Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0226.001 2006-2008 • N„~ Lincoln S.T. Ashida .w%€ Corporation Counsel Harry Kim Mayor Gerald Takase ~'~,.1 • Assistant Corporation Counsel COUNTY OF HAWAII OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4262 • (808) 961-8251 Fax (808) 961-8622 March 22, 2007 Sent via email to all Council Members; hard copv also to the Chair Honorable Pete Hoffmann and Members of the ~ Hawaii County Council ~ - N County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Ave., 2nd Floor Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Hoffmann and Council Members: - RE: Confirmation of Patricia Provalenko to the County of Hawaii Salary Commission Hearing Date: April 4, 2007 At the initial confirmation hearing held before the Hawaii County Council Committee on Finance on March 20, 2007, Council Member Dominic Yagong sought the assistance of our office in providing a written summary concerning Salary Commission nominee Patricia Provalenko's employment, and the fact there was no conflict of interest with the County if she is confirmed. As noted at the March 20th meeting, Ms. Provalenko has served with distinction as a member of the 2006 Cost of Government Commission. Ms. Provalenko presently manages Hanama Place in Kona for K. Taniguchi, t_td. She has managed this property since 1989 when the County first moved into the building. As we understand it, recent negotiations are complete, and the amendments are presently with the landlord for signature. This issue was initially raised by representatives of the Finance Department, who were familiar with Ms. Provalenko's employment. Finance Department personnel have no objections to Ms. Provalenko's service as a board or commission member. They simply thought it prudent to bring this matter to our attention. We thank the Finance Department for promoting transparency in government, and allowing us to properly analyze this issue. Ms. Provalenko represents, and we concur, that her position as the property manager for Hanama Place does not amount to a conflict of interest, nor does it rise to the level of constituting a significant appearance of imp~o~m too --2--2-.~~p-,,, ; Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and Provider Ref• To:hereaMd Caw Ref. Uate tt~'hc 0 4 2001 Honorable Pete Hoffmann and Members of the Hawaii County Council March 22, 2007 Page 2 such that she is barred from service on the County of Hawaii Salary Commission. Salary commissioners are tasked with the responsibility of reviewing the County's salary schedule, and setting salaries for elected County officials and department heads. They are guided by our Hawaii County Charter (2000), which provides very specific criteria for them to follow. In our opinion, there is an insufficient nexus between Ms. Provalenko's employment as property manager for Hanama Place and the duties of a salary commissioner so as to amount to an actual conflict of interest pursuant to our Hawaii County Code of Ethics. Further, we believe there is not a significant appearance of impropriety such that service by Ms. Provalenko on the Salary Commission would be deemed inappropriate. Thank you for allowing our office to analyze this issue. Please contact me in advance of our next Council meeting if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Very truly yours, V" " LINCOLN S. T. ASHIDA Corporation Counsel c: Honorable Harry Kim, Mayor S: Boards/Salary Commission/Corresp./Letter to Council re P Provalenko 3-22-07/LSAmr ~ Article II, Section 2-84, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 ed.) provides in pertinent part as follows: (c) No officer or employee shall assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity before any County agency for a contingent compensation in any transaction involving the County. (d) No officer or employee shall assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity for a fee or other compensation to secure passage of a bill or to obtain a contract, claim, or other transaction or proposal in which the officer or employee has participated or will participate as an officer or employee, nor shall the officer or employee assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity for a fee or other compensation on such bill, contract, claim, or other transaction or proposal before the council or agency of which that person is an employee or officer. (e) No officer or employee shall assist any person or business or act in a representative capacity before a County agency for a fee or other consideration on any bill, contract, claim, or other transaction or proposal involving official action by the agency if the officer or employee has official authority over that County agency unless the officer or employee has complied with the disclosure requirements of section 2-91.1.