HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-12 Board of Ethics Minutes
HAWAI‘I COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS
MINUTES – REGULAR SESSION
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
10:02 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.
Hawai‘i County Building
25 Aupuni Street
County Council Chambers
Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
Members and Staff Present:
Bernard Balsis, Chair
Ku Kahakalau, Vice Chair
Douglass Adams, Member
Arnie Henricks, Member
Renee N.C. Schoen, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Renee K. Lawrence, Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Balsis called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.
2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS
There were no statements from the public.
3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 2014
Motion and Vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Henricks and Ms.
Kahakalau simultaneously second the motion. All members voted aye.
4. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
1
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Petition No. 2014-09: Review draft order dismissing petition by Susan Tita
alleging that Greg Henkel, a County officer, is in violation of Section 2-83(a)(3)
of the Code of Ethics because, inter alia, he “questioned the actions and behavior
of” Ms. Tita’s attorney and his “lack of decorum and disregard for public decency
has embarrassed and humiliated me in front of the public eye.”
Motion and Vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the order dismissing petition as drafted.
Mr. Henricks seconded the motion. All members voted aye.
1
Blanks indicate inaudible or indecipherable speech.
1
Motion and Vote: Mr. Balsis moved to go into executive session for the purpose of
reviewing executive session minutes of October 15, 2014, to review Confidential
Financial Disclosure Forms, and to consult with legal counsel, if necessary. Mr. Adams
seconded the motion. All members voted aye.
10:05 a.m. The Board left regular session.
* * * * *
10:09 a.m. The Board returned to regular session.
6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS
a.Review of the executive session minutes of October 15, 2014
Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the executive session minutes of
October 15, 2014. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. 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.
Motion and vote: Mr. Balsis moved to approve the one financial disclosure. Mr.
Henricks seconded the motion. All members voted aye.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
Mr. Adams: I have done an initial review of the Rules of Practice and
Procedure of the Board of Ethics and I have some comments and
some questions for the Board. I could use some of your guidance
or some of your comments on this. One item that I noticed is that,
there’s a discussion of the use of the word “person”, there is no
definition of it. We define “officer”, we define “employee” and
the reason I bring this up as silly as it may sound, is that in our
Rules of Practice and Procedure, any person may petition for a
declaratory or an informal advisory opinion. I just want to make
sure that we’re okay that we would not have any problem with
Osama bin Laden, God rest his soul, coming in here and
petitioning the Board. That is an acceptable phrase for what we’re
looking at in terms of somebody coming in and presenting a
petition for declaratory or informal advisory opinion. Is that okay
with everybody? We’re not looking at maybe citizen of Hawai‘i or
U.S. citizen or anything like that?
Mr. Henricks: Do you want clarification that we should say living person?
2
Mr. Adams: No, I’m okay with that. I think we’re good with that. I just want
to make sure we’re okay with anybody can come in and …
Mr. Balsis: I have one question and that is, I see your point in terms of having
people being residents, but there may be non-residents who do
business here. At the same time your exaggerated example, but yet
it can be applicable. Someone like an Osama or Sadam coming in
to make a petition and he has no business or interest in the State or
County of Hawai‘i. So I’ll make the question, should it be
amended to people having residency or some interest in the State
or the County?
Mr. Adams: The rules do provide for the Board to have discretion in accepting
petitions, right? The Board for good cause, I don’t even know if
it’s for good cause actually. I think the Board can say we’re not
going to take this petition, right? By and large what the Board has
done in the past is that somebody provides a petition, they’re going
to listen to it and then move forward from there. I just want to
make sure since this is clearly the extremes is what I’m talking
about.
Mr. Henricks: I think we should leave it be because I think once we start defining
it, we start getting into trouble. The fact that we can back out after
they submit it, leaves us an escape _____ you know get away from
it, if Osama did come up and put one in we can all say we don’t
want to hear it.
Mr. Balsis: I tend to agree with that.
Ms. Kahakalau: And you can have a foreign national who’s a property owner. One
of those issues that happened in Kona, I mean that could happen to
a foreign national. So they should have the right to come if any
employee in the County has done something that they shouldn’t do
or even if there’s a question about it, they should have that
opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Henricks: Even visiting tourists should have an opportunity to be heard if
they’re being, someone gives them a bad time on the County parks
or an employee.
Mr. Adams: Okay, thank you. Some of the other items in here I will update to
include electronic means. For example, availability of information
to the public is primarily, you can go to the library or there’s a hard
copy available here. When of course we know that much of what’s
available now is electronically available too.
3
Mr. Henricks: Two things that are bothering me in the last year that you might
look into is our jurisdiction number one, over people in electoral
process. Some places along they seem to run into each other and
they go against each other. One says one thing and one says
another thing. A person who’s running for office particularly is
not a County employee or officer, but what is our jurisdiction over
that person. Can we sanction them in anyway? We usually leave
the sanctioning to the departments and they don’t have a
department. Do we sanction them?
Mr. Adams: There seems to be a gap there.
Mr. Balsis: I was going to ask legal counsel if she has any…
Mr. Henricks: Secondly, what I’d like is a person, and in this last time when a
person leaves the County, the Code says in one part that they, and
its State law. By case law it says we no longer have jurisdiction of
that person when they leave, but we come up with a person who’s
within one year of their employment with the County and trying to
do business with the County. What jurisdiction do we have on that
person, like Ms. Kawauchi? Last time when it says that we don’t
have any jurisdiction over that person. So there is another conflict
there too.
Mr. Adams: Counsel do you want to address that?
Ms. Schoen: As to the first example regarding jurisdiction over candidates that
are running for public office. The Board does have jurisdiction
over them regarding their financial disclosure statements and the
section in the Code gives you specific penalty provisions for their
failure to file. You’re right, because the definition section does not
specifically define candidate.
Mr. Henricks: Here’s another thing that causes a problem with a candidate. The
Code says definitely that no employee or officer or someone under
the Code can campaign in County areas, but every other candidate
can because they are not under the Code. Do you understand what
I’m saying? It’s illegal to campaign on County premises
something like that, if you were an employee or officer, but if
you’re not an employee or officer it doesn’t say anything about
you.
Ms. Kahakalau: I was wondering about that.
Mr. Henricks: That’s a gap because…
4
Ms. Schoen: I read it as there’s no campaigning whatsoever, doesn’t matter the
person.
Mr. Henricks: That’s not what it says though, it says you have to be in the
jurisdiction of the County Code and it applies to you.
Mr. Balsis: Perhaps then that could be clarified.
Mr. Adams: The interesting thing about that is that we know that there are
Parks and Recreation places that we bring candidates to and they
do campaigning there, so some of that is confusing. The
interesting thing in bringing this up is that our jurisdiction has been
limited and there is no County jurisdiction, its State election. The
State has maintained jurisdiction in those things we’re talking
about here. You got the County election board that does the
County, but when it comes to and the running of the election, but
when it comes to looking at the veracity, veracity is not the right
term, but…
Mr. Henricks: Liability?
Mr. Balsis: Properness?
Mr. Adams: Yes, the appropriateness of what is happening. I’m not sure that
there’s…we haven’t necessarily been given that authority under
the Code. If we were going to look at this, this is more than a rules
issue, this is a County Code issue which doesn’t necessarily mean
that we can’t consider it. It’s something that’s come up in the past
in terms of our ability to make sure that it’s a fair playing field for
candidates regardless whether you’re current County employee or
not. I think that’s what you’re talking about is where’s the fair
playing field here.
Mr. Henricks: It’s a double standard.
Mr. Adams: On terms of leaving the County employment that seems like that’s
a blanket, there’s a blanket rule there that says, once you leave then
you’re no longer subjected to the Code of Ethics in the County
Code with one exception and that is that one year working. Is that
a correct understanding to that?
Ms. Schoen: Yes, 2-91.2 discusses post-employment, so there has to be some
kind of reconciliation between the definitions section 2-91.2 and
also case law.
5
Mr. Henricks: We can write it in, like I said we can write it in like that 2-91.2, but
does it _______ like say with the case law that you showed me that
says we don’t. What do we do with that? Someone can say you
can’t be touching me, the case law says I’m out of here. This is
almost like, what are those things that you sign when you leave
your employment?
Ms. Schoen: No compete.
Mr. Henricks: It’s almost like a no competition clause. Can we do those things?
I don’t know.
Ms. Schoen: If you look at 2-91.2 there’s a whole section talking about former
officers and employees.
Mr. Henricks: Sometimes we get into trouble…
Mr. Adams: I’ll take a look at that because there’s actually some… I should,
but I don’t know what the State connection is with that, but in a
Federal way, I do know what the Federal way is on that. The
interesting thing about those ethical rules at the Federal level is
that they’re procurement and acquisition related. This takes it’s
derivation from that, but it’s not the same thing. It’s a broader
context that’s being applied.
Ms. Schoen: Ours actually mirrors Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §84-18.
Mr. Henricks: The thing is, go and check the case law that she showed me. See
what it actually says and see if it mentions in anyway, because I
know it said in that case law that once the employee left their
employment that…
Mr. Adams: What I need to do is I’d like to go back and look at the legislative
record on 84-18 and see whether or not we’re…in addition, when
counsel provides a staff opinion, right now it’s only identified by
telephonic or written. I’m going to add email just to make sure
that there’s no question that there’s an electronic means, that’s
where staff opinions can be provided.
Ms. Schoen: What do you mean by staff opinions?
Mr. Adams: Well you have provided staff opinions in the past.
Ms. Schoen: To the Board you mean?
6
Mr. Adams: Right. We have in the Rules of Practice and Procedures, we have
four different functions. We have declaratory, we have informal
advisory, we have investigatory, investigatory hearing and we have
formal opinions. I just want to make sure that those are consistent
across the board from the Charter to the Code to the Rules of
Practice and Procedure. When we use our phrasing, for the most
part we have done mostly informal advisory. The interesting thing
is there have been times when we’ve been approached to do
declaratory, but we’ve called it informal advisory. Where we have
someone that will come to us and say, for example, the individual
that was looking to become a president for the non-profit Ham
Radio Club and was also working at Civil Defense. We
approached that as an informal advisory opinion when I think
according to our Rules and Procedures it would have been really a
declaratory ruling. Meaning there wasn’t any violation, but we’re
being asked to advise in the event that this does happen. It’s a
before the fact, it’s something that our judicial system is not
allowed to do. They have to have a case.
Mr. Balsis: We actually have that frequently.
Mr. Adams: So just make sure that we are consistent, is really the deal. In our
concurring and descending opinions, not that we have very many
of those necessarily, but just to make sure that we’re covered on
that. We have a timeline associated when we issue our opinions,
following a decision that has been made on them. We don’t have
that timeline associated with concurring and descending opinions
that would be associated with that. I’m suggesting that we say
within thirty days. It can be added to the record within thirty days.
Mr. Henricks: I wanted to ask counsel this question. I know that one of our
purposes is investigatory. I’ve gone through this whole Code and I
found out that we have absolutely no tools to do investigatory
hearings, none. We have no tools, we can’t call people here, we
can’t ask them…
Ms. Schoen: You have subpoena powers.
Mr. Adams: We have subpoena powers.
Mr. Henricks: What happens if they don’t show up?
Mr. Adams: Where’s the enforcement of the subpoena.
Mr. Balsis: We have authority without repercussions.
7
Mr. Adams: Even our opinions require somebody else to…
Ms. Schoen: One thing that is not contained in your rules is that the Hawai‘i
County Council passed an ordinance to allow this Board to impose
fines. As written, it requires this Board to adopt rules in order to
issue the fines. We have not done that and this happened three or
four years ago. We haven’t done that because the practical
application of that rule is very difficult. The Board would have to
follow, before it issues a fine, it would have to give notice to the
person that they’re going to issue a fine so that they can contest it.
Mr. Adams: It’s a rule.
Ms. Schoen: You have to set out a procedure and the second thing is, the
ordinance also requires that there be an appeal procedure. In other
words, a place where appeals can go to.
Mr. Adams: That’s different than the rest of the entire Charter, because in the
Charter, we are an agency and all of the things that come to us are
here. There is no, from my understanding and what I’m looking at
here, nobody gets to anywhere else from here. There is no going
into the judicial area. Normally a final administrative agency
decision, a final decision you can take that and then you can go to
Circuit Court. When I read this, I’d have to go take, where I saw
it, but what I remember from reading this is that’s not available to
the decisions of this Board.
Ms. Schoen: I would say that if the Board holds a formal hearing pursuant to
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §91 and follows that procedure, then the
decision made after the formal hearing can be appealed.
Mr. Adams: The rules for the fines would be able to follow that too because the
procedures would be similar, I would think, to the formal hearing
rules or procedures.
Ms. Schoen: Yes. I can talk to you more about that and give you a background
of the turmoil of implementing that.
Mr. Adams: That then gives you some teeth that don’t currently exist, in a
direct way. I mean we step in appointing authorities right now.
Mr. Henricks: The reason I ask that question, is because I think when we got
involved in that election thing last year or year before that, and
somebody said that we should continue the investigation of
Dominic Yagong, I went like how? Who are we going to bring in?
Where do we go with this thing? For us to make people out there
8
like this, State election board can do stuff like that. I don’t think
we could really start on something like that. We wouldn’t know
where to go.
Mr. Adams: We could issue subpoenas, but there would be no reason for
anybody to show up necessarily.
Mr. Henricks: I don’t think they would. In fact their attorneys would tell them
not to.
Ms. Schoen: When the fines ordinance was adopted, the Council mirrored the
procedure of issuing fines in the same way they issue, say like
Planning’s Notice of Violations. A person is cited, you’re saying
you were bad, you’re building in a setback, you have to stop this
within ten days, if you don’t then you’re going to be fined. If the
person doesn’t do what they’re supposed to then they are fined.
That doesn’t really work in this type of setting.
Mr. Adams: That sounds like an administrative procedure. Ours is more going
to be a clause and judicial procedure and it probably needs to be.
Ms. Schoen: You are an adjudicatory board. It’s trying to reconcile what the
ordinance is asking you to do, but the practical reality is you can’t
apply that kind of Planning situation to you guys. You listen to the
evidence and you go, that’s a violation and you’re fined.
Mr. Henricks: I don’t think that we would ever get in a fines situation unless we
can get into a formal hearing.
Ms. Schoen: You would have to do a formal hearing so that there is the appeal
process to the Circuit Court.
Mr. Adams: On the investigatory, there are opportunities for us here. When I
first came in, I had this conversation with Renee. It was, are there
opportunities for the Board to be involved in education. We have
been a receiving Board. People come to us, they have issues and
we listen and we provide resolution of one kind or another. I’m
not sure where everybody is in terms of the idea of stepping into
another area which is the opportunity to be more available on an
educational way. As we saw recently, right now education on the
Code of Ethics is being done by the individual departments, with
the exception of what you’re doing. I’m not sure I have anywhere
else to go with that, but…
Mr. Balsis: I have a comment on that. In terms of educating and especially
going to the employees of the County of Hawai‘i or even others,
9
people can come in and ask for an opinion which in essences is
education. The issue, can I do this? This is a good thing to do so
they don’t get into trouble later on. The question then is, do we
have a responsibility beyond that and perhaps the only
responsibility we have is to make sure that employees are aware of
this mechanism which still goes back through their supervisors. If
there’s something we can do to go to Human Resources to have
that put into the Code of Ethics that they review, that they
understand that if they do have an issue they come to us for
clarification.
Ms. Kahakalau: Another area would be as we had with elections. Anybody running
for office, when they file their papers, they could be given a little
pamphlet that gives a little of where they might be in violation, like
we talked about campaigning. They may have never thought about
it one way or another, that wouldn’t have been anything that was
intentionally done, but just because of lack of knowledge. If we
are going to go in that direction, that might be another place where
they could get some basic information on their rights and
responsibilities or what they can and cannot do when running for
office as employees versus anybody else.
Mr. Balsis: But that would only be from the County Board of Ethics
perspective not from the perspective of the Elections Office or
State Elections Office?
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes.
Mr. Henricks: I have one thing to say about all this that you’re putting in there,
beware of the slippery slope that you’re starting to climb when you
do that. Be very careful.
Mr. Adams: Meaning?
Mr. Henricks: Well, you put yourself out there with this, this is ahead of time.
You’re putting out almost like your opinions ahead of time and
then there’s no controversy or anything involved. So therefore,
you’re just throwing stuff out there and it may or may not be
correct, so people are coming and they’re trying to react to what
you’re throwing out there and you may not be right.
Ms. Schoen: I give Ethics training twice a year to whoever wants to come. It’s
advertised to all the Department Heads and then they’re
responsible for filtering out to all the employees. We don’t have
anything like the State, which has mandatory ethics training. I
don’t know if that’s something you guys want to do. I just give a
10
general overview and I highlight the gifts provision, the fair
treatment section, the conflict of interest provision because those
are the big ones and then I give them general information about the
Board and the process before the Board.
Mr. Balsis: Are they aware that people can come in for a…
Ms. Schoen: They’re aware, but also you guys don’t do hypotheticals.
Mr. Henricks: Not yet, I don’t want to get involved in that.
Mr. Adams: That’s a really good point, I wrote it down, it’s a really good point.
What I’m trying to talk about is really just drawing attention to
what is on the books. That people have this ability to come to us in
these various situations. Right now I don’t know if we could do
anything election wise because there isn’t anything on the books
that supports our ability to manage it. Lobbying is a little different
because there’s actually a phrase in there, but when I look at the
lobbying rules and I look at what the Code says about lobbying, to
be honest with you, we have little to do with it. It identifies what
lobbyists are supposed to do and then if they don’t do that, it’s
brought to our attention. If it’s not brought to our attention, unless
we’re going out and doing an investigation of it, we don’t know
about it.
Mr. Henricks: I can see if you made a distinguishment about making people
aware of availability. I can see what you’re talking about
education, but if you’re talking about going ahead and telling them
we can do this in certain situations, my feeling is that it’s hard
enough to interpret this thing when we got facts in controversy
without going in a general kind of situation and say okay, we can
interpret things this way or that way without having the facts and
the controversy. It’s hard enough because we struggle with it
when we have the facts.
Ms. Schoen: And the analysis changes if one fact changes. That’s what I try to
educate the people about. Me standing here talking to you about
the Code of Ethics, you cannot plug this situation in every
situation.
Mr. Henricks: There’s no general application in the Code of Ethics, exactly what
you’re trying to say, there’s no general application. Must be
specific in every situation, that’s what we’re trying to do.
Mr. Adams: The availability, the record of a hearing according to our rules, it’s
only available upon request and in transcript form only. We’re
11
talking about not having it available in an audio way. So for
example, the reason this comes to mind is just our last hearing, our
last case, our situational case, last petition, where there was a
potential to try and get the audio for that. Well I mean, I don’t
know what their rules are, but our rules don’t indicate that audio is
available at all. I guess we’re okay with that? It’s only the
transcript and then actually it’s only in a formal hearing situation.
Now we take transcripts of all of our meetings anyway and those
minutes become available by the time of the next meeting online,
so that doesn’t become a big of a deal.
Mr. Balsis: Actually the minutes only become available online after we
approve them.
Mr. Adams: I’m sorry, right.
Ms. Schoen: If a member of the public came in and said I want a copy of the
minutes, we give them whenever they’re done even if it’s before
the hearing and we give it in draft form just to comply with State
law.
Mr. Balsis: As long as they understand…
Mr. Adams: State law requires that?
Ms. Schoen: It gives you thirty days, but we try to be accommodating and give
it whenever it’s available.
Mr. Adams: Is there anything in there when you give it to them that indicates if
it’s before they’ve been approved by the Board?
Ms. Schoen: Yes, we put draft.
Mr. Balsis: I have a question on the thirty days. What if a meeting is
postponed a week like it has in the past? Or there’s thirty-one days
in a month? And in terms of putting them out public they’re
approved first, draft form is available. So for us to say that we will
have them available to the public in final form in thirty days is
putting us…
Mr. Adams: Isn’t final form when they’re approved?
Ms. Schoen: Yes, when they’re approved by the Board.
12
Mr. Adams: So it’s not thirty days from the date of the meeting that the minutes
apply to? It should be thirty days from the next time that we meet
and we approve them?
Mr. Balsis: I just want to make sure because otherwise we’re putting ourselves
in a bind.
Ms. Schoen: We would make it available whenever you folks approve it. If
they want it before you approve, we give it if it’s ready. It really
depends on the staff if …
Mr. Balsis: In draft form.
Mr. Adams: Is the press often times the only one that ask for them?
Ms. Schoen: No, some Department Heads have asked and we give it and we say
this is only a draft. The secretary still certifies that it’s an accurate
reflection of the minutes and it’s subject to your approval.
Mr. Adams: Just a question. We were talking subpoenas and so the only time
that I was able to see where we’re authorized to subpoena is in a
formal hearing situation. Then interesting phrase here is that all
parties shall have the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and
require the production of any books or papers relative to the
proceedings. When I saw that I was a little confused. I would
assume the Board would have that, but this indicates that anybody
that is a party to that proceeding has the authority to subpoena. So
somebody who is a complainant and you have respondent,
anybody who is a respondent can subpoena people? I didn’t
realize that was in…
Mr. Henricks: You know what they’re doing, they’re tracking the judicial process
in this one.
Ms. Schoen: Yes.
Mr. Adams: I thought only the Judge can issue the subpoena?
Ms. Schoen: You can draft it and then the Judge has to sign it.
Mr. Adams: That’s not what this says here, that’s my point. I understand the
possibilities of the two parties coming forward to the Judge and
saying I want these things and the Judge signing off on the order,
but the order is signed by the Judge. This doesn’t say this. This
says that all parties have the opportunity to subpoena.
13
Ms. Schoen: I read this as tracking Chapter 92 the language is identical.
Mr. Adams: It’s identical in our Code. So am I missing something? Is there
something in here as well that says if you’re going to subpoena, the
Board is the subpoena authority? Cause I didn’t see that in here.
Is there something I’m missing that’s outside of the realm? Is it in
the administrative procedures act that I haven’t gone through all
the way yet?
Ms. Schoen: Isn’t it your rule that you have that…
Mr. Adams: Rather than getting into this, there is more work for me to do on
that. I just wanted to make sure that we’re okay with parties to the
hearing that want to get information and have access to
information, that they may not, because people may not provide it
to them. They can come to the Board and the Board can issue a
subpoena for that information for those people on their behalf, as a
part of the hearing. I want to make sure that’s okay.
Mr. Henricks: Maybe that’s what the word opportunity means.
Mr. Adams: It may, but I want to make sure.
Mr. Henricks: You can read that the word opportunity, it means that they have the
right to subpoena, not that they can issue one, but they have the
right to.
Ms. Schoen: It’s not that they would issue it, they would request the Board, the
Board signs it and then it’s issued.
Mr. Balsis: I agree with that in terms…
Ms. Schoen: Let me just explain it. In my other adjudicatory board, when the
parties ask for a subpoena to be issued, either for a witness or
documents, the Board Chair reviews it and then if they need it,
they will have a pre-hearing conference to do an offer of proof to
show relevance, necessity and all of that and then the Board Chair
signs it.
Mr. Adams: Which we don’t have that procedure here?
Ms. Schoen: We don’t.
Mr. Adams: That would be something that the Chair would have that authority?
We’ve not done it since I’ve been here, but I’m assuming that it’s
14
been done in the past. We can administer oaths. I mean tell the
truth, tell the whole truth. Have you done that before?
Mr. Balsis: Yes, I remember one formal hearing that we had, you were not
here at that time. When we do have a formal hearing, whoever is
testifying or speaking they do so under oath. That’s my
recollection. Am I correct Counsel?
Ms. Schoen: Yes.
Mr. Balsis: That would be within a formal hearing.
Ms. Schoen: Yes.
Mr. Adams: That was an initial pass, there’s more work for me to do. I’ll take
the comments that you all have provided as well and continue to
work this. Is there any other comments?
Mr. Balsis: Actually I think that was an excellent discussion. I do have one
question before announcements. It has to do with term limits.
Whose term is up? When?
Mr. Henricks: April.
Mr. Balsis: Yours is April. Am I the same, April?
Ms. Schoen: Technically, both terms end December 31, 2014, but you can serve
all the way till March, three months over.
Mr. Henricks: Even if you weren’t signed in until April?
Ms. Schoen: Yes
Mr. Henricks: So it just goes from year to year?
Ms. Schoen: Yes.
Mr. Adams: So like I came in, the Council approved me in August, so I think
my first meeting was in September. I essentially get a little over
four years.
Mr. Balsis: At this time I’ll state that I’m willing to go all the way through
March and at that time my time would be up. If they find someone
to replace me between now and then that’s fine, I’ll leave at that
time. All I need is to be notified five days in advance is sufficient.
15
Ms. Schoen: Sounds good. The Mayor’s office knows that we have vacancies.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Balsis announced the Board’s next meeting on December 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at
the Hawai‘i County Building at 25 Aupuni Street, Room 1501 or at another location to be
determined.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Balsis adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Renee K. Lawrence, Secretary
16