HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-22 Regular Session Minutes
1
HAWAI‘I COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS
MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
10:05 a.m. to 12:53 p.m.
Hawai‘i County Building
25 Aupuni Street
County Council Chambers
Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
Members and Staff Present:
Larry Heintz, Chair
Denise Nakanishi, Member
Rabbi Rachel Short, Member
Sylvia Wan, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Kelsie Chang, Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER (10:05 a.m.)
Mr. Heintz called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Present was Sylvia Wan and Kelsie Chang.
Larry Heintz, Denise Nakanishi and Rabbi Rachel Short was in attendance via Zoom.
2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS (10:07 a.m. – 10:09
a.m.)
Ms. Nakasato: Aloha, my name is Debbie Nakasato, I’m here in support of the
petition, the complaint filed by Claudia and Jaerick, it’s on the
Makahana Loa shoreline and I came here with my twins too who
are 10 years old they’re in school they can’t leave they have testing
but, they wanted to know what was the outcome of this? Like why
we came here, and we are the people of Makahana Loa. Like I was
born and raised there and so was my kids. That’s where we fish,
that’s where we gather, that’s everything to us. It’s not only where
we do that but it’s also spiritual and to see that when we were there
to see those people laughing and like it wasn’t, there was no
meaning behind our words, or our feelings, or our connection to
the land and the place and the space that it holds for us, it was dis
heartening to see. So, I’m here in support of Jaerick and Claudia’s
petition complaint.
3. COMMUNICATIONS (10:10 a.m.)
a. Comm 2022-02: Communication from anonymous, self-identified as Hawaii Fire
Department Employee re: Personnel Grievances within Hawaii Fire Department
Mr. Heintz: The first communication is an anonymous communication
regarding a fire department employee and a personnel grievance
2
with the Hawaii Fire Department. The members, I believe have
that item. That item is about 10 pages long. The first thing I want
to say is, this is listed as a communication, not a petition, because
it does not meet the basic requirements of a petition and petitions
must not be anonymous. However, the concerns expressed in this
communication strikes me are very serious ones. Corporation
Counsel, Ms. Wan has attached to.
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry chair Heintz
Mr. Heintz: Yes
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry, I did make a communication to the board, and my role
as the attorney for the board, if you would like to discuss that, I
believe that would have to be discussed within an executive
session. However, if you wanted to open up discussion for this
particular communication, I believe there would need to be a
motion.
Mr. Heintz: I’m simply making a comment describing that the members and
asking have the members seen that policy that you sent out and is
that the case.
Ms. Wan: Again, chair Heintz, you would be commenting on an attorney
client communication as far as the policy goes, I believe what
you’re referring to is something that is publicly available which is
the County’s harassment and anti-discrimination policy, which is
available on the County’s website under human resources. That is
public knowledge if that is what you are trying to address.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you counselor. The concerns raised in this communication;
my view seemed to be very serious ones. These concerns I am
speaking in case the anonymous communicator is hearing this, it
seems to me that, they need to address this issue with the
Department of Human Resources. If they’ve done that already,
then they should look at the ethics committee’s instructions on
petitions. There is a way in which they can make a petition and
remain anonymous. Those instructions they can receive from the
Corporation Counsel’s office or from our information on the site
on the ethics committee. Counsel Wan, do you have any further
comments to make about this communication, this anonymous
communication?
Ms. Wan: The Corporation Counsel has no other legal council regarding this
particular communication. It does appear that there needs to be a
3
motion by the board, and otherwise to determine what they want to
do with this communication.
Mr. Heintz: Do the other members of the board want to comment on this
matter? If so, would one of them make a motion? If not, we will
simply move on to the next item.
Ms. Short I would, Rabbi Rachel Short, speaking for the record, I would echo
chair’s comments, that these allegations are extremely serious and
extremely concerning, and I’m not sure what the motion would be
to address this issue, so maybe I could get some guidance as to
what would be an appropriate motion to deal with this
communication.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, as to this particular
body, right now the form of the communication, it does not rise to
the level of a petition, so at this point in time, this particular
communication can be filed with the Board of Ethics on the Board
of Ethics website.
Ms. Short: So, I would motion that we file this communication on to the
Board of Ethics website.
Mr. Heintz: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Nakanishi: I can second.
Mr. Heintz: Okay. Is there any discussion?
Ms. Short: I was just going to say, I would echo chair’s statement that if that
person is here these allegations are concerning and a petition
would seem appropriate.
Mr. Heintz: Denise if you have a comment?
Ms. Nakanishi: My comment is I can’t see what the graphics are and try to
correlate it with what was stated so, file it but I’m not sure how to
address it from there because I can’t even make sense of it.
Although it does seem pretty serious but hard to know what the
complaint really is.
Mr. Heintz: Counsel Wan, what Denise is referring to is the email that were
attached, some of them had photographs and they were so dark that
one couldn’t really make out. We had to study it to realize the
gender and or ethnicity of the parties that were reflected in those
4
photographs. Is it possible that a lighter copy could be made? Or
is the original not good enough to do that?
Ms. Short: Or even a color copy?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, the copy that was
provided to the Board is of the same nature as the copy that was
provided to the Corporation Counsel to be provided to the Board.
Mr. Heintz: So, Denise, if this comes as a petition, maybe the petitioner will be
able to send a better copy. So, we have a motion, any further
discussion on the motion to file this?
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short moved to file to communication on to the Board of Ethics
website; Ms. Nakanishi seconded. All members voted aye. (10:18 a.m.)
Mr. Heintz: This motion to file this anonymous communication is past
unanimously, and we will move to the next communication.
b. Comm 2022-03: Communication from Hopie Louise Dietz Cermelj re: Election
Fraud
Mr. Heintz: The second communication is from Hopie Louise Dietz Cermelj
regarding election fraud.
Ms. Short: Chair
Mr. Heintz: Yes
Ms. Short: I will need to recuse myself from this discussion so I’m going to
turn off my video and my microphone at this time and I’ll rejoin
when this portion is complete.
Mr. Heintz: Counsel Wan, then we do not have a quorum, is that right?
Ms. Wan: Yes, and just for the record that was Ms. Rabbi Rachel Short, a
board member who is recusing herself and this is Deputy
Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. Yes, with her recusal you will
no longer have quorum for this item.
Mr. Heintz: So, all I want to do with this item is file it. Can we do that?
Ms. Wan: I understand. Mr. Heintz, however, I believe the best practice
would be to table this particular item to next meeting.
5
Mr. Heintz: Thank you. Can we get member Short back so that we can make a
motion to table. She can participate in a motion.
Ms. Wan: I believe that is just a procedural motion, so I believe Ms. Short
can participate just for the procedural motion.
Ms. Short: Okay.
Mr. Heintz: So, do we have a motion to table?
Ms. Nakanishi: So, moved.
Mr. Heintz: Do we have a second?
Ms. Short: I second.
Mr. Heintz: Is there any discussion on the tabling of this communication?
Hearing no discussion, all those in favor of tabling communication
2022-03.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Nakanishi moved to table communication to next meeting; Ms.
Short seconded. All members voted aye. (10:21 a.m.)
Mr. Heintz: The motion to table communication 2022-03 has passed.
4. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2022
(10:21 a.m.)
Mr. Heintz: Have the members seen the minutes? Members are indicating that
they have seen the minutes.
Ms. Short: I will motion to approve the minutes.
Mr. Heintz: Okay. Is there. That’s member Short.
Ms. Short: Rabbi Rachel Short, sorry. Rabbi Rachel Short, I motion to
approve the minutes.
Mr. Heintz: Do we have a second?
Ms. Nakanishi: I have a question? Am I able to second? This is Nakanishi board
member. Am I able to second if I wasn’t there?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, yes you can, member
Nakanishi.
6
Ms. Nakanishi: Okay, I second.
Mr. Heintz: Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of accepting the
minutes of November 9, 2022.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short moved to approve the minutes; Ms. Nakanishi seconded. All
members voted aye. (10:22 a.m.)
Mr. Heintz: The minutes are approved.
5. NEW BUSINESS (10:23 a.m.)
a. Annual nomination of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Ethics.
Mr. Heintz: Let’s take them in order first regarding nomination of chair. Do
we have any nominations?
Ms. Short: I would motion that we table this till we have more board members
present. Rabbi Rachel Short, I would motion that we table this
until we have more board members present.
Mr. Heintz: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Nakanishi: I would second that motion.
Mr. Heintz: Okay. Any discussion?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, just for clarity of record,
that was board member Nakanishi who seconded that motion.
Mr. Heintz: Is there any discussion? Okay I just have a question for
Corporation Counsel. Do we know if there are more members
being nominated?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, I do believe that there
was a charter amendment that was recently passed that would open
up an additional 2 positions on the Board of Ethics. My
understanding is that applications are currently being accepted. I
cannot otherwise comment on the conclusion of those applications
at this time. But there should be in the near future.
Mr. Heintz: So, I guess the question that comes to my mind is do we want to
table this to the January meeting or the maybe the February
meeting?
7
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, it would make sense that
this gets tabled to the January meeting if the board present does not
want to deal with the issue today because you are required to
nominate and select a chair and vice hair annually which
theoretically should start in January. Irrespective of the make of
the board at that time.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you. So, we have a motion to table this item until the
January 2023 meeting. Is there any further discussion?
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short moved to table to the next meeting; Ms. Nakanishi seconded.
All members voted aye. (10:26 a.m.)
Mr. Heintz: We have passed that motion.
b. Petition 2022-16: Review of complaint regarding two Planning Department
employees, alleging violation of Section 2-83 (Fair Treatment) of the Ethics Code.
Mr. Heintz: This is a review of a complaint regarding two Planning Department
employees, alleging violation of Section 2-83 (Fair Treatment) of
the Ethics Code. That petition you should have in your packet.
The petitioner is Claudia Rohr and I think it’s Jackie Medeiros-
Garcia and I believe Ms. Rohr is present and would like to present
or comment up to 5 minutes on her petition.
Ms. Wan: Deputy
Mr. Heintz: Is Ms. Rohr present?
Ms. Wan: Yes, I’m sorry. Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, I’m
sorry to interject chair, however, I just wanted to make the board
aware that petitioner Jaerick Lee Medeiros-Garcia is present in the
physical board meeting room today and I think it would make
sense to at least outline for the petitioners and respondents how
this particular petition will be heard today as far as order of
presentations.
Mr. Heintz: Would you like to go ahead and do that?
Ms. Wan: Yes, chair I can. Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, as far
as the order for hearing of this petition, the petitioners each in turn
will be given 5 minutes to speak to their petition. Ms. Rohr and
then Mr. Medeiros-Garcia as they appear on the petition and then
the two respondents Mr. Alex Roy and Ms. Maija Jackson will
then be given each 5 minutes to provide a response. Afterwards
the board members will have a chance to ask, can call up either of
8
the petitioners or the respondents and ask them questions as
necessary.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you. So, we will begin then with Claudia Rohr. Are you
present? I believe your on zoom.
Ms. Wan: Just a moment chair. Ms. Rohr, can you please turn on your
camera, you have been enabled. And Ms. Rohr can you please
turn on your microphone, you have been enabled. I’m sorry Ms.
Rohr, we cannot hear you. Can you please turn on your
microphone?
Ms. Rohr: Yes, somebody turned it off.
Ms. Wan: Thank you.
Ms. Rohr: Can you hear me?
Ms. Wan: We can hear you now. Ms. Rohr, please just state your name and
your 5 minutes will begin.
Ms. Rohr: Could everybody turn on their camera, Maija Jackson and Alex
Roy and Jaerick can he go sit in front?
Ms. Wan: Ms. Rohr they will be turned on when it is there time to speak. At
this point they will not be on. I will see what I can do for Mr.
Medeiros-Garcia when it comes to his time to speak.
Ms. Rohr: Okay. Good morning, my name is Claudia Rohr. I’m one of the
petitioners in petition 2022-16. May 5th, 2022, petitioners Claudia
Rohr and Jaerick Medeiros and other members of the public
testified at the Windward Planning Commission about how the
public vehicular easement down to iron post has been illegally
gated for more than 3 years. The Planning Department has not
addressed the issue. At the end of the meeting Ms. Jackson offered
to speak to the issue brought up by public testifiers and asked Mr.
Alex Roy to do the same. Ms. Jackson and Mr. Roy
mischaracterized the deeds conveying public access to the County
and gave erroneous legal opinion to the Commission in violation of
HRS 1605-14 unauthorized practice of law prohibited. It was an
abuse of discretion outside their official capacities and training to
analyze and mischaracterize deeds conveying public access
easements that were drafted by the County of Hawaii office of the
Corporation Counsel approved by the County Council and
recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances. Ms. Jackson stated that
Planning Department records show that there is only a deeded
9
public pedestrian access easement down to a deeded public
vehicular parking lot at the Shoreline, and she mischaracterized her
and Mr. Alex Roy’s resolution of the gated vehicular access as a
work in progress, giving the error, landowner, and compliance with
ordinance 550 condition D has zoning that was sorry that was a
rezoning ordinance. Has made no progress in 3 and a half years
now as 4 years. It’s still not ungated. Ms. Jackson and Mr. Alex
Roy and Deputy Director Jeff Darrow, failed to issue a notice of
violation commanded to be issued by the Planning Department
rules of practice and procedure rule 9. Mr. Roy mischaracterized
deeded public access easement documents drafted by the County
of Hawaii office of Corporation Counsel. Approved by the County
Council recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances and the work of
former Planning Director Billy Jean Todd as being, “suspicious”
and “kind of a mess what was deeded”. This sounded like a funny
joke to chair out Commissioner Galimba, Jean K Campbell,
attorney for the Planning Department. Ms. Jackson and Mr. Alex
Roy and they all had a big laugh together over “a mess what was
deeded”. Petitioners contend that Ms. Jackson and Mr. Roy made
unsworn false statements to the Windward Planning Commission
to gain personal advantage. Save their reputation at petitioner’s
expense, making a subject matter into a joke, when it was no
laughing matter to the petitioners and the many public testifiers
was unfair and hurtful. This sort of conduct causes the public to
lose faith in their government. We seek a ruling in our favor
today. Thank you.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you Ms. Rohr. The second petitioner.
Ms. Wan: Yes, chair Heintz. Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. Just
a moment I will call Mr. Medeiros-Garcia to the podium over here
and I’m going to share my particular laptop so that Ms. Rohr
maybe able to see him speak. So, just a moment while I facilitate
this.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you.
Mr. Heintz: Hello, Okay. Everyone in their positions again.
Ms. Wan: Yes, Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. At this time Mr.
Medeiros-Garcia, if you could please state your name and your 5
minutes will begin.
Mr. Medeiros-Garcia: My name is Jaerick Medeiros-Garcia, I am the president of
Makahana Loa fishing association. I’m going to start with first of
all thank the Board Members and Corp Counsel, thank you guys
10
for giving us the opportunity to speak upon this petition because I
think it’s so important that we look at this. The big picture is that
it’s now 4 years that the public of Pepeekeo the people who use the
shoreline, we had this access closed for that long and were not
being heard. It practically is a joke I mean to the planners that, like
Ms. Rohr she said it as exactly that is every word that she said is
true. Like you know it’s hard for us if its in the documentation of
the planning that everybody did the proper procedures, and it was
passed and it was recorded in conveyance and it was hurtful to see
that the good laugh that they had there the day we testified upon
the issue. 4 years now and took me like 6 months to get Mr. Alex
Roy to respond to a phone call, email. You know when we finally
met, it was like he said he was going to do all these things and it
was like a disconnect again like we never hear from him but, I
totally support this part of it, here in this level of ethics, it needs to
be I guess looked at because it’s not fair. I mean the person that’s
doing this illegal moving of our access and easements, he’s now
just starting to do it on the opposite side of the sugar mill. You
know it’s almost like their buying time and in favor of the
developer but, it’s not fair for the people who use that and you
know they usually use that everyday but now that that thing has
been moved, and they put a gate and lock and everything goes
against the law, we don’t know what to do and Maija and Alex
Roy, they contribute by being bias about it and so you know yeah
it’s frustrating but this is the process that we must take and we are
taking and hopefully it comes in our favor today because yeah you
know they just control stuff that shouldn’t be of going against their
own laws that they set in black and white. Anyway, thank you
guys for the opportunity for giving us this 5 minutes. I was stoked
you get 5 minutes, normally its 2 minutes. But yeah, thank you
guys for your time. Aloha.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you Mr. Medeiros-Garcia. Now let’s move to Mr. Roy, one
of the respondents. I understand that Mr. Roy would like to
respond, and I see is that Mr. Roy now on? Thank you very much.
Mr. Roy will have 5 minutes and we’ll give Ms. Wan a chance to
get back to her seat. So, Mr. Roy you have 5 minutes to respond
and then Ms. Jackson will have 5 minutes to respond to the
petitioners.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, Mr. Roy, once you state
your name, your five minutes will begin.
Mr. Roy: Ugh, Alex Roy, County of Hawaii senior planner. Unfortunately,
this case that’s being brought before you is still being worked out.
It now involves a County Council person who has taken upon
11
herself councilperson, Kimball, to try to fix the issues from the
past which is a that we ever tried to do. It was never my intention
to consider access as a joke. I take it very seriously. The issues
that surround this area in particular are challenging and numerous.
We spend a lot of time in this area trying to work with the
community and landowners to maintain access but again, it’s a
challenging process in this County. Unfortunately, what Ms. Rohr
and Mr. Medeiros-Garcia failed to understand is that I’m not a
decision maker. Everything that I do has to be vetted by three
people above me which would be my manager, the Deputy
Director and of course the Director of Planning. I make
recommendations or advise to the best of my ability into the
information provided but, at the end of the day, that’s all I can go
on. The decisions, the final decisions rest with essentially what I
would consider management. So other than that, I have tirelessly
worked to address these issues that Claudia Rohr has brought up
again, and again, and even going back to the last director when I,
Director Michael Yee. That’s when we started that prior to the
Coronavirus Pandemic, which kind of took up a lot of years
unfortunately, not a lot of work was getting done because of that.
We are working steadily, I’ve been to Pepeekeo Point three times
in the past few weeks dealing with other issues, so, it’s a constant
complaint system that these people bring up and we try to address
every single one. We can’t force landowners to do things. We
work within the rule of law but at the end of the day, I am not the
decision maker. The decision makers are the Deputy Director and
the Director, and it’s their job to you know that into account
everything that is presented to them to make their correct decision.
With that, I’ll end my statement. Thank you.
Ms. Wan: Thank you Mr. Roy
Mr. Heintz: Thank you Mr. Roy. Ms. Jackson, would you like to speak? I see
your on zoom as well. Okay. Ms. Maija Jackson, you have 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson: Thank you chair Heintz and Board Members, I appreciate the
opportunity to be able to respond to the petition. I sent in a written
statement about a month ago and I won’t re-read it word for word,
but I’ll just summarize what the statement says. So, I’ve worked
for the Planning Department for 15 years, and I done SMA work
for a good part of that 15 years and worked on supporting the
Planning Commissions for the entire 15 years. My goal has always
been to provide decision makers with the most accurate
information available. This particular matter, I didn’t really come
prepared to speak about the details of the matter today because, it
12
is still an ongoing issue as Alex described. There are various
parties, landowner, the fishing association, the Council Member,
and the Planning Department that are trying to work on resolving
the public access concerns in the Pepeekeo area and specifically,
iron post. I didn’t come to really speak about those details today,
the Planning Department actually has a process where if a member
of the public disagrees with a decision that a director made, then
they can go to the Board of Appeals and file an Appeal to overturn
that Directors decision. That is an avenue that the Petitioners
could have pursued when the Director issued the closure of the
notice of violation statement, they could have appealed that and
that time. So, I came to speak today more about the petitioner’s
claims that the statements that Alex and I made were incorrect, and
that we had the intention of giving the Commission false
information. I won’t speak for Alex, although, I know he didn’t
either. We never go into our work trying to give the Planning
Commission false information, we always want to give them the
best and most accurate information available that we have at that
time. When we spoke at that hearing, this was an ongoing issue, so
we provided the information to he commission that we had at that
time. Some of the information regarding the grant of easements
may not have been completely accurate although we didn’t know it
at that time because we just did a quick preliminary review of the
grants of easement prior to the hearing. We didn’t deeply research
the issues at hand. I just wanna kind of close my statement by
saying that I’m sorry if what I said or how I said it offended or hurt
any of the petitioners and even wanna extend that to others that
were at the hearing that are really concerned about the public
access at Pepeekeo and are affected by that. If they took the
statements that I said as being unfair or discourteous, I want to
extend that apology as well. That was not my intent.
Mr. Heintz: Well, thank you Ms. Jackson. I would like to now give the
opportunity to the members of the Board if they have questions at
this point for either of the respondents, Mr. Roy, or Ms. Jackson.
Does any member of the Board have a question for them at this
point?
Ms. Nakanishi: I haven’t been down there for a couple months but I just, Board
Member Denise Nakanishi. I just wanna clarify that you’re talking
about the gate that’s been there, and it has a pedestrian gate on the
side, been there since before 2005. Is that what we’re talking
about?
Ms. Jackson: I have not been to the site, but Alex has so, Alex can you confirm
that that’s the site?
13
Mr. Roy: Yeah, the access that’s in question would be on the South side of
Hokunua property and has kind of a cattle gate pedestrian gate.
Then there’s a gate that is across the access. I’ve been told that the
fisherman’s association now has a key to that gate, and they can
drive all the way down to where, to the iron post area, that parking
lot area. I believe some rocks have been put up to kind of stop as
it’s kind of unsafe at a certain point at the end but, as I was told
yes, that’s the access.
Ms. Short: Rabbi Rachel Short, I have one quick question, is the gate the
County’s gate?
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry, Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. Ms. Rabbi
Short can you please clarify who your question is directed to since
we do have 4 parties. Thank you.
Ms. Short: Sorry. My question is for it would seem it would be Alex or
Maija. Is the gate that’s there that’s in question, is that the
County’s gate?
Mr. Roy: No, that would be the private landowner who put that gate up.
Ms. Short: Thank you for the clarification.
Mr. Heintz: Do you have another question?
Ms. Short: It appears Ms. Rohr has her hand.
Mr. Heintz: Just before we go to Ms. Rohr, I have a question. I have a question
for Ms. Jackson, and also Mr. Roy. Ms. Jackson, in your
comments, if I understand you correctly, you are acknowledging
that the information that you gave at the meeting was inaccurate.
And that you are also saying that you did not mean to intentionally
mislead but, the information in fact was inaccurate and that you
were just not fully up on the matter that you were speaking about,
and I take it that Mr. Roy is that also true of your position today?
Mr. Roy: I’m not sure if I would use the term inaccurate just that there is a
convoluted history that goes along with the access in this area and
the information that Maija and I were privy to at the time
essentially was not the full story or the complete history that spans
a couple of decades. So, in essence it wasn’t that the information
we gave inaccurate, it’s just that there was information missing
that may have not been cleaned at that time.
14
Mr. Heintz: I guess my concern here is that just as a member of the general
public and reading the newspaper of public record, I understand
the concern of the petitioners that it’s been widely reported that
that access was to go, parking access was to go pass the point
that’s locked up. I’m concerned that that’s reported in general
public. That information is being related in meetings it’s different
than that? I am puzzled about how long this is going on. I guess
that’s just a statement if you don’t want to respond to it. Then, if
there is no respond then we will, I see that represent member Short
has another question.
Ms. Short: Yeah, one more question, just to clarify Maija, you did
acknowledge that what you said that day wasn’t up to date. Mr.
Roy are you acknowledging the same, that you guys did share
information with the public that day at the meeting that was
inaccurate or mislead them in some way?
Mr. Roy: Yeah, I’m not going to make that statement. I don’t believe
inaccurate or mislead. I’m not going to admit to that because no, I
don’t think that’s the case.
Ms. Short: Could you speak on the subject. My question would be did you
make statements about the subject without fully informed
knowledge or consent to the public? Let me re phrase my
question, did you make statements to the public that day without
fully history, knowledge, or consent in regards to the topic that you
were addressing?
Mr. Roy: As I cannot recall, I don’t have the minutes of everything that I
said in front of me now.
Ms. Short: Ms. Jackson is it the same?
Ms. Jackson: Yeah, if I can provide a little context that might help. So, the
Planning Commission agenda had other items on the agenda and
this item that the petitioners came to testify on was actually a
report to the Commission about decisions that the Planning
Director had made. So, this wasn’t something that Alex and I
came prepared to discuss. We provide this report at every
Planning Commission meeting and it’s a spreadsheet that lists you
know maybe 15-20 projects that we’ve been actively working on
during the month prior. So, typically we come to the Commission
meeting and were prepared to answer really general questions that
the Commission may have about decisions that the Director had
made. In this particular situation, we had received some written
testimonies from the petitioners or others that are in the Pepeekeo
area prior to the hearing, I think it was a few days prior to the
15
hearing. So, Alex and I were aware that the Commission may ask
us questions about this specific case and so we tried to review the
file as quickly as we could to be able to answer general questions
that the Commission had. But we were not prepared to provide a
full report of the details of the case because it was 1 of 15 cases
related to SMA that we had made decisions on that month. So, in
hindsight, what we could have done is just said to the Commission
that were not prepared to respond, and that we could’ve given them
an update the next month so that we would’ve had more time to
review the full details of the case. But we were trying to give the
Commission the best information we had at the time and be
responsive to them with the understanding that the Commission
was not a decision-making body related to this matter, this was just
simply a report of information to them. I hope that helps provide
some context.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you. Any other questions or comments for these two
respondents at this point from the Board? Hearing none, we will
now move to the petitioners. Are there any questions for the
petitioners, either Rohr or Mr. Garcia?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. I’m sorry chair Heintz,
just a point of clarification, who is this question directed towards?
Is this question directed towards the Board members or the
petitioners themselves?
Mr. Heintz: It’s my question was asking whether any Board members had
questions for either of the petitioners, and I’m going to give them a
chance to think about this a bit. I also want to at this point if the
other members of the Board do not object, to allow the petitioners
Ms. Rohr and Mr. Garcia to comment or say anything further given
now that they’ve heard the respondent’s response. If there is no
objection to that, I will have them speak to that.
Ms. Short: Rabbi Rachel Short, no objection.
Mr. Heintz: No objection, Denise do you, is that alright with you? Okay then,
we will have Ms. Rohr first make further comments if she wants to
about the response that the respondents have given.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. I’m sorry I would just
note that as far as rebuttals go, the traditional time is 1 minute. Is
that what the Board wants to have?
Ms. Rohr: That’s not enough.
16
Mr. Heintz: No, let’s give them a couple more minutes.
Ms. Wan: So, do you want another 3 minutes? I just need to know for my
timing.
Mr. Heintz: Let’s allow 3 minutes and then we’ll see.
Ms. Wan: Thank you.
Ms. Rohr: I would like to go into the history. In 2005 there was a zoning
ordinance 5 50 that included condition D providing an additional
vehicular access down to iron posts. I participated for a year and a
half, and all of the matters involving the Shoreline in Pepeekeo,
and that was sort of the conclusion, and the developer would not
have gotten their zoning ordinance passed by the County Council
unless they had provided this condition. Now, in 2018 there was a
flood and a lot of debris got caught in the fence that had been put
up and the fence had been moved up a gate had been placed over
the road and moved Mauka of the parking lot, but it wasn’t locked,
you could open it and go through it and drive down. But, after
2018 the landowner moved the gate up to right where Hu Honua’s
gate is for log truck traffic and put in that pedestrian gate and gated
fence down the property line and only allowed 10ft for the
pedestrian gate and locked the gate for the vehicular access. Now,
in 2005 our Planning Director then was Chris Yuen, and he made
sure that the document providing that additional vehicular access
to a parking area was property deeded to the County of Hawaii and
reported at the Bureau of Conveyances. The fact that the
respondents volunteered to comment on testifiers issues, they did
not have to comment at all, and their comments were incorrect and
this whole idea that there’s still something going on is a private
agreement between Jeff Darrow and a County Councilwoman
that’s totally against the rule 9 of the Planning Department rule 9.
How to deal with a violation? It’s a zoning violation. This is
County a county easement.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you Ms. Rohr. Just one moment. Board Members do you
want to allow Ms. Rohr 2 more minutes?
Ms. Short: Absolutely. Rabbi Rachel, I move to allow Ms. Rohr 2 more
minutes to speak.
Ms. Nakanishi: Denise Nakanishi Board Member, I agree.
Mr. Heintz: I agree as well. Ms. Rohr you have 2 more minutes.
17
Ms. Rohr: Thank you! I believe today Alex Roy and Maija Jackson are
misleading the Ethics Board. They are trying to make this sound
all complicated and there doing the same thing to you that they did
to the Planning Commission. Why is it that the interest of the
Planning Commission that ordinance 5 50 was a bill that had to go
through the Planning Commission before it was passed at County
Council in 2005. They should know what the Planning
Department is doing. I find it very alarming that Alex Roy will not
admit that it was totally wrong that in 2005 at the Bureau of
Conveyances, that vehicular access easement in favor of the
County was recorded. And I have written to him many times and
other people many times pointing out the legal documents and as
they said, I submitted written testimony about all the legal issues
prior to the Planning Commission hearing on May 5th. Thank you
for not being fooled. This would be a complete affront to all of the
testifiers who were hurt before. We ask that you have respect for
the fact that we came out and made an effort. Thank you for your
time for you logical thinking and your humanity. Thank you bye.
Mr. Heintz: Mr. Garcia did you want to comment?
Ms. Wan: Just a moment chair so that I can flip my camera around so that
Mr. Garcia can be viewed by the Board.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you Council Member, I mean representative.
Mr. Medeiros-Garcia: Aloha
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. I just want to inquire
with the Board. Are we also going to allow Mr. Medeiros-Garcia 5
minutes as well?
Mr. Heintz: If he would like 5 minutes, I think that’s appropriate. Does the
members of the Board agree?
Mr. Medeiros-Garcia: I appreciate that, I don’t think I’m taking 5 minutes thought but
thank you for that time.
Ms. Wan: Please just state your name.
Mr. Medeiros-Garcia: My name is Jaerick Medeiros-Garcia, president of Makahana Loa
fishing association. I would like to accept the apology made by
Ms. Jackson but at this point of how far away we at, four years is a
long time that we’ve been ignored and I cannot accept that
apology, the fact that she’s said that she’s been there 15 years, she
should know better than that to show up to a meeting not prepared.
18
Now, that’s where I come in and think this is how it’s been, like
they’re not taking it that serious. Now, it’s the reason why it’s four
years you know. Mr. Correa, Hank Correa, has probably got some
of them under his pockets but then you know this is the frustrating
part about it. It’s all recorded in the conveyance you know and its
not up to this 2 people Roy, or 4 people, Roy, Jackson, Kimball
and Correa and Daryl. To decide whether or not it’s dangerous or
not, the fact that it’s our vehicular access it’s the only reason why
this developer could develop because that was granted to us and
we did all the legal things that we had to do and, today it’s still the
same, nothing changed, no we there’s not a key to any lock on a
gate. Alex Roy is just putting things out there for false, falsely.
There’s no key to no gate. You know we need that gate removed.
We need it to be put back exactly the way it was because that’s
what it calls for. Now, for 4 years we haven’t been going down
there and it’s not their position to say whether it’s safe or not safe.
Why? Because there is no record of anybody getting hurt down
there. Alright, the people that use that place has been using it for
years. All their lives. Now, to hear what they say just now, it’s
mind boggling, because the fact that they’re trying to twist things
around again and again and again, you know. Mr. Roy he just
admitted that he’s been down there a couple of times and 1 time
was with me. Just 1 time with me. You know, and at that point, he
made us truly believe that he was working on it. We not asking
him for to come up with the final decision, we know that’s not his
position but, do what you say you’re going to do. You didn’t but,
you doing what Mr. Correa wants you to do and now he’s doing it
on another access. You know, he’s doing everything that he’s not
supposed to be doing and you guys are turning it the other way.
So, it’s so frustrating and I’m here asking the Board, I speaking on
behalf of just about 200 members of our community that use that
Shoreline. This is important that that thing is reopened asap
because it’s not up to that landowner to do what he’s done. We
struggled, we fought, we’re here again and again and were not
being heard and it’s by this 2 that is there still. So yeah, I’m sorry
I cannot accept that apology because, we are going nowhere.
You’re just spinning us in circles, they’re waiting for certain
people to get on the Planning Commission so that they can have
people on their side you know, it’s just a rat race for us and I
apologize for being here and expressing my feelings but man, this
is the frustration that is kicking in and time and time again it’s
happening to us and we got 7 access down there, and we suppose
to have 9 but were happy with what we have and we can’t afford to
lose anymore. This is what where it’s going. I appreciate you
folks to take the time and I am so stoked that you guys gave us
more time to speak on it, I appreciate you guys, thank you and you
19
guys have a blessed and nice day. Thank you very much
everybody.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you Mr. Garcia. I’d like to take a minute to pause to see if
the member of the Board is ready to make a motion or.
Ms. Nakanishi: I have a question.
Mr. Heintz: Yes, member Nakanishi.
Ms. Nakanishi: Board Member Denise Nakanishi, so the gate that’s there, this is
for Mr. Garcia, it kind of feels like you believe it’s not there for
safety reasons, if it’s not there for safety reasons then why is it
there? And beyond that, the ethics question here is whether the 2
Planning Department employees misrepresented facts of the
hearing and I don’t think we can rule on it unless we watch the
whole video. Anyway, I would like to know why the gates there.
Mr. Medeiros-Garcia: Absolutely, thank you for your question, Board Member
Nakanishi. Yes, we didn’t have a gate there in the past. Before I
guess Mr. Correa jumped on board as being a partner with the
Continental Pacific, who is a developer. It was a vehicle access;
we didn’t have to get out of the car and open a gate. We would
just drive, it was a wide, almost 30 ft wide access that we could
drive down to our parking lot and just unload our gear stuff like
that and go fishing but, since Mr. Correa got involved, a fence
went up, a gate went up, a lock went on and they made it for only a
pedestrian access. Without doing a new SMA or anything, or even
just talking about it. Now I don’t know who is the people that Mr.
Alex Roy is meeting with, but the ones that have legal rights to
what we had is not the ones he’s listening to. You know, and you
watch the video from the commission, the Planning Commission,
it’ll speak volumes, it’ll speak volumes you know, it’ll show you
guys exactly what were talking about. I mean who works in a
department for 15 years and show up without answers you know
that thing was planned for how long. We were waiting for that for
how long. We get there and now they say they weren’t prepared,
that’s not, I don’t think that’s accurate, but you guys can watch it
for yourself and see that were not here to make up any stories,
were not here to lash out at people. I’m the president and my job is
to make sure that that access is there and remains and I have close
to 200 people that expecting me to do my part as their leader.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you Mr. Garcia, thank you very much. Denise, if I
understand correctly, you’re saying that you do not feel prepared to
make decision or a motion at this time because you haven’t seen
the video is that right?
20
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry, Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. Chair, before
we get into that particular discussion, I just want to clarify if your
done taking testimony and evidence for today? I would just like to
focus the Board on the question before the Board today. On the
petition which is whether or not there was a violation of the Code
of Ethics specifically section 2-83 for fair treatment, which states
that’s officers and employees of the County while discharging their
duties and dealing with the public shall adhere to the following
precepts. Specifically cited, all persons shall be treated in a
courteous fair and impartial manner.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you Council. What I was asking is my impression was that
Board Member Nakanishi was not ready at this point to consider a
motion because she needed to look at the entire video and if that’s
the case then we have only 3 members present and 1 of them is
saying that she’s not willing or ready to deal with a motion at this
time. If that’s the case, then I will not be asking for a motion. Or I
will ask for a motion to table this till the next meeting.
Ms. Wan: Chair, I believe we need to have a motion.
Mr. Heintz: Legal counsel, could you just respect I’m speaking, I am not
recognizing you at this point, what I’m doing is I’m speaking to
member Board Member Nakanishi who is my understanding is she
is not ready to deal with this matter. So, is she ready to make a
motion to table this till next meeting?
Ms. Nakanishi: If I made a motion, that would be the motion.
Mr. Heintz: Is there any other motion? Is there a second to that motion to table
this till next meeting?
Ms. Short: I will second that motion, Rabbi Rachel Short to table to the next
meeting. Rabbi Rachel Short, I second the motion by member
Nakanishi to table until the next meeting.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you, is there any discussion to table at this point? Hearing
none, all those in favor of tabling this petition 2022-16 to our
January meeting of the Board of Ethics.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Nakanishi moved to next meeting; Ms. Short seconded. All
members voted aye. (11:17 a.m.)
Mr. Heintz: There’s 3 votes in favor for tabling this motion, this petition to the
next meeting and thank you very much petitioners and respondents
21
and Board members. I just want to ask the members and the legal
council Wan, is it alright if we take a 10-minute recess at this point
before we move into the next petition which is petition 2022-13? I
know I need a brief recess.
Ms. Short: I’m okay with that.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan that should be fine.
Mr. Heintz: Okay so we take a 10-minute recess and then we will move to
petition 2022-13. Thank you very much.
Ms. Short: Chair, just to confirm we will be back at 11:30 a.m. or 11:28?
Mr. Heintz: 11:28!
Ms. Short: 11:28 it is! Thank you.
RECESS (11:18 a.m. to 11:28 a.m.)
Mr. Heintz: Okay it appears that all members are returned from recess. We
will now move to unfinished business and unfinished business we
have 1 petition, petition 2022-13, continued review of a complaint
regarding the Planning Department employee alleging violation of
Section 2-83 (Fair Treatment) of the Ethics code.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (11:31 a.m.)
a. Petition 2022- 13: Continued review of complaint regarding a Planning Department
employee, alleging violation of Section 2- 83 (Fair Treatment) of the
Ethics Code.
Mr. Heintz: This is the petition by Claudia Rohr, is Ms. Rohr present?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, yes, she’s present.
Ms. Rohr: I can’t start my video until somebody let’s me start it. Okay, start
my video. Say’s you cannot start your video because the host has
stopped it.
Mr. Heintz: Okay, so now let’s, we are now going to consider petition 2022-13
and you at this point petitioner has 5 minutes to summarize or talk
about the key elements of the petition.
Ms. Rohr: Thank you. This issue came up in processing SMA use permit
assessment for Hui Hoʻoleimaluō my next-door neighbor. Mr.
22
Roy contradicted a report I made that outdoor classes were
occurring on the property next to me without first obtaining a use
permit in violation of the zoning code and misinformed Deputy,
Jeff Darrow and the enforcement officers in written
communications with my next-door neighbor, Hui Hoʻoleimaluō
agent, Kamala Anthony during Mr. Roy’s processing of her SMA
use permit assessment application number SAA-2022000057 and
maybe for an earlier assessment application, Mr. Roy made
inappropriate personal comments about me. I discovered this after
the fact. The written communications speak for themselves. I
have submitted those as exhibits. Mr. Roy blamed me for the
permit taking a long time. Mr. Roy is the cause of the delay and
his not following the law that cause of litigation. The applicant
submitted an application for a SMA use permit assessment for the
larger plan project in 2021 and Mr. Roy simply did not tell her to
submit a full application for an SMA major permit and a use
permit required by chapter 25-5-3b. Mr. Roy portrayed portrayal
of me as opposing Hui Hoʻoleimaluō proposed use of the property
to grow fish and limu in existing brackish fishponds using real
student fishpond practitioners and to hold intersession outdoor
educational classes, and Ka ʻUmeke Kāʻeo public charter schools
proposed use of the property to hold their oleo Hawaii and aina-
based educational program was inaccurate, unfair and
disrespectful. It made Hui Hoʻoleimaluō and Ka ʻUmeke Kāʻeo
public charter school not trust me. They refused to answer my
emails or texts about common shared problems or interest or
engage with me other than to speak disrespectfully to me in public
but earlier, I spoke to the Kumu and Louisa Lee at Ka ʻUmeke
school. They asked me what I wanted in order to support them,
and I answered that they needed to get the necessary, they needed
to perform environmental review and get the necessary SMA
major, and use permits for under chapter 25-5-3b and they seemed
okay with that. I felt that we were getting an understanding and we
could have worked together to protect 2 species of endangered
listed sea birds that are nesting on both of our properties. An
investigation is warranted based on Mr. Roy’s glaring favoritism
towards landowners Hui Hoʻoleimaluō failure to follow the zoning
code or require a SMA major permit and is unfairness to the
surrounding property owners who had no notice or meaningful
opportunity to be heard about the permitting of an outdoor learning
lab for up to 200 people in a residential neighborhood and on
property in the SMA and where nesting endangered seabirds are
present.
Mr. Heintz: Okay, thank you Ms. Rohr, can you, is that..
23
Ms. Rohr: That’s it. Thank you.
Mr. Heintz: Now we will hear from Mr. Roy. Is he present and would he like
to respond?
Mr. Roy: I am. I can’t turn on my camera.
Mr. Heintz: We’re working on it. There we go, we have you.
Mr. Roy: I’m going to assume that, oh Alex Roy, Planner at the Planning
Department. I’m going to assume that you have my statement.
The verbal statement made by the Director at the last meeting or
not the last meeting, this was maybe October, November and then
the statement by Kamala Anthony.
Mr. Heintz: Just one moment. Do members have Mr. Roy’s October 11th
statement, 2-page statement on County stationary? Yes, that’s the
one.
Mr. Roy: And then you should have a statement by Kamala Anthony, the
agent of Hui Hoʻoleimaluō. That was submitted.
Mr. Heintz: Yes, I have that. 2 others have that as well.
Mr. Roy: And then the statement that was made by the Director, verbally at
that meeting.
Mr. Heintz: Yes, Mr. Zendo Kern.
Mr. Roy: Yup, Director Kern.
Mr. Heintz: Director Kern made a statement at the last meeting.
Mr. Roy: Yeah.
Mr. Heintz: When was the last meeting?
Mr. Roy: Yeah, it was October or November. October, I believe, yeah.
Mr. Heintz: October 11th
Mr. Roy: So as long as we have that, I have nothing else, nothing further to
add.
Mr. Heintz: Let’s see then. So, we’ve had. Do any members of the Board have
questions for Mr. Roy? Counsel Wan?
24
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, I believe Ms. Short is
having a hard time or at least it appears that she’s having a hard
time finding these exhibits. If the board.
Ms. Short: Thank you for picking up on that Counsel. I appear to have the
statement from Mr. Roy, I don’t appear to have the statements
from Mr. Kern.
Mr. Heintz: Mr. Kern’s statement was a statement to the, it would be in the
minutes if it was recorded. It was a public statement at the
previous meeting.
Ms. Short: I don’t have that, nor do I appear to have a statement from Ms.
Paris I believe, unless it’s included in the electronic
communication that has been provided.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, yes, all of the exhibits
were provided a new to the entire Board since Ms. Short had come
up kind of board. The exhibit that Mr. Roy, one of the exhibits
that Mr. Roy was referring to it looks like an email, the top portion
says from Alex Roy, the date is Wednesday, July 7, 2021, the
second exhibit appears to be an email from an Ashley Mori as
noted at the top.
Ms. Short: That I do have.
Ms. Wan: Okay, so those are the 2 exhibits.
Ms. Short: Yes, thank you. Thank you for confirming I’m looking at the right
thing. I was making sure it wasn’t another statement on County
letter head because that I do not have.
Mr. Heintz: So, and Denise did you have the documents, you’re alright?
Ms. Nakanishi: I have them, yeah.
Mr. Heintz: Okay. Do any members of the Board have questions for Mr. Roy?
Ms. Nakanishi: I would like for him to reconfirm that he never disclosed to the
neighbor who was making the complaint?
Mr. Roy: That’s correct, yes.
Ms. Nakanishi: Is there in your mind any way she, anybody else could have told
her?
25
Mr. Roy: I don’t really wish to speculate but, I believe in my statement I
alluded to Ms. Rohr actually kind of confirming in her first
interaction as I was told and as she wrote on her complaint form,
that she had a negative interaction with them initially. So, it was
told to me early on that Kamala and the Hui Hoʻoleimaluō who
was complaining or who was putting forth complaints on the
project.
Ms. Nakanishi: And there are other neighbors?
Mr. Roy: Oh yes, yes.
Mr. Heintz: Are there other questions or comments from Board members in
asking, directed to Mr. Roy?
Ms. Short: I guess my only question would be, how many other neighbors are
there around that area? Approximately?
Mr. Roy: You’d have to be specific on distance from the property. You
know within say 500 feet, there’s about 11 or 12 neighbors.
There’s one directly on the other side of this project site. But yeah,
you know it’s kind of it is a neighborhood that’s built up
somewhat.
Ms. Short: So, you said there’s probably about would you repeat that number
within 500 feet? How many?
Mr. Roy: I think there’s about 11 within 500 feet, you know I have to, that’s
what I recall kind of looking at the project parcel, and then
corporate 3 separate parcels. You know measuring distance from
the center of those 3 parcels or you know, adjacent from the
property line or something like that. So, there could be less there
could be more, so we’ll say probably around 10 at least if not
more.
Ms. Short: Thank you for that clarification.
Ms. Nakanishi: But no Mauka, no Makai, right?
Mr. Roy: Makai would be the park. The County Park. And then Makai of
the property there’s a street and then across the street I do not
believe there’s any development although I can’t confirm that, but
I don’t think its developed, no.
26
Mr. Heintz: Mr. Roy, I have a question for you. In your statement, you
referred to this matter as before the Appeals Board.
Mr. Roy: Yes, currently Ms. Rohr has brought 2 Board of Appeals on this
matter, so we are currently working through that Appeals process
that she’s appeals to Director’s decision on the application and
then a notice of violation related to the plan approval process that
the applicant is required under SMA, under the SMA permit that
they’re required to get plan approval. So, yes Ms. Rohr has
brought up 2 separate Board of Appeals cases on this, on this
project.
Mr. Heintz: And they’re still ongoing, is that right?
Mr. Roy: Yes sir.
Mr. Heintz: I have a question now for County Counsel, Ms. Wan, what is the
relevance of the fact that these are open matters before the Appeals
Board for the Ethics Committee considering this issue at this
point? Is there any relevance to that?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, the allegations set within
the petition as well as the scope and authority of the Board of
Ethics is limited to what’s set forth in the petition of the allegations
so, any hearings, submissions, testimony that is being held in front
of the Board of Ethics has no bearing, I’m sorry, in front of the
Board of Appeals has no bearing on this petition before the Board
today.
Mr. Heintz: And would or action have bearing on the actions of the Board of
Appeals?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, I cannot comment on
that. My understanding is that this is a rather limited scope as far
as the petition goes. So that would be speculative.
Mr. Heintz: Thank you. Are there other questions from the members of the
Board for Mr. Roy? Rabbi Short, not at this point? Okay, I have a
further question, you have opportunities if you like. Mr. Roy
there, Ms. Rohr is alleging that the treatment has been unfair
because you are exercising favoritism, and that favoritism or lack
of impartiality by virtue of the language of a whole series of
emails. I just want to pull out one and because you specifically
refer to and respond to part of a statement. What I am referring to
is the statements where you refer to Ms. Rohr as a let me put it this
way, I’m quoting an email from you. “I just never thought anyone
27
would be as difficult and disturbed as your neighbor”. That, do
you understand that’s where I’m what I’m referring to. It is in an
email of April 5th. One that begins, just know that I feel very
uncomfortable making you go through this process, and I
apologize for not being more comprehensive early on and now I
just never thought anyone would be as difficult and disturbed as
your neighbor. Know that your project is on the top of my to do
list and I will not rest until we get your approval. This seems to
me to be at the heart of her complaint. That you are being, that
you are not impartial, that this is, that you are bias or unfair. And
my question is, in your response, you specifically talk about
disturbed, that what you meant and that she’s taking this out of
context unless what? Cause what you meant is, you didn’t think
anyone would be this disturbed or i.e., upset by the use of the
property in this way. You’re not alleging that Ms. Rohr has a
person who’s disturbed and that’s my understanding of your
response. Is that correct?
Mr. Roy: Yes sir.
Mr. Heintz: And, well it seems to me that your remark then was utterly
innocent.
Mr. Roy: Poor choice of words, I think, would be probably better. But yeah,
I that wasn’t my intent to you know, yeah. If I may the Board
needs to understand that every single project, you know I’m the
primary SMA planner for the entire County. That reproject I have
is at or near the shoreline, and every project I have receives some
kind of negative concern from the community.
Mr. Heintz: I see.
Mr. Roy: So, it’s a part of my job to try to work with applicants who also
have rights as landowners. And work with them to deal with these
concerns, you know. So, part of our process is to inform an
applicant, hey look you’ve got issues that you need to deal with
that the community has raised. You know, it was never my intent
to you know, to say anything poorly other than that they needed to
deal with that. And I, you know, again and again I reminded them
that they had to go through the process. And then number 2 is that
we can only go on what the applicant tells us. I go in with the
assumption that the applicants are not lying to me or they’re
providing me with all relevant information and that’s not always
the case I have to delve in, and sometimes I discover things.
Sometimes later that that they were being truthful or that they just
didn’t understand the process and so they didn’t inform me
28
correctly. I’ve spent my entire career working to protect the
coastal zone. The last 12 years being here instead of flying prior to
that working in the Wetlands and Waterways in the State of
Maryland. I worked for DLNR for the Office of Conservation
Coastal lands. It’s been my primary goal in my careers to help
preserve and protect the coastal zone. And on top of that, the
rights that Native Hawaiians have to practice. They’re you know
Native uses and I have felt very strongly about that coming from
DLNR, you know that’s always been a priority. So, I apology if I
came across as looking to support Native Hawaiians but, it wasn’t
over one person or another.
Mr. Heintz: Okay, I understand that. But I just want to note that your response
certainly deals with the term disturbed as your neighbor. But it
silent on the question of as difficult and disturbed. And so my
question is about the use of difficult here in this context. And it’s
vital it goes right to the issue that she’s raising. I mean it could
mean here that what you mean is combative or aggressive or hard
to deal with. Or it could mean unwanted behavior on her part. It
could mean that she has a history of being contentious and
difficult. Again, this is poor choice of words and when you throw
all this together, it raises very serious questions about, if not actual
bias. Certainly, the appearance of it. And I guess that’s I don’t
know if you want to comment anymore but, this I find troubling.
Mr. Roy: No, I don’t have a comment on that. That’s definitely the chair’s
prerogative to try to decipher that.
Mr. Heintz: Okay, thank you. Other members.
Ms. Nakanishi: Chair Heintz, I’m sorry, I’m not sure if this is an appropriate time.
Maybe Corp Counsel can tell me. The complaint as I read it,
simply was that he told the neighbor, who was complaining, not
that body of the correspondence.
Mr. Heintz: I think it’s more then that. She’s alleging, and we can let Mr. Rohr
speak to if she wants to. But she’s alleging that he is treating her
unfairly, and that is to say, that he is not neutral. I don’t think I’m
mistaken about that.
Ms. Short: Can we allow Rabbi Rachel Short speaking. Can we allow Ms.
Rohr to respond to that because that’s my understanding of this
petition as well, is it’s not just that one correspondence, its that
there has been you know, no officers or employees shall use or
attempt to use the officers or employees to secure or grant all
wanted privileges, exemptions, advantage, contract, etc. As well
29
as all persons shall be treated in a courteous fair, and impartial
manner. So, it’s my understanding that those are the complaints in
addition to the wording of the email that it is a much larger issue is
my understanding.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, so the petition it’s self
has the 2 under number 2 has Mr. Rohr’s response, as far as what
sections she’s citing as far as violations, which is subsection A3
and subsection B, as far as the substance of her complaint, that is
under paragraph 3, which is her statement of the facts as well as
paragraph 4, which is what she would like to see happen. So, if
you’re looking to see what are her allegations that would go to
unfair treatment, it would be contained within number 3 as well as
the exhibits that she has provided to the Board, including I believe
there’s 2 sets of exhibits that she had provided to the Board.
Ms. Short: Rabbi Rachel, Chair, would it be acceptable to allow Ms. Rohr to
speak in response to her statements?
Mr. Heintz: If the Board so desires, and if that happens then we also let Mr.
Roy speak in addition. Is that my correct understanding? Is that
correct? Thank you, Sylvia. So, Mr. Rohr do you want to respond
or I’m sorry let me change that. Rabbi Short you want to ask
questions? You have you can ask a question.
Ms. Short: Yeah Mr. Rohr I would just like for you to clarify the main source
of your complaint that you want us to be examining. I can see here
obviously it’s 28-3 fair treatment, A3 and B as well. Are you
indeed referring to just the communication that you’ve submitted
or is it the larger issue that you feel that you have been treated not
in a care courteous fair and impartial manner, I believe, is what
were asking chair, correct me if I am wrong.
Ms. Rohr: Let me start by responding to the way he answered Chair’s
questions. There are only 2 of us in residing on each side, or 1 on
each side of their project or property. After that, there’s the
neighborhood in this 2-block section is pretty undeveloped. I have
an empty lot next to me for instances but, in front there’s a
property that’s a vacation rental, then on the left is John the
lifeguard and his family lives a jointing this property so, really
there’s only a couple possibilities of who neighbors would be. If
you read the overall feel of the communications, he did get a
response from Kamala where she started to say that the complaints
were ridiculous. I’m sorry I’m not particularly aggressive, I made
an initial complaint that now that they were bringing students on
the property, they should have to get a use permit under the zoning
30
code 25-5-3b, because it’s a place of learning and instruction and
group instruction, that kind of thing, group demonstration. Under
the definition of school and the zoning code. Anyway, that was
my complaint, then I sent in a few supportive things as I found
them. Proof that they were involved with a program with the
University of Hawaii to have Highschool kids come in as interns
and become fishpond practitioners. But the point I’m trying to
make is that Kamala’s response to the things that he was saying
obviously she took it as that I was causing some kind of difficulty.
They certainly guessed it was me but, I don’t think it helped that he
referred to a neighbor. By doing that, it made them say ok let’s
narrow it down but, the point is, that they were just doing an SMA
assessment. I wasn’t doing anything, they were just following the
law and I didn’t make their permit take longer other than I took
note that they hadn’t gotten the letter from Shepherd, and then
Alex had to send a letter asking for comments but, that’s a
prerequisite for an application or a SMA permit. If you read the
whole thing, one of the things I objected to was I called and wrote
and email stating that okay, today they’re holding classes on the
property, this would be a good day for inspectors to come down
and see it. They have a rule at the Planning Department, if the
inspectors don’t see it, they don’t in force, and it’s an unwritten
policy. Anyway, Alex replied to that email and said “Oh, I’m in
touch with Kamala and she says that there’s no educational
program, that that’s just family and friends, it might look like their
holding classes but, it’s just family and friends”. So, the inspectors
did not go down on that day because of his interference in the
investigation.
Mr. Heintz: Okay Mr. Rohr, the question is, what areas of the code? Are we,
are you? The question, I think, is unfair and impartial treatment.
Is that right?
Ms. Rohr: Yes, I’ll get my petition up, I have it right here. It says, sorry it’s
in my petition and I want to say something, please. I did not
receive any of Alex Roy’s submissions, nor in the last case did I
receive any of the submissions of the respondents. The Board of
Ethics is not forwarding those submissions to the petitioners. That
seems kind of unfair. I don’t know what he wrote. But anyways,
it says in my petition, that I number 2 is section 2-83 fair
treatment, A and B that he’s discharging his duties unfairly and not
in the impartial manner, and that is using his official position to
secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, etc.
Mr. Heintz: Okay, I think. Thank you very much. I think that response is
adequate. Mr. Roy did you want to say anything further?
31
Mr. Roy: No.
Mr. Heintz: Okay.
Ms. Rohr: I’m sorry but you cut me off. I do have one thing I want to say.
His statement that he cares about Native Hawaiian rights. Both he
and the Director read the Constitution Article 12, section 7,
without the last phrase that we protect the tradition. Native
Hawaiian traditional rights, subject to government regulation and
they’re anyway, they ignore that, and that’s a special, that’s under
B. Unwarned privileges, exemptions, advantages for others.
They’re my neighbors, I support what they do but they have to get
a use permit just like the rest of us, and to represent that I don’t
support them is upsetting to me.
Mr. Heintz: Okay. Thank you very much Ms. Rohr. Legal Counsel Wong.
Have we procedurally covered?
Ms. Wan: I believe that should be fine. You have provided an opportunity
for statement from both parties, and as of this point, which you’ve
allowed was questions and answers by the Board members to the
parties. So, I think you have concluded everything that is required.
Mr. Heintz: Okay, thank you very much. One just a courtesy to the members
of the Board. Do either member of the Board have any further
questions or comments before we have a motion? So, at this point
is either member of the Board ready to make a motion?
Ms. Nakanishi: I would differ to you, Board member Denise Nakanishi.
Ms. Short: Rabbi Rachel Short, I would differ to you on this chair Heintz to
receive your feedback and guidance towards a motion here.
Mr. Heintz: Let me make a stab at a motion and I’m quite willing to withdraw
the motion or hope for it to be amended. I want to say that this
petition makes me want to make the following kind of motion, that
Mr. Rohr’s. Yeah, I’m sorry that the evidence that the committee
reviewed today, and the materials that have been provided, and the
exchange of comments, make us make the Board believe that Mr.
Rohr’s performance in dealing with the SMA were, includes
instances of poor choice of words, words that certainly imply or
provide reason for the Board to believe that his actions are not
impartial, and therefore the Board concludes that he has violated
the impartiality, fair treatment. Pause of the ethics code. That’s a
very long motion but that’s what I.
32
Ms. Short: Can I take you back on that chair Heintz. I would say that the
motion could be something along the lines of the Board of Ethics
finds that Mr. Roy did not treat Ms. Rohr in a courteous, fair and
impartial manner.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, so what I’m hearing is 2
different motions being contemplated at this time. As far as the
second motion, Ms. Short, the conclusion is fine, but it does need
to have some support to the conclusion. So, I believe between the
2 motions, you may be able to find one that would be sufficient.
Ms. Short: Right. Let me give another shot at this Chair and maybe you could
help.
Mr. Heintz: Yes.
Ms. Short: I motion that given the petition and evidence that is presented to
the Board of Ethics by Ms. Rohr, the Board of Ethics finds that Mr.
Roy while discharging his duties and dealing with the public, did
not treat her in a courteous, fair and impartial manner.
Ms. Wan: And if we could also add what were the specific actions that lead
to the finding of not being, Ms. Rohr not being treated in an
impartial fair manner.
Ms. Short: Again, help me with this one chair but, my instinct would be based
on the comments made by electronic mail.
Mr. Heintz: I agree with that, and I identified one passage in particular but,
there are others. It’s specifically the difficult and disturbed phrase
that I cited.
Ms. Nakanishi: So, my prob, sorry.
Mr. Heintz: Yes, Denise.
Ms. Nakanishi: My problem is that that even that email was not directed towards
any specific individual. It was just a correspondence with the
Kamala. I mean it, wasn’t it didn’t call out Claudia Rohr, or even
though it did sound like he was basically supporting the petition,
and I would say that or supporting the application. Okay, it didn’t
call her out specifically so.
Ms. Short: I would, Rabbi Rachel Short responding, Board Member. I would
point to the email from Alex Roy to Kamala Anthony on
33
Wednesday, July 7, where he says at the top, “I was told you know
who complained but I am not allowed to say”. To me that implies
or infers that there were other discussions about Ms. Rohr and this
topic and also, I would go back to the statement that Ms. Rohr
made regarding the number of neighbors that are surrounding them
when referencing a quote “disturbed neighbor”.
Ms. Nakanishi: Because I’m a relator, I know what’s down there. And the
complaint is ministry. Very narrow street, and the complaint
initiated the problem was the parking on that road. So, it could
have been any of the neighbors complaining that they were
blocking the road or parking on the road, I mean it’s public roads
and they can park there but, that’s why I ask how many neighbors
there are.
Ms. Short: But I think that we were discussing whether or not she was treated
in a courteous, fair and impartial manner.
Ms. Nakanishi: But I don’t know that we have any thing that points directly to her.
Even with what she gave us. But I mean I think, I don’t have the
printed stuff, I don’t have the written stuff, the packet wasn’t ready
and I couldn’t go get it when it was ready and my printer, you
know my house is being tented so you know I’m trying to go back
and fourth on my computer but its very difficult.
Mr. Heintz: Yeah, if you don’t have this all printed out, I have read it through
and I happen to agree with Ms. Rohr, it’s pretty much impossible
not to see that from this serious of exchanges that go over a couple
of months. That, that it’s about her and its not impartial. Not fair
or impartial.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, I’m sorry, I just want to
clarify the record because right now it appears that we have a
formation of 2 different motions, neither have officially seconded
and there is discussion apparently about both of the motions
simultaneously so, there needs to be a little bit of clarity of record
as far as which motion is being heard currently and is there a
second.
Mr. Heintz: Can I clarify, as I understand that Rabbi Short was modifying my
motion, and so we have a hybrid motion before us. Her language
then, and then you raise the issue about what support do we have
for that? And the support we had was what I referred to. That the
emails and the evidence that we’ve heard and the verbal evidence
that we’ve heard today support that the view that this was not fair,
34
and impartial, and that’s what were, I guess discussing so that’s the
motion.
Ms. Wan: Okay and, will somebody second that then?
Ms. Short: I think were still discussing is my understanding.
Ms. Wan: Yes, I I understand it’s just that procedurally there needs to be a
second before it can be a discussion. And I know we kind of
jumped ahead, and it appeared that I would believe that either
Heintz would second Ms. Short’s motion or Ms. Short would
second Mr. Heintz motion. I just want to make sure that it’s clear
so that what we’re doing is transparent.
Mr. Heintz: I am seconding Ms. Short’s hybrid motion, the concise statement
that there’s been a violation of the I forget that section number but
it’s the fair and impartial section.
Ms. Short: 2-83, A3
Mr. Heintz: That’s right. That and the reason the evidence which Ms. Wan was
asking for was the kind of stuff that I was siding in my exchange
with Mr. Roy, so that’s the hybrid motion that I am second, and, as
I understand it, Denise is a little unclear yet because she didn’t
have the full paper record of all those emails which make it evident
that it’s her that’s being talked about. And that the language
choice is unfortunate and not fair and appears to us to be impartial.
That’s where we are and so well go back to discussion. We’ve got
a motion, we’ve got a second and all of this is part of the
discussion, and we are either ready to vote or not, or more
discussion. I sense hesitance from Denise because apparently, she
doesn’t have the written record.
Ms. Nakanishi: But I have, I did read it several times. In October, and again this
month. It’s just I can’t go back and forth to look at it. It’s you
know and stay on the camera. I just don’t agree that it points to her
directly. I do agree that some of the language is unfortunate but
that’s just, you know, kind of what happens sometimes when you
go back and forth.
Mr. Heintz: Well, we have a quorum, and we could vote and dispose of this
matter, or we can continue to deal with this matter. I would like to
call the question if there’s no objection.
Ms. Short: No objection. Rabbi Rachel Short, No objection.
35
Mr. Heintz: Okay. So, I’m calling. Yes
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan, I’m sorry, just for my
clarification, when you call the question, can you actually try to
restate it. I am taking notes.
Mr. Heintz: Okay. Rachel, you want to give it. I’m way to prolix.
Ms. Short: Wait, hang on my video turned off. Remind me what I’m doing,
am I making the same motion that I previously made?
Mr. Heintz: You’re making the hybrid motion which starts out.
Ms. Short: The hybrid motion. Okay so, Rabbi Rachel Short, I motion that,
based on the statements via electronic communication that have
been provided to the Board of Ethics. In addition to the statements
made today by Mr. Roy and Ms. Rohr, that the Board of Ethics
does find that Alex Roy treated Claudia Rohr in a way that it was
not courteous, fair, and impartial.
Mr. Heintz: I’ll second that motion.
Ms. Nakanishi: And if you can tell me where it says her name on any of this, I
would totally support it. But I don’t see her pointed out, it’s just
talks to a neighbor. You guys can call for vote about how you
want.
Ms. Short: I would just go back to the statement regarding the number of
neighbors that are there, that we heard today. That would be my
reference, and the implication that she had already filed a
complaint. They were aware that she had filed a complaint and
then they continued to say things such as you know, the email from
Alex Roy to Kamala Anthony, Wednesday, July 7th, 7:53 a.m. “I
was told, you know, who complained, but I am not allowed to
say”, that to me is not a courteous fair or impartial statement, it
implies very clearly and directly that they both know who they’re
communicating about.
Mr. Heintz: Okay, I’m ready to call the question.
Ms. Wan: The question has been called.
Mr. Heintz: All those in favor of the motion. Denise opposes. So, 2 votes in
favor and 1 against. The motion carries.
36
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short motion to find Alex Roy violated Section 2-83 (Fair
Treatment) of the Ethics Code; Mr. Heintz seconded the motion. Ms. Short and Mr. Heintz
voted aye, Ms. Nakanishi voted nay (12:24 p.m.)
Ms. Wan: And just because we’re on remote, just for clarity of record, Ms.
Rabbi Short voted Aye, Chair Heintz voted Aye, and Denise
Nakashimi voted Nay.
Mr. Heintz: And if I have
Ms. Nakanishi: Nakanishi. Thank you.
Mr. Heintz: Nakanishi. And if I had a gabble, I would pound it. Move on to
the next item. Okay. Item number 7.
7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS AND THE
HAWAI‘I COUNTY CHARTER AND COUNTY CODE (12:24 p.m.)
a. Continued review of amendments to add Appearance of Impropriety to Hawai‘i
County Code Section 2-83.
Mr. Heintz: As the person who introduced the parents of impropriety motion
that we’ve been dealing with, and I introduced 3 years ago. Going
on 4 years, I introduced another one as well, and that was failure to
act or failure to discharge and I have withdrawn the failure to
discharge motion, and I am also withdrawing the appearance of
impropriety, motion, or change of language. Not because I’m
convinced that neither of these are appropriate or needed. I believe
that they are both needed and are both appropriate and I’m
unconvinced by the arguments that have been assembled against
them. But I’m withdrawing them because the Corporation
Counsel’s office and the staff, have convinced me that such
motions and efforts to change rule and regulations are not within
my competence, so I’m withdrawing these and I will spare the
Board any further discussion of these issues. So I would make a
motion, to withdrawal item #7A from the agenda. Is there a
second to that motion?
Ms. Short: I will second. Rabbi Rachel Short, I will second the motion to
withdrawal 7A from the agenda.
Mr. Heintz: Very smart move. Any discussion? No discussion, all those in
favor of withdrawing item #7A?
37
Motion and Vote: Mr. Heintz motion to withdrawal item #7A; Ms. Short seconded the
motion. All members voted aye (12:28 p.m.)
Mr. Heintz: Motion passed. That brings us to item #7B.
b. Continued review of the recommended changes from the Legislative Review
Board regarding the Hawai‘i County Code February 2022 Amendments.
Mr. Heintz: My papers filed heavy deep, let’s see, where are we? These, I
believe, this is missed. Sylvia, can you help me? This is Mr.
Hendrix. John Hendrix is.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan. Yes, Corporation
Counsel has, I have as your Board’s attorney, provided you the
information as a legal communication between Mr. Hendrix’s
office and the Corporation Counsel working in its efforts towards
Board of Ethics amendments. If you would like to discuss the
details and implications in Mr. Hendrix’s communication within
attorney client privilege, you can enter executive session if you
want to talk about the nuances.
Mr. Heintz: I don’t know let me just try something for a moment and see. I’d
like to avoid that, if possible. If everybody has the Monday, April
18th sent from Mr. Hendrix to Cody, attached is the bill.
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Deputy Corporation Counsel Sylvia Wan.
Again, you’re talking about a receipt of attorney client
communication between the attorney and the client, which is the
Board. I understand that there are some other communications
contained there in but, if we’re going to discuss it even as far as
receipt, it would need to be done in executive session.
Mr. Heintz: Okay, we have to go to executive session.
Ms. Wan: Yes.
Mr. Heintz: Okay. Just one second. The next item is executive session
anyway, so, let’s, will take item #7B in executive session which we
can move to right now if we have a motion to move to executive
session.
Ms. Short: Rabbi Rachel Short, I motion to move to executive session.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short moved to go into executive session; Ms. Nakanishi seconded
the motion. All members voted aye. (12:30 p.m.)
38
Mr. Heintz: We’re in executive session. What I simply wanted to point out.
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry. Just a moment. Just a second because I have to close
the door.
Mr. Heintz: Pause.
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry we need a short recess in place because Chelsea needs to
get the key from Relley to close the door so we can officially have
an executive session.
Mr. Heintz: 5-minute recess.
RECESS (12:31 p.m. to 12:36 p.m.)
Ms. Wan: Sorry Chair, I know remote meetings are tedious. I have to make
sure, because of sunshine laws regarding remote meetings
specifically, there are like additional things that have to happen as
far as you can do an unanimous approval but, if there’s anyone
who’s voting they nay, then it has to be a role call vote, which is
why I kept butting in, like this last time, when there was 1 person
for nay, because it has to be noted on the record who voted which
way, unless it’s unanimous. So, I’m sorry about the tediousness.
Mr. Heintz: No problem. I thought I named the voters but, we’ll do that.
Ms. Wan: You did, you did before, just not that one time.
Mr. Heintz: Oh yeah, it’s all running together. Okay, I think we’re all back.
So, we’re in executive session.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short motion to end executive session for item 7B and move to go
into regular session; Ms. Nakanishi seconded the motion. All members voted aye. (12:43
p.m.)
Mr. Heintz: We’re in general session.
Ms. Wan: Just a second. Allow Ms. Kelsie to flip us back. Okay, we’re back
in general session.
Mr. Heintz: Ms. Short has a motion to table item 7B to the next meeting of the
Board of Ethics. Do we have a second?
Ms. Nakanishi: I’ll second.
39
Mr. Heintz: Denise is seconding, is there any discussion? Hearing none, all
those in favor.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short motion to table item 7B to next meeting; Ms. Nakanishi
seconded the motion. All members voted aye. (12:44 p.m.)
Mr. Heintz: It’s unanimous. The motion passes, 7B is tabled and will be on the
agenda for next meeting. And the next item is executive session.
Do I have a motion to move into executive session?
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short motion to move into executive session; Ms. Nakanishi
seconded the motion. All members voted aye. (12:45 p.m.)
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION (12:45 p.m.)
a. Review of the Executive Session minutes of November 9, 2022.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short moved to approve the executive session minutes of November
9, 2022. Ms. Nakanishi seconded the motion. All members voted aye (12:49 p.m.)
b. Review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms filed pursuant to Section 2-
91.1(d), Hawai’i County Code, by County board and commission members and
designated County employees, where personal matters will be reviewed.
c. Continued review of Gift Disclosures filed pursuant to Section 2- 91. 5(a), by
County board and commission members and designated County employees,
where personal matters will be reviewed.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short motion to table item 8B, 8C and 8CC to February 2023
meeting; Ms. Nakanishi seconded the motion. All members voted aye. (12:50 p.m.)
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short motion to end executive session and move to go into regular
session; Ms. Nakanishi seconded the motion. All members voted aye. (12:51 p.m.)
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS (12:52 p.m.)
Mr. Heintz announced that the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 11,
2023, at 10:00 a.m. at the Hawai‘i County Building, Council Chambers, 25 Aupuni
Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720.
Mr. Heintz: I have one other announcement in order to facilitate our next
meeting agenda item regarding nominations for chair and vice
chair. I want to announce that I will decline if nominated, either
position, both positions. End of announcements. Anyone else
have an announcement?
40
Ms. Nakanishi: I have to say, I can’t do that either, either position so, because I’m
continuing to do cancer treatments.
Mr. Heintz: Alright, thank you! Okay, so no other announcements, and so I
need a motion to adjourn.
10. ADJOURNMENT (12:53 p.m.)
Motion and Vote: Ms. Short moved to approve adjourn the meeting. Ms. Nakanishi
seconded the motion. All members voted aye (12:53 p.m.)
Mr. Heintz: Looks like it’s unanimous.
Respectfully submitted:
Kelsie Chang, Secretary