ ~ • r . - , ROGER d~R13T1E Pat OBia Boot 832 PaNpa, Hl wail 98Tf8 TWphons (808) 981-0188 iN THE CIRCUR COURT OF T}E THIRD CIRCtM STATE OF HAWA11 ROGER CMRISIIE ) CMl NO. p 9 - 3 T $ JONATHAN ADIFR ) ERNEST AARON ANDERSON ) PETITION FOR IMPEA~AENT; RONALD STOCKTON ) SUMtigNS PAUL VON HARTMAMI ) GLYN11 MOTOISHI ) GERALD CARMACK ) EDWARD CLARK ) EILEEN HENRY ) MK~IAEI MARTIN ) ~ ~ SUZANNE RO8INSON DAVID ZEISSIER j OELPRANKE ) ~ y DONNA SPENCER ) > ~ ANT}gNY ALMEDA ) GREG EVADES ) AMANDA SLAUGHTER ) KENNETH MIYAMOTO•SLAUGHTER ) GERALD CORNETT ) DEBORAH PHILLIPS ) DANIEL MAROUARDT ) DAVID SCHNEPPLE ) DOUGLAS JAMIESON ) BRYAN EVANS ) PHOEBE ROMAN ) EVERARD WENTWORTH ) GERALD VINCENT HUNT ) WM. SHAN GARDNER ) RONA LEE KLEIMANN ) VIRGEL E. PLEMISTER ) CHRISTIAN CULLEN ) MAYAPPLE MCCUILOUGH ) ADRIAN BARBER ) JOHN WESTON ) 1 P A 10 auG 1 1 >99s R.: 1L~11 - •lvc..• . ~ • . ROBERT RANDBTROIN ) GREG OWEN ) ALLAN OOIXiIERTY ) oAN,EL LocKHAaT ) PATAK:A MONTUO ) FAUNA MILLER ) AMY AMRIOiAAA ) DOV1E JOY ) KAISTINA Ul1.EEHG ) JAMES GARY COOPER ) JOSHUA SPAIN ) MELISSA MORTON ) RANOALL HEPINSTALL ) JOHN TUCI¢R ) LONME CROCKETT, JR ) DAVIo KRUG ) EZRA KRUG ) DAVID FREDERICK ) J06MEPH GILL ) OUENTIN MOLT ) NANCY ANNfiOCERS ) MARK OLMSTEAO ) RENE' SIRACUSA ) GEOFFLAST ) MIpiAEL FIALPERIN ) JAMAE CHURCH ) MAUISEVEAANCE ) MARLEEN KING ) RAYMOND J0f*ISON ) RONALD BAKER ) PAUL DIXON ) JESSE SMITH ) CORALGREEN ) H. ERICA AKAKA-BELSKY ) TEQDIMADER ) THOMAS VILLA ) JEREMIAH LEONARD ) JEFFREY BERK ) ARTHUR USHER ) PAUL BUCK ) KATHLEEN BRAUN ) WIWAM BLASER ) PHILIP HEISNER ) LUIS CARILLO ) 2 • . sLIsAN sMrtH ) LIlOA J..lpoN90N ) p~Eart HEM><~ERT ) oaLEAN HALL ) N FgLLMq Su~lA3 ) MIKE aLK;Gt£S ) ANfTA SELL SHERN1000 ) ALIROaA M MARnN0V1CH ) TF~.AESA BLI.IAN ) DARIENE G19BON3 ) nNA c HAaLEr ) PHILIP BREWEA ) W STANLEY SUVA ) LEROY CHRISTEN50N ) FRED ECK ) ALAAA PRIGMORE ) CHERLY REESEa ) aOBERT GARY ) JOANFAGERNESS ) WIWAM POWER ) BETTY BAKEa ) OENNIS GaEGORV ) EILEEN LONG ) PEGGY NIELSEN ) CRAIG PAINTER ) MK:FIAEL HACKLER ) DANIEL COVINGTON ) CYNTHIA TORUN ) CYNTHIAGILLETTE-WENNER ) WIIJ.IAM WENNER KAn#RINE SCHULTZ ) WIWAM MCNERUN ) JOAN RYAN ) ALANA GAV NAUGHT ) THERESA AAURPHY ) LUCIEN NOE ) JOHN M. GILDER ) ALICE NIX ) STEPHEN CHAMPIEUX ) JANELLE RYAN ) STEVEN DEARING ) DAVID SMITH ) SANDRA OUNLFl1 ) CHRISnNE MCCULLIGC ) 3 • . tAURA eARrEr ) R06EFiT RAPPAPORT ) vRtsauA rYRA ) MOWMN WALT,~N ) ,IOFN RAY N ) CAROL WRIGHT ) OAVIES FIMEr ) ) Patlllann ) v! ) STEPHEN YAMASHRO. MAYOR OF ) HAWAU COUNTY. ) ,LAMES ARAJGKI. HAWAa COUNTY ) COUNC4MAN. ) A1, AMITH. HAWAII COUNTY ) COUNCILMAN ) tlOBBIE,IEAN LEITFIEAO•T000. ) HAWAII COIMTY COUNCILWOMAN. ) DOMINIC YAGONG. HAWAII COUNTY ) COUNC4MAN. ) AARONCHUNG. HAWAI OOUf'ITY ) COUNCILMAN. ) LErnNGRAO ElAR10NOFF, HAWAII ) COUNTY OOUNCILMAN, ) Rgpondanta ) - - - ) PETITION FOR IYPEACMYENT t • PETITION FOR IMPEACHMENT AfoNa YYlfr a r4i0n d (M1rrr10ny, a oortipnuonw hMrt, and a srOfl? ai br as rriOltr+IS b tfrrfr+ and frosDar. vo. mortr than one hardrad (100') quarlad afactora d the C.orrhr d ltarrPy M tnf 9taM d ffaww tarn aCtlon ~ fda paWOn b aua tAa trnl n aedl oorrl for tfta nipaatlanara d artat+ aMctao dlkWa For tfr wiDMnp and proapanlr d ar l>aW». an0 br the mnenatlon d our ragrDie, w tMand am prep for thra rtratllr b Oa raaoNrld it the fit d bOr and jtralk+a, for the ddandaras' rangval from dfloa, and far 0talr rafuDit.tlon aAlMn rite iMard oonrrrrrrltp. Dutr rMDaa ana wQport for a• ttr paapla and tlr taws d the tan0 catraas w b 1br ar aq+altraa b ttw pNM1on for fraOaacMrant d tfta fobwlrp oNlars br maaaaYnoa. naMaaaroa, rlonNasarroa and malWmYastalbn ti ditoa p Caaad for n cnaplM 2. liaCllon t~=.1, Mrrparaehrrrarrl a1 Elaobd OMfloan: AAttyor Stephan Yan+fafaio Corr+ernan Janraa ArakaM CArx#nan N SmitTr Carr*nan Domrre raponp Coundronrn Bo00la.lwt La~fwd•Tatd Carraan+an Aaroe CAsq Catr>c~nan LarrnQaO EMrlortofl Tlta ehrcaa• ~ Mar martp r••r• d p~ Or ma oovrJ a tf+dr tat~ra b con+pp. the aDov~nan+ad dactad dfidals eaakara b veiny and npaataAp vblala err sera and ar fsuar d tlr cnttrt« of eha county at ffa.ralt, am el+air sworn auh d odic M auAOArlnp, nr+drg and pranrMary'cM arar N+a marrµnrr araateatiorr program. eta Yiraan ftarvaat', CounMrCarr+ttCia'. afc) upon tM paopia and lands d rife anralr in taatant vfolaflorr d liaetlon i-1 Yandstory Proprstn Aarlao TAair acoa+s have raaNtad ti mMSlva and auafatrrd pstaaW, ramial, sooal, aca+onrc and uJaral damage b the MaDitanb d tfra oounttr. and tM stag as a rrhola. (Soma d t1» raatlb d damage done b orr rJtl:ana haute Haan puDaaAad h a rrwq rdaaMd report Dy do Mental FlaaNh Aaaociatlon Called d$~_ Tha report, haravar, mhr aCtatcf»a tlr aurfaa d O» danrapa onutad q O+a dsbrtdtra0' atsorta, artdbr tads Utwaaf. AacvasMy ~9 Ou Raoan tot d b dseadsa' d0 marina araseatbn pn~am w1 o~Aa • patrstalw+¢ aNCal program raww, ant matt 10tH rarrWn tnoantplsM due b h anormais soopa d Ota taata~as, la tam~aa ssparaM4 proparq tiMZa0. caraara OaWOyaQ aas wradosd ~ dreg aDusa, widaaprMO povarq. Me) 2) Pro~ams aahorlnad and MrdaO Oy h dalartdlraft ttava dlrtiad KrsOC~, dastroya0 Oornaalk aarl¢Ay, reduced Ofa psnsral whtR oraalad t1YnR anooriapsd tiara drtq attusa, am tssssnsd O+a ttissstrtpa d tasrq for r trti+abaarts 3) l1r dshnduaa tree argapad to dssapOt+s po~al Prate dMiplnd b suovart err dsrtroastk tnsOAlon a voYnp on a ~roQam ravtwd ant Otsn fairg b dMrar area T1w>, a approNnp a intiMd'apaoW study 01a1 w Ilawad e)r dssipn, and trar,du>,rr W want dta dtlandanb orxiOrtaw n • oaupirary Olal acb under Ora aobr d law b mYtirttiia Ora rasutra d Ottlr atllorts and b bap Ora ta>~ayara d Ftasial Covty n 0~ dart a) t:astiy, soMS and ladsral appraprls4au b Md Ofa mar'urn aradcalbn program ware not 'dtly madsr' OOapau0rls knowYq)? Mtourrad and paymsrOs krwvrt>f/y aunorizad Dp Ora above dsNrtdsrOS warm and st1 arw b vbtslion d Ou prwiMons d F1awaN CoaMr Ctlartarlaetlort tart, gyrnanb and 0p119atlom hdMbtbd: VMMIgtloM; hnMWa. wa. In. Intrrd and erav refer; a) the pu0ao•at-lrpa is nnda aware d t++a ollbars' abueaa d power by Otis lapel prooaq and Ofa dr1 asrciaa d dial for Ynpsadrnsr0, b) dN and tttrrtirtal tNaatlpa0ons Oaptn for Jotrtt ano sward ti~bity d Ow aNlnra. c) ttr Dare twrs Or ooeiplses rsoord and tusfairr Ora dnrpss, d) Or aNbsrs ba rsrnarsd trom dlba and rattaD~taMd wtOtin Ora aormttatRy. rcnetualon: wa nave suffered a bnp train d abuses and Itava wb»sasd eta paraaoasion and wrort~t/ proaanaion d too marry otttara n k our rlpht and av duty b take IawftJ aabn now b rangva 01a dafandsrtis hom prLlt: ditoa and b provfda new sdepuardt for our hrOr'a saourtly. Vila dMlra a thorotbt atrtrg d Ora Cftarpss eat foM • atwra n a oast d aw. Nh agna b aoorpt tali am toff as a parlM bnn d ~stba R Is our t>tMf l+at a tsnalp one alleal rttartdaMry proprant ravlarr (as clad lorlf M tna ot+arar ovary lour paara) waJO MA andad tl>r 1nlar~uana aradplon program' paan ago Nh tnorr tit tAa d~landarta ara Iydnp tlla fait d that aouorn hom a+. alr:arK. and an taNr+g to ~p,ole arr..om od+ d dlba to ddand ua agars aornaatk arwrrwM A~ Nca'a txldga ender traelad wear. tt+a dMandarri o~nlrua t0 M uti down MN Know O+at war tAa aniding d l+a aou+lar~pr~oductM marf)earr aradkation program. d» goo0 an0 awh/ rriaORana d IlawaY Canty M Irld fwlnp and larglw»aa. and rM1sn b tt» oontllorr d Narrtrorry one proaparMy that nature and DNIna W1a Iwo arx~da0 O+arn AIOAa Pnrwaa wna, .guns.. aooM aaarKy rrsnbar one pAon. raaroar d dJy rgwn0 Mach d Hawaii Camp for puipoaaa d tt11a IYPtACNYENT PETtTiON PrlMad Nana flpnaturs Eoe. Sae. No. Florio no. t) 2.) 3) ~ s- / ~ s) ~~?'~.?26 - 6) 7) '-~~~Q.~=C C~rayso~., C?~c~1,ca,~ z z-4saZ. • . at~aw fn a oast d few YW aQaa b aooapt N,~1 and tigtft as a pan1Y lam d ~waCa R 1a ou Olaf aw a tlrnNp and deal mandatory program ravlaar (aa cooed fortf, n ar charter waft' lau yaara) t+o,10 hvr adad ttn 'n,arf~,arn aradlcatlan program' years ago Nh know f,at tf,a dMandanb a,a Nldrq tin In/h d tl,ai acroan from an aa:•na. aro an aNrg b uphotl tt,ar sworn aaa+ d dlba b ddard us apr,at aofrnslk ananwaa AA+ch aka 'a ts,dga under trar0lad waaa'. On dfardarKS oonann b lot ua danr, YVa krfow tht wah tfn afdlnp d U,a aouilar~produclM fnafijNafla araOdlbn program, ar good and lawh/ tihaoaanb d ?tawaN Counyr M fYd haairg and fo?gNanua. and ratan b ti,a oondaorr d Iwmon)I and pro~parlly that r,apsa and Olrr•n V11r ti» anaaad tlrrn Aloha Prntad Hama. aoeial aaeurRp nun0ar and phone rrsnpar d duly rgslaraC alaaa d ?fawM Casriy for purpoaaa d era IYPEACNYENT PETITION. Prlr,tad Nann nature 800. Sae. No. Ptfofn rq. 21 Cct* SfCL')a/' ~.t./vw?~ /4H`~y;t'SD~ 7'f6'Z1'$l a) 9 5-o8S9 n.,.•,+.~ Holt ~.,.,c.•~,l/•ry ,~v-.iy-e9i'7 q`s.if3~? s? ~'l% n~ A S 8365209 fl) ~ ti,4, Ol - -}~o ~3 71 6 2 7) - ~ - ~.16~M', a> . -cc~-r ~ ~ t fi rcc 'K; a~a qbt -cam • aCO+rr• n a eaR d b yVa apraa b soap tu/, and qt as a para~l brm d MaOoa R • au Oil tht a IYnMy and onaal raandalor~ )~roprara ranla~ (as caNd forth n sr tArtw awy lour years) word lfava ardad Q»'rrrar~rana araanUOn program' years apo n?a tnow ftil tlr dabndaras era Mdrq h tuN d tl,si acaar from f>• dtl>:arts, aro an tabq b upf?dd OwY swam aalA d dfba b dMand ua apsr+at domasMe ananw? Much tb 'a trfdps under trardsd w1~. ~ drfandsrb oorwntw b III uiI dDrwr YW tnow Itit wdE, a» ardnp d Or oouasr~ro0uclM marina aradleatbn program. 0» good and IaMr~ 1rtw01trrb d F1ar»Y CouAy wi fYfd AaaYq and for~nsss, and rsnan b h eondaorr d Aarmor>y and proaparlly Otit rt.a+a and Ow1rr 1NN hM arti0ad tMm AIoAa PrnIW rwrw, siprtiara socdl Neatly runbar and D~~ number d duly ragiatand M~cYOr d Flawai Courny for purpoaas d dtia IYPEACNYENT PETITION PrlMad Nana Slpnatun soo. eaa. No. Phone no. Ya~r In 1 /lcn~i ,'o ~Ltiua GVill~i ~ 52! - tlC3 'd 9SZ z) F MO T ~ 0'R~n -a5-a51~o 3) a`i-g5-i~~ xt;-y`-y9~9 s s. 4) ?C 9!!- 996fJ ~ ~s~c ~ ~ e) t ~ K.-... ~ ~ - / - 523 8" - H~~~ f4u s? pro W. ~lf~ftrzx I Ssp~ r-/yii 4~y~~6 apwa n a Dart d law Mh agaa to aoottpt t+uRt and tit as a paraal form d ~+aaoa tt a ar Herat ttrt a ttmaly and onsal nnndatory program ratrMw (as c~asd forth n ttr dfarw awy bu yaant) war01w0 ended tlta tirtar9tatrta aradkaaon P~wm~ yws W~ know il1M tlr dahndar'RS era h6r~ the trMh d Orsr attiw~s tram the o0sena, and an fairtp b uphold tlt« swum oath d Olfp b dafartd us aganat domasOC anamrs rtAuch ~a •a ttrl0~a under trot~lad waMr', tt+a dafandar4s tonOrx~a b tal w down Wt know tNl w~ d1a ardnq d the oarear~productta maryuarta aradCaOOn proQam. d+a good an0 Iarlt/ IM+abltanb d FlawaY COUttty wtl Md hNMg and toryiwws. and return to the oonaaorr d f+rmory and proaparlty tltY rtaA+n and Orvrr WTI have anOdad tharrt AIOha r~rx,tad rnrna. sgr+.a.•. sooal ssaray nutwar and phor» rrrr~Dar a dt+ly regwtarad etsaor d htawa~ County for purpoNS d tltM IYPEACMMENT PETITION Prlntad Name Slynatura Soo. Sae. N0. PIgrM n0. -U 1.~ i 2) s) Cti \ 3 11-51gs 3 - ~1~1 5) 1~ ~ ~ 5 6} 8 • aDOVw n a aoist d law We agree b aooapt ttl:t and ~ as a par0al loan d ~atioa R • at Oaaa101a1 a tkrlaly and CrtOCr tltafldalorr program nrrlew (aa Caaed far0~ n Rr dnnar e~rery tors years) world have erow IAe 'rryrguarr erarlr~aon program' yens ago yW krow Otal Cre dalendaras are Itidrq dta lrtllt d Qreir aabrn from fJn atuens. and an harg b ~ttdd that swam oath d afltoe b dr+ferd w agarat dorrwsac ensures I~Auch be 'a txrdga urlde? troubls0 wetsr', the defendants rpnarR» b tR is down vYe IR1Dw thal wah the endrtg d On ootsaar~roduCat+e marikr+a eradica8or? program. tM good and ttwft/ rtnpaaras d FlawaY Canyr w• ftd heeM+p and fargrvenas. and roam b tt+e oorraoorr d harnwny and proeperMy that Haan and Orvrr VVN hares entrned them. Aloha Prr+ted name. sgryttre. soUal senrny rasrrber and phone nunraar d drly regrtterW efeGOr d htawarl CauRy for pupoMS d the IMPEACMYENT PETITION Printed Name Signature Soc. Bee. N0. Plwne no. / 4 z 1 ~~clt~~ Wes~r+ ~ Sh ti~-f6d3 pct-~1'G 31 ~}ev+n rJr'n~S~,a«? ~s ~ ~ I'~L'9/77 4) 5) 6) 7) 81 91 Virginia Lsbell t~ w Phonc No.: (808) 326-5684 Councilh4emher Fax No.: (SOR) 329-4786 Disrr[cr 7-Cenrro[Kona E-Mail: visbcll(c~co.hawaii.hi.us Oh•o`•N'~M~ HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawul 75-5706 Hanama Place, Sui[e !09 Kailua-Kona, //awai'i 96740 October 3, 2005 Stacy Higa, Chair Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Corporation Council Published Opinion No. 2005-06 Re: Petition for Impeachment and seeks impeachment of the Mayor and eight sitting Hawaii County Council members. Pursuant to Section 2(g) of Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of the County of Hawaii, this written request is submitted with my approval that the above-referenced matter be waived from the Committee on Finance to the full Council for immediate action. In reviewing this matter, timely approval is crucial. It is therefore advantageous that approval is granted and the matter placed onto the next Council agenda for review. However, in the event this request is denied, for whatever reason, I understand the matter shall be referred to the Committee on Finance for placement on its future agenda. Sincerely, ~ i Virgin' Isbell, Chair Committee on Finance Approved/D~te/Waive~to Coun~ Disapproved/Date/Refer to FC: / ' cy Hi ~ hair Stacy Higa, Chair Hawaii County Council Hawaii County Council VI:nw Hawaii C'aunty /s An Equa! Opportunity Provider And Employer