Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-19 Board of Ethics minutes HAWAI‘I COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION Monday, November 19, 2012 10:00 a.m. to 11:23 a.m. County Council Chambers 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Members and Staff Present: John E. K. Dill, Chair Bernard Balsis, Vice Chair Arne Henricks, Member Glen Hisashima, Member 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. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Dill called up Margaret Wille, who had signed up to testify on agenda item 5a (Petition No. 2012-03), and he reminded the public that statements are limited to three minutes per agenda item. MS. WILLE: I spoke at the previous Board meeting, and I want to sort of incorporate my statements at that meeting here today, so I’m not repeating all of what I said. And I believe that there’s a clear violation of Section 2-83 in terms of allowing the County employees—the County allowing union employees to meet and campaign at County locations on County time. I think this sets up a vicious cycle. I think that the rules, the ethics rules, are clear and I basically am asking you as the Board to uphold and be accountable and be leaders in terms of saying these laws, these ethics rules, mean what they say, and they are enforceable. I do understand that you have—or I believe you’ve requested information from the County Council’s office. I also think there’s an issue there in terms of a conflict of interest, where the Corporation Counsel is also a member of the Mayor’s cabinet, political cabinet, not simply a removed—like legal representation. In my view that—at least in this context—represents wearing two hats. And let me just say, this was meetings—I believe there were up to three or four meetings. I was a candidate in this campaign, in this election. I knew nothing about these meetings. 1 I understand that the person who opposed me, who was supported by the Mayor, was requested to attend. I think that this is wrong and should not be permitted. I also think that it’s not a matter of—in my view we should be looking at how do we solve problems and not—and this goes beyond what’s legal, but just in terms of why it’s important, not having people going on one side or another. I had union employees apologizing to me for this happening and that they had no control. I would like to see this stopped. I think you should have decided this last time and not left it till after the election. I’ve always supported many union positions and I would certainly have liked to speak and I’d like to talk to them then. So I just hope you—I don’t think union contracts or any other contracts trump the law, and I ask you to please uphold the ethics rules. Thank you. Mr. Dill called up Cheryl King, who had also signed up to testify on agenda item 5a (Petition No. 2012-03). MS. KING: Good morning, commissioners and Ms. Schoen and Ms. Fujio. Thank you for being here. Commissioners, thank you for having agreed to accept this petition that I submitted for further consideration at your initial hearing in September. It is clear that the County Ethics Code prohibits the use of County time and facilities for campaign purposes. However, this did happen when County workers were released with pay to attend union informational meetings at which only union-endorsed candidates spoke, i.e., campaigned, sometimes in County buildings. At the September meeting I was asked who the respondent was, a question that was not asked on the form I had to fill out, or I might have been better prepared. I tried to say both the union and the County but was told I had to pick one. Put on the spot, it made more sense to pick the County, as the County Ethics Code forbids campaigning on County time. Nonetheless, everyone should be held responsible for what happened. By everyone, I mean the County, the union management, and the candidates who attended. Perhaps County supervisors did not realize that they were releasing workers to attend a campaign event. Perhaps the union management did not realize the County Code prohibited its workers from attending a campaign event in the guise of a union informational meeting permitted by the union contract. Perhaps some of the candidates who spoke at this event did not realize that only union-endorsed candidates were being invited and that they were being unethical by not providing a level playing field for their opponents. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. What we do know is that some County workers were uncomfortable at having to listen to speeches by candidates they did not support and did not want to cause problems with their co-workers or supervisors by openly protesting. We do know that the County Code of Ethics should have protected these workers. It did not. If the Board of Ethics commissioners do not take a strong stand against this practice, it will happen again, and public confidence in the County’s Code of Ethics and the County’s boards and commissions will be undermined. Thank you. Mr. Dill called up Kerri Marks, who had signed up to testify on agenda items 5a (Petition No. 2012-03) and 4a (Petition No. 2012-05). MS. MARKS: Good morning, thank you. First I would like to make a comment on your agenda. I think that it’s nice that you crossed out Wednesday and written in Monday. But the email didn’t go out like that, and so it was very confusing to people whether this 2 thth actually happened last Wednesday the 14 or today, Monday the 19. You could do that. You could easily resend an email and send it back out about—oh, excuse me, I’m winded. I just ran in. They do that every once in a while. So please do that in the future. It was confusing. On Petition 202-15 [sic], I have testified on this--oh no, this is the one we don’t know anything about. I would like you to write your agendas more clearly. There’s no way to know who this is or who they work for or whether it’s a conflict of interest or not. So you should clarify that. On Petition 2012-03, further information— further informal hearing. Oh, this is the County Code of Ethics allowed to attend a union meeting. That’s still wrong. You guys need to stop doing this kind of stuff. You need to put these people—somehow you need to make them accountable for these actions. They’ve been going on long enough. We’re watching. We’re tired of it. Please make them stop. That’s all. Mahalo. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2012 Mr. Balsis said he had a comment. On page 11, the minutes included only the nomination of himself as vice chair. He wanted to point out that he had nominated Mr. Hisashima, but apparently no one heard him and there was no second, so it was ignored. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Mr. Dill stated that before proceeding to New Business, he wanted to go into executive session to consult with the Board’s attorney regarding their rules and practices. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to go into executive session, Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 10:10 a.m.: The Board left regular session. * * * * * 10:40 a.m.: The Board returned to regular session. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2012-05: Petitioner is seeking an opinion from the Board on whether there is a conflict of interest with his employment as an electrical supervisor and his side business that does wholesale, retail design, and installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems for family, friends, and referrals. MR. DILL: The petitioner has requested a closed hearing. At this time I’d like to call up the petitioner to discuss the parameters of a closed hearing before the Board takes a vote on it. You got to hit that button and turn it on. The microphone button. Some of the Board members had questions about the nature of your request for a closed hearing. 3 PETITIONER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I’m asking the Board for a closed hearing because of my employment, and I feel this may be a personnel issue and I fear possible retaliation. MR. DILL: Board members, any other questions? MR. BALSIS: Can you elaborate on what you just said? PETITIONER: Because of my employment. I am the electrical supervisor and do plan reviews for photovoltaic installation, and I just wanted to see if there is a conflict in there. MR. DILL: Any other questions? Can I obtain a motion from any of the Board members for an open or closed hearing? Just as a reminder, we need three votes either way. MR. BALSIS: I think at this point, should we not just vote on his request? MR. DILL: Yeah, I’ll entertain a motion, either way. MR. BALSIS: Then I move that we go ahead and vote on the request of the petitioner. MR. DILL: You moved to have it closed or - ? MR. BALSIS: His request is to have a closed hearing. MR. DILL: Correct. Okay. So the motion is a motion to have a closed hearing? MR. BALSIS: The motion is to vote on the petitioner’s request to have a closed hearing, either a yea or a nay. MR. DILL: Okay. Got a second? MR. HISASHIMA: Second. MR. DILL: Okay. Those in favor—we have a motion and a second to have a closed hearing. Those in favor say aye. Opposed? SECRETARY: Wait, I didn’t hear. MR. DILL: The motion is to, and a second, to grant the petitioner’s request to have a closed hearing. SECRETARY: Okay, nobody said aye. MR. DILL: No. 4 MR. BALSIS: Correct. MR. DILL: Opposed? MR. HENRICKS: I abstain. MS. SCHOEN: So you have one abstaining. What’s your vote? MR. HISASHIMA: Opposed. MR. BALSIS: Opposed. MR. DILL: I will abstain, too. MS. SCHOEN: Okay, so you have two abstentions. That means the request does not pass. So now the Board needs to figure out how it wants to proceed. Can you guys hear me? MR. BALSIS: Yes. MR. DILL: So two abstain, two against a closed hearing. So what do we do now? Is the petitioner’s request denied? MS. SCHOEN: Yes. MR. DILL: Okay, so that means we’ll—should we move forward, it will be an open hearing. MS. SCHOEN: Correct. MR. DILL: Okay. Are we clear on that? PETITIONER: Yes, but if the Board is not willing to give me a closed session to protect my privacy, I would like to withdraw my petition and speak to legal counsel. And in addition, I would like everything back that was submitted. MR. DILL: Counsel, where do we stand on that? MS. SCHOEN: Well, the petitioner filed a petition. If he’s going to withdraw it, the Board will just accept the withdrawal. MR. DILL: Okay. I guess this matter is closed, then. PETITIONER: Okay, thank you. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5 a. Petition No. 2012-03: Further informal hearing of petition alleging violations of Section 2-83 of the Ethics Code when County employees are allowed to attend union meetings, on County time, in which political campaigning takes place. MR. DILL: This is the third continuation, I believe, on this matter. Counsel, you had provided us with the collective bargaining agreements. It was made clear in SHOPO and I believe the Fire Fighter’s Union, in the nature of that— MS. SCHOEN: I provided the Board with collective bargaining agreements of UPW, also Fire Fighter’s Association, and police officer’s (SHOPO) bargaining units. I also provided the Board with two opinions from the State Ethics Commission as well as a Hawai‘i Supreme Court case entitled HGEA v. Casupang. I also provided the Board with a letter from our HR director, basically submitting all the CBAs. MR. DILL: Good. Board members, any comments? I’d like to point out for the record that this Board has no jurisdiction over the unions or union activities. That being said, County employees who are subject to the County Code of Ethics and are union employees and union members must abide by County Charter to the County Code of Ethics. In this case, we’re looking at Article 15, Section 2-83, fair treatment, specifically item 2- 83(b)(3), using County equipment or other facilities for private business or campaign purposes. Comments? MR. BALSIS: I have a comment. I agree that this Board has no jurisdiction over the union, and in all the evidence and all the documents that were given to us, there was no pre-notice to any of the employees or those that were going to be in attendance that these were going to be meetings political in nature rather than informational in nature. And so it’s hard to—I don’t think we can say that employees violated the Code of Ethics. To say whether or not this was right or wrong with regards to the Code of Ethics, it’s a very difficult area to make a judgment on. That’s all for right now. MR. HISASHIMA: Clarification please, attorney. Section 8, Education and Information Meetings from UPW. Apparently the meeting that was held, was it a union function or the County’s function? MS. SCHOEN: My understanding is it’s a union informational and educational meeting. MR. HISASHIMA: Okay. Can you clarify for me—I have a scale which indicates paid, non-paid, work, straight time, overtime. “Paid – not worked.” Can you clarify what “not worked” means? MS. SCHOEN: Glen, where are you looking at? UPW Unit 01? MR. HISASHIMA: No, I think this is the County’s one, because it has certain areas where it says like “paid,” “premium,” “overtime,” “straight time.” And there’s a place that’s called “paid – not worked.” So I need to know what does “not worked” mean. 6 MS. SCHOEN: I don’t have an exact definition for you, but if you look at the types of leaves that are under that category, such as vacation, holiday, sick, those are allowable to take by the employee but they’re not physically at work— MR. HISASHIMA: --at their job. MS. SCHOEN: Yes. MR. HISASHIMA: If you look at number 74, “union-information meetings,” does that apply to Section 8? MS. SCHOEN: I would say it does. That’s what it’s entitled. MR. HISASHIMA: Thank you. MR. DILL: So Glen, just to follow your train of thoughts, so if it was an informational meeting and it was quoted under that, that’s all it was. I mean, that’s what you’re trying to get to? MR. HISASHIMA: Yes. Could I ask another question? MR. DILL: Yes. MR. HISASHIMA: If it is not sponsored by the County, because the agenda of the meeting is not controlled by the County, right? MS. SCHOEN: That’s correct. MR. HISASHIMA: So I see the letter that was sent by the union, showing no indication of what the agenda was. So if I was a State employee or County employee going to this meeting, I don’t know what the subject is about, right? MS. SCHOEN: That’s my understanding. MR. HISASHIMA: Can the County get a clarification prior to the meeting? Or is it stopped because of this union contract, the education and information meetings? MS. SCHOEN: I really don’t know the requirements. I could certainly ask HR whether or not they have in the past asked for an agenda before the employees go. MR. HISASHIMA: Thank you. MR. DILL: All right, does the Board want to take any action on this? 7 MR. BALSIS: Because we’re determining that the action was a union action and not a County employee action, and we have no jurisdiction over the union, I would move that the petition be dismissed, and I would have more discussion during the discussion aspect. MR. HENRICKS: I second the motion. MR. DILL: All right, we have a motion and a second to dismiss Petition No. 2012-03. It’s time for discussion. For myself I want to state for the record that I feel that any County employee that knowingly goes to any function, whether it be union or otherwise, on County time where campaigning does take place, I feel is a violation of Section 2- 83(b)(3) and therefore would be in violation of the County Ethics Code. Further discussion? MR. BALSIS: I’d like to mention to the petitioner that there may be other ways to try to stop this type of action. One way would be by the League of Women Voters and other organizations to put pressure on the union to stop this kind of action, and I think that’s a very important avenue. The County of Hawai‘i could actually go in and negotiate in their contracts, just as there are in some of the contracts, like SHOPO, where they would be no political action during any of the informational meetings. But that would be during contract negotiations. And I just wanted to point some of those avenues out. Legally I don’t see where we have jurisdiction over this particular item. At the same time, there may be better avenues to stop it in the long term for the future. MR. DILL: All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? All right, the motion and the second is to dismiss Petition No. 2012-03. All in favor to dismiss, say aye. MR. HENRICKS: Aye. MR. BALSIS and MR. HISASHIMA (simultaneously): Aye. MR. DILL: The Chair votes in opposition. All right, thank you. b. Petition No. 2012-04: Informal hearing of petition alleging that a County officer “has been very selective in … dissemination of public information and showed preferential treatment to certain reporters and stonewalling others …” in violation of Section 2-83(a)(3) of the Code of Ethics, that all persons shall be treated in a courteous, fair and impartial manner. MR. DILL: The chair recuses himself and hands it over to the vice chair. MR. BALSIS: Tiffany? As the petitioner, I’d like to ask if you have anything you’d like to add to your original petition. Any other comments? MS. HUNT: Well, I’m just here today to be consistent, and I told you last time I was here on principle. We kind of have a term winding down. The election is over, but the issue is 8 still to be worked out. There’s nothing more to add. I’m saying that just because I had thought this morning, oh, should I just let this go, but I’m here just really on principle. Thank you. MR. BALSIS: Thank you. Are there any other questions? MR. HENRICKS: Yes, I’d like to ask you a few questions, first of all. Is your counsel going to be here today? MS. HUNT: She is busy. MR. HENRICKS: What I want to know is, my feeling is there’s a problem with this whole concept that you brought forward. All members of the—employees of the County—have a First Amendment right. MS. HUNT: Right. MR. HENRICKS: The First Amendment right is there’s a freedom of speech. You understand that? MS. HUNT: Right. MR. HENRICKS: ________ understand that one. MS. HUNT: Of course. MR. HENRICKS: But you understand the corollary to freedom to speak is freedom not to speak. Do you understand that? If you have a freedom to speak, you also have a freedom not to speak. Is that correct? MS. HUNT: That’s correct. That’s correct, but I also want to point out that when you’re in a position of authority and when you’re running the legislative branch of government, or at least like dealing in the legislative branch of government, which is the people’s branch, in my opinion you have greater responsibility than say the council services supervisor-- MR. HENRICKS: --No, wait a minute— MS. HUNT: --There has to be a go-to person when you’re dealing with stuff like this. MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, but I didn’t ask you that. I asked you did you understand there is freedom not to speak in the constitution. And you’re saying— MS. HUNT: --There’s a Fifth Amend—you can plead to the Fifth Amendment. MR. HENRICKS: First Amendment. 9 MS. HUNT: But the right not to speak? How about to be able to speak to certain people and not others? MR. HENRICKS: Now that’s a different thing. MS. HUNT: Right. MR. HENRICKS: I’m just saying there is a First Amendment right not to speak as well as to speak, all right? MS. HUNT: It’s a real balancing act. I’m bringing this forward to you because, like I said before, I’ve never really encountered this in my years of reporting in Hawai‘i County. MR. HENRICKS: That’s the next question I was going to ask you. Do you feel that the respondent in this case that you filed a complaint, that she targeted you specifically in this? MS. HUNT: Well, I think that’s where we were getting at with the media notification form, that we wanted to probe that. I don’t know. All I know is my particular experience, and then in conferring with a few friends, how they were also not— MR. HENRICKS: So other people had the same experience you did, then? MS. HUNT: Most notably were David Corrigan and Sherry Bracken. MR. HENRICKS: But they’re not here to testify, are they? MS. HUNT: No. MR. HENRICKS: The reason I say that, because in that concept of not to speak, I don’t think we as persons in the government, representing the government, can tell someone when they have to speak and when they don’t have to speak, or control when they speak and they don’t speak. But I think that we can go forward and look into whether there’s been any—that you were centered in any way, or any of this was directed at you personally. And if that was, then I think we have a duty to look into that and see if you were treated unfairly in that manner. Do you understand what I’m saying? MS. HUNT: I understand what you’re saying— MS. HENRICKS: --You as a person, not as a group. I don’t want to be involved in controlling the media at all from this panel. You understand what I’m saying? In either way, pro or con, I don’t want to control the media in any way. But what’s put to the media, or directed to you, I can see that you may have a proper complaint. You understand that? 10 MS. HUNT: Well, if anything I would just like to shine light on the need to—if you don’t want to speak, there should be some kind of mechanism where you give someone else an opportunity to speak. The information is public information. That’s the key that I’m trying to convey. The election process should be as transparent as possible, and part of that is a good communication. If you think that people who are in County government have the right not to speak—this is a really interesting philosophical question. I don’t think that the people who are in—there’s like a greater impetus on the County. It’s like, okay. If you’re a public official, you are constrained by the Code of Ethics to not be rude to people, to treat people fairly and impartially. As a private citizen, you can have feelings like you want to be rude to someone, or you want to not speak to someone. But when you’re a public official you have a greater responsibility, where you have to treat people fairly, even if you don’t personally like them. That’s – MR. HENRICKS: Well, that’s why I asked you, was any of this directed to you personally? MS. HUNT: In my personal opinion, I felt like it was. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, why would you say that? I mean, what caused you to say that? MS. HUNT: Well, a lot of it’s in my petition. And I think maybe the turning point might have been at a press conference when I was very direct and made the respondent feel uncomfortable. And maybe the respondent didn’t like the fact that I was singling her out on camera, or—I don’t know. I can’t speculate why. But the bottom line is that I didn’t feel like I was treated fairly, impartially, and courteously. And so this is my remedy, is to come here. MR. BALSIS: Just on the side, I just wanted to point out that Chairman Dill had to leave for the remainder of the meeting. He had another engagement he had to attend to. Are there any other questions from the Board here? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. BALSIS: I have no questions. I’d like to ask if you could take a seat, and I’m going to ask Ms. Kawachi to come forward—Kawauchi, excuse me. MS. KAWAUCHI: Good morning. MR. BALSIS: Good morning. How are you today? MS. KAWAUCHI: Good, thank you. MR. BALSIS: I’d like to thank you for submitting to the Board the requests for inclusion on media that you had forwarded to us. The question I have is—or one of the questions— is this a form that you have put together? MS. KAWAUCHI: Yes. 11 MR. BALSIS: And what was the reason for that? MS. KAWAUCHI: There were persons in the media who wanted to be included in press releases and other announcements that were made by the office, and so in order to make sure that persons who wanted to be included on the lists were, we came up with the form. MR. BALSIS: Do you know of anyone who was not included in being asked to request these? Rephrase that. Was there anyone out there in media land that you were remiss in not asking them to complete one of these so that you would have an easier way of communication? MS. KAWAUCHI: There are persons who are included on our press release media contact list who would have not filled the form out. But my understanding is that everybody who has filled the form out was included and did receive news releases and press releases. MR. BALSIS: Does anyone here have any questions? MR. HENRICKS: Yes, I do. Ms. Kawauchi, do you know Ms. Hunt? MS. KAWAUCHI: I am familiar— MR. HENRICKS: --Do you know Ms. Hunt personally? MS. KAWAUCHI: We’re not friends, but I do know her. MR. HENRICKS: But you know her. MS. KAWAUCHI: Yes, I do. MR. HENRICKS: Is there any bad feelings you have against her? MS. KAWAUCHI: I don’t have bad feelings against her, no. MR. HENRICKS: All right. In any of your times that you’ve been in confrontation with her, have you felt that you have singled her out to withhold information from her? MS. KAWAUCHI: No, I do not. I believe that every interaction I’ve had with Ms. Hunt has been courteous, fair, and I’ve treated her equally, as I have treated all media—to the extent that I can. MR. HENRICKS: You know, some of her testimony, and she undoubtedly disagrees with you. She feels that you have singled her out in some manner. Is that correct? You heard her say that. MS. KAWAUCHI: I did listen to her testimony, yes. 12 MR. HENRICKS: Do you know of any reason why she would feel that way? MS. KAWAUCHI: No. MR. HENRICKS: None whatsoever? MS. KAWAUCHI: None whatsoever. MR. HENRICKS: No further questions. MS. SCHOEN: Mr. Chair, I noticed Mr. Matsukawa’s in the audience. Did you want to come up and say anything, Mr. Matsukawa? (He shook his head.) MR. BALSIS: Glen? MR. HISASHIMA: Ms. Kawauchi, we received a listing of all the people that signed this. Is this the complete forms you have in your office? MS. KAWAUCHI: Those are all the forms that we have. MR. HISASHIMA: That’s it? MS. KAWAUCHI: That is what I asked my assistant to provide me, and that’s all the forms that we had. MR. HISASHIMA: Okay. And you said you have a list of media people that could sign this. I don’t know how long that list is, but there’s only five on this. MS. KAWAUCHI: Yes, we have—what I had established was a email account with the list of names of media persons who requested to be—requested information, some of which are off-island, and so not all of them have filled out that form. But my understanding is everyone who has filled the form out has been included on our press releases, through our email list. MR. HISASHIMA: So if I didn’t sign this and I’m on the list, you would still send me the information? MS. KAWAUCHI: We would, we would. MR. HISASHIMA: Thank you. MS. KAWAUCHI: It was just a way to make sure that those persons who had felt that they weren’t being included had a way of being included. MR. HISASHIMA: Thank you. 13 MR. BALSIS: At this time, does anyone here on the Board have any questions for Ms. Kawauchi or the petitioner? Do I hear motion at the pleasure of the Board? MR. HENRICKS: Does Ms. Kawauchi want to say anything on her own behalf? MS. KAWAUCHI: Nothing further. Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate that. MR. BALSIS: Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Kawauchi. Is there any pleasure of the Board here? Any motions? MR. HENRICKS: Ms. Hunt, could you come back up here, please? As I said, the Board is very concerned about your problem, as you put it forth. But at the same time the Board cannot be responsible for the media itself and any grievances the media might have against a public official, unless it—in general, unless it were personal, like one person in the media were being discriminated against or treated badly by a public official. We’d definitely want to be involved in that. It’s the fairness part, right? So what I’m concerned when you say—she says that she has no ax to burn. She doesn’t remember any time that she had centered you off for any particular treatment, and you say to the opposite, that you felt you were centered out for treatment that was other than what other people received, and that you felt she did this purposely, right? Now we have two sides of the story. What I want to do is I want to be able to be fair to you at this point and say if you had anybody that had witnessed this treatment by her against you, if I were to continue this, would you be able to bring that person forward? Or persons forward? MS. HUNT: I believe I have two people that could share with you similar instances, and they actually have indicated a willingness to testify or at least send you letters, so – MR. HENRICKS: Okay, but now we’re going to narrow it down now. We’re going to narrow it down to the fact that what I’m asking you is whether she directed this toward you, that she in some way directed— MS. HUNT: You know, I honestly need to say to you that I don’t believe it was to me in particular. It was to a few of us. It was to not just me but Dave Corrigan and Sherry Bracken. And actually on primary election day it also extended to Alan McNarie and Le‘a Gleason, who were freelancing for me. I can speculate as to why, but I’m just basically, like I’m sitting over here and I’m just thinking why am I here, I have so much to do. But the bottom line is on principle. I felt like I wasn’t being treated fairly, courteously, and impartially, and that is why I went—and the reason why my petition looks like such a mess is because I was battling with my 22-month old as I was trying to fill that thing out and just get it filled out in the state of mind that I was in at the time. Now since then I’ve received regular press releases from Jamae Kawauchi, so it was a point in time. You guys meet at a certain period of time, and it’s not necessarily timely right now. But on principle I’m following this through because at the time that I wrote that petition, I felt like I wasn’t being treated fairly, courteously, and impartially. And some of us have maybe aspirations to do public good and maybe would run for public office. And what prevents us is that ethics code that says you have to treat people fairly, impartially, and courteously. There’s certain people that I’m not willing to do that with. 14 So that’s why I’m not in public office. But when people, they swear to uphold the seal, and they want to do this public service, it extends all the way to the media. There’s certain people who are members of the media who are annoying. And you have to deal with them. You can’t just say you’re not going to speak with them. I disagree with you respectfully, sir. You have to give someone someone else to speak with if you’re not going to speak with them. That is part of being in public office. All of this is owned by the people. So I’m just here on principle, really. And like I said, since we had this go down awhile ago, I’ve since received press releases. But I do find it significant that five people were made to fill out those media notification forms, and I’m not even really certain what was the point of it. So needless to say, let’s put it to bed, whatever you guys are going to do. Thank you. MR. BALSIS: Thank you very much. Any further questions or comments? Thank you. Do I hear a motion from the Board here? MR. HENRICKS: Well at this point, based on my questions, what I can see at this point, I was trying to get away from the general perception of unfairness to the particular perception of fairness. I need the particular. I don’t need the general, because most people will find out in every day life that the media and people in office don’t get along anyway, most of the time, and so there’s a lot of friction going on back and forth and vice versa, and maybe that’s the way it should be because of the nature of the business that they’re in. That’s why I was trying to get Mrs. Hunt to tell me particulars about any treatment of her that was done by Ms. Kawauchi that was directed at her, and if I could find that, I would go along with her. But I don’t think she’s coming back again. MS. HUNT: Oh, I could go through my whole petition for the particular instances. It was at the point where I actually felt like I was a stalker, sitting at the Elections Division counter, looking for Jamae Kawauchi to pass by her office so I could try to speak with her. I do respect what you’re saying about the general friction. That’s healthy, that’s a democracy. But when you’re trying to cover an election and the one person that everyone is directing all calls to you when you’re trying to get information doesn’t return your call or give you someone else to speak with, I don’t believe that that is serving the public good. You want to know date and time, and I wrote that on my petition form. MR. HENRICKS: At this point, I don’t think I can find anything. I’m looking for a pattern of behavior that shows that she does not like you and she’s doing something to you and treating you unfairly. I can’t find that pattern. I can find that’s treating you— but if she treats you badly, she’s probably treats the rest of the media badly, too, so it’s not directed at you personally. MS. HUNT: I disagree. I think when you— MR. HENRICKS: --I’m looking for something directed at you personally. I can’t find that. I think whatever she’s done to you she’s probably done to everyone else in the media. MS. HUNT: I disagree, respectfully. 15 MR. HENRICKS: Okay. MR. BALSIS: Thank you. Mr. Henricks, do you have a motion? MR. HENRICKS: I’ll make a motion to dismiss the petition, based on what I found out. MR. BALSIS: Is there a second to the motion? There is a motion to dismiss the petition. MR. HISASHIMA: Second. MR. BALSIS: Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing no further discussion, I’ll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion to dismiss the petition, please say aye. MR. HISASHIMA: Aye. MR. HENRICKS: Aye. MR. BALSIS: Aye. The vote is unanimous. Motion and vote: Mr. Hisashima moved to go into executive session for review of the confidential matters agendized therein. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 11:18 a.m.: The Board left regular session. * * * * * 11:21 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 October 10, 2012. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks 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. Henricks moved to accept the disclosure, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members present voted aye. 16 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Balsis announced the Board’s next meeting: December 12, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers or another location to be determined. 8. ADJOURNED 11:23 a.m.: Mr. Balsis adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted: ____________________________________ Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature) 17