Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-08 Board of Ethics MinutesHAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES — REGULAR SESSION1 Wednesday, September 8, 2010 10:00 a.m. — 11:10 a.m. 101 Aupuni Street, Room 145 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members and staff present: John E. K. Dill, Chair Ann Lum, Vice Chair Arne T. Henricks, Member Bernard Balsis, Jr., Member David Heaukulani, 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. As Mr. Henricks had not yet arrived, the Board proceeded to Item 4 of the agenda with plans to return to Item 3 (approval of minutes) when Mr. Henricks was present. 4. COMMUNICATIONS Communication No. 2010 -069: Letter dated 8/5/10 from the Cost of Government Commission, requesting a response from the Board regarding its function and services and requesting suggestions on ways for the County to improve efficiency and service. Ms. Schoen pointed out that the letter requested a response by October 1, 2010, and suggested that the Board or one of its members work with her on a response. The Chair said it was not clear whether the Cost of Government Commission ( "COGC ") was asking for suggestions about the functioning of the Board of Ethics or about the county as a whole. Ms. Schoen said it was about the Board but that since they were county officers, the COGC would welcome any other suggestions they might have. 1 Minutes in italics are verbatim. Blanks indicate inaudible or indecipherable speech. As no one volunteered to work with Ms. Schoen on the response, the Chair said he would. Ms. Schoen said she would start drafting the response and send it to him for review and comment. Ms. Schoen said that if anyone thought of something to include in the response, they could email it to her. In addition, they were free to respond to the COGC as private citizens if they wanted to. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept and file the communication, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The Chair went back to Item 3 of the agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the August 11, 2010, Regular Session. The Chair thanked Ms. Lum for correcting him several times during the August 11 meeting, which the minutes reflected. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept and file the minutes, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and they and the Chair voted aye. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2010 -06: Initial review of petition alleging that the Board, or its members, had a conflict of interest in its handling of a petition. CHAIR: Obviously, just to reiterate, both myself and Board member Henricks are named in this petition, and it is referencing the petition I think 2010 -05, that we heard at the September 8rh meeting. So therefore I'm going to recuse myself in dealing with this petition and hand it over to Vice Chair Lum. And ifMr. Henricks should so choose, he's welcome to do the same. HENRICKS: I also recuse myself since I've been mentioned in the petition, too. CHAIR: Okay. So I'll hand over the reins for this agenda item for Vice Chair Lum, and we'll see if I have enough change in my pocket for a soda. HENRICKS: Do they have the same problem? SCHOEN: Actually, if I believe that we should be clear for the record that the petitioner is not present this morning, and I believe there were questions by the other Board members, that they wanted to speak with me regarding the handling of this petition. So might I suggest that the Board make a motion to go into executive session. 2 BALSIS: So moved. HEAUKULANI: I second. CHAIR: Okay. LUM.• Oh, are you still all in favor? BALSIS: Aye. HEAUKULANI: Aye. L UM.- Aye. CHAIR: Okay? So I shouldn't be here for executive session, then. LUM.• Before we go into executive session, I would like to have the minutes reflect that served with Mr. Joseph, the petitioner, on this Board for probably three years. CHAIR: So we've got to go too, yeah? SCHOEN: Yeah. But hold on one sec. Arne, we can talk a minute? JASONARMSTRONG: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Why did you recuse yourself, because you're named in the petition, is that correct? CHAIR: Yep. JASONARMSTRONG: AndMr. Henricks was the same, too? CHAIR: Yep. JASONARMSTRONG: No other Board members were mentioned? CHAIR: No. JASONARMSTRONG: Thank you. 10:05 a.m.: The Board left Regular Session. Everyone left the room but Ms. Lum, Mr. Balsis, Mr. Heaukulani, Ms. Schoen, and the secretary. 10:25 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular Session, and the parties who were outside reentered the room. LUM.• We are back in Regular Session, hearing Petition 2010 -06, Petitioner Wayne Joseph. I did reveal that I did serve on the Board with him. I find no conflict in hearing 3 this petition. I would ask my remaining Board members who —one of Wayne 's points is Mr. Joseph's points is that the Mr. Henricks was appointed by the Mayor. And we have two more Board members that were appointed by the Mayor. BALSIS: Yes. LUM: Do you feel any conflict in hearing this? HEAUKULANI: No. HENRICKS: I think the word should be nominated L UM.• - -Oh, nominated, that's right, not appointed. That's right, we're nominated and then you're confirmed by thank you. Nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. BALSIS: I see no conflict of interest. While I was nominated by the Mayor, I was also confirmed by the Council in a mutually exclusive action, executive and legislative branch acting exclusively and separately. I see no conflict. L UM: Thank you. HEAUKULANI.• Madame Chair, for the record, I was nominate d by Amy Miwa, who works for my councilman. By letter, yes, the Mayor has to appoint to the Council, but I have no relationship to the Mayor in that respect, of my appointment. L UM: Thank you. In the petition there are several points, but the first one I think that needs to come out is the timeliness of the petition. And I refer to our rule, which is Rule No 1.5. And in Rule No. 1. 51 it talks about our Board members, as we just did, may file our own affidavit if we feel that we have conflict or personal bias or any of those things. So we are in a position to decide whether we feel that we have any conflicts. And then another part of that, that if we if somebody else files an affidavit, every affidavit shall state the facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and it shall be filed at least ten working days before the date on which the matter will be considered by the Board, or good cause shall be shown for the failure to do so. This was filed this petition was filed after we acted on the previous petition, so in that respect it is not timely. Mr. Joseph is not here to give us any information about why he failed to bring this up before the petition. I would like to have us not assume that he had good cause, but just bring a little bit more discussion to it, because he's not here to answer anything or to tell us anything. And so we could go a little bit more deeply into this if that's okay with the remaining Board members? BALSIS: Yes. Actually, I would like to move that based on timeliness as dictated in our rules, which governs us, that we dismiss the petition. In addition to that, I'd like to make a comment that in considering the rule of necessity, that I saw or see no problem in my review of the situation with all the members of the Board at that time participating in the decision - making process. If we were to look at another entity to take over or to review it on behalf of this Board, there is none. For example, the Maui Board of Ethics, in their in charter, they are encharged with only interpreting the Maui Board of Ethics - -or the Maui Code, that is - -as we are encharged with interpreting the Hawai `i County Code. So presently there is no appeal process that I know of within the Board of Ethics system. L UM: There is no other venue. BALSIS: No other venue. LUM: That can interpret our Hawai `i County Code. BALSIS: Yes. HEAUKULANL• Madame Chair, I second the motion to dismiss on timeliness. LUM: Sorry. So the discussion -- continuing discussion. HEAUKULANI: I wish the petitioner were here so I could ask questions, but he's not here. L UM: He did give us his phone number. We could try to call him if you have a specific question for him, or we could just DILL: Madame Chair, if I might, the petition that's SCHOEN: - -I -- DILL: - -I was just going to reference the SCHOEN: --But since you recused yourself, I would recommend that you not participate in any discussion and deliberation that the Board makes. DILL: Thank you, I'll keep my mouth shut. Sorry. L UM: For information, the rule of necessity is that when there is no one else to act on a matter, no matter whether somebody feels there might be a conflict or something, the Board has to act because there is no other. I don't think in this case we really have any conflict, but I just wanted to have those things brought up to underline that we were empowered as a Board to act on that petition that's already been decided. So we have a motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion? Do you want to read the motion back, Mary? Do you have it? Just the first part, probably. Timely. SECRETARY: I would like to move that based on the timeliness as dictated in our rules, which governs us, that we dismiss the petition. L UM: Okay, and we have a second with Mr. Heaukulani. Is there any further discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion, vote aye. BALSIS: Aye. 5 HEAUKULANI: Aye. LUM: The Chair votes aye. This petition is dismissed, and we SCHOEN: --Madame Chair, I will prepare the order for the Board's review for next time. L UM: Thank you. And w e can turn this to you. b. Petition No. 2010 -07: Employee's request for informal advisory opinion on whether she may work part -time as a security guard at a transfer station while also employed as an account clerk with the Department of Environmental Management. CHAIR: The petitioner requested a closed hearing, so we'll respect that. HEAUKULANI: Mr. Chair, for enough information, I wish to recuse myself. I have a personal relationship with the security industries. I belong to three international associations of security. I train them on the island. I am the chapter chair, and I feel that I am going to have a personal bias in favor of the security guard. CHAIR: Okay, thankyou. Anybody else? SCHOEN: He's going to move his car. CHAIR: Do we need to close the door for the closed hearing? SCHOEN: Well, first of all, Mr. Chair, the Board has to, per Hawai `i County Code 2 dash - - -I believe it's 84, determine that a closed hearing is indeed warranted. So I'd recommend the Board do that now. CHAIR: Oh, okay. Does anybody have a problem with L UM: -­Js Ms. Espin here? CHAIR: Anybody have a problem with having a closed hearing, per the petitioner's request? BALSIS: Based on the confidentiality that she would like, I have no problem with having a closed hearing. LUM: I would like to ask a question. Is it because it's an employment situation, that you're requesting I JOANNE ESPIN: Honestly, I don't care, closed or open, as much as I was maybe asked to care about it. I just want an answer I just want an answer to the basic question that's been asked. I don't really care if it's closed, for myself. SCHOEN: Okay, let me just explain, so the record's clear, the difference between open and closed ESPIN. - -The reporter's here or not. SCHOEN: Well, yeah, in a closed session the minutes are not provided to the public. The decision is provided only to you, unless you would like it released to the public should someone from the public ask for that decision. So it's up to you, what you want to do. ESPIN. That's why we're here asking, is in case somebody from the public sees me and asks that question, so I guess the public has a right to know the answer. SCHOEN: But if the meeting is closed, then it's closed and confidential to the public. So that's the distinction. ESPIN. I understand, and I still really don't care. CHAIR: Okay, so you wouldn't have a problem having it open ESPIN. - -No, I have no problem with that. CHAIR: Okay, then we'll just do things above board and anybody have an objection to having an open hearing for this, or closed? ESPIN.• So tell UM - -No, he's recusing himself because of his relationship with ESPIN. - -No, the reporter dude. CHAIR: He left. L UM. He left. SCHOEN: He left. L UM• He was only interested in ESPIN. - -Okay, so anybody's here, let's discuss CHAIR: But to make it clear, the minutes will be available for public record and public viewing, okay. 7 ESPIN: That's fine. CHAIR: Main thing you understand that. Now why don't we get started. UW: Why don't you sit down? CHAIR: Yeah, you guys can sit down over SCHOEN --By the mic. CHAIR: Yeah, by the mic. So essentially you're requesting an informal advisory opinion on whether you may work part -time as a security guard at a transfer station while also employed as an account clerk with the Department of Environmental Management. Just for the record, if you guys could loudly state your name and your positions. ESPIN: I'm Joanne Espin, Solid Waste Division account clerk. ROBIN BADMAN: I'm Robin Bauman, Department of Environmental Management business manager. IVAN TORIGOE: Ivan Torigoe, deputy director of the Department of Environmental Management. CHAIR: Thank you guys for taking time out of your busy schedule to come in here. First off, just if I might just ask a couple questions real quick. Ms. Espin, there's one thing that stands out. Obviously, you work for the Department of Environmental Management as an account clerk, and you're looking for a part -time job as a security guard, which you'll do on your days off. ESPIN: Correct. CHAIR: Okay, so there won't be any conflict in terms of hours, work, or anything like that. The conflict that I see is that you do have some involvement with the checking and arithmetic accuracy of the invoices from the specific security guard company that you will be working for. ESPIN: Correct. CHAIR: Okay. That really is the one thing that stands out to me. And maybe you guys would know if there's a way within your department to take that specific duty away from Ms. Espin and give it to someone else within the department, or I guess your office, right? BAUMAN Yes, you know - -if you feel that's a problem, that's something that we could do. L UM.• I think the appearance is there, that you could be reviewing your own time hours, card, right? CHAIR: No, I don't think so ESPIN: - -No, it's not CHAIR: --It's not included on the invoice to the County LCM.• - -Oh, it's a County invoice. ESPIN: I just pay by it's an item, security at the transfer stations. I pay by each item number, based on the hours that security is assigned at each station per month. LCM.• Not your own. ESPIN: No, it actually the bill shows up at me broken down, but I always do have to double check it and correct it, but I don't have anything to do with the bid process. I'm not I receive the bill and correct it, just like I receive and correct many, many, many bills. CHAIR: Okay. HENRICKS: Okay, what bothered me when I looked at this and I can understand what they're saying, but when it got to the point where it says that you have to discover any unusual hours in the billing process, and then you have to contact them and note their explanations. So to me that's kind of like you're making a judgment call, whether that's unusual hours or verified or good or not. ESPIN: The verification of the hours is based on whether a security guard showed up or not HENRICKS: - -But you understand what I mean there ESPIN: - -It may show up on the bill that the security was there at the station, but because my supervisor, or my superintendent, told me there was no security at that station that morning, I adjust those hours with the knowledge provided to me by supervisors and superintendent of Solid Waste. HENRICKS: Yeah, but it's your job to discover if there's any discrepancies there, isn't it? ESPIN: I check over every bill I get for discrepancies, yes HENRICKS: - -I mean this is unusual hours, quotes unusual hours, right? ESPIN: That's maybe wrong terminology, unusual hours. It's just HENRICKS: -- That's what I mean M ESPIN: -- discrepancy between whether they showed up or not. CHAIR: Yeah, well it comes back to my problem with the fact that you're checking the invoices from the company that you'd be working for part -time on the side. And that's where I think there personally, there is a conflict there. Now I guess the second question is, if you guys interdepartmentally can't isolate that and assign that duty to someone else within your office, I wouldn't have and then of course verify that that's been done, and being done, then I would be more inclined to HENRICKS: - -That might when you say you discover unusual hours. I'm stuck on this because it says you contact the vendor then. ESPIN: Correct. HENRICKS: And then askfor an explanation. By doing this you're getting involved in the process with the vendor. ESPIN: I send him a fax with my corrections and ask him to let me know if he finds that correct or not. HENRICKS: Yeah, but then you're getting involved in the decision - making process here, you see what I mean? ESPIN: I'm asking a question about hours based on information I received from my supervisor. HENRICKS: Yeah, but there's too much room therefor you to say, oh, but we'll wash this this time, and don't worry about it. You can make that kind of determination at that point by being in contact with them, by making that relationship ESPIN: - -I would have nothing to gain or lose by doing that such thing. I feel committed to my job as a County employee. I double -check everything. I find lots of mistakes. HENRICKS: But at that point you're serving two masters. You're employed by them and you're employed by the County, and you're contacting them on behalf of the County and they're giving you a reason on behalf of them and you're in the middle. ESPIN: So what kind of position am I allowed to get as a part -time job here? HENRICKS: I don't know, I'm just asking the questions ESPIN: - -I'm really curious here. Everybody works for the County. HENRICKS: that's where I would have a problem, CHAIR: Yeah, on the surface it looks as if there is a Ms. Lum, you wanted to say something? 10 L UM: Yeah, I wanted to ask your are these people in your department she 's in your department BAGMAN: - -Yes LCM: - -in your department? So in your department, are there a couple ofpeople doing this kind of job, or is there only Ms. Espin doing that kind of job? BAGMAN There's other people doing the same kind of a job. Ms. Espin is the one charged with processing the Solid Waste invoices. ESPIN: All Solid Waste bills go to me. BAGMAN Yeah, all of the Solid Waste bills. But they are reviewed by an Accountant I and ultimately approved by the Solid Waste division chief. So when she's questioning bills and finding discrepancies, it's more or less gathering the information for the division chief to ultimately decide whether to approve the invoice ESPIN: - -So like yesterday I called the division chief and asked him if he knew of any more discrepancies, and we talked about the ones I knew of. And he said okay, that sounds like you've got it completed, and that's what I went with, based on his missing hours. CHAIR: Mr. Balsis, did you have any questions? BALSIS: The questions I have don't relate directly to the processing of invoices. But how did you learn about the availability of the security guard position in the first place? ESPIN: Through my job. I knew he had hours extended and I was getting furloughed, and I asked him if he needed more help. `Cause his hours were extended by like twice as much when the mayor extended our transfer station hours. LCM: But that was in the paper, so it was public ESPIN: - -It's public knowledge the hours were extended. And I've known Reynolds Kamakawiwo `ole for over twenty years, from when I lived in Waipi `o and he was a policeman in Honoka `a. So when he hand - delivered his bill tome, I said well hey, Reynolds, how you doing, and we chatted. I try and chat with anybody at the counter that comes in. It's my job. CHAIR: Okay. SCHOEN: Mr. Chair, if I might suggest, since Ms. Bauman and Mr. Torigoe are here, if they might provide their position on the petition the department's position? CHAIR: Please. 11 BAUMAN: From my perspective, I don't see where Ms. Espin's working for the security guard company would have any negative impact on us. She does not have the authority to approve the invoice. She's primarily checking arithmetic, noting discrepancies, and either confirming the correction with the vendor or providing the explanation for someone else to ultimately decide whether the invoice is approved or not. That is just one of the many invoices she does approve, and we would be able to assign that one responsibility to another staff member, if that was a concern. But she's not in a position to provide any benefit unfair advantage to the security guard company or vice versa. She's not apart of the bidding process at all. She does not ultimately approve the invoices or anything like that, so from my perspective I don't see any problem with her part -time work as a security guard. CHAIR: Okay. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you. I might just very briefly add that the reason that we're here is really because Ms. Espin came to us, and asked us if we thought that there was any kind of issue with respect to her taking this part -time job, and so I want to just give her due credit on the record and make sure you understand that this is because she was concerned that there be nothing left to question. And that's why we're here this morning. And based on Ms. Bauman's summary and what was presented in the petition, our basic view is that what Ms. Espin does is really purely clerical, and even the checking of the arithmetic is basically just checking multiplication. And if she happens to see that there is some question about the number of hours there, then all she does really is ask the question, get the answer, log it down. And again it's not a matter of her having discretionary authority to deny payment or approve payment. As the petition states, there are three levels of other people within our department that review these things and have progressive levels of discretionary authority perhaps, but not at Ms. Espin's level. And then of course it goes to the Purchasing Division to make sure it's compliant with the contract, and then it goes to the Finance Division for final check and approval of payment. So in that light, again, from our perspective we don't see a real issue with it, but we understand that as the Board of Ethics that's why we're here, is to get your interpretation of how the Code should apply in this case. So thank you for your time. HENRICKS: Okay, the thing I was trying to get I feel like I keep harping on it, but this bothers me so much and I can't go for ward until I can get rid of it - -is that at some point she's either going to notice or not notice something wrong there. Now does she can she just say okay, I'm going to pass it through, even if I know that something's wrong. To me that bothers me. She could do this, if she wanted to, saying I'm not going to mark it up as being wrong, or something like this. I'm not saying she would do this. Now remember, I'm not accusing you. I'm just asking, are you in a position are you in a watch dog position, is what I'm trying to say, on these, on these CHAIR: - -So in order to, in order to maybe alleviate the potential or even just appearance of a possible, that this could possibly happen and again, we're not accusing you, that you'd do this. But we need to think from the public's perspective, when they look at it. Would then reassigning that specific account to someone else satisfy your would it alleviate or eliminate that possibility or the appearance of possible 12 IRU�I� CHAIR: I'm sorry, yes? HENRICKS: Perfectly. BAGMAN: I was just going to add, you know, oversight of a discrepancy, intentional or not, can happen at any level. And that's why we have a number of levels reviewing the invoices. But to avoid any potential allegations or anything, that one duty could be reassigned. CHAIR: Okay. Well if that's the case, I'm and if you can verify that can be done, that makes me feel better. HENRICKS: Yeah, what I think it would translate, we don't want her looking over her own accounts. It just doesn 't feel good. I mean, she may be the most honest person in the world, but it just doesn't feel good when you're doing that, because it's like it looks too bad for the public, saying what are you doing looking at your own company, you got your stuff coming in here and you're the one that's passing it through. And it just doesn't feel good. LGM: Okay, I'd like to move are we ready? I'd like to move that we find no conflict in Ms. Espin taking the part -time job with the security company, with the ESPIN: - -I mean, if anybody else has a part -time job out there that they want to give me, I'll take it, you know, darn right, you know. LGM: Bless you for being able to have two jobs. ESPIN: I groom dogs, I'll do whatever, you know. I couldn't even get a job swabbing up the kennels at Barking Kennels, so this was all I could get. LGM: It's good, it's good. It's all good. But anyway, in this finding no conflict, we would recommend that that account be assigned to another clerk, just to avoid anybody saying oh, what are you doing CHAIR: Okay. LGM: And if we could have just a verification of that. And we thank you for CHAIR: - -Yes, thank you for taking the time LGM: - -Thank you for thinking broadly and thinking ethically. ESPIN: I honestly can't believe it's an issue, personally. I will say it was asked of me by other people, so I raised the question. But my thought was, how can it be? How can the County say I can't do a second job? 13 CHAIR: Hold on, hold on, do we have a motion LUM: - -We have a motion, so we need CHAIR: --We'll have some discussion -- SCHOEN: --Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to that motion. I heard your motion as being that you find no conflict of interest, recommending that a procedure be in place to handle invoices from that particular company, but my understanding is the discussion was that that was a condition CHAIR: - -Yeah LUW: - -Okay, I didn't say it correctly SCHOEN: - -being placed upon the Board, correct? L UM: Under the condition that that job no conflict under the condition that that account be assigned to another clerk. HENRICKS: You've got to realize that this is just an advisory opinion here. I mean, this is the way we feel, and if we feel this way many people in the would feel the same way, saying you can't you can't watch your own place. CHAIR: We need to have a second, then we can discuss. BALSIS: Second. CHAIR: Okay, now discussion. Arne, you wanted anything to say L UM.• - -I would say that it may seem insignificant. I mean, you are in the position, you know what you would do, you know how honest you are. But we hear many things. The petition we just had that accused conflict in here so people see things, people in the public see things. There is something before the Council on this very issue involving changing the Board of Ethics the Code of Ethics to actually prevent anybody from having a second job that involves the County ESPIN: - -Well then they better keep me employed full -time, if they can tell me I can't get a second part -time job. LUM.• I would recommend, when that comes before the Council, that you testify. CHAIR: And then ifI could add some discussion and kind of echo what Ms. Lum said. A lot of times we have to worry about public perception more than anything else. It's not really L UW: -- Personal. 14 CHAIR: Yeah, it's not personal. We just need to think about what we serve the public, so -- ESPIN: - -I understand that, and I CHAIR: --And we're not accusing you of anything or accusing you guys of potentially doing anything. We really do appreciate all of you coming in, and Ms. Espin, for you filing this and taking the time to come here. But it's nothing personal, and we 're just thinking of public perception. ESPIN: Well I d like to say, I'd really like to have my weekends off. I'd like to just work a five -day week and have my weekends off, but that's not my choice right now. I'm just trying to keep my house and my family. LCM: You and a lot of other people, yeah. CHAIR: Any other discussion from Board members on this? Okay, all in favor, say aye. BALSIS, LCM, HENRICKS (simultaneously): Aye. CHAIR: Aye. Okay. LCM: Thank you all for coming, and it does show your high degree of thought in ethics situations, and you should be pleased with yourself for doing this. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Review of draft Order dismissing Petition No. 2010 -04, alleging that two County officers did not file gift disclosures for meals at the Mauna Kea Beach Hotel. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to approve the draft, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and they and the Chair voted aye. Mr. Balsis and Mr. Heaukulani abstained. However, Ms. Schoen explained that even though they were not present for that meeting, if they were able to read the minutes and believed the draft was an adequate reflection of them, they could vote. Mr. Balsis said he approved the draft. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to go into Executive Session for review of the confidential matters listed on the agenda. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 10:55 a.m.: The Board left Regular Session. 11:07 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular session. 15 7. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Approval of the minutes of the August 11, 2010, Executive Session. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum moved to accept all three parts of the Executive Session minutes of August 11, 2010. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. b. Review of draft informal advisory opinion regarding Petition No. 2010 -05, wherein an employee requested an opinion on whether he may participate as a landlord in the County of Hawai`i's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the draft, Mr. Heaukulani 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 stated that after reviewing the disclosures in Executive Session, a motion was needed to approve disclosures 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11, and to return the others for various reasons. Motion and vote: Ms. Lum so moved, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. d. Status of financial disclosures required to be submitted. There was no vote required for this agenda item. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair announced the next meeting of the Board, scheduled for October 13, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. at the Hilo Lagoon Centre Conference Room. 9. ADJOURNMENT 11:10 a.m.: The Chair stated that the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Crosson, Secretary 16