Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-09 Board of Ethics minutesHAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES — REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:03 a.m. to 11:18 a.m. Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street, Room 1501 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members and Staff Present: 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. Balsis called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Balsis reminded everyone that statements from the public are limited to three minutes per agenda item. Mr. Balsis called up Dan A. Cole, who had signed up to testify on several items. MR. COLE: The first item Id like to bring up is the communications, a., memorandum opinion dated 12/27/12 from the Office of Information Practices regarding Sunshine and Uniform Information Practices Act, complaints from Dan Cole about agenda items. Please note that you have received a request to forward this matter on to the County Council. I will read the document I filed yesterday. Hawaii County Board Ethics, January 9th, 211 [sic], received on January the 8th, 2013, at 9:55, re statements from the public on agenda items, communications, a., formal request to refer actions to law enforcement authorities, reference the United States Code, subsection 18, 4, misprision of felony. The attached cover page of memorandum opinion dated 12127/12 from the Office of Information Practices regarding Sunshine Law and Uniform Information Practices Act complaints from Dan Cole, about agendas and meetings, states in the footnotes, one. Quote, requestor also alleges violations of enforcement sections of the Sunshine Law, claiming that the attorney general and Hawaii County prosecuting attorney were extorting him and engaging in racketeering. OIP does not address these claims, since they are not within the OIP jurisdiction. Insofar as a felony cognizable by a court of the United States has been identified in official state records presented to the Hawaii County Board of Ethics, as having been performed under the official actions of the Hawaii County Board of Ethics, I make a formal request to refer the matter to the Hawaii County Council for their actions. For years I've been trying to bring up the attention of corruption, racketeering, and everything else. The actions that the OIP addresses were those of June the 9th of 2009. Three years apparently later, the opinion was made at 4:30 I got the opinion at 4:34 on a Friday, December the 31st. No action will be taken, and the only person left of the Board from that time, John Dill, his term had expired. So this is now a criminal action. It is documented in the records, so I request a formal filing to the County Council with the case files of this record and for their action. I would also like to point out that in a January 8th, 2013, letter to the editor by Gerard Lee Loy, apparently a top criminal defense attorney in Hilo via the former vice chair of this Board of Ethics has declared, has identified, a corrupt organization of old boy network and unmentionables. This is the organization I've been attempting to bring forth, and attempting _______ the public. I call your attention to a document filed in reference to communications or unfinished business b., Petition 2012 -08, further initial review of petition by Dan Cole which alleges that Mayor Kenoi violated Section 2- 83(b), unfair treatment, of the Code of Ethics when he in conspiracy with others illegally obtained and used $10 million of the people's money for the sole advantage of the Bank of Hawaii and/or a RICO enterprise of old boy network and/or unmentionables. I will read the cover page of the filing I made yesterday, January the 8th, 2013, at 9:55. The attached 77 pages contain an indirect confession provided by and through the Hawaii County Corporation Counsel as to knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States to a conspiracy to commit acts and/or actions by organized public corruption, in violation of the federal RICO act to include but not limited to racketeering activities and fraud against the United States and the filing of fraudulent IRS form 80388, information returned for tax exempt government obligations resulting from violations of the United States Code, 18 U.S. C., subsection 1344, bank fraud. It must be construed from the attached government records and publicly available information that the mayor of the County of Hawaii, in conspiracy with other government officials and financial institutions, did conspire to use the good name and reputation of the County of Hawaii in a money laundering scheme potentially worth $3 billion. The mayor of the County of Hawaii, William Billy Kenoi, in conspiracy sold numerous unauthorized or fraudulent Hawaii County bond anticipation notes of various series and issues from the period of September 28th, 2009, through September the 2nd of 2012, with a known value of at least $29 million, where the issue of these County obligations had no benefit to the people of Hawaii, while at the same time incurring substantial monetary losses to the people for the benefit of non-government persons or institutions. It is apparent from the documentation attached hereto, in addition to local knowledge and information gained through the media and other public sources, Mayor Kenoi and those he conspired with may have used without authorization CIA covert assets derived from the Bank of Hawaii's escrow division operations during the period that Bank of Hawaii vice president Madelyn Dunham headed the escrow division to conduct or aid in a money laundering operation, thereby being protected from exposure, insofar as any law enforcement actions taken against Mayor Kenoi or any conspirators would expose the direct link and heritage of President Barack Obama to a well identified family history of CIA covert operations. These documents are government records obtained from the Corporation Counsel and verified as to accuracy three times by the Corporation Counsel. My last item of public statements is on the executive session for Colleen Schrandt--I believe that's her name--legislative auditor. It will be noted in the testimony that I had requested on January the 3rd of my County Council representative, Gregor Ilagan, for a legislative audit of the Hawaii County Finance Department and the Mayor's Office, in regards to the issue of these bonds identified within the document. In a letter by Nancy Cook-Lauer dated Tuesday, January the 8th, 2013, County legislative auditor Colleen Schrandt has left Hawaii to take a job as an auditor with the United Nations in New York City. Asked what she would have liked to have accomplished during her tenure, Schrandt admitted to a long list. Most important for the County, Schrandt said, would be stronger whistle blower protection so the people would be less hesitant to come forthwith reports of waste and fraud in our governments. You've all noticed the numerous documentations that I have verified that the Hawaii County Police Department, on numerous occasions, in conspiracy against rights, in deprivation of rights under the color of law, has deprived me, the people, of filing a complaint in violation of extortion laws of state and federal codes, in violation of deprivation of rights, in violation of bank fraud. And I have been denied all these times. Where's the protection? That's why I'm bringing forth this information, because if you actually look at the petition I filed, the petition states, state the nature of your interest, including the reasons for the submission of the petition to expose organized public corruption in Hawaii government and to expose the old boy network and the unmentionables that influence, control, and/or extort Hawaii County government employees and officers identified by the top criminal defense attorney in Hilo in the Tribune-Herald article. The documents I got from the mayor in response to this article is erroneous. I am requesting a formal hearing, where sworn statements, subpoenas, and rules of evidence of the Hawaii courts may be used. I will show in statements and testimony that the documents they provided are in fact in violation of the very master issuing certificate, are in violation of the Hawaii tax laws and the tax form that was filed by the County of Hawaii. I look forward to my statements before you on this matter. Mr. Balsis next called up Jerome Warren, who had signed up to testify on two matters. MR. WARREN: The first one goes back to last month's Board of Ethics hearing, which I was attending. And when I left the room, I looked at the official County bulletin board, and the Board of Ethics agenda was improperly posted. It was hiding names on the second page, and these names are familiar to all of us. So whoever posted that did a tremendous favor to the people that were being on trial, so to speak, because a person walking past any bulletin board, when they see something that is familiar when that is in print, it will catch a person's eye, and they'll draw their attention. But the agenda was improperly posted, because the second page was not visible. And I wrote a letter to Office of Information Practices, and I have not received a reply. I wrote a letter I made a call that day from the lobby of this building. They said write a letter. I wrote the letter the next day. I haven't heard anythingfrom OIP. So let's let that one drop, and then I'll get onto my petition, 2012-10. And here's just a subjective view here. I'm titling this, the government must follow its own laws. Here it goes. My first clue regarding the illegal baggage charge was a sign in one of the Hele-On buses. The sign read $1 for a skateboard, but it didn't quote the County ordinance. Instead, the bottom read, the Transit Agency. That was too vague supposed to have the ordinance code. They left that out. Then I looked up Section 18 -91 regarding baggage fares. There is no provision to charge a dollar for a skateboard or an extra bag of groceries. I followed the chain of command with my complaint. At the top was Bobby Command. He gave me false hope. Then he promised a recommendation for the transit board. He was going to put in my name. Then he promised a telephone conference. Nothing came through. And this is just the nuts and bolts. I mean, I went through a lot of grief and a lot of time on a wild goose chase. After a cruel long time--after a cruel long time, it dawned on me that Bobby Command was hiding a malfeasance: the $1 theft for the skateboard or the bag of groceries. The final step was when Bobby Command asked me, in regard to fares, what if somebody brought an atom bomb onto the bus? Then I knew that he was playing me for a fool. He was not a concerned citizen. He had turned into a bureaucrat. He is a bureaucrat in the worst sense of the word. Bobby Command is costing our County more money than he gets paid The Hele-On Bus is not user-friendly. Everybody knows that. The $1 extortion proves it. If the system were user-friendly, then more citizens would stop putting gas in their cars. They'd do like I do. Their dollars would not go off - shore, as mine don't, but stay in our local economy, as mine will today when I get my plate lunch at the Chinese restaurant, all you can eat. Etcetera. Bobby Command did nothing to help, and that hurts the economy of this County. Mahalo. Mr. Balsis called up Tim Rees, who had signed up to testify on several agenda items. MR. REES: I also had a brief comment that I didn't write down, number 6b. I do have a brief comment, if I can add that on there. Thank you. Okay, beginning with 4a., communication, you know I I am very concerned about the agendas of all of the County boards. I think the Ethics Board is one of the most important boards that this County actually has, and it's not that there's so much bad activity going on, but there really has to be a fair venue for people to bring their complaints. And seguewaying into Sa., this new business item, Petition No. 2012 -10. I have certain problems with I guess it's the Ethics Board's rules, or maybe it's actually the Ethics Code of the County of Hawaii in relation to this petition--or not this particular petition, but initial reviews. My problem is that this Board can dismiss petitions at initial review stage. Now if I was to come down here and testify intelligently--I don't mean like an expert, I mean just as a regular citizen coming in, having a real good idea about the gist of what the complaint is about. It may be something that I am very much an interested person in. Maybe it's something I have a general interest in. But if I cannot have access to Petition No. 2012 -10 in this particular matter, then I have to go by the quotes that have been put on this agenda to try to discern what is this matter really about. Now I just heard Mr. Warren. And I've known Mr. Warren as an acquaintance from the County Council meetings. We both show up there quite often. He seems reasonable, but when I read these quotes, by quote, violating their own rules, quote, delay tactics and psychological warfare, and the last one, quote, the extortion of money from Hele-On Bus passengers. Now that last one is the one that really concerns me, that there are no rules cited here, there's no County Code cited, so I'm not able with--maybe he does that in his complaint. Again, here I am trying to testify intelligently. I have to--I'm forced to testify somewhat ignorantly. Obviously, the County Code that he might be referring to in his complaint is a matter of concern to anybody. And if it allows the amount that he was referring to for the skateboard or the extra bags, then I would say there's no extortion. However, if that bill--unless the drivers themselves are doing something untoward--but if the County Code provides for it, specifically allows it, I would be down here saying hey, I don't think the guy's right, or I can see I read it, it doesn't allow for those extra charges. I can say I can see where he's coming from, and I want to have you guys not dismiss this case at initial review, and I want to have you look into it, bring the County people in here and explain if there's a numerical discrepancy or if the item's not even there and it appears they're not allowed to lawfully charge that fee he's referring to. And I'm getting my information right here, from his oral testimony. I was trying to read and get my thoughts together for the other items on here, and it's very difficult. So my concern is if this Board is going to have a rule that says this petition is confidential until it's been brought forward here at this date publicly, how can people intelligently testify on the matter? And I hope that some of you would consider that and say yeah, there does seem to be a little bit of a problem there. It tends to defeat the general public from coming in and testifying. And that's an issue that happens--I know you folks look into when council members in the past have done things, it tends to either intimidate people or deter people from coming forward and presenting their views to deliberative bodies. And I think enough said on that one, other than I honestly don't think you should have the power to dismiss under those circumstances, at the first initial review, until the general public has had an opportunity to read the complainant's own words in their complaint and then be able to testify about that. And I will be bringing that up to the OIP. I don't think the OIP understands quite a bit of the different aspects of the Sunshine Law, Chapter 92, to these different boards. It's kind of hard to squeeze County Council, Ethics Board, different performance duties. It's really hard to have the same set of rules apply straight across the board. So I do want to confer with the OIP on these matters. Moving on to 6a., unfinished business. This also has to do with the matter where I see the Ethics Board maybe you're correctly using jurisdiction as a reason to dismiss cases, or maybe you're not. And I hope dismiss is the right word. Anyway, you get rid of them, right? And in the court systems, jurisdiction, when a question arises, that is a matter that I understand this is not a judicial court here but that is a matter that is extremely important for both parties to fairly argue the issue, once the question comes up. It is not something to be taken lightly. The courts don't want to waste their time, as boards shouldn't be wasting their time, on matters that more properly come under another venue, another jurisdiction. However, I don't see that matter being allowed to be argued here, or even casually deliberated by the two parties. It seems as if the Board says we've got a jurisdiction problem here, we're out on this one. Now that basically is what happened with the union situation, the presentation by the union folks at the civics, and it also happened in another one, this number here, number 2012 -07, the complaint against Mr. Blas. Now personally I think Mr. Blas, whatever happened there, it's a mystery to me. I'm glad it's more or less over with. But I'm very concerned with the precedents being set here or the continuance of a procedure that I see as being very faulty, detrimental to the welfare of our community, and the view that people have of their government the positive view that somewhat gets detracted there. Ms. Schoen, if I may mention this, at your last meeting where the Fred Blas complaint came up, she cited a court case, and she said this is case law. I read through it. It's Doe vs. State Ethics Commission, 373--I forget what book this is, I'm sure it's here somewhat, I can't find it. But I read through the entire case. There's not one instance that I can find that even begins to say this ruling should also apply to county boards of ethics. Now our Board of Ethics our Code of Ethics and the rules specifically include post-employment jurisdiction by this body. Specifically. So the presumption is you have it. It doesn't say only in these particular cases does this body have jurisdiction post- employment. So the other thing is that Chief Justice Richardson and Associate Justice Levinson wrote a dissenting opinion. They said the majority's opinion led straight to absurdity. And rather than me pointing out what those absurdities were, they brought up certain issues of like a guy can do good all his career, and then the last month he can pass legislation that he knows will benefit him in the private sector and get off scott free, if you read this the way the majority opinion decided. They also cited the very same case law that the majority opinion did, the dissenting chief justice and justice by the way, Justice Richardson. This is what the Richardson School of Law, UH Manoa is named after? I'll hang my hat on his language, in many cases that I've read, particularly this one. I'll take his advice on this thing. So what looked like kind of a snap I don't mean to insult you by saying a snap decision I would encourage all of you to carefully read this and I hate to say this, but honestly, in this context, how that came up, and how this case law was cited and that it was not presented by your counsel here, the corp counsel representing this body, that there was some dissent, and the nature of that language in the dissent. That was it's unethical not to bring thatforward to you folks while you're making your decision on jurisdiction. So I'll end my testimony there, but I think these general matters are of great concern to the public, and I'm going to be communicating with the council. I see problems in this body not any of you folks personally, but in this body. And I apologize, Ms. Schoen. We haven't really had an opportunity, after I read this case, to speakprivately on this. Well thank you, all of you. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2012 Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Balsis voted aye. 4. COMMUNICATIONS Memorandum Opinion dated 12/27/12 from the Office of Information Practices regarding Sunshine Law and Uniform Information Practices Act Complaints (from Dan Cole) about Agendas and Meetings. The opinion was in response to complaints by Mr. Cole in 2009. Mr. Balsis read aloud the summary of the opinion from page 2: "The June and July agendas provided sufficient public notice. The evidence was insufficient to find that the Board discussed the requester's petitions and made decisions in advance of the June meeting. Although notice of the June meeting was not timely mailed to requester, there was no harm as he received actual notice before the meeting and participated at the meeting. The Board did not violate the UIPA by not immediately providing a letter requested during an open meeting." There was no fault found on the part of the Board. He asked that the communication be filed. Mr. Cole asked if he could comment, but Mr. Balsis said that opportunity had already been provided and the communication was now filed. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2012 -10: Initial review of petition alleging that the Transit Agency and a County officer violated Section 2- 83(a)(3) (under fair treatment) of the Code of Ethics by "violating their own rules," using "delay tactics and psychological warfare," and by defending the "extortion of money from Hele-On Bus passengers." MR. BALSIS: This petition is made by Jerome Warren, and may I ask you to come forward? I'll give you the floor for a little while to discuss your petition. MR. WARREN: Thank you, sir. And as Mr. Rees stated, my evidence is in my petition. It's not just on the first page. I submitted a copy of my petition with Senator Inouye 's office, and in that evidence, which I hope you have, you can read what I am saying. It's in print. So all of my facts all of my facts are in print. There's the letter to Senator Inouye. There's a copy of my letter to the editor, which was published in the Hawaii Tribune - Herald on October 27th, and then I'll move on to the next page of my petition. And that is the Section 18 -91 regarding baggage. And again, I've shown this to people with legal minds, people in the legal profession, and they did not tell me I was wrong. So after that is you may or may not have this, a letter that was published, a letter to the editor that was published on the 7th of December, 2012. It's kind of a tongue -in -cheek letter, but it was published in the newspaper, in both newspapers. All I have is my original, and then my neighbor submitted it to the paper, and they did they printed it verbatim. So again it's a tongue -in -cheek letter. If you'll allow me, it's just a short one, I'll read it. Okay, dear editor. Here's the $64,000 question. What does Mayor Billy Kenoi's Transit Agency do with all of the money that they've stolen from this island's skateboarders? Are they going to build a skate park for these young dudes and dudettes, or just balance the County budget? What about the money the Hele -On Bus drivers have stolen from shoppers for that extra bag of groceries? Will Tom Brown donate the hot bread to the food basket, or just balance the County budget? The longer the administration stalls, the more dollar bills they can rake in. How long can they keep getting away with this? That's the end of the letter. And now I think you have everything in print, and then I'm open for questions. MR. BALSIS: Are there any questions from anybody? Mr. Henricks? I don't have any specific questions, but I do notice that in the information that you provided, while it's not specific and I think that's your contention the Mass Transit does have the ability to charge for apiece of baggage that is not easily placed under the seat or on one's lap like that. MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. MR. BALSIS: That should be a contention with the Transit Agency, would it not? MR. WARREN: Yes, sir, and I spoke with the people in the Transit Agency, and basically I just got the brush off or the bum's rush. That's all I got from them. And then I went further, as is stated in the first letter to the editor, which you have. I named the names. William Brilhante would be the person and he was the person that they referred me to. And so again it was very vague, his reason. And then if I may add, when I went to your last hearing, William Brilhante approached me and I was sitting next to Tim Rees and then he came up to me and again tried to steer me off into—on a wild goose chase. Again it was the promise of perhaps a resolution before the legislative body. But then I said this is no longer a legislative matter. It's an administrative matter. And again we get back to the County must follow their own rules. So again, even with William Brilhante and again it's all this, I don't know what you call it--psychological warfare - -where they do not address the problem. But when I give a rational answer to their question, they'll pick part of that answer. They try to —they take my argument out of my tent and put it in their tent. And again that's just a wild goose chase. People have been doing this since the days of Julius Caesar. It's just common practice. And then that's how I suffered under William Brilhante. And again, Bobby Command it was the same psychological warfare offering, where he goes oh Jerry and we've known each other. He is my friend still to this day, because we've known each other a long time. He helped me with the sewer project in Nd `dlehu by bringing facts into print and backing them up with interviews with the EPA. And they put that in print. So I've always considered him to be my friend, and I still do to this day, because I like the man. MR. BALSIS: Are there any - ? MR. HENRICKS: I'd like to ask a question. MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. MR. HENRICKS: Is your complaint against the rule itself, or against the treatment by the department? MR. WARREN: It's against the treatment, because MR. HENRICKS: --by the department? MR. WARREN: By Bobby Command. MR. HENRICKS: Okay. MR. WARREN: And I'm military. I have a military mind. I'm a veteran. And I've been an officer in United Rubber Workers and also an officer in ILWU. MR. HENRICKS: Can you specify exactly what treatment you felt that was bad by him? MR. WARREN: By him, it was the again, we'll go with delay tactics. He and this is, I'm making a very long story short. I'm getting right down to the nitty gritty. He promised me a telephone interview on a specific date, and then lucky thing I have his cell number. He never called me. I had to call him twice on his cell phone, and he just did not come up with any fact -based answers. And I'll move forward to the final I shouldn't say it, but anyhow, move forward to the day that he promised me a face -to face interview or another telephone conference. I went to the West Hawai `i Civic Center to see him on that day, and then he wasn't at work today. Megan said oh, he's doing his business from home. And then, so I was again, we had that vagueness. And then finally, and we'll go over to the atom bomb statement. It's always me having to call him. And then I talked to him on the phone after that weekend, and then here's what they do. They'll start you chasing your tail by oh, start from the beginning, right. And then when I started to sound like a broken record, he goes, well what if somebody brought an atom bomb on the bus? And then I knew. He was playing me for a fool. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, you're saying now I'm trying to put down specifics. I don't want to go all the way around in big circles. I want to try to narrow it down to what exactly the complaint is here, you understand? MR. WARREN: The complaint-- MR. HENRICKS: -- because the complaint is against Bobby Command. Is that correct? MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, you're stating that Bobby Command has been treating you badly by giving you delaying tactics, not giving you answers to your questions, and not responding when he said he was going to respond to you. Is that correct? MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. MR. HENRICKS: All right. So that's the gist of your complaint at this point? MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. MR. HENRICKS: Okay. Do you realize that if I decide myself, not for the Board- -but if in my mind if I decide I should take it further, it would not be on the issue of the one dollar charge. You understand that? MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. It's his it's his unfair treatment of me-- MR. HENRICKS: - -it's his treatment of you that I'm concerned about MR. WARREN: - -Yes, sir MR. HENRICKS: - -not the one dollar charge-- MR. WARREN: - -I understand, sir. MR. HENRICKS: Because that's a difference of opinion between you and the County. MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. MR. HENRICKS: And we're not going to get involved with that. MR. WARREN: I realize that, sir. MR. BALSIS: What is the pleasure of the Board? Do you have any comments? MR. HENRICKS: No, I just made them. MR. BALSIS: Okay. Would you like to proceed in any special way? MR. HENRICKS: Well at this point, based on what I'm looking at right now, without is there someone from the department here to testify? Okay, are you going to testify for Mr. Bobby Command, on his behalf? MR. COMMAND: I am Bobby Command. MR. HENRICKS: Oh, you're Bobby Command. MR. COMMAND: Yes. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, let's see what he's got to say before I make my decisions. Good, I can get both sides . Thanks. MR. BALSIS: Bobby Command? MR. COMMAND: Yup. Aloha, everyone, happy new year. I'm Bobby Command. I'm just here to answer questions. MR. HENRICKS: No, we want you to respond to him. We don't want you to answer questions. You've heard and can testify. What I need to know is what is your response to what he's telling me. MR. COMMAND: Well, I agree with you that what he's talking about, in terms of the dollar charge, is a policy decision. So I don't have anything else to say about that. I do admit that I didn't call him back on that day, and I also apologized to him for not calling him back. I did eventually call him back. I didn't have the answers he wanted, because I didn't have the answers that he wanted to hear. It's a policy decision to charge a dollar for the skateboard or whatever other baggage that he put on the bus. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Regardless of size? MR. COMMAND: No, I think that there's some sort of dimensional requirement-- MR. BALSIS: - -We need to keep MR. HENRICKS: -- that this morning. I've already decided, and I made my statement, we're not going to the charge of the dollar. That's not the issue at all. It's the treatment-- MR. BALSIS: --It's the treatment between Bobby and Jerome. MR. HENRICKS: It's between the two of them. We're not getting involved with the charge. This body doesn't have an issue as far as the charge is concerned. We're only taking it into the treatment between people, if it's unfair treatment. Not the charge. Okay, he specifically said that you were giving him the runaround. MR. COMMAND: I think that I'm not giving him the answer that he wants to hear, which is some sort of policy decision on the baggage. I've tried very hard to help him. I've tried to steer him to the Transportation Committee. I also referred him to the Mass Transit Agency. And like he said, we've known each other for a long time. I've nothing against him. And like he said, if not calling him back on that particular day was a problem, I apologize for that. MR. HENRICKS: Do you accept his apology, or do you want to go forward? MR. WARREN: I do not accept the apology. And I made a very long story very short and brief, but this a continuing it's almost a culture that I was subjected to. I call it the kick the can down the road-- MR. HENRICKS: Any time that Mr.-- MR. COMMAND: Command? MR. HENRICKS: No. MR. WARREN: Warren. MR. HENRICKS: Mr. Warren. At any time that Mr. Warren contacted you or made inquiries, did you ever at any time, in your decision, write something to him in writing, stating your position and the department's position? MR. COMMAND: In writing, no. MR. HENRICKS: Why not? MR. COMMAND: Basically because all our conversations, except for a very few instances, have all been over the phone. He's never asked for anything in writing. MR. HENRICKS: But you had to make a decision, though, didn't you? MR. COMMAND: I don't believe that had to make a decision except to tell him that the policies of the Mass Transit Agency are-- MR. HENRICKS: - -You had to answer his inquiry, though. MR. COMMAND: Yes, just over the phone. I don't think we make it a policy to put everything in writing whenever someone calls and asks for some sort of information or clarification. MR. BALSIS: One of the issues that I see that Mr. Warren has, and he just mentioned it, in not accepting apologies, because it has to do with a culture. However, the petition is not going in to any cultural aspect within the County of Hawai `i. We need to be specific to this situation. And so I would go back to-- MR. HENRICKS: - -Well, let me ask Mr.-- MR. WARREN: Warren? MR. HENRICKS: Mr. Warren-- MR. WARREN: Yes, sir. MR. HENRICKS: Mr. Warren, Jerome Warren. Okay, let me ask Mr. Warren is it your feeling that you do not accept his answers? Is that what it is about? MR. WARREN: It's not just the he referred I'm a military man, military mind Union man, union mind. We go up the chain of command But and I had spoken to all the people he mentioned, and then he is the top of the chain of command. So when he refers me back down, and then when I get recycled by those other bureaucrats, then that is psychological warfare. And it's unfair treatment. MR. COMMAND: Can I respond to that? MR. BALSIS: Yes. MR. COMMAND: The Mayor's Office supports the decisions and policies of the various departments. MR. HISASHIMA: Can I ask a question? Mr. Warren said you folks both are good friends. Did any of the friendship part affect the decision- making? And he says he's a good friend. Anyone can respond to that? Is the friendship part of this complaint? MR. WARREN: Yes, sir, because I trust Bobby. And he has helped me in the past, and I really trust this man. He has integrity. And so that is perhaps why I kept returning to him with after following his suggestions, and I would return to him, both on the phone and in person. And we had long discussions in his office. His staff, Megan, chimed in. I admire her, too. And then I trust both of these people. I trust their integrity. MR. HISASHIMA: So if Mr. Command had written to you, like Mr. Henricks said, if he had written to you-- MR. WARREN: - -If, okay, yes, sir-- MR. HISASHIMA: - -and gave you a disposition MR. WARREN: - -Yes, sir-- MR. HISASHIMA: - -would you have been satisfied with that? MR. WARREN: That would have helped me, because that would have stopped me wasting my time. I'm a busy person. I have my own clients. It would take me back to my own business. But by him not doing that, I was just given false hope. If I had some written information, something in black and white, in print, then I could have taken that and proceeded, perhaps in another direction. But with only hearsay, people will not listen to me. MR. COMMAND: Would it make any difference if I gave you something in writing? MR. WARREN: Not now. MR. COMMAND: Okay. MR. HENRICKS: Anything else? MR. BALSIS: I don't have anything else. MR. HENRICKS: Anything else you want to add to it, either one of you? MR. WARREN: I'll probably think of it when I get home. But what I would request of this Board is to do an investigation, to carry the ball. And it's not just on my behalf. It's on behalf of all of the bus riders. And I will add some information. I have MR. HENRICKS: - -No, no, no. We aren't going into that. We're talking about MR. WARREN: - -about me and him-- MR. HENRICKS: -- between you and him. MR. WARREN: Here's where it comes into play. I ride the bus all the time, and everybody knows that I am the troublemaker. And they can continue because the administration has not stuck up for me. The administration is sticking up for the Transit Agency, and this again, we get back to that culture. And Bobby Command, the CEO, sets the culture of any operation. And Bobby Command did not set them straight. So I continue to be subject to ridicule on the bus by the drivers. And it's all Bobby Command. He could have nipped it in the bud, but he didn't. MR. HENRICKS: I have nothing further. MR. BALSIS: I have no questions for either Mr. Command or Mr. Warren. MR. HISASHIMA: Nothing. MR. BALSIS: Nothing. May I ask the Board of any opinion on what we should be doing in this matter? MR. HENRICKS: Well, I was wavering there back and forth, and listening very closely. And I'm going tomy position at this point is to dismiss. And I'll tell you why my position is to dismiss. I'm looking specifically at the treatment Mr. Bobby Command gave to him. I'd prefer when you get into a situation when the public goes to someone and requests their answers to something, I prefer that the person answering them would do it in writing so that the person would have a positive definition of what had occurred and what the decision on that particular issue is so he can move forward as to how he feels about it. But what I have to look at here is, did Bobby Command treat Mr. Warren unfairly in this particular matter? And we use the word unfairly because it has to be a high degree. It can't be just disagreement between two parties going up to the area of being an ethics violation. And the one by looking through all my notes here, I notice that Mr. Warren is dissatisfied with the treatment that he received from Bobby Command, whereas Bobby Command felt that he tried to tell Mr. Warren and that wasn't effective because the answers he was given was not being accepted by Mr. Warren. But one thing that stuck in my mind as to what you both said is when Mr. Warren said they had long discussions in his office with him and his staff. At that point I flipped over to the other side and said well that's not unfair treatment at this point. You were still trying to communicate and it didn't workout. So I can't go that way. So I can't say that it was unfair treatment. MR. WARREN: May I respond, sir? It was the time when he said what if somebody brings an atom bomb onto the bus. That was the final straw. What if it came out of his mouth. What if somebody brought an atom bomb-- MR. HENRICKS: - -It's a metaphor and it's a largely overused metaphor, and it's too large for the situation. But it's not offensive. It's just a metaphor. MR. WARREN: Well, we're dealing with nuts and bolts. That's no place for a metaphor, at that point. MR. HENRICKS: That's a difference of opinion, though. You don't think there is and somebody else might think it's humor, I don't know. But you can't make an ethics violation of something like that. That's what I'm saying. You can't do it. I can't make it into an ethics violation. Sorry. MR. WARREN.- I don't agree with you, respect-- MR. WARREN.- Of course you don't, because you're here and you don't agree. MR. WARREN.- Yes, sir. But that's why we have more members on the Board-- MR. HENRICKS: -- Exactly-- MR. WARREN.- - -and you have to take a vote. MR. HENRICKS: Exactly. But I'm trying to wrestle with this and-- MS. SCHOEN: --Mr. Chair, I think this can go on for a while, so what the Board's options are is either to set it for an informal hearing, a formal hearing, or dismiss the matter. MR. BALSIS: In this particular case I'd like to entertain a motion from anyone to either dismiss, to go into an informal hearing, or go into a formal hearing. MR. HENRICKS: Well, I move to dismiss based on the reasons I've stated already. MR. BALSIS: Is there a second to this motion? MR. HISASHIMA: Second. MR. BALSIS: There is a second to this motion. Is there any further discussion amongst the Board? Hearing no further discussion, I'll call for a vote to dismiss the Petition No. 2012 -10, without repeating all the comments, but for the various comments that were discussed. All those in favor say aye. MR. HENRICKS and MR. HISASHIMA (simultaneously): Aye. MR. BALSIS: Aye. The vote is unanimous to dismiss this petition. MR. COMMAND: Thank you. MR. BALSIS: Thank you, Mr. Command, and thank you, Mr. Warren. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2012 -07: Review draft order dismissing petition by RJ Hampton and Robert Petricci, which alleged that former Councilman Fred Blas violated Section 2- 83(a)(3) (under fair treatment) of the Code of Ethics when he allegedly stated at a public hearing that his polling place did not open on time on the primary election day, that he saw cars turned away, and that when he asked what was going on, he was told by voters that the poll was closed and they could not vote. The petition contended that "the poll opened on time, all voters were able to vote, and there was no drive through of cars that were turned away." Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to accept the order as drafted, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Balsis voted aye. b. Petition No. 2012 -08: Further initial review of petition by Dan A. Cole, which alleges that Mayor Kenoi violated Section 2 -83(b) (under fair treatment) of the Code of Ethics when he, "in conspiracy with others, illegally obtained and used $10 million dollars of the people's money for the sole advantage of Bank of Hawaii, First Hawaiian Bank, and /or a RICO Enterprise of the `old boy network' and /or 'unmentionables."' MR. BALSIS: I do want to mention that at the last meeting, it was specific that the only thing we were discussing was the perception of, shall we say, income unfairly received by various banks in the transaction. A letter was written to Mayor Kenoi, asking a response to this perception, this allegation, and a letter was received, answering on behalf of Mayor Kenoi from Nancy Crawford. And I believe Nancy Crawford is present today. Would you please come forward? And as you're coming forward, has the other members of the Board had the opportunity to review this letter? MR. HISASHIMA: Yes. MR. HENRICKS: Yes. MR. BALSIS: Ms. Crawford, do you have any comments regarding your letter, the allegations? MS. CRAWFORD: I guess I would just add I apologize that you didn't receive the letter earlier, but I'm glad that you've had the opportunity to look at it. I think that if you have any questions, we would be happy to answer. Along with me I also have our treasurer, Mike Okumoto. I understand the Board's concern, but we attempted to explain in the letter the necessity to borrow funds in advance, as in any business you have to have cash reserve on hand to do business. And that's what is the case here, where we are going out and doing the BAN borrowing, allowing ourselves enough time. Should that not be successful and we have to do bonds, then we have that money on hand. The money in this case in this case we had the opportunity to put it into a CD, but the money was still available to us if we needed it and could be pulled at any time, unlike postponing the borrowing postponing selling the note, in which case we're running up against the chance of actually running short of cash funds. MR. BALSIS: Just as a reminder, there were allegations with regards to the timing of the transaction. Those, if I recall correctly from the previous meeting, were issued to be handled outside of the Board of Ethics and that the only contention was the benefit to the County and to the people of the County for the transaction going through. Are there any further questions? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. BALSIS: Is there any discussion on this matter? MR. HENRICKS: No further discussion. MR. COLE: May I make some more comments? MR. BALSIS: If they're brief, yes. MR. COLE: They're brief and they'll counter the actual information presented in the letter. It's erroneous. MR. BALSIS: Okay. The benefit to the County was very specific in the letter. The benefit the County received from the issuance of the short -term bond in this case was continued progress on capital improvement projects, with the assurance of adequate funding to meet expenditures in a timely manner. And as Ms. Crawford had mentioned, it allowed the County to have the availability of those funds if they were short on funds at any point in time prior to the issuance of the full bond. Am I correct? MS. CRAWFORD: That's correct. And the money in the note coincidentally, these periods were the same, but that isn't necessarily true. The notes are rolled over and carried forward until the time at which we have expended those funds and it's time that we're actually going to do a bond issue to take those out. MR. BALSIS: There appears to be a difference in the perception of the benefit or non - benefit to the people of the County of Hawai `i. Is there a desire from any members of the Board to dismiss the petition, continue with an informal investigation, or go with a formal investigation or ask more questions? MR. HENRICKS: At this time I move to dismiss, since the evidence put forward does not constitute a violation under the Code of Ethics. MR. COLE: May I make some more comments on this, clarification, because the letter sent to the mayor is in error, and the statements that Ms. Crawford has made is in violation of the very issuance of the certificates of the master certificate and of the tax certificate issued the bonds. There was no benefit to the County of Hawai `i. There was no intended benefit to the County of Hawai `i, and the actions of the mayor were a pattern and history of purchasing bond anticipation notes and placing the money into a time deposit certificate for the apparent use to launder money. This is a pattern in history that has not benefited the people of Hawai `i. There are four other instances of this. To purchase a bond-- MR. BALSIS: --We're looking at this specific instance, and there is a difference of opinion. And with regards to the Board of Ethics, there is a motion on the table, and I'm looking for a second, and then we can have a discussion. So I do thank you for your comments. MR. COLE: The benefit has never been answered here. You are still going to ________. What project benefited from the people what benefit did the people get for $66, 000 they paid to the Bank of Hawaii to have $10 million sitting in the First Hawaiian Bank? By the very own master issuance certificate, the County cannot loan money under the Series B. It's right in the actual tax certificate itself signed by Ms. Crawford. So there was no intended benefit to begin with. In addition, the other bonds were exhausted under a previous bond issue and counsel Ashida himself states that the bonds were issued before the effective date of their authorization by Bill 1040 there. So it is illegal . There could have been no benefit to the people of Hawaii, because it was not intended to. MR. BALSIS: Your comments are well heard, and they are part of the record. So we do have a motion on the floor, and I'm looking for a second to that. MR. HISASHIMA: Second. MR. BALSIS: At this time, is there any further discussion amongst the Board regarding this particular motion to dismiss make sure I get it right Petition No. 2012 -08 because it was found that there was no unfair treatment to the people in that there is a perceived benefit to the people of the County of Hawaii. MS. SCHOEN: Wait a minute. I don't think that was his motion. MR. BALSIS: Okay, I'm sorry. Please correct me, then. MS. SCHOEN: You misstated the motion. Am I right Arne? MR. BALSIS: Please correct me. MR. HENRICKS: I can't remember it anymore. MR. COLE: Could we have an actual formal hearing for the mayor to tell us what exactly is in it that we got for this $10 million? MS. SCHOEN: Okay, let Mary Mary, do you have it at all? SECRETARY: It was like it was a motion to dismiss for the statements that were previously received, something like that. MR. HENRICKS: I said there was not sufficient evidence to show that there was unfair treatment under the evidence code. MS. SCHOEN: --Ethics Code. You said evidence. MR. HENRICKS: I mean Ethics Code. SECRETARY.- Yes, yes, you're right. MR. BALSIS: The motion is on the floor. It has been seconded. Is there any further discussion on this motion? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. BALSIS: I'll call for a vote. All those in favor of the dismissal for those reasons, please say aye. MR. HENRICKS and MR. HISASHIMA (simultaneously): Aye. MR. BALSIS: Aye. The motion has been passed. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to go into executive session for review of the confidential matters agendized therein, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Balsis voted aye. Mr. Balsis stated that the reason for the executive session was to review the executive session minutes of the previous meeting and confidential financial disclosures. 11:07 a.m.: The Board left regular session. 11:15 a.m.: The Board returned to regular session. 7. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Approval of the executive session minutes of December 12, 2012. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to accept the minutes, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Henricks voted aye. b. Review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms filed pursuant to Section 2- 91.1(d), Hawaii County Code, by County board and commission members and designated County employees, where personal matters will be reviewed. Mr. Balsis stated that disclosures 2 and 3 were reviewed, and disclosure 1 was continued for review until more members were appointed to the Board. Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to accept disclosures 2 and 3 and to continue 1 for review at a later date. Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and he, Mr. Balsis, and Mr. Henricks voted aye. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Balsis announced the Board's next meeting: February 13, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 1501 of the Hawaii County Building at 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, or at another location to be determined. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:18 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature)