The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0001.025 2008-2010(u~5. 4f~1 /C.~M,~. 1 Yoshimoto, J From: Babaku@aol.com Page 1 of 1 2006 DEC 1 P~112 ~~• r~~•• Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 10:58 AM ^ ~~jl ~?,' ' ~_.. ~ ` , ~i To: joshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us ,,Gl1NT Cc: phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us; enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us; dyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us;, dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us; bford@co.hawaii.hi.us; kapilago@co.hawaii.hi.us; shannonkona@gmail.com; nancyredfeather@yahoo.com Subject: we need to be able to question "authority" or we cease to be democratic Aloha Council member Yoshimoto, Congratulations on your "promotion". I know you are just trying to speed things up by the proposed rule changes and I understand, having sat through many years of council meetings. However, I am very concerned about council members not being able to answer questions of the testifiers. For example, In past meetings council members would have been "prohibited" from asking questions of the testifiers, the truth of who these testifiers were, and their conflicts of interest would not have surfaced. As it was, many had conflicts of interest and did not disclose them. Also, most people will leave after testifying and then would not be there to answer a question at the end. Can't we please compromise on this rule? Say, council members can ask questions, but not comment? Council members have that particular moment to add to their knowledge of the issue to make better informed decisions. I think this one rule change would be a tragedy for the important decisions that you all have to make. I know you are a reasonable man and see the benefit of having all of the information that you need -minus the comments but not the important questions. Please modify this proposed rule to include questions from council members, they are very important. Again, congratulations and good luck! Mahalo, Shannon Rudolph I agree, Doug Fox Honaunau Comm. No. ~• 2.S Ref. Toy Preaeciad unc;.l Ref. Date^ DEC-.~ 12/1/2008 (~,~; 5 Yoshimoto, J From: Babaku@aol.com Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 8:32 PM Page 1 of 1 ~-~(~C,o~i~.1 trtC_~,_ , , ~_ tODtl DEC 1 Pn 1?_ ~2 To: jyoshimotor~co.hawaii.hi.us C;T~.!~ . `~' '~ ~~ ~~~ ii: E t: `dd; ,,kl Cc: shannonkona~gmail.com; nancyredfeather~yahoo.com; paulwnomia~iri@yahoo.com; mh@interpac.net; ja@interpac.net; galenis@hawaiiantel.net; ELESLIE@co.hawaii.hi.us; Deckersley@co.hawaii.hi.us; moana.tavares@gmail.com Subject: my revised opinion of testimony schedule change proposal: opposed. Aloha John, Upon reflection I am now opposed to changing the format of testimony and questioning. Here are some concerns 1 now have with this proposal.. It seems more than ironic that this change of format proposal came up after the GMO veto override testimony. We all remember the testimony of the UH GMO researcher in favor of the veto who was questioned as to whether she was being paid at that moment; and how she replied. I think everyone in the room and on teleconference immediately understood her testimony in light of a potential conflict of interest. Most people watching value this kind of full discosure, delivered as a timely package. The testimony is for the public as much as for Council. One problem with the revised rules for delayed questioning by Council would be in the case of someone such as that researcher, who might not want to submit to questioning or disclosure and who could use the inconvenience of waiting out the other testimony as reason not to respond or be present after testimony. Defensiveness is readity apparent when some people do answer Council questions but that should not be blamed on simple due diligence. County Council has at least as much responsibility for public advocacy as the general public, because they represent us and have prosecutorial powers the testifiers do not have. We all realize from letters to the editor that there are some very unhappy people after the veto override who have been mischaracterizing the Council's normal due diligence in questioning as an unfair bias, but that charge is ridiculous on its face and can be discredited by simpty viewing the DVD of what transpired. Further, I do not really see how the Sunshine rule applies since the public is raising the issues in testimony without any prior discosure, warranty, or brief....these issues are literally read into the agenda by the testifiers in accordance with their Constitutional rights, regardless of what the Council might think of them. I believe the Council is within its rights to debate these issues, question, and demand credentials of testifiers immediately as they would any other agendized business. We might think of the present format as a self organized agenda by its vital participants, who meet all legal criteria for petition. Balanced against the perceived scheduling benefits of delayed testimony I do see advantages to leaving things as they are. If a person signs up to testify early, is called, and then answers any questions, they can go home or back to work. The rest of us are going to have to wait in any case. We can find out where we stay in the queue and guesstimate the wait time. I enjoyed the testimony and comments from Council and felt it was time well spent teaming about our own government. I never got to testify on the GMO veto override but was not at all disappointed as we were able to bring the issue to a vote before Dominic had to leave, and we the people won a consensus vote with our Council. However under the proposed change, all the interesting testimony has to be recalled for questioning hours later, so we would keep back a lot of people. I honestly do not see the savings. IsnY it kind of a wash, inconvenience vs. inconvenience? All of us were stimulated listening to some of the experts and others who testified and more so as Council's questioning elaborated their message. Breaking it up into two parts would disrupt the flow from testimony to give and take while the issues are still formative and breaking. So I think in sum I now would like to urge you to keep the status quo. We kind of like how things are right now. Mahalo, Doug Fox 12/1/2008 Page 1 of 1 ~t::,.:. , . ~ ,~ From: Babaku@aol.com ~~~8 ~~~ ~ ~~1 ~~ 32 ~~.~ Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:43 PM ~,r-~ To: jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us (;~;.~ ~'~ ~_ , ; r., Cc: ja@interpac.net; nancyredfeather~yahoo.com; paulwnormann@ya w.com; mh@interpac.net; galenis@hawaiiantel.net; dfly@dragonflyranch.com; loukom@hawaiiantel.net; jasper(a~vacafionhifo.com; shannonkona~gmail.com; shannontaylor5679@msn.com; GMmonko@aol.com; phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us; enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us; bford@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: one last thing on this testimony proposal for change... " Aloha John, I seem to be a little slow to catch on here. Apparently there is more to this proposal for change than the points about scheduling questions and the Sunshine Law. I never even heard about having to presubmit written testimony the previous day. There is absolutely no need to do this and it would place an additional burden on testimony. Restricting testimony to three minutes is not a good idea, witness the majority of testfiers who use their full quota. We testifiers are not paid. Council is. If we can sit through long testimony unpaid so can those who are compensated. We deserve the chance to make our sacrifice of work hours meaningful. All other points were covered in my last email. Overall now that 1 know what was proposed, 1 am very disappointed in how this has gone down. Please keep the status quo. This proposal sounds like someone using a straw man argument, to be honest. The people are certainly not asking for it. Mahalo, Doug Fox 12/1/2008