Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-09 Board of Ethics MinutesHAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES — REGULAR SESSION1 Wednesday, February 9, 2011 10:00 a.m. to 11:40 a.m. 25 Aupuni Street (County Council Chambers) Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members and staff present: John E. K. Dill, Chair David Heaukulani, Vice Chair Bernard Balsis, Jr., Member Renee N. C. Schoen, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Crosson, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Dill called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Dan A. Cole had signed up to testify on several agenda items. DILL: Good morning, Mr. Cole. You're going to be providing testimony on petitions numbered 2011 -01, -02, -04, -05, -06, and 2010 -01. Okay. COLE: Good morning, Board. BALSIS: Morning. COLE: First of all, to open I'd like to point out that apparently I was never supposed to be here. These petitions apparently were going to be sealed. I wish to call the attention to this Board and read into record the email I got from Mike Alio [sic]. That's spelled A- I-E-L-L-O, who's the editor of the Hawai `i News Daily. com in California. Subject, re news tip dash 27 January 2 -11 [sic]. Ethics complaint filed against Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Jay Kimura. Mike Alio [sic] writes back, Hi, Dan. I spoke with Mary Crosson. She is going to pass my request to the attorney for the Board of Ethics. She did indicate that the petitions were probably going to be sealed. It appears that the exposure of this ethics meeting in the media has prompted this, as the local media has had nothing in it. Our esteemed reporter Nancy back here, had a four- column wide article six and a half inches high on the top of the backpage of the Hawai `i Tribune - Herald about apparently an individual where his name is pronounced two weeks after he testified. Yet there's nothing about this. Getting onto it, I will read into the record my 1 Minutes in italics are verbatim. Blanks indicate inaudible or indecipherable speech. testimony. You should all have a nice copy of this here. It's light reading. You will notice that I have separated into three different sections, as to misprision of felony, as to the violations of federal law regarding the illegal dumping and alteration of Hilo streams, and as to the violations of security and exchange laws and bank fraud. Those actions are identified as racketeering activity under the United States Code Section 18 U.S.C. 1961 of the RICO Act. I read: Testimony in comment to Petition Nos. 2011 -01, 2011 -02, 2011 -04, and 2011 -05, as identified on the Wednesday, February 9, 2 -11 [sic] agenda of the Board of Ethics, County of Hawai `i. And this is also a misprision of felony as required by and in accordance with Title 18 of the United States Code, subsection 4. It appears that this Board, County Board of Ethics, is uniquely qualified to understand the complexity of the petitions submitted before it today, as it appears this Board is made up of a contractor and a construction supervisor of a large mainland construction firm, a former per diem judge, a former police officer with extensive multi jurisdictional county, state, and federal experience, and a manager of a financial institution. All of you have taken a sworn oath of office to support and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Hawai `i and are therefore bound by the provisions of the United States Code, Title 18, subsection 4, misprision of felony. Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Board of Ethics, County of Hawai `i, Rule 1. 3, effect of rules, subsection (a), states: These rules and regulations have the effect of law. And Rule S, investigations and investigatory hearings, 5. 1, power to conduct, subsection (a) states: In accordance with Article IS, Chapter 2, Hawai `i County Code, the Board may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and take testimony relating to matters before the Board and require the production for examination any books or papers relative to any matter under investigation or in question before the Board. The Rules of Practice and Procedure of this Board identify for legal purposes this Board is an authority under the United States and therefore is required to take action in accordance with the United States Code where a person appears before this Board and presents knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States. DILL: Thank you, Mr. Cole -- COLE: --Excuse me, I believe I have a total of 18 minutes. DILL: Please don't interrupt me. We have three minutes for testimony for statements from the public. COLE: I have signed up for 18 minutes with statements, I have signed to agenda items. DILL: Okay, do you want to—is there anything we all have your testimony that you're reading COLE: --I'm reading it into the record. I have signed up I've gone through this with the County Council before. I have signed up for these agenda items. I get three minutes per each agenda item. The reason why I'm presenting before you is relative to the agenda items that you were presented. DILL: And we all have it right here. Yes, I know. 2 COLE: No, you don't have it all there yet. DILL: What you're reading we do. COLE: Well, I have other stuff, but as I say -- DILL: - -Is there something that we don't have in print that you'd like to add? COLE: Are you depriving me of my constitutional right to before you? I have signed up for the positions [sic]. DILL: You want me to answer your question? COLE: Yes. DILL: I'm the chairman of this Board and I'm just trying to run the meeting, okay. We take statements from the public COLE: --How many testifiers do we have? Under the rules of this procedure, you may waive the time limits. I request that I be given three minutes DILL: - -I may waive, but I will not waive the time limit. So you've already exceeded the three minutes. If you have anything else to add, briefly, within a minute, then go ahead. If not, we can move on. COLE: This Board is in violation of the United States Code. I will file in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, actions against you. DILL: Okay. Any other statements from the public? No? Moving on, agenda item number three, approval of the minutes for the January 12, 2011, meeting, regular session. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2011, MEETING (REGULAR SESSION) Mr. Heaukulani noted several corrections to be made to the minutes. On page 13, he was incorrectly quoted as saying he's "an old traffic copy" rather than "an old traffic cop." Further in that paragraph, he said he did think it was a traffic issue. And the blank before "bloody thing" should read "whole bloody thing." Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the minutes as amended, Mr. Heaukulani seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. Mr. Dill said he wanted to discuss procedural matters in Executive Session with counsel. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to go into Executive Session, Mr. Heaukulani seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 3 10:08 a.m.: The Board left Regular Session 10:25 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular Session. DILL: Mr. Cole, I apologize. Why don't we go back to item number 2, and if you so desire, you can please come up and continue your testimony for the remaining 15 minutes relating to the petition items you stated on your yellow form. My apologies, sir. COLE: Let's try this again. I continue on the history portion of why I'm here and the basic background of extensive racketeering and other conspiracies against the rights of individuals and against deprivation of rights under the color of law. History. In 2001, Hawai `i County Public Works officials authorized and supervised the alteration of stream beds in Hilo, Hawaii, of tributaries of streams flowing into navigable waters of the United States, where it is alleged that these illegal alterations were performed to provide flood protection for the benefit of politically connected landowners at the expense of property owners downstream. This construction of illegal stream diversion works for flood protection was paid for with federal emergency disaster benefits from the major flooding event in 2000 in Hilo, Hawai `i. Therefore, it's a violation of federal law, 1040 of the Title 18, and is subject to a 30 year federal prison term. Assenting in silence. I know in the culture here, if you say nothing or do nothing, people believe you have no can do no wrong. However, the accusations made in thousands and thousands of pages of testimony to public officials, in taking no action, they therefore agree to the veracity and truthfulness of the allegations stated and therefore the allegations are now stated as factual. Assenting in silence, the County does not deny that these stream diversion works were constructed under its authorization and supervision to provide flood protection for the land and property development of politically influential people, and the FEMA flood insurance rate maps were corrupted to hide potential flood risks to benefit these political influential landowners. The County of Hawai `i states that these alterations were not permitted, not documented, and not authorized by the United States Congress as required bylaw, nor authorized or permitted by state laws. The County states that over 4,000 cubic yards of flood debris was used to the construction of the non permitted, non - documented stream diversion works. Even though this amount of material would build a wall nine feet high, one foot thick, from this Hawaii County Council meeting room to the main terminal of the Hilo International Airport, the County of Hawai `i states it has no idea where this material was used to construct the stream diversion works it built. The alteration of the Hilo stream beds, under the authorization and supervision of the Public Works Department resulted in millions of dollars in property damage from the flooding event of 2008, and the continuous blocking of areas of the Hilo Harbor with silt. In 2004 the information that the County of Hawai `i had violated state and federal laws in altering the streams Hilo streams and the illegal dumping or disposal of thousands of cubic yards of flood debris, paid for under federal emergency benefit contract, has created a multi - million criminal and civil risk liability to the County of Hawai `i, to which is required by securities and exchange laws and rules to be disclosed in any offering of general munici obligation municipal bonds by this County. Because the County of Hawai `i has admitted that it illegally altered Hilo stream beds in violation of state and 11 federal statutes, the County of Hawai `i, which is really the people of Hawai `i, are now liable for the current and all future flooding damage resulting from the illegal stream alterations, to include the payment of state and federal fines. It is not a matter of if a major flood event will occur in Hilo. Historically, it's just a matter of when it's going to happen. It must be anticipated that insurance companies will challenge future claims for damage resulting from the County's actions and the legal cost in defending these claims or fines the state and federal government levies on the County, or the extremely high interest rates the County will have to pay to borrow money, will bankrupt the County of Hawai `i, with a loss of hundreds of County jobs, retirement benefits, and health benefits. It must also be noted that all sworn officials that were presented this information but took no action as required by law, by law will be stripped of any County, state or federal immunities and will be subject to criminal, civil, and personal law suits. Ask your Corporation Counsel attorney if as a volunteer board member you are immune from criminal or civil actions if you take no action or improper action on the information I am presenting before you today. Or, if you follow errant advice of your corporate attorney, make sure that you ask this question on record so that you will have legal witness as to the counsel's answer on this. The verifiable information and evidence contained in this document I am presenting before this Board this date identifies patterns and histories of violations of racketeering activity, in violation of the federal RICO Act as defined by Section 18 of the United States Code, 1961, for acts and actions as principles and accessory after the fact to violations of state and federal statutes for extortion, bank fraud, tampering with a witness, victim, or informant, in addition to violations of the United States Code for acts and actions performed severally and in conspiracy against the rights of a person and the deprivation of rights under the color of law. This information is provided for entrance into official records of this Board and establishes what this Board knew it, when this Board knew it, and what actions the Board took on this misprision of felony. Due to the documented corruption in the County of Hawai `i government, under the influence, control, or extortion of an enterprise engaged in patterns and histories of racketeering activities for the benefit of the enterprise at all levels of the government of the County of Hawai `i, this petitioner moves this Board to refer these matters to the State Attorney General, State of Hawai `i, and to the United States Justice Department, Criminal Division, Public Integrity, Washington, D. C., for investigation. Submitted this date, 9 February 2 -11 [sic], before the Hawaii County Board of Ethics. That being said, I'd also like to point out, as I just had a discussion with reporter Nancy Cook -Lauer outside, she had some questions about the agenda today, of why there were identical entries. There has been a Sunshine Law investigation on since June of 2009 as to why names are being obscured in agendas. The public is not being given sufficient information in order to appear or make testimony. I am sure this identified that Lincoln Ashida, corporate counsel, Jay Kimura, Prosecuting Attorney, and Chairman John Dill here, had been accused of these instances, and they also had similar instances, they might be here testifying. Now I have requested many times, and including in a court document request before Judge Hara, that OIP director Cathy Takase make a memorandum ruling on the June 10 meeting I mean the June 91h meeting June 10`h meeting of '09. She refuses to do it. It's noted that OIP director Cathy Takase is the sister of former corporation counsel Gerald Takase, who was assistant deputy corporation -- assistant corporation counsel, and then became deputy corporation counsel in charge of Public Works. Her brother, Glenn Takase, is a major real estate agent here in Hilo, and her sister -in -law Barbara Takase is a judge. Between the Takases, they have 5 multiple holdings in real estate, and the alteration of the FEMA flood insurance rate maps would dramatically affect their development, in particular the Kahaopea Gardens development. Therefore, the actions of the OIP director, in conspiracy with members of the Corporation Counsel, to include Lincoln Ashida and others, is conspired to deprive a person of their rights to petition the government and redress a grievance, and is a conspiracy against rights to suppress as evidence. This being said, the County is bankrupt. The information I've presented before you will be presented in the United States District Court, District of Columbia, within 30 days. These documents are contained here. In addition, the information that's contained in here will be sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to Moody's Rating, Standard and Poor's Rating, and Fitz Rating. The State Attorney General, Mark Bennett, who was requested by Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida in June of 2004 to investigate environmental violations, is a partner in the law firm of McCorriston and a number of others. That law firm is the bond counsel to the County of Hawai `i, and therefore Mark Bennett knew, or should have known, that such an action of civil and criminal liability would place a risk for the offering of general obligation bonds by the County. That information alone, just that information, is sufficient to create in the investigations that the FCC has now entertained against the County of Hawai `i. In addition, you will see I have filed a petition against Finance Director Nancy Crawford. It appears the County of Hawai `i is offering bond anticipation notes solely to the Bank of Hawai `i. The County of Hawai `i is paying 1.8 percent to 1.2 percent on these short -term notes. At the same time, the County of Hawai `i has over $44 million on deposit with the Bank of Hawai `i getting one -tenth the interest. The County of Hawai `i has had $22 million on an account for years drawing $18, 000 a year interest on $22 million. The County any attempt by the County to float a bond as in Bill 311 will result in my testifying and presenting this evidence to the FCC and the bond raters. Should the County not divulge it themselves, the County bond rating will go to a D rating, basically worthless. That will increase the interest rates. I bring before you a pattern and history of these activities, and by law your only requirement is to go to the State Attorney General's Office and request an investigation, as stated by the Hawai `i County Police Department when they refused to allow me to file a complaint of extortion against Lincoln Ashida, Jay Kimura, and a number of other ones, including Mr. Dill here. The fact that you're not allowed to file a complaint is a violation and deprivation of rights, a conspiracy of deprivation of rights. These are federal laws. These are serious laws. The actions that we're talking about bond fraud, that's 30 years and a million dollar fine. Altering of Hilo streams in emergency benefits, that's 30 years. When you add racketeering to this now, you triple all of those. So we have a racketeering enterprise. If you follow the history that I have here you have a short number of people who are related the Takases, then you have the corporate counsel members, county council members they're a very small group of people that all started together. And they've been floating around the county and controlling every aspect of the county. So I the only option that I see, and basically that I will accept, is that this Board move and refer the entire matter to the State Attorney General and to the United States Justice Department, Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section. The documents and the addresses you will find are on the back pages of your light reading there. But it's still a situation that why am I before this Board, when we had secret letters of extortion sent to the Board. We had five attorneys sitting in the room, and nobody made an exception that secret letters were used in order to make a determination? If secret letters were sent out on you, and you lost a house, or secret letters sent to a court, and a I decision was made, would you be upset? What happens now when we have a flooding event and people die or are injured, and it comes down that you people knew about this, the Board knew about it in their records, and took no action? People are of the assumption that when you sit on aboard, you raise your hand you're not joining the boy scouts. You made a contract. Failure to uphold that contract has the severe penalty of federal imprisonment. I thank you. I'll stick around in case you have any further questions. DILL: Thank you, Mr. Cole. All right, any other statements from the public, before we continue? Okay, moving back to item number 4 on the agenda, New Business. 4. NEW BUSINESS Petition No. 2011 -01: Initial review of petition alleging that an officer conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2- 83(a)(3) and 2 -83(b) of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. b. Petition No. 2011 -02: Initial review of petition alleging that an officer conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2- 83(a)(3) and 2 -83(b) of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. Petition No. 2011 -04: Initial review of petition alleging that an officer conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2- 83(a)(3) and 2 -83(b) of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. d. Petition No. 2011 -05: Initial review of petition alleging that an officer conspired to deprive Petitioner of his constitutional rights, in violation of Sections 2- 83(a)(3) and 2 -83(b) of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. DILL: We have four petitions from Mr. Cole, a, b, c, and d, Petitions No. 2011 -1, -2, -4, and -5. I am personally named in Petition No. I and 2 and therefore will recuse myself from any further actions on those. In addition, Petitions No. 4 and 5 name County of Hawai `i Prosecutor Jay Kimura, whom I'm associated with through our church. We attend the same church and although I don't know him that well, I feel that it might hamper my judgment in any kind of ruling on these two petitions. So therefore, I will recuse myself from Petitions No. 2011 -01, -02, -04, and -05, and hand it over to the Vice Chairman. HEAUKULANI: Thankyou, Mr. Chair. As the Vice Chair, we're down to two. Mr. Cole's case, as a former charter member of the Honolulu Police Department's white - collar crime unit, I would love to sink my teeth into this conspiracy allegation. However, all of these cases involve Mr. Lincoln Ashida. He is a family member, so much so I went to his graduation in Nebraska from law school. I drove him to his bar exam. His daughter is on my Facebook. That's how close we are. Secondly, Jay Kimura I campaigned for him in his reelection campaign. Therefore, I must recuse myself from 2011 -01, 2011 -02, 2011 -04, 2011 -05 petitions, and I must relinquish the chair to Mr. Balsis, the remaining member. 7 BALSIS: Looks like I'm here all by myself. If I'm correct, and I'll be asking the corporate counsel for advice on this, because I'm the remaining member, and you need a quorum of at least three people. And we only have one other Board member at this time, and that's Arne, and he will be back in March. That would leave only two of us. And so we need to suspend the hearing of these petitions until such time that an the additional or one more Board member is appointed to the Board of Ethics. Am I correct on that? SCHOEN: I don't know if it's correct to say that you need to suspend hearing on this matter. I think the proper term is that this Board as it stands, with only two remaining members on items number 1, 2, 4, and S, is not sufficient for a quorum. And so pursuant to our Hawai `i County Charter 13 -4, subsection (i), which states an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership to which a board or commission is entitled shall be necessary to make any action valid. Also, HRS 92-15 also has a similar provision, which basically says you need a majority of the members to which the board is entitled. So you need three people. And so really the Board cannot take any action on this on all four petitions in light of the recusal of Chair Dill and Vice Chair. BALSIS: Would it be correct for me to say that we would put these on hold until such time that we have three people, then? SCHOEN: Yes. BALSIS: Okay. What I would do is I would ask Mr. Cole to please keep aware of when a new Board member is appointed, and at that time, without having to resubmit all the documents, that we would be able to hear and act upon your petitions. COLE [from the audience section]: May I speak at this time, or will I be called forward? BALSIS: Briefly, yes. COLE: No, that is not acceptable to me. I have already submitted the documentation to this Board. This Board has had ample time. The fact that I even had to submit it, with the involvement of extortion and secret letters before this Board, and the copious quantities of documents that I have submitted, and the fact that we are now playing a name game in the Charter, I will submit the documents as filed to the United States District Court, District of Columbia, and charge this Board as an accessory after the fact as principals and accessories to racketeering activity. BALSIS: I have nothing further to say. SCHOEN: Mr. Balsis, as I stated in the Charter -- citing the Charter and the Hawai `i Revised Statutes - -this Board cannot take any action, despite what he says. BALSIS: And I cannot refer it on my own SCHOEN: -- Correct BALSIS: - -and so therefore I have to wait until we have a majority before we act on the petitions. SCHOEN: Correct. BALSIS: So at this point in time I think we should move along to the next agenda, and I can refer this back to the Chairman for the next agenda item. SCHOEN: That's correct. BALSIS: Mr. Chair? DILL: Thank you, Mr. Balsis. Ms. Schoen suggested that the Board take an item out of order and move next to agenda item 5a, as it would be brief since the Board did not have a quorum to hear it, and they could release the petitioner, who was present. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Petition No. 2010 -11: Further initial review of petition questioning whether an officer had a conflict of interest when voting on Bill 283, and whether statements made by the officer caused the officer to violate financial disclosure requirements. DILL: Thanks for coming back, Mr. Cadaoas. As you remember from last time, we didn't have a full majority vote on your petition. CADAOAS: Yes. DILL: Unfortunately, Mr. Balsis had recused himself and Mr. Henricks is not here today, who is also our remaining member on the quorum, for us to make a decision on it today. We didn 't find out he wasn't going to come until yesterday. CADAOAS: All right. DILL: So that leaves us in a similar situation where we only have two voting members remaining for today only, which means we'll have to take up your petition again next month, when Mr. Henricks can be apart of this meeting, and then formulate the quorum of three people. CADAOAS: Okay. DILL: So I apologize for the inconvenience. Do we need I guess we can't even vote on it, to continue it, but we will agendize it under Unfinished Business for the March meeting. And then Mary will get a hold of you if there's any change in terms of who will attend or who won't, okay? 9 CADAOAS: Okay. DILL: All right. CADAOAS: Thank you. DILL: Thank you, Mr. Cadaoas. The Board moved back to agenda item 4e. 4. NEW BUSINESS e. Petition No. 2011 -06: Former employee's request for an informal advisory opinion on whether the former employee may work at a law firm which has clients having business with the County and in particular the County Council. Ms. Schoen pointed out that the petitioner had requested a closed hearing, so the Board needed to determine whether or not to close the matter. Mr. Balsis and Mr. Heaukulani said they had no objection to a closed hearing. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to go into Executive Session, Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 10:50 a.m.: The Board left Regular Session. 11:15 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular Session for voting on Petition No. 2011 -06. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved that an informal advisory opinion be issued regarding the petition. Mr. Heaukulani seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. Ms. Schoen said she would prepare the opinion for the Board's review during Executive Session at the next meeting. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to go into Executive Session for review of the confidential matters in agenda item 6. Mr. Heaukulani seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 11:20 a.m.: The Board left Regular Session. 11:35 a.m.: The Board returned to Regular Session. 10 6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Approval of the minutes of the January 12, 2011, Executive Session. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Heaukulani 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: Mr. Balsis moved to approve all of the disclosures except for 1, 8, 9, 10, and 23. Mr. Heaukulani seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Dill announced the next meeting: March 9, 2011, at 10:00 a. m. at 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo, Hawaii. 8. ADJOURNED 11:40 a.m.: The meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted Mary E. Crosson, Secretary 11