Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-11 Board of Ethics MinutesHAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES — REGULAR SESSION1 Wednesday, August 11, 2010 10:00 a.m. — 11:08 a.m. 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members and staff present: John E. K. Dill, Chair Ann Lum, Vice Chair Arne T. Henricks, Member Renee N. C. Schoen, Deputy Corporation Counsel Adrianne N. Heely, Deputy Corporation Counsel (from Maui) Mary E. Crosson, Secretary for the Board Also present: Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd, Brandon Gonzalez, Alan Rudo, Earl Arakaki, and a few other parties 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 July 14, 2010, Regular Session. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept and file the minutes, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 4. COMMUNICATIONS Communication No. 2010 -060: Letter dated 7/8/10 from Mayor William Kenoi to the County Council, nominating Bernard Balsis, Jr., and David Heaukulani to the Board of Ethics. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept and file the letter, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 1 Minutes in italics are verbatim. Blanks indicate inaudible or indecipherable speech. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2010 -04: Initial review of petition alleging that two County officers did not file gift disclosures for meals at the Mauna Kea Beach Hotel. The Chair introduced Deputy Corporation Counsel Adrianne Heely from the Maui Department of the Corporation Counsel. Ms. Heely was to represent the Board for this petition due to a conflict of interest in having Renee Schoen do so, since Mayor Kenoi was one of the respondents to the petition. The Chair stated he wanted to go into Executive Session to discuss the confidentiality issues surrounding the petition. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to go into Executive Session, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 10:03 a.m.: The Board left Regular Session. Everyone stepped out of the meeting except for the Board members, Ms. Heely, and the secretary. 10:10 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular Session. CHAIR: Okay, thanks, everybody. We're back in Regular Session for item S on the agenda, New Business, Sa, Petition No. 2010 -04. Like I mentioned before going into Executive Session, there are some confidentiality issues surrounding this, and today we basically are just going to be deciding how to move forward with this. We have our options to either dismiss it with good cause or to schedule an informal advisory opinion at a future date in which the confidentiality issues will be worked forth. And our rules allow us to keep the petitioner's name confidential for the time being, and the other thing what we decided in Executive Session was to refer to the petitioner in today's meeting as the petitioner, out of respect. Again, it's Petition No. 2010 -04 pertaining to Planning Director BJ Leithead- Todd and Mayor Billy Kenoi, and the lack of filing a gift disclosure form as referenced in Hawaii County Ethics Code Section 2- 91. S(a). And if I can point out to everybody, that section, reporting of gifts, has three requirements or thresholds that have to be met in order to be in violation. I'll read it real quick. Every officer and employee shall file a gifts disclosure statement with the County board of ethics on June 30 of each year if all of the following conditions are met. And number 1, the officer, employee, or spouse or dependent child of an officer or employee, received directly or indirectly from one source any gift or gifts valued singly or in the aggregate of excess of $100, whether the gift is in the form of money, services, goods, or in any other form. I'm not sure this petition states HEELY: -- Sorry, Chair LCM: -- You've got to read the other two. 2 CHAIR: Oh, yeah, yeah, sorry. Sorry. And the second one, the source of the gift or gifts have interests that may be affected by official action or lack of action by the officer or employee, and 3, the gift is not exempted by subsection (d) from reporting requirements under this subsection. The reason why I stopped at I is because again, it needs to meet all three of these requirements in order to be a violation. And because the petitioner is not present today and not providing any additional documentation or evidence showing that it reaches this hundred dollar threshold, we're left with what was filed with this petition. And in my research of the supporting documents, I can't find any evidence showing that it violates Section 2-91.5(a), subsection (1). And at this time I'll ask the other Board members if they have any questions for the respondents. LCM: Well the only thing we have is the statement from the petitioner that Ms. Leithead- Todd told a reporter she estimated the value of the dinner as in excess of $100. Now I just have a question about that, if you don't mind you don't need to, or LEITHEAD -TODD: No, I don't' mind. LCM.• Okay, I think that it at least well, but the thing is, this is like third -hand or something. And it's a long time ago. Do you remember anything about the dinner? LEITHEAD -TODD: Well LCM.• - -Not, I mean about the cost of it. LEITHEAD -TODD: Well, the only thing that I recall is the only thing that I specifically ordered off the menu was the entree, which was $28. Somebody else had a appetizer, and they offered me some of their appetizer, so when I just pulled a number out of the air, `cause I was being asked right after, in the middle of a hearing, and I got pulled over by Pat Tummins and asked. And I said well, you know, maybe a hundred bucks, `cause I said but the only thing that I do know for sure is that my entree was 28 bucks. So the person sitting next to me, and I don't remember who was sitting `cause most of the people were Chinese doctors from Singapore had a pupu they had ordered, and they offered me some to taste. So I had some of that, so I'm thinking okay, I had a pupu, right. And then when I ordered the entree, and then they said would you like soup or salad. And I said I'll take a small dinner salad. But I didn't know what the price of that was. And then at the end of the meal, there was dessert, and somebody it was a Chinese lady sitting next to me ordered a dessert and three of us, we shared it and we each got a spoon and shared the dessert. So when I sat down and I later on, after the interview I'm sitting, I'm thinking, okay the entree 's 28. I had part of a pupu. I had a dinner salad, and I had part of a dessert. So I started going, you know what is it 12 bucks for the pupus, is it 12 dollars for the salad. `Cause I'm thinking, no way the salad's 28 dollars if my entree's 28. So — UM - -This is what I was kind of wondering about LEITHEAD -TODD: - -But hey, you know, somebody calls you and you're just kind of going well, okay LCM: - -I was wondering if you were counting for the two of you, whether in your mind you were thinking well, between the two of us probably it was a hundred dollars LEITHEAD -TODD: - -No, well, I was just thinking that, you know, hey I don't know. My entree was 28 LUM: - -I have a hard time getting up to a hundred dollars for one dinner LEITHEAD -TODD: --And so, and I didn't know whether afterwards when I'm sitting down, `cause I was thinking the cost of the entire pupu, you know, and the cost of the entire dessert, even if I shared it. And so I just pulled a number out of the air LUM: -And even with drinks and coffee LEITHEAD -TODD: -And so, you know, but when I sat down and thought about it and I was going okay, 12 dollars to 15 dollars for a pupu. You know, what's the salad, is that 12 bucks. Entree was 28. Is the dessert around 12? And so when I started adding it up, it just didn't add up to a hundred bucks. CHAIR: Well, let me ask you this. I mean, do you really think that your meal constituted reaching this threshold of a hundred dollars? LEITHEAD -TODD: No, I don't. And hey, I want to say this. Look, if I thought that there was some kind of problem with that meal, I would never have said you know, why would I if there was a problem with the meal, why would I say publicly I went to a meal? Why would I say anything to the reporter if there was anything that I was trying to hide? CHAIR: Well, I'm duly impressed that you can remember what you had. I don't know what I had for dinner last night. LEITHEAD -TODD: Well, I can't the only reason I remember is because I told the reporter 28 bucks. But I do remember there was some pupus, and somebody ordered poke. There was some kind offish, so I had some of that. And all I remember about the dessert is that there was a lot of chocolate on it. HEEL Y.- Excuse me, Chair, if I may. The threshold is in excess of a hundred dollars. CHAIR: Thankyou. And just you're representing Mayor Kenoi, correct? GONZALEZ: Yes, Mr. Chair. CHAIR: If you can come up. Do you I'm sure you had a chance to discuss this with the Mayor. Does he feel as if his meal that night reached in excess of a hundred dollars? GONZALEZ: No, Mr. Chair. CHAIR: Okay. So again, I'll reiterate that the thresholds that need to be met to be in violation of Section 2 -91. S(a) right off the bat, I don't personally feel that it meets that. I do have to offer a friendly reminder that gift disclosures need to be required. And I know, Bobby Jean, you know that well, because you helped us out before in the past, counseling this Board. so— El LCM: - -I think adding to that is that, you know, some of the gift disclosures we get, sometimes the things seem very small. But I admire that, because they have it in mind. And in this kind of situation, even if things don't meet the criteria, hindsight says well, if there had been a gift disclosure, because it would all be up there on the record. But it isn't, it I don't think it meets that. CHAIR: Well, I think then there's no need to go on and research whether or not it reaches the threshold required by subsection (2). I'll entertain a motion to dismiss this petition with good cause based on the evidence and lack thereof and the testimony offered by the respondents. LCM: Arne wants to say something. HENRICKS: Yeah. As to the Mayor, I think that automatically you'd have to drop it. absolutely no allegations to the amount of his meal, period. There's no mention of the amount of his meal, period. That's all, period. CHAIR: Yeah, but for this purpose HENRICKS: - -So all you've got left is Ms. Leithead's meal, and from her testimony she was taking a guess all the way down the line, and she started with an entree of $28 and the rest was shared with other people. We don't even know what the rest cost, but she made a wild guess at a hundred dollars. I don't know why she got up there. I can't get up there in my mind as to the amount being that high. CHAIR: Okay, but for the purposes of this petition, the two respondents are named, Bobby Jean Leithead -Todd, also Mayor Billy Kenoi. So the petition encompasses both of these respondents. Did you want to add anything? LEITHEAD -TODD: Well, I just wanted to add that you know, I've gone out to dinner with my kids at good restaurants, and it hasn't added up to a hundred dollars, so. CHAIR: Okay. LCM: I move that we dismiss this petition because it does not meet the criteria for reporting of gifts the issue does not meet the criteria as to reporting of gifts. HENRICKS: As to the amount. L CM.• What? HENRICKS: As to the amount, right. LCM: As to the amount, yeah. As to the amount. HENRICKS: Okay, I'll second the motion. LUM.• Did you get that, Mary, in English? SECRETARY: Yeah. L UM.- Thank you. CHAIR: So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. L UM.- Aye. HENRICKS: Aye. CHAIR: Okay, motion carried. Thank you, guys, for your time. GONZALEZ: Thank you. b. Petition No. 2010 -05: Employee's request for informal advisory opinion on whether he may participate as a landlord in the County of Hawai`i's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. CHAIR: That petitioner's name is Alan Rudo. Alan? This petition pertains to HCC Section 2 -83, fair treatment, and Section 2 -84, conflict of interest. Just for my purposes, I'm kind of focusing on Section 2- 84(a), conflict of interest. Mr. Rudo, real quick SCHOEN: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. May I just interrupt? I notice on the petition that petitioner has asked for a closed hearing, so as a preliminary matter the Board might want to determine whether or not they are going to grant the request for a closed hearing. CHAIR: Board? Sorry about that, I didn't see it circled. LUM.• Yeah, I didn't even notice it. SCHOEN: Actually, Mr. Rudo, do you still want a closed hearing? R UDO: If I may. HENRICKS: What is the purpose? Is there something that you would testify to that RUDO: No, it's justprivacy. CHAIR: Yeah, okay. That's fine. LUM.• I see no reason why we shouldn't grant it. HENRICKS: Anybody feel that we should not have a closed hearing? CHAIR: No, that's fine. I LCM.• It's his business. I think he should be allowed to have a closed hearing. CHAIR: It has to do with his employment, so. Okay, can I get a motion to approve a closed hearing? LCM.• Yes, I move that we approve the closed hearing because it involves his employment and his business privacy. HENRICKS: All right, I second the motion. CHAIR: All in favor? Aye. L CM and HENRICKS: Aye. 10:25 a.m.: The Board left Regular Session. 10:39 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular Session. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Draft Informal Advisory Opinion regarding Communication No. 2010 -052 (Petition No. 2010 -01) regarding the sale of Hamakua lands. Ms. Lum pointed out that this agenda item listed the wrong title and that it was an Order of Dismissal rather than an Informal Advisory Opinion which had been drafted for review. The Chair asked if there were any changes or corrections needed for the Order of Dismissal. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to approve the draft Order of Dismissal, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 10:42 a.m.: Ms. Lum moved to go into Executive Session for review of confidential financial disclosures and the other items on the Executive Session agenda. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 11:05 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular Session for. 7. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS The Board decided to agenda item 7b first. 7 b. Update on Communication 2010 -053 regarding officer or employee behavior at the 515110 County Council meeting. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved that the Board accept and file and keep confidential the contents of Communication No. 2010 -053. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion and all members voted aye. a. Approval of the minutes of the July 14, 2010, Executive Session. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept and file the minutes with the correction of one typo by the secretary. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion and all members voted aye. C. 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. The Chair summarized that they had approved all the disclosures in Executive Session except number 11, which had incomplete pages. For disclosure number 7, the secretary was to contact the filer about what date to insert, as it was undated. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to approve the disclosures with the exceptions noted by the Chair. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion and all members voted aye. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair announced the next meeting, scheduled for September 8, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Suite 145 of the Hilo Lagoon Centre. 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to adjourn, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 1108 a.m.: The meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Crosson, Secretary