Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-08 Board of Ethics minutes HAWAI‘I COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, August 8, 2012 10:00 a.m. to 10:53 a.m. 25 Aupuni Street County Building – Puna Conference Room Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Members and Staff Present: John E. K. Dill, Chair Arne Henricks, Member Bernard Balsis, Member Glen Hisashima, Member (arrived at 10:27 a.m.) Renee N. C. Schoen, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Fujio, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Dill called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. He announced that agenda item 4b was being stricken from the agenda. However, if anyone wanted to provide testimony on it, they could. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Five people signed up to testify. Their testimony is summarized below. DAN COLE: Mr. Cole said he was speaking on agenda items 4b and 5a. OIP attorney Linden Joesting had sent an email to the Board’s counsel that the agenda item 4b was insufficient. The Board has been obscuring names on agendas, which is part of a conspiracy. He attempted to bring to the attention of the people the fact that corruption, drugs, and money laundering was occurring within the County of Hawai‘i. However, the Board of Ethics continues to recuse itself from hearing matters. He had brought charges against Jay Kimura and nobody could hear it because they’re all friends. He tried to expose racketeering and money laundering by the mayor and Nancy Crawford, but the Board members recused themselves, just like they did in the petition scheduled today. Board member Henricks recused himself on the petition involving Nancy Crawford because they were on the same bowling team. Is a bowling membership more important than ethical morals? In addition, Board member Balsis is a financial director and knows what money laundering is about. But the cream of the crop is Board member Heaukulani, who was formerly an assistant chief with the Honolulu Police Department and established the original white collar crime division in Honolulu. None of the Board members could see deprivation of rights. The Prosecutor’s Office conspires with them, and now we have a situation where people recuse themselves because of friendships. On Monday night he testified from this very seat, and he found himself in the newspaper. In today’s paper there is another article about Roger Christie. He would like to present the possible situation of money laundering that the County of Hawai‘i Police Department is engaged in. The Board of Ethics is a sworn board to take testimony and subpoena and is also under the control, either through political, personal, or bowling team memberships, and will not expose the corruption or do their sworn duties. He proposes that the corruption goes so far as to use the County of Hawai‘i to launder illegal drug operations, and that Chair Dill is personally involved in the extortion and secrecy. Nobody challenges him. There are extortion charges on file with the Prosecutor’s Office against Mayor Kenoi and Lincoln Ashida. He was called into the Police Department and interrogated. He has put before the County Council a request for a federal and state investigation, and he will also be forwarding to the Council a resolution requesting the dissolving of the Board of Ethics for acts of deprivation of rights under color of the law and conspiracy. IKE PAYNE: Mr. Payne said he filed a formal complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office about the recusal of two of the Board members and asked for a letter of recommendation. The recusals were based on friendship and nothing more. He also received a copy of the minutes from the last meeting, and they have been passed on to the Ombudsman’s Office, along with YouTube videos showing the members’ recusals and reasons. He is asking for the resignation of Board members David Heaukulani and Glen Hisashima. KATARINA CULINA: Ms. Culina expressed her support for Petition 2012-01 and urged the Board to investigate Donald Ikeda and Dennis Onishi regarding their public attendance and voting record. They are here to represent the public. If they do not attend hearings, they will not know what the public wants. They need to remember who is paying them, unless someone else is paying them. It is the public paying them to protect the public and to listen to their needs. The facts exist on how often they attend and how often they vote. She urged the Board to look at the facts. PALIKAPU DEDMAN: Mr. Dedman said he was following up from the last meeting, when two members recused themselves. The sad thing was that the Board couldn’t come up with a decision that day. The same complaints were being raised then, which turned out to be key factors in the voting a couple of weeks later. He thought that if you have a complaint, you had to be released from that complaint before participating in the very thing complained about. The issue has nothing to do about asking if you have friendships with people. It has to do with the way you carry yourself ethically. It has nothing to do with money or community projects, but how you carry yourself using taxpayers’ money. They’re earning his tax dollars. Then there is the Board of Ethics, which doesn’t carry itself professionally. He doesn’t know how they get appointed, but it seems that everybody knows everybody, because they keep using friendship as a reason for not participating or making decisions on what’s right and wrong. It has nothing to do with friendship. And if a person is using friendship as an excuse, that means they would rule in favor if they’re guilty. That’s all it tells him. The Board of Ethics does not even have good rules of ethics for themselves, as to how to carry themselves. The Board is just as bad as the situation in the complaint. Then you have people, how they’re elected, that have their entrenched friendships or deals because they’re retired from the state or a county department. So there will always be some friendship or relationship, no matter how you look at it. So the Board should have rules on how they’re elected and what can be used as an excuse. He was ignorant. He thought the government was on top of it until he got more involved and realized it’s all a bunch of handshakes and old friends. For years he’s been doing this stuff, but he didn’t get this involved. Why are the members sitting on the Board? As Mr. Dedman did not stop speaking after the three-minute timer went off, Mr. Dill reminded him that his time was up and thanked him. ROBERT PETRICCI: Mr. Petricci said he had already testified on this matter, but he did not understand how a county employee or councilman does not come to work and do the job he’s paid for. It is important business. If he doesn’t have the time, if he has other obligations, he should resign and let somebody else do the job. The issues are important, and the one they’re talking about is the energy future for the County of Hawai‘i. It impacts the whole economy. They need affordable energy, but some council people cannot come and cannot vote, and there are no rules. All other county employees have rules. He has a business. If he had somebody in his business that didn’t come to work, he’d have to fire him because he can’t run his business. How then can the County be run? They’re paid to be there. It needs to be addressed. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF JULY 11, 2012 Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Review of Gifts Disclosure Statements received from the following County officers or employees: Jamae Kawauchi. There were no comments regarding the disclosure. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the disclosure, Mr. Balsis seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 5. UNFINISHED 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 asked if there were any further recusals. There were none. He asked if Mr. Balsis and Mr. Henricks had a chance to review the petition, and they both stated they did. Mr. Dill called Ms. Napeahi forward. Mr. Dill asked Ms. Napeahi about the voting and attendance record that was attached to her petition. He asked if she had received the information from Council Chair Yagong or whether she had researched it on her own. He said that the council members fall under the council chair as their leader. He reminded her that at the July meeting, she had expressed that the Ethics Code was limited in addressing attendance issues. An unidentified woman who was observing the meeting interrupted Mr. Dill and asked how his question pertained to the petition and stated that Ms. Napeahi could refuse to answer it. Mr. Dill asked Ms. Buchanan to remain silent. He asked Ms. Napeahi if she had brought the attendance matter up with Mr. Yagong. Ms. Napeahi said she went straight to get information about Mr. Ikeda’s and Mr. Onishi’s attendance. Mr. Dill asked if Mr. Yagong had mentioned action he could take on his end. Ms. Napeahi said she did not know. She just knew that he fulfilled her request to provide the information. Mr. Dill said that because of the limitations in the Ethics Code, he believed that the council chair would have the ability to make resolutions to address attendance issues, or could speak directly to council members about their attendance. Ms. Napeahi asked what that had to do with her complaint, and what Dominic Yagong’s decisions have to do with her complaint. Mr. Dill said that Mr. Yagong is council chair and oversees the council. Ms. Napeahi said she came to the Board in regards to specific complaints which have nothing to do with Dominic Yagong. All Mr. Yagong did was provide her with the attendance information. Mr. Dill said that it is fine she got the information from Mr. Yagong, but that he could also have brought up the issue that the Code of Ethics does not address attendance. Ms. Napeahi asked Mr. Dill why he was asking her about this, and Mr. Dill said that it was because Mr. Yagong has the capacity, as leader of the council, to take action to address attendance issues more than the Board could. Ms. Napeahi said that Mr. Yagong was well aware of the Ethics Code, as were all of the Board members. Even if she brought it up to Mr. Yagong, there were only two items in the Code she could have chosen from to bring her complaint forward, and they were not enough to deal with the issues in her complaint. She asked what the process would be for the council chair to take care of the problem. She asked how Mr. Yagong could have taken care of it if she were to ask him for help. The unidentified woman again interrupted the proceedings to say that everything being read into the record was hearsay, and that Mr. Dill was asking for hearsay from Mr. Yagong. Mr. Dill told her that if she spoke out of turn again, he will ask her to remove herself from the meeting. Ms. Napeahi asked how approaching Mr. Yagong could have helped with her complaint, and what that had to do with it. She asked how it had anything to do with her complaint about Fresh Onishi and Donald Ikeda. She asked whether Mr. Yagong could have done anything for her. She was told to complain to the Board of Ethics. She was trying to find out the process to complain, and the only thing she was given was the Ethics Code. So she was going on that, because that’s what the Board of Ethics gave her. She asked what that had to do with making a decision to help her. She is requesting help about two members of the council. What relevance does contacting Mr. Yagong have to do with the complaints she has? Mr. Dill said he was trying to say that the Ethics Code which the Board oversees and tries to enforce is lacking in the area she is complaining about. He was trying to find a different avenue she could take to actually get some traction and an official ruling so there would be some teeth regarding attendance at council meetings. Ms. Napeahi asked if she should go to Dominic Yagong, and Mr. Dill said that would be his recommendation. Ms. Napeahi again asked how Mr. Yagong could help her, and Mr. Dill said he does not know. He said she had valid issues in her petition and that he wished there was something in the Code that could apply to her petition. However, there is nothing in the Code about attendance and voting records. All he was doing was offering the suggestion that perhaps Mr. Yagong could do something about it, because of his leadership over the council. Ms. Napeahi again asked how Mr. Yagong could help her, and then turned to Ms. Schoen with her question. Ms. Schoen said that to make the record clear, today’s proceeding is an initial review of the complaint. The Board’s job today is to review the complaint to see if it complies with the rules and then determine whether it wanted to proceed on the petition via an informal hearing or dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. That was what the Board was to decide today. Mr. Dill asked whether he should even make a recommendation, and Ms. Schoen said the issue is whether the Board has jurisdiction over the matter. Ms. Napeahi said she read the whole Code of Ethics and questioned who came up with it, because if anybody has a complaint they can only go by what is written in the Code. Ms. Schoen said the Board only has jurisdiction over matters that are covered by the Code. If it was not in the Code, the Board did not have jurisdiction. She could not tell Ms. Napeahi where to take her complaint. Her job is to represent the Board and advise them as to whether or not they are doing everything properly and following the rules. This is what is done in every petition filed with the Board. Each one is reviewed to see if there is sufficient information and whether they have jurisdiction. They are bound by the County Charter. Ms. Napeahi said that what Ms. Schoen was saying, then, is that the Board does not have jurisdiction. Ms. Schoen said that the Board has to determine that. The three members present will make that determination. Ms. Napeahi said that Mr. Dill had already told her the complaint doesn’t have teeth, so what did that mean? Mr. Dill said that when looking specifically at the Code of Ethics, it did not cover the matters in her complaint. This is why petitioners are required to reference what sections of the Code they feel are being violated. He said that from her own admission at the prior meeting, it was difficult to “stick” her complaint to the two Code sections she cited. There are ways to add to the Code, but any changes would need to be approved by the County Council. Ms. Napeahi asked whether, if she were to go to the council chair with amendments or additions to the Code, they would need to go through the process of council approval. Mr. Dill said yes, that is how the process works. If the Ethics Code is lacking, then changes need to be made by going through the proper channels. Ms. Napeahi said she had gone through the entire Code, and the sections she cited were the only way she could see to address her complaint. There are important issues happening that apply to their lives. Ms. Napeahi asked Mr. Henricks whether he was a judge, and he replied that he had been a part-time judge. Ms. Napeahi said there are two people sitting in the room that she has not seen in attendance at some of the testimonies given during the past three months at council meetings. Then she would see them appear right before judgment is to be made amongst the council members. She asked Mr. Henricks how judgment can be made if you are not in attendance to hear the testimonies that are important for people to hear. She said she came here today knowing that her complaint would not succeed, and that exactly what happened today she knew was going to happen. She knew it was going to be thrown out the window. And now she was being told there was no other way but to go back to Chair Yagong to make the decision about what is right and important for her people. She stated that Mr. Onishi and Mr. Ikeda had made decisions about important issues for the people in Puna—issues dealing with relocation, health studies, and an evacuation plan. They had already made the decisions on their own, prior to the issues coming before the council, and without listening to the people. Ms. Napeahi said that another issue is that, since she made her complaint, more testimony was given by the people of Puna at another council meeting. Shouldn’t her petition have been resolved before Mr. Ikeda and Mr. Onishi were allowed to vote? She asked whether the council should have waited on the meeting regarding overriding the mayor’s vetoes of the issues she was concerned about, because they may have had biased votes—they would be angry at her for complaining about two men she felt did not do things right. She believes that from the time she made the complaint to today, there could have been biased votes. Ms. Napeahi said that to her, this meeting is like being in a courtroom. She told Mr. Henricks that she had given the Board important information, facts on which to make a decision. Was he saying that the numbers on the list she gave the Board are not correct, or not enough to be considered evidence? Is that what he was saying? Was he saying the numbers are not correct? Mr. Henricks said he had not yet said anything. Ms. Napeahi asked him to answer her question. Mr. Henricks said the Board is not looking at numbers or facts, because it does not have jurisdiction. All the Board is saying is that it does not have jurisdiction. They don’t know who has it, but the Board does not. He said he cannot argue, because he cannot go beyond his capacity on the Board. Ms. Napeahi said that if the Board does not have jurisdiction on the complaint, how is a layman able to make a complaint? Mr. Balsis said that for this particular complaint, it involved the poor performance of two council men. Poor performance is not addressed in the Code of Ethics. Ms. Napeahi said she had been reading things, to see if there was anything that could keep the checks and balances in place. There appeared to be nothing. So where could she go? The behavior of council members has a lot to do with their decision-making. Mr. Dill said he was not disagreeing with Ms. Napeahi and her petition. But like Ms. Schoen said, they are bound by the rules they have to follow. If they go outside those rules, they could get in trouble or be sued. He sees the difficulty of trying to apply the County Code to her petition. In listening to her testimony, reviewing the minutes, and speaking with counsel, there was no applicable section in the Ethics Code. It would violate the Charter to ignore that. This is why he suggested she go back to the council chair. Mr. Yagong was obviously aware of the attendance numbers, since he provided them to her. He is the boss of the County Council and would be the most effective, in his opinion, to deal with a lack of job performance. Ms. Napeahi asked how Mr. Yagong could help her if there are no rules in place for him to do so. Mr. Dill said he does not know what their rules are. However, she could propose new rules for the County Council. Ms. Napeahi asked if she is the first person in the Board’s history to bring this up. Mr. Dill said she was the first in his five-year history. Ms. Napeahi stated that she likes to engage with people when she is talking to them, because she knows they are communicating with her. When she walked into the meeting today, she already saw attitude from a few people. They would not engage with her. This was the same kind of response she got at the July meeting, and it is the same kind of response she and her people get when they testify. Mr. Ikeda and Mr. Onishi think they are not important. So when she sees that kind of attitude from Mr. Dill, she already knows he’s going to throw this out of the window. Mr. Dill said he was going to cut her off there. Ms. Napeahi asked him how he could do that, and Mr. Dill said he was saying that she was done now. He is the Board chair. Ms. Napeahi said that Mr. Dill was now taking it personally and shouldn’t be. He should be taking everything on the table just like a judge. These are her opinions, and she is here to complain. Mr. Dill said thanks, and Ms. Napeahi said she was not done yet. Mr. Dill asked the Board members if they had any other questions for Ms. Napeahi regarding the petition. There was no response. Ms. Napeahi asked was that it? Was there was nothing they’d like to ask her? Mr. Dill asked the Board members if there was anything they wanted to discuss, or whether counsel had anything to say. Ms. Schoen said the next order of business would be a motion. Mr. Dill asked if he could move, and Ms. Schoen said yes. Motion and vote: Mr. Dill moved to dismiss Petition No. 2012-01 due to the Board’s lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and he, Mr. Balsis, and Mr. Dill voted aye. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to go into executive session for review of the confidential matters agendized therein. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 10:39 a.m.: The Board left regular session. 10:50 a.m.: The Board returned to regular session for voting on the executive session matters. 6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Approval of the executive session minutes of July 11, 2012. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis 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. Balsis moved to approve the disclosures, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 10:53 a.m.: Mr. Dill adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (and her signature)