Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-10 Board of Ethics MinutesHAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES — REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m. 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members present: John E. K. Dill, Chair Ann Lum, Vice Chair Marilyn Nicholson, Member Diane Gentry, Member Renee N. C. Schoen, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Crosson, Secretary for the Board 1. CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. The Chair called the meeting to order. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS There were no statements from the public. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the January 13, 2010, Regular Session. Motion and vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to approve the minutes, Ms. Gentry seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 4. COMMUNICATIONS There were no new communications. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion on whether the Board should write a letter in support of House Bill 626 and Senate Bill 531, which are regarding clarifying county ethics agencies' procedures for imposing civil fines, pending before the State Legislature. The Chair stated that the Mayor's Office had contacted him to write a letter in support of these bills. He consulted with Ms. Schoen, who informed him the matter needed to be agendized for input from the other Board members. It was not known when or if the bills would be heard, but the Chair was seeking the Board's approval to write a support letter at the appropriate time, which could be at short notice. Motion: Ms. Gentry moved to approve sending a letter in support of the bills, whether by re- sending their letter from the previous legislative session or a new letter. Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. The members discussed whether they wanted to authorize sending a letter on their behalf even if they did not have a chance to explicitly review and discuss it. The Chair explained that as the bills move through committees, they could be killed or deferred or calendared at very short notice. The Board decided to authorize the Chair to send a letter in support of the bills as needed. Vote: All members present voted aye. b. Discussion on whether Hawaii County Code Section 2 -91.1 (the definition of "regulatory employee ") should be amended to include inspectors and supervisors of inspectors employed by the Planning Department, or a general catch -all definition like "regulatory employees with inspection duties." Ms. Schoen explained that she had received numerous phone calls from employees about whether they were required to file disclosures. In addition, the director of the Planning Department asked her to discuss with the Board whether the Code should be amended to include inspectors and supervisors of inspectors at Planning. Currently the Code specifies that Public Works inspectors and supervisors of inspectors are required to file, but it does not specify the equivalent employees at Planning. In addition, there are inspectors in other departments who are not yet required to file. It is possible that when the Code was written, these positions did not yet exist. The Board discussed the matter and decided the Code should be amended to include a catch -all phrase such as "all regulatory employees who perform inspection duties." Ms. Nicholson said there could be other employees with potential conflicts and that they should look at the larger issue of who should be filing. Ms. Schoen pointed out that at Public Works, the inspectors and their supervisors are required to file, but not the division head who supervises them. Division heads may not do inspections themselves, but they supervise those who do. Ms. Schoen discussed the format of Section 2 -91.1 and where the additional employees should be listed. It was decided that supervisors of planners employed by the department of planning should be added to (a)(4)(A), and inspectors employed by the department of planning to (a)(4)(B). Ms. Schoen noted that planners also exist in the Department of Parks and Recreation and may exist elsewhere. The Board decided that any planners who are involved with inspecting, 2 approving, and permitting should be considered regulatory employees who could have potential conflicts and should be required to file financial disclosures. Ms. Nicholson suggested changing (a)(4)(K) to (a)(4)(L), and inserting a new (a)(4)(K) to include any other regulatory employee with inspection duties. The Board also decided that all supervisors of inspectors should be included, since they also perform inspections and presumably are capable of performing the duties of the employees they are supervising. Inspectors would bring to their supervisors matters they had questions on. Ms. Schoen suggested the wording, "any other employee with inspection duties and their supervisors." The Board agreed. The members discussed whether to include their suggested Code changes in their response to the Mayor or in a separate letter. They decided to write a separate letter with their proposals, and to mention in their response to the Mayor that they would be doing so. Ms. Schoen was to draft a document with all the Board's proposals, including the new language for the financial disclosure section, for review at the next meeting, as it would be Ms. Nicholson's and Ms. Gentry's last due to the expiration of their terms. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Review and discussion of the Board's draft response to Mayor Kenoi's proposed amendments to the Ethics Code. Ms. Schoen was instructed to add language to the response to advise the Mayor that they were working on their own amendments to the Code, and to request that he keep the Board informed on when he submits his proposals to the Council so that they can do likewise with their proposals. Ms. Nicholson suggested adding to the first paragraph of the response that they hoped the Mayor will share their comments with the Council when he puts forth his recommendations. She noted that at the prior meeting, they had discussed and decided upon asking the Mayor do so. The Chair said he does not feel comfortable now asking the Mayor to do so and would rather copy the Council on their response or submit it as testimony when the proposals are being heard. Ms. Schoen said that she will need to be present when the proposals come before the Council, and she would welcome the presence of any Board members. The Chair said he would attend. Ms. Schoen and Ms. Lum pointed out a few typos to be corrected in the response. Ms. Nicholson said that at the previous meeting, and in the minutes, they had also wanted to provide examples in the response, particularly for Proposal 1. They decided to include the simple example of a child of a County employee being barred from contracting as a lifeguard. And example like this would help the Mayor stop and think that perhaps that was not his intention. Motion and vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to accept the draft with the changes discussed and authorize sending it out. Ms. Lum seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. The Chair would sign the letter. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to enter into Executive Session for the review of confidential financial disclosures. Ms. Gentry seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 10:46 a.m.: The Board left Regular Session. 11:57 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular Session. 7. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Approval of the minutes of the January 13, 2010, Executive Session. (Note: The agenda incorrectly listed the December 9, 2009, minutes, which were approved at the January 13, 2010, meeting.) Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept and file the minutes, Ms. Gentry seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. b. Review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms filed pursuant to Section 2- 91.1(d), Hawaii County Code, by County board and commission members and designated County employees, where personal matters will be reviewed. Motion and vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to approve disclosure 16 (the Chair's), and Ms. Lum seconded the motion. They and Ms. Gentry voted aye. The Chair abstained. Motion and vote: Ms. Gentry moved to approve disclosure 42 (Ms. Lum's), and Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. They and the Chair voted aye. Ms. Lum abstained. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to approve disclosure 53 (Ms. Nicholson's), and Ms. Gentry seconded the motion. They and the Chair voted aye. Ms. Nicholson abstained. The Chair stated that pursuant to reviewing the disclosures in Executive Session, the Board had questions regarding disclosures 5, 8, 19, 20, 24, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 48, 51, 58, 63, 66, 62, 68, 71, 72, 73, 78, 81, 82, 83, and 86. Motion and vote: Ms. Gentry moved to accept all the other disclosures, Ms. Lum seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 0 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair announced the next meeting for March 10, 2010, at the Department of Liquor Control, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo. 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion and vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to adjourn, Ms. Gentry seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 12:00 p.m.: The meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted: cur spa &=Otary