Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-13 Board of Ethics minutesHAWAI‘I COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:03 a.m. to 11:34 a.m. Hawai‘i County Building County Council Chambers 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Members and Staff Present: Bernard Balsis, Vice Chair Arne Henricks, Member Glen Hisashima, Member Douglass Adams, 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 called up Joy Cash, who had signed up to testify regarding agenda item 4a. MS. CASH: My name is Joy Cash. I’m a resident of Hilo. I’ve sat here in this room for the last six months, listening to the County Council. There are very precious few on our County Council that have the health, safety, and welfare of our people and our island in their actions, in their words, and in their heart. This is why I’m motivated to be here today. I am—can you hear me? Speak up? Speak in? MR. BALSIS: You’re good. MS. CASH: Okay. It’s unthinkable to me that someone would question Brenda Ford’s ethics. And based on a quarter acre of papaya grown in Ka‘ū? I don’t know how many miles Ka‘ū is from the papaya farmers in Kea‘au, but it’s unthinkable that this would even be considered a problem. Please, I implore you to use common sense and understand the secret agenda—well, not so secret agenda—of the pro-GMO faction in this effort before you. This is dirty business, and I know that as an ethics committee it’s your duty not to fall for that and not to go in that way. I’m astounded that they would bend this low to forward their agenda, but it just shows me that they’re afraid. They’re very afraid of the truth and people like Brenda Ford that stand forward for all of us and our future generations. This is serious, very serious business before you. I implore you to think about it very carefully and wisely, and the ramifications for our island. Thank you so much. Mr. Balsis called up Eric Weinert, who also had signed up to testify regarding agenda item 4a. MR. WEINERT: Good morning. My name is Eric Weinert. I’m the general manager of Calavo Growers. We are the largest exporter of GMO rainbow papaya from Hawai‘i island to the U.S. mainland. I filed this complaint because I do feel there is an ethical violation. I, too, have sat through every meeting for Bill 79, and either 109 or 110, and 113, and the bill that Brenda introduced would ban all GMO papaya. And I just feel that there’s a conflict of interest when she claims to be a commercial, organic, non-GMO papaya grower and then trying to put her competitors out of business by introducing legislation. She should either have said I’ve got an ethical conflict of interest, which I don’t believe she’s ever said, or she should say she recuses herself from voting on these issues. So the first thing I would do is establish whether in fact what she says it’s true. Is she a commercial organic non-GMO papaya? She says that she has a quarter acre. I came up to her when she was in the room and she said yeah, I sell to a—I couldn’t buy it, but she sells to a particular person. She didn’t tell me who, and she said that she could look at my Schedule F, that that’s her income, it was reported. So I just feel there’s a conflict of interest. And I thank you for hearing me. I hope you guys establish whether she is a commercial grower or not, because if she’s not, these bills target and make commercial growers register. So even—but the definition of commercial isn’t defined. So if a quarter acre is what is defined as commercial acre—growers—you need to find out how many trees that is, because everyone who has that many trees under the legislation that’s proposed will be required to register their crops and the herbicides and pesticides that they use. So her statement is on the public record, it’s on the videotape. If you need me to, I can find it for you. Thank you. Mr. Balsis called up Kerri Marks, who had not signed up but indicated she wanted to testify. She was instructed to fill out the registration form after she testified. MS. MARKS: Good morning, everybody. I just wanted to sit down real quick and say that I support Brenda Ford. I think of all—personally, I think of all the nine councilmembers we have, she’s probably the most ethical one that we have. I would remind you, last year when you heard the complaint against absences for some other councilmembers, that I think it was pointed out then that Brenda had the best attendance record of all the councilmembers then, and she does now. So I support Brenda Ford. I don’t think a quarter acre of papaya is going to make a big difference in her discussion and decision-making on this bill. The bill she introduced, in case you all didn’t know, died in committee anyway, so it’s not really an issue on the table. There is a pending bill on the table, Bill 113, written by Ms. Wille. But I support Brenda Ford and I think she’s awesome, and I hope you do, too. Aloha. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to accept the minutes as drafted, Mr. Adams seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2013-04: Initial review of petition alleging a County officer is in violation of Section 2-84 (conflicts of interest) of the Code of Ethics because of the officer’s participation in Bills 109 and 113, “both impacting and putting papaya growers out of business as conventional farmers while claiming to grow non-GMO papaya on 1/4 acre at her farm.” Motion: Mr. Balsis moved to enter into executive session to consult with legal counsel. Mr. Adams seconded the motion, and they and Mr. Hisashima voted aye. 10:11 a.m. The Board left regular session. * * * * * 10:20 a.m. The Board returned to regular session. MR. BALSIS: This petition has been filed by Eric Weinert. Did I say that correct? MR. WEINERT: There’s no “h.” MR. BALSIS: Weinert. Please come forward, Mr. Weinert. I’d like to give you a few minutes to discuss the specifics of your petition. MR. WEINERT: Well, the specifics are that that bill that Ms. Ford put forward is still—it’s now in the Department of Environmental Management. It’s still active. And it proposes that all GMO papaya growers, of which that’s essentially all—that’s the majority of what’s being grown on the island—will be illegal to grow after 30 months. So it puts us completely out of business. The fact is that we try—there is some non-GMO out there. In fact, I just planted 50 acres of it. And we surround it with GMO papaya so that the aphids that spread the virus clean their mouth parts by the time they get to the interior, non-GMO. So it’s the GMO that’s actually allowing the non-GMO to exist, and it’s our position that there wouldn’t be any viable commercial papaya without protection of the rainbow genetically engineered papaya. So what I’m saying is, when someone is claiming to be a commercial grower, selling organic non-GMO papaya, and she has a bill that says everybody that’s not doing it my way is—I’m going to put out of business, I think that’s a conflict of interest. If we go out of business, clearly the price of her papaya is going to rise. It’s supply and demand. When there’s almost no papaya, her value will go up. It’s a clear conflict of interest in our minds. MR. BALSIS: Are there any questions from members of the Board for Mr. Weinert? MR. ADAMS: I do, actually. If I take a look at—you submitted this petition providing the section as 2-84 under the Code, conflict of interest. If I take a look at that section, I just want to verify—is there any specific element in that section that you’re aware of that you’re specifically focusing on, or are you just saying the section in general that you’re applying the petition to? MR. WEINERT: You know, I’m going to leave that up to you guys. They handed me, when I went into their office, they said you had to pick a code. Here’s a three-page—I briefly looked through it. The conflict of interest was clear to me. That’s the number that I wrote down on the petition. If there’s a more specific element, we’d leave it to you folks to make that determination. MR. ADAMS: Thank you. MR. BALSIS: Any other questions from the Board for Mr. Weinert? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. BALSIS: At this time I’d like to thank you very much— MR. WEINERT: --Thank you very much. MR. BALSIS: I’d like to ask if Ms. Ford could come up, and if you have any comments, the petition is clearly targeting you. You may have a few comments. MS. FORD: I have my attorney with me. MR. BALSIS: And we may have some questions. MS. FORD: Thank you. My name is Brenda Ford, and this is my attorney, Michael Matsukawa. First of all, I need to clarify misinformation I gave the council. At the time I—first of all, I’ve never hidden the information that my husband and I grow commercially. That’s been—from my first campaign till now, that’s been an open piece of information. But in the council meeting, when I was asked to estimate how much papaya acreage we had, I estimated 10,000 square feet. When I went home that night I spoke to my husband, and he said wrong. He went out and actually measured it and counted the trees. We have less than 1,500 square feet in papaya. We have only 41 papaya trees. So I wanted to get that on the record. I’ve been challenged as to whether or not I’m a commercial farmer. My husband and I do have a two-acre parcel of land. I am—we both are commercial farmers. We file Schedule S with the IRS, proving that we are commercially operating a farm, and we—and our farm is in Captain Cook. That’s in South Kona. And we have diversified agriculture. We are a non-certified organic farm. Thank you. I’ll leave the rest up to my attorney, unless you have questions that you need to ask me. MR. BALSIS: We’ll start on this side and we’ll go ahead. Do you have some questions? MR. ADAMS: I do not. MR. BALSIS: Glen? MR. HISASHIMA: Ms. Ford, under rule 11 of the County Council, did you file that information with the chairperson, about you being a commercial farmer? MS. FORD: No. I didn’t give anything in writing. I’ve been talking about it for over seven years. MR. HISASHIMA: So the whole entire council knew about it. MS. FORD: This council— MR. HISASHIMA: --Yes— MS. FORD: --the previous council, the previous council, and the previous council and during my very first campaign, before I was ever elected, I talked about all of this. It’s open information. MR. HISASHIMA: Okay, thank you. MR. BALSIS: I don’t have any questions myself. MS. FORD: May my attorney speak? MR. BALSIS: Yes. MS. FORD: Thank you. MR. MATSUKAWA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Michael Matsukawa. I’m an attorney from Kona, representing Ms. Ford. MS. FORD: You’re off, Mike, you have to start over (the microphone was off). MR. MATSUKAWA: I’m sorry. My name is Michael Matsukawa. I’m an attorney in Kona and I represent Ms. Ford this morning. I just had a few points to provide to the Board for its consideration. The first is a procedural thing. Lawyers like procedure, but that’s what we’re here to do, make sure things are working properly. First of all, under your own rules—excuse me, under the Code, Section 2-86 as to filing a petition, the petitioner needs to file a memorandum of authorities that discuss each point being raised. It’s not enough to just file a petition. And the reason for that I think is pretty clear. The last time I was before this Board, I had the opportunity to discuss the Carrigan case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the question was what is the character of a elected official’s vote? What character does the law give it? And so Justice Scalia in the Carrigan case described a vote of an elected official as a commitment of his or her share of the legislative body’s power to pass or defeat a particular proposal. A memorandum would have also set forth the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s view on this issue. This is the case of Eddie Tangen versus the State of Hawai‘i Ethics Commission. The Court was looking at a very similar provision, ethics provision, at the state level that we have at the county level. And the question was—I think Mr. Adams was asking here what section of 2-84, and in the absence of a memo, it’s hard for us to fathom which subsection. I presume it’s number 1, no officer shall take official action directly affecting a business or undertaking in which the officer has a substantial financial interest. And in the Tangen case the court went on to say that the state legislature, the voters of the state, when they enacted Article 14 of the State Constitution, didn’t intend to prohibit an elected official from voting on anything simply because there may be a perceived or in fact an actual conflict. And the court emphasized the word directly--that this was an intent to segregate the kinds of situations where an elected official perhaps ought not to cast that vote which represents the expression of the electorate. And so they advised caution, that directly eliminates something that’s remote, speculative, or indirect. So without getting into the substance of the bills in question, my understanding is Bill 113, which was Margaret Wille’s bill, has an exemption for GMO papayas. Ms. Ford’s bill had a proposed amendment to also exempt papayas, GMO papayas, from the legislation. Her bill is in committee. Ms. Wille’s bill is up for a vote next week. So we get to the timing of this petition. This subject has been known for awhile. It seems as though the petitioner is trying to cancel Ms. Ford’s vote, to be honest. They could have brought this petition earlier, but they waited for the eve of this November 19 committee vote—I mean council vote—that’s coming up. But the point of law I think is, is this a direct conflict, in the sense of the Code. And the Code says directly affecting a business or undertaking in which the officer has a substantial financial interest. It’s the burden of the petitioner to make that showing, that in fact the petition is couched in terms of stopping competition. But we don’t know. There’s an exemption for papayas. So are we certain that there will be an economic impact? And would 41 trees have an economic impact in the market place? I’ll leave that question for you. MR. BALSIS: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Ms. Ford’s attorney by any person on the Board here? MR. ADAMS: Referencing the Supreme Court case that you—can you tell us if there’s been any subsequent state implementation or execution of the ruling that the Supreme Court made, the Tangen ruling that you talked about? MR. MATSUKAWA: The Carrigan case? The Carrigan case was in 2010, and I think most states have recognized, including our state, that—and I can quote you the Hawai‘i case, that there’s a limit to what you can do. And the purpose is—and last night I read a case that came from California and Arkansas with a similar quotation. And this is directly from the legislative reports, at least for Hawai‘i. It is easy to become over-zealous and to forget the impact which a broad restriction may have. It is not necessarily the conflict of competing interests which should be prohibited, but only unethical actions that arise out of those conflicts. And this in reference to that state statute that has very similar language about directly affecting a business or financial undertaking. MR. ADAMS: That quotation came from a legislative report to one of the Hawai‘i statutes? MR. MATSUKAWA: That’s correct. MR. ADAMS: And so what about—you mentioned the Supreme Court ruling? MR. MATSUKAWA: The Supreme Court ruling arose in Carrigan, which was to determine the nature of a vote. The question was when someone votes, is that a statement of speech that was protected by the First Amendment. And so the U.S. Supreme Court said no, that vote represents the expression of the electorate. And so to what degree could you regulate it, the court left it to each state to resolve. MR. ADAMS: Thank you. MR. BALSIS: Are there any other—go ahead. MS. FORD: May I have a moment to confer with my attorney? Just a moment, right here? MR. BALSIS: Yes. (Ms. Ford and Mr. Matsukawa briefly conferred.) MS. FORD: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. BALSIS: Any other—any further comments? At this point I’d like to thank you for coming forward. There is no other—I’m sorry, but (Ms. Cash was raising her hand to speak) at this point I’d like to say thank you, you can return to your seats if you like. Mr. Weinert, do you have any further comments before the Board goes into discussion here? MR. WEINERT: Yes. MR. BALSIS: Please come forward. Go ahead. MR. WEINERT: The point that I waited until before the eve of this election I want to point out is incorrect. I filed this complaint the day that the statement was made. It turns out that this Board only meets so often, and this was the first available day that it was heard. So I filed it immediately. I did not know what the procedure was. I expected it to be heard right away, and I didn’t even know that there would be a hearing. So that’s not true. Thanks. MR. BALSIS: Thank you very much. At this point I’d like to ask the Board if you have any discussion or comments amongst ourselves here. Do you have any, Glen? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. ADAMS: I do. I think that the statute under which the—it’s my view that the statute under which the Board of Ethics operates, both the Charter and the Code, provides for an expansive view of our authority. Of course, you still have to pay attention to what the specifics are within the Code, but we have the ability to not necessarily be super-narrow—we have the ability to consider things that would be expansive. Having said that, when we take a look at 2-84, in the element, it appears to me that the petition is looking at 84(a)(1), no officer or employee shall take any official action directly affecting (1) a business or other undertaking in which that officer or employee has a substantial financial interest. I think that that’s where we’re probably focusing. And so you then take a look at whether or not there is a substantial financial interest. You can do that—I think I’m actually looking, in my view, at official action as a part of the conversation. I think that when we hear petitions that are talking about conflicts committed by legislators—in this case the council members—within the context of their official duties, within the context of their legislative duty, I—it’s going to be a high bar for me personally to see a conflict when that--when the legislator is doing things such as submitting legislation that’s going to be considered by the entire council, when there is discussions that are being held by the council in the context of their legislative duties. If there are, there are times when the council has executive duties, when they have oversight responsibilities. I think that those are closer calls, and you might consider those in those situations. But when it’s in their legislative duties, I think that there is a responsibility for the legislators to be given the responsibility. The voters voted them in. We defer to the voters in these situations, and it’s a relatively high bar for me to then consider something that has been disclosed because they had to do it as a candidate, and then also it’s part of their legislative duties. Official action, to me—I just don’t see where this petition goes to the level that I would require, in my view. MR. BALSIS: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Arne? MR. HENRICKS: I think that—excuse me—in reading Section 2-84(a)(1), there’s two hurdles to overcome before we can even consider it. One is the word directly, and the second word is substantial. I don’t think this goes up over either hurdle, so therefore that’s my opinion at this point. MR. BALSIS: Thank you. Glen, do you have any comments? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. BALSIS: At this point, the Board has the following options. Number one, we can request more information. Number two, we can dismiss. Number three, we can ask for an informal hearing, or number four, we can ask for a formal hearing. Did I get that right, counsel? MS. SCHOEN: Yes, Mr. Chair. MR. BALSIS: A nod’s fine. With that in mind, from the members of the Board, and with the comments that were made, do I have any motions to entertain here? MR. ADAMS: I move that we dismiss the petition. MR. HENRICKS: I second. MR. BALSIS: There has been a move and a second to dismiss this petition. Is there any further discussion on this petition? I’d just like to take a note that there was discussion on the reasons why various Board members believe that the petition should be dismissed, and those were very well put forth. So with that in mind I call for a vote. All those in favor of dismissing the petition, say aye. MR. ADAMS, MR. HENRICKS, and MR. HISASHIMA (simultaneously): Aye. MR. BALSIS: Aye. That was four people voted aye. Petition No. 2013-04 has been dismissed. Thank you. MS. SCHOEN: Mr. Chair, so I will be drafting for the Board’s consideration an order, and so I’ll provide that to you and then we’ll agendize this for next time for your review and approval. MR. BALSIS: That’ll just be for the actual approval of the dismissal, or the approval of the document itself. MS. SCHOEN: Correct, and then that will be provided to Ms. Ford and her counsel, and also the petitioner. MR. BALSIS: Thank you. Mr. Balsis called for a recess. 10:44 a.m.: The Board recessed. 10:50 a.m.: The Board reconvened. Because the petitioner for agenda item 4b would not arrive for a few minutes, the Board decided to go through the executive session items. Motion and vote: Mr. Adams moved to go into executive session for the purpose of reviewing confidential financial disclosures and the executive session minutes of the last meeting. Mr. Henricks seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Mr. Balsis said they could also consult with their counsel if necessary. 10:51 a.m.: The Board left regular session * * * * * 11:15 a.m.: The Board returned to regular session. 6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Approval of the executive session minutes of September 11, 2013. Motion and vote: Mr. Adams moved to approve the draft of the minutes, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members 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. Mr. Balsis noted that eight disclosures were reviewed. Numbers 4 and 7 were incomplete and returned to the secretary to gather further information. Motion and vote: Mr. Henricks moved to approve the rest of the disclosures, Mr. Hisashima seconded the motion, and all members voted aye Mr. Balsis directed the meeting back to New Business, agenda item 4b, as the petitioner had arrived. b. Petition No. 2013-08: Petitioner is seeking an opinion from the Board regarding his involvement with the Big Island Amateur Radio Club and his employment as an administrative officer with the Hawai‘i County Civil Defense Agency. MR. BALSIS: The petitioner has requested a closed session. As a point of usual process, we’re going to ask why you’re asking for a closed session. PETITIONER: I don’t know any better. I don’t know whether— MS. SCHOEN: Can you come forward and use the mic, because she— MR. BALSIS: --Yes, please. PETITIONER: I’m not sure what an open session would involve versus a closed session, so. MR. BALSIS: An open session is when everybody’s present, including the young ladies in the back, the press. Closed session is when it’s only us. MR. HENRICKS: Normally a closed session is requested when some piece of information will come out that’s something you don’t want other people to know about and rather were held confidential. That’s when you want a closed session, you understand. MR. HANSON: Okay. So I’m okay if the ladies in the back are here. MR. BALSIS: Then let us continue without closed session, in open session. Here we go. Your name is Bill Hanson, and you filed this petition. MR. HANSON: I did. MR. BALSIS: And you’re requesting— MR. HANSON: --William is my formal name. MR. BALSIS: Okay. You’re requesting an informal advisory opinion from us. MR. HANSON: Yes, sir. MR. BALSIS: We have your petition. We’ve been able to review that, but we’re going to ask you if you have any comments. MR. HANSON: To summarize. MR. BALSIS: Yes, please. MR. HANSON: So I am gainfully employed by the County with the Hawai‘i County Civil Defense Agency as administrative officer. As I am there attending to my duties, I also have for the large part of my adult life done volunteer work or work trying to help others, regardless of my employment. With that, I see that there’s an opportunity for volunteering in helping in the Big Island Amateur Radio Club as their president. The Big Island Amateur Radio Club is a 501(c)(7). I don’t get paid for that position. However, I can see that there is potential for questions, me being part of Civil Defense and Amateur Radio being what they do out there. They are a hobby, a club, and they are comprised of hobbyists as well as people that understand that during an emergency, they may be requested, or they may want to help out during an emergency. In the same light, Civil Defense also sees that there is an opportunity and there’s also a potential for volunteers out there to help us to get the message out to the public and also back over to Civil Defense. So does that have anything to do with one versus the other? Where I can see there’s a potential—I’m not getting paid, again, for that position over there with BIARC, but I just want to make sure that I understand if there are ethics involved with being a volunteer president of a club that could potentially serve to help the County during an emergency of some sort—that I’m not in conflict with anything. MR. BALSIS: Any questions? MR. HENRICKS: Yeah, I just have one area that I want to go to, and then I’m all right with it. As an employee of the County, would you be ever involved with any funding with this group that you’re with, the Radio Club? Is any funding going on there? MR. HANSON: They do have funds in their coffers. MR. HENRICKS: Is it due to the County? MR. HANSON: It doesn’t come from the County. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, so you’re never involved with making a decision as to funding, is that correct? MR. HANSON: Sir, there possibly could be. And that is, if by chance during the communication phase we say that yes, we would like to—the County would like to provide some equipment to BIARC to help support the emergency response of the County, then there could be some— MR. HENRICKS: --Okay, if you came into that position, could you take yourself out of that role and give it to someone else? MR. HANSON: Yes. MR. HENRICKS: Okay, if you keep that in mind, then ________. MR. HANSON: Yes. I can keep that in mind and I can also— MR. HENRICKS: --When it comes to anything about funding or anything like that, if it goes down to the Radio Club, if you just walked away from it and gave it to someone else, I think you’d be in pretty good shape. MR. HANSON: Okay. MR. BALSIS: And just in addition to what Arne mentioned, I think that, to be open with your superior just so that they know exactly what’s going on, now as well as if that situation ever arose in the future. To me, that keeps everything out in the open and no qualms, no violations. MR. HANSON: Because there are some possibilities that I would like to, as the president and as the club as a whole, seek opportunities where there might be funding for the club itself, whether it’s through grants that are out there already for building community resiliency, or whatever they may be. We may want to seek those. But I’m not so sure that they’re going to be always coming through the County, either. MR. HENRICKS: That’s why I’m saying, if it does come from the County then I think you should get out of the way as to a decision whether it’ll go down, so that way it keeps you clear. MR. HANSON: And if it doesn’t involve the County? MR. HENRICKS: It doesn’t matter, because you’re not in conflict. MR. HANSON: Gotcha. I understand. MR. BALSIS: Are there any other comments for him? MR. ADAMS: I wish I didn’t, because I think it’s terrific, is my personal view that you’re doing both of these things, or have the opportunity to do both of these things. But I think it goes beyond the conflict of interest section. I think it also is in 2-83. Obviously, if you were going to be holding the position of president in this non-profit organization, then you would need to get—to be in compliance, you would want to make sure that you had consent, because there’s a possibility that the non-profit might use public property or equipment. And so that would at least put that form of the section in, be appropriate for that. But there is a section (b) that’s part of 2-83 that talks about using or attempting to use the officer’s or employee’s official position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts, or treatment for oneself or others. And that’s kind of harsh language, but the fact is that when I look at non-profit organizations, your ability to take yourself out of the funding chain when you’re the president--and when your specific by-laws that you provided to us as a part of the packet specifically identify that the president can also serve as the treasurer if that becomes a need--makes it difficult, frankly, for you or for that individual who holds that position to get out of the way. And so I would be a little bit more stringent in suggesting that when there is—for me it would be necessary that the by-laws be changed in your organization that specifically relate to the positions and the connection of the individuals holding those positions with the County or frankly any government, when it looks like there is a chance that that organization may have the opportunity in the future for potential grants or other funding situations, or other use of County material, particularly in a natural disaster type of situation. So what we want to make sure is that you—what I want to make sure is that if you’re going to hold this position in the non-profit and at the same time maintain your position in Civil Defense as an official in CDA, that the non-profit paperwork documents are specific enough to create a firewall between your responsibilities and—not just yours but anybody’s who might find themselves in a similar situation—responsibilities as a County or government official and then their responsibilities in that non-profit realm. Is that clear, what I’m saying there? MR. HANSON: I understand where you’re going with that, yes. MR. ADAMS: And frankly, until I could see that, I would be inclined to not support your taking on the position of any officer in the club. Member, not an issue. But an officer in a non-profit, particularly one that’s incorporated by the state, which I believe yours is, then that’s an official organization that’s been chartered by the state, and you have specific responsibilities as an officer under state law. And so given that, I would find it difficult to support your holding those positions until your by-laws create that firewall, for me. MR. BALSIS: Are there any other comments? MR. HISASHIMA: No. MR. BALSIS: William, you’ve asked for an informal opinion and you got some informal opinions. MR. HANSON: Thank you. MR. BALSIS: Is everything okay now? MR. HANSON: Yes, what I think I’ll do is also, just for the record, during work hours, that I will not be engaged with the duties of the president during work hours. MR. BALSIS: Yes? MS. SCHOEN: I don’t want to interrupt. MR. BALSIS: No, with that being said, I think that we’re finished with this matter. There’s no need for a move or anything. We’ve given an informal opinion. There’s no need for anything in writing, I believe, at this point. Or is there? MS. SCHOEN: Usually the Board issues a written decision regarding—I don’t even know what your decision is, actually. MR. BALSIS: Well, there is no decision, because what William has asked for is an informal opinion. And so through our discussion we provided William with an informal opinion, and the minutes will delineate what was said. MS. SCHOEN: So the Board’s informal opinion is that he may serve as an officer in the radio club at the same time he serves in the Civil Defense administration? MR. BALSIS: With the caveats that if things—if there is a conflict of funding or use of equipment, he should be removing himself, and then of the opinion that they should take a close look at their by-laws—this is the club itself—so that there will be no conflicts, a bit of a firewall is built in there. Am I correct with the opinions of the people here? And of course discuss this with your superiors so that everybody’s fully aware of it. That sums up all the things that were said. Is it necessary to write something? MR. HENRICKS: I think what he’s saying, generally—I’m trying to encapsulate everything we’re saying—it’s all right to be there, but be very careful when you’re talking about funding or equipment, about your two roles. Don’t let them clash. Don’t let them be on top of each other. MR. ADAMS: And I just think, for the protection of your non-profit, that you want to make sure that you have that documented. I mean, it’s going to be your protection as well, because you don’t want someone else suddenly coming back, saying hey, BIARC got something, and it’s only because Bill is the administrative officer at CDA. That’s not fair. So as long as you’re—look, I think what you’re doing is terrific, personally. And so for your own protection and for your organization’s protection, I would personally recommend that you make sure that you have the firewall in writing. And the only place you’re going to be able to put that is going to be on the non-profit side, not on the government side. MR. HANSON: I have one more question--may I? Regarding activities, programs, projects—is it okay to engage with the County in programs and projects that help to provide community resiliency? MR. BALSIS: Go ahead, Glen. MR. HISASHIMA: Bill, I’ve known about the Amateur Radio Club for many years. Hurricane Iniki was the first. No communications, only amateur radios. CD lines was down, radio lines was down. First contact was by you folks. I would look at—Darryl knows about this, right? MR. HANSON: He does. MR. HISASHIMA: If your group can look like a private partnership with the County, but you stay away from it like everybody’s saying—you can be an advisor to them, but when it comes to funding or anything, you keep yourself away, because your primary job is Civil Defense. I’ve seen the positive need for amateur radios, because I was working with the—you know the NIMS? MR. HANSON: Yes, I do. MR. HISASHIMA: I worked with the NIMS and one of the biggest factors was communication. This County needs it. They only go to radios, radios, radios, but when that fails, what comes on is the amateur radios. So I would suggest is you try look at a private partnership program with the County, but you can be like a mentor or advisor, but not up front pushing it. Your group would push it, but not you. So that is one way you can work it through, because I know Darryl—well, the whole County needs all the help we can get. It’s a free service, to me. And like I said, Iniki was the first test trial which worked. So I thank you for what you’re doing. MR. HANSON: Thank you, too. I appreciate it. I understand exactly what I need to do here. MR. BALSIS: Yes? MS. SCHOEN: Mr. Chair, I will be doing an opinion, because your rules state that the Board shall render its opinion in writing. MR. BALSIS: Okay, thank you very much. And Bill, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. As has been mentioned by everybody else, thank you for your assistance. MR. HANSON: Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. Thank you, all of you. I appreciate it. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Balsis announced the next meeting: December 11, 2013, at the same location. Mr. Adams announced that regarding the petition from Mr. Weinert, he realized part-way through the hearing that Mr. Weinert’s company, Cavalo Growers, is a licensee of W. H. Shipman. Mr. Adams is a board member of W. H. Shipman, in a non-executive, non-management role. He had never met Mr. Weinert and has no connection to the work done by Cavalo Growers, but he felt he should make the disclosure. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Balsis adjourned the meeting at 11:34 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature)