HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1267.001 2006-2008
°',k,,~ Lincoln S.T. Ashida
` i,;~; Corporation Counsel
Harry Kim ' ' ~ "
i;
Mayor ' '
Gerald Takase
Assisfanf Corporation
~~t: of N~~'`' Counsel
COUNTY OF HA~IUAI`I
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4262 (808) 961-8251 Fax (808) 961-8622
May 29, 2008
Sent via emar'!~ no hard co will follow ,~~~r
a
Honorable Pete Hoffmann and Members of `
the Hawaii County Council
Coun{~~/ of Hawaii ,~~i ::~{Y
/ 4 F r'
nd iv v
a. , t
333 Kilauea Ave., 2 Floor
' .~W L ~ ~..r .:,rm
~a. r
Hilo, HI 96720
.
Dear Chair Hoffmann and Council Members:
RE; Melissa Chang v. County of Hawaii, Hawaii Coun#y Council
EEOC No. 37B-2007-00006
An article in the May 29, 2008 edition of the West Hawai' i Today
erroneously suggests the Hawaii County Council may effectively waive the
attorney-client privilege concerning discussions of this case, thereby making the
records and discussions of this case immediately public. This is not legally
correct.
What remains in effect at the present time is the order of the Federal
Administrative Law Judge sealing the records of this case, pursuant to the
Federal Privac Ac#. This request was made at the request of the plaintiff. Any
y f .
waiver of the attorney-client privilege by the Council will have no legal effect on
the order of the Administrative Law Judge. In effect, the order of the Court
controls.
UVhat the newspaper article should have correctly reported is once this
case has reached its conclusion, and the order of the Administrative Law Judge
is lifted, extinguished, or is no longer in place, then it will be the decision of the
client Hawaii County Council whether to waive the attorney-client privilege in
order to allow public review of any privileged documents or discussions. For the
time being, the order of the Court must be respected, and we so advise our client
Hawaii County Council.
C ~
Hawaii Count is an E ua1 Opporfunity Employer and Provider Re#. Y~
Y q
def. Da~b,:~,~
Honorable Pete Hoffmann and Members of the
Hawai` i County Council
May 29, 2008
Page 2
As reported a number of times in the media, Councilmember Stacy Higa
has indicated a desire to make the contents of this case public. The following
caveat appears in Judge 1Nilliam Schmidt's order:
WARNING: Pursuant to Complainant's motion, the record in this case has been
sealed. This Decision is a part of the record X29 CFR 1603.21?(b~) and must not
be disclosed except to the extent necessary for continued litigation in this case.
No party is authorized to disclose this decision or any portion of the record for
any other purpose without prior authorization to do so. To seek authorization for
disclosure, a motion to that effect must be filed with the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036.
Councilmember Higa has also correctly observed that his persona!
interests and the interests of the Employer County of Hawai' i may not be
consistent in this case. For this reason, Councilmember Higa may wish to have
his private attorneys seek an authorization for disclosure of the sealed records
pursuant to the caveat cited above.
Further, assuming Judge Schmidt's order specifically authorizes only a
party to seek authorization for disclosure, this Council via majority vote may
authorize our office to motion the EEOC to lift the order and allow non-privileged
documents and things to be made public.
Deputy Corporation Counsel Joseph K. Kamelamela, lead counsel in this
case for the County of Hawaii will appear before the Council on June 3 as
requested to answer any questions you may have. fn the interim time, if you
have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Mr. Kamelamela or
mein advance of the meeting.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
LINCOLN S. T. ASHIDA
Corporation Counsel
c: County Clerk
Laura Murashige
LF: WRK 07-1576 05-29-08 letter to CouncillLSAmr