Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0586.005 2010-2012Page 1 of 2 Offenbaker, Steve From: Jennifer.Z.Brooks @hawaii.gov Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 12:58 PM To: Offenbaker, Steve Subject: Re: Executive Session regarding Communication No. 586 Yes, as we discussed, the 2/15 agenda did not give the public any notice that the Council would be considering hiring special counsel to represent the county as to the fourth person's claim, since that claim wasn't identified either by name of claimant (as the other three were) or by a description of the claim. Although the Council cannot change the fact that an apparent violation occurred, the Council can essentially "cure" the public impact of the violation by redoing the action that was taken with respect to the fourth person's claim. The Council's own procedures will determine the method by which it redoes the item (whether through a motion to reconsider or some other process); the important thing will be to ensure that this time the public has notice that the Council will be considering hiring special counsel for the fourth person's claim so that interested members of the public can testify on that issue (and so the Council members can consider that testimony). Please let me know if you have any further questions. Aloha, Jennifer Jennifer Z. Brooks Staff Attorney Office of Information Practices From: "Offenbaker, Steve" <soffenbaker @co.hawaii.hi.us> To <Jennifer.Z.Brooks @hawaii.gov> Date: 03/08/2012 11:54 AM Subject: Executive Session regarding Communication No. 586 W Aloha Jennifer, Per our phone conversation today I am writing you this email to memorialize our conversation and to allow me to better present your thoughts to the Clerk and Council Members. As I explained, at the 2 -15 -12 meeting of the Hawai'i County Council Communication No. 586 was heard in executive session. I provided you with copies of Communication No. 586 and all related communications as well.as the 2 -15 -12 Council agenda. The Council voted to concur with the recommendations of Corporation Counsel, that recommendation included authorizing the hiring of special counsel to represent the County of Hawaii not only in the claims filed by the three people listed on the agenda, but in other matters that relate to those claims listed on the agenda as well as an additional person not listed on the agenda. You advised that this is a potential violation of HRS Chapter 92 and that the best action the Council could take to rectify the situation would be to "redo it ". Could you please reply to me with your opinion as to the best way for us to proceed in this situation. Mahalo, 3/9/2012 C) CD Comm. No. 5g6-5- Ref. To: Ref. Dated ` 2012---