Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-06 Fire Commission Special Meeting MinutesFIRE COMMISSION c/o Office of the Corporation Counsel, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, HI 96720 HAWAIʻI COUNTY FIRE COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES – OPEN SESSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2026 WEST HAWAIʻI CIVIC CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 74-5044 ANE KEOHOKALOLE HIGHWAYKAILUA-KONA, HI 96740 UNAPPROVED MINUTES These minutes are DRAFT minutes. The commission has not voted to accept them. Changes may/may not be made prior to their adoption at the next meeting. I.CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Kosaki called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present: Gerald Kosaki, Chair Les Hanano, Vice Chair Brian Cushnie, Commissioner Carlene Wolf, Commissioner Rollin Rabara, Commissioner Eric Inouye, Commissioner Absent: Rick Porter, Commissioner Wayne Perrin, Jr., Commissioner Derwin Ignacio, Commissioner A quorum was present. Also present: Cameron Takamura, Deputy Corporation Counsel (DCC Takamura) Keyra Wong, Deputy Corporation Counsel (DCC Wong) Sommer Tokihiro, Department of Human Resources Director (DHR Director Tokihiro) Emily Hirayama, Temporary Fire Commission Secretary Micah Alameda, Executive Assistant, Office of the Mayor II.STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLICChair Kosaki invited statements from the public. No members of the public were present in the Council Chambers to testify, and no participant attending via Zoom requested to berecognized. Chair Kosaki advised that any member of the public joining via Zoom couldraise a virtual hand to be recognized to speak. No oral or written testimony was received under this agenda item. Chair Kosaki additionally solicited public testimony prior to eachvote taken during the meeting, and no testimony was offered on any item. III.BUSINESSA.Consideration of the Process to Appoint a Permanent Fire Chief Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 2 of 12 Chair Kosaki read the agenda item and stated that the Commission would first address the conflict of interest testimony received at the Commission’s prior meeting. Chair Kosaki recognized Vice Chair Hanano to deliver a statement on that subject. • Vice Chair Hanano stated that at the last meeting, the Commission received written testimony raising a question about a potential conflict of interest involving a commission member. Under the state constitution, each county’s code of ethics must be administered by a separate, independent ethics commission. Consistent with that requirement, the County Charter vests the Board of Ethics with authority to interpret the Code of Ethics, issue advisory opinions, receive complaints, and conduct investigations. o This Commission has no authority to determine whether a violation occurred, and it would be improper for us to attempt to do so. Accordingly, the Commission took no action and made no findings. This is not a judgment on the merits. The question belongs to the Board of Ethics, which the law designates to decide such matters independently. o Under the County Code and the Board of Ethics rules, several pathways exist for seeking guidance or action. An officer may request an opinion about the officer’s own conduct. Any person, including individual commissioners or members of the public, may petition the Board regarding an officer’s conduct. An appointing authority may submit a request. The Board of Ethics may also act on its own initiative. In all instances, the Board determines what it will take up and when. o Clarification, our role is to conduct a fair and open process for selecting the next fire chief, and the remainder of today’s agenda addresses that process. • DCC Takamura explained that, after the last meeting, there are still procedural gaps in the fire chief hiring process and the Commission needs to vote on key process decisions, starting with how to use the scoring rubrics. o Two main options are presented: (1) make the combined score (written + oral + professionalism) the deciding factor so the highest scorer is selected, or (2) use scores only to narrow to a finalist pool (e.g., top 3 or top 5) and then select from that pool after discussion. If option (2) is chosen, the Commission must also decide the cutoff method (fixed number, point range from the top score, or percentage) and how to handle ties. o Commissioners asked about access to resumes/applications and timing. HR confirms commissioners will receive full applications (minus certain sensitive residency/financial documents) and that materials were previously discussed as being provided shortly before oral interviews (likely the afternoon before). Questions arise about whether written assessments can be distributed by email and whether commissioners will have enough time to review and score them. o DCC Wong flagged that many decisions affect the feasibility of the planned August 26–28 schedule (written assessment on Aug. 26; oral interviews Aug. 27; selection Aug. 28), noting notice requirements and logistics may require moving to September. o DCC Takamura listed additional “gaps” the Commission still needs to address beyond scoring: whether to keep/remove the 5-point professionalism criterion (and, if removed, how commissioners will state reasons on the record), whether to keep Aug. 27 as a backup meeting if dates shift, possible Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 3 of 12 sequestration/fairness rules for testimony, whether commissioners should receive interview questions only on the day of, additional written-assessment safeguards (e.g., anonymization), how documents/scores will be transmitted, what happens if a commissioner misses part of meetings, standardized oral-interview instructions, and conflict-of-interest statements. The Commission went into recess at 9:31 a.m. The Commission returned to open session at 9:37 a.m. Upon returning to open session, Chair Kosaki stated that the recess had been taken to organize how the Commission would proceed in addressing the items on the agenda. Chair Kosaki conferred with the Deputy Corporation Counsels during the recess. No motion was made, no vote was taken, and no decision was reached during the recess. • DCC Takamura recapped what was decided at the July meeting for the written assessment: o a 3-hour time limit, handwritten answers only, no electronic devices, and HR proctoring under its normal procedures. o How the completed written assessments will be transmitted to commissioners for scoring. Sunshine Law/board-packet restrictions likely don’t apply because the materials could be withheld under UIPA, so transmission can be physical or electronic. o DHR Director Tokihiro stated HR will deliver the documents in physical form to the Commission Secretary, who will distribute them through the Commission’s normal process; the documents can be scanned and emailed. o Chair Kosaki confirmed this would occur the afternoon of the written assessment. • Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion confirming the transmission and distribution of the written assessments. A motion was made by Commissioner Cushnie that the written assessments will be emailed to the commissioners after completion and ready for distribution and seconded by Vice chair Hanano. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0. A.1: Written assessment and oral interview procedures: • The Commission discussed whether the candidates’ written assessment responses should be identified by name or anonymized so commissioners grade solely on content. Chair Kosaki favored anonymizing the written assessments to reduce potential bias concerns. o DHR Director Sommer Tokihiro confirmed commissioners will receive the full application materials (resume and cover letter; no recommendation letters were requested/received). DHR added that the Commission could receive application materials while still scoring anonymized written assessments, with names disclosed later if the Commission chooses. o Commissioner Rabara asked whether job-performance information will be provided; DHR Director Tokihiro said it was not requested as part of the application. DCC Takamura clarified that “job-related” reasons would become relevant later if the Commission uses scores to narrow to finalists and then must articulate reasons for selecting among them. Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 4 of 12 • Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion as to whether to keep the anonymity or have their names on the written assessment. A motion was made by Commissioner Wolf to have the written assessments as anonymous instead of having the names attached to the exams. Commissioner Inouye seconded the motion. The motion was carried by a vote of 6-0. • DHR will disclose the candidates’ names by the third day of the process (after oral interviews), giving the commissioners about two days/nights to review and score the written assessments without names. • DCC Takamura raised the remaining written-assessment procedural issue: what happens if a candidate is a no-show, late, can’t attend, or can’t finish the written assessment. o Commissioner Rabara suggested disqualification and noted the importance of proper notice and asked how much lead time candidates will get. o DHR will send notices, allow 7 days for responses, and typically schedule the assessment about two weeks after that response window roughly three weeks from notice, subject to whether dates move to September. o Chair Kosaki distinguished between (1) inability to appear and (2) inability to finish once started, Chair Kosaki stated that, given proper notice, a no-show should result in disqualification (for written or oral). o Commissioner Rabara agreed that two weeks or more is ample time since candidates know the process is coming. • Action: Chair Kosaki called for the motion that if a candidate does not appear for the written or the oral interview, they would be deemed disqualified. A motion was made by Vice Chair Hanano that if the candidate does not appear for the written or the oral, they would be disqualified from the job. Commissioner Rabara seconded the motion. The motion was carried 6-0. • The Commission discussed how to handle applicants who arrive late to a scheduled written exam (with applicants instructed to arrive 15 minutes early). DHR Director Tokihiro clarified that the usual practice for civil service exams is to allow late arrivals to test without extra time. Chair Kosaki and Commissioner Cushnie favored a stricter rule that they should be disqualified/locked out, given the importance of punctuality. They noted a possible exception for truly significant extenuating circumstances, but being late without a legitimate excuse should not qualify. Commissioner Wolf reinforced that, because the Fire Chief role is very important, punctuality is essential. Chair Kosaki proposed a motion that a candidate who is not present at the start time of the written assessment or oral interview be deemed disqualified, absent an extreme and significant intervening event. Commissioner Rabara so moved. DCC Takamura recommended that the Commission identify in advance the class of circumstances that would qualify as extenuating. Discussion followed. The motion received no second and no vote was taken. Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 5 of 12 • The Commissioners debated whether to define “extenuating circumstances” for late arrivals in advance. DCC Wong noted DHR’s existing practice on late arrivals may still take the written exam but receive no extra time. • The Commissioners agreed for the written assessment, allowing candidates to take the exam even if late, but document each candidate’s arrival time. Commissioner Wolf clarified the motion should be for the written only. • Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion that DHR will notate on the exam, the time that the candidate arrived for the written assessment. A motion was made by Commissioner Wolf that DHR would write down the time that the candidates arrived to the written assessment. Vice Chair Hanano seconded the motion. The motion was carried 6-0. • For the oral interview tardiness policy, the Commission shifted to a stricter approach than the written exam. Vice Chair Hanano and Commissioner Cushnie agreed that candidates who are late for the oral interview should be disqualified. Chair Kosaki acknowledged the possibility of significant extenuating circumstances but leaned toward the punctuality expectation, and asked for a motion to adopt the disqualification rule. • Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion to adopt the disqualification rule. A motion was made by Vice Chair Hanano that if a candidate is not on time for his oral interview, that he would be disqualified. Commissioner Inouye seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. • DCC Takamura recapped prior decisions: randomly drawn interview order (already set), 5-minute maximum per oral question (confirmed), and a 15-minute early arrival expectation; previously the Commission had decided no formal sequestration. • Commissioner Wolf asked whether the Commission needed to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2026, meeting. DCC Takamura advised that those minutes were not yet prepared. • The Commission then reconsidered sequestration/safeguards. o DHR could include language requesting candidates to sequester and sign an acknowledgement in the notice. o DCC Wong emphasized that the Commission cannot require sequestration, but can request they wait in a designated waiting room, be escorted, and follow a no-device/no-streaming request to prevent candidates from learning questions in advance. o Chair Kosaki raised logistical concerns—true control would likely require all candidates to report at the start and remain available all day. o DCC Wong stated that the purpose of sequestration is pre-interview protection. o Commissioner Rabara asked about candidates choosing to stay; Chair Kosaki indicated they can stay, but leaving would be permitted. • Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion to sequester the candidates. A motion was made by Commissioner Cushnie to sequester the candidates and that they be allowed to leave once their interview is complete. Commissioner Inouye seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 6 of 12 • DCC Takamura asked the Commissioners if they are still okay with the previously adopted oral interview schedule: the first interview starts at 9:30 a.m., interviews occur every 45 minutes, with a lunch break after the fourth candidate. Schedule was affirmed. A.2: Evaluation criteria and scoring. • DCC Takamura recapped the previously adopted rubrics: oral = 6 questions × 5 points (30); written = 7 questions × 5 points (35); plus professionalism up to 5 points, for a 70-point total. The Commission had discussed—but not voted on—whether the scores would be the sole deciding factor versus using scores only to narrow to a finalist pool. • Chair Kosaki proposed using the aggregate score (written + oral + professionalism) to narrow to the top 3 candidates, with ties expanding the pool (e.g., if tied for 3rd, include all tied). • DHR Director Tokihiro cautioned that “top 3” could include a large score disparity (e.g., 60 vs. 40 vs. 30), raising whether that reflects equivalent fitness. Chair Kosaki and Commissioner Cushnie responded that scoring is inherently subjective and that using top 3 still provides a pool for Commission judgment rather than defaulting to selecting only the top scorer. • Commissioner Cushnie suggested that after narrowing to the top 3, the Commission could hold a later meeting where finalists get 10–15 minutes for a final presentation (why they’re best, goals, leadership plans), and then commissioners consider all information (scores, professionalism, resumes/background/work history, and the presentation) before voting. This prompted discussion about whether that would extend the timeline beyond the planned “third day” selection; Commissioner Rabara expressed agreement with the idea. • DCC Takamura clarified that the professionalism points are not a separate presentation segment—they’re part of the oral interview evaluation. He recommended breaking decisions into separate votes (scores as sole decider vs. narrowing pool, then define the pool). • Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion to use the current scoring method to reduce the pool to the top 3 candidates. A motion was made by Vice Chair Hanano to use option 2: aggregate score (written + oral + professionalism) were we narrow the field down to 3 candidates. Chair Kosaki added if there is a tie, then they would be added to the top 3. Commissioner Wolf seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. • Chair Kosaki outlined the intended third-day process: scores would be tallied that day; once the top 3 are identified, each commissioner would state which of the three they would select and why. Chair Kosaki expressed skepticism about adding a separate finalist “sales pitch,” noting candidates can make their case during the interview and that identifying the top 3 only happens that day, making scheduling difficult unless the decision is delayed to a later meeting. Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 7 of 12 • DCC Wong advised weighing the burden on candidates (scheduling, possible off-island travel) against the limited time (e.g., 10 minutes). She suggested that if the Commission wants finalist statements on the third day, DHR could include advance notice that top-3 candidates may be asked to return on the last day, so they can plan. • Commissioner Cushnie supported allowing top-3 candidates an optional 5–10 minute final statement on the last day on a topic of their choosing (not tied to interview questions), provided the Commission can still complete selection that day. Chair Kosaki agreed in principle, but noted they still needed to make a motion to adopt this approach. Commissioner Cushnie moved that, on the third day, the top 3 candidates be allowed to return and make final statements, and that the selection process begin after those statements. Discussion followed regarding whether the Commission should retain discretion not to call the finalists back. DCC Wong stated on the record that she had not heard a second and that no motion was before the Commission. The motion received no second and no vote was taken. • Commissioners debated how (and when) candidates get a “final statement” opportunity: o Commissioner Cushnie’s initial proposal/motion concept: On day 3, allow the top 3 finalists to return and give final statements. o Chair Kosaki wanted the Commission to have an option not to call finalists back on day 3 if commissioners already feel ready to decide—i.e., avoid “wasting time.” o DCC Wong advised against making it optional for fairness/consistency; the Commission should decide up front whether finalists will get that opportunity. Suggested notice language that candidates may be asked to return on day 3 because the top 3 won’t be known until after day 2 scoring. o Commissioner Cushnie stated his intent: Final statements would be brief (5–15 minutes), no follow-up questions (to avoid turning it into another interview), and used along with scores + resumes/background as part of the commissioners’ overall decision-making. o DHR raised logistics/fairness issues: Calling back only the top 3 is logistically hard and unfair if not all top 3 can/will appear. Proposed an alternative: give every candidate a fixed time (e.g., 5 minutes) at the end of their oral interview to add anything not covered. o Chair Kosaki was okay giving each candidate 5 minutes after their interview to cover anything else. o Commissioner Rabara stated that, if the Commission gives that extra time, it should be more structured and precise so that candidates don’t go off-topic. o DCC Wong noted a new motion and second would be needed to either call back only the top finalists at a later date or to give all candidates 5 minutes at the end of their interview. o Commissioner Cushnie asked whether the extra 5 minutes would be scored. Chair Kosaki indicated it would be used as additional information for selection (alongside written/oral/professionalism scores), not necessarily a separate scored item. • Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion on the final-statement opportunity. A motion was made by Commissioner Cushnie that, at the end of each candidate’s oral interview, Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 8 of 12 the candidate will be allowed 5 minutes to make a statement of the candidate’s choosing. DCC Takamura asked for clarification, and the mover confirmed, that this segment will not be scored as part of the oral interview and will be used only in selecting among the three finalists. Vice Chair Hanano seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. A.3: Selection methodology and voting •DCC Takamura noted that the Commission already confirmed the process: o The Commission will use the scoring rubrics (written + oral + professionalism)to establish the finalist pool (top 3). o During the oral interview process, candidates will get an additional opportunity at theend to make a brief “final statement” (the “sell yourself” portion), which commissioners may consider. o Once the top 3 are identified, each commissioner will articulate (on the record) whothey would select and why before the formal vote. Then the Commission will vote to select the Fire Chief from the top 3. o Commissioner Cushnie clarified that, in choosing among the final three,commissioners may weigh everything: the scores, plus resumes/background/work history, and the final statements. •Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion that the commissioners will weigh everything inselecting the Fire Chief from among the final three candidates. A motion was made byCommissioner Cushnie that the Commission will weigh everything including the resumes, background, and final statements in selecting the Fire Chief from among thefinal three candidates. Commissioner Rabara seconded the motion. The motion carried6-0. •Commissioners discussed what happens if the Commission cannot reach the required 5votes to select a Fire Chief from the finalist pool (e.g., a split vote among threecandidates). Key points and options: o Five votes are required to take action, even if fewer than the full Commissionattend (e.g., if only 7 attend, still need 5). o Continue deliberating until someone changes position and a candidate reaches 5votes. o Add a tiebreaker procedure (e.g., some additional step/question) or re-vote at alater meeting. •DHR said the Commission could create a clarification/follow-up process, but it mustbe established in advance and candidates must receive proper notice if they may needto be present or answer additional questions on the third day. •DCC Takamura noted that the Commission must allow public testimony on each agendaitem under Sunshine Law; the final meeting would be open, and candidates couldattend. Commissioners acknowledged public testimony could influence their decision. •Deliberations would generally need to be in open session unless a specific statutoryexecutive-session exception applies. Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 9 of 12 • Commissioner Cushnie asked whether they could decide on the day if a tie occurs; DCC Takamura advised it’s fairer to decide the approach in advance to avoid perceptions of tailoring the process to benefit a candidate. • Chair Kosaki stated that, if a deadlock occurs, the Commission would continue deliberating until a final decision is reached. • Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion to deliberate until there is a final decision. A motion was made by Vice Chair Hanano to deliberate until we come to a final decision. Commissioner Wolf seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. • DCC Takamura revisited scoring details: o Additional 5-point criterion (professionalism/demeanor/compliance): kept as is as part of the scoring used to narrow to finalists. o Comments on scoring rubrics: whether comments should be merely recommended or required for oral interview scoring. Chair Kosaki said optional, though potentially helpful for later deliberations; no objections o Commissioner Rabara asked about “recommended with comments/not recommended.” Chair Kosaki clarified the rubric is not a recommendation form; it’s a 1–5 scoring scale • Commissioners discussed commissioner participation and safeguards for the interview/selection process: o Attendance required to score/vote: Chair Kosaki’s view (and DCC Takamura’s clarification) was that commissioners should be present for the entire interview day to score, and that commissioners participating in the final-day scoring/selection are the ones who may vote. o Commissioner interactions with candidates: Chair Kosaki said commissioners may inevitably know candidates, but interactions should be minimal and no in-depth discussion, because it could appear improper if commissioners are seen talking with candidates during the process. o Conflict-of-interest affirmation/recusal: DCC Takamura suggested that, as an additional safeguard, commissioners could affirm at the beginning of the interview day that they have no conflicts, and that any commissioner with a conflict would voluntarily recuse. Chair Kosaki stated that he did not think the Commission needed to expressly adopt that process, reasoning that a commissioner with a conflict would come forward. A.4: Notice to candidates • Commissioners addressed notice to candidates (content, timing, distribution, and release of names): o Process/timing: After the revised notice letter goes out, candidates have 7 days to respond. After the 7-day period and receipt of required information, DHR will release the names of participating candidates. The Commission secretary will send the names to the commissioners. o Revising the notice: The Deputy Corporation Counsels and DHR will revise the notice to incorporate the Commission’s decisions from this meeting which includes the sequestration request language. Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 10 of 12 •Action: Chair Kosaki called for the motion where DHR and Deputy CorporationCounsels update the letter with today’s decision. A motion made by Commissioner Cushnie that DHR and Corporation Counsel update the letter in accordance with whatwas decided today. Commissioner Inouye seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. •Additional proposed letter content: DCC Takamura suggested adding a statementexplaining that, because it’s an open meeting under Sunshine Law, the public maysubmit oral and written testimony, so candidates understand supporters may testify. •Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion to add that language to the letter that candidates have the opportunity to have people submit oral and written testimony. Amotion was made by Commissioner Inouye to add language that under Sunshine Law,people can submit oral and written testimony for the candidates. Commissioner Wolf seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. A.5.: Schedule, location, and notice of proceedings •Chair Kosaki raised the key scheduling decision: whether to keep the August 27 date ormove the process to September, proposing September 23–25 as the alternative dates. •Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion to change the date to September 23, 24, and 25. A motion was made by Vice Chair Hanano to change the date to September 23, 24,and 25. Clarification by DCC Takamura to keep the same structure: September 23Written Assessment, 24 Oral Interview, and 25 Selection discussion. CommissionerRabara seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. •DCC Takamura asked if the Commission shifts to September, whether the venue shouldfollow the Commission’s regular September location in Hilo (instead of Kona),meaning everything would shift to Hilo. DHR can secure a Hilo location for the writtenassessment on September 23rd. Asked for a vote to make clear that the proceedingswould be in Hilo. •Action: Chair Kosaki called for a motion stating the assessment/proceedings will be inHilo in September and not in Kona. A motion was made by Commissioner Wolf that theassessment and the entire process would be held in Hilo. Vice Chair Hanano secondedthe motion. The motion carried 6-0. •Chair Kosaki asked if the Commission still needs to meet on August 27 or can skip/forego that meeting until the assessment. DCC Takamurarecommended keeping the August 27 meeting in Kona, noting: o the Commission has regular business (e.g., the Chief’s report), and skippingAugust would mean no Chief’s report until October; and o it provides a chance to address any additional issues that arise before theSeptember proceedings. A.6: Post-selection procedures •Commissioners discussed post-selection steps (conditional offer, notice, andappointment mechanics) and who handles them: Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 11 of 12 o Chair Kosaki asked what the normal procedure is after selection (conditional offer, verification, effective date, transition from temporary chief, announcement, and notice to candidates), deferring to DHR. o DHR said the Commission, as the appointing authority, would issue the conditional offer/notification. o Commissioner Rabara emphasized the need for proper public notice so supporters can provide public testimony. o DCC Takamura asked the Commission how it wants to handle issuing the conditional offer given no prepared DHR template, suggesting it may need to be pushed to the next meeting so a conditional offer can be drafted for Commission review. o DCC Wong proposed a 10-minute recess to research how the Police Chief conditional offer was handled and return with information for the Commission. Chair Kosaki was temporarily absent from the Council Chambers during a portion of this discussion, and Vice Chair Hanano presided. The Commission went into recess at 11:35 a.m. The Commission returned to open session at 11:45 a.m. Chair Kosaki returned and resumed the chair when the meeting reconvened at 11:45 a.m. • The Commission confirmed the post-selection procedure will mirror the Police Commission process: o After selection (in open meeting): The Commission will issue a conditional offer immediately after choosing the selectee. o Conditions to be satisfied before final appointment: As set in the notice—medical exam by the county physician, drug screening, and proof of a valid driver’s license. o Next meeting (October): At the next October meeting (noted as likely Oct. 22), the Commission will confirm the conditions were met and then make the final appointment. o Temporary chief transition: Upon final appointment, the temporary chief status ends automatically by rule. o Coordination of screenings: DCC Wong indicated their office can help coordinate scheduling (medical/drug testing) with DHR and the Fire Department, similar to how HPD handled it to avoid conflicts. o How the Mayor’s Office learns the selection / public announcement: There is no separate official notification to the Mayor’s Office; the Mayor’s Office learns the decision the same way as the public—by watching the meeting (Zoom). DCC Wong suggested the Mayor issues a press release after the October final appointment; Mayor’s office can coordinate quotes with the Chair/Commission for the press release. • Action: Chair Kosaki called for the motion that the written conditional offer be extended after selection, contingent on medical examination, drug screening, and valid license done in October with the anticipated appointment date. A motion was made by Commissioner Rabara and seconded by Vice Chair Hanano. The motion carried 6-0. Fire Commission Special Meeting Regular Session August 6, 2026 Page 12 of 12 IV. EXECUTIVE SESSIONNone. The agenda noticed an anticipated executive session under Agenda Item IV(A),pursuant to HRS §§ 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), to consult with the Commission’s attorney onquestions and issues pertaining to the Commission’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities,and liabilities relating to Agenda Item III(A). The Commission did not convene an executivesession. Chair Kosaki stated that there was no reason for the Commission to enterexecutive session. V. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION REPORTBecause the Commission did not convene the anticipated executive session, no return toopen session was necessary and no executive session report was given under HRS § 92- 4(b). The Commission remained in open session throughout the meeting. VI.AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Chair Kosaki asked whether there were any agenda items for the next meeting. Nocommissioner offered an agenda item. Chair Kosaki stated that the next meeting would beheld on August 27, 2026, that any remaining matters could be addressed at that time, and that by then the notice to candidates should have been issued and the response periodclosed, so the Commission would know how many candidates would participate in theassessment. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTSNext meeting to be held on August 27, at 9:00 a.m., in the West Hawai‘i Civic CenterCouncil Chambers, at 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i 96740 VIII.ADJOURNMENTMeeting adjourned at 11:53 a.m.