Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-11 Board of Ethics minutes HAWAI‘I COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 25 Aupuni Street County Council Chambers Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Members and Staff Present: John E. K. Dill, Chair David Heaukulani, Vice Chair Glen Hisashima, Member Renee N. C. Schoen, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Fujio, Secretary NOTE: Blanks indicate inaudible or indecipherable speech. 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Dill called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Hisashima stated that he was recusing himself from agenda item 5a, Petition No. 2012-01. Mr. Heakulani stated that he also was recusing himself from Petition No. 2012-01. Mr. Dill said that a quorum of three non-recused board members is needed to make official votes on agenda items. However, as quite a few people had signed up to provide public testimony, the board would hear the testimony but not be able to take action. Mr. Dill called up Dan Cole, who had signed up to testify regarding agenda items 4a, 5a, 5b, and 5c. He reminded everyone that public testimony would be limited to three minutes per agenda item. MR. COLE: Good morning, council members—oh, excuse me, Board of Ethics members. I’m so used to testifying here. I’d like to note I ran into David Heaukulani at one of the political rallies, and he said you all miss me. I’m sure you all got the testimony I presented to you in writing, as you can see. On the petition it took me three years to get the investigation into the Board of Ethics, how do I say, accessory after the fact to criminal attempts of the United States Code, bank fraud, extortion, racketeering. The effort that has been made by your taking action, as you’ve done to me before while there’s no quorum, then you delay, etc. It makes little difference. You’re all aware that I appeared before you in an attempt to bring to the attention bank fraud, corruption, racketeering, and your involvement. No action taken. I will leave with you the exact documents of the County of Hawai‘i, Mayor Kenoi, and the Finance Director Nancy Crawford, who I petitioned before this board for an investigation. Here’s the exact illegal bonds being sold by the mayor and Nancy Crawford, the deposit slip from the Bank of Hawai‘i to the First Hawaiian Bank, the return of principal to the First Hawaiian Bank, and the federal IRS forms in tax free obligations. This is bank fraud. This is what you are involved with. This is what your actions, in order not to review and go on petition against Nancy Crawford, resulted in. As you’re all aware, the FBI is in town, and that brings the two biggest lies we have in law enforcement, when the feds come into a jurisdiction and say hi, we’re the feds, we’re here to help you. The second biggest lie is, we’re local enforcement and we’re glad to have you here. I’ve also noted that I’ve ______ the corruption. I filed this morning with the mayor a request for the actual county financial records that show what the County of Hawai‘i paid—the people of Hawai‘i paid, to Bank of Hawai‘i for every $10 million bond with $66,000--there are multiple bonds, for the privilege of the First Hawaiian Bank using the peoples’ money at th 1/8 of a one percent interest. Again, this is what you swore to uphold. The constitutions, your obligations, and your actions under the color of law are in violation of the United States Code and the oath you took for the people. If I could just briefly—I’ll go through the other three, if that’s all right. MR. DILL: Yeah. So you also wanted to comment on— MR. COLE: --Item 5a, b, and c. I’ll lump them together real quickly. MR. DILL: Okay. MR. COLE: In regards to the new business, we have a petition to review the actions of council members as to whether they appear or not. It appears to be a dismissal of quorum, or suddenly a quorum not being available seems to be the modus operandi of preference these days in government meetings. The other one is to discuss the operations or the investigations of this board. This board is a body that can in fact take investigations and sworn testimony. Had this board taken the actions in June of 2009 against Lincoln Ashida, Emily Naeole, and Ms. Garson, the exposure of racketeering and corruption and the threats of the people would have been brought forth and could have been mitigated. However, this board did not do that. Discussions is—you’ve all taken an oath, and all of our council members have taken an oath, to protect, defend, and uphold the constitutions, state and federal. It is the first amendment right of all persons of free speech and to petition the government in redress of grievance. My appearance before these boards, the council, filing with the police, filing with the mayor, is required by the United States Code, Criminal Title 18, Subsection 4, misprision of felony. Any person within the territories of the United States that has actual knowledge of a felony being committed cognizable by a court of the United States is required by law under penalty of imprisonment of three years to bring forth that information to an authority of or under the United States. This board being a duly sworn board is in fact an authority under the United States. The information presented before you is in accordance with and required by the United States Code. Your failure to take action on this information places you in knowing and knowingly violation of the United States Code, Criminal Title 18, Subsection 3, accessory after the fact. Two, violations of Title 18, United States Code, 371, conspiracy against rights of individuals, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 242, deprivation of rights under the color of law for the purpose of engaging in violations of Criminal Title 18, United States Code, 1584, involuntary servitude, which in combined by the 1988 United States Supreme Court ruling of the U.S. versus Kominski, out of Michigan. You have now committed an act and action and accessory to violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, identifying that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within a territory in the control of the United States. I therefore leave you with your own conscience. I will present this information to the secretary, and you can have the actual knowledge of the violations that you are assisting in. Thank you very much. Mr. Dill stated that public testimony would be taken regarding agenda item 5a, Petition No. 2012-01. He said that written testimony had been received from Ian Lee Loy on this matter and asked if Mr. Lee Loy were present. There was no response. He said Mr. Lee Loy’s testimony would be filed. He called up Pearl Haili to testify. MS. HAILI: Good morning. My name is Pearl Haili, and I’m here because I’m in charge of Pana‘ewa Neighborhood Watch, and we’re part of the Pana‘ewa Hawaiian Home Lands Community Association. And I’m only here for Fresh Onishi. Now, I met him two years ago. It started with our park—we’d been having problems in Pana‘ewa. And a lot of people are aware of that. Used to have fights coming in—always after midnight, it ends before five. Kids do come in and fight. And we been asking the county for lights in our park and gates along the No‘eau side. Well, that never happened. The story was always no more money. Okay, two years ago we had a big gang in our area, fighting. And the youngest was eleven years old. This is after one o’clock in the morning. We went out. It was so bad that I ended up going to the County Council. Fresh—that’s how I got involved with Fresh. Because of him, two months later we had the blockings. The main entrance to get in, because they couldn’t afford the gate, the blockings came in, which is what I’m responsible for at this time. I open it up in the morning, and the guys lock it at night. That’s one of the things that Fresh was involved in. The second one was March, this past March made one year--community policing came into the picture. Because if you’re familiar with the Kūhiō Plaza, Macy’s and Long’s—across the street, that whole bushes, from Ohuohu down to Pilipaa Street, had so much illegal activities going inside there. And because we live on the other end by the park, I never paid attention to that particular part. Illegal activities, drugs, fighting, partying. Name them, they had them in there. Homeless. What I didn’t realize is all the junks that was inside there. So we agreed to go in and clean up that area. Now we don’t get money from the association. We’ve been blessed in so many other ways. But we started cleaning up that area. And then Fresh played a big role in that, because through him we get the inmates that come out once a month, the first week of the month, and they help us clean up. Because our neighborhood watch group is small. But whatever we’re doing, it’s not about me, it’s not about anybody. It’s about safety for the community, for the kids, and for the public. Another thing, too, that I had to go to the County Council for was because of the vendors. And you know, I feel sorry for these people. Why? Because everybody’s trying to make money just to live. We all know that. But they started fighting. Some of them—you had the good ones and you had the ugly ones. But some of them started to fight for space, oh I was here first. But anyway, we went to the County Council meeting, and that’s another thing that Fresh made possible. And that’s all I’m here for, to let you folks know the good part he did. I don’t know about anybody else. All I know is what concerns us. And I thank you very much. Mr. Dill called up Robert Petricci to testify on Petition 2012-01. MR. PETRICCI: Good morning. My name is Robert Petricci, and I’m here to talk about the Fresh Onishi and Donald Ikeda complaint. I’m a small business owner out in Puna, and I’ve come in to testify on several issues. And I rarely see Mr. Onishi there. And I have to take off work to come in, and that means I lose money. And at the same time I got to pay Mr. Onishi, and he’s missing 30% of his votes. I got a problem with that. I think that if I hired somebody in my business and he didn’t come to work 30% of the time, I got to fire him. And I don’t know what you guys’ rules are, but we pay him to come. I know he no like listen to me. You know, he’s funny, of the kind issues he no like come. But if he got other business and all that, then he should run his other business. He shouldn’t be taking our paycheck. Maybe what you guys got to do is put some kind of—you work 60%, 70% of the time, you get 60 or 70% of the pay. The other thing is, he gets--I think it’s $600 traveling money, but he don’t travel. We had one meeting in Pāhoa. He no come. And I never see him in Kona. He take the money for the gas and all that, but he don’t go. So I just hope you guys clean up the rules. I got a problem with that. I got to pay—I’m paying that, and he don’t listen to me. And he don’t vote on the issues. So maybe he should go back to his other business. Thank you. Mr. Dill called up Kerri Marks to testify on Petition 2012-01. MS. MARKS: I’m Kerri Marks. I’m here to testify on the Fresh Onishi and Donald Ikeda ethics complaint. I agree with everything Mr. Petricci just said. I’ve been coming to council meetings to testify for several many months in a row, and quite often Mr. Onishi and Mr. Ikeda are not here at all. They don’t show up. He’s right—we had a special council meeting in Pāhoa, and all seven of the other council members came, but Fresh and Donald did not. What they also do a lot of times is they stay away all day and they come in just in time to vote. I find that particularly irritating, that they go and work their other business or whatever it is, they got meetings. I think I overheard one of them say that we’re meeting with constituents. Why are you planning meetings with constituents on a day that council is on the agenda? I know when the council meetings are. They’re on my calendar. And so I clear my day. Just like Bob, I’m self-employed. I have to take a day off to come down here and hang out. This is their paid position. They should be here all day every day. At the end of the last council meeting I attended, I overheard Mr. Ikeda say what, we’re done? It’s not even seven o’clock yet. We were there the day before. So I mentioned from the front row, well, we were all here yesterday. And he just glared at me. I find it extremely offensive that he comes in at the last minute to vote on issues and bills that he heard no public testimony on. And that’s what I have to say about that. Mahalo. Mr. Dill called up Tina Floyd to testify on Petition 2012-01. MS. FLOYD: Good morning. My name is Tina Floyd, and I’m from Pāhoa. I’m here to also—I agree with both of the testifiers before me. We take time out of our busy lives to come down here and to engage with what is supposed to be a democratic process. We elected these folks to sit in these chairs and to listen to us so that they can vote as representatives of us. And it’s somewhat patronizing to be here all day and to be listening intently and to be listening to the council members that are here, and then to have someone who’s not been here listening all day to slide in at the last minute to vote. Also, to leave early, to be up and down, to have these meetings have other things planned. We elect these folks, but we pay them. And that’s not true in all municipal governments. Many elected bodies actually serve as volunteers. We’re paying our folks, and we really expect them, for those four days of the month that they are supposed to be here, to be here. So what I’m here to ask all of you to do is to consider making some rules that have some teeth. We need to have some sort of loop to where, like Bob said, if you’re gone a certain percentage of the time, you get docked in some way, whether it’s pay or whatever it is. Maybe the council themselves could weigh in and come up with those rules. So I would like you all to please consider that. This is a problem. It’s chronic. We all would not be here today if it weren’t a big issue. So we’ll be back. Thank you. Mr. Dill called up Ronald Fujiyoshi, who had signed up to testify on agenda item 5b. MR. FUJIYOSHI: If I can, I want to testify on a also. MR. DILL: Okay, go ahead. MR. FUJIYOSHI: Good morning. I don’t know if we call you commissioners, but board members of the ethics commission. My name is Ronald Fujiyoshi. I am a lay pastor in the United Church of Christ. I served as a missionary in Asia for 20 years and came back in ’88. I have been attending quite a number of council meetings and testifying on a number of issues, especially more recently. And my experience in other organizations, like within my church, even though people have been at odds before they came into a meeting of a process of talking it out—it’s been sometimes very miraculous, how people change their mind after discussing with each other and hearing different sides to the issues. And so I feel the participation in the process is very key, and the more eye-to-eye and directly you’re engaging, the more possibility you can really understand the views of everybody in the room and come to a fair and better understanding. So it’s not just the voting that’s important, but hearing the testimony and seeing the body language and looking people in the eye. I think it’s very important. And so—especially in the case of Councilmember Onishi, that even after the article came out in the newspaper, in the next council meeting he wasn’t even present for most of the discussion. Now my understanding is that there may not be clear guidelines in terms of ethics dealing with council members. It has to do up to now mainly with people who are employees of the county. And so I ask that the Board of Ethics draft ethics that pertain to council members so that they can better serve their people, and this be something that goes to the council and then they can refine it. Thank you very much. Mr. Dill called up Terri Napeahi, who had signed up to testify on Petition 2012-01. MS. NAPEAHI: Good morning, commission. My name is Terri Napeahi, and I was the one that made the ethics complaint. And I’m not sure what your process is, so am I able to ask a few questions? MR. DILL: Sure, yeah. MS. NAPEAHI: Just in regards to the decision-making process. If there are six members on your commission and two have recused—is that what you call it—so does that mean that the decisions will be for a later date? MR. DILL: Yeah, we’re going to need to continue it until we get a quorum, which is three members. MS. NAPEAHI: So the next time that there is another hearing, you will notify me? MR. DILL: Yeah, we will. We have actually five members, not six. So two are missing today, and then two that are here out of the three have recused themselves from this particular petition. MS. NAPEAHI: Would this continue if I was to come again and testify again for the same reasons I’m here today? MR. DILL: Yeah, actually, because this portion right now is just public testimony on agenda items, and then during our review—initial review which is on the agenda today, of the petition itself, we would normally call you up, the petitioner, and talk to you, and allow for the respondents. But the first thing the board has to do is choose an action. And unfortunately, because we don’t even have enough people to choose that, we’ll have to continue it to the August meeting. MS. NAPEAHI: So August is the next meeting? MR. DILL: Yes. MS. NAPEAHI: Okay. I think I did give a copy of the complaint, attached with the Code of Ethics that are in place. And so— MR. DILL: --I think what you’re trying to ask, too, is what our process is. MS. NAPEAHI: I don’t know the process, and I was wondering if there was going to be— MR. DILL: --Should the majority of the board vote to move forward and follow this and look closer into the petition, then basically it’s our responsibility to see the allegations— that’s why we ask you to specify which code sections you feel are being violated. MS. NAPEAHI: And if what I’m trying to propose is not stated on the Code of Ethics? MR. DILL: Then the decision will be up to the board whether it meets that threshold of being a violation, if it pertains to the code, if it can be applied to the code. And in some cases, if our code is not addressing an issue that we have, then we need to look at rule changes in our code itself, and that’s also on the agenda for today, if you noticed. So there’s a variety of things that can happen. The first and most important is the majority of the board has to vote to move forward. So until we can get to that point, we’re kind of stuck at the starting gate, if you know what I mean. But you followed the correct procedure so far, and everything is the way it’s supposed to be. That’s all. MS. NAPEAHI: Okay, I will continue then. MR. DILL: You can start the three minutes now. And if you need more, just let us know. Okay? MS. NAPEAHI: Okay, thank you. You know, my complaint had nothing to do with the character of a person. I myself know Mr. Fresh Onishi personally. However, it has nothing to do with his character. It has nothing to do with personal reasons, or how he benefits the community which I live in. I’m in his district, and I am very familiar with the people that live in it. I was born and raised in Keaukaha, and I continue to live there. So it has nothing—I just wanted to let you know that it had nothing to do with character. But it had a lot to do with what I think is integrity, also what’s important for a county council to have, when people do present themselves with issues that are very important to their lives. And that is the reason why I made the complaint. I had experienced the times that I was sitting here with issues that are important to community members, as well as myself. I just wanted to make sure that everyone here understood why the complaint was made. And a lot of it to me is that it’s important for our leaders to be able to give our constituents that live in our community a listening ear, and to be able to engage with the people that are actually taking time to make their testimonies in regards to the issues that are being presented to the council. And I don’t—with my experience, I just wondered and I questioned, when someone makes a decision as we’re giving testimony, do they need to be present? And I’d like to speak to someone. That is my—to me it’s important to be able to engage with the person, see them eye-to-eye, so that they can understand what I’m presenting. And I didn’t see that with the hours that we were here giving our testimony. And that is the reason why I brought this up. And I think, with yourself too, if you did have the opportunity to present something that was important to you, you would like them to engage in a conversation. And so I questioned the attendance and if it was important, and the answer to some of them was well, we do have a computer and a video that we can choose to use and not be present here, and that they’re listening to our conversations. We don’t know that. I’d like to know that when we are giving testimony, all who should be there making decisions are engaging in what we’re talking about. That to me is just showing some moral integrity, and it’s showing some respect for the people that are actually taking the time to be here and to put forward their concerns. And I don’t think that’s too much to ask for, only because I think that’s how our legislation is done. We engage with the people. We are the people that make the law. And that’s what we’re here for. And so these are some of the things that I wanted to bring up. Councilmen Onishi and Ikeda has not sat in any of the day-long testimonies that I’ve sat in, and there were quite a few. It appears to be that when the votings are being—when it’s time to vote, they appear. And sometimes I think that is unfair, to be making a vote if you weren’t in attendance. And then I was told well maybe they were—maybe, maybe they were watching it on their TV or their computer. But how do we check that? How do we have a checks and balance on the integrity of the county council member? In the Ethics Code it doesn’t say anything about the behavior of a county council person as he sits here, in front of testimonies. And we would like that to at least be addressed somewhere, somewhere—in policy, to have some kind of checks and balances on the integrity and the concerns of people. And that is the reason why I put that out. MR. DILL: Ms. Napeahi, if you have other items that you want to cover in more detail, we can have you testify during the initial review of the petition, during our actual meet— MS. NAPEAHI: --The initial review? MR. DILL: Yes, which is under New Business. We’ll bring it up again, and we can call you up and you can go into more detail if you want. Because just right now we’re only in the public—the item number 2 on the agenda, just statements from the public. So do you have more you want to talk about? MS. NAPEAHI: I’m sorry, I was just thought I was here to be in front of you— MR. DILL: Yeah, and we will call you up to hear your petition and your side of it. MS. NAPEAHI: So do I have to stay here to make a continued testimony? MR. DILL: Yeah, we can call you. You’re the first item on New Business, so you can go into more detail—because you started touching on the computer and the checks and balances of seeing if they’re actually looking on the computer or whatnot, the live stream, and there were a couple more things you wanted to talk about? MS. NAPEAHI: Well, I think you touched the _________. Okay, thank you— MR. DILL: --Yeah, if you want to hang out, we can call you for more. MS. NAPEAHI: And how long is that going to be? MR. DILL: Not much longer. We only have three more statements from the public, so pretty soon. You’re the first item on New Business. MS. NAPEAHI: Okay. MR. DILL: Okay, thank you, ma’am. MS. NAPEAHI: Thank you. Mr. Dill called Gary Oamilda, who had signed up to testify on item 5c MR. OAMILDA: Well you know, I guess I want to talk about item 2. MR. DILL: Okay, “a” as well? MR. OAMILDA: Yeah. MR. DILL: Okay. MR. OAMILDA: You know, I come from Ka‘ū. I drive all the way from Ka‘ū every— excuse me, I’m Gary Oamilda, and I’m glad to be testifying here. I come from Ka‘ū, and I come to testify on matters, or listen to testimony on matters, that I deem important. And work ethics says that if I’m holding a job, I do the job the best I can. In this instance, it’s listening to testimony. If you guys on that side, and I’m on this side, I think it’s just common respect that you give me your full attention when I’m up here. And to have these people here, or not being here, is like kind of great—it’s like you guys have part-time jobs. I mean not you guys, but these people have a part-time job, basically four days out of the month, and they cannot give full attention to those days. I agree with some of the people that testified before about you know your schedule. Pay attention to it. It’s just common courtesy, I think. And then it’s appalling that they will not be here. And sure, the aides say well, they’re upstairs listening. Well, come on, man. Let’s have some eye- to-eye contact. Let me know that you’re actually hearing my words and reacting to what I’m feeling. If there are no rules, this committee should certainly consider putting rules in place, or the council themselves should consider policing themselves so as not to give the appearance of this—this ineptness, or whatever you want to call it, this underhanded. Thank you. Mr. Dill called up Palikapu Dedman, who had signed up to testify on Petition 2012-01. MR. DEDMAN: Gee, the incompetence of our complaints. It seems like the same with you folks, in your ethics. How often do you meet, and then you can’t have quorum? It shows the inconsistency of this government and yourselves, too. In the complaint we was trying to complain about was the fact that there is nothing to complain about that guides council people. They got no guidelines. It’s all about employees in ethics. And I don’t know how often you folks look at that or pay attention to anything like that, but sitting up there and recusing yourselves—from what? It’s not about the character. It’s about how he acts or the ethics and what he’s supposed to be carrying out his duties. It’s not about his projects in his community. We’re not here to complain about that. We complain about how he talks about other communities that he’s responsible for. He’s not just responsible for Keaukaha. He’s speaking for the whole island. So they all should show up and speak up for the whole island, not just their districts and their pet projects, and everybody’s happy in their district, while everybody else on the other side, out of their districts, don’t get their so-called respect. When I looked and said that there is nothing that guidelines these council people, do they get excused? What consists of an excuse? A doctor’s slip? That’s what happens when I work. I’m excused, I need a doctor’s slip. I don’t need to just say something to the rest of my councilmen, that I got a basketball game, or I got a baseball game, or I got some baby party I got to go to. That’s what you use an excuse to miss out on saying and making decisions that affects people’s lives, for the rest of their lives they live here? People come up here and give testimony about how they going live, and their life, and how serious that is. And you got people up here with their arrogance, miss four hundred something votes, 30% of their time spent someplace else. And how do you get your position as people on ethics boards? How do you get it? Ex-employees, or people in the community? And how you make your decision? Why you guys no like make decision? You, Glen. Do you know somebody? We’re talking about how you act as a councilman, not how you act at home. How you act and deliver to the public. What we pay you to do. That’s how you make your decision. You guys got no rules on each other. That’s why how would we pick out an argument on the ethics code when there’s nothing to pick out on? We have to make our own list of arguments and complaints about what they do, and what ethic is. And you probably went through the whole year and the whole process of waiting till somebody else make a complaint? You lucky we made a complaint to bring you to this awareness. But you guys better do something about it, sitting up there on these chairs, making us ask you something that’s supposed to have been the other way around, you telling us how good it is. Not us complaining how bad it is. And you meet so much—what, once a month? And you cannot have quorum? You guys just like the council people already. Mr. Dill called up Nu‘uanu Lee, who had signed up to testify on Petition 2012-01. MR. LEE: Good morning, board members. You know, my testimony—when I sit down and give a testimony to a board, I take it very seriously. And I expect people that I respect as making decisions in my life to be there. And when they’re not, then they can’t make no right decisions. And again I look at this board this morning, and I see the same thing. People missing. People not here. Why is this? Why do we have to go through this? Come back and testify again for the same thing. You guys up there making the decisions, we’re letting you know what the problem is. So it’s time, it’s time for you guys and the government people of this island to really take a good look at what you guys doing as far as decision-making going. So just get it together, because the people are tired of this bull and we’re not going to stand for it. Thank you. Mr. Dill called up Ike Payne, who had signed up to testify on Petition 2012-01. MR. PAYNE: Good morning. Aloha, my name is Ike Payne, and when I came here this morning, I wanted to testify on what was going on at council. But after getting here and finding out that the Board of Ethics is doing the exact same thing, I’m angered. I’m very disappointed, because this has been in the paper for over a week. You guys have known the whole entire time and still you guys have chosen not to be here--the ones that aren’t here and the ones that have recused themselves. You know this is an important issue. You know that the rules that govern all of the bodies, whether it’s the county council, whether it’s where you’re sitting right now, there needs to be ethic rules that guide how everybody—how their actions are mandated down to the public. And you guys should be ashamed of yourselves just as much as them, even more so, because you guys are the Board of Ethics. This is shameful. This should not be happening, and I hope that everybody is there in August, because we are coming in force--in force. This will not continue. Thank you. Several more people had signed up to testify. Mr. Dill called up Lori Buchanan, who had signed up to testify on agenda items 5a, 5b, and 5c. MS. BUCHANAN: Good morning, chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I’m not too familiar with the Board of Ethics and how you operate on Maui—Big Island. I am familiar how the Board of Ethics conduct themselves in Maui County. I do agree with the testifiers on the reason why they brought forth the petition, and I think I was surprised when I sat down and heard that two councilmembers had recused themselves over what I had interpreted to be a pretty benign petition. Usually the ethics commission deals with a type of fiduciary—I guess fiduciary response on recusal, and so I was wondering if chair could provide me by email the section, or cite the rule, that would apply to the members being able to recuse themselves for anything other than a fiduciary type of benefit. There was not a reason stated in the beginning why the members chose to recuse themselves from the New Business items a, b, and c. And so I did review some of the rules for the ethics commission and couldn’t find something that would relate to that. So how would yourselves, being the Board of Ethics, rule over a recusal of a ethics member, I guess is my question. MR. DILL: You’re requesting the rule section regarding the recusal? MS. BUCHANAN: Yeah, or emailing me, because you have my address, something that I could review, because otherwise it’s the fox watching the henhouse issue. MR. DILL: We can get you that. And just to clarify, and I’ll double check with counsel, it is stated in our rules, the recusal, and the process and the requirements. So we’ll get that to you. MS. BUCHANAN: So did I miss it, or was a reason for recusal stated? MR. DILL: The reason for recusal isn’t required in the rules, but I think everybody here—we’ll get to it when we hear from the petitioner a little bit more. MS. BUCHANAN: Oh, okay. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Dill thanked everyone for their testimony. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2012 Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. Mr. Dill said that before moving on to item 4, he wanted to place on the record that the Board of Ethics is a voluntary board. He said he believed that one community member from each island district was nominated by the council member of that district to the board, and the county council would need to vote on approving the nomination and the mayor would then need to sign his approval. He asked Ms. Schoen if that was correct, and Ms. Schoen said that there are no district requirements. Board members are chosen from the community and they need to appear before the county council for approval. Members serve a five-year term. 4. COMMUNICATIONS a. Memorandum Opinion dated 6/26/12 from the Office of Information Practices regarding the “Sufficiency of and Omission from Agenda (S INVES-P 10-5)”. Ms. Schoen explained that a complaint had been filed with the Office of Information Practices (“OIP”). OIP’s response addressed essentially three areas, which were: the manner in which the board handles public testimony; whether or not it is proper for the board to not name a complainant or respondent on its agenda; and the board’s not considering correspondence the complainant wanted the board to consider. On all three points, OIP found that there was no violation. Mr. Dill said he noticed that OIP did not reference the Circuit Court and asked if that is the primary venue to appeal a decision by the board. Ms. Schoen said yes. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to accept and file the communication, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2012-01: Initial review of petition requesting investigation of two officers’ “attendance and voting record during the publicized scheduled hearings in the Council Chambers of Hawai‘i Island,” alleging violation of Sections 2-80 (interpretation of article) and 2-83 (fair treatment) of the Hawai‘i County Code of Ethics. MR. DILL: Ms. Napeahi, could you come back up, please? MR. HEAUKULANI: Mr. Chairman? MR. DILL: Yes? MR. HEAUKULANI: David Heaukulani. I must recuse myself from Petition No. 2012- 01. Fresh Onishi and I are friends. We go back many years, and I campaigned on his—I worked on his campaign. To deliberate on this petition would put me in a conflict of interest, I believe. If I find in favor of him is it because of the friendship, or is it because of my integrity? For Mr. Ikeda, I campaigned on his first year—election, because his brother is a good friend of mine, and I asked Amy Miwa, who works with his office, to nominate me—for Donald to nominate me to this Board. So I believe that’s also a conflict of interest. And if you so not decide, counsel, so be it. But I feel it’s important enough not to have that conflict be—impede this deliberation. MS. SCHOEN: Your honor—I’m sorry, Mr. Chair, if I may, so that the record is clear. Your Board Rule 1.5 states that a board member may disqualify themselves if they are unable to participate with absolute impartiality in the proceedings. Also relevant to any type of disqualification or recusal would be case law, which says that courts look at an actual bias, either a substantial financial or personal interest, and they also look at the appearance of impropriety. So the Supreme Court has said that a person should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and the appearance of impropriety is the proper standard. And so with that, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to put that on the record, so it’s clear. MR. DILL: Okay, thank you, counsel. Ms. Napeahi, thank you again for not only filing the petition but for being here today and for bringing this to our attention. On behalf of the Board, I do want to personally apologize that we can’t act on it today. I know your time, and everybody’s time, is very vital. But it is the Board’s intention to rule on this, and rule on it properly and impartially, without bias. So I do appreciate your doing this. During the public testimony you started touching on a few other things that you wanted to talk about, primarily aides saying that the council members are in their office, watching the live stream. There’s no methods in place to check on that. Also you and some of the other testifiers did mention you feel there’s a lack of specificity in the code pertaining to attendance and voting records and whatnot. And so please, if you want to elaborate any more on your petition, you have the floor. MS. NAPEAHI: I have a few more questions before we proceed, if I may. MR. DILL: Okay. MS. NAPEAHI: And that is in regards to quorum for you. Now if he’s recusing himself, he can continue to do that. How much—how many do you need in order to make a decision? MR. DILL: Three. MS. NAPEAHI: Three? MR. DILL. Yup. MS. NAPEAHI: So if he recuses himself, you have one more. So in the next procedure, or the next—in August, there will be only three of you voting. So if it continues, there will be—they’re not counted _______. Is that true? MR. DILL: Um hmm. MS. NAPEAHI: Okay. So it would—could we have a substitute? Is there someone else in place? MR. DILL: This is a six-member board, correct? No, it’s a five-member board. MS. NAPEAHI: Five-member board. MS. SCHOEN: Mr. Chair, if I may. This is a five-member board. Per the Hawai‘i County Charter, you need a majority of the members to which the Board is entitled--so that would be three--to make any action valid. Since you have two members that have recused themselves, you’ll only have three. MS. NAPEAHI: So I only have three left. MS. SCHOEN: Yes. MS. NAPEAHI: The other two? MS. SCHOEN: One is out of the country, and one is ill. MS. NAPEAHI: But you’re mandated to have these hearings scheduled? So you could have told us that this wasn’t going to be a hearing where I could be able to give some pertinent information to the council, to your commission? MS. SCHOEN: Okay, right now the matter is set for initial hearing. And so what I think the Board chair has said is they’re going to take whatever testimony that you want to provide today. But the Board cannot take any action on it because you don’t have the requisite number. So you can provide testimony today on your petition and not come back next time, or you could come back again next time if you want. It’s entirely up to you. But this is an initial review. So at the initial review, what the Board does is it looks at the petition to determine whether or not it should proceed, whether it should schedule an informal hearing, a formal hearing, or whether or not the petition should be dismissed. MS. NAPEAHI: I had this request to be here, a letter, almost two weeks ago. And if you had known that you weren’t able to make a decision today— MS. SCHOEN: --We didn’t know until today. MS. NAPEAHI: That you weren’t going to have— MS. SCHOEN: --Yes, yes. MR. DILL: We’re not allowed to speak of board business outside of official realm. They recused themselves today. That’s why counsel mentioned, what we do when we get petitions is the first thing we do is have an initial review of it to identify if there’s any conflicts and then to see which course of action we’re going to take--if we have quorum to move forward. I can tell you as a remaining ruling board member on this board regarding your petition that hasn’t recused himself, also as the sitting chairman of this board, it is my intention to get this petition followed through thoroughly and not to avoid it and not to come up with excuses to not hear it. Now I need certain systems to be in place and people to be here in order for me to make it official, and a board decision and not just a chair motion. So you have my assurance that I’m not here to try and ditch anything, okay. We do have a system in place and rules we have to follow, and I don’t want you to interpret this in any way as belittling your petition or not taking it seriously. MS. NAPEAHI: Can I ask Glen why he recused? MR. HISASHIMA: Can I answer? MR. DILL: Yeah, you may. MR. HISASHIMA: First of all, for Fresh Onishi. He’s representing me. I have asked him to do a lot of investigations on my behalf against the county. I voted for him, I support him, and a lot of times I go into his office and talk about county issues that I need clarification. I’m just like you folks, asking for transparency, responsibility, and who is going to be held accountable. And some of my issues is not completed yet. It is dealing with the county. As far as Mr. Ikeda, we’ve been a long lifetime friends. He lives up in Kaūmana, where I come from. His dad and my dad had done a lot of businesses together. I support Mr. Ikeda, and I don’t want any sign of impropriety, because I know them very well. This island is too small. And I want to give you folks the fair chance to come out with what you folks are looking at. I for one don’t like anybody saying that I was favored for one side or another. I don’t believe that I can—I can make a fair choice, and I can make a good decision. But I’ve always heard this word—transparency, transparency. I recuse myself because of that. MR. DILL: Thank you. MS. NAPEAHI: I have one more question. It seems like—okay, it seems like to me that even with being in front of you, I might have to be doing the same thing as to why I’m complaining for two councilmen. And that is engaging with important testimony that are coming from people that take up their time to talk about what is important, engaging, eye-to-eye—Renee, John, David, and Glen—eye-to-eye so that you can understand that you’re listening to me, and how important it is. Fresh Onishi is in my district in Keaukaha, and I see these people that I grew up with here to support him. And I see people here in front of me here to support people that I’m complaining about. What for? So that we can have the proper—proper judgment on issues that are real to the lives of our people. It is not personal. It is not because I know him. It is not because I know Pat Kahawaiolaa. It is not because I know Mrs. Haili and the people that are Hawaiian sitting here, supporting someone for their district. It has nothing to do with that. It has a lot to do with the decision-making table that sits in front of me, making decisions for the lifestyle that I want to live, for my generation. Engaging eye-to-eye, not guessing whether they’re looking at the computer about what we’re testifying about. Glen. Mr. David Heaukulani. Like you, right now. I’m really discouraged, because now I’m thinking who can I complain in the next level? OIP? Can I put some complaint there, too? Will I be going through the same process? The same process. It is not fair for people that have pertinent issues that are—that are really death-threatening to some people. Death-threatening. In other areas, traditional customary practices for our people—religion, for our people, that is recognized by our government, your government, the state statutes you understand. We’re here testifying to keep our ‘aina. We’re here testifying to be able to understand that our environment is important to our lives, to your lives. It has nothing to do with peoples’ personal benefit and how they take care of someone else. What I’m saying is that there are pertinent issues that should be heard, like right now. Right now, engaging with me and understanding that I took off my job, my personal job, to be here, to testify in an ethics complaint that I made. I made an ethics complaint. I took the time. I put it in the newspaper. I have people questioning me—Terri, why did you do that? Why did you expose yourself? Why did you put the Napeahi name on the front page? How shame. That’s the kind of ridicule I’m getting. I put my life in front of you because it is important to me. It is my reputation as a Napeahi to be here, to talk truth. I have for generations had people coming in here, talking truth, and I am not ashamed to be here to talk truth. If I was, I would be home criticizing people and not coming up here, standing up firmly for what I believe in. It has nothing to do with character-bashing. It has a lot to do with what is right for the people. Engage with me. Look in my eye and know that I am not talking about anything else but me and why I complained. For the same reason, that you’re doing the same reason the county did, same reason. Now who else do I complain to? OIP? Is there someone else that I need to complain to, so that I can be heard? MR. DILL: Ms. Napeahi, like I said, we will address this by the board level. You’re doing the right thing, okay— MS. NAPEAHI: --I need to know the next step, because nobody’s listening to me. The county council? You’re not listening to me. MR. DILL: I am. MS. NAPEAHI: Who else do I go to? MR. DILL: I am. I am listening to you. This board is not complete at today’s meeting. The process we follow is when someone files a petition, we take it very seriously, number one. Number two, we need to make sure that it’s treated fairly and thoughtfully in a way that is pono, okay? As chairman, that’s what I demand of this board. MS. NAPEAHI: Pono. MR. DILL: That’s what I said, yeah. MS. NAPEAHI: You understand pono? MR. DILL: I’m not going to answer that question, all right? I’m trying to explain to you that we’re taking your petition seriously. We are listening to you. MS. NAPEAHI: You are? MR. DILL: Yes. I am. I am listening to you. MS. NAPEAHI: You are listening to me. MR. DILL: That’s what I volunteered to do, Ms. Napeahi. Okay? And to do it in a way that’s impartial. Okay? I will do everything I can to make sure that this board follows the correct rules and addresses your complaint seriously through the processes that the government has set up, okay? MS. NAPEAHI: You have no rules that talk about what I’m talking about. MR. DILL: That’s something we need to discuss— MS. NAPEAHI: --I had to choose. Your application— MR. DILL: --Exactly— MS. NAPEAHI: --talks about the Code of Ethics in place that were violated. I don’t find anything in there for what I’m trying to petition to you. So what do I do now? If it’s not in the Code of Ethics, what do you do? Do you amend it? Do you add? What do you do? MR. DILL: There’s processes in place to change the Code of Ethics. MS. NAPEAHI: Okay, I’m done. MR. DILL: Okay. All right, thank you, Ms. Napeahi. We will—what we usually do is allow for respondents to testify during the initial review of the petition. Do we have Fresh and Mr. Ikeda here? Would you guys like to say a few words? MR. IKEDA: No response __________. MR. DILL: All right. We will continue Petition No. 2012-01 to the August meeting and place it on the agenda. b. Discussion regarding the proper procedure for the board to conduct an investigation and/or hearing into alleged violations of the Hawai‘i County Code of Ethics by an officer or employee pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Board of Ethics. Mr. Dill said he would like to entertain a motion to move into executive session to consult with counsel regarding board actions. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani so moved, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 11:10 a.m.: The board left regular session. * * * * * 11:37 a.m.: The board returned to regular session. Mr. Dill said that he would defer to counsel regarding New Business, item 5b. Ms. Schoen explained that this matter was placed on the agenda because one or two board members had questions on what the proper procedure was for the board to conduct an investigation on its own. She directed the board’s attention to HCC Section 2-86(b), which says that the board itself may petition for an informal advisory opinion on alleged violations of the code by an officer or employee. Rule 5.2 set out the procedure to follow in order for the board to conduct its own investigation. They would need a resolution supported by a majority of the board, and it would need to define the nature and scope of the inquiry being made. The rule also states who can conduct the hearing and what the board can do once it conducts the investigation, which would basically be to issue an informal advisory opinion or to conduct a formal hearing. Mr. Dill asked whether they needed to specify a formal or informal investigation under a resolution. Ms. Schoen said the rule specifies that the investigation is to be done in an informal manner. The board would also have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. Upon completing the informal investigation, however, the board could decide to conduct either an informal or formal hearing. Mr. Dill said he would entertain a motion from the board to agendize for the next meeting a resolution to initiate an informal investigation, with the resolution to be prepared by counsel and the details provided therein. Motion and vote: Mr. Hisashima so moved, Mr. Heaukulani seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. c. Discussion regarding amendments to the Board of Ethics Rules of Practice and Procedure. Ms. Schoen explained that she is working with Mr. Balsis regarding amendments to the board’s rules. She said if anyone has any suggestions on changes or amendments to the rules, to provide them to her and she can work with Mr. Balsis, and they’ll come back to present the proposed changes to the board. She asked that the board members keep this in the back of their minds. d. Review of Gifts Disclosure Statements received from (1) Fred Blas, (2) Brenda Ford, (3) Pete Hoffmann, (4) Donald Ikeda, (5) Candace Kekaualua, (6) Stephen Lopez, (7) Dennis Onishi, (8) Noralyn Pajimola, (9) K. Angel Pilago, (10) Brittany Smart, and (11) Dominic Yagong. Ms. Schoen reminded the board that the rules say the disclosures are to be reviewed for conflicts of interest or discrepancies. If none are found, the board usually accepts and files them. If a discrepancy is found, the board may advise the officer/employee about it and provide opportunity for correction. A disclosure is not required to be filed if no gifts are received. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to accept and file the disclosures, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to go into executive session to review the minutes and financial disclosures agendized therein. Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 11:45 a.m.: The board left regular session. * * * * * 12:00 p.m.: The board returned to regular session. 7. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Approval of the executive session minutes of April 11, 2012. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. b. Review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms filed pursuant to Section 2-91.1(d) , Hawai‘i County Code, by County board and commission members and designated County employees, where personal matters will be reviewed. Motion and vote: Mr. Heaukulani moved to approve all the financial disclosures except number 11, which was incomplete on one item. Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Dill announced that the next monthly meeting of the Board was scheduled for August 8, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. at either the Hawai‘i County Building, Puna Conference Room, or another location to be determined. 9. ADJOURNMENT 12:00 p.m.: Mr. Dill adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature)