HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-25 Regular Session Minutes
1
HAWAI‘I COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION Thursday, February 13, 2025 10:00 a.m. – 1:09 p.m.
County Council Chambers Hawai‘i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Members and Staff Present: Rachel Short, Chair Lisa Fukumitsu, Vice Member Christopher Ho, Member Paul “Scotty” Paiva, Member
Kelly Valenzuela, Member Sylvia Wan, Deputy Corporation Counsel Stacie Okuda, Secretary Assistant Noah Agustin, Secretary Assistant
1. CALL TO ORDER (10:03 a.m.) Ms. Short called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Present in chambers were Rachel Short, Lisa Fukumitsu, Christopher Ho, Paul “Scotty” Paiva, Kelly Valenzuela, and Deputy Corporation
Counsel, Sylvia Wan. Also present were Secretary Assistants Stacie Okuda and Noah Agustin. Ms. Short: Good morning everyone, this is your Chair, Rachel Short, here for
the Hawaiʻi County Board of Ethics, calling our meeting at
February 13, 2025. Please note this meeting is being held both in
person here at the Hilo Council Chambers, as well as virtually
using our Zoom platform. I’d like to review some protocols for our
Zoom participants very quickly. All cameras must be turned on at
all times during your hearing. One person speaks at a time with no
side conversations. Please mute your device when you are not
speaking to improve the audio quality for all. For Zoom
participants, please raise your hand and wait for recognition by
myself before speaking to ensure we make a clean and clear
record. Prior to speaking, please state your name-, this goes for
everyone present. Prior to speaking, please state your name so that
all parties know who’s speaking. Speak slowly, clearly, and please
be close to the microphone, and if at this time everyone would
please limit distractions by turning off your mobile phone, and
other devices. As a general reminder for all of our Board of Ethics
Members, please state your name before speaking throughout our
2
hearing today. I'd like to now introduce our Hawaiʻi County Board
of Ethics to you, if we can go down the line, state our names and
our roles, I will go first. I am your Chair, Rachel Short.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Good morning, Vice Chair Fukumitsu.
Mr. Ho : Chris Ho, Ch-, um, not the Chair. Um, member.
Mr. Paiva: Scotty Paiva, Member.
Ms. Valenzuela: Good Morning, Kelly Valenzuela, Board Member.
Ms. Short: Also, please note for the record we have Depr-, Deputy-, oh, go
ahead Sylvia.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. I am the Board’s
attorney and will be assisting the Board. I-, also assisting the Board
is Noah Agustin and, uh, Stacie Okuda, who’s located in the back
as Board Staff.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much, thank you everyone for being here today.
2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS (10:05 a.m.) Ms. Short: At this time, we will take statements from the public on agenda
items. Public testifiers can testify now, or just prior to the agenda
item that they wish to testify on. Deputy Corporation Counsel,
Sylvia Wan, will keep time. Everyone gets three minutes. At two
and-a-half minutes, DCC Wan will announce such. Do we have
any public testifiers at this time?
Ms. Wan: Uh, yes Chair, at this time, we do have one, uh, public testifier, uh,
Jason Ueki, who’s going to be testifying on Petition 2024-18.
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Wan: And once you state your name for the record, I’ll start your time.
Mr. Ueki: Alright, Jason Ueki. I’m, uh, just a concerned consum-, uh,
community member, and, uh, I’d just like to make a comment on
the events that happened at the last meeting. So, you know-, I, I
filed a complaint, um, basically stating that I felt there was
unethical treatment, uh, towards me for value that I provided to the
3
community, and the County, right? I’m not a lawyer, but I think I
presented evidence you in the form of e-mails that would point out
that without my efforts, the County would never have applied for,
let alone win a, like, $700,000 EDA Build Back Better Grant,
right? I also gave you evidence of exactly what happened in terms
of the, the mistreatment, which I will not state here because that
was in a private session, right? And, so, the point is, is that there’s
a continued misrepresentation of facts from the County towards
me, and they’re using that as justification for my-, for the
treatment, right? And that was documented-, in fact, I believe that
the primary rationale for dismissing the case was based on
something they said I did, which was documented, which never
happened, right? I made that-, after the ruling was unanimous I-, as
I walked out, calmly I might add, I stated the fact that the, the main
rationale for your ruling was not factual, right? So, I said I was
looking forward to, to the rationale, and I got it, and that, that fact
stated that I was on a Board and resigned, which is not true, is now
not on your dismissal. So, I just find this all, uh, confusing. I mean,
at the end of the day, it’s about how we treat each other, right? This
is not a court-, a legal forum, this is about ethics and morals. Tr-,
treating other-, each other with decency and respect, a-, honestly,
this is far from it. I think as a community, we’re losing our way. I
think we’re losing trust in the public sector and in, and in each
other in the community, and this is a reflection-, we can see this
going all the way up into, to D.C., right? And so, I’m here just to
stand up for the people who have the courage, and who don’t have
the courage, to stand up for what’s right, for when they feel they’ve
been wronged-…
Ms. Wan: 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. Ueki: … and thank you for your time.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much for your testimony, and for being a part of
our community. Sylvia, do we have any other public testimony at
this time?
Ms. Wan: No, Chair.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much. Um, just to note for the Board, the public
testifier we just heard is in regards to Petition 2024-18, which we
will address later on.
4
3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES (10:09 a.m.)
a. Approval of the regular session minutes of January 28, 2025
Ms. Short: Moving on to the approval of our regular session minutes of
January 28, 2025. Is there any public testimony on this agenda
item?
Ms. Wan: No, no Chair.
Ms. Short: Wonder. Has everyone had a chance to read the regular session
minutes of January 28, 2025? Assuming yes, can I please get a
motion to approve the regular session minutes of January 28,
2025?
Mr. Ho: Um, Chris Ho, move to approve the regular session minutes of
January 28, 2025, with amendments that I will give during
discussion.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second to that vote? To that motion?
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Kelly Valenzuela, I second it.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? It sounds like Chris has some.
Mr. Ho: I do, thank you-…
Ms. Short: Wonderful.
Mr. Ho: … Madame Chair.
Ms. Short: Thank you.
Mr. Ho: Um, so, there really is just, um, one mi-, uh, amendment that needs
to be made, um, the word that is used is not necessarily the correct
word, and if we replace it with the correct word, it would actually
change the intent of the entire sentence. Um, since we don’t have
page numbers, um-, page one, two, three, four, five-…
Ms. Short: Maybe you could tell us what bullet point it’s under, Chris. The
section and sub-section.
Mr. Ho: Um, letter e, Petition 2025-03.
5
Ms. Short: Say that one more time?
Mr. Ho: Um, letter e, Petition 2025-03.
Mr. Short: Okay, so, for everyone that is, um-, number 5, new business, sub-
section e, Petition 2025-03. What is-…
Mr. Ho: It’s the second page.
Ms. Short: So, the back of that, okay.
Mr. Ho: Um-, one, two, three, four, um, five, five spaces down, right, um-,
Ms. Iyo-…
Ms. Short: Oh yeah, thank you for seeking me today.
Mr. Ho: Uh, yes.
Ms. Short: Okay.
Mr. Ho: So, um, I’m going to stop talking so that I can do the amendment
properly. Okay, um, move to amend that sent-, that particular
sentence, so, um, first of all, my name is Lindsey Iyo, thank you
for seeking me today, removing seeking and replacing it with
seeing.
Ms. Short: So, Chris, do-, he already said the motion with the amendment.
Ms. Wan: No, so his motion was he wants to approve the minutes with
amendments-…
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Wan: … so, right now, he’s doing a motion to amend this line by deleting
seeking and replacing with the word seeing, so that is a motion to
amend. We’ll need a second.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second to the motion to amend?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Board Member Fukumitsu, second.
6
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I will call on a
vote to the motion to amend. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any oppo-, opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none,
the motion to amend now passes.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Chris Ho moved to amend the Regular Session minutes
of January 28, 2025; Vice Chair Fukumitsu seconded; All members voted aye. Motion
Passes. (10:12 a.m.)
Ms. Short: We will now go back to the vote for the approval of the minutes-…
Ms. Wan: You’ll go back to, you’ll go back to discussion-…
Ms. Short: Okay-…
Ms. Wan: … for the motion as amended.
Ms. Short: … any further discussion to be had on the motion to approve the
regular session minutes from January 28, 2025?
Mr. Ho: The rest are just minor, um, they’re just missing letters in some of
the words. Just an FYI.
Ms. Wan: Okay. Um, would you like to state them? Or, or would you like to-,
I’m not exactly sure how you want to do that.
Mr. Ho: I don’t either because there’s a handful, and I don’t want to take
too much time trying to-…
Ms. Short: Should we take-…
Mr. Ho: … identify and go through each one-…
Ms. Wan: So, are, are you okay with the minutes standing even with those
typographical errors?
Mr. Ho: Yes, that was the only real one that needed to be changed.
Ms. Wan: Okay.
7
Mr. Ho: The rest are superficial.
Ms. Wan: Okay, so that’s before the Board.
Ms. Short: Any further discussion on the approval of the regular session
minutes from January 28, 2025? I will call for a vote in this-, at
this time. All in favor of the approval of those minutes, please say
aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Wan: With the amendment.
Ms. Short: With the amendment.
Ms. Wan: Yeah.
Ms. Short: With-, all in favor of those-, the approval of those minutes with the
amendment, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none, the
motion so passes.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Chris Ho moved to approve the amended Regular
Session minutes of January 28, 2025; Kelly Valenzuela seconded; All members voted aye.
Motion Passes. (10:13 a.m.)
b. Approval of the closed session minutes of December 11, 2024
Ms. Short: Moving on to the approval of our closed session minutes from
January 28, 2025. Do we have any public testimony on this agenda
item, Sylvia?
Ms. Wan: Not at this time, Chair.
Ms. Short: Has everyone had a chance to read and review the regular-, the
executive session minutes from January 28, 2025?
Ms. Valenzuela: Yes.
Ms. Short: May I get a motion to approve those minutes?
8
Mr. Ho: Sorry, Madame Chair, you meant closed session, correct?
Ms. Short: Closed session, yes.
Mr. Ho: Thank you.
Ms. Short: Thank you. Would someone like to make a motion to approve the
closed session minutes from January 28, 2025?
Ms. Valenzuela: Good morning, Kelly Valenzuela, Board Member. I make a motion
to approve the closed minutes of January 28, 2025.
Ms. Short: Could I get a second to that motion?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, second.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I will call for
a vote. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none, the
motion so passes.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Valenzuela moved to approve the Closed Session minutes
of January 28, 2025; Vice Chair Fukumitsu seconded; All members voted aye. Motion
Passes. (10:14 a.m.)
c. Approval of the executive session minutes of January 28, 2025
Ms. Short: Moving on to the approval of our executive session minutes from
January 28, 2025. Do we have any public testimony on this agenda
item at this time?
Ms. Wan: No, Chair.
Ms. Short: Assuming that everyone has had a chance to read our executive
session minutes, can I get a motion to approve those executive
session minutes?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, I move to approve the executive session
minutes of January 28, 2025.
9
Ms. Short: Thank you, Vice Chair, may I get a second?
Ms. Valenzuela: Kelly Valenzuela, Board Member, I second.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I will call for
a vote. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please state nay. Hearing and seeing none, the
motion so passes.
Motion and Vote: Vice Chair Fukumitsu moved to approve the Executive Session minutes
of January 28, 2025; Board Member Valenzuela seconded; All members voted aye. Motion
Passes. (10:15 a.m.)
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (10:15 a.m.) a. Petition 2024-18: Review of Order Dismissing Petition
Ms. Short: Moving on to agenda item 4, unfinished business. Calling Petition
number 2024-18, the review of the draft order dismissing the
Petition. I believe we heard the only public testimony on this item?
Ms. Wan: I, yes, Chair, De-, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. Uh,
the only public testifier was related to this item. I will also just
note, um, for the Board’s, uh, attention, uh, that same individual
also provided written testimony. A copy of that written testimony
has been provided to the Board this morning, so if you’d like to
take a moment, at this time, uh, please review that written
testimony before we move on to the consideration of the proposed
order.
Ms. Short: I’ll give everyone a few minutes to review our written testimony,
thank you.
*All members read the written testimony*
Ms. Short: Has everyone had time to review the written testimony? Thank
you. Um, after hearing and reviewing the testimony, would
someone like to make a motion regarding Petition 2024-18?
10
Ms. Wan: Well, um, the testimony is not on the agenda. What is on the
agenda is, um, approval of the draft order dismissing the
petition-…
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Wan: … so, that’s what should be called.
Ms. Short: So, would someone like to make a motion approving the draft
order to dismiss Petition number 2024-18?
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho, Member. Before I do that, I just wanted to say for the
record, um, since this is voting on, um, this particular-, even
though, the decision has already been made, I just wanted to state
for the record that, um, one of the respondents and I have worked
together for many, many years, outside of their role within the
County, um, and that will not affect my ability to, um,
appropriately do what I need to do for this.
Ms. Short: Thank you. Would someone like to make a motion?
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho, Member. Move to approve Petition 2024-18, um, review
of draft order dismissing Petition 2024-18.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second to that motion?
Ms. Valenzuela: Kelly Valenzuela, I second it.
Ms. Short: Any discission to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I will call for a
vote. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. The motion so passes. Petition
number 2024-18, I will sign at this time.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Ho moved to approve the draft Order Dismissing
Petition for Petition 2024-18; Board member Valenzuela seconded; All members voted aye.
Motion Passes. (10:19 a.m.)
b. Petition 2024-18: Review of draft Informal Advisory Opinion
Ms. Short: Moving along to unfinished business, agenda item 4(b), calling
Petition number 2024-21, the review of the draft of an informal
11
advisory opinion. Do we have any public testimony on this agenda
item?
Ms. Wan: No, Chair, not at this time.
Ms. Short: Has everyone read the draft informal advisory opinion? Can I get a
motion to approve the informal advisory opinion regarding Petition
2024-21?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, I move to approve the informal advisory
opinion for Petition number 2024-21.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second to that motion?
Ms. Valenzuela; Board Member Valenzuela, I second it.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll call for a
vote. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none, the
motion so passes. I will sign at this time. Uh-…
Ms. Wan: Just strike it.
Motion and Vote: Vice Chair Fukumitsu moved to approve the draft Informal Advisory
Opinion for Petition 2024-21; Board member Valenzuela seconded; All members voted aye.
Motion Passes. (10:20 a.m.)
c. Petition 2024-22: Review of draft Informal Advisory Opinion
Ms. Short: Um, moving on, wait-, yup. Calling Petition number 2024-22, the
review of the draft informal advisory opinion. Do we have any
public testimony on this agenda item?
Ms. Wan: Nope.
Ms. Short: Has everyone had a chance to review the informal advisory
opinion for 2024-22? May I get a motion to approve pe-, the
informal advisory opinion for petition 2024-22?
12
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, I move to approve the informal advisory
opinion for Petition number 2024-22.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second for that motion?
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, I second it.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll call for a
vote. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none, the
motion so passes, I will sign at this time. Look at that one, 2023. I
know.
Motion and Vote: Vice Chair Fukumitsu moved to approve the draft Informal Advisory
Opinion for Petition 2024-22; Board member Valenzuela seconded; All members voted aye.
Motion Passes. (10:22 a.m.)
d. Petition 2025-03: Review of draft Informal Advisory Opinion
Ms. Short: Calling Petition number 2025-23, the review of a draft informal
advisory opinion. Do we have any public testimony on this agenda
item?
Ms. Wan: No, Chair.
Ms. Short: Has everyone read this?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Yes.
Mr. Ho: Madame Chair, just so we’re clear, you’re referencing Petition
2025-03, not 23?
Ms. Short: Yes, 03. Did I say 23? Sorry, 2025-03. Has everyone had a chance
to read that informal advisory opinion? Can I get a motion to
approve that?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, I move to approve the informal advisory
opinion for Petition number 2025-03.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second to that motion?
13
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, I second it.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll call for a
vote. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none, the
motion so passes. Oh, this one’s right.
Motion and Vote: Vice Chair Fukumitsu moved to approve the draft Informal Advisory
Opinion for Petition 2025-03; Board member Valenzuela seconded; All members voted aye.
Motion Passes. (10:23 a.m.)
e. Review and comment for Bill 21
Ms. Short: Moving on to the continued review and comment of Bill 21. Just as
a reminder, at our last meeting, um, our Board did request the
presence of Council Member Heather Kimball who introduced Bill
21, seeking input regarding the intent, creation, and status of Bill
21 presently before our County Council. Um, at this time, if the
Board is ready to proceed, I’d like to invite Council Member
Kimball up to approach. Thank you for being here with us this
morning. Good morning. If you could-…
Ms. Kimball: Good morning, Aloha-…
Ms. Short: Aloha.
Ms. Kimball: … Chair Short, and Members of the Board of Ethics. Um, thank
you in advance for your consideration of this measure. Um, I
understand there were some questions at the last hearing, and my
apologies, it was scheduled so quickly, I wasn’t able to be here to
answer some of those questions. Um, before I start though, there is
a little bit of history around this, and I wanted to invite our auditor,
um, Mr. Tyler Benner, to come up and share a little bit of this
history. I know that one of the questions, um, was perhaps that this
was in response to the current administration. I want to make clear
that this piece of legislation actually has been in the works for
quite some time, and it was just timing that the introduction
happened after the election and whatnot. So, let me have, um,
14
auditor Benner share some of the purpose, and in, in reason that
this, um, measure was introduced. Tyler.
Mr. Benner: Aloha. Um, my name is Tyler Benner with the Office of the
County Auditor. Uh, so speaking-, speaking briefly on Bill 21, I
was asked to provide some background information. Hawaiʻi is a
special place, uh, in part defined by deeprooted multi-generational
families and a stronge sense of community. It’s natural to want our
families and friends to thrive. That said, we all also must ensure
that opportunities in County government are free from actual or
perceived bias and influence. The County has struggled with this
perception. Hawaiʻi Revised Statute section 76-1 establishes the
merit principle. The merit principle is the, the selection of persons
based on their fitness and ability for public employment, and the
retention of employees based on their demonstrated appropriate
conduct and productive performance. 76-1, sub-section 2, requires
the impartial selection of individuals for public service by means
of competitive tests, which are fair, objective and practical. Here’s
a quick timeline of events. In 2013, the Office of the Mayor and
DHR created a Staffing Review Committee, SRC, consisting of
three members. Appointing authority or department head, the
director of Human Resources, and a representative of the Mayor’s
Office. Departments were instructed not to make employment or
appointment offers without first receiving SRC confirmation. This
impromptu committee was seen as potentially degrading
competitive recruitment by declining to advance certain people
through the SRC, and promoting others, which became known as
persons of interest. The new administration disbanded the SRC in
January of 2017. As a result of complaints of the public and
concerns of fear of retaliation by staff, the Office of the County
Auditor conducted an audit of hiring practice, practices in 2017.
Among the recommendations made was one two-part
recommendation that spoke to prohibited personnel hiring
practices. That recommendation states, we recommend that the
Department of Human Resources develop and implement policies
and procedures that address monitoring and oversight of County
wide interviewing and selection processes to deter, detect and
prevent questionable hiring practices, and ensure compliance with
the applicable laws and regulations. Further, we recommend that
the Department of Human Resources require individual hiring
departments to use the NEOGOV system to track and monitoring
the status of candidates during the interview and selection process.
In January 2022, the Office of the County auditor piloted a Fraud,
15
Waste, and Abuse Hotline. The line began receiving calls. Some of
those complaints alleged different types of bias in hiring practices.
Respond-, uh, responding to most of these complaints is primarily
a function of the Merit Board of Appeals. In February 2022, the
Office of the County Auditor published a follow-up audit of hiring
practices in DHR. We found that, based on the recommendation,
DHR did everything asked of them at the time. Still, based on the
ongoing concerns and calls, we identified opportunities to further
strengthen monitoring and oversight practices. These partially
included establishing monitoring and oversight procedures,
defining nepotism, defining hanai-, hanai relationships,
establishing a policy to address nepotism in conflicts of interest,
and disclosure of any known or potential conflicts of interest on
the interview panel acknowledgment form. In 2022, we contacted
Corporation Counsel to determine the feasibility of adding the
language to the ethics section of the Code, but were informed at
the time that the County would prefer to align with State language
in which there was none. Meanwhile, our Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
Hotline was operationalized, and investigations of waste, fraud,
and abuse became a permanent function of the Office, after a 2022
Charter Amendment was passed by an overwhelming majority of
the community in that year’s election cycle. Our Office continued
to field sporadic calls of alleged bias and hiring practices. The
Office investigated a call and published a report, on or about May
23, 2024. In that case, a supervisor and close relative of a
candidate did not declare their relationship. Competitive
recruitment typically seeks to have three qualified candidates
interviewed. In the case of our investigation, the supervisor-, again,
the relative of one of the candidates, chose to administer a field test
before interviewing. There is no written procedure that defines the
order of operations between interviewing and field test. Only two
of the thirteen individuals had completed test scores, and the others
were only partially completed. Only the relative had an exceptional
score. Therefore, only the relative advanced to the interview.
Ideally, the supervisor should’ve had to declare their familial
relationship as soon as they learned a family member in the
candidate pool was in the candidate pool, and should not have inf-,
been involved in the hiring process. If scores-, if, if scores of a
family are artificially inflated, the department can use this method
to bypass competitive recruitment, artificially limiting the pool,
and guaranteeing the hiring of only the remaining candidate. One
primary concern was the gaps in Code, which we would expect to
require mandatory disclosal-, disclosure, recusal, as well as
16
missing internal controls. However, as a result of this investigation,
we’ve learned that the State had enacted House Bill 717 related to
nepotism. We again spoke with DHR to request the Hawaiʻi
County Code be tightened to specify nepotism and others to align
with the state. In response to our investigation, the Roth
adminitration published a memorandum on May 30, 2024, which
states, as you may be aware, the public perception of the ability to
secure a County job has been one of it’s not what you know, it’s
who you know. Allegations of unhair-, unfair hiring practices
detract from the work our dedicatis-, our dedicated employees
perform unjustifiably calling into question the merit and ability to
perform the work which they do so well every day. All County
officers and employees are required to adhere to the Code of
Ethics, even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided.
Nepotism, however, is not specifically addressed in the code. I
have no doubt our employees operate with integrity to avoid
conduct that may be improper. Establishing bright-line rules when
it comes to official work actions involving relatives or household
members will support employees in meeting that end. In the
coming months, my administration intends to work with County
Council on introducing amendments to our County’s Code of
Ethics. These amendments will be modeled after the State
Legislature House Bill number 717 related to nepotism, which
became law on July 11, 2023. A copy of House Bill 717 is enclosed
for your reference. As a reminder, the Code of Ethics currently re-,
uh, includes requirements regarding conflicts of interest, and fair
and impartial treatment of all persons. This includes certain
requirements, not related to County contracts, that confidential
information acquired in the course of one’s work not be used for
personal gain, or for the benefit of anyone in that-, and that one’s
position shall not be used to secure special tres-, treatment for
anyone beyond that which is available to every other person. When
filling vacant positions or contracting services, please be mindful
of these requirements. Should any potential conflicts of interest, or
even the appearance of preferential treatment arise, reach out to the
Department of Human Resources, or the operation-, uh,
Corporation Counsel for, for guidance. To date, the only reference
in nepotis-, the nepotism in code that I’m aware of is the grant-, is
in the grants to non-profit organizations, chapter 2, section 137-2,
which requires that they maintain written, prohibited-, uh, riveted-,
excuse me, written policies on prohibiting nepotism and managing
potential conflicts of interest. I’m sure the irony that we impose
this on outside entities while not having a similar internal policy
17
isn’t lost on anyone. Hawaiʻi County should have the strongest
safeguards of any County in the state to ensure the most qualified
and talented individuals serve our community based on merit. Our
recommendation is not about excluding individuals or limiting
opportunities-, quite the opposite. It’s about protecting both staff
and candidates by upholding the reputation. This is matter of-, a
matter of both compliance and trust. We must avoid hiring
practices that create doubt, distract from the work being done, or
limit opportunities for diverse placements where individuals can
contribute free from the perceptions of conflict. By clearly defining
these safeguards in both code and policy, we protect the integrity
of the government and maintain the confidence of the people that
we serve. That concludes my narrative, I hope this provides
enough information for this body to deliberate and make an
informed decision. Thank you.
Ms. Short: Thank you very, very much for being here with us today, and for
that very relevant important background. I just want to highlight
for the Board the State law that he is referencing that, um-, so you
can compare and contrast the verbiage with the County law.
County Bill that’s before us. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wan: So, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. So, this Board had
tasked myself, as the Board’s attorney, with a couple of, um,
requests. Uh, one of them was, um, looking into the State laws, as
well as, uh, the other County’s, as to their definitions for
immediate family member. Whenever the Board is ready to hear
that information, I can provide that to the Board. Also, in addition,
because when I did reach out at the Board’s behest to, uh, invite
Ms. Kimball to be present, I was made aware that the, the current
Bill 21 was patterned after the State law, and so I did provide, as a
part of the Board’s packet, um, as a late submission, so you have in
front of you today, um, the-, it’s HRS 48-13.2, which is nepotism
prohibition. This is a part of the standards of conduct for the State
and is a part of the State Code of Ethics. So, that’s just for your
reference, and I’m sure you have questions for your speakers
today.
Ms. Short: I’ll open it up for the Board to ask questions of them at this time.
Kelly, please.
Ms. Valenzuela: Like, in a discussion forum, can I-, could I, okay. Thank you so
much, Council Kimball, for being here and also for you. Um, when
18
I first saw this, I got a little concerned, um, and I’ll just share a
little bit why. So, in Hawaiʻi, um-, the 2023 Census. We had a
population of 1.435 million. The State and the County are the
largest employers in the State of Hawaiʻi. The largest companies,
right? On the Big Island, we have a population of 198,449. We
have 3,100 people working for the County, right? The State
employment numbers are 736,023, out of the million .435.
736,000. My concern is Hawaiʻi is different. We are not like the
mainland. We have a lot of people that are related. What concerns
me is the definition of immediate family. Immediate family, to me,
is a mother, father, brother, sister, children. It does not include
hanai, step. In Hawaiʻi, many of us are related. I do feel that the
State, in my opinion-, they didn’t really think this out, knowing
these numbers right here. This is a lot of people employed by
government. So, we all talk about affordable housing and keeping
our children here, keeping our families here. Where are the local
people supposed to work? If I’m applying for a job, and I’m the
best qualified for a position, and my cousin is in that same
department, I don’t think I should be discriminated against to
apply, to go through all those steps, necessary steps, I’m not
saying, you know-, um-…
Ms. Short: Kelly, is there a question for them?
Ms. Valenzuela: … to bypass-, so, my question is, was it thought out, number one,
and number two, who changed the definition, or where was the
definition of immediate family changed?
Ms. Kimball: Um, so, so, yes, it was thought out, and I don’t know if we have
the Director of, um, Human Resources here, oh-…
Ms. Wan: We do.
Ms. Kimball: … fantastic…
Ms. Short: I believe-, oh, perf-…
Ms. Kimball: … um, so-…
Ms. Valenzuela: Thank you.
Ms. Kimball: … I, I want to just clarify and, and I think perhaps Sommer is the
best person to do this, um-, is how this will actually impact the
19
process. This is not going to be a prohibition of having people that
are related to other people in the County working for the County.
It’s also not going to mean that anybody that’s currently working
for the County is going to be let go. It really primarily-…
Ms. Valenzula: Thank you.
Ms. Kimball: … has to do with the supervisory component and the hiring
component, and making sure that we have some, um-, that we’re
following the recommendations of the State, per the HRS, with
respect to that, and I’ll, I’ll let the Director speak to that, but, um-,
well, let me have the Director speak to that component of it-…
Ms. Valenzuela: Thank you.
Ms. Kimball: … and then I’ll answer your question about the definition.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay.
Ms. Tokihiro: So, yes, um-, sorry, Sommer Tokihiro, Director of Human
Resources. Um, so, to confirm, it doesn’t prohibit people who are
related from working for the County. It doesn’t prohibit people
who are related from working in the same department. It is, again
as, um, Council Member Kimball mentioned, it’s about, um, that
supervisory aspect, um, and then also being part of, um, an
interview and selection process for, um, an immediate family
member.
Ms. Valenzuela: So, if, if you don’t mind, elaborate-, how-, with the supervisory-,
what-, explain that to me that, that protocol. Are, are you saying
that a supervisor wouldn’t be able to interview a relative? Is that
what that-, this means?
Ms. Tokihiro: Um, possibly yes. We’re going to be asking-, we would-, the intent
would be to find out, um-, ask them to declare if there’s a family
relationship. Um, and even, you know, in instances where someone
may currently be supervised by a family member, we would have
to look at ways that we could change that supervision, and then if
that wasn’t possible, then the matter would come back to the
Board, um, for an opinion, as far as, you know, whether or not it
was appropriate. So, there’s options, you know, it’s not just that,
you know, its-, everything is prohibited. We have to look at the
situation, look at the changes that can be made. If we cannot make
20
the change and we require some kind of guidance, then it would
come back to you folks for a decision.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay, so, so, just so I’m clear in summary, so, it would mean if I
am a supervisor of a certain department and one of my relatives
applies for a certain position and I-, I’m related to them, and either
they admit to that or I do or, or whatever-, to me, I’m thinking in
the application process, maybe you’d have to sign say, you know,
I’m related to whoever, um-, at that time, that supervisor would
either recuse themself like how we, we would do, right, in our
boards and council and everything, and somebody else would step
in, or, um, would that person not be able to interview?
Ms. Tokihiro: No. The-, our intent would be that the identified family member
would recuse themself from the interview panel and then, you
know, the panel could consist of other people that could, you know,
um, participate in the interview.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay.
Ms. Tokihiro: So, it’s not that we, you know-, definitely not intended to be
restrictive as far as who can work for the County, or where they
work. It’s just ensuring that, um, supervision and selection is, is not
being done by a family member.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay. And then my other question would be, um, on the
application process, is there a box and/or something where a
person would check off, you know, I, you know-, do you have
relatives working within in the County of Hawaiʻi? I mean, I don’t
even know if they can legally ask that question, but-…
Ms. Tokihiro: So, currently we don’t, and so what we’re, um, going to need to do
is wait and see what the final language is, as far as what the final
language changes, and then implement the policies in HR to, you
know, have people, um, you know, declare a family relationships at
the time of interview. I’m not sure that we need to do that at the
time of application, um, but certainly in that interview process,
there would be some self-declarations that we would have to
incorporate into our existing, um, procedures.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay. And that can be-, can that be legally asked?
Ms. Wan: Yes.
21
Ms. Short: Yeah.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay. Thank you, guys-…
Ms. Short: Vice Chair, please.
Ms. Valenzuela: … thank you for explaining.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Yes, so-…
Ms. Short: Thank you, Kelly. Vice Chair.
Ms. Fukumitsu: … just for clarity, um, Vice Chair Fukumitsu. It doesn’t stop
someone from applying for a position-, so we would still be able to
have the best qualified candidates apply regardless of who sits in
the supervisory seat, and that would be an understanding among
departments, right? Because the perception of this is that I can’t
apply. That was-, that would be my concern. Like, I can’t apply
because you’re my hanai mom or something-…
Ms. Tokihiro: Right.
Ms. Fukumitsu: … right, okay.
Ms. Tokihiro: So, yeah. And we would need to-, once this passes, should it pass,
then it’ll be, um, something that we’re going to need to provide
education and training to our departments about what does this
really mean, how are we applying this, um, so that people have that
understanding because, you know, that’s not our intention, we
don’t want to, you know, have people have that perception, so,
we’ll provide, um, training and guidance so that people fully
understand what this means and how it impacts them.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay, I actually have one more question, uh, Board Member
Valenzuela. How does that apply to appointments? When the
Mayor can appoint someone directly to a position, how, how would
this right here apply, and how would that be handled?
Ms. Tokihiro: It doesn’t apply.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay.
22
Ms. Short: So, the Mayor could still appoint someone within this definition of
immediate family?
Ms. Tokihiro: Yes.
Ms. Short: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Vice Chair, I saw that you
had a few more questions it looked like.
Ms. Kimball: Chair, may I, um, actually just respond to the other-…
Ms. Short: Please.
Ms. Kimball: … question which is where the definition came from-…
Ms. Short: Please.
Ms. Kimball: … so, because-, I, I wanted to highlight that because that is
actually the main reason that the Council forwarded this Bill to you
guys, because our definition is a little bit different than what is in
the State HRS. Um, specifically, we say immediate family
member. In the HR, it’s relative, but the reason for that change is
because we refer to immediate family member in other sections of
the code. And so, in order to be in alignment, we needed to use that
term. But, in, in the HRS, op-, and my thing just closed, um-, so
we’re looking at the definition under, um, 84-13-2, sorry, no-, right
section, yes, uh 13-2-…
Ms. Short: 4-13.2.
Ms. Kimball: … uh, .2, .2. Um, so, in, in there it, it’s the equivalent, but it’s
relative. Their definition say-, goes-, means the employees parent,
grandparent, step-parent, child, grand-child, step-child, foster
child, adopted child, sibling, half-sibling, step-sibling, parent-
sibling, first cousins, sibling’s child, spouse, spouse’s parent, child-
in-law, or sibling-in-law, or any individual that has become a
member of the employee’s immediate family through the Hawaiian
hanai custom. Ours is, um-, so, just to be real succinct about it, um,
if you take it on face value, the, the language in the HRS goes out
to first cousin. Um, based on some conversations with another
Council Member, there was an interest in Hawaiʻi County to
extend that to include second cousins. And so, although it’s
structured differently-, and there is an error in it that I will
acknowledge that we-, so, there is definitely an amendment. If I
23
were to just express generally the intention of the Council, um, it is
to say, that definition in the HRS, plus second cousins. So, what
we’re looking for from you guys is feedback on, um, both the
language that we have in the Bill around immediate family.
Whether or not it makes sense to just use the HRS language, what
the feeling is on first cousin versus second cousin being that kind
of outer ring of what would fall under the nepotism language.
Ms. Short: Can I just clarify something real quick, and thank you very much.
Section 4, section 2. It does say appoint, as sec-, section 2(a)(1).
So, no employee or officer shall appoint, hire, promote, or retain
an immediate family member to, or demote, discharge or terminate
an immediate family member from a paid position.
Ms. Wan: That’s under your Bill.
Ms. Short: Under your-, under-, on Bill number 21.
Ms. Kimball: I’m sorry, which section?
Ms. Short: And I also see that on HRS, so, I think I just want to clarify that.
So, the May-, so, tha-, peop-, the Mayor, or anyone else in a
position where they can appoint something would not be able to
appoint an immediate family member under this definition.
Ms. Kimball: I believe that is correct, yes.
Ms. Short: Okay, I just wanted to get that clarification.
Ms. Kimball: Am I-, did you have a comment on that, Tyler? No, okay. I believe
that is correct.
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Kimball: Yeah, I think that was-….
Ms. Valenzuela: So, Board Member Valenzuela. Um, so, your question about, um,
should you take your definition, or should you adopt the State-,
I’m, I’m thinking, and I, mi-…
Ms. Wan: Um, I’m, I’m sorry, Kelly-…
Ms. Short: We’re not on discussion yet.
24
Ms. Valenzuela: Oh.
Ms. Short: We’re just going to ask them questions, and then we’ll discuss as a
Board.
Ms. Valenzuela: Sorry.
Ms. Short: Just for time sake.
Ms. Wan: Um, and, also-…
Ms. Short: Member Ho, I believe, has some questions.
Ms. Wan: … because we’re talking about definitions, would this be a prudent
time-, sorry, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. Would this
be a prudent time for me to provide to the Board-…
Ms. Short: Yes, please.
Ms. Wan: … my writ-, my legal research-…
Ms. Short: Yes, please.
Ms. Wan: … as far as the definition for immediate family member?
Ms. Short: Yes, please.
Ms. Wan: Okay. So, at this time, I will note, um, there’s a couple of things
that are being considered, right? First off, under the State Statute,
um, Council Member Kimball has accurately reflected that the
term that they’re using is relative, right? So, their term-, this
definition they’re providing is relative, which includes within it,
uh, a reference to an immediate family member through hanai
custom, right? So, it’s a, it’s a little more encompassing under the
State definition than just what’s considered immediate family
member under State definitions. So, when-, I did do, um, a rather
extensive review as far as our Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes as to how
does immediate family member-, how is it defined repeatedly
throughout the State Statutes, and I did see some very common
themes. Um, for the most part, immediate family member means
spouse, child, sibling, parent, grandparent, grandchild, step-parent,
step-child, step-sibling, and equivalent adoptive relationships. So,
25
that is straight from HRS 454F-1, which is relating to secure and
fair enforcement of mortgage licensing act. Um, another definition,
which expands it just a little bit more, has the same, uh, relations,
but expands it to saying any related individual who resides in the
same household. So, again, kind of keeping it more to what is
typically considered the nuclear family, um, with the step relations.
And another definition which expands it, um-, this has to do with,
uh, disposition relating to convicted defendants. This one talks
about surviving immediate family members, and what’s considered
to be a surviving immediate family member would include not just
that nuclear family, um, with, with spouses, but also recognizes the
reciprocal beneficiary relationship, which is unique to Hawaiʻi,
um, as well as legal guardians. So, legal guardians of children,
legal guardians of the deceased victim. So, right now, consistently
within the State Statues, they’re keeping it pretty close to who are
the members of the family that would appear living in a household
of a person. Um, and the counties, the other counties, Maui and
Kauaʻi, have the ex-, um, don’t specifically define immediate
family member within their Code of Ethics, um, but the term
immediate family member does appear in their, in their version of
the Code of Ethics which lives in their Charter. As far as Honolulu,
uh, the City and County of Honolulu, City and County of Honolulu
defines immediate family member as, um,-, and this is related to
their standards of conduct i.e. their Code of Ethics, means
employees’ or officers’ spouse, sibling, children, or parents,
spouses’ children or parents, and children’s spouses. So, this one
extends just a little bit beyond because they’re also thinking of
like, adult children and the adult children’s, uh, spouse. So, that’s
just kind of for this particular Board to ruminate on. I do
understand that, um, the definition that’s currently being proposed
by 21 extends beyond what would be typically thought of as the
household family, the family that would appear within a
household, and extends beyond that, um, just on its face. So, the
Board may want to consider different iterations if you like this
relationship going that far out. Maybe you would want to call it
something different, um, just to avoid confusion since the State is
pretty clear as to what the State considers an immediate family
member. Options abound for the Board.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much, Sylvia. Member Ho-…
Ms. Kimball: Chair, if I make-, make an additional-…
26
Ms. Short: Yes, yes please.
Ms. Kimball: … comment, yeah, and, and just to, to make it clear to you guys,
um-, we’re certainly open to accepting any pres-, you know,
wording that you think is appropriate on this in terms of your
communication as far as our deliberations at Council. I will further
say, and I don’t know if you reviewed this at all, um, Deputy
Director Wan, there is no definition within the HRS of hanai, nor is
there one in our Code. It’s one of those things like you know it
when you see it, um, and just to make clear, as was mentioned
before, you folks would be the adjudicator on anything like that.
So, if there was ever a complaint, oh this is a hanai relationship,
you guys would be the ones to make the determination about
whether or not it qualified as a hanai relationship.
Ms. Short: Thank you for that clarification, Council Member. Member Ho.
Mr. Ho: Um, Chris Ho. Um, thank you both for being-, actually all three,
um, for being here. I have some follow-up questions. Um, okay, so,
let’s start with, um, section 3, so, immediate family, since kind of
that’s where we’re at with this conversation. Um, if this were to be
approved, um, would, with the language provided, would this also
alter and change immediate family in any all other, um, Code that
already exists?
Ms. Kimball: Yes, um, if you-, in the later portions of the Bill, um, there are
some clerical amendments to other places where that terminology
is used. So, um, other than what’s included in Bill 21, there are no
other implications in terms of the definition.
Mr. Ho: Okay. Um, and then, let’s see. We, since, um, the Director of
Human Resources is here, um, when you talk about, um, the
individual going through the application process and then, um,
going to the interview, what is the difference between the
supervisor who sits on the interview panel and the supervisor who
actually supervises? So, sometimes it might not be the same
person. It might be the director that’s do-, sitting in, um, on the
interview-…
Ms. Tokihiro: Correct.
27
Mr. Ho: … but then that partic-, that particular person now, um, is being
supervised by someone else, so what level of supervision would
this actually apply to?
Ms. Tokihiro: Um, direct supervision, but we would have to evaluate that and see
how that corresponds, right? If the appointing authority, um-, so it
would be direct supervision, but there may be other relationships
that we would have to look, because ultimately-, like in an
interview process, a member of an interview panel is directly
involved in that selection process of a candidate, right? Um, but,
day to day supervision, we’d be looking at direct supervisor, but
then the appointing authority is the department head. So, we would
have to look at this from a variety of different, uh, levels, to
evaluate, you know, if a conflict exists.
Mr. Ho: Okay. Uh, one thing that may pop up-, it, I, so for a living, I look at
worst case scenarios for everything. Um, this is no exception. Um,
so, someone gets hired and they, the person who was the
supervisor, recused themselves from it, but they are still, um, at
the, the top of the supervisory chain. Um, person does get hired,
um, who’s the most qualified for the position-, go into the position,
um, their, uh, review comes up, um, and they’re immediate
supervisor provides that review, does that review get signed off by
someone, like the actual-, the big supervisor is just signing off
approval, um, that the, um, review was done, and how would that
work if they’re related?
Ms. Tokihiro: Yeah, so, our performance reviews, our performance appraisal
reports as we call them, PARs, are completed by an immediate
supervisor, but then also signed off on by a division head, and a
department head. Um, so, yes, I mean, it, it could be, um, that
again, we would have to evaluate that.
Mr. Ho: Awesome, thank you. Okay, moving on. The next page. Um, in
section 4, section 2, letter e, um, upon application, the Board may
grant-, could you tell me who the Board is?
Ms. Short: That’s a-, that’s us, Member Ho-…
Ms. Tokihiro: That’s you.
Ms. Kimball: That would be you guys, yes.
28
Ms. Short: … the Board of Ethics. We would be able to grant the-…
Mr. Ho: … okay, I was just curious because it only said the Board and I
was a little confused.
Ms. Short: Yeah.
Mr. Ho: Okay. Uh-…
Ms. Short: Just to be clear, this is all amendment to the Code of Ethics,
correct?
Ms. Wan: Right now, as Bill 21 is presently written, it would be making
amendments to the Code of Ethics, as well as, nope, looks like the
Code of Ethics.
Ms. Short: So, we would be the Board then-…
Mr. Ho Okay.
Ms. Short: … as this would all become part of our Code to uphold.
Mr. Ho: Awesome. Thank you for that clarification. Um, and then going
back up to the top where it’s number 1, when we talked about the
appoint component. Um, in here, it references, um, for a paid
position. Um, I don’t know if any of you up here are getting paid,
because I would like to. Um, would this apply to those who are
appointed to non-paid commission or board positions?
Ms. Kimball: I’m going to tell you-, I-, this Bill no, but I think that that is
covered elsewhere, so, um, I, I do think that that is, um, included
already in the, at the-…
Mr. Ho: With the extended second cousin level?
Ms. Kimball: No, no. That, that’s just applying to this nepotism section
around-…
Mr. Ho: Okay.
Ms. Kimball: … paid employees.
Mr. Ho: Um, I think that’s all the questions I have. Thank you.
29
Ms. Short: Do any other Board Members have any questions at this time? Are
we free to state our input or what is our next move, Corporation
Counsel?
Ms. Wan: Okay, so, um, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. Just to
provide a little guidance to the Board because this type of
consideration is an anomaly. This peti-, you know, this Board
generally deals with petitions, but you-, it is under your authority
also to provide this kind of, um, comment and, and
opinion/guidance to Council. So, I would behoove you to kind of
consider this similar to an informal advisory opinion, whereas the
content that’s you-, that’s being requested for your informal advice
is Bill 21. Um, obviously you’re not going to say whether or not
something is a violation of Code of Ethics or not, but more on what
is the opinion of the Board as a whole, as to the operations of this
particular Bill. Do you think it’s good? Do you think it’s bad? Do
you think there could be some improvements? Um, at this point,
the Board can have a Board opinion, which is the entire Board, um,
provides it’s, you know, majority vote opinion. Um, you are also
allowed to have concurring or dissenting opinions. So, if each-, if a
particular Board Member has a strong feeling that is separate, and,
and distinct from the overall Board’s, uh, general opinion, you can
provide that as well. Um, I will just note that, you know, this is a
serious consideration, and, so, if the Board wants or feels like they
need additional time in order to provide that input, now would be
the time to request that.
Ms. Short: So, what I was just going to say is I would like to take ten minutes
for a recess, so that we as a Board can process everything we’ve
just heard. Everyone can use the bathroom and then we’ll come
back and finish our discussion on Bill 21. So-…
Mr. Ho: Madame Chair, can I ask one more question-…
Ms. Short: Please.
Mr. Ho: … that just popped into my head-…
Ms. Short: Please.
Mr. Ho: … um-,…
30
Ms. Short: Now or never.
Mr. Ho: Quick question. With regards to going to second cousin level, can
you provide a little bit more clarification on why, um, expanding
that-…
Ms. Kimball: Yeah, um, you know, the best parti-, person to speak to that is, um,
Council Member Onishi who, who made the request that, that it go
out to that level, but basically, um, it really has to do with the
perception of the hiring practices in the County, and ensuring that
the public and folks that apply to work in the County have a sense
of fairness, and that the proper procedures are being taken and
folks are not, um, hired into positions just based on, as, as, Tyler
Benner noted, um, who you know, right? And so, um, the feeling
was that, you know, a lot of this is, is about just disclosure, about
ensuring that there are proper procedures in place so that folks are
not directly responsible for the, the review-, the, the, periodic
reviews, the hiring of folks that they are close to as a family
member. So, the sense about broadi-, broadening it to second
cousins was really around just to-, reinforcing that perception that
we want to make sure hiring is merit based. We are bringing the
best quality candidates in and there’s no nepotism, if you will.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Thank you for that. I just-, but that also takes me to living in the
community that we live in and the question, or concerns that you
brought up like, fr-, the friendship thing, right? We’re using this
word nepotism, but we’re just saying perception and it’s like I
don’t want to hire my friend, so, like we’re kind of targeting the
family piece, but we’re not addressing maybe the hiring practices
that could be in place to ensure that we’re getting qualified
applicants and we’re being ethical in our practices, right? Because
we’re not a, we’re not addressing that I know you for long time
twenty years part. That’s kind of my concern. I don’t know if it’s a
question, I have a question in here somewhere, but yeah. Sorry.
Ms. Kimball: Yeah, I, if, if I may, Chair, um, you know-, welcome to the sausage
making that is legislation and the legislative process. Um, you
know, we, we have to take nips at the apple and it’s very hard to
come up with something that addresses every concern. Um, you
know-, when, when we are on the Council and we have somebody
that’s an applicant for something in front of us that we’ve known
for a long time, we have to make that disclosure, right? And, and if
the rest of the body feels that there’s an inappropriate relationship
31
that could actually influence the decision, you, you-, that’s earlier,
right? I’ve known this person for a long time, I might-, I don’t
think I’m going to be biased in this decision. We have to do those
same sorts of things. Um, so, while your, your concern is, is veritas
in terms of other things that we have to look at and consider in the
hiring process, um, there are some controls, of course with the
whistleblower programs and other, um, things, but this Bill is
really just focused on that nepotism piece. I, you know, I like to do
comprehensive things that’ll check all the boxes, but my
experience over the past five years working in the Council has
been, um-, we are an incremental process, and for now, this is the
first bite at the apple.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ho: I got mo-,…
Ms. Short: Last thing-…
Mr. Ho: … I got another one-…
Ms. Short: … then we’re going to recess-…
Mr. Ho: Sorry, I’m so sorry. Um, Chris Ho. So, um, kind of going back to
section 4, section 2, letter h, um, on page 3, I’m sorry if you have
that page number or not, um, it’s-, page number 3, it referenced
that, um, those who are currently already hired, this would not
affect them. Is there a plan to, uh, I guess educate the public and
everyone that this particular is, um, addressing the hiring practice,
not the maintaining, um, or the retention, as it states, um, practice,
um, because I, yeah. I think that’s my question.
Ms. Kimball: Yeah, I think one of the things that I’ve just kind of picked up on
already from our conversation here today is that we probably need
to do some public outreach around this, you know, make sure that
folks are aware that this doesn’t prevent them-, if they’ve got a
family member in the County, this doesn’t prevent them from
seeking a position in the County. So, you know, I’ll work with
Director and use our, our tools that have for public outreach to
ensure that there’s some communication about what this Bill
actually means. I mean, these public forums, um, as much as
people pay attention to them, there’s one avenue that we
communicate that information and that’s why I wanted Mr. Benner
32
here and, um, to, to kind of share that history. But, um, yes, I think
that point is well made, from, from both of you all here that, that
we need to do some public outreach around this, should it go
forward.
Mr. Ho: Awesome. Thank you.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much. At 11:04, we are going to take a recess, we
will resume at 11:15 to continue our discussion of this Bill. Thank
you ev-, very much everyone.
*Board members take a short recess*
Ms. Short: 11:18 a.m., Thursday, January 13, 2025, this is your Chair, Rabbi
Rachel Short, reconvening the Hawaiʻi County Board of Ethics, at
11:18 a.m. I apologize that we are a few minutes longer than what
we said we were going to be, we had to wait for our Zoom to
restart for our Zoom participants. We are back on the continued
review and comment of Bill 21. I will give the Board an-, one
more opporutnity to ask any questions before we move on to our
discussion.
Ms. Wan: Uh, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan, I’ll just notice
during the break, um, that the Director of Human Resources did
want to make a point of clarification, so if the Board is willing to
hear that at this time, I’d, I’d like to ask her to provide that-…
Ms. Short: Everyone is nodding yes, please provide your clarification.
Ms. Tokihiro: Sommer Tokihiro, Director of Human Resources. I just wanted to
clarify in section 4(2)(a)(1), the word appoint is used, but when we
talk about the merit principle, we’re generally looking at civil
service positions. So, um, you know, if this body wants to make a
clarification or recommendation that this applied to civil service
positions, that was the intent, but the use of appoint could be
causing some, um, you know, confusion there as far as like
appointments by the Mayor, etc. So, just wanted to note that, that,
um, the merit principle covers civil service, so if you wanted to, in
your recommendations, just something for you to consider, um,
you could clarify that.
Ms. Short: Thank you for that clarification. Does our Board have any more
questions at this time? Member Ho.
33
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho. Um, hi. Um, quick question. When-, so, in here, um,
going back to the part where I asked about the Board. Um, so,
section 4, section 2, letter e, with regards to the Board, um, if this
particular nepotism section is in reference to hiring, I guess I’m
confused on if it comes-, if something happens within the hiring
process, and then it comes to us, at what point do we get to the line
or cross the line into an HR issue, which from my understanding,
we as an Ethics Board, do not touch HR issues, or would really
like to not deal with HR issues, because that’s really not our
responsibility.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan, can I ask for a point of
clarification on your question?
Mr. Ho: You could try.
Ms. Wan: So, um, I understand-, I’m just going to read this for everybody
who’s present, um, this section that you’re talking about. So, as it’s
present-, presently-, is, um, presented in Bill 21, section e reads,
section e, upon application, the Board may grant an exception to an
employee, officer, or agency, that is unable to comply with this
section for good cause, including a demonstrated lack of qualified
personnel or applicants. So, is your question that you would be
asked to determine whether or not there’s a demonstrated lack of
qualified personnel or applicants? Is that your concern?
Mr. Ho: I think the concern lies in the word choice for that particular
section, um, that it may lead to, um, us having to ask one of-, that
question, possibly others, um, as it relates to anything to deal with
HR, or a hiring practice.
Ms. Wan: So, you’re also looking at the term good cause. I, I notice you’re
shaking your head yes.
Mr. Ho: Yeah, because I’m hoping that if said agency or hiring person
comes, that they provide us with a little bit more detailed
information, um, and then you or, um, someone from your
department might also need to come in, um, and provide some
more clarifying information, um, because I would hate for it to fall
on our shoulders to bear the burden of proof for some of these,
some of the language that’s in here, and I just want to make sure
that we establish a very clear line that as the Ethics Board, we go
34
here, once it goes to here, it then goes to HR and we do not have
anything to do with it.
Ms. Tokihiro: Yeah, it would seem that there would be additional information
that would be needed in order to, you know, um, be able to kind of
prove that demonstrated lack of qualified personnel or applicants,
right? That would-, additional information would have to be
provided by the department, um, who would be making, um, this
application to the Board, and then possibly, additional information
coming from Human Resources.
Mr. Ho: Thank you. Follow-up question, if I may. When it comes to, um,
that particular line, um, lack of qualified personnel or applicants, is
there a set time frame in which an applicant pool is remained, um,
is open, um, and then once that time frame has expired, um, and
there’s no one there, then they would approach saying well we’ve
had it open for two months and no one’s applied.
Ms. Tokihiro: Yeah, so, um, for our initial recruitments, open competitive
recruitments, all of our recruitments run for a period of ten days. At
the end of that ten day period, if we haven’t received five or more
qualified applicants, the recruitment converts to an open
continuous recruitment, and that recruitment process could be
ongoing for, you know-, usually it’ll occur, um, until we receive
five qualified applicants, at which point it would be closed and
then those names would be referred to departments. Um, when we
refer eligible lists to the departments, those lists are good, initially,
for a ninety day period, and then can be extended upon request for
an additional ninety days. So, the eligible list for, which is
qualified applicants for a particular position, that have been
referred to a department, those lists have a maximum time frame of
six months. Then that list would expire, and if a position opened,
the recruitment process would begin again.
Mr. Ho: Thank you very much.
Ms. Tokihiro: You’re welcome.
Ms. Short: Does anyone else on the Board have questions? Are we ready to,
um, discuss, come to a consensus as a Board or share our
individual input?
Ms. Wan: So, at this point I think you would be calling for a motion.
35
Ms. Short: We are call-…
Ms. Wan: You would be, you would be calling for a motion to open up
discussion-…
Ms. Short: Okay, I’ll call for a motion to open up discussion on Bill 21. Would
someone like to make that motion?
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho, move to support Bill number 21, however, with some
recommended friendly amendments. So, that’s the actual motion.
Ms. Short: No, we need a motion-…
Ms. Wan: No, no, no, no-…
Mr. Ho: No.
Ms. Wan: … no, that’s correct, what, what Chris is doing is correct.
Ms. Short: Just so we can get to the discussion.
Ms. Wan: Yes, so, whether you support it or not is going to be the ultimate
reason of the vote, right? That’s the-, but he’s, he’s, right now,
proposing that this Board adopts the position-…
Ms. Short: That we support it-…
Ms. Wan: … of support-…
Ms. Short: … and then we discuss it-…
Ms. Wan; … that you support the Bill-…
Ms. Short: … okay, can I get a-…
Ms. Wan: … with friendly amendments.
Ms. Short: … can I get a second to that motion?
Mr. Ho: Would you like me to restate it?
36
Ms. Short: We’re going to-, Chris is moving that we as a Board support Bill
21, and then we will go into discussion, to discuss the friendly
amendments we as a Board would make. To Bill 21.
Mr. Ho: Yes, and no. Yes, the motion is to support Bill number 21 with
recommended friendly amendments, not just full-on support it and
then go into a dialogue on the amendments.
Ms. Short: So, at this time, we as a Board can discuss whether we agree or
disagree with the friendly amendments during the discussion on
this motion. I just want to clarify for everyone.
Ms. Wan: Okay, before we start talking about this, can we get a second?
Ms. Short: Basically, we just need a second to have this discussion, is what
I’m hearing for-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu,-…
Ms. Short: Thank you.
Ms. Fukumitsu: … second.
Ms. Wan: Thank you. Any-…
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had?
Mr. Ho: Okay, speaking to my motion, um, well the intent for this Bill is
there. We see it, it’s relevant, and, um, it, it’s a necessity. There are
some components within the Bill that some of us have some
recommendments-, recommendments, sorry, I can’t even speak.
Recommendation, um, for some friendly amen-, uh, amendments.
Um, I guess I’ll leave it to my colleagues if there’s some
amendments that you want to speak to.
Ms. Wan: So, at this point in discussion, right, because his motion is to
support with suggested friendly amendments, if you, Members,
want to voice your opinion as to what would be a friendly
amendment, you can do that during discussion. Whether or not the
mover decides to adopt that in his overall motion will be up to him.
So, please discuss.
37
Ms. Fukumitsu: Um, Vice Chair Fukumitsu. DCC Wan, can you clarify for me the
section that we were discussing in, uh, the document that you have,
um, regarding Native Hawaiian hanai, versus general adoption
practices? That’s sort of my-…
Ms. Wan: Okay. So, um, my understanding is-, and, ju-, I have to paraphrase
your question because you’re, you’re referring to an outside
conversation at this point in time. Um, so, right now, your concern
is with the State’s definition of relative which includes the term,
um, any individual who has become a member of the employee’s
immediate family through the Hawaiian hanai custom.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Yes, that is my-…
Ms. Wan: That’s your concern-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: … concern-…
Ms. Wan; … and then you have a likewise concern relating to Bill 21 where
it relates to an individual who resides in the same dwelling unit,
skipping down, and the Hawaiian custom of hanai.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Correct, so sorry. Yes.
Ms. Wan: Yes. So, your concern is relating to the call-out of this immediate
family member being through the Hawaiian hanai custom, whereas
the State Statute that, um, you were referencing during the last
discussion, was HRS 454F-1-…
Ms. Short: Shannon Matson is trying to get into the Zoom.
Ms. Wan: … okay, um, in that particular definition, under that State Statute,
they do not say hanai, they instead use the phrase and equivalent
adoptive relationships. Okay, so, that was the information that was
provided to you. You can talk about what that means to you. That’s
your dis-, that’s your discussion.
Ms. Short: As our Chair, I’m, I will go ahead and, you know, speak for my
behalf. Um-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: She’s still speaking, she’s still-…
Ms. Short: … no she didn’t, she threw up her hands. Are you still going?
38
Ms. Fukumitsu: Go ahead.
Ms. Short: No, go, Vice Chair.
Ms. Fukumitsu: No, uh, thank you. I just, I do have concerns about the, the
Hawaiian custom, because adoptive practices can cross different
cultural lines, I guess, and I just-, yeah, I, I’m just not comfortable
with that Hawaiian hanai custom being part of the language. I
don’t like it at the State level either, but-…
Ms. Short: But I think that, for me personally, it goes back to Kelly’s original
point when we first began this discussion of this Bill, where we
have to acknowledge things are different in Hawaiʻi. Like, I can
see where we have had similar situations here on the Board of
Ethics where myself as Chair has had to recuse themselves from
petitions we’ve heard because someone came to me, that I did live
with at one time, and would potentially consider hanai family. So,
from my perspective, the State kind of sets the precedent for what
we are supposed to do as a County, and if this language is already
in here, even if it makes us uncomfortable, there-, we’ve
acknowledged on the record that things are different here than on
the mainland. That was kind of the first point. And we do hanai in
Hawaiʻi in a way that I don’t believe happens anywhere else.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Uh, I, I would disagree.
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Uh, you know-, you, sorry, DCC Wan-…
Ms. Short: I don’t, I don’t know what-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: … there, I, I just think that-…
Ms. Wan: Okay.
Ms. Fukumitsu: … you’re calling out a specific culture, and I think adoptive
practices across indigenous people happen. I don’t think we need
to include the word Hawaiian for this purpose. Like, if I identify as
Native American, and I have an indigenous cultural practice, then
this doesn’t apply to me. Like, I hanai you through my Native An-,
American Practice. I don’t a-, I don’t think the word han-,
39
Hawaiian in this case is appropriate. There are different hanai
cultural practices a diff-, across different cultural groups-…
Ms. Short: But, so, then would it just be the word hanai-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: … hanai. I don’t have a problem with hanai-…
Ms. Short: But that’s a Hawaiian word, isn’t it? So, Hawaii-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: … but that’s why my recommendation would be to use general
adoptive practices, as I asked DCC Wan for the language from a
different section of the-, it’s the State level, correct?
Ms. Wan: Yes, that’s the State’s-, it’s a different State Statue. Deputy
Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. So, I’ll, um, I’ll just relate that
an-, in the discussion on the recess, there was a discussion about
other cultural practices by other entities that do appear in the other
United States. So, she did bring up some native practices, but some
of them are not even necessarily native practices. There are other
cultural practices, and I brought up a personal story about my own
family, uh, who are not Hawaiian, um, who have, uh, Chinese
ancestry, among a number of other things, and, you know, there are
similar adoptive relationships and customs throughout other
cultures, and I think what Ms. Fukumitsu is trying to highlight is
the fact that we don’t want to necessarily, uh, pigeonhole this
particular relationship to a particular ethnic group, or a particular
cultural group. Um, I’m sorry, and, because I’m speaking for you,
can you please just reiterate if, if what I just put in the record is
correct?
Ms. Short: I appreciate that clarification.
Ms. Fukumitsu: No, thank you, DCC Wan. Yes, my concern with this is we are
calling out a specific cultural group, and it’s-, could almost be
discriminatory to me as a Native Hawaiian. That’s my concern. So,
if we could use general language to talk about adoptive customs, I
would be way more comfortable with that.
Ms. Wan: Um, so, at this point, I, I do see that, um,-…
Ms. Short: Council Member Kimball.
40
Ms. Wan: … Council Member Kimball has indicated she might want to jump
in. Um, I will note that generally speaking, as per practice for this
Board, we generally don’t allow that. However, it is at the leave of
the Chair and this Board if you want to allow that.
Ms. Short: Does anyone have an objection to allowing Council Member
Kimball to respond? I believe her input’s extremely relevant here.
Ms. Valenzuela: Can we still have discussion-…
Ms. Short: We’re still going to continue our discussion after her input. Does
anyone object?
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho. It’s not that I object, I would just caution us, because if
this does happen, um, and others rewatch what we do, or re-read
what we do, um, and we deny someone the opportunity to do what
seems as though what we’re going to do, then we’re setting us up-,
ourselves up for some issue.
Ms. Short: I can think of other instances where we have allowed people to
respond during our discussion.
Mr. Ho: If that’s the case then I don’t see why we even asked.
Ms. Wan: Well, I, I will note that it’s extremely rare. It is extremely rare.
Ms. Short: But it has happened, correct?
Ms. Wan: Generally, not when it comes to petitions, but this is a unique
situation and a unique consideration for the Board.
Ms. Short: Personally, as our Chair, I believe we are being asked to amend the
County Board of Ethics, the person re-, with that Bill, present
before us who’s discussing amending it, I would like to hear her
input. So, if there-, is there an objection, I guess would be my
question.
Ms. Wan: Just, just Chris.
Ms. Short: Are you objecting, Member Ho?
Mr. Ho: It is not an objection. It is just stating-…
41
Ms. Wan: Okay.
Mr. Ho: … possibility, and as a reminder as the Chair, you are at will to
really do whatever you would like, and say as a Chair, I will now
relinquish that is within your capabilities.
Ms. Short: Yes.
Mr. Ho: You actually don’t need to ask us.
Mr. Short: I, I wanted to know if there was an objection, but seeing and
hearing that there is no objection from the Board to hearing you,
Council Member Kimball, please share.
Ms. Kimball: Thank you for your, um, openness, and, and I will state that I
believe this is the first time a Bill has been referred to the BOE, so,
you know, all bets are off on what standard practice is. But, I just
wanted to make sure that, you know, hopefully what you’ll be
providing us with is a memo with the specific language of the
recommendations, um, for the amendments, and, you know, if I
were to speak to the intent of this clause, both in the HRS and in
the proposed Bill, it’s really to distinguish the formal adoption
practice from other informal adoption practices. So, I think the
wording could be either changed to relations through formal and
informal adoption practices, or, if you want to specifically
acknowledge traditional adoption practices, rather than saying it
would be formal adoption and traditional adoption practices,
without specifying Native Hawaiian in particular. And I would, I
would remove the word hanai just because that is going to
definitely fall in that same line of, of just separating from other
adoption practices.
Ms. Short: Thank you for that clarification, and that makes a lot of sense to
me, so I, I appreciate that, and I appreciate, um, Vice Chair’s input
on that very much. If there’s nothing else to share, I would like to
continue our discussion. At this time on, as we heard Council
Member say, um, we as the Hawaiʻi County Board of Ethics are
reviewing Bill number 21, which would change the Board of
Ethics Code, that we as a Board have swo-, been sworn in to
uphold, and are being asked to give our input on, um, so, yeah.
We’re doing things-, Chai-, Member Ho wants to talk.
42
Mr. Ho: Um, Chris Ho, quick question. Um, with regards to any changes to
Bill 21, would it be coming back to us prior to first reading, or?
Ms. Short: Our Corporation Counsel is nodding her head no, I believe, but
Council Member-….
Ms. Kimball: Well-, the, the, the Council would retain the authority, should we
choose, to re-refer it back if we amended it. It would be unusual,
uh, but it was unusual to refer this to you in the first place. So, no,
it will not come back by any required pathway, but it could, if we
chose to.
Mr. Ho: Thank you.
Ms. Short: Thank you for that clarification. Continuing our discussion because
we do still have a motion on the floor. Board Member Valenzuela.
Ms. Valenzuela: I keep-, so, first of all, I just want to say thank you, you know, for
you guys coming forward. But I just want to state, for myself, for
the record, as a local girl, it concern-, this concerns me, and it
concerns me just based on numbers, and the host culture of
Hawaiʻi. So, in a population of 1.4 million, 736,000 work for the
State, that’s half of the population. How many else work for the
County? My point is if this many people work for government, the
chances of people-, of all of us being related-, you know, I, I can
say for myself, I, I don’t have any relatives except for a brother
here. Everyone else died or moved away. My concern is, and it
hurts my heart, is that, one, I feel that the local community is going
to shy away from applying because of this-, this is just my opinion,
number one. And number two, we keep talking about keeping our
people here. Right now, how many openings are at the County,
right now? I mean, the last I heard, it was like 300 something
openings. Is that still about the same number?
Ms. Tokihiro: Yeah, we have a significant number of vacancies.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay, so, my point is-…
Ms. Wan: So, so-…
Ms. Valenzuela: … if we get, we-…
43
Ms. Wan: … Ms., I’m sorry, Member Valenzuela, at this point, if we can try
to keep the discussion more towards the Board at this time, and,
and not engaging our members. I know there was an anomaly
because there was, uh, a little bit of additional input, but I would
like to try to keep us more focused on the motion at hand, and at
this point it does appear that you are, you are providing input
towards the overall motion, um, so, if you could please try to keep
it to that, that’d be great.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay. So, getting back to my point. So, with that many openings,
the chances of somebody being related are so high, is what I’m
trying to say. A good example would be how many of-, how many
times have I asked people to be a-, go apply for a commission, and
the first thing they say was, I got to go before the County Council
Members, forget it, I don’t want to do that. You want me to get
grilled, for free? I mean, I’m just being honest, right? So, in this
case, to me in Hawaiʻi, and I’m sorry, I’m going to state this up for
record, as an-, as a Board Member I have that right to do that, this
concerns me. It really concerns me. If we really adhere and we’re
so strict to it, do we really think we’re going to have employees
from Hawaiʻi? Born and raised in these islands, or are we going to
start outsourcing, looking elsewhere, when the people here have a
hard time making it? That’s my concern, and I just want to say that
for the record.
Ms. Short: So, I’m hearing, um, you are against the motion, is basically what
I’m hearing from your input? That you are against our motion to
approve, and, as a Board, our support of this Bill with some
friendly amendments, is that correct?
Ms. Valenzuela: I, I’m not against the Bi-, the Bill because I understand the intent
of it, you know, but when I asked-, I, I did this this past week. I
asked a bunch of people-, give me your definition of immediate
family. Only business colleagues. Do you know what the definition
was? Mother, father, brother, sister, siblings.
Ms. Short: Right, I-, so you are not in support of the motion I guess is what
I’m trying to get to?
Ms. Valenzuela: Right. I’m not.
Ms. Short: Okay. Thank you. Um, I’d like to give my input at this time. I
actually think it could be the opposite, personally. I’ve talked to
44
people who want to apply for County positions and say things like,
oh, I don’t know anyone, so it’s pointless. Oh, I’m not related to
so-and-so, so why would I even apply? I think, if anything, this
Bill would encourage more people to apply because now there are
guardrails and safe things in place, and we’re not talking about that
they couldn’t get that job, we’re just talking about these people
recusing themselves, just like we do, from a supervisory position
where, to me, it’s highly unethical if you’re overseeing your
cousin, your grandson, or any of this, or, you know-, even for me
as Chair, I would never sit here, serving our community, or on the
County of the Board of Ethics, without recusing myself from
someone who I know that I’m related to, and it would impact my
decision making process. That’s why we have seen-, I have chosen,
as Chair, to recuse myself and sit out certain petitions where I feel
like I-, adoptive family, someone I’ve lived with or someone has-,
and I, I personally believe that if we weren’t to do that, that would
look even worse. So, I, I-, since we are having a discussion, I do
support, obviously, the motion that’s at hand with these friendly
amendments, changing the adoptive language, and some other
things. I believe that the State sets the precedent-, what we should
follow, as the County Board of Ethics. It appears to me that Bill 21
is taking that language, pretty much verbatim, um-, and I also
believe that it would actually encourage more of our local
community members to apply for jobs for the County, because all
that happens is, oh, so-and-so’s not going to oversee my interview.
Oh, my brother’s not going to be my boss. To me, that’s kind of
how it should be, no matter what. That, to me, would be highly
unethical. It’s-, you should never be-, you know, my mom
shouldn’t be my boss. I mean, she’s my boss is the bigger sense of
the word because she onl-, you know, she’s the only one I answer
to besides God. But I don’t believe in a salaried, paid position,
there’s anything ethical about any of these people having their
immediate, or direct supervisor, or the person that interviews them,
or hires them, be in this sort of relation. So-…
Ms. Wan: Um, so, can I put point of clarification-…
Ms. Short: Please.
Ms. Wan: … for the record? Um, because I saw you circling repeatedly, and
I’ll just note for the record that the circling you are doing, just
because I can see it from here, was to the State definition of
45
relative. So, just to clarify your input, you’re in support of the State
definition of relative with the adoptive language being amended-…
Ms. Short: To remove Hawaiian hanai custom and speak more to what
Council Member Kimball said-…
Ms. Wan: And to speak more towards informal-…
Ms. Short: Correct.
Ms. Wan: … adoptive practices.
Ms. Short: Yes. Thank you for that clarification.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay, let me just jab you really quick because I probably didn’t
explain myself. I, I’m not that I’m not for it, but I’m not for the
definition being so broad. That’s what I’m not for. I wouldn’t want
my mother as my boss, or-, and I don’t know if you’ve ever played
a sport or coached, when I coach my kids, I’m harder on my kids
than I am on other people on the team, right? But that, that, I’m not
for that. What I am not for is the hanai, and aunties, and second
cousins and third cousins and fourth cou-, I mean, I, I honestly
think that is ridiculous.
Ms. Short: So, I guess my question would be that-…
Ms. Valenzuela: Because when-, let me just finish. Because even like,
commissioners. How, how are we appointed? We know somebody
that asked us, right? All the commissioners within the County of
Hawaiʻi are asked by somebody in the County-, hey, there’s an
opening, we really need people to volunteer. Hey, would you like
to volunteer? Somebody knew somebody, and talked to some
commissioner to say, hey, can you-, do you want to apply? If we go
so broad then, I mean-, I’m touching on things that are, are kind of
uncomfortable, but it’s true, right?
Ms. Short: Vice Chair, please.
Ms. Fukumitsu: I, I understand that, but, you know, just for myself, that’s not how I
found my way to this Board, for the record, right? I looked for an
opportunity to serve my community. Um, I, I, I do, um-, I get
where we’re going with this and I can be supportive of it, but like,
for me, um, the bigger picture is if we’re talking about perception,
46
and, um, good hiring practices. It doesn’t necessarily start in a
Code of Ethics. I mean, it can live there with some definitions,
right, but the bigger conversation is HR hiring practices-,
mechanisms in place to have a system of checks and balances.
Even in, you know, the executive branch of our County
government, right, that we are transparent, that we promote, um,
transparency, and ethics, and accountability, right, so, I get it, but I,
I get concerned when we start to create laws and definitions and
things that just want to put a band-aid, maybe, on the bigger issue,
and I, and I, I, I don’t want us to go so down a rabbit hole with
definitions of relationships that become hard for us to manage. And
as a Board, ultimately, right, we would receive a complaint of a
violation of this policy, or requests for exemptions-, and how do
we monitor second cousins and I-, I just-, I don’t know. But, yes, I
mean, I get where we’re going, so, I just-, that-, I guess my
opinion/question, I don’t know. Chris Ho, go ahead.
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho, hi. Circling back to my actual motion, um, I have a few
amendments, um, based on the conversation, um, one of which is
removal of the word Hawaiian from section 3(3) and replace with
general adoptive practices.
Ms. Wan: So, can I clarify that for you, because I think-…
Mr. Ho: Or whatever that-…
Ms. Wan: … so, I think the-, so-, under Bill 21, you’re looking at section 3,
immediate family member definition, section 3, the last phrase, and
the Hawaiian custom of hanai.
Mr. Ho: That is correct.
Ms. Wan: So, you’re looking to replace that language with-…
Mr. Ho: General adoptive practices, or um, sorry, let me take that back. You
said it exactly how I would really like to see it, I don’t remember
what you said.
Ms. Short: Council Member Kimball, would you mind, please, repeating the
way you phrased it before?
Ms. Kimball: Yes, I, I suggested either, um, and relations through formal and
informal adoptive practices, or relations through formal, er-, sorry,
47
adoption-, relations through adoption, or traditional adoption
practices. So, either one of those, I think, would-…
Ms. Short: So, you said-…
Ms. Kimball: … satisfy what I understand.
Ms. Short: … relations through informal or formal adoptive practices?
Ms. Kimball: Formal and informal, as one mechanism, or if you wanted to
specifically call out traditional as opposed to informal, or you
could actually do formal, informal, and traditional adoption
practices to cover all of the bases.
Ms. Short: … formal, informal, info-, so, we have formal, informal, and
traditional.
Mr. Ho: So, the amendment would read removal of the word Hawaiian
from section 3, number 3, and replaced with formal, informal, or
traditional adoptive practices. That’s-…
Ms. Short: I believe you want to strike the whole end of the sentence.
Hawaiian custom of hanai, is that correct?
Mr. Ho: … formal, comma informal, and the traditional. Or-…
Ms. Wan: Well, I think, I think traditional is-, I think this is more accurate
because traditional wasn’t, wasn’t like a different option.
Mr. Ho: Okay. So, yes. Yup, so, that, um, amendment would read removal
of the Hawaiian custom of hanai and replaced with relations
through formal and informal adoptive practices. DCC Wan, do you
want to do each amendment by themself, or, because I have three-
…
Ms. Wan: I think that, yes-…
Mr. Ho: Okay.
Ms. Wan: … I think you should do them individually, so the Board can adopt
them each in turn. So, that’s your motion to amend, that’s friendly
amendment number one, you need a second.
48
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, second.
Ms. Short; Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, we are calling
on motion, we’re-, I’m calling for the vote to support Bil 21-…
Ms. Wan: No, no-…
Ms. Short: … with the friendly amendment-…
Ms. Wan: … not yet.
Ms. Short: … just the friendly amendment.
Ms. Wan: Right now, we’re just doing amendment number one, so this is
calling the question on amendment number one which is this
legislative change.
Ms. Short: So, I guess I’m trying to figure out how we phrase this within our
decision-…
Ms. Wan: You’re not, you’re not doing the top one, you’re just doing the
middle one.
Ms. Short: So, we’re just approving the friendly amendment to section 3-3 on
Bill number 21 to remove Hawaiian custom of hanai and replace it
with relations through formal and informal adoptive practices. Any
discussion to be had on that? I will call for a vote. All in favor,
please say aye.
Ms. Short: Aye.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Aye.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Paiva: Aye.
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay.
Ms. Valenzuela: Nay.
Ms. Short: The motion passes, 4 to 1, thank you.
49
Motion and Vote: Board Member Ho moved to adopt a friendly amendment to Bill 21,
Section 3(3); Vice Chair Fukumitsu seconded; Four members voted aye; One member
voted nay; Motion Passes (11:53 a.m.)
Ms. Wan: Um, 5 to 1.
Ms. Short: 5 to 1, excuse me. I didn’t count myself.
Mr. Ho: That would still be 4 to 1. One, two, three, four-…
Ms. Short: It would still be-, Kelly said no, it’s 4 to 1.
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry.
Ms. Short: I was correct.
Mr. Ho: Do we have a Board member in our pocket?
Ms. Short: So, the motion passes, 4 to 1. Okay, thank you. Moving along to, I
believe, your next friendly amendment, Member Ho.
Mr. Ho: Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, a friendly amendment number
two, I don’t really-, it’s-, I’d like-, I’m just going to say it, I don’t
know how to word that actual amendment so, if you could help me
with this, um, make reference to civil service appointments in
section 2(a), number 1.
Ms. Short: Section 4, section 2(a)(1), correct, on page 2?
Mr. Ho: That is correct.
Ms. Short: Okay, thank you. Your friendly amendment?
Mr. Ho: That was the friendly amendment, I just didn’t know how to
actually phrase-…
Ms. Short: You want to-…
Mr. Ho: … the actual amendment because I don’t know-, sorry, I can’t-, I
can’t speak because I have no second.
Ms. Short: I, I guess I’m confused what the motion is.
50
Ms. Wan: So, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. Right now, um,
Member Ho is asking that the Board adopt as second friendly
amendment that under Bill 21, section 4, as it currently reads
section 2(a)(1), that there make a reference relating to
appointments that it’s referring to civil service. So, unlike-…
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Wan: … the previous amendment, it’s not act-, it’s not directing Council
to adopt specific language, it’s asking Council to adopt a particular
idea to incorporate in here. So, it would be the language for the, for
the, um, Council to decide on how that would be reflected.
Ms. Short: So, just to reiterate, the motion is for Council to consider how they
would phrase section 4, section 2(a)(1)?
Ms. Wan: Making a, making a reference to civil service for appointments.
Ms. Fukumitsu: There’s a motion on-, Vice Chair Fukumitsu, there’s a motion on
the floor.
Ms. Wan: Not yet.
Ms. Short: No.
Ms. Fukumitsu: I thought-…
Ms. Short: There is no motion on the floor.
Mr. Ho: I, I submitted a motion for this as a friendly amendment, but I need
a second in order to-…
Ms. Short: But I don’t-…
Mr. Ho: … even answer any of your questions.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Okay, Vice Chair Fukumitsu, second.
Mr. Ho: Okay, now I can, now I can an-…
Ms. Short: Now we can have discussion-…
Mr. Ho: Yes.
51
Ms. Short: Okay.
Mr. Ho: That’s where we’re trying to go.
Ms. Short: Okay.
Mr. Ho: So, um, speaking to this particular amended motion, um, it was
based off of something that, um, the HR director had stated with
regards to appointments of civil service positions. Um, if I-,
remembering and recalling the conversation correctly, and please,
by all means, uh, let me know if I’m totally off the mark on this, in
this particular section it speaks to appointment-, um, the
appointment of whom specifically, civil service-, a civil service
position, because, if I’m not mistaken, that position is an actual
paid position versus any other like, board appointment, um, which
would not be a paid position, because this references paying that
particular person, so is just asking to clarify a little bit more what is
meant by the term appointment so that it’s understood by all.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. I’ll also note that there
are other paid positions that are also appointed, and not civil
service.
Mr. Ho: And I can get on that-, just kidding. Trying to break the ice, you
guys, it’s so hard in here. Okay, so, I guess the-, may I ask the guys
a question?
Ms. Wan: Well, why don’t you ask the question first-…
Mr. Ho: Okay, let me ask the Chair.
Ms. Wan: … because-…
Mr. Ho: Um, I’m a little, I’m still a little unclear what the actual term
appointment in this particular section would actually reference to
with regards to hiring practices.
Ms. Wan: Okay, so, that sounds like a part of the reason why you would want
a clarification, so-…
Ms. Short: So, you’re asking if we can hear from Council Member Kimball
for clarification on sect-…
52
Ms. Wan: Well, no, I don’t think you need to necessarily-, sorry, Deputy
Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. I don’t think you necessarily
need to answer that question today. The point is, is, what is the
Board’s opinion about the way that this presents, presently. So,
right now, um, Member Ho is stating that he has questions and
concerns around the word appointment and what that means. He is
suggesting the-, that the Council make a clarification that
appointment is referring to civil service positions and not other
appointed positions. That would include non-paid positions like
this entire Board-, this entire Board were appointed. Um, that I will
note, um, are not paid positions so it’s not actually qualifying
under this section, but what you’re making a distinction on is
appointments for paid positions that are not civil service. There is
an entire realm of civil service positions that are appointed that are
paid, um-, I believe my position as Deputy Corporation Counsel is
considered an appointment, I’ll have to get back to you on that,
but, um, I might be an example of one of those things. So, there is
a whole realm of like, exempt positions, that don’t go through the
civil service frame, so, I’m just providing that information to the
Board for you to chew on. Right now, the motion on the floor is to
amend, with this particular suggestion in mind. Is everybody clear
on, on Member Ho’s suggestion?
Ms. Short: I, I guess I still need some clarification. You just want this to be
addressed in the Bill. You want some sort of ver-, um, language
that distinguishes that?
Mr. Ho: That is correct.
Ms. Short: Okay.
Mr. Ho: I would just like some clarification, in writing, as to what the intent
is, or-, sorry-, clarification in writing as to what appointment
actually means.
Ms. Short: But my understanding, and maybe you can clarify this for me,
Corporation Counsel-, this only applies to paid County positions.
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel. As the Bill is presently written, it
says it only applies to paid County positions, so the question is
when it comes to appointment, are you concerned or not concerned
about the situation in which a director can appoint a paid position
53
below them? Do you want the nepotism section to also apply to
directors that appoint paid positions that are not civil service? So,
that’s the question kind of before the Board.
Ms. Kimball: Chair, if I, I may, and I know that this is-…
Ms. Short: Yes, please.
Ms. Kimball: … irregular, but it’s going to be very important to the Council’s
processes to understand the Board’s intent here, and more so than
proposing a specific amendment, I think communicating to us what
you think the appropriate coverage is, um, is important, and to
Deputy Corporation Counsel’s point, all of the staff in the Office of
Housing and Community Development, for example, is not civil
service. It’s appointed staff. All of the legislative staff for the
Council Member’s Office and including the Clerk’s Office and the
Legislative Research Branch and Elections are not civil service
employees. All of the deputies and-, directors and deputies of the
different departments are not civil service employees. Their
secretaries are not civil service employees, they’re appointees. All
of the Mayor’s executive assistants are appointees. Um, so there is
a significant number of the workforce that is paid and appointed,
um, so I would say that the, the, the best thing for us in our process
would be for this body to weigh in on whether or not it should only
apply to civil service employees or should include those paid
positions that are appointed, keeping in mind that the HRS would
apply to those appointed positions that are not civil service as well.
Ms. Short: Thank you.
Mr. Ho: If I may ask a follow-up question.
Ms. Short: Please.
Mr. Ho: Um, with the language as it is currently written with the word
appointment, um, and based off of what Council Member Kimball
just said, does it read that way?
Ms. Wan: What way?
Mr. Ho: That it-, the appointment is for every single person, regardless of
station?
54
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. So, right now, as it’s
presently written, it would apply to all appointments, um, that are
paid, right? So, all of the boards and commissions that are not paid,
this would not apply to, but it would, it would apply to all other
paid appointments, civil service or not civil service, um, and in this
instance, as Ms., uh, Council Member Kimball pointed out, like,
the entire department of the Office of Housing and Community
Development.
Mr. Ho: I’m going to, uh, that was really close, I’m so, so sorry. Um, I will
remove, or retract-, withdraw, um, said amendment, um, which
would move to the last one. Um, to replace the term immediate
family member within section 3, um, and, uh-, with the term
relative.
Ms. Short: So, can I get clarification on one thing on that?
Ms. Wan: No, not yet.
Ms. Short: Oh, I need a second so we can discuss. Would someone second that
friendly amendment?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, second.
Ms. Short: Discussion. Currently, the way the Code reads, is the terminology
immediate family member throughout the rest of the Code?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. So, at this present time,
um, the term that is related throughout the rest of the Code of
Ethics that’s relating to family members is the term immediately
family member. So, immediate family member does show up in
your conflicts of interest section, or sorry, not your conflicts of
interest section, it shows up on your contracts section. I thought it
was your contracts section.
Ms. Short: That’s what I, I know I, I, I know that I’ve seen the term immediate
family member, yeah, used multiple places-…
Ms. Wan: So-…
Ms. Short: … like, looking under section 2(a)(2)-…
Ms. Wan: … in that, in that regard, um, if, if we’re following what-…
55
Ms. Short: Contracts.
Ms. Wan: … Board Member, um, Ho is trying to suggest, you would retain
the immediate family member definition that’s currently present
within the Code of Ethics, and create a new definition which is
relative as defined here under section 3, and the terms in the
nepotism section would thus, need to be amended from immediate
family member to relative, is that correct Counc-, um, Member
Ho?
Mr. Ho: I want to say yes, but I think I lost you half-way through.
Ms. Wan: Okay.
Mr. Ho: Um-…
Ms. Wan: That’s fair.
Mr. Ho: … so, if I could speak to the actual amendment that I made-…
Ms. Wan: Sure.
Mr. Ho: … um, to just get some rationale, um, I have a very difficult time
swallowing immediate family member to be a second cousin. To
me, that is not an immediate family member. Immediate family
member, and I believe, um-, I almost said Council Member, sorry-,
yeah, Board Member, Board Member, um, Kelly had said, there are
different definitions of immediate family, but more historical,
immediate family is really kind of the nuclear family. So, to then
re-introduce this new concept of, okay, now immediate family
looks like this, that’s going to be a really hard swallow for pretty
much, uh-, I can only speak for myself, so it’s going to be a really
hard swallow for me. Um, if it-, if we were to keep second cousin,
and it-, that’s a relative. My immediate family is my mom, my dad,
my grandparent’s. I’m an only child so I have no siblings. Uh, that,
it, to me is an immediate family, but once you start, um, going
farther out and rippling away from the center, then that word im-,
immediate isn’t necessary. It kind of isn’t actual immediate.
Ms. Short: So, then I guess my question would be, so then, everywhere
immediate family is referred to in the Hawaiʻi County Code of
Ethics, with this new definition and changing immediate family to
56
relative, does that then mean everywhere in the Code of Ethics, the
term immediate family is replaced with relative as the term?
Mr. Ho: I can’t speak to that, and that is not within the purview of the
amendment or, um, I-, should-, let me take that back. I can’t speak
to that because we’re not here to drastically change the entire Code
itself, it’s just one section.
Ms. Short: But that’s what we’re talking about.
Mr. Ho: I understand, thank you.
Ms. Short: So-…
Mr. Ho: So, it’s kind of you’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you
don’t, so we can say yes to it or no-, I don’t care, but I’m just
stating that I, it’s a hard pill for me to swallow, the usage of the
term immediate family member to also include someone who, in
my eyes, is not my immediate family.
Ms. Short: I’m going to allow Council Member Kimball to speak because I
also saw the auditor say something to her.
Ms. Kimball: Yeah, thank you. Um, if I make, make a recommendation-…
Ms. Short: Please.
Ms. Kimball: … that would be to, um, amend Bill 21, so that the definition of
immediate family member matches the HRS definition which does
not include second cousins. That would require, then, a further
recommendation of amending that definition with the adjustments
that we’ve made already to the adoption language, because the
HRS includes that Hawaiian custom language. So, I believe that
that’s what you’re-, your, your issue is not with the term, per say,
of immediate family member, it’s the definition that’s been
proposed. Going with the, the State definition is as far back as we
can roll to, because that’s HRS, so if that’s the proposal-, as, of a,
as I said-, the County’s ordinance goes one step further to include
second cousins, so if you’re not in alignment with that, my
recommendation would be to take the language for relative from
HRS, put it under immediate family member here in Bill 21, with
that amend-, further amendment around the adoption language.
57
Mr. Ho: DCC Wan, that’s what I would like to do, however, would also still
like to make sure that, that, um, Hawaiian hanai part is not part of
that since we did that in the first one, so.
Ms. Wan: Okay, so, at this point, do you want to withdraw your-…
Mr. Ho: I do.
Ms. Wan: … motion to amend, and you can restate it? Or, do you want me to
try to restate with what I think you’re trying to effectuate, and then
you can agree?
Mr. Ho: To move forward in a quicker pace, I would love that.
Ms. Wan: Okay. So, as I understand it, Member Ho’s motion, at this point, is
to amend his main motion, so that with the proposition that Bill 21
be amended as far as the definition for immediate family member
be instead replaced with the State’s offered definition of relative,
under HRS 84-13.2, with the exception that the language relating
to Hawaiian hanai custom be removed, and instead inserted with
the previously approved language of relation through formal and
informal adoptive practices.
Mr. Ho: Exactly, correct, of what was in my brain.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second to that motion?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, second.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? I’m going to call for a vote. Everyone in
favor of, can you re-read the motion for the record?
Ms. Wan: I’d rather not, I think you understand it.
Ms. Short: To encompass it all, we are-…
Mr. Ho: No, just the amendment, we’re just on the amendment-…
Ms. Wan: Just, just the relative language.
Ms. Short: I’m talking to Corp. Counsel. Okay, so Bill 21, with the
amendment, is what we as-, we’re supporting Bill 21, which was
the original motion-…
58
Ms. Wan: No, no, you’re going too far. Right now, we’re just doing the
amendment, so this is, this is just a vote on adopting the
amendment. So, just call for the vote, and then you’re going to do a
motion for the overall, you’re going to call the vote for the overall
motion as amended-…
Ms. Short: But the moti-, but the amendment was withdrawn. We already
approved this amendment, correct?
Ms. Wan: No, you’re approving it right now-…
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Wan: … theoretically.
Ms. Short: Okay. So, we are approving the amendment to section 3(3).
Ms. Wan: Yes.
Ms. Short: Okay. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none, the
motion passes.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Ho moved to approve the adopted friendly amendment to
Bill 21, Section 3(3); Vice Chair Fukumitsu seconded; All member voted aye; Motion
Passes (12:11 p.m.)
Ms. Short: Now getting us back to our main thing, which is the Board of
Ethics supporting Bill 21 with the amendment to section 3(3).
Ms. Wan: So, it’s going to be Bill 21 with the aforementioned friendly
amendments as adopted by the Board.
Ms. Short: Okay, okay. Can I get a se-, wait, we already have the motion, so
any further discussion to be had? I’ll call for a vote. All in favor,
please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
59
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay.
Ms. Wan: Um, Deputy Corporation Counsel. Kelly, I didn’t see if you
mentioned either or. Are you abstaining?
Ms. Valenzuela: Um, no, no, no, aye, yeah.
Ms. Wan: Thank you.
Ms. Short: Aye, okay. The motion so passes. Thank you very, very much for
your time-…
Mr. Paiva: Thank you, you three.
Ms. Short: … and for being here today, appreciate you being here and your
feedback.
Ms. Valenzula: Thank you for explaining, Council Kimball.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Ho moved to support Bill 21 with the friendly
amendments as adopted by the Board; Vice Chair Fukumitsu seconded; All member voted
aye; Motion Passes (12:12 p.m.)
5. NEW BUSINESS (12:12 P.M.)
c. Petition 2025-04: Review of a Petition from a County Employee clearance and
guidance regarding potential conflict of interest.
e. Petition 2025-06: Review of a Petition from a County Employee clearance and
guidance regarding potential conflict of interest.
Ms. Short: I’m going to call, um, out of order, I believe-…
Ms. Wan: Yes.
Ms. Short: … because I know we have two people who work for the parks
who I want to get to today because what they’re asking about is
coming up in April. So, at this time, we’re going to fast forward on
our agenda, oh no, we’re not. Is it 2025-01?
Ms. Wan: No, that’s-, 1 and, 1 and 2 is Council Member Inaba-…
Ms. Short: Okay, so 4-…
60
Ms. Wan: … 4 and 6, you can call together-…
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Wan: … and then 5.
Ms. Short: Okay. So, at this time, I’m going to call Petition 2025-04 and
2025-06, at the same time since they are both in regards to the
same thing. Can we get both of the petitioners to come up to the
mic and state your name for the record? We will start with 2025-
04.
Ms. Iyo: Uh, my name is Lindsey Iyo, uh, Recreation Division
Administrator.
Ms. Short: Thank you.
Ms. Castro: Brittney Castro, Clerk for the Recreation Division.
Ms. Short: Thank you. So, just to make the Board aware for some
housekeeping issues, we’re calling, um, 04 and 06 at the same time
because they are in regards to the same question. If you could both
please state your name for the Board-, you already did, um, maybe
just explain a little bit about your Petition, we’ll start with 04.
Ms. Iyo: Sure, Lindsey Iyo. Um, so, we are petitioning the Board, uh,
because we have submitted an application to receive contingency
relief funds for our non-profit that we, uh, both sit on the Board
for. Um, and these funds would be used for, uh, lei making classes,
uh, that we would host for community members, uh, as well as,
um, Merrie Monarch. Um, we also enter a pāʻū unit into the Merrie
Monarch Parade, um, and so these funds would be used towards
those classes.
Ms. Short: Thank you. Please.
Ms. Castro: Brittney Castro, um, so I also sit on the same board, um, as
Lindsey, and, um, yeah. I don’t know what else to say. Same.
Ms. Wan: So, I’m just going to clarify for the Board that-…
Ms. Short: Thank you.
61
Ms. Wan: … um, Ms. Castro is, um, under Petition 2025-06-…
Ms. Short: Yes.
Ms. Wan: … so when Ms. Castro is speaking, she’s speaking to that Petition,
and wi-, when Ms. Iyo is speaking, Ms. Iyo is speaking to her
Petition, which is 2025-04.
Ms. Short: At this time, as a Board, let’s address 2025-04…
Ms. Wan: No, you’re, you’re hearing them together, so you can, yeah-…
Ms. Short: Okay, 2025-04 and 06, do we have any questions for our
petitioners?
Mr. Ho: Uh, Chris Ho, qu-, quick question. So, um, you have the
application for contingency relief funds. Um, are you the only
person that can approve that application? Or is there-, can you talk
to me about the process of approval?
Ms. Castro: Um, so, we, as a board, applied to Council District 1 and District 2
for counc-, contingency relief funds. So, they have agreed to give
us a total of $5,000 in support of community classes, so, I’m not
sure-…
Mr. Ho: Okay, so, I’m a little confused. Um, so within your job, is your job
asking for it, but the board that you sit on outside of work is asking
for it, and you’re just asking if that’s something that can happen
given that you work for the County?
Ms. Castro: Correct.
Mr. Ho: Am I-…
Ms. Castro: Yes.
Mr. Ho: … understanding that correctly?
Ms. Iyo: Yeah, so, our job has nothing to do with requesting the funds. It’s
the non-profit board that is requesting the funds.
Ms. Castro: And we are County employees and we just want to make sure that
everything is above board.
62
Ms. Short: Scotty, please.
Mr. Paiva: Um, Scotty Paiva, Board Member. What you guys-, what you-, uh,
job positions with the County? I didn’t see that anywhere in the-…
Ms. Iyo: Uh, so, I am the Recreation Division Administrator.
Ms. Castro: And I’m a Clerk for the Recreation Division.
Mr. Paiva: And those two positions has nothing to do with the-…
Ms. Short: Does anyone else on the Board have questions for our petitioners?
If not, I will entertain a motion for both 2025-04, as well as 2025-
06. Anyone want to make a motion?
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, I see no conflict. Um, I make a motion
by that, and I want to commend you, you know, outside of your
job, taking care of people in your community, I think that’s
wonderful, you guys.
Ms. Short: Do I have a second to the motion to find that there’s no conflict?
Mr. Paiva: Member Paiva, second.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll call for the
vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Aye.
Mr. Paiva: Aye.
Ms. Valenzuela: Aye.
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Member Ho, you have to vote.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Ms. Short: Thank you. Hearing and seeing none, the motion passes. Thank
you both very much for your work.
Ms. Iyo: Thank you.
Ms. Castro: Thank you.
63
Motion and Vote: Board Member Valenzuela moved to find no conflict of interest for
Petitions 2025-04 and 2025-06; Board Member Paiva seconded; All members voted aye;
Motion Passes (12:18 p.m.)
d. Petition 2025-05: Review of a Petition from a County Employee seeking clearance
and guidance regarding potential conflict of interest.
Ms. Short: Okay, moving back in order-… Ms. Iyo: I’m also on, uh-…
Ms. Wan: No, no, so you want number 5-… Ms. Iyo: Yup.
Ms. Wan: … because she needs to go. Ms. Short: Oh, okay, perfect. That’s what I thought. Ms. Iyo: Sorry.
Ms. Short: No, you’re fine. Petition 20-, that is kind of in order in somewhat, 2025-05, please state your name and the reason for your Petition. Ms. Iyo: Sure. Lindsey Iyo, um, current position with the County,
Recreation Division Administrator. Uh, this Petition is along the same lines as, uh, 04. Um, I also sit on the board of, uh, the Keaukaha School Foundation, um, and it, in that, uh-, on that board, uh, we also request for contingency relief funds, uh, from County Council, uh, in-, to support, to be able to support the pre-
school program at Keaukaha Elementary School. So, seeking, uh, approval also for that. Ms. Short: Do we have any questions for our petitioner?
Mr. Ho: Madame Chair, Chris Ho. Um, I would like to state for the record that as a Department of Education employee, um, in an educational officer position, um, I do, um, at times, deal with, um, many of our schools on the island, and I did want to state for the record that it has no bearance whatsoever on my ability to, um, fulfill the
need-… Ms. Short: To vote. Thank you. Recorded. Any questions for our petitioner? If not, I will entertain a motion at this time regarding Petition 2025-05. Would someone like to make a motion? Scotty, please.
64
Mr. Paiva: Member Paiva, move that I see no conflict in, um, number-…
Ms. Short: 2025-05.
Mr. Paiva: … yes. Ms. Short: Would someone like to second that motion?
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, I second it. Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll call for a vote. All in favor, please say aye.
*Board members say aye in unison* Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much, the motion so passes. Thank you for your time and
your service.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Paiva moved to find no conflict of interest for Petition
2025-05; Board Member Valenzuela seconded; All members voted aye; Motion Passes
(12:20 p.m.)
a. Petition 2025-01: Review of a Petition from a County Officer seeking clearance and
guidance regarding potential conflict of interest.
Ms. Iyo: Thank you so much, and I just wanted to say thank you guys for serving on the Board. Uh, it’s been, it’s been really interesting coming and seeing what you guys do, and I give you guys credit.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Paiva: Thank you for your patience. Ms. Short: Thank you. We appreciate your recognition. Alright, backing up-, I
know, I like her boss too. Okay, number 5, new business. Calling
Petition 2025-01, the review of a Petition from a County Officer seeking clearance and guidance regarding a potential conflict of interest. Do we have any public testimony on this agenda item?
Ms. Wan: No, Chair, we do not.
Ms. Short: Is the petitioner present? Ms. Wan: I believe by Zoom.
Mr. Inaba: I am.
65
Ms. Short: Okay, perfect. And let me make sure, um, I see here that you have requested a closed hearing before-…
Mr. Ho: Sorry, Madame Chair, but before we continue, can we see the person? Ms. Short: Yeah. He’s coming.
Mr. Inaba: Aloha. Ms. Short: Aloha. I see here that you have, um, requested a closed hearing. Before we make the decision to hear this in an open or closed
setting, would you mind, please, explaining to the Board why you
have requested a closed hearing today? Mr. Inaba: Uh, yes, just so we can have frank conversation. Um, this is maybe an item, not specific to me, but in general with Council Members,
and maybe with even members of the administration. So, um, just
want to make sure we can be really frank and, uh, share, you know, the details of some of the events that we have to attend, and, um, you know, get a, get a good solid opinion based on that discussion.
Ms. Wan: Um, Council Member Inaba, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia
Wan. Uh, would-, does your Petition consider, uh, personal matters that may affect your privacy? Mr. Inaba: No.
Ms. Wan: Okay. Ms. Short: Um, so based on the information provided by the respondent, is there a motion to enter closed session?
Ms. Valenzuela: I make a me-, uh, Board Member Valenzuela. Um, I make motion to go into a closed session upon the request of Council Member Inaba.
Ms. Wan: So, um, I’ll just note for the record that among the reasons that you
can enter into closed session, um-, the most common is matters affecting confidentiality, or matters affecting personal privacy, is one, and generally, as an informal advisory opinion level, that’s primarily what you’re looking at. When you’re looking at a
complaint, it’s going to be relating to the, um, you know, alleged
misconduct relating to the employment of an individual. So, those are generally the two lines that you’re allowed to do a closed
66
session. Otherwise, um, we wouldn’t-, the Sunshine Law would prevent us from going into closed session.
Ms. Short: Yeah, I think I-… Mr. Inaba: Okay, let’s just stay open then. Sorry, I wasn’t aware of, you know, the, um, qualifications to go in or out, so, I’m happy to have
it in open session.
Ms. Wan: No worries, thank you. Ms. Short: So, just to clarify, you’re going to retract your request for a closed
hearing, and you’re okay with us proceeding within an open
session? Mr. Inaba: Yes.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Well, but, to me, I feel like there was a layer of maybe some
concern for personal privacy confidentiality-… Ms. Short: She asked him our Code-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: Oh, okay, but maybe he wasn’t sure of what that really meant, or
no. Mr. Ho: Sorry, point of order-…
Mr. Inaba: I’m comfortable having it in open session. It’s, it’s okay.
Ms. Short: Yeah. Mr. Ho: Um, point of order. Um, Kelly actually made a motion-…
Ms. Wan: Oh, it wasn’t-… Ms. Short: It wasn’t seconded though.
Mr. Ho: It didn’t get a chance to.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Oh, so sorry. Ms. Short: Okay. Does someone want to second Kelly’s motion?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Can we get a repeat?
67
Mr. Ho: It’s more just for the record because it-, the motion was made and then clarification was provided, but then we just kept on going
without referring back to the fact that a motion was actually stated.
Ms. Short: So, do we have a second to Kelly’s motion? Ms. Fukumitsu: I apologize, could I get a-, could we restate the motion?
Ms. Short: My understanding-… Ms. Fukumitsu: I don’t know what-…
Ms. Short: … is the motion do-, fails because it doesn’t meet Sunshine Law
requirements, is what I just heard Corp. Counsel say. Ms. Wan: Okay. So, just so we can keep it clear, Ms. Valenzuela, do you withdraw your motion?
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela-… Ms. Short: Wait, hit your mic.
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, I will withdraw my motion, with the
understanding and explanation of the definition, from Corp. Counsel Sylvia Wan-… Ms. Wan: Thank you.
Ms. Short: Thank you. Ms. Valenzuela: … in regards to what qualifies a closed session.
Ms. Short: Okay. Thank you. So, we are going to, no. We are going to
proceed with Petition 2025-01 in an open setting. Thank you for that clarification. Um, Council Member, if you could please state your name and explain the reason for your Petition.
Mr. Inaba: Sure. Aloha, Holeka Goro Inaba. I serve as Chair of the Hawaiʻi
County Council and I represent District 8, North Kona. Um, I have two Petitions today. This first one is in regards to attending certain events, um, mainly the one provided here in the Petition. Uh, the Kohala Coast Resort Association is a association of, basically, all
of the resorts, starting at, uh, Four Seasons out to Mauna Kea, and
they have a quarterly event where Council Members, members of the administration and other elected officials are invited. Uh, typically they provide us with updates of, uh, events and programs
68
that are happening across the resorts. Uh, they’ll typically host it at one of the resorts re-, uh, alternating between them, um, and at
these events, they do have food and alcohol, uh, available, for free
to all those in attendance, uh, both elected officials and other community members as well. So, just wanted to get your folks manaʻo on whether attending that event should result in us reporting, uh, gifts and, uh, there’s no dollar amount, there’s no
ticket, um, per say, that we would otherwise be able to pay to
attend the event, so just wanted to get an informal opinion, make sure that not just myself, but everyone else who attends these types of meetings, we can use this opinion and make sure we’re following and doing what is right based on the Code of Ethics.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much, Council Member. So, just for clarification for the Board, um, Council does have Petition 2025 and-, 01, and 2025-02, before us. Um, we’ll make a decision, and we’re hearing on 2025-01, and then we’ll move to 2025-02. Does anyone have
any questions for Council Member regarding 2025-01? Member
Ho. Mr. Ho: Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, with this particular event, um, this one specifically since it’s mentioned in here, um, is it by invitation
only, or is it-, actually, I’ll stop there. Is it by invitation only?
Mr. Inaba: I would say yes. Mr. Ho: Are the invitations given to only, um, Council Members and those
with subsequent influence within the community?
Mr. Inaba: Typically, I don’t know exactly who is invited. I, I just know that, typically, members of the Council from West Hawaiʻi, District 6, 7, 8, and 9, are traditionally invited. I’ve known on occasion a
couple members from the Hilo side to attend, uh, and then
members from our West Hawaiʻi delegation at the legislature. Um, but it isn’t, you know, a publicly advertised event. Mr. Ho: Okay. And the only information that they’re providing is just
updates on what they have been up to, what they’re doing, not
necessarily lobbying for things that they would like to see? Mr. Inaba: No. There’ve been instances like, where we’ve had real property tax discussions ongoing, and those things have never been
discussed at those events, even though they’re happening
simultaneously, perhaps, at the Council level.
69
Mr. Ho: Okay, and you did mention, um, multiple members of the Hawaiʻi County Council, um, potentially being, um, in attendance at the
same time, um, begging the question of wondering if some
conversations were had, um, during said event, that could potentially conflict with Sunshine Law of three or more, um-, I’m just stating-, I’m not-, it’s not a question, I’m just, I don’t know-…
Mr. Inaba: Yes, I would say, I mean-, there, there’s always that concern when
more than two of us attend an event, but that maybe would be outside the scope of the Petition and, and the role of the Board. Mr. Ho: So, ultimately, what you’re trying to find out is whether or not you
need to put this on your gift, um, disclosure form? That’s it?
Mr. Inaba: Yes. Yes. Mr. Ho: Thank you.
Ms. Wan: You’re in question phase. Ms. Short: We’re in questions, so you can ask him a question, we can discuss on a Board after there’s a motion. Scotty, please.
Mr. Paiva: This is Member Paiva. Just, is it-, do you estimate it worth more than $100? Mr. Inaba: No.
Mr. Paiva: Thank you. Ms. Short: So, just to clarify for our Board, um, to re-read from the Petition. He is being invited, in his official capacity as County Council, and
our Code does state it’s excluded from reporting requirements,
anything that is available to, or distributed to the public generally without regard to the official status of the recipient. So, my question would be, you received the same things at that event, as far as food and drink, as every recipient present, is that correct?
Mr. Inaba: Yes. Ms. Short: Okay.
Mr. Inaba: Uh, and if, if I may, Chair-…
Ms. Short: Please.
70
Mr. Inaba: … I can just share what the e-mail invitation stated, at least for the last event in November. Um, it said this is our annual gathering to
thank outgoing elected officials, welcome new officials, and share
some of the great stories from our member properties. It’s an opportunity to network, talk story, and build new relationships. We typically have 35 to 50 attendees from our board, County government, State government, the business community and key
non-profit agencies.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much for that clarification. Do we have any more questions on 2025-01 at this time? If not, I will entertain a motion. Would someone like to make a motion in regards to Petition 2025-
01?
Ms. Valenzuela: I make a motion-, Board Member Valenzuela, in regards to Petition 2025-01. And can I do 2 as well, since we’re hearing both of them at the sa-…
Ms. Wan: No-… Ms. Short: We’re going to have to do it next.
Ms. Valenzuela: Okay. One, I don’t see a conflict.
Ms. Short: So, not seeing a conflict would mean he’s not required to report it, Corporation Counsel?
Ms. Wan: That’s correct.
Ms. Valenzuela: I, that he would not be, he or any-, excuse me, any Council Member be having to report it as a gift-…
Ms. Short: I don’t think we can say any-…
Ms. Wan: No, you can, you can say that. So, basically, you’re saying you don’t-, it does not appear to be a violation of the Code of Ethics, and that a re-, to report it as a gift would not otherwise be required,
is that what you’re saying?
Ms. Valenzuela: Yes. Ms. Short: Can I get a second to that motion?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, second.
71
Ms. Short: At this time, we’ll begin discussion, because I feel like there’s going to be some.
Ms. Wan: Okay, Kelly can you-… Ms. Valenzuela: Okay.
Ms. Wan: … yeah-…
Ms. Short: Please. Ms. Wan: … can you start it?
Ms. Valenzuela: Yup. Um, first and foremost, um, thank you, Council Inaba, for attending these events. Um, as a business person myself, at different events, I believe that, um, our Council Members, our legislators-, as a constituent, not even as a Board Member, I want
to see my officials there, and I, I, I do see you guys there, and I do
see, um, the public being able to discuss and speak with you. You’re still working. This isn’t-, your job is not a 8-5 job. A lot of people don’t know that-, that you guys are at many events-, I’m sure that you don’t even want to attend. So, in that case, I do feel
that it’s a working time, and it’s a time that the County should be
supporting, um, fiscally, at these different events for different members, um, and, it is a plus for constituents and for the community that we see our elected officials at events so that they’re privy to things that are going on within in their districts,
within their community, and, um, speaking and talking to a variety
of people. Like, one of them-, you know, we ta-, uh, you had mentioned about the Sayre Foundation who provides, you know, ambulances, and ladders, and all kinds of stuff, it’s just, um, a good thing. Thank you.
Ms. Short: Any further discussion on the motion? Member Ho. Mr. Ho: So, I’m having a bit of a hard time with this one, um, in that in looking into section 2-91, um, and please correct me if I’m wrong,
DCC Wan, I don’t see an actual definition of the word gift. Like,
what actually constitutes an actual gift. Ms. Wan: Um, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. Actually, gifts are defined, it’s a fat paragraph in the Code right before. So, under 2-
91.4, it’s entitled gifts. So, that entire paragraph, which I’ll read for
entire Board, says no officer or employee shall solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, any gift, whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing, or
72
promise or in any other form, under circumstances in which it could be reasonably inferred that the gift is intended to influence
the officer or employee in the performance of the officer’s or
employee’s official duties or as intended as a reward for any official action of the officer or employee’s part. That’s the end of it. At this point, my understanding is out-, has-, as it’s been described, um, the receipt of the food and drink is not being seen
as, um, something to influence, uh, the officers performance, or
otherwise as a reward. That being said, irrespective of those things, um, 2-91.5, there’s reporting of gifts, and there are, there’s an entire section about when you need to report and the exclusions of that. So, I think what Inaba’s asking is does this fit under, um, an
exclusion, which is under subsection d of Hawaiʻi County Code 2-
91.5, even if it has, like, the vague appearance of maybe influencing the officer. Ms. Valenzuela: Councilman Valenzuela, just to be really clear, I don’t see this as a
gift. Attending an event for the public on behalf of your
constituents by an invite is a very different thing versus an omiyage, or a gift. Ms. Short: And I also will point out for the record, um, Chair Inaba did say
that he was not served anything at the event that was not served to
everyone else in attendance. Mr. Ho: Uh, Chris Ho. So, I am on the complete opposite side of the two, um, in that with respect to section 2-91.5, um, (d)(5), anything
available or distributed to the public generally without regard to
official status of the recipient, it wasn’t offered to the general public. The event was an invitation only event which would not necessarily equal the public. I didn’t get an invitation. I’m a member of the public. I would’ve loved to gone. That sounded like
a great, great thing. Um, but also in the word choice on the
invitation itself, as a thank you for whatever it is that they did, to me, and is, it’s just me, that, that phrase of thank you almost equates to a reward. So, it’s a thank you so much for all that you have done in your capacity as whatever official you are, whether
it’s Council Member, um, State Representative, or whatever. Um,
that’s what I saw, was, it does-, for me, it does fit, um, the realm of a gift in that it, um, for me, perceived as a reward, thank you, um, here's your personal invitation to our location that we’re not giving to anybody else. While yes, you may receive the same food and
drink as everyone else there, the doors are probably closed to the
general population.
73
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, so that’s not true. So, the personal invitation went to Council Members, the public can attend these
events, the chamber event, and or the Sayre event, you purchase a
ticket. They’re invited, personally invited, because they’re part of the community of the event. The public can also attend the event. Ms. Short: But would the public have to pay for a ticket?
Ms. Valenzuela: The public would have to pay for a ticket-… Ms. Short: So, Council Member-…
Ms. Valenzuela: … so, what I’m saying is that he’s working, our Council Member
is working during that time. They’re not socializing, they’re-, they’re socializing, but in their capacity as an elected official. It’s like when a fire chief travels to Washington D.C., and it’s paid, or a official flies to Honolulu for the opening of the session, and it’s
paid for. It’s-, the duty of the elected official to accept events that
are part of their community in business and or regular constituents, and the people that pay to go to the event, I want to hear what they have to say in regards to our community issues, and those things are discussed during that time. So, I see it, in my opinion, Kelly
Valenzuela, Board Member, this is a working event for them.
Ms. Short: I, I believe, um, the discussion we’re having is simply if this is considered a gift, then we would just need him to report it. Am I correct, Corporation Counsel?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. Um, yes. If the, if the Board determines that this appears to be a gift, then-, and not subject to an exclusion, then, yes, they would-, the-, whoever it is that received it would have to report it.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Point of cla-, I have a question. So, but going back to, um, what Board Member Paiva said, right, the, the amount would be $100, that we would have to report a gift. If it’s over $100.
Ms. Wan: If it’s over $100.
Ms. Fukumitsu: So, my question then, is how much would a ticket to the function be?
Ms. Wan: So, I think that question might be towards Council Member-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: Yes, Counc-, yes.
74
Mr. Inaba: Okay, and then maybe I can take this opportunity, we can just try to just keep the two Petitions separate. So, this one is specific for
the Kohala Coast Resort Association, those types of receptions. It’s
not-, it’s by invitation only. I don’t know what the qualifications are for invitation. There is no ticket for this specific event. Um-… Ms. Fukumitsu: Okay, thank you, that was my question. Because if it was a paid for
event, right, and we get a free ticket, then I would be inclined to
say, for me, I would disclose, to be transparent, but, there’s-, it’s free. Mr. Paiva: Member Paiva, if it was over $100.
Ms. Short: Member Ho. Mr. Ho: Uh, Chris Ho. So, I-, even though it is an invitation only, um, and not open to the public, um, it still has a value to, um, the quote
unquote ticket, even though there really isn’t a ticket-, it-, the
invitation itself. Um, but it’s still a thank you, um, based on the wording, um, that, um, Council Member Inaba had said from the invitation itself, so that’s where I’m a little bit stuck. And I’m only just saying how I feel.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Well, I appreciate that because we just had a whole conversation today about perception-… Ms. Short: Yes.
Ms. Fukumitsu: … right-… Ms. Short: Yes.
Ms. Fukumitsu: … and transparency and-…
Ms. Short: Yes. Ms. Fukumitsu: … if it feel-, like, you know, our roles and responsibilities as
Board Members and Council Members, so if it sort of feels like it,
we could just-, would that be bad practice though to just report it because-… Ms. Short: How do-, I guess, Corporation Counsel, that would be our question
is, um, do we assign a value to the ticket, to the food, to the drink
for reporting-, what, what does that look like, because I can obviously see where Member Ho is going with this where it is an invitation that wasn’t extended to the general public, the general
75
public couldn’t buy a ticket, um, how-, and it, and it was a thank you. So, I guess, Corp. Counsel, what would be, as a Board, what
are our options?
Mr. Inaba: Uh, Chair, sorry, real quick, if I could clarify? Ms. Short: Please.
Mr. Inaba: I just want to restate what the e-mail said, and it was a thank you to out-going members, meaning those who were either leaving office or-…
Ms. Short: And then what, and what was it to new members? A welcome,
what was the wording you used, the verbiage? Mr. Inaba: Welcome our new leaders.
Ms. Short: So, a thank you to our outgoing leaders and welcome to our new
leaders? Mr. Inaba: Yes.
Ms. Short: So, it was a welcome gift.
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, just to clarify, sorry. I thought, um-, Council Member Inaba, I’m sorry, I thought it was the chamber event, but now I know what you’re talking about. Sorry, I
apologize.
Ms. Short: Thank you, Member. So, I guess, I guess that leads me back to the question I had just asked, um, Corporation Counsel. If this Board does choose to find that we view this as a gift, what is our request
of Chair Inaba, or what, what can we do-, what does, what does
that look like, I, right, I mean-… Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. So, that is firmly a question for the Board to decide as you are tasked with interpreting
the Code of Ethics-…
Ms. Short: Okay. Ms. Wan: … um, the only thing I can state back to you is, literally, what the
section of the Code states, so, it is your struggle to do that. Um,
that being, that being said, I’m just going to give you a heads up. I understand some members have some time constraints today and we need to end this meeting at 1 p.m. You are 15 ‘til.
76
Mr. Ho: Madame Chair, I’d also like to reference, uh, section 2-91.5, letter a, number 1, speaking to what Scotty had, um-, continuously stated
with $100-…
Ms. Short: Yes. Mr. Ho: … um, it says in that last, um, section, whether the gift is in the
form of money, service-…
Ms. Short: Yeah. Mr. Ho: … goods-…
Ms. Short: Yeah. Mr. Ho: … or in any other form.
Ms. Short: Yes.
Mr. Ho: So, speaking to possible best practice, when in doubt, just report it out. Like, there’s no harm in putting it down there. Um, there will be more harm in not, and then having a potential ethic complaint-
…
Ms. Short: Yes. Mr. Ho: … being filed by someone.
Mr. Short: So, because this is a request for an informal advisory opinion and not-, we’re not looking whether or not there’s been a violation, um, I’m hearing the discussion leading towards we as a Board-…
Ms. Wan: Well, wha-, no-…
Ms. Short: … or someone could make a motion-… Ms. Wan: … we’re already hearing a motion, so before you continue that
thought, Chair, I just want to remind the Board of the motion
presently on the floor-… Ms. Short: Yes.
Ms. Wan: … which is to find that, um, there is not a requirement to report
this as a gift. Ms. Short: That is presently the motion on the floor-…
77
Ms. Chair: So, let’s vote on that motion. I think that would make the most sense and that’s where we’re going. Um, the motion on the floor,
as it stands, is to find that there is no requirement to report this as a
gift. All in favor, please say aye. Mr. Paiva: Aye.
Ms. Valenzuela: Aye.
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Mr. Ho: Nay.
Ms. Short: Nay. Ms. Fukumitsu: Nay.
Ms. Short: So, the motion fails, 3 to 2, correct?
Ms. Wan: There was 2 in favor, and 3 against, so it fails. Motion and Vote: Board Member Valenzuela moved to find that the item listed in Petition
2025-01 is not required to be reported as a gift; Vice Chair Fukumitsu seconded; Two
members voted aye; Three members voted nay; Motion Fails (12:48 p.m.)
Ms. Short: So, at this time we will entertain a new motion regarding Petition number 2025-01. Would someone like to make that motion? I don’t believe I can as Chair.
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho, move to, um, find that the item listed in the petition, um, is re-, recommended, recommended to be disclosed on a gift disclosure. Do I need to cite the section? Ms. Wan: Do you, um-, because you kept mentioning it in your discussion, if
it’s worth more than $100-… Mr. Ho: If it’s worth more than $100, um, in the form of money, service, goods, or any other form.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second to that motion? Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, second. Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I will call for
a vote on that motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.
78
Ms. Fukumitsu: Aye.
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Paiva: Aye. Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay.
Ms. Valenzuela: Nay. Ms. Short: The motion passes, 4 to 1.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Ho moved to find that the item listed in Petition 2025-01
is required to be reported as a gift; Vice Chair Fukumitsu seconded; Four members voted
aye; One member voted nay; Motion Passes (12:49 p.m.)
b. Petition 2025-02: Review of a Petition from a County Officer seeking clearance and
guidance regarding potential conflict of interest.
Ms. Short: Thank you very much, Chair Inaba. We will move on to your next
Petition, 2025-02. If you could please give us a little background
and explanation regarding this Petition.
Mr. Inaba: Sure. This one is kind of similar to the last Petition. Um, we also
have to attend-, now, now this is the events that are open to the
public for a fee, uh, via a ticket. Um, one of the examples-, the
Chamber of Commerce has an annual luncheon on the Kohala
coast, um, where we’re invited to attend. Um, in that case, we have
to pay, so, for that question it’s whether we are able to use our
district funds to pay for that since we’re attending in our official
capacity. Uh, and then the second part to this is, there are other
events like the Sayre Memorial Foundation Annual Gala or the
Friends of First Responders dinner happening next Thursday in
Hilo where we are invited to attend for free, um, and others have to
pay, so, if those should be reported or if we should con-, also use
our County funds to just pay for that since we’re attending in our
official capacities.
Ms. Short: Do we have any questions for Chair Inaba regarding Petition 2025-
02? Member Ho.
Mr. Ho: Um, Chris Ho. So, Chair Inaba, just to clarify, um, so that I can
understand, with this particular one, um, are you asking for
guidance on a specific event or a type of event?
79
Mr. Inaba: A type of event.
Ms. Wan: Um, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. So, I’m just going
to note for the record. Um, the Petition that’s present before the
Board right now, um, cites Hawaiʻi County Code, section 2-92 and
2-97, which is not within the Code of Ethics. That’s, that’s under
Article 16, which is, um, specifically related to travel expenses,
travel related expenses, um, for employees. And so, correct me if
I’m wrong, Council Member Inaba, what you’re looking for really
is guidance from the Board as to fair treatment in utilizing these
sections for, for these particular kinds of events? Um, I’ll read fair
treatment if you’d like, because that seems to be where your
question is heading. So, what I was specifically contemplating was
section 2-83(b), no officer or employee shall use or attempt to use
the officer or employee’s official position to secure or grant
unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts, or
treatment for oneself or others, including but not limited to, and it
provides a whole series of examples. So, is the question, um,
whether or not you can use County funds to pay for the travel
expenses relating to these events as-, including, I believe
admission? When you’re-…
Mr. Inaba: Yes.
Ms. Wan: … attending in your official capacity?
Mr. Inaba: Yes.
Ms. Short: Any questions for Chair Inaba? I will entertain a motion regarding
Petition 2025-02.
Ms. Valenzuela: I make a motion-, Board Member Valenzuela, I see no ethical
violation with, um, elected officials under the County Council,
which is what, uh, Council Member Inaba’s asking, in regards to
be, um, paid for by County funds to attend functions, community
functions, such as-, he’s ask-, he mentioned, in particular, the Sayre
Foundation and the Chamber, um, luncheon where they take part
of sometimes-, the Governor is there, the Mayor is there, they give
reports on what’s going on with our County and our State, other
times it’s business things, and I make a motion that is-, there is no
violation, that the County should compensate them.
80
Mr. Ho: Can, sorry, can you just repeat that because it, the way that it was
worded, it sounded as though you found none as long as they’re
compensated-, I got confused, I’m sorry.
Ms. Valenzuela: His, his request, um, on his Petition is that, um, let me just look at
that really quick, sorry.
Ms. Short: To request an informal advisory opinion and clarity as to whether
or not we may use County funds to pay for attendance in my
official capacity as Chair and Council Member to events such as
the Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Annual Luncheon and
Daniel R. Sa-, I’m not going-, Memorial Foundation Annual Gala.
Ms. Valenzuela: So, Board Member, um, Kelly Valenzuela, um, I see no problem,
or no violation-…
Ms. Short: Motion.
Ms. Valenzuela: … and I’m making a motion, um, *inaudible* that our elected
officials, in their capacity attending these events, may be able to
use County funds as the-…
Ms. Wan: To pay for their attendance.
Ms. Valenzuela: … to pay for their attendance in these events.
Mr. Paiva: Member Paiva, second.
Ms. Short: Discussion to be had. Go for it.
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho. Um, I, sorry, I have a hard time with this, however, I’m
fine moving it forward and allowing the chips to fall where they
may if someone out there finds as though there may be a violation,
that is their right to file whatever petition or claim that they
actually have with whatever things that they, they have, but I do
see the value, um, in doing this, and I feel like by going, going the
opposite direction, we’re telling them how they would able to
spend the money and do their job, and that’s not my job. My job’s
not here to tell the Council Member I think you need to do it this
way because that’s what you should do for your job. I don’t-, that,
that is where I went with all of this.
81
Mr. Paiva: Member Paiva, I don’t think he’s asking, he’s-, on how to spend
his monies. He’s asking if it’s, if we think it’s ethical for him to get
reimbursed by the County to attend functions in his official
capacity.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Yeah, and my question would be, is there any precedent that says
that you cannot use, um, County funds to expense these types of
events?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. I think the reason why
this question is coming before the Board is because there isn’t any
formal precedent as to this specific question.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Okay, so there’s nothing that would pre-, prohibit someone for
submitting for reimbursement, like, you know, for the Council
Members, that they would be told no-, where’d-, this has never
been done before, so I, I was just wondering-…
Ms. Wan: Well, if you look at the Statutes that he’s referring to-…
Ms. Fukumitsu: Yeah, I don’t have-…
Ms. Wan: … as far as the travel-, um, so, I’ll just note that I did provide the
additional-, oh, I didn’t provide the additional Statutes, I’m sorry.
So, there is-, he cites, um, Hawaiʻi County Code 2-92, which states
that all officers and employees of the County, including members
of the board’s committee’s and commissions shall be entitled to
travel and other necessary expenses, connected to the performance
of their official duties and in accordance with the provision of this
section and subject to procedures prescribed by the Director of
Finance and approved by the Mayor. As to approvals for allowable
expenses, my understanding is for the County Council, it’s the
Chair that would approve for those travel expenses, is that correct,
Chair Inaba?
Mr. Inaba: Yes.
Ms. Wan: I’m sorry, I mean Council Member, also Council Chair Inaba?
Mr. Inaba: Yes, *inaudible.*
Ms. Wan: Um, so, and, but you can also designate someone to approve your
own travel expenses, is that correct?
82
Mr. Inaba: I believe the County Clerk, um, will review my travel
authorizations, even though they, they serve at our pleasure, but,
yes, he does review my, my requests.
Ms. Wan: Okay. And, and that’s already written within the Code itself under,
um, Article 16, to allow for that balance.
Mr. Ho: Madame Chair, if I may?
Ms. Short: Please.
Mr. Ho: Uh, Mr. Ho, or, Chris Ho, Board Member, sorry, Mr. Ho. Um, I
keep hearing the term reimbursement. Um, in, in your actual
Petition, it’s, um, whether or not they may use County funds,
there’s a-, to me, there’s a difference between using County funds
and asking to get reimbursed, or given back money for, out of
County funds for funds that you have, um, utilized. Usually, there
is clear guidance on what is allowable when it comes to
reimbursement. There’s probably also guidance on what a Council
Member may utilize their County funds for, so I’m just trying to
understand if-, are we thinking that this is a reimbursement
question or a-, that’s where I’m a little confused.
Ms. Wan: Uh, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. I’m just going to
provide a little bit of perspective for the Board. When it comes to
these types of travel expenses, um, sometimes the approvals will
become-, come prior to the traveler, um, expending any monies,
and sometimes the approvals will come after monies have already
been expended. So, there are some instances where it’s legitimately
a reimbursement. Other times where it’s the-, the supervisor has
already agreed and so County funds are going to be expended at
the front, so I really would rather the Board not get tied up on that
verbiage, and more about is it fair treatment for Council Members
to use these funds for travel expenses in their official capacities.
Mr. Inaba: Chair, if I may?
Ms. Short: Please.
Mr. Inaba: I just want to clarify because when we go to these events,
ultimately I want to know, should we-, if they’re giving us a free
ticket, should we just take the free ticket and report it, or should we
83
pay since we have a fund to pay for attendance at these types of
things if you folks are saying it’s okay?
Ms. Short: Please, Coun-, Corp. Counsel.
Ms. Wan: Uh, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. I think that’s a
slightly different question. So, I, um, I, I completely hear you,
Council Member Inaba. Um, because the question on the Board,
before the Board right now is, is it okay for you to use County
funds, I think they should stick to that question, because whether
or not those fees are waved is a separate gift related question.
Mr. Inaba: Okay, understood.
Ms. Valenzuela: Board member Valenzuela. So, I understand what you’re saying,
um, Councilman Inaba. Um, if they were to report every single
thing though, can you imagine the Mayor’s report every day?
Because these are the same, these are the same type of events-…
Ms. Wan: I’m going, I’m going to say that that’s outside of the scope of this
Petition at this point, so I’m going to reel us back in.
Ms. Short: We’re discussing, um, again-…
Ms. Valenzuela: Use of funds, or report.
Ms. Short: It, it, it says right here-…
Ms. Wan: No, no, no, just-…
Ms. Short: … should be an expense to be paid with County funds.
Ms. Valenzuela: Right.
Ms. Wan: Just use of funds.
Ms. Valenzuela: Right.
Ms. Short: The use of County funds-…
Ms. Valenzuela: I say yes.
Ms. Short: … to attend these events in his official capacity as our Council.
84
Mr. Ho: Chris Ho, point of clarification. Um, within our rules, with regards
to a petition, um, with number 2 being inaccurately filled out, um,
what is our appropriate procedure that we need to follow?
Ms. Wan: Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. At this point, to
expedite things, this is why at the top of the Petition, I asked
Council Member Inaba to clarify that he’s actually seeking for an
opinion, under Hawaiʻi County Code 2-83(b), under fair treatment,
rather than the stated Codes within the amendment. So, if the
Board is willing to accept that as an oral amendment of his
Petition, I would behoove the Board to consider that, especially
since right now, you have a motion on the floor-…
Ms. Short: Yeah.
Ms. Wan: … stating there is no violation.
Ms. Short: So, just for clarification, there was oral record of the sections not
being 2.92 and 2.97, but actually being 2.83(b)?
Ms. Wan: Correct.
Mr. Ho: Is that something that we as Board would need to approve or just
that it’s stated on the record?
Ms. Wan: That it’s stated on the record, and it’s reflected in your findings.
Mr. Ho: Thank you.
Ms. Short: Any further discussion to be had? If not, I’m going to call for the
vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Aye.
Mr. Paiva: Aye.
Ms. Valenzuela: Aye.
Mr. Ho: Sorry, can we restate the motion, because I have no idea what it
was.
Ms. Wan: Do you remember, Kelly?
85
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Kelly Valenzuela, I make a motion that I don’t see
a violation and I believe they are able to-, Council Inaba and other
Council Members, use the County funds. I don’t see any violation-
…
Ms. Wan: To pay for their expenses related to-…
Ms. Valenzuela: To pay for their expenses related-…
Ms. Wan: … to their attendance-…
Ms. Valenzuela: … to their attendance-…
Ms. Wan: … in their official capacity-…
Ms. Valenzuela: … in their official capacity as Council Members.
Ms. Short: Do I have a second to that motion?
Ms. Wan: No, you already-, it’s already seconded-…
Ms. Short: Oh, it’s already seconded-…
Ms. Wan: … this is, you’re calling-…
Ms. Short: … we’re just restating it. So, now we’re calling for the vote on that
motion that has been seconded, and we’ve had discussion on. All
in favor, please say aye. Aye.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Aye.
Mr. Paiva: Aye.
Ms. Valenzuela: Aye.
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Are you going to vote?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Ms. Short: The vote-, motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much for
your time, Council Member Inaba.
86
Motion and Vote: Board Member Valenzuela moved to find no violation for the Petitioner
to use County funds to pay for their expenses to attend events in their capacity as aCouncil
Member; Board Member Paiva seconded; All members voted aye; Motion Passes (01:04
p.m.)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION (01:04 p.m.)
Ms. Short: Um, at this time, it’s 1:04 p.m.-…
Mr. Paiva: Yes, thank you, Councilman.
Ms. Short: Yes, thank you for your time. Um, at this time, 1:04 p.m., I’m
going to call for a quick recess, and I will note that I have to leave
at this time, so, Vice Chair Fukumitsu will, um, resume this
meeting with item agenda number 6.
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, I have to leave as well.
Ms. Short: So, we-, I’m actually-, we are out of quorum, so, um, we will
table-, can I get a motion to table items 6 and 7, item number 6, for
our next meeting, um, and I will move on to announcements and
adjournments. So, motion to table, um, item number 6 to our next
Board of Ethics meeting.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, I move to, um, table or move item number
6 to the Board of Ethics, the next Board of Ethics meeting on, do
we need to state a date? I don’t know what-…
Ms. Wan: Well, you can-…
Ms. Short: Thursday, March 20, 2025.
Ms. Fukumitsu: … okay, on the next Board of Ethics Meeting. No.
Ms. Wan: Just say the next date because we’re going to get there.
Ms. Short: Okay.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Okay.
Ms. Short: To the next date.
Ms. Fukumitsu: To the next date.
87
Ms. Short: Can I get a second to the motion to table item number 6 to our next
meeting?
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, I second it.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll call for a
vote. All in favor, please say aye.
*All members say aye in unison*
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Hearing and seeing none, the
motion so passes.
Motion and Vote: Vice Chair Fukumitsu moved to continue Agenda Item number 6 to the
next Board of Ethics Meeting; Board Member Valenzuela seconded; All members voted
aye; Motion Passes (01:06 p.m.)
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS (01:06 p.m.) Ms. Short: I will move along to announcements, item number 7. Moving on-,
uh, the next monthly Board of Ethics meeting is scheduled for
Thursday, March 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., here at the Hawaiʻi County Building, Council Chambers, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaiʻi, or Friday, March 25, at the West Hawaiʻi Civic Center. Can I get a motion from a Board member to elect which date and
corresponding location to hold our March meeting? Hilo or Kona?
Mr. Paiva: I move that we meet in Kona. Ms. Short: Of course you do, Scotty.
Ms. Valenzuela: Board Member Valenzuela, I second it. Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? I’ll have to attend via Zoom.
Mr. Ho: Just for the record, I will not be here. I will be on Oʻahu at the State Capitol. Ms. Short: Any further discussion to be had?
Ms. Fukumitsu: I know we had talked about this, like, if there are member-, if there are petitioners from Hilo-… Ms. Short: Oh, wait, I will go on record. Um, if we move it to Kona, it will be a Friday, will not be able to attend, and it sounds like Vice Ch-, er,
88
Chris Ho won’t be able to either, so, which point we will not have quorum.
Ms. Wan: Uh, so, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Sylvia Wan. There are multiple things to consider. One, if you would have quorum if you move it to Kona. Two, the fact that-, the reason why we have these option dates was so that if there were petitioners that would prefer
to appear in Kona, you have that option. Presently, you have no
petitioners who would want to appear from Kona. Ms. Short: So, can I make a motion that we hold our next monthly-…
Ms. Wan: Well, no-…
Mr. Paiva: We already have a motion. Ms. Short: Oh, okay.
Ms. Wan: You have a motion, you got to vote. Ms. Short: Let’s vote on the motion. All in favor, say aye.
Mr. Paiva: Aye.
Ms. Valenzuela: Aye. Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay. Nay.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Nay. Mr. Ho: I’m not in opposition. I abstain. I’m not going to be here so it doesn’t matter. I’m going to throw out my-…
Ms. Wan: Okay, so, at this time, I’m just going to call what the vote was. It was two in favor? I’m sorry, Kelly, did you vote? Ms. Short: She voted yes-…
Ms. Wan: Okay. Ms. Short: … to in Kona.
Ms. Wan: Two in favor, two against, one abstain, the motion fails-…
Ms. Short: Okay.
89
Ms. Wan: … for lack of a quorum, uh, for lack of a majority. You know what I mean. Majority of the entire membership.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Paiva moved to have the next Board of Ethics meeting be
held in Kona; Board Member Valenzuela seconded; Two members voted aye; Two
members voted nay; One member abstained; Motion Fails (01:06 p.m.)
Ms. Wan: So, you can do a second motion.
Ms. Short: So, I’m going to motion that our next monthly Board of Ethics
meeting is held Thursday, March 20, 2025, here at the Hawaiʻi
County Building in Hilo. Can I get a second to that motion?
Ms. Fukumitsu: Vice Chair Fukumitsu, second.
Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll call for a
vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.
Ms. Fukumitsu: Aye.
Ms. Valenzuela: Aye.
Ms. Short: Any opposition, please say nay.
Mr. Paiva: Nay.
Mr. Ho: I abstain.
Ms. Short: The motion passes 3 to 1.
Motion and Vote: Chair Short moved to have the next monthly Board of Ethics meeting be
held in Hilo; Vice Chair Fukumitsu seconded; Three members voted aye; One member
voted nay; One member abstained; Motion Passes (01:08 p.m.)
8. ADJOURNMENT (12:52 p.m.) Ms. Wan: It’s going to pass 3 to 1 because you, you only can do a majority in
this instance, and it’s administrative.
Ms. Short: Okay, so, our next monthly Board of Ethics meeting will be held Thursday, March 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., here at the Hawaiʻi County Building in Hilo. At this time, um, I will move on to item
number 8, our adjournment at 1:09 p.m. Can I get a motion to
adjourn our meet-...
90
Mr. Ho: Move to adjourn.
Ms. Short: Can I get a second-...
Mr. Paiva: Second. Ms. Short: Any discussion to be had? Hearing and seeing none, I’ll call for a
vote. All in fav-…
*All members say aye in unison* Ms. Short: Motion passes. Thank you everyone.
Motion and Vote: Board Member Ho moved to adjourn the meeting; Board Member Paiva
seconded; All members voted aye; Motion Passes (01:09 p.m.)
Respectfully submitted:
Noah Agustin, Secretary Assistant