Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-09 Regular Session Minutes HAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES—REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, October 9, 2019 10:01 a.m. to 11:48 a.m. Hawai`i County Building 25 Aupuni Street County Council Chambers Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Members and Staff Present: Rick Robinson, Chair David Wiseman, Vice Chair Nan Sumner-Mack, Member Angelic Malia Hall, Deputy Corporation Counsel Maria Pagala, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER (10:01 a.m.) Mr. Robinson: Okay if we could, we'll call ourselves to order. I'd like to ask the Board Members to introduce themselves starting to my left. Ms. Sumner-Mack: And Nan Sumner-Mack. Mr. Wiseman: David Wiseman, retired judge. Mr. Robinson: And myself, Rick Robinson. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS (10:02 a.m.) Mr. Robinson: So we'd like to start with statements from the public on agenda items and we have one request for statements. Bobbye St. Ambrogio. So did you want to make a public statement or just -. wait for your petition? Ms. St. Ambrogio: [inaudible] Mr. Robinson: Okay, we'll get to that in the order. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2019. (10:03 a.m.) Mr. Robinson: Next on the agenda, the approval of the regular session minute Ms. Sumner-Mack: I move that they be approved. Mr. Wiseman: I don't think it's proper for me to second, I wasn't here. 1 Mr. Robinson: Oh. Mr. Wiseman: But as a procedure motion, I'll second. Mr. Robinson: Okay. So moved and seconded that we approve the minutes from the September 11, 2019 meeting. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Motion and Vote: Ms. Sumner-Mack moved to approve the September 11, 2019 minutes. Mr. Wiseman seconded the motion. All members present voted aye. 4. NEW BUSINESS (10:03 a.m.) a. Petition No. 2019-04: Request for an informal advisory opinion from a former County officer or employee to determine compliance with Section 2-91.2(b) (Post-employment) of the Hawaii County Code because his current employer wants to include him in projects involving the Hawaii County Wastewater Division, his former employer. Mr. Robinson: Okay, new business. And that is Curtis Bailey. Would you come forward and have a seat Curtis. We'll give you the floor. Mr. Bailey: Well. As it states in my attachment a. or attachment 1., I just wanted to be clear on what my roles could be in my new position with my new company, Kennedy Jenks. There are several existing projects that are listed one through four on the first page. And then there's new contracts coming up under sections e. and f., of the top of second page. And so I just wanted to get your opinion on whether or not I would be in violation or in not following County Code. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Bailey. During your tenure with WWD, it appears it was only a week since you retired and then you started working for this consultant company. Is that right? Mr. Bailey: It was...well it was two days actually. Mr. Wiseman: Okay. So it...it looks like you did have previous contact quite a bit with this other company. The company you're working for now while you were with WWD. Mr. Bailey: Right. In as far as like work contracts...yes. 2 Mr. Wiseman: In the contracts...you're asking for...to be...which the opinion would address. It seems like these are all ongoing contracts where you had some involvement while you were government employee. Is that right? Mr. Bailey: Correct. Mr. Wiseman: Okay. Mr. Bailey: Then I guess I'd like to point out that...as far as the consultant selection while I was with the Wastewater Division...I was only directly involved with iii. Papaikou & Kulaimano Wastewater contract. The other three contract...I was not involved with the selection process for that choice...for to choose Kennedy Jenks as the consultant, at the time. Mr. Wiseman: Thank you. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Were you involved in any way of the awarding of the contract to this consulting firm? Mr. Bailey: When you say award... Ms. Sumner-Mack: Were you involved in the management decision to select them...to carry on? Mr. Bailey: It's kind of a continuation of my last statement so...I was a part of the selection committee. So that was...I was one out of three individuals. The other two people would be my supervisor, my higher supervisor...were the other two members on that selection committee. I was on that selection committee for item iii. Papaikou & Kulaimano Wastewater Treatment Plant improvements. I was not on the selection committee. So I guess that's...I think what you're getting at is that I was...I wasn't on the selection committee or a part of the selection process for the consultant for any of the other projects...except for Papaikou/Kulaimano...I was on that. Ms. Sumner-Mack: How much of the Papaikou...how much of overall responsibility that you will be...that you have is related to the Papaikou? Mr. Bailey: Currently? Ms. Sumner-Mack: Were. Yes. 3 Mr. Bailey: It's very minimal. It's primarily designed work and I was hired with this new company to be more of a construction manager. And so...I'll probably get a few questions here and there...but it's primarily design project and I'm not really directly involved with it. I think just because I'm with the company now and it's known that we have an ongoing design contract with them. I just wanted to be clear on what my role should be and... Mr. Robinson: You know I have a few questions. Mr. Bailey: Sure. Mr. Robinson: If I could. I noticed that your application in your petition. That your address is 707 Richards Street, Honolulu. Mr. Bailey: That's the office address. Mr. Robinson: So you're filing this petition using your office address and your office email already, instead of your personal... Mr. Bailey: Correct. Mr. Robinson: Address. Mr. Bailey: That's correct. Mr. Robinson: So that's under the assumption that you're already working for them and... Mr. Bailey: I began employment with Kennedy Jenks on June 3rd of 2019. Mr. Robinson: Two days after you left the County. Mr. Bailey: Correct. Mr. Robinson: Okay. And your petition...you actually referenced 2-91.2(b). And if you read 2-91.2(b)...it says no former officer or employee shall within twelve months after termination of the former employer, employee's employment or term of office with the County, assist or represent any person or business or act in any representative capacity for a fee, compensation, or other consideration, or otherwise act for the former officer of employee's own personal economic gain in relation to any specific case, proceeding, contract, application or pending legislation which the former employer or employee, in the course of the former employer, 4 employee's official duties with the County: (1) Had been directly concerned. So you're saying with these, you were not directly concerned with these contracts that Kennedy Jenks...or not Kennedy Jenks...yeah Kennedy Jenks was involved in. Mr. Bailey: I would say in terms of involve with the contract...in terms of procuring the work. I was involved with number iii. Mr. Robinson: You were involved with number iii. Mr. Bailey: Yeah. Mr. Robinson: Directly. Mr. Bailey: Directly. But that's the only project that I was directly involved with. Mr. Robinson: Okay. (2) Had under active consideration: or(3) Had obtained information which by law is not available to the general public. Do you think that you gather any information that was not available to the general public in your prior position? Mr. Bailey: Not that I can think of I was a staff engineer and project manager. So I dealt with...I dealt with the consultants and any information that I have was just due to the background of working at the County...a familiarity with the County Rules and design guidelines and that sort of thing. I mean these are design projects and I don't think that I do...personally. Mr. Robinson: So are the County guidelines and County design standards...is that all available for public? Mr. Bailey: Yeah that's all public knowledge...it's all available information. I'm trying to think if there's anything that I would...special or private information that would give me an advantage over somebody else. I can't think of anything. Mr. Wiseman: What about your contacts in the department, who would need to give some type of approval? Do you think your years of relationships with them would have any advantage? With the contracts stages of phases have to be approved... Mr. Bailey: Mmmhmm. I don't so...personally I don't think so. I think my boss or former boss, Dora Beck, she...I don't think was the type 5 who would...give preferential treatment to me over anybody else...just because I worked there previously. Mr. Wiseman: Thank you. Mr. Robinson: So these four contracts that are listed...are you saying that you're not gonna work on number iii? Mr. Bailey: I would say my...I mean...I would think my involvement would be very limited...if I had free availability to work on it. I mean if the ruling of the Board is that I should not...then I just won't be involved with it at all. But even if I were given the...you know...even if there wasn't a conflict or a problem that you could see. I don't think that I would really be heavily involved. It would be very, very minimal. Mr. Robinson: I just remembered, I forgot to ask you one thing important before we started. Do you want an open or a closed hearing? Mr. Bailey: Oh. Open is fine. Mr. Robinson: Sorry about that. Mr. Bailey: That's okay. I think the other thing that I'd like to mention is...we're talking about these four contracts. But also on the next page, you know there's up and coming work. So I wanted to also mention that item f. general staff augmentation support services, our company just recently was awarded the contract for that work. Maybe a couple of weeks ago. So that original request for proposal was issued on August 7, so I had already been at the company for about two months. Yeah...at that point. So that's another thing...another item that I'd like some feedback on. Mr. Robinson: Were you aware that that was an upcoming contract that your company would be pending on it...when you were employed at the County? Mr. Bailey: I knew that they were seeking some type of staff augmentation. I wasn't sure at that point, who were request for proposal was gonna go out to. I knew that it was probably gonna be Kennedy Jenks and the other companies. Mr. Robinson: Staff augmentation meaning? 6 Mr. Bailey: What that means is...the County will hire on an hourly basis, engineering support services for whatever the County wants or needs to be done. So, it's just based on a time...billable time. So if the County says okay...we need this item and this item and this item, work completed...our employee would do those tasks and bill directly for those hours. It's kind of a different... I've never seen that at the Wastewater Division. I was there for five years. I'd never...this is a new thing for them so. That's kind of in a nutshell what the service would be involved. Mr. Robinson: Board Members? Mr. Wiseman: Nothing for me. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Seems as we ought to trust the people who selected him to had checked him out and decided he was valuable. So I have no objection. Mr. Robinson: So is there a motion then regarding this petition? Ms. Sumner-Mack: I move that we approve it. Or whatever we're supposed to do...we're supposed to prove or second it. What... Mr. Wiseman: I move that we take it under advisement for a short time...for discussion. Mr. Robinson: Okay. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Alright. So I'll withdraw my motion and second his. If you think we should... Mr. Robinson: Take it under advisement. Mr. Wiseman: Take it under advisement. Mr. Robinson: Okay. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Okay. Mr. Robinson: Alright, we're not gonna give you ruling today. You've heard... Mr. Bailey: I didn't expect one. Mr. Robinson: Okay. So all those in favor of taking this under advisement. Okay motion carried. Thank you. 7 Mr. Bailey: Thank you very much. Mr. Robinson: We'll get back to you. Mr. Bailey: Thank you. Mr. Robinson: Is this time sensitive? Mr. Bailey: Oh no. I mean...couple of weeks...two, three weeks. I don't wanna rush you. Mr. Robinson: We don't meet for another month...we'll get back to you. Mr. Bailey: Oh...okay...so you're thinking maybe a month. Okay. Whichever. Thank you. Mr. Robinson: Okay, thank you. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved to take under advisement for further discussion. Ms. Sumner-Mack seconded the motion. All present members voted aye. **Continued at 11:46 a.m.** Mr. Wiseman: Yes. I'd like to make a motion with respect to Bailey's petition. Is that his name? Mr. Robinson: Bailey, right. Mr. Wiseman: Bailey's petition. That we do find conflict to some extent and violation of... I need to see the...in request to legal counsel to prepare a draft if there's any violations of the code and the conflicts that may exist. Ms. Sumner-Mack: I thought we already made a motion on that...take it under advisement and... Mr. Robinson: Well we did. We took it under advisement so now we have a motion to go ahead and issue a... Mr. Wiseman: We had to make it here. Mr. Robinson: Yeah. That we find a violation of the...an ethics violation in the petition of Curtis Bailey. Is there a second? Ms. Sumner-Mack: Alright, I'll second. 8 Mr. Robinson: Okay so moved and seconded that we find a violation in Curtis Bailey's petition in regards to his participation on any government contracts from his current employer named Kennedy Jenks. Ms. Sumner-Mack: I thought it was a possible violation? We didn't exactly decide that. Did we? Mr. Robinson: Well we have find... Mr. Wiseman: Any violation. Mr. Robinson: Yeah. Mr. Wiseman: Well we find conflicts because of the connections. Mr. Robinson: Yeah. Mr. Wiseman: And if there's any possible violation, that's fine, Ms. Sumner-Mack: But I thought we were going to find out whether he was going to work on those...those particular projects and get clarification of those things. Mr. Robinson: Well it says here that he had...anyway. Ms. Sumner-Mack: He said he would not work on number 3. if we said that was in violation...if he's in violation on all of them then we need to say that. Mr. Robinson: Well that's what we're saying. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. So legal counsel will draft an opinion. Mr. Robinson: Yeah. Ms. Sumner-Mack: All right. Mr. Robinson: That he would then comply with conflicts of interest and wait the requisite one year period. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. Mr. Robinson: Okay so all those in favor say aye. Contrary minded. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved for an informal advisory opinion fmding petitioner in violation. Ms. Sumner-Mack seconded the motion. All present members voted aye. 9 b. Petition No. 2019-06: Request for an informal advisory opinion from a County officer or employee to determine whether she would have a conflict of interest to serve on the Hawaii County Police Commission under Section 2-84 of the Hawai'i County Code. Mr. Robinson: The next item on our agenda is Petition 2019-06. And that is Ms. St. Ambrogio...Ambrogio. Good morning. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Good morning. Mr. Robinson: We will give you the floor and allow you to present your petition. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Thank you. Mr. Robinson: Do you want an open or closed hearing? Ms. St. Ambrogio: Open. Thank you. Mr. Robinson: Okay. Thank you. Ms. St. Ambrogio: May I give you some...a paper that...this is my resume and I think it would be relevant for you to address this. Mr. Robinson: Do you have...copies? Ms. St. Ambrogio: I only have one copy with me. Mr. Robinson: Sure. We'll pass it around. Ms. Sumner-Mack: I think she...she's already given quite a bit of her background. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Alright so this is not necessary then? Ms. Sumner-Mack: So it might not be necessary. Ms. St. Ambrogio: I'll hold that in the band. Ms. Sumner-Mack: We could make a copy for the file maybe. Mr. Robinson: We're always happy to look at resumes. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Always happy to see it but I don't think we need... 10 Ms. St. Ambrogio: Thank you. I brought it just in case. Okay. Good morning and aloha Board Members. I am here in reference to Petition No. 2019-06. My reason for submitting this petition is to clarify an issue of conflict of interest involving the volunteer position that I hold a community safety educator Hawai`i Island neighborhood watch and liaison to community policing. This position that I am applying for is the position of course as on the Police Commission representing District 1. I have noted on my applications, specific codes of ethics in question. Please delete HCC section 2-83(c) and note section 2-80 which is the interpretation...under interpretation. This article shall be liberally construed to promote high standards of ethical conduct. That's what that says. In addition, I also request article 2-84...conflict of interest...which states...any person appointed as a member of a board or commission, shall be considered an officer when that commission has only an advisory power and function. I would like to retain section 2-91(1). I have filed a financial report. So...that being said...according to question 3. I have answered that with a regular schedule of things that had gotten me involved in this whole thing. And as you can note...I had received an email from Chief Ferreira requesting clarification on this issue. He also followed that email with saying...I don't want you to leave neighborhood watch. So that being said...I would like to identify my duties as a neighborhood watch coordinator or as I say...safety educator. I'm going to reference this manual which is like the bible of neighborhood watch and it is put out by the Bureau of Justice and also the National Sheriff's association. And this is basically what my responsibilities are and what the responsibilities of the persons who work for and volunteer for the neighborhood watch program. I would like to identify my duties under the neighborhood watch program, first of all. I guide neighborhood watch leaders how to set goals and report suspicious activities to their local law enforcement officer. The reason why I'm going through all of this is because I don't want you to think that I am specifically interacting with police officers so that I can influence the men anyway shape or form. That...I will assume is one of the issues that Chief Ferreira might have. I don't know. He wasn't clear on his reason for conflict of interest. In any case, so guiding the neighborhood watch leaders on how to set goals and report suspicious activities to their local law enforcement officers, share the protocol set down as to relationships with CPOs...that's community policing officers, assigned to their group. Be responsible to establish and support, form local partnerships and assist in the development of new neighborhood watch programs. Enhance existing programs to prevent and reduce crime. Provide Hawai`i Police Department with volunteer...volunteer...I would 11 like to stress that...I am a volunteer. I've been a volunteer neighborhood watch lead for four years now. And have not received any money, whatsoever, for the job that I do. Provide HPD with volunteer support 24/7 in an effort to train members thereby reducing law enforcement burdens. All meetings, if not attended by the community policing officer are documented to the lieutenant or captain of the patrol via email or directly. The needs and concerns of neighborhood watch groups are discussed to encourage the mantra of neighborhoods. Neighbors helping neighbors. And again I'd like to state that neighborhood watch is a Federal program sponsored by the Bureau of Justice and the National Sheriff's Association. I have according to my information that I've given you. I have been involved in law enforcement. I am retired. I retired as Chief and I spent 31 years in law enforcement. I was with community policing for quite a while and I know pretty much all about how to run that thing. So that being said, I am now on the Fire Commission and I find that my association with the Fire Commission....which has been since 2016...has been a great experience. And has been extremely helpful with many issues placed before the commission. When the seat on the Police Commission was opened, I consulted with Rose Bautista and the subject of conflict interest was discussed, by the way. Since my term in law enforcement was many years ago...I feel the experience and knowledge that I carry would benefit the Police Commission. It should be noted that five members of the fire commission were former fire officers. They were and invaluable asset to the decision making process. I interact with a lot of folks on Hawai`i Island and I feel that my perspective can only add light to any discussions that may arise. And that's all I have to say. Unless you have some questions. Mr. Wiseman: Ah, St. Ambrogio, first off, I read your background and find highly commendable. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Thank you. Please call me Bobbye. Nobody calls me Marcella except for the tax man. Mr. Wiseman: Highly commendable in the area of criminal justice. And I'm just curious...at Bergen County, New Jersey, you were a Chief of a Sheriff's Department. What couple of cities in Bergen County be. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Ah...well...I personally lived in a city called Oakland, New Jersey. Bergen County was the largest County in New Jersey. We had over a million residents and our department was very well organized because we had so many different varieties of situations that we had to face. In addition to that, we also supported NYPD in 12 many, many ways because we were right there by the George Washington Bridge. Mr. Wiseman: Thank you. You don't have any details of the conflict. It seems a neighborhood watch and a police commission would sort of complement each other indirectly. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Well. And that is my concern. I don't see any conflict. I can only see good things coming of this. As a matter of fact, I did receive a letter from Mayor Kim, stating just that very thing. Mr. Wiseman: Did the Chief indicate any... Ms. St. Ambrogio: He did not say. Mr. Wiseman: Okay. Thank you. Ms. St. Ambrogio: You're welcome. Mr. Wiseman: The neighborhood watch you're with. What area of the island is that? Ms. St. Ambrogio: The entire island. I have started over 200 neighborhood watch groups on this island. Mr. Wiseman: Okay. Thank you. Ms. St. Ambrogio: You're welcome. Ms. Sumner-Mac: It sounds to me, as though you ought to be on both boards...both commissions. If you can stand all meetings and so on. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Well, I have been as I say a member of the Fire Commission and I have one more year to go. The Fire Commission is fully staffed and if I stepped off, which was a concern of mine, to fill this position in the Police Commission. I wanted to make sure that I was not creating a problem with them not having a quorum. And I was assured by Rose Bautista and Josie that that would not be a problem. So since I attend the Fire Commission meeting now and I would not after I join the Police Commission...I could still retain my duties as neighborhood watch with my neighborhood watch groups and continue along those lines. So I am retired. I enjoy interacting with the public and since I've been in law enforcement for all of my adult life...I feel that this information and knowledge that I carry will be beneficial to our island. 13 Mr. Robinson: Okay. Thank you. I was stationed at Governors Island in New York. We did fort security work around that island. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Oh really. Mr. Robinson: We used to interact a lot with the police and the fire department. The fire department for the floaters we picked up and the police department for the port security when we would have to arrest people. And all the cops were Irish and all the firemen were Italian. Are you Italian? Ms. St. Ambrogio: I was just gonna say, hence the name St. Ambrogio. Mr. Robinson: Oh really. It was a wonderful experience. I've read this several times and I didn't really understand why you had to come to us for an opinion, but. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Well I... Mr. Robinson: It's cautionary, it's just cautionary. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Yes, and I didn't want there to be any sense of discussion. Anything that would create an issue. I have a very good relationship with the Chief. He supports neighborhood watch and I support all of his programs. We just had a great coffee with the cop and we had national night out and we've been really working hand in hand to bring the thoughts about neighborhood watch and the community and police officers through to a very positive, positive situation. And we need as much positive and reinforcement as we can get. Mr. Robinson: Right. Ms. St. Ambrogio: And so I really was not aware of any situation that would create a problem. And I wanted to make sure. That's why I'm here. Mr. Robinson: Right. So at this point, if there's no further discussion from the Board Members, should entertain a motion. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah, I make a motion to issue an opinion stating that there's no conflict here. Mr. Robinson: Is there a second. Ms. Sumner-Mack: I'll second it, yes. 14 Mr. Wiseman: The County I think is fortunate to have someone with her experience and background. Mr. Robinson: Absolutely. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Thank you. I have withdrawn my request to join the Police Commission based on my first meeting here and I will now be able to reapply. Mr. Robinson: Please do. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Thank you. Mr. Robinson: Okay. If no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. Contrary minded. Thank you very much. You're a welcome addition to the community. Ms. St. Ambrogio: Thank you Sir. Mr. Robinson: Appreciate it. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved to issue an informal advisory opinion. Ms. Sumner-Mack seconded the motion. All present members voted aye. Mr. Wiseman: You know I was on Governors Island. Mr. Robinson: Were you? Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. I was 17. For three nights and not in your capacity. Mr. Robinson: Oh yeah. Mr. Wiseman: It was Army. c. Petition No. 2019-07: Request for an informal advisory opinion from a County officer or employee to determine whether there is a conflict of interest under Section 2-84 of the Hawai'i County Code for his office to prosecute cases involving a protest site on Hawai'i Island. Mr. Robinson: Okay the next item on our agenda, Petition 2019-07. And that would be Prosecuting Attorney Mitch Roth. Mr. Roth: Aloha and good morning and thank you for having me and I apologize for putting this on you now. But let me just kind of give you. 15 Mr. Robinson: Wait. First of all, would you like an open or closed hearing? Mr. Roth: Open is fine. I don't think I have anything to hide here. You know this all started with a phone call. Actually an email from an attorney in Honolulu asking if my son's employment causes...a conflict. And my son works for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and I said...first of all, he's living in California, I don't think there's any conflict whatsoever. But I ask...why would you think there's a conflict? And he said well, he doesn't work for NASA, he works for Caltech. I just saw his badge, it says NASA...I don't think so. I called him up and he said...well yeah it's kind of complicated...it's kind of under both. I said okay so...he works for Caltech...what does that mean? Well Caltech is one of the partners in TMT. I said okay well so far removed I don't think there's a problem. The papers get involved. The paper called me up and I said well look...I'm pretty sure there's no conflict of interest here but I want to just disclose...my wife also works for a telescope and I still don't see a conflict of interest because her job is so far removed from what's going on as far as TMT that there's no conflict. Well the AP writes an article and the article they ask for opinions of different legal professionals and they had my opinion, the Attorney General did not give an official opinion....although I did talk to her and she's...she didn't see there was a conflict. But the way the article was written...gave the appearance that there may be a conflict. Including...they had this one professor from Washington who I've never met before...this other attorney who started this whole thing and then the law school professor, Ken Lawson. And I don't know if you received his email? Mr. Wiseman: Yeah we did. We have it. Mr. Roth: Which is kind of interesting because...Ken Lawson makes clear that there's no legal conflict of interest. But you know for the appearance of impropriety...maybe it's best that I step aside. So I've done my research on this. I can find no violation of our rules of professional responsibility. I've asked for, not only you, for an opinion but I've asked the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the body that sees after attorneys. They gave me a written opinion...non opinion...basically saying that they can't give me an opinion whether there is or is not one and they said maybe I should ask our local ethics committee or people in charge which is actually you. The Attorney General said that...ODC said that. In the ODC opinion though...and I want to be completely fair...they refer to a Missouri Law Review article that was written in 1998. Entitled What You See Is What You Get: Applying the 16 Appearance of Impropriety Standard to Prosecutors. And I take my job very seriously. I read through this and there's something that they talk about in here and I know Judge Wiseman will probably...knows a lot about the appearance of impropriety and judges. They talk about what's called procedural justice. And procedural justice is not only being fair it's also having the appearance of being fair and having people feel that they can be heard. I sent this opinion to the Attorney Generals, asked them to chime in...didn't get a response back the cases were coming...so in an abundance of caution...the first set of cases...I said look, we will recuse ourselves from these cases. So the cases are gonna be prosecuted and I think everybody should understand that somebody's gonna be prosecuting these cases. There's never a doubt that the cases would be prosecuted or not prosecuted. They're gonna be prosecuted. Question is...is there 1. A conflict of interest? I don't see one on the County ethics...I don't see in any of the State ethics. And/or...is there the appearance of impropriety that would make it so that I could not supervise or my office could not handle these cases? A couple of days ago I did get an opinion from Joe Kamelamela, our Corp. Counsel and he had some really great information, again finding no conflict of interest and I do have a copy. I know that he sent that to me as a privileged attorney/client communication...I have no problem sharing that with the Ethics Board. And I think the Ethics Board...before you make a decision...should probably review his material and if you haven't looked at the material that was recommended by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel...it may be worthwhile to read the first part of that that talks about procedural justice and the like. My eventual ask is that I believe you'll find that there is no appearance of impropriety...and if there is...it is so far removed that there should be no problem. There is no conflict of interest. Neither my wife, nor my son have any financial...I mean they get paid by these agencies...but they have no say in what happens on the mountain. Their positions are so far removed that...very, very limited. The question on the appearance of impropriety, I think, has been blown out of proportion because of the way it has been handled in the media. But I think in all fairness...so we're all transparent...and we're all doing what's right...we take a look this and make a decision. I have to give a couple of things and I just realized, I may have some other things that also come into play. I sit on a board for a group called Nextech. Nextech is a group that's looking after kids with...in the STEM area...science, technology, engineering and math. And so we do a couple of things...I realize this because tomorrow night I'll probably be night watch at a camp that we're doing for these kids or high school kids and we're trying to introduce them and get them into a 17 position of being able to have jobs in these industries. Before I finish, I want to just say, one other thing. I think there's a lot of reasons why people are protesting on the mountain. I personally don't think that science, technology, engineering, mathematics, astronomy is something that most of these people are really against. I don't think that these people who are protesting are against making sure that we have jobs on our islands for these kids once they graduate in STEM areas. I don't think that these people on the mountain have any problems with what's going on with astronomy, with what's going on on Mars...my son works for Mars curiosity rover. But because of the way the story has been played out...and because of the way that government officials are being looked at across the nation...not just on our country...I felt it was my responsibility to take the highest road possible...come here and ask for a decision from this Board. And I know that you're generally giving it informal...but I would like to have a written decision cause...believe it or not...what you come up with here will probably be discussed in law schools around the country when you deal with ethics. So thank you very much. I'm willing to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. Mr. Roth, welcome. First of all, there's an in check in sources, the ABA used to have a judicial...an ethics hotline. Judges and attorneys and so on. Mr. Roth: Ours is the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Mr. Wiseman: That's the Bar Association. Mr. Roth: That's the Bar...yeah okay. ABA. Mr. Wiseman: I'm talking the ABA, yeah. So. Let me ask you. Is it your position by stepping aside, the whole office has to step aside? Mr. Roth: Well, that's one of the questions I'm asking for this Board. Mr. Wiseman: You know the Chinese wall, you know. Mr. Roth: And that's one of things that we can do. The criticism on that has been...well look...these people still work for you...they're still paid by you...and so there's that issue. I personally believe that there is no conflict of interest. I believe that as far as the appearance of impropriety...there's a case that there's now on point that the Mr. Kamelamela has cited and that has to do with TMT...and Judge Amano, who was the arbiter of the case, where she had a membership at Imiloa. And the group tried to make it 18 seem that she could not be fair because of her membership at Imiloa and I think you'll agree with me that a judge...much more than a prosecutor in a case...the issue of impropriety is a lot bigger...and so that, I think sits a little bit more. The other thing that should be understood...in my research...in our office's research...not a single case that we're dealing with has TMT either as a victim or as an offender. We're dealing with obstructing government operations. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. Mr. Roth: So we could not find a single case in the country that was like this...where you say...look this is a secondary thing that is related. We did that because...it's like this decision...whatever decision you make...it's gonna be criticized. But for the time being...we said look...let's take the high road...we'll take the whole office out...we believe there's going to be more cases and it's not that I'm taking a position on what we should do...the Charter says you shall prosecute the cases of the State of Hawai`i. Mr. Wiseman: Right. Mr. Roth: You might... Oath of office... I would try take very seriously. The other thing that happens...on this is...what happens if one of these people up there is a victim of a crime? Does that mean I have a conflict that I can't prosecute that case? If one of the sheriffs for example...assaults one of these people...would I have to conflict that case? My ask, at the end of the day...is that you comeback and I hope you'll agree with me that there is no conflict...the office doesn't need to be conflicted out. But for procedural justice purposes...for the purposes of giving people faith in the judicial process...until this decision has been made...we felt the cleanest way possible forward is to conflict the office out. It's possible you say...well look...because of your wife and your son's position and because of that volunteer work that you do for this STEM group...you should conflict out and have your first deputy take charge of these cases. Which you know we're prepared to do that as well. Mr. Wiseman: And as you know that, that's been quite successful among many law offices and firms around the country. Mr. Roth: Oh yeah. And we're prepared and we're actually making you know...arrangements for that. But we want to make sure that you know...we're as transparent as possible and acting as ethically as possible. 19 Mr. Wiseman: Yeah, when it comes to the term, appearance of impropriety, which as you noted has been in my world for the last two, three decades... Mr. Roth: Right. Mr. Wiseman: On the bench. It's always necessary to...in looking at that...it's always that concept...it's always necessary to go to what we all had to experience in law school of learning about what was called the reasonable man standard. I'm just wondering after all these years if they changed the "man" into a gender. Is it now a reasonable person? But it was always the reasonable man. Mr. Roth: It's still the reasonable person...it's a reasonable person standard, but... Mr. Wiseman: Okay. But what would that reasonable person think about this? So and that's taking it right down to street level if you went out in the street and just asked anyone at random and gave em a nutshell of there's...my son works for this...it's all these levels removed...now we're prosecuting people that would be prosecuted anyway for the same thing...regardless of...notwithstanding any TMT or anything. If they came down here and blocked the intersection right here...I mean... Mr. Roth: I'm completely there with you. Mr. Wiseman: The rule of law says they must be moved. I've dealt with many road blockings and... Mr. Roth: You make some great points. And up until the article was written...even when they were writing the article...I told them there's no conflict. But the problem was the way the article was written, they only had a legal expert saying...conflict, you should recuse. And you know, unfortunately, we live in an age where press gets involved and creates reality. Mr. Wiseman: Oh yeah. They set the...yeah. Certain people are expert in setting the news agenda of the day. In any event...and most people will never read the story...just the headline. Mr. Roth: Right. 20 Mr. Wiseman: In any event...that's what we have to live with these days. But the...I noticed that the A.G. office gave you cases. Did the A.G. Office give you any cases to refer you to cases at all? Mr. Roth: A.G.'s did not. Joe Kamelamela did. And like I said, I have his... Mr. Wiseman: You can submit whatever you have to us. Mr. Roth: I'll submit that to you...cause I think...I think he did a really good job of you know doing his legal research there. And I think his assessment...his conclusion is a conclusion that you should come out to...that there is no conflict...there is the appearance of impropriety is so far removed...so distant that...that what you should find... Mr. Wiseman: Thank you. Mr. Roth: But I do believe in fairness...you should have a chance to read those and if you haven't seen this law review article...whole thing is kind of long...the first I think...first five pages and its... Mr. Wiseman: Remember lawyers used to get paid for by the word in England. Mr. Roth: The good thing is...most of this...the way it's written it's mostly notes at the bottom...but so it's very short couple of pages. Mr. Wiseman: Talk about long. Most decisions coming from Supreme Court and other courts...70 to 150 pages. A most significant case...Brown v. Board of Education on the segregation issue back in 1954. It was 14 pages so. In any event, thank you Mr. Roth. Mr. Roth: Thank you very much. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Well I want to thank you for the chance to meet you...meet you face to face. I applaud your coming here because I think this is a particularly good time to have a discussion about this. And I understand...I mean the tensions in this community are so great. I mean I feel somewhat intimidated by the flags and so on because I'm not...you know...I just don't look Hawaiian so. My sympathies are...its very confusing...its very confusing for a lot of people. I do think that the fate of workers at the telescopes is not just a matter perhaps of media attention. I mean I happen to know somebody who's been out of work now for...what two or three months...not getting any salary because the road is blocked. And this person is very much in sympathy with the cause but never the less...he's not had any income and he's hurting so... Some of this 21 could be a matter of...it's not anything against you personally...I mean I think you have the community's support and trust...absolutely. That's my feeling. But the fact that two of your relatives are dependent for their salaries or their income on TMT...however remote it may seem to...it could you know make people think you know and.... If you recuse yourself...as you probably already have...do you have someone else who would proceed with the... Mr. Roth: Oh yeah. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Proceed with the prosecution...that's the main thing...to have somebody there you could look after them...that people might want to know. Mr. Roth: Absolutely. There's never been a question of whether the case are going to be prosecuted... Right now...after recusing myself...the Attorney Generals...they have attorneys that are now handling it so...their attorneys fly over. Luckily, the cases have been on one day a month and there's...they're all together. So there's attorneys who are assigned...they're just not assigned for my office. And let me just correct you because my son's salary has really nothing to do with TMT. He lives in Pasadena. He works at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. His position is on the Mars Rover so...dealt with the Mars Rover...which Mauna Kea has nothing to do with...then that's possible. My wife works for Subaru on the office...at the office down below. They do have astronomers going up to the mountain. They have people going up and they do remote viewing from down below so. I would even say that her salary is not dependent. I mentioned this, I think, in my letter. My wife's job...like many of the astronomies...she works for RCUH which is the Research Corporation of the University of Hawai`i. So kind of technically, I guess she's a University of Hawai`i employee...although it's the Research Corporation and the University of Hawaii does have management of the mountain. However, again, that's so far removed from her...that I don't believe that there's anything. However, again, going back to the way the story was written and the way people jump on things...it's easy for people to be confused. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Is there some way to clarify that in some way that you could... You know, that's so personal. People are not entitled to know that. Mr. Roth: Well, you know, I guess I'll say it this way. There's none so blind as those who won't see and none so deaf so as don't want to hear. So you can tell people, but they...people will try make something 22 out of anything. And to me I really believe that there's nothing there, but because there's been a lot of debate on it. We've got emails and Facebooks and people sending me hate...how dare you...how can you not see this, this conflict? People will see what they want to see. And you know I've tried to make it as clean as possible. I've...like I said when the paper called and they asked the story...I volunteered the information that my wife worked rather than trying to keep it out of the press because I think the more you do things like this...the more you come for Boards like this and tell the story...put yourself in harm's way...the more people feel that they can trust what happens in government. And they find out what the story is....and I say that and people are gonna criticize that too so. That's just the way things are. You have to have tough skin when you're in position like mine. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Well I just don't want you to take it personally. Thank you for sharing your information with us. Mr. Roth: Thank you. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah, I have one other question. These people that are charged with a crime is at issue here. The crime is obstructing roadway or... Mr. Roth: Basically obstructing a government operation. Mr. Wiseman: And so my question is...are you aware of any other crimes your office is prosecuting? Similar crimes? Mr. Roth: To these? Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. Mr. Roth: Oh absolutely. We've...this is our second bout of this. We had a whole bunch of cases in 2015 that we prosecuted and then there was a Supreme Court decision that changed the way the judge looked at those cases and we had to dismiss a bunch of those cases. Based on rulings that we're getting from the bench. So we've prosecuted and we've also dismissed cases because of...you know...what people don't understand and I know you'll understand this, Judge, is that...as a prosecutor...we're a minister of justice. Our role is very limited. There's cases that we want to charge...we want to go forward with...but we have an ethical burden...if we don't believe we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt...we don't charge. And you know, that's hard sometimes you know. Sometimes there's things like, the police 23 will violate the search and seizure laws and so we'll lose our evidence. Or we lose witnesses. Mr. Wiseman: Happens all the time. Mr. Roth: It happens all the time and you know the public doesn't see that. I think, you as a judge, probably saw that more often that...I think as prosecutors we try to be as fair as possible, because we win, we're also writing an appeal. And in an appeal we want to make sure it sticks. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah and as you know,judges are restrained from speaking out. Mr. Roth: Right. Mr. Wiseman: At least that's how it is with the norm. In many cases, I had to dismiss because the prosecution came up with a bogus search and seizure that the cops did...but yet this never gets out to the public. Mr. Roth: Right. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. I just had to sign off on a dismissal. Mr. Roth: Yeah. That's hard. Nobody wants to you know...nobody wants to convict an innocent person. And I think in these cases...we're talking about the perspective cases...not the cases that we've already conflicted out on. But these cases...we're not talking about cases where we're going...I want you to go out there and arrest this person. Basically you have people that are out there that are making...it's like a traffic citation...the officer's make the citation...they send them to us...we look at the facts of the case. There's cases that you know the officers miss things that we just don't charge. So and there's cases in the end...we're looking at here that...you know if they don't have all of the facts...and they don't have all the elements...we'll dismiss. And we've already done that recently on one of these cases so. We're trying to be as fair as possible. But we're also...being as fair as possible is the easy part...appearing fair as possible...the appearance of being fair is a whole lot more difficult. Mr. Wiseman: Thank you. Mr. Robinson: I've got a few questions if I could? Mr. Roth: Sure. 24 Mr. Robinson: Thanks for coming. I remember the last time you were here was that guy from... Mr. Roth: I do too. Mr. Robinson: What's transpired since prove you were absolutely correct to question all of that. Mr. Roth: I just want to share this real quickly. After they did their investigation, they said they're going do a... It's pertinent to this. They said they're going to do an investigation. They did an investigation. They had a finding. The media stories came out and then they changed their finding. I've never seen that happen...before. Mr. Robinson: After the fact? Mr. Roth: After the fact...they changed their finding. They said...oh well this was just administrative finding...they change decisions all the time...it's like... For me, that drives me crazy. The whole thing that we got involved with before is like government wasn't playing by the rules and... You know...shame on us if we can't hold the highest ethical standings possible. We work for the people...we serve the people and we need to do that with integrity. Mr. Robinson: And that really spoke to your belief in the trust in government...that you took that extra effort to do that. Mr. Roth: And unfortunately, it's because of things that happen in other governmental agencies...things is happening. Not on our island...so much as in Honolulu and at different levels. People have lost trust in government. And so that's really why I'm here is to give that trust back by saying...put me through the questions...put me through the fire. We're gonna do what's right. Mr. Robinson: We just attended the first statewide ethics conference in Honolulu...the State Ethics Board and all of the other counties. We heard the trust in government a lot at that. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. So public's confidence has to exist. Mr. Robinson: Well first thing you...in your written request had asked for a formal opinion... Mr. Roth: Right. 25 Mr. Robinson: But we issue informal opinions. Mr. Roth: And the reason I did that is...when I feel very strong...where you gonna come out on this. Because I've done my research. I've gone through the law. I don't see any way you could come out differently. But even if you did...I feel that we have to follow all of that. But I did that because the public should know what was discussed and the public should know what your decision was. I could have said informal and I would have known and I could have told people and so what. The people who are protesting need to know. And they need to know that whatever happens, they're gonna be treated fairly...a least by my office. Mr. Robinson: Okay. Ms. Hall: Sorry,just as a clarification. The informal opinion of this Board is a written opinion. A formal opinion is issued if someone doesn't follow the informal opinion. Mr. Roth: Okay. Ms. Hall: Yeah. So, you'll get something in writing. Mr. Roth: Okay then informal is fine. Mr. Robinson: She will draft it for us. Mr. Roth: Thanks. Mr. Robinson: You said that a little bit earlier that Joe Kamelamela had given you a written response. Mr. Roth: Yeah. Mr. Robinson: In which he had done research and found... Mr. Roth: Yeah. Is it okay if I approached? Mr. Robinson: Yeah. That there would be no conflict. Is that something you'd like to share with us? Mr. Roth: Sure. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. I think we brought this up before. Mr. Robinson: Great. 26 Mr. Roth: For the record, I just received this the other night. I think... Mr. Robinson: I know that this is not dated so. Mr. Roth: Yeah. Mr. Robinson: So if you were to date this, when would you date it? Mr. Roth: It was at 5:32 on Monday night. Mr. Robinson: Monday night. That would be... Ms. Sumner-Mack: I think we have to take some time. Mr. Wiseman: Of course. Mr. Robinson: Yeah. I think it was October 5? Mr. Roth: I think it was October 5th Mr. Robinson: October 5th, yeah. Okay. So in this...and we'll read this Mr. Kamelamela...said there would be...he didn't feel that there would be any conflict in...where he said in his short answer right on the first page...there does not seem to be an actual conflict of interest which would require your recusal. In addition to the circumstances probably do not fairly give rise to an appearance of impropriety and reasonably cast suspicion on your impartiality. So as to require recusal. Okay. And you fulfilled the disclosure and there's been discussion on the recusal. You know the trust in government issue...do you think that your prosecution of these cases, if it went forward, would have trust in government issues for... I mean some people will feel that way...some people will feel the other way. It's not black and white. You know what I mean? Mr. Roth: It really isn't black and white. I think if you would have asked me this question before the article was written, I hands down say no problem. Mr. Robinson: Right. Mr. Roth: Because people read only what they want to read in the papers. And the way the article was written...there's a perception that all the legal experts believe that it's a conflict. And that's what kind of got me here...is that. That perception that was created by the story. You know again, it's kind of interesting that one of those legal experts is saying...well there's not really any law that's being 27 violated. There's not a conflict, it's just...just to void that appearance. The other interesting thing that was in there. Cause people have been...they take what they want to take. If you take a look at the State Ethics conflict of interest. I think I put that in their thing. That's a little closer question. Cause I think they just have to work someplace. Again. Because we're not prosecuting anybody who's working for TMT...we're not...TMT is not a victim. I don't think there's any real conflict of interest. Mr. Robinson: Okay. You talked about 2-84, which is a conflict of interest. I referenced that and I noticed that it says in here...3 and 4 five times. Financial interest, financial interest, financial interest...and yet you've disclosed that your son... Mr. Roth: Works for Caltech. Mr. Robinson: Works for Caltech which is... Mr. Roth: NASA Caltech okay. Mr. Robinson: Right but he's not directly impacted...financially. Mr. Roth: I think if you look at 2-84 and Mr. Kamelamela does a great job in which you have...he bolds that...substantial financial interest. Mr. Robinson: Yeah I didn't put the substantial...I just said...you have a substantial. Mr. Roth: So. When they first called me and asked me that...they says...well...cause would that mean that if someone stole from KTA or Safeway...that you know I'd have a conflict because my family shops at KTA and Safeway. And you know when you steal...you raise the prices. Or if we're giving a ticket to somebody who's driving a car, you know speeding on the roads that my family...we give speeding tickets because we want to keep people safe on the roads. And people who are speeding are technically putting my family in jeopardy. So...I mean...we all have some kind of financial interest with what happens on that...on the mountain. As remote as it may seem...it may be cost of goods that come in...lack of jobs...the amount of jobs...I think their employment is so far removed that there is no real financial interest in TMT. Mr. Robinson: Right. And I noticed in the course of your presentation you referenced that numerous times. And then, one last question from me. If this Board found that there was no conflict and you went 28 ahead and prosecuted these cases...do you think that would give cause for people to appeal their cases? In other words, even though the ethics...Board of Ethics found there would be no conflict...we think there is we...we want to appeal. So we go to a judicial body to ask...they review all the stuff that we've reviewed here. Mr. Roth: People ask me all the time...can I get sued for something like that...and whatever you do...you live in America...you can sued for anything. You can get sued technically for giving the opinion that you're giving. That doesn't mean they're gonna win. Could they appeal this? Absolutely, could they appeal it...they could appeal it. Do I think they could win on an appeal? Absolutely not. I don't think that there's any grounds for them to win on that. And I think...looking at the most recent case...again with Judge Amano...making her decisions and having her membership in Imiloa... I think the precedent is that we would win on that...just that case alone. Mr. Robinson: I was thinking more of an appeal for...say he prosecutes someone and then they get a sentence...and then they appeal that on the basis of...you were actually conflicted and this board gave a wrong opinion. Mr. Roth: So again. They could appeal. The standard that they'd have is so great that I do not think they would win. I mean we live in America like I said. Every criminal case I do...our office does...there's room for appeal. Mr. Wiseman: It's doubtful an appeal like that would even proceed. It could be thrown out at the outset as a frivolous lawsuit. And so long as...I mean...they would have to challenge your authority. Mr. Roth: Right. Mr. Wiseman: Have any legal basis of an appeal that they were wrongly prosecuted...the wrong person. The ethics...I don't think could enter into an appeal. Mr. Roth: But...it's interesting...you're always...you know...every case we have...there's appeals and they could probably sneak that in as another issue. But I don't think they would succeed on that. Mr. Robinson: Those are the questions I had. Any other questions from Board Members? 29 Mr. Wiseman: No. Nothing further. Mr. Roth: Thank you very much. Mr. Robinson: Oh no. We appreciate all you do. So is there a motion? Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. I move we take this under advisement. I'd like to look at these submissions. Mr. Robinson: Okay. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Alright. I'll second that. Mr. Robinson: Okay so moved and seconded that we take Roth's appeal...not appeal...request for an informal written opinion. Ms. Sumner-Mack: We need some time to read some of this... Mr. Robinson: Right. Under advisement. Mr. Roth: Can I leave this with you? I don't know if you guys downloaded the... Ms. Sumner-Mack: Can we leave it with Maria and get it from Maria if we...or borrow it from her? Mr. Roth: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Robinson: Thank you. Okay all those in favor of the motion which was to take this under advisement and issue an opinion after we review all the material say aye. Contrary minded. Alright. Thank you very much. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved to take under advisement and issue an opinion after review of materials. Ms. Sumner-Mack seconded the motion. All present members voted aye. **Continued at 11:47 a.m.** Mr. Robinson: Is there any other items? Mr. Wiseman: Yes. The other petition filed by Mr. Roth. Mr. Robinson: And is there a motion regarding that? Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. I would make a motion that the... 30 Ms. Sumner-Mack: We have to study it... Mr. Wiseman: I would want to defer on that. I make a motion to defer so I can review the materials. Mr. Robinson: Okay. So motion is to defer Mitch Roth...a decision of Mitch Roth's application. Ms. Sumner-Mack: And I'll second that. Mr. Robinson: And you'll second. Okay so it's moved and seconded that we defer the decision regarding Mitch Roth's application or request for an informal opinion. All those in favor say aye. Contrary minded. Mr. Wiseman: And I further move that we place on the agenda for the next. Mr. Robinson: That we place it on the agenda for next. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved to continue to the November meeting. Ms. Sumner-Mack seconded the motion. All present members voted aye. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (11:15 a.m.) Mr. Robinson: Okay, any unfinished business? We have executive session. Is there a motion for executive session? Mr. Wiseman: Yeah, so moved. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Second. Mr. Robinson: Okay all those in favor say aye. Alright. We're going into executive session. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved to go into executive session. Ms. Sumner-Mack seconded the motion. All members voted aye. 11:15 a.m. The Board moved into executive session. * * * * 11:43 a.m. The Board returned into regular session. 6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS (11:43 a.m.) a. Review of the executive session minutes of September 11, 2019. 31 Mr. Robinson: We reconvene regular session. We're back to regular session. For our regular session we have the approval of the minutes of the executive session minutes of September 11, 2019. Is there a motion to approve? Ms. Sumner-Mack: I so move that we approve. Mr. Wiseman: Second. Mr. Robinson: Alright. It's been moved and seconded. We approve the minutes. All those in favor say aye. Ms. Sumner-Mack: They were beautiful minutes by the way. Not a typo in the whole place. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah, I mentioned that before, wow. Motion and Vote: Ms. Sumner-Mack moved to approve minutes. Mr. Wiseman seconded the motion. All present members voted aye. b. Review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms filed pursuant to Section 2-91.1(d), Hawaii County Code, by County board and commission members and designated County employees, where personal matters will be reviewed. Mr. Robinson: Is there any other items to come in our regular session today? Oh and yes a motion to accept the financial disclosure of Jonathan Hickcox? Mr. Wiseman: So moved. Ms. Sumner-Mack: Second. Mr. Robinson: Okay all those in favor say aye. Okay. Any other items we want to have today before we go to announcements. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved to accept and file the financial disclosure form. Ms. Sumner-Mack seconded the motion. All present members voted aye. Mr. Robinson: You know also on the agenda for next period we're going to be placing is...Larry asked for this Board to consider the filing of an ethics violation against the...regards TMT and the lack of action by the State and County employees. Remember that? He brought it up. Ms. Hall: You guys can...need to talk to him about that. 32 Mr. Robinson: Yeah. Separately. Ms. Hall: If you're thinking about...it could be an administrative decision, create and put it onto the agenda. Mr. Wiseman: Is that last month's meeting? Mr. Robinson: That's next month's meeting. Ms. Hall: But it was in the minutes of last month. Mr. Wiseman: Okay, I'll check it out. Mr. Robinson: But he wants us to have a discussion on that. 7. REPORTS (11:48 a.m.) Mr. Robinson: Report. You got that last time from us. What we attended, which was excellent and any further items? 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS (11:48 a.m.) Mr. Robinson: It's announcements. The next Board meeting is scheduled for November 13th, 10:00 a.m., right here. 9. ADJOURNMENT (11:48 a.m.) Mr. Wiseman: Motion to adjourn. Mr. Robinson: Second? Ms. Sumner-Mack: Second. Mr. Robinson: Moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved to adjourn. Ms. Sumner-Mack seconded. All members present voted aye. Respectfully submitted: A ,GSI Keo fad ` Maria Pagala, Secretary 33