HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0085.001 1996-1998 Januar:r 21 , 1~P: ' RECENED
Time------------- r- B
Finance Committee y
Hawai i Caunty Counci 1 Date.--•_--------~J.2:/-(-`?~.------°------
H i l o Ha~n+a i i 96; 20 County Council - l c
Re: Bill 30 Part {b)f3) which allows Caunty officers or
employees to sue #o recover costs and a#torr~eys fees from
any per=_.or~ who ha=_. filed a petition which the Baard of
Ethics deems to be "frivolous."
Chrprsn. Chung ~ members of the Hawaii Caunty Finance Comm.
Hawai Cou ttv is consid r? arl ethical w~. #eland by
ma=_.t pevp~e par~ly because oef i s 'hear na evils, see na
evil" Board of Ethics, and partly because of the political
machinations that dominate Board of E#hic=_. ruling=_..
I urge you to delete ire i#s entirety part {b){3) on
page 3 of Bill 30. It is a bill that is very de=_.#ructive to
the public interest, i,~ill further diminish the alread>• law
.regard in which the Ethic=_. Baard is held, and wilt promo#e
une#hical behavior by Beverly inhibiting the public from
bringing issues before the Ethic=_ Board.
Part {b){3) of this bill should be dole#ed far the
following reasons.
1. There i=_. na good reason far this bill.
If there are members of the coun6~l who believe there
is wide=_.pread abuse of the public in bringing alleged
ethical viola#ions before the Ethics Board, let's hear
specifically as. to examples of the "frivolous cases," that
are "wi#h out merit," and brought in "Gad fai#h" that
necessitate this draconian action.
To be fair, let`s also hear from those charged with
bringing the=_e sa called "frivolous case=_" to the board. Bob "
Lerro of Puna, the #arget of #his bill, is here toda;.' and
I'm sure would cooperate UJith any effort to clarify such
matters. A discussion tv de#ermine the need for and meri# of
part {b){3) is certainly in order.
Having ~.~~atched with interes# the cases brough# by Mr.
Lerro it is mi' belief that his conduct before the Ethics
Beard was of the highest integrity, and it is the Ethic=_
Board's behavior that needs tv be examined na± the rules
under which Mr. Lerro brings substantive charges. Bob Lerro
is a "citizen doing citizen's VJOrk" who deserve=_ the
admiration and respec# of the council and the community.
Bab Lerro should be commended for his work, ra#her than
being the catalys# for part {b>{3) of Bill 30, a. bill meant
to extinguish such dedicated attempts a=_. hi=_ at achieving
e#hical standards in this. ethical wasteland.
~Iw 85• o~
xo. f+cC
xet Presented FG
Ie~r. Date ~lW 21 ? at
2. If Part {b7{S? of of Bill ~G ie. pa=_.sed, it will:
{a? stretch to the breaKing point the already eroded public
confidence in the Ethics Board, and
{b? encourage and promote a further deterioration in the
ethical standards of coun#y officials by intimidating those
members of the public into not bringing forth charges far
fear of having to defend them=_.eives in a lawsuit should the
Board of Ethics seeK to da sa.
3. The Board or Ethics Rules already has a provision that
it can reject frivolous suits. Therefore, part {bi{3? of
#hi=_ bill is totally unnece=_.sary excep# to intimidate the
public from bringing alleged ethical misconduct to the
a#ter~tian of the Ethics Board.
4. Even if there should be a so called "frivolous case"
Cwhich the Board can refuse to hear according to its pre=_.ent
rule=_.i it is well worth i# if it means that a justified case
is.n't thwarted because a citizen feels intimidated by legal
and court casts if the Board calls the case "frivolous."
Who i=_. to say whether ar not its "frivolous" far
someone to bring charges of ethical misconduct against the
Planning Director and staff and members of the Planning
Commission ar~d their family members for free hotel rooms at
the Four Sea=_.ons Resort last month {six free rooms for every
one paid for? since #his ethicall>• disgusting practice has
been going on for same time and now seems to be standard
operating procedure. One can't help wonder if the Four
Sea=_.ons "generosity" was a pay off for favor=_. already done,
ar favors yet to be awarded.
There'=_. not a chance in the i•aorld that the Ethics Board
will de#ermine that an ethics violation has occurred in this
case so who will dare bring it to their attention if, after
cleared 6;.' the Ethics Board, the P1ar~.Director and Planning
Gommission member=_ can turn around and =_.ue the citizen who
has brought this matter to #heir atter~tian and has to hire
an attorne>~ to defend him ar herself for being an e#hical
citizen in :an ethical wasteland.
Under the influence of a "hear no evil see no evil"
Count>~ Board of Ethics, r_oun#;r officials apparently can no
longer distinguish between right and wrong. Thi=_. bill itself
is a glaring example of the ethical sewer that this coun#y
lives in.
4. Since Councilperson Leithead was chair obi the Ethics
Board, - - -and deeply
involved in the is=_.ues driving Part {b?{:~? of ~ 11 3G, I asK
that Councilpersans Leithead excuse ~r
from voting an thi=_ bill to avoid a conflict of interest and
It is after
all, the ethical thing to do.
Thi=_. bill is i•ec another attempt b>• the Yai~~amshira
administration to minimize public participation in
government proces=_e=_. In this instance it is intimidating
the public with threats of lawsuits in order to minimize
charges of unethical conduct. Last weeK it was restricting
public involvement in the planning process bi' charging far
par#icipating in a contested ca=_e hearing. Next week it will
be something else. I hope the County Council isn't adopting
the Yamashiro agenda.
If the Hawaii Caunti' Council wants public par#icipatian
in raising ethical standards of Hawaii County, part tb7i3)
of this bill needs to be deleted.
5. The agenda listing for Bill 30 is seriously flawed ire
that it makes no mention what=_.oever of the "frivolous
petition" part of this bill. Don't you agree that this
listing should be corrected? Better yet, let it remain a=_.
i=_.. Just drop (b?(3) from the bill. If the Hawaii County
Council wan#s to promote unethical behavior in counti•
government, then this bill will accomplish that goal. I'm
certain >•ou want the former, not the latter and trust that
you will act accordingli' b/y rejecting part Cb>(3) of Bi1130.
Yours ar ethical ove rry~nt,
derr a~s~ i , G~~`
' Hawa i i i <_.l an~9~:?40