Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0855.022 2018-2020 {d-i:}t,r3 ;3 -CLERK, , 1 s K, i Mon 4/6/2020 12:40 PM 2920 APR _6 M !: L OPPOSE RESOLUTION 568-20 To: Council Testimony Aloha Honorable County Council, I am send this email to OPPOSE resolution 568-20 and request that my representatives from Puna, as well as other district representatives,vote NO against this resolution in its'current form. The issue I have with this resolution is the attached wording of C-855,which is not consistent with the resolution. The resolution states reimbursement for costs incurred up to December.31,2019,while the attached wording of the MOA includes additional funding for an unspecified amount with no end date.When this issue was addressed last year,the Chairman of the County Council,Aaron Chung,referred to the request as "The Mother of All Blank Checks". That was when they tried to include an additional$10 million for a 5- year period. This current resolution has no specified amount or determined end date-which is worse. I believe this is a continuation of a deceptive practice and is unconscionable. First of all,this is Not how business is done. When would a county legislative body ever approve and commit the county resources and funds for an unspecified amount with no time limit? This resolution is to approve negotiations for reimbursement for 2019. The way it was submitted with the attached wording already includes an MOA or agreement. It's like putting the cart ON TOP of the horse. Furthermore,the two documents are inconsistent and do not correlate with each other. One is for past reimbursements and the other (C-855)commits us to future services and reimbursements. Is it even for the Council to approve this because it is essentially a multi-year deal that they are engaging in. Also,do we commit funding and services without even knowing what that commitment is? I would also like to point out that there is a pandemic going with severe economic impacts. As we are in the midst of this crisis,how can we consciously commit to such an agreement when we haven't even gotten to the point when we can assess the needs of the population and determine what future resources and funding are available and needed? This is a state level concern as well and should not be entered into by either party- except to settle past reimbursements from 2019 to balance the books. I think it is unconscionable that these games are being played out again-holding the County hostage to reimbursements,conditioned upon future funding.The Executive Branch has shamelessly doubled down on this tactic and are shooting themselves in the foot again. Taking advantage of the COVID-19 crisis is not only deceptive,but further destroys the trust and integrity of government. Please do not participate in their schemes and send this resolution back to be corrected-and not conditioned on future funding. • Any future operations need to be specified and justified with a budget-just like any other business. We cannot accept requests for blank checks. That is unacceptable. Furthermore,other reasons that must be considered are : • Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, issues relating to the Mauna Kea were the most important public issues in the state. It is unfair that this resolution -which was hotly contested by the public, is being heard during a period that prevents in person public testimony and interaction. Comm. No. $SS'22 Ref.To: Pt UM Ref. Date APR - S 202 • There is no specified amount of funds detailed on the MOA or specified end date. This effectively can make the MOA unlimited in funding with no end date. • The jurisdiction where the police operations and activity of the protest are situated on Hawaiian Home Lands and the ownership and control of the MKAR are in dispute. • We are currently experiencing a pandemic with severe economic repercussions. Not only is it irresponsible and unwise to enter into an unlimited future commitment of taxpayer funds— but it inappropriate to consider such expenditures until after higher priority public needs are determined and met as a result of the pandemic. • The purpose of the resolution is to authorize the ability to enter into an agreement— not approve a potential agreement that may result from negotiations. That fact that a pre- conditional agreement(C-855) is being attached to this resolution, which is also contains conditions that exceed the previous disapproved agreement— is putting the cart on TOP of the horse. You are essentially asking the Council to approve the resolution and agreement simultaneously—which is a violation of procedure. Mahalo, Juergen L. Canda I(eaau, Hawaii I '