HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-08 Regular Session Minutes HAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS
MINUTES—REGULAR SESSION
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
10:00 a.m. to 2:22 p.m.
Hawai`i County Building
Council Chambers
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawai`i 96720
Members and Staff Present:
Ku Kahakalau, Chair
Kenneth Goodenow, Vice-Chair
Douglass Adams, Member
J Yoshimoto, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Gary Murai, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Emily V. Hirayama, Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER
Ms. Kahakalau called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS
Ms. Kahakalau: Aloha Mai Kakou. My name is Ku Kahakalau and we would like
to start with statements from the public on agenda items. I would
like to remind you folks to please keep it to three (3) minutes per
agenda item. If you testify on more than one item, let us know so
that the staff can set the time accordingly. I'd also like to remind
people to please refrain from using any profanity and I have to say
that because last time we had some issues there. Also, to remain in
the front of the room here rather than going behind to take pictures
etc. Our first testimony this morning is from Toby Hazel. If you
could please come to the front. Thank you very much.
1) Toby Hazel(Hilo) signed up to testify on agenda item 4d, Petition No. 2015-09.
Ms. Hazel: Okay now. I'll try to make sure I don't say a bad word. I'm very
prone to that. Toby Hazel. I live in Puna, outside of Pahoa and so
I'll be addressing the 2015-09 Dr. Kimo Alameda. I just want to
say I've just met Dr. Alameda and I found him to be a very nice
man. A very educated man, a very gracious man since I dropped
into his office without an appointment. The problem I have in
subsequent phone calls is not so much of whether he's completely
qualified. I really don't know how to judge that, but I'm more
1
concerned with the intent of his administration. We've waited a
very long time, we did not seem to get much from Mr. or Dr.
Parker nor were we able to speak with him very easily about the
issues at hand. So I'm concerned when Dr. Alameda tells me in a
phone call that you know the existing lunches, baseball bingo and
poi is what we're gonna look forward to because that's the
Hawaiian culture. Personally I'm not interested in bingo and I
can't play baseball anymore. As we noted twenty-two million
dollars is being spent and for baseball fields which is not in Dr.
Alameda's department, but there's hands and hands Department of
Aging and Parks and Recreation cover all of the senior activities
and what's happening for seniors across the island. So I called him
back to ask about the senior lunches which are pretty dismal. After
the kind of obesity causing lunches that we have at the senior
centers now. If you agree to eat sugars, fats, white flour and aged
deep fried fish sticks from the mainland. I suppose you'll be okay
with that. Kohala center has found that they can't deal with the
County or State procurement practices and so they've decided to
have meals at the Charter schools. But even though we've testified
and contacted them. Evidently, the seniors cannot be included in
the Charter school lunches. So eight hundred thousand dollars or
more that goes towards these lunches, I asked Dr. Alameda and
also the planner. They have planners there you know. I don't
know what these people do, but they plan something. How much
does Puna get of that money? They were unable to answer that
question. Now, personally I don't see how the community
planning process can mean anything if the budget doesn't show
everything by district. It means that the community plans of which
Puna was the one of the first ones to be planned and developed and
passed I guess. We can't get anywhere because we don't know
what the budget is for any of the line items. I think that means that
the whole community planning is a complete sham then and a
fraud. If we can't do these things, then you know it really means
nothing. I don't know how the Department of Aging works with
Parks and Recreation to serve.
Ms. Kahakalau: Your time is up.
Ms. Hazel: Okay. I think I said most of it. I hope it was understandable. We
have no access into anything. Not making us very happy.
2
2) Floyd D. Eaglin (Hilo) signed up to testify on agenda item 4d, Petition No. 2015-09.
Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Eaglin. I'm not too sure if I'm pronouncing you name
correctly. Please introduce yourself.
Mr. Eaglin: Good morning. My name is Floyd Eaglin. I came the last time
and I'd thought it would be the last time I would have to come here
for one of these ridiculous hearing. If Dr. Alameda is not qualified
for his job, then we in trouble cause all of Hilo no one is qualified.
He's a young man that went to school, did the right things, and
exemplified people in his generation and also for other kids to
follow. I have a daughter that's a doctor here in town, MD kind.
She came home one day and she said dad I met doctor Alameda
while she was doing her residency and she was quite taken by him.
And I said yeah I know him, I know him since he was a kid. Look,
this is ridiculous already. Everyone will find faults in faults. Let's
get on with life and do the right thing. He's a role model for other
Hawaiians kids, we trying to get these kids to go to school, trying
to get them to do the right thing. If we go question everything
these kids someone is successful do, then what the heck we gonna
have in life. Nothing but problems. I know you have a job to do,
but some of this stuff is frivolous and I would ask these people
who making all this frivolous complaint what they wanted out of
the County that the County didn't give them. That would be my
question. What did you want that the County was unable to give
you so you could come here and make all of these problems? That
would be my question to them if I would even take this kind of
stuff. You guys have a nice day.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you Mr. Eaglin.
3) Kaniu Kinimaka-Stocksdale (Hilo) signed up to testify on agenda item 4d, Petition
No. 2015-09.
Ms. Kahakalau: Our next testimony is from Kaniu Kinimaka-Stocksdale.
Ms. Stocksdale: Aloha. Good morning. Hi Dr. Ku long time no see. Aloha.
Gentlemen. Ladies. I'm here on behalf of... Wait let me take it
back a little bit. I read the newspaper were there was a gentleman
from Kohala that made a complaint or filed a complaint about this
Dr. Alameda not having the experience. I believe I sent everybody
a copy as my two cents as to Dr. Kimo's experience and skills. It's
sadden that some people would say that maybe cause they haven't
lived here long enough or their not from the area that knows this
young man. But more importantly, he exemplifies more than what
I believe this job is calling for. He's young, he's charismatic, but
3
his heart is in the right place. Part of that, he will do what's right
for his position. I don't think it's the question of his experience,
there may be an underlining here and that underlining needs to be
addressed. Dr. Kimo worked with us for nearly three years. He
supervised at that time Na Laukoa had over a hundred employees
and he was more than competent to handle all of us. The
population in my employment were more para-professionals. They
were high school graduates. They had no degree, but Kimo made
sure that we were all in compliance so we could document
properly to the Department of Health Child Adolescent Mental
Health. And that was the only way we could get paid, so his job he
did and he did more than what was expected. So if the question
remains of his experience, I think the people gotta find another
reason because his experience he's got. You guys got questions
for me? You sure? I'd love to answer some questions. I got all
dressed up for come here for answer questions.
Mr. Kahakalau: No thank you, but at this point we only taking testimony. Thank
you
Ms. Stocksdale: Thank you very much.
4) Joyce Alberta Folena (Hilo) signed up to testify on agenda items 4b, 4d, 6d, and 8.
Ms. Folena: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Joyce Folena,
been a resident of Puna since nineteen eighty beginning of nineteen
eight-four. I'm speaking on various items and may I take them out
of order as there listed in your...okay thanks. Concerning 2015-03
I think it is I'm not sure. I'm gonna be brief about this. I urged
this Board to give its decision. it's reading concerning Billy Kenoi
and the P-card program instead of waiting for Mr. Chin the State
Attorney General to give his decision whether or whether not there
was any there were any criminal activities committed by Mr.
Kenoi in the processes his avoidance of sticking to the rules of the
P-card program. His violations there because this Board does not
rule on criminal matters. This Board rules only and gives its
decisions only to very narrow focus comparatively. Only on
violations to the Code of Ethics. That's all you guys do. So I urge
you to get this matter over with, done and lets go on with the rest
of the County business. If Mr. Kenoi is indeed guilty of violating
the Code of Ethics which in my mind he is. So be it, he's already
given up his P-card, and he's paid back as much money as they
found he needs to. Let's get on with other things that we need to
get on with. Thank you. Concerning petition 2015-07, this
concerns I believe correct me if I'm wrong Mrs. Deanna Sako.
4
Ms. Kahakalau: That's correct.
Ms. Folena: Thank you Mrs. Chairman Madame Chairman. Technically,
Deanna Sako Director of Finance may have violated the Code of
Ethics when she did not take the P-card away from Mr. Kenoi
when Director Sako..I'm I pronouncing her name right? Thank
you. Became Director on January of 2015, but she was in
precarious position since the Mayor is her boss. So I urge you to
avoid any mention of disciplinary action to that lady because she's
given so many years of very, very good service, very honest
service to the County of Hawai`i. Consider that and it sounds
funny, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. She
deserves respect and she deserves if she's violated the Code of
Ethics alright, let it be and again I say let's go on with County
business and get this over done finished and out of the public view
on and on and on like a soap opera. Now going on to 2015-09.
I'm not privy to the rest of the qualifications of other five
applicants, there were six applicants in all. I've spoken to Dr.
Kimo Alameda on the phone because I felt it necessary to do so. I
wanted to clear the air and my mind and at least have a phone
conversation with the gentleman because I found this petition
when I heard it on the radio, news. And then I read the news article
in the newspaper. I feel the petitioner is gone into a nebulous,
none factual area because of lack of substantive evidence
concerning the statements contained within that same petition. If
the petitioner has hard, factual, substantive evidence to bring to
this Board so be it. If the petitioner doesn't, I urge this
Board to deny the request of this petition. I have to make a
disclaimer here, if I may. I am not a big proponent of Mayor
Kenoi in many aspects of what Mr. Kenoi has wanted to propose
with this County. I'll not go into that detail, I've testified against
him many times. Nothing against him personally, but against what
he wants politically, but the same time my testimony concerning
this petition 09 is in favor of Mr. Kenoi that's just the way the
cookie crumbles. Thank you. I'll go on to the number eight,
excuse me in your agenda. Discussion regarding amendments to
the Rules of Practice and Procedures of the Board of Ethics of the
County of Hawai`i. And I hope that my suggestions are met with
your approval. I'm not an attorney and I'm not a member of the
Board, but I have some common sense. Additions, I feel that since
these Rules of Practice and Procedure were drawn up in nineteen
eight-five, amended in nineteen ninety it's time to clean house.
It's time to amend the rules, it's time to get rid of gray areas, it's
time to bring more clarity and more common sense to these rules.
The first thing I'd like to see is this ordinance which I'll give to the
5
secretary four copies. This is Ordinance 0857 Bill 209 draft 4, it's
been languishing since for what eight years, seven years, and eight
years. Seven years, it was signed by Mayor Kim on May 8, 2008.
It is an Ordinance however it takes effect when this Board of
Ethics, County of Hawai`i adopts this Ordinance into your Rules of
Practice and Procedure. There will be a necessary amendment to
the County Code through the Council legislature, because you will
have to.. this County will have to form a Board of Appeals. This
Ordinance gives you, this Board the right, you don't have to, but
you may find every officer found in violation of the County Code
of Ethics up to one-thousand dollars of each violation. That's only
officers, that's not lower employees. You don't have to find them,
but it gives you right to fine them and I do also suggest that there
be a legislation which would create and this could be controversial,
but you would be able to create a fine for on petitioners. Whether
they be private sector or whether they be County employees or
officers that bring absolutely frivolous petitions before this Board
with absolutely no substantive content and/or evidence. It doesn't
mean that if you rule against the petitioner, you could fine them. It
doesn't mean that. There are two attorneys I'm looking at right
here and you two people can figure out the legalese to clean up and
make my statement more pertinent. Confidentiality that's one
point one two of your Rules of Practice and Procedure due to the
fact that this is a clumsy thing that the contents and the hard copy
of the petitions are kept from our view until after we testify,
because you haven't reviewed it yet. This is cumbersome and this
creates a barrier to testifiers such as myself to be able to testify in a
very clean and clarifying way. We can't see the petition yet.
We're testifying about these petitions. All we can testify about are
what is printed in the agenda and I feel that the matter, the amount
of information in the agenda does not match the requirements of
the Sunshine Law. Because it doesn't give us enough information.
So it's something you could look into. The only exemption to that
would be if the petitioner agrees and request a closed hearing, I'm
referring to open hearings. That's it.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much.
5) Gregory T. Smith (Hilo) signed up to testify on agenda items 4b, 4d, and 6d.
Mr. Smith: Good morning. Aloha Council.
Ms. Kahakalau: Could you please.
Mr. Smith: My name is Gregory T. Smith, resident of Puna. Talking about the
discussion or the petition about the good doctor here. Totally,
6
totally frivolous and absolutely I wish there was a way that you
know this Board could actual just review and say this is so stupid
we don't even want to hear it. I mean I agreed with Mr. Hyland in
his petition against Mr. Kenoi you know, but on the other hand
apparently this man has gotten a vendetta against this individual
and he's come off nothing substantive at all. Plus the fact you
know the ridiculous thing is that Mr. Kenoi is not even involved in
the hiring of this individual. The doctor, I mean it's ridiculous so
in any case please you know give an opinion get that out of our
face. As far as Deanna Sako, Joyce and I have known this
individual for many, many years in the County. The sad part about
this P-card nonsense was the fact that Mr. Kenoi you know really I
resented about Mr. Kenoi is he actually put his employees in a
very, very poor position. I mean but that is another part of the
petition and so you know if you do she may be in violation of the
County Code of Ethics, but on the other hand you know she is then
give her some slack anyway. You know because she was in a very
untenable position with Mr. Kenoi her boss. Thirdly, as far as
reviewing the petition, I was rather disappointed this Board didn't
make a decision when the P-card situation came up before them
before because there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't
have made a decision that day. But on the other hand please do
review and make a decision as soon as possible. Probably today
because there's no reason you're not your focus is very narrow as
Joyce has pointed out and you know no reason not to. Did Mr.
Kenoi violate County Code of Ethics in my opinion of course he
did and the reason I say this is because not only did he violate a
contract which is actually P-card contract itself but my opinion he
violated the his oath of office. I mean it's amazing to me to that
you know I myself have been agent, a fiduciary many times in my
work in the past. I figured out my you know what the company
business per say or my businesses is there was no big problem. I
had instructions just like the County's given to the employees that
are trusted with the P-card. You know to me very cut and dry and
simple. You know he did violate the County Code of Ethics. You
know I can't see he hasn't and in my opinion and quite frankly I
think that because if I in my line of work which is commercial
fishing and you know dealing with literally hundreds of thousands
in millions of dollars which I was a fiduciary and agent for. Right.
I never if I ever did something like that, the least that what I expect
is unemployment. I'd be terminated from my position the very
least and you know the proper thing for professionals to do whose
made a grievous mistake particular grievously violating public
trust and repeatedly doing over a five year period is resignation. I
would hope this Board would recommend that. Mahalo.
7
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you.
* Testifiers from Kohala
Ms. Sweeney: Council with your indulgence. I need a couple of points of
clarification.
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes.
Ms. Sweeney: Is there a time limit on comments?
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes as we said earlier there's a three minute time limit for each
item on the agenda.
Ms. Sweeney: Okay thank you and second point of clarification I have here an
affidavit who do I send this affidavit to?
Ms. Kahakalau: That would go to our staff Emily and the staff will get you her
contact information.
Ms. Sweeney: Thank you. I like to introduce Alex Achmat who will be
representing himself. He will be discussing three petition items
2015-07, 09 and 03. The second commenter will be Peter Risley
who will be representing himself on 2015-04, 07 and 09. Please go
ahead and state your name for the record.
6) Alex Achmat(Kohala) signed up to testify on agenda items 4b, 4d, and 6d.
Mr. Achmat: Good morning my name is Alex Achmat and I aggregate my
comments to keep it brief. I also came to your hearing on the
thirteen of May and at that time I expected to hear the issues
surrounding the P-card abuse by the Mayor, but sadly the
petitioner citizen never got to make his comments. We ended up
spending the morning listening to lawyers for both the Mayor and
Ms. Sako trying to scare the Committee by fabricating different
scenarios of conflict with the Attorney General and that led you to
think about deferring the petition by Mr. Hyland. The next day in
the Star Advertiser, in an article by Dan Nakaso let me read it to
you. "The State Attorney General said it was unusual and
unnecessary for the three member Hawai`i County Board of Ethics
appointed by Mayor Billy Kenoi to postpone hearings a complaint
about Kenoi's hundred and twenty-nine thousand dollars in County
purchase card spending until the AG's office finishes a separate
criminal investigation. I don't think it's necessary for the County
Ethics Board to wait for a criminal investigation to finish up before
8
they make a decision."Attorney General Doug Chin told the
Honolulu Star Advertiser following Wednesday's unanimous
decision by the Board of Ethics. Typically, it's the reverse Chin
said normally you do an administration, administrative action first
and then you refer it out to check something further. It's a typical
where an administrative panel to wait until a criminal investigation
is finished up. So here you were thinking you were helping the
Attorney General and the Attorney General said you were wrong to
defer this issue and now there's no reason why you can't help the
citizens come to resolve this P-card abuse issue. I would suggest
that now is the time that you rescind this motion to defer and
proceed and let us hear this issue. Thank you.
7) Peter Risley (Kohala) signed up to testify on agenda items 4a, 4b, and 4d.
Mr. Risley: My name is Peter Risley and I'm going to speak on three issues 07,
09 and 04. I'll start with 07. Billy. The P-card situation with
Billy has gotten out of hand, but it didn't get out of hand this year.
It's been going on for four or five years. Be it this present Board
of Ethics is refusing to talk about the issues and it is hurting our
County government, its hurting Billy. It's hurting the whole
process of check and balances that a democratic government must
have. By refusing to deal with this issue, you have put the Mayor
in a bad situation. You have allowed him to get into a situation
that didn't need to happen. If you had taken action four years ago,
but you didn't. Now I question the motivation of the Board on this
issue and I'm wondering if this is a learning lesson for you to take
action in a correct and ethical manner. You didn't do it here.
Somebody has gotta correct the wrongs that have been made and
by allowing these wrongs to accumulate over time. Now we have
a big mess that's affecting our government, it's causing people to
not understand the issues. Of course the P-card in itself could've
been a small issue if years ago the foot had been put down. The
(inaudible) ethical manner in which you deal with P-cards had
been explained and this could've been resolved and now we're
here talking about serious sanctions. I can only say that it is the
Board of Ethics and the procedures that have allowed the Board of
Ethics to proceed in manner of covering up. Putting the head in
sand to forget about the real issue. So this has problems for the
rest of the issues that I'm going speak about. I think the Board of
Ethics is somehow misconstrued non-action with political agenda
and I can only question why are you not doing your job. On 09,
the Alameda issue I don't know about the man's honest, I suspect
that man is a good man that's not what the issue is about. The
issue is about is he fully qualified for the particular job that he has.
What's going to happen if you don't deal with this issue now? Is
9
the same kind of thing that's happening to Billy Kenoi now? It's
going to go on and on and it's not going to be resolved. The Board
of Ethics is got to deal with these issues in a timely manner. The
timely manner is right now. So that's why you got the complaint.
There are issues here that need to be resolved and it isn't a
condemnation of Mr. Alameda. It's the question of the Board's
responsibility that checks and balances of democracy to take care
of these issues in a timely fashion. Please do your job here. Okay.
The final issue I have to talk about is totally unsettling is 04.
Water issues. Now I'm a farmer and I know how very important
water is. Right now here in our area I don't know about the rest of
the island, but I'm talking about the Kohala area. We have some
serious water issues that are effecting the development of
agriculture in our area. Now I know the State wants to create an
agricultural system here in Hawai`i that feeds the population of
Hawai`i. But how can we do that if we're having technical
problems with water and how can we do that if water is not
distributed justly to the people who really need it. Regardless of
their ethnic background, who they are or how much money they
got in the bank. We need a fair and equable system. Now this
letter that I have just recently read is completely unsettling. Now I
don't know if all of the accusations in this letter are correct, but my
god they need to be investigated. It's extremely worrisome we
need oversight here in the Ethics Board is the only place
apparently that we can receive that kind of oversight. You know
this issue is so important that if we don't take care of it correctly,
literally the economic development of this island is going to be
destroyed. Our.. we're just not going to reach the prosperity we
need. This is an agriculture area, yet we're not producing
agriculturally and the issue is water rights. This letter here tells me
that there's a serious issues with the County being able to deal with
water issues.
Ms. Sweeney: Please summarize.
Mr. Risley: Okay. So I want you and water is the key and you think tourism
will work, the defense industry, welfare is going create a vibrant
economy? Agriculture is going to have to be the center of that
economic prosperity of this County in the future. Get this one
together. Thank you.
Ms. Sweeney: I have no further comments,just testimonies
Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. So that concludes our public testimony then? So we want
to close that and move the next section of our agenda which is to
approve. There is one more testimony?
10
Ms. Sweeney: Yes Council. Sorry. Yes there is one more comment.
Ms. Kahakalau: Go ahead and state your name and purpose of your statement.
Ms. Sweeney: I'd like to introduce Doug Poyner he will be talking about DWS
shutoff and on Petition No. 2015-04. Please re-state your name for
the record.
8) Doug Poyner for Shane Antonio (Kohala) signed up to testify on agenda item 4a.
Mr. Poyner: For the record, my name is Doug Poyner. I am commenting on
behalf of Shane Antonio who has I feel has been wronged. These
are his words. "After living in Oregon for a few years, I decided to
make the move back home to North Kohala. My main reason for
returning was because my TuTu Jennie Chesebro wanted me to
take over and live on a piece of land she owned out in Makapala,
North Kohala. At that time, said piece of land was being occupied
by an uncle of mine, William (Billie) Yamamoto who happened to
be a supervisor for D.W.S Waimea, he lived on property and cared
for the land. Along with the home he occupied, my uncle also
made use of the surrounding land by starting and caring for a small
farm, both of which had a running water. My uncle's home as well
as the surrounding properties all were being supplied by the D.W.S
which has a tank nearby as well as a D.W.S water meter.
After only a few days of living on the property, I had learned that
my uncle, who worked for D.W.S, was very upset with me for
losing the use of the property and his retaliation toward me and my
family I believe resulted in him shutting off the water supply by
closing a valve on that tank. At that time I was told, by my uncle,
that there would be no way for the water to return to the land due
to my lack of no water lines running from the tank which was not
correct. Following the events of the water being shut off, I went to
the office in Waimea and spoke with a woman named Tanya.
Tanya informed me that no meters or water lines had ever existed
on the property & that the only way to get a water supply back to
the property was to pay an engineer to put in water lines which was
in excess of$10,000. A hefty amount of cash, though a minor cost
compared to the $60,000 Mr. & Mrs. Russell of 52-170 Makapala
RD TMK# 3-5-2-11-2 was told it would cost them to get a water
supply to their property. Not at all satisfied, I was not satisfied with
Tanya's information, I took it upon myself to make a three hour
drive from North Kohala to Hilo to see the records of the water
supply there. It was there then I learned that Tanya's and my
uncle's information regarding the non-existence of a water meter
was in fact a lie. The woman in the Hilo office brought out the
11
D.W.S records and those records and maps prove the water meter
in fact existed and so did the water lines. This obvious and
deliberate act of malfeasance on the part of my uncle and Tanya
and the people in Waimea D.W.S. not only hurt my family but they
hurt three other families whose dependency on that water was from
this system. One of these families George and Alexa Russel has a
child that was totally disabled at the time and needed the water
most of all.
Ms. Sweeney: Your time is up, so let me ask for the indulgence of Council.
Excuse me Council may he continue?
Ms. Kahakalau: One more minute.
Unknown woman: It would be unethical
Mr. Poyner: Mahalo. This total disregard for the
Ms. Kahakalau: Excuse me.
Ms. Lawrence: He's speaking on multiple items.
Ms. Kahakalau: Are you still on 2015-04?
Ms. Sweeney: Yes he is Council.
Ms. Kahakalau: Because your time is up on that item.
Mr. Poyner; Can you extend the time I've only got two more paragraphs.
Ms. Sweeney: He has two paragraphs so we're asking your indulgence, but if you
choose not to give it we'll honor that.
Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair.
Ms. Kahakalau: We have many more items on the agenda and I really don't see
how this is directly relevant to our petition here so thank you very
much.
Ms. Sweeney: Thank you.
Mr. Poyner: Mahalo.
Ms. Kahakalau: Are there any other testimonies in Kohala?
Ms. Sweeney: Just petitioners Council.
12
Ms. Kahakalau: They can come up when we deal with the specific petitions.
Thank you. So we're closing the public testimonies and we would
like to now move to approval of the regular session minutes of
May 13.
3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF MAY 13, 2015.
Mr. Goodenow: Sorry, if I could. You know I did think of making a few
clarifications, but the problem is there's no page numbers on the
minutes that we were provided. I think in future if the minutes
could be numbered., I'll fore go my suggestion this time, but make
it easier in the future, if that could be done.
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes. That's a very good suggesting given that the minutes are this
thick so it would really be difficult to find a particular page. Thank
you very much for that suggestion. Any other discussion in
regards to the minutes?
Mr. Adams: I would make just one comment it's understandable, but sometimes
when we have Counsel sometimes there's a reference to the
County Council and sometimes there's a reference to our staff
Counsel from Corporation Counsel. Just making sure that we are
using the correct, because this is the record and I want to make
sure that there correct one I there so.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you Mr. Adams. Any other discussion?
Motion and Vote: Ms. Kahakalau moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Adams second the
motion. All members voted aye.
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Petition No. 2015-04:Initial review of petition alleging that County officers or
employees violated Sections 14-1 (Enactment and Policy), 14-2 (Standards),
14-4 of the County Charter (Code of Ethics) because "of the completely
disrespectful way in which myself and my partner [girlfriend], have been
treated". Petition also alleges that Section 3-11 (Discontinuation of Water
Services) of the Rules & Regulations of the Department of Water Supply was
violated because the water in Kapaau was cut off without notice.
Ms. Kahakalau: My I bring the parties forward to the table please.
Mr. Santiago: Good morning.
13
Ms. Sweeney: Could you re-state your name for the record please.
Mr. Santiago: My name is Richard Santiago and I'm here in front of you fine
people for one specific date and time. January 16, 2015 that day is
the reason for my petition. I'd like to first of all give a slight
background why the date came about in order for you to be able to
give a just judgment up to your decision today. You have to know
the background prior to January 16, 2015. Let me make it short.
Ms. Kahakalau: I'm sorry Mr. Santiago can you hold one moment. I would first
like to ask our ladies here if you would like to request an open or
closed hearing in this matter.
Ms. Villanueva: An open hearing is fine.
Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Thank you very much. In that case please go ahead.
Mr. Santiago: I recently find out, filed a temporary restraining order towards the
family members of who are involved with the property. Let me
give you a small explanation of what went on before and how we
got there. The ten point seven three acre parcel on Ilikini road was
divided into thirty shares. Divided amongst some eight to ten
people. One of them Mrs. Martha B. Joseph Change Sr. and her
husband raised goats on the parcel for some sixty years. In
September of 2003, myself and Valerie Stevens herself a partial
heir and myself also a hanai heir leased about two acre parcel in
the Northeast corner of the lot for a homestead. Myself paid Mr.
Chang a hundred dollars monthly. Myself installed the water
meter and I laid some six hundred feet of water line in back of the
property. This was in 2003 and paid the water bill ever since. The
water meter was under Joseph Chang attention Ricard Santiago
and I had the bill every month ever since. I was paying the bill all
those thirteen years. On and about June of 2005, Valerie came
home to find a no trespassing sign and a chain with a lock on our
front gate. Our drive way is six hundred feet into the property
which is fenced the whole thing over and we were raising our
vegetables. Broccoli grew really nice.
Ms. Kahakalau: Excuse me Mr. Santiago we just need a brief opening statement we
all have the petition in front of us.
Mr. Santiago: Yeah I'm sorry just wanted to you know why it happened. Okay.
That's all we got on the property. It's all kind of family stuff.
14
Then on January 16 we came on and the water was turned off to
our lot. For thirteen years we've been raising vegetables and stuff
and we were living on the property. All of a sudden the water was
off so I called Tanya in Waimea. I'm not sure of her last name,
because she told a friend of mine her name was Villanueva. In
some later her name was Bannister so anyway it's Tanya I guess
you know who I'm talking about. I had a conversation with Tanya
and told her that I thought that the meter belonged to a property
above and Joe Chang had cut the meter and we could use the
water. But she told me no, she personally processed that
application with Joe Chang and that meter belong on that lot that
we had and that Heather Hook had all the rights in the world as a
property owner to take the meter away from us. Okay.
Ms. Kahakalau: I need you to really finish this in two more sentences please,
because as I said we have the petition in front of us.
Ms. Santiago: Okay. You lost me, what do you mean? Any way she told me that
Heather Hook because she was a property a new property owner
could take the water away from us. Now I'd like to read to you
from the Department of Water Supply meeting that was held on the
February 24 of this year. Where the Chief engineer Mr. Antonio
had said water is not available to a land owner who is not a party
of/to the agreement. The rules does not make water available to
just any lot owner who wants to subdivide. That is because that lot
owner is not in a specific water development agreement. So why
did she give the water away from us without even given us a
fifteen day notice time. Just like that the water was cut off and
then I asked Tanya what about the meter a hundred and seventy
feet away from where our meter was. You've got the petition in
front of you. And she told me and Antonio, Mr. Antonio and also
Calvin Uemura I think his name is of the public relations also told
myself, me and the police officers that meter a hundred and seven
feet away belong to a property it's down on the corner of Akoni
Pule highway. Some half a mile away or so. I found this out, then
all of a sudden they change their whole attitude and decided that
meter we had belonged to a property above of us. They changed
the whole prospective, trying to cover themselves. Again I would
like to refer to the minutes of February 24, 2015. In which Mr.
Antonio had said that once a property has been established with a
meter. It cannot be moved. Let me read what he said here.
15
"Regarding the concerns about the rules, the manager chief
engineer said that there is a rule where by DWS does not allow
transfer once a commitment is made to a property. DWS does not
transfer commitments to another property were no special
agreement applied. So why did they transfer the meter.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you Mr. Santiago. We will try and find out the answer from
our respondent who are over here. Thank you very much. Could
you please introduce yourselves and then attempt to respond to the
allegations.
Ms. Villanueva: Aloha Board members my name is Tanya Lee Villanueva and I
work for the Department of Water Supply at the South Kohala
office.
Ms. Keli'i: Good morning I'm Moana Keli'i with HGEA. I'm a union agent
representing Ms. Villanueva.
Ms. Villanueva: Did you want me to touch bases on these allegations?
Ms. Kahakalau: Please address the petition.
Ms. Villanueva: Certainly. Well back on January 16 in which Mr. Santiago is
responding to. Heather Hook had come into my office on January
15 to sign for a water service and it was for TMK: 5-5-4-21 and at
that time when she came in she had her records that she was a
property owner. At that point, I did contact Calvin Uemura who is
the customer service supervisor in Hilo to confirm that the transfer
of service would be okay. He confirmed that it was okay so we
went ahead and signed Heather Hook for the water service and her
take over date was January 16. We did not do any disconnection
of service, it was called a transfer of service. So all the DWS
personnel did on the sixteen was to go to the meter, take a water
meter reading and bring that back to the office so that we could
allocate that to her water application. At that point Heather Hook
decided to put a lock on her side of the meter. She did mention
that there were person that were living on their land that weren't
owners of the land. So I advised her, I said that's not the
departments responsibility to get involved with personal family or
legal issues in regards to the land. She would need to deal and also
I advised Mr. Santiago to deal with Heather Hook personally.
That's how we actually had left it. Now a day after when she did
lock the meter, Richard did call me at the Waimea office and I
16
explained to him that it was a water transfer. Apparently, felt that
we disconnected his water in which we didn't. A little later he
mentioned that there was another empty meter box about fifty feet
away from the existing one that Heather Hook had. At that time
we did further investigation and the department also did a land
survey there. We recognized that when we initially installed that
meter, we installed it in the incorrect box. So what we did is we
did the land survey first and then we waited for the directive from
administration. And then we did the transfer of the water meter
from that original box to the correct box. Then the current box
which had the meter is now vacant and so we corrected our side.
In reference to he brings up Joseph Chang. Joseph Chang was the
service holder and Mr. Santiago the bill was going care of him, but
he was never the service holder on the account just the bill was
going to him. So at the time of the transfer, Joe Chang did never
own that land or had no party in parcel twenty-one. Joe Chang had
a state lease for TMK 5-5-4-51 which borders a part this property.
So basically when Joe came in also back in 2004 and signed for the
service in which I signed him for. He gave us the wrong TMK,but
it's in such a desolate area that you know apparently when you
look at where the water meter is people think that it should be
there's which you know was incorrect as far doing that. As far as
Joe Chang, he's very critically ill and his wife had called me and
she verified for me that he never did own that land and it is the
Hook's property you see. So I mean she even you know would be
if it goes further she would even be willing to testify for me in
regards to the property itself.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much. We also have a letter here from the Mr.
Antonio who's the Manager Chief Engineer from the Department
of Water Supply. That requests from the Board of Ethics to
dismiss this subject petition. Do we have any questions? For the
petitioner or for the respondents?
Mr. Adams: Initially this will be for Ms. Villanueva is that correct?
Ms. Villanueva: Correct.
Mr. Adams: Thank you. In your statement to us and also in the correspondence
we received you laid out that the responsibility for the
understanding the.. who owns the property essentially and who
therefore be receiving the County service only goes so far.
17
Essentially you have to establish that indeed the individual that
owns it is the individual that's in front of you and then the water
service goes to them as the property owner. Anything else beyond
that as I understand it from what you told us is not the
department's responsibility.
Ms. Villanueva: Correct.
Mr. Adams: So I'm a little confused when you then went on further in your
statement to us about talking about who owned the land and Mr.
Chang. I'm not sure what the relevance of that was. Can you tell
me why you went into that?
Ms. Villanueva: Yes. I went into that because of the fact that we had to do the
actual survey of the land because each water service is allocated to
a particular TMK. So when we pulled up both....that property and
looked at other surrounding properties. We looked at the current
services that were on that street and apparently in due process of
that seeing that Joe Chang owned parcel twenty-one was not
correct. He did not own that parcel. So in reality when he came
back in 2004 and signed for the water meter he actually signed for
a water meter that did not belong to the parcel he was leasing.
Mr. Adams: And then so that, when that was allowed to happen that was just...
that was an administrative error is what you would say.
Ms. Villanueva: Well basically when he came in, he gave us that tax map key
which was parcel twenty-one.
Mr. Adams: Okay.
Ms. Villanueva: Yes.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Santiago as you hear the statement from Ms. Villanueva and
the explanation about it not being a discontinuation of your water
service,but a transfer to a current property owner. Does that
change your view of what has happened here?
Ms. Kahakalau: Sorry we can't hear you sir. Can you please turn your mic on?
Ms. Sweeney: Sorry Chair.
Mr. Santiago: Tanya said she personally processed the application for Joe Chang
and it was for that particular lot. Now she's trying to say that she
did not turn the water off, they just transferred the water. Hello my
18
water is turned off. Pay attention people. I'm the guy, I'm the
consumer and in the rule it says consumer is a person who's taken
the water. Now all of a sudden the consumer is not important?
You tell me that. I've been paying the water bill for thirteen years.
We've been planting in there and were part of that family tree. We
belong there and now we didn't take your water away we just
transferred. Well you did it illegally. You did not give me the
fifteen days' notice, but you're saying I didn't have to give you the
fifteen days' notice because we didn't shut the water off. The
water was shut off and then the Hooks' put a lock on the valve that
belongs to the Department of Water Supply. And in the rules it
says that valve is to be closed only in case of emergencies. Now
you have the meter that belonged to me that I paid for a hundred
and seventy feet away with another lock on it and there's no piping
from that meter going into the jungle there. Nothing. What was
the motive behind it except for harassment? Retaliation and a
cover up by Tanya and her people in the Board of Water Supply
that's all this is. Look at the whole picture. I'm the consumer.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Santiago I understand what you've just told me,but I don't
understand is what would be the motivation for the Department of
Water Supply to have some type of vendetta against you?
Mr. Santiago: Ask Tanya.
Mr. Adams: Okay I will. Thank you Mr. Santiago I will. So Tanya. Mr.
Santiago I have the floor. Thank you. So do you have any
additional knowledge about Mr. Santiago or his use of the water?
Ms. Villanueva: No. All I know is that he was living there and he basically his point
of view to was that his girlfriend was an heir to the property, but I
stuck to what our department rules and regs is.. Regulations are.
That is that the owners came in and took rightful..took over the
water meter and the Department of Water did not cut him off. Did
not cut his service off and you know as far as his allegations you
know one thing was that he kept insinuating that he didn't know
my last name. That to me was very insulting, because I've worked
for the department for twenty years. I know my community, I
know the people in my community and you know for him to say
that I was Tanya Bannister and going on and on and on. You
know I just I was kinda floored by that and so I want to make that
straight that my name is Tanya Lee Villanueva. That I'm a public
19
servant, I do the best to my abilities to serve the public, but I still
need to follow the rules and regs of the Department of Water. And
for me I feel as though his allegations are completely false and I
didn't do anything outside of my job duty.
Mr. Goodenow: I'll ask one question. Just to recap so you..when the owner came
in, you consulted the rules, the rules say any owner. That's true for
anyone. If I have like an ownership with Ku and Mr. Adams, we
own a property; anyone one of us could come in? That's correct
right?
Ms. Villanueva: Correct.
Mr. Goodenow: So you did that, you consulted, you went to your supervisor, he
confirmed that that was appropriate and that's what happened.
Ms. Villanueva: Correct.
Mr. Goodenow: I'm not sure if I should ask this question, but I'm gonna ask it. Are
you related to Heather Hook?
Ms. Villanueva: No I am not.
Mr. Goodenow: Alright. Thank you. I don't know, I've heard enough, I gonna...
is it appropriate to move to dismiss at this point? I defer to ... no
further comments thank you.
Mr. Adams: Well if we're gonna have a ... If we're gonna have a discussion we
should have a motion so...
Mr. Goodenow: That's correct. So I'm gonna move that the petition be dismissed.
Mr. Adams: For the purpose of discussion I'll second it.
Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion in regards to this motion of dismissing the petition.
Mr. Adams: As I take a look at the petition as it's put in front of us, I noticed
that the Code of Ethics is/are the specific sections that are
identified not necessarily the sections we're used to seeing in
Article 15, but actually coming from the Charter. Right. So it's
specifically we're talking about the sections that are out of Article
14 in the County Charter that we're talking about here. I'm sure
that we can make that transfer in our minds about this. The
discussion about what happened to the water on...the fact that it
has been cutoff to Mr. Santiago's homestead where they're living
20
to me that..appears to me that the Department of Water Supply in
fact was not involved in that. Right. There was a change, you can
go through the process of whether or not Ms. Hook was the correct
owner and all that kind of stuff. I don't think that there's a
question about that on anybody's part that she is a property owner.
One of several and based on the answer to your question Mr.
Goodenow it is clear that any owner can come in and the
department will than take that into account as part of the process of
moving transferring services. The fact that the water was cutoff
not being done by the department. Frankly takes it out of purview.
Right. If that was then done inappropriate way,but if the
department didn't cut it off then that's not something that this
Board can take a look at. If it..we then have the question were we
move to the conduct of employees whether persons were treated in
other than courteous, fair, and impartial manner. In terms of
looking at Mr. Santiago's comments and his correspondence and
petition and listening and having read Ms. Villanueva's and Mr.
Antonio's. I'm not seeing that there's anything in there that
indicates something that was any activities were done in a less than
courteous, fair, and impartial manner. Phone calls were made,
phone calls were received,conversation were had, letters were
sent, faxes were sent, letters were received in terms of looking at
the correspondence we have in front us. None of it was handled in
anything other than a professional manner. So I'm not seeing were
this necessarily is an issue for us as well. So those would be my
comments.
Ms. Kahakalau: Any further discussion? Okay in that case.
Mr. Adams: Second.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to dismiss Petition No. 2015-04. Mr. Adams
second the motion. All members voted aye.
Mr. Hyland: May I make a comment? Ask (inaudible)
Mr. Santiago: Can I make a comment? Am I all over. Is this it? You guys can
hear me? You guys don't want to listen to me. I'd like to make a
comment.
Ms. Kahakalau: At this point we need to move on with the agenda. Thank you very
much. You may submit a written comment if you would like to.
21
Ms. Sweeney: He asked if he could appeal.
Ms. Kahakalau: Our next item on the agenda is Petition No. 2015-...
Mr. Adams: Can we address that briefly Madame Chair. Counsel?
Mr. Yoshimoto: Actually Madame Chair we've already disposed of that petition so
I don't think we should have any further discussion on in fact
actually any written comments I think are not appropriate cause the
record is already complete. You've dismissed it. We should move
on.
Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Were you able to hear our legal comments? Thank you. At
this point we're moving on to Petition No. 2015-07.
b. Petition No. 2015-07:Initial review of petition alleging that County officers or
employees violated Section 2-83 (Fair Treatment) subsection (a) and (b) of
the County Code of Ethics because they allowed a County officer to continue
to use the Pcard to obtain goods and services from various merchants and
vendors.
Ms. Kahakalau: At this point we're moving on to Petition No. 2015-07. If our
respondents please come to the front. If we could have a brief
opening statement by the petitioner please. Mr. Hyland?
Mr. Hyland: Yes mame.
Ms. Kahakalau: Would you be able to provide a brief opening statement?
Mr. Hyland: Oh yes. I had a procedure on my throat last week so just as before
I'm gonna ask with your permission for Will Houst to read my
brief opening statement.
Ms. Kahakalau: Go ahead sir.
Ms. Sweeney: Please state your name.
Mr. Houst: Will Houst.
Mr. Hyland: Start there. Excuse me just a moment Madame Chair were a little
confused here this morning. Go ahead.
Mr. Houst: Hawai`i Penal Code Section 720-520 [sic] translated into our
current circumstances of 2008-2015 Billy Kenoi agreed with
Finance Director Nancy Crawford, Deputy Finance Director
Deanna Sako to bend and then between Mayor Kenoi and Finance
22
Director Sako that the three of them, then the two of them would
engage in Mayor Billy Kenoi's knowingly violating the State and
County statutes and ordinances regarding the misuse of Mayor
Kenoi's purchasing card, the P-card for personal purchases. The
act was that at the end of the monthly reporting period, they
would state falsehoods in the official records or just not file as
required by law and code. The specific criminal conduct that is
being engaged in was violation of Hawai`i Revised Statues HRS
Section 708-803 (Theft) and HRS Section 708-874 (Misapplication
of entrusted property). As purchasing card administrators for the
County, it was the responsibility of Crawford and Sako to stop
Billy Kenoi from misusing his P-card. He not only refused to do
so, they actively aided and a bedded his misuse of the card. It's
ongoing commission of the misdemeanor offense of misapplication
of entrusted property in fact. Over a period of years from
December 2008 to March 2015, Ms. Sako's culpability whether it
was ongoing for years she was the Deputy Director or for a couple
of months she was Finance Director was a continuing violation of
the ethical standards required of her. She was responsible and she
did not fulfil that responsibility. We consider her culpability I
urge you to keep in mind that Hawai`i County Code Section 2-80
requires "promoting the highest standards of ethical contact in the
County government" end of quote. According to Hawai`i County
Charter Section 14-1(b) "the requirement that appointed officials
and employees shall demonstrate the highest standard of ethical
conduct is so that the public may have trust and confidence in the
integrity of the government" end of quote. It is hardly an
understatement that the conduct of Mayor Billy Kenoi has shaken
the confidence of many citizens in the integrity of County
government and Ms. Sako must accept her share of responsibility
for that loss of confidence. Ms. Sako violated the Hawaii County
Code Section 2-83(a)(1) by permitting Billy Kenoi to misuse his P-
card for personal purchases when she had an obligation to simply
cancel his card. This also violates Hawai`i County Charter Section
14-2(a). Ms. Sako violated section 2-83(a)(3)by stonewalling the
West Hawai`i Today in its request for Billy Kenoi's P-card
expenditures under the Uniform Information Practices Act HRS
Section 92 & 92(f). This also violates the County Charter Section
14-4(c) requiring that all persons shall be treated in a fair and
courteous manner. Ms. Sako violated HCC Section 2-83(b)(2)
when she granted unwarranted privileges of personal use of this P-
card as compensation for other considerations to Billy Kenoi. This
also violates Hawai`i County Charter Section 14-4(a) which
requires that all public funds are to be treated as a public trust and
are not to be used for personal purposes without auth/consent. I
appreciate Ms. Sako was unfairly put in (inaudible) position by her
23
superiors. This is an unfortunate position for any employee to be
put in and as the saying goes "That's why they pay me the big
bucks."At her salary it is not unreasonable for the citizens of
Hawai`i County to demand a person of such trust and
responsibility be required to move in the highest ethical standards
even if it comes at great personal cost to Ms. Sako. But there is a
price to be paid for being an(inaudible) to (inaudible) knowing
this conduct that goes around you. I just hope this Board is not
take/make the same mistake Ms. Sako did. Thank you for hearing
my testimony(inaudible).
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much. Could we please have the respondents
provide a response to the petition.
Mr. De Lima: Yes my name is Brian De Lima. I'm licensed to practice law in
the State of Hawai`i. I represent Deanna Sako and I'm here on her
behalf. I also I'm here on behalf of Mr. Randy Kurohara who's
represented by Robert Kim. Mr. Kim could not be present today
so I'm making a special appearance for him today in this matter.
Both Ms. Sako and Mr. Kurohara are similarly situated in regards
to the allegations made against them. Essentially, in terms of Ms.
Sako she took her position in January of 2015 and she's
continually in that position. In regards to the allegations of
violations of Hawai`i Freedom of Information Act, the bottom line
is there's been no violation by Ms. Sako or Mr. Kurohara. Neither
of them are responsible for responding to the Uniform Information
Act request and in fact all those matters go thru the Corporation
Counsel. In fact when Ms. Sako was the Director, that's when the
full disclosure were made to West Hawai`i Today under her
stewardship. The bottom line is when the petitioner talks about
falsehoods, the reality is under Ms. Sako guidance as Director full
and complete disclosures have been made and records were
accurate and verified. There was no cover-up, there was no
fabrication, there were no mis-statements of any fact, expenditure
or otherwise. Ms. Sako as Finance Director produced all records
that were requested and there's been no allegations what so ever
that the records produced were not accurate records. Both Mr.
Kurohara and Ms. Sako are subordinates, they have no authority or
position to take any action against anyone other than their
subordinates. We believe this petition should be dismissed, there's
no prima facie showing. If you look at the petitioner's request he
points out that he is asking that Ms. Sako be dismissed with
prejudice as party to 2015-03. We have no objection for her to be
dismissed with prejudice as a party to that action. Now as it
pertains to 2015-07, we ask that this petition be dismissed. The
acts complained of are not against in terms of substance are not
24
against Ms. Sako or Mr. Kurohara. The focus should be were the
actual allegations are and not against these two public servants.
Thank you.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much. Any responses or questions anybody?
Mr. Adams: Quick question Mr. De Lima. Regarding Mr. Kurohara's situation
as the Deputy Managing Director you are responsible for oversight
of the P-card for the Mayor's staff? Is that correct?
Mr. De Lima: He submitted a written statement in that confirms. That's correct.
Mr. Adams: But not the Mayor? But not the Mayor?
Mr. De Lima: Is that correct? Not the Mayor. Yes.
Mr. Adams: Thank you. And then during for Ms. Sako during the time that
before you were the Director you had responsibility perhaps you
can characterize for me your responsibility in relationship to the P-
card program. What did that involve? Before you were Director.
Ms. Sako: The Finance Director is the P-card administrator so that was not
my position at that time and that those duties basically delegated to
accounts and purchasing divisions.
Mr. Adams: So you had.. So your answer than you had no responsibility prior
to becoming Director of the Finance Department for the Pcard
program.
Ms. Sako: I mean did we have discussions about it and talk about it, but
ultimately it was under the Finance Director's domain.
Mr. Adams: Okay. So it wasn't part of your responsibilities.
Ms. Sako: Right.
Mr. Goodenow: The P-card administrator, that position is established in the P-card
rules I guess right. Who/how are those rules adopted? Who
approves them?
Ms. Sako: The Finance Director at the time created the policy and adopted it.
Mr. Goodenow: It's an internal policy, it's not a law or regulatory rule it's the
internal policy of the Finance Department as to how P-card usage
should be handled in the various departments.
25
Ms. Sako: Correct.
Mr. Goodenow: Really, it's promulgated, I guess, by the Finance Director.
Ms. Sako: Yes.
Mr. Goodenow: No further questions.
Mr. Adams: If I may. Just so I understand the situation here. So as I take a
look at the County of Hawai`i purchasing card program procedures
of October 2013. I assume that's still active, still in effect. So
the.. you have obviously the P-card administrator and that's the
County Director of Finance and there is no...it says or their
designee,but in this case there was no designee. It was the County
Director of Finance. It still remains that case? That's the case?
Ms. Sako: Yes.
Mr. Adams: Okay. Each of the departments have a P-card coordinator? Is that
correct?
Ms. Sako: Or more than one in some cases.
Mr. Adams: Okay. So when it comes to dealing with the Mayor's office, you
deal with in this case for sake of argument Mr. Kurohara's been
Managing Deputy Director for a while. The department P-card
coordinator using these the phrasing that comes within the program
procedures would in fact be Mr. Kurohara for the Mayor's staff
whoever had P-cards is that correct?
Ms. Sako: That's my understanding he was..
Mr. Adams: Okay. So when we take a look though at the special situation of
the Mayor, that doesn't fall under a department P-card coordinator
as it's indicated here in the program procedures and the
department, the County Director of Finance then would have had
that a special responsibility if there was one.
Mr. De Lima: I think you're reading into that, it's not defined in the.
Mr. Adams: I'm asking a question so you know.
Mr. De Lima: I'm saying it's not defined in the regulations as such the Mayor is
the Mayor. He's the top administrative officer. He is onto himself
the administrator.
26
Mr. Adams: You're statement to me is that the purchasing card administrator is
the Mayor?
Mr. De Lima: I'm saying that the Mayor's responsible for his purchasing card.
The Finance Director is responsible for the overall program
administration. She's subordinate to the Mayor. That's my only
position, she's a subordinate to the Mayor. She does not, she's not
on top of the Mayor in any administrative line. She is not on top of
the Mayor.
Mr. Hyland: Madame Chair may I ask a question?
Ms. Kahakalau: Go ahead.
Mr. Hyland: The attorney seems to be arguing that the P-card administrator is
not responsible for the Mayor. If the Mayor is an entity
responsible only unto himself that is not in light of what Mr.
Adams is asking and making reference to the P-card manual which
the County adopted as County policy. The Mayor is responsible to
Ms. Sako, Ms. Sako whether she was the administrator of the
entire department before January or before December rather or not.
From December, for December, January and February she was the
Finance Director and the Mayor was her subordinate to her and at
that point my contention is if she was being ethical. She would've
revoked the Mayor's P-card. Under the authority of the P-card
manual.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Mr. Hyland so as far as dismissing Ms. Sako from
the.. with prejudice as a party to Petition 2015-03 that is still your
wish?
Mr. Hyland: If you're dealing with Ms. Sako in the same way in this one, yes.
Mr. Yoshimoto: Madame Chair just point of clarification we're still on 07, we
haven't addressed 03.
Mr. Adams: Except that 07 specifically request in 07 is to dismiss Ms. Sako as
a party to 03.
Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. I just want to make sure.
Mr. De Lima: We have no objection to that.
Ms. Kahakalau: And you're still in agreement with that.
27
Mr. Hyland: I'm assuming we'll come to that when we come to 03 on the
agenda.
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes. One of the things for me is that the issues that you bring up
all three of them arise from the same transaction. So in other
words if the Mayor didn't do what he did then there would be no
issue with you and there would be no issue with you. So to me I
have an issue with separating them because they arise of the same
transaction and one is the direct result of then next one of the next
one. So there is a you know a snow ball effect kinda of, that one of
the issues that I have.
Mr. Adams: I'm in concurrence with you Madame Chair. My concern about
dismissing Ms. Sako as a party to Petition 2015-03 is that the
issues that are at the core of 03 we're not dealing with. We're
currently under deferral motion that this Board passed last meeting
and so our ability to address that I think is problematic. In dealing
with the issues that we have in front of us is here in terms of 2015-
07. I would make a motion that we would dismiss this petition.
Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have a second?
Mr. Goodenow: For the purposes of discussion I will second.
Mr. Adams: Thank you. The reason I would say that. Let me just go first to
Mr. Kurohara the addition, the addendum to the petition that added
Mr. Kurohara. As I take a look at the reason for the submission of
the petition and then the Code of Ethics sections that are in
question and the statement of the facts. It appears to me that Mr.
Kurohara had nothing to do with the Mayor's use of the P-card nor
did he have any...was he involved in any freedom of information
act or UIPA request. As a result, I don't see where he is involved
in this particular situation at all and so I would. It would be my
contention that there's no factual basis for having him be in this
petition. When I take a look at Ms. Sako, we have yet to get to the
issues that deal with the concern that is at the basis for 2015-03.
When I take a look though at what we're asking to done here,
we're asking about her situation as Director of Finance. Yes, she
became the purchasing card administrator by County policy and by
program or procedures as well. Once she took over as Director of
Finance that made her therefore responsible for the purchasing
card program. She then has based on my reading of the program
two to three months to one see what has happened as a result of the
purchases that are there then to go through the process of looking
at and asking the individuals that have used the P-card for
particular purchases to come back and explain what they are. So
28
there's a two to three month period that appears to me actually has
been adhered to here. So I'm not sure that I'm aware that there has
been as I take a look at 2-83(b)(2) which is one of the sections that
Mr. Hyland talks about. "No officer or employee shall use or
attempt to use the officer's or employee's official position to
secure or grant" and grants in italicized and highlighted grant
unwarranted privileges. It appears to me that in fact Ms. Sako did
not do that. That when she had the opportunity in her position to
be the purchasing card administrator she then acted as such. So I
would that is my based on what we've heard from Mr. Hyland,
based on what we've heard from Mr. De Lima and Ms. Sako. That
would be my contention.
Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow?
Mr. Goodenow: I would agree and I know it's a little awkward because we have a
different item on the agenda, but I would like to put on the record
at this point I'm also for dismissing her from the other petition at
this point. I don't know your comments on that, but I feel you've
stated the case very well for both of them so I support dismissal.
Ms. Kahakalau: Are there any further discussions?
Mr. Adams: If it's okay with the Chair, I would like to ask if Mr. Hyland has
any other comments, but that' entirely up to you because we're in
discussion now on a motion.
Mr. Hyland: Mr. Hyland does have a comment.
Ms. Kahakalau: Well. I feel we've asked him about the.. his intent or in regards to
the dismissing with prejudice of Ms. Sako as a part to petition
2015-03. I think that his side of the story in this petition is clearly
stated. I agree with both of you in terms of dismissing the petition
because it arose from the same transaction and therefore cannot be
separated into a new petition kind of and so I would like to just call
for the question.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Kahakalau moved to dismiss Petition No. 2015-07. Mr. Goodenow
seconded the motion. All members voted aye.
Mr. De Lima: Could you do 2015-03 now or?
Ms. Kahakalau: If's it's alright with our two?
Mr. Yoshimoto: Actually Madame Chair why don't we take a break because either
items I'm not handling today. So can we take a brief recess?
29
Mr. De Lima: Can I apologize because then I need be excused. Everything I've
said I would ask that you consider in 2015-03 because both parties
understand that I have another obligation that I'm committed to
that I need to leave. Already late.
Mr. Kahakalau: Yes and we have actually considered making such a move but we
have change our Counsel so if you would give us a few minutes
please.
Mr. De Lima: I apologize for leaving.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you.
Mr. Goodenow: Thank you.
11:36 a.m. The Board took a recess
11:42 a.m. The Board returned from recess
Ms. Kahakalau: The Board of Ethics is ready to re-adjourn and what I'd like
to do is to make a motion to move item 6b to immediately after 4b.
Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair I don't think you need a motion. It's inherent in
here. How is this chaired?
Mr. Murai: No. Actually. Strictly speaking. Sunshine Law. Anytime you
amend an agenda, we move something around the agenda it
requires a motion to amend the agenda. It must be by in this case
you would need a unanimous vote.
Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. So again I make a motion to amend the agenda by moving
item 6d unfinished business to the current place where we are on
the agenda right now which is after 4b.
Mr. Goodenow: I so move.
Ms. Kahakalau: you second?
Mr. Adams: oh yes.
Ms. Kahakalau: I call for the vote. All in favor of the amendment to the agenda
please say aye. All aye. Any oppose? That motion is carried. So
we are now on petition no. 2015-03. To review the draft motion to
defer petition regarding the hearing into allegations that Mayor
30
Billy Kenoi violated Sections 14-1 (Enactment and Policy), 14-2
(Standards), and 14-4 of the County Charter(Code of Ethics)by
using the officer's P-card "as a special privilege to obtain goods
and services: from various merchants and vendors. Can we have
our petitioners? Do we have any petitioners?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Hyland
Ms. Kahakalau: Are you ready Mr. Hyland?
Mr. Hyland: Madame Chair. May I make a comment before we start? I'm
having a difficult time with this because of what I'm regarding as
the unfairness of these proceedings. When Mr. Luke was sitting in
front of you, he was able to respond as one of the commissioners
would make a remark or statement or have a question. You
engaged in dialog with him. We're not engaging in dialog with me
and I'm feeling like my due process is being denied because I'll
just give you a very quick ..... The basis for the dismissal of the
previous petition that was made by the commissioner. He was
referring to and I quote "all notices of disputed items must be made
within sixty(60) days of the cycle in which the item first appeared
on the cardholders' statement." That's what he was referring to as
the basis for his reason for denying that petition. Well that's that's
obviously fallacious but I have no opportunity to point that out and
I think that I should be entitled to the same privilege of dialog with
the Board that you grant to attorneys who are sitting in front of
you. I apologize for being physically unable to be in front of you,
but I don't think my due process rights should be violated for that
reason. Thank you.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Would you now like to do your ....Would you now
like to do your opening statement? In regards to the new agenda
item?
Mr. Hyland: Are you referring to the original or referring to my motion for
reconsideration?
Ms. Kahakalau: We are on petition number 2015-03 right now.
Mr. Adams: Madame Chair the motion that... the motion that we just agreed to
actually we moved items 6d, 6d which is the draft which is to
review the draft motion to defer petition 2015-03. We moved that
forward, that's what we just did.
Mr. Murai: I'm sorry Madame Chair. I believe there appears to be a typo in
item d, it says review draft motion. I think that should be reviewed
draft order.
31
Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair at this time I'd like to move that we take item b and
c, 6b and c out of order and move them together with item d. It's
really one unit of items that can I move that they all be taken out of
order at this time.
Mr. Adams: Seconded.
Ms. Kahakalau: Can we any discussion on that? All in favor of moving both items
say aye. All aye. So that motion is carried so we moving both c
and d. My apologies Mr. Hyland I don't know what happened
there. I'm sorry. So we would start with c.
Mr. Goodenow: At this time Madame Chair I would like to move that we the Board
reconsider its previous action on petition 2015-03 that the
investigation be deferred pending disposition of the Attorney
General's investigation.
Mr. Murai: I'm sorry Commissioner Goodenow. Madame Chair as I
understand it just so we have a clear record of what we're doing
here. What the Board is doing is taking several agenda items and
consolidating them for a single hearing so to speak. May I suggest
that the first order of business be to review and/or approve the
order that granted the Board's previous action and once we do that,
then we can go on to the new matters. I think it's just cleaner that
way rather than doing motions to hearing motions to reconsider
because right now we have no filed order to reconsider.
d. Petition No. 2015-03: Review draft order to defer petition regarding the
hearing into allegations that Mayor Billy Kenoi violated Sections 14-1
(Enactment and Policy), 14-2 (Standards), and 14-4 of the County Charter
(Code of Ethics) by using the officer's P-card "as a special privilege to
obtain goods and services: from various merchants and vendors, which is a
"conflict of interest in serious breach of"the highest standards of ethical
conduct." Petition also alleges that another County officer is in violation by
continuing to allow the first officer to do so.
Mr. Goodenow: If I may, Madame Chair, in my opinion, I'm against the order
because I want to reconsider it. We can't approve the order if
we're going to reconsider the motion.
Mr. Adams: Right. So
Mr. Murai: That's your decision Board member, but I guess my thinking is
that your approving the form of the, your approving the form of the
order.
32
Mr. Adams: We're considering it. Counsel we're considering it. We're not
approving it, we're considering it.
Mr. Murai: Alright.
Mr. Adams: We have an order here granting the motion to defer hearing the
petition right. As I understand the Counsel we need to take this
into consideration before we do anything else that's going to deal
with 2015-03.
Mr. Murai: Well I'm. I'm sorry are you asking me a question or?
Mr. Adams: No that was my, that was actually a statement but it looks like you
want to make a comment on the statement.
Mr. Murai: No, no, no. I don't have a comment. I've already said my piece.
Mr. Adams: Okay.
Mr. Hyland: May I say a piece?
Mr. Adams: Not yet sir.
Ms. Kahakalau: Hold on one moment please. I feel it's a horse and cart thing and if
we're going to reconsider then to me it would make more sense to
discuss the reconsideration first and then if whatever the outcome
of that is. Then we can finalize or not the other piece.
Mr. Adams: Well. For the sake of discussion, if we are considering a
reconsideration of our order or motion. If we're doing that, then
that would make this particular order a mute issue.
Mr. Goodenow: Yes.
Mr. Murai: Actually 1 when I suggested that we review this first, it's to review
and approve a prior decision of the Board.
Mr. Adams: Right.
Mr. Murai: Now in order for us to reconsider something, logically we should
have that decision reduced to writing. I'm not saying that you
cannot.
Mr. Adams: Oh I see what you're saying. Got it.
Mr. Goodenow: Well.
Mr. Murai: Cause right now all we have is what was decided that you know at
a previous meeting that has not be reduced to writing yet. So if
you're reconsidering the question becomes well what are you
reconsidering?
33
Mr. Goodenow: In light of that if I may comment Madame Chair.
Ms. Kahakalau: Go ahead.
Mr. Goodenow: The last motion that we passed was to defer. Robert's Rules says
you have to reconsider the immediately passed approved motion
right. That's where we're at. If we go ahead and approve a written
order, then technically I'd think you'd have to reconsider the order
and then reconsider. It's not the immediate prior vote.
Reconsideration is really only of the immediate prior vote in
Robert's Rules and that's why we need to reconsider in my opinion
are previous vote. Now if it fails, we can proceed to vote on the
order and leave it as it is if we don't. If we reconsider and change
what we've done, then of course it does make the vote on the order
moot.
Mr. Adams: I would..
Ms. Kahakalau: That reasoning agrees with me, but Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: I mean this seems a little technical obviously, but the key is we
want to make sure that we're not missing a step here as we get into
I think an area where we're going to have some conversation. If
we move forward in the way that Board member Goodenow is
suggested Counsel. Are we doing something that's incorrect?
Mr. Murai: Well in my opinion, I think so but..
Mr. Goodenow: I'd like to call a recess. Please.
Ms. Kahakalau: Okay.
Mr. Adams: Recess or.....
Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair I'd like to ask for one.
Ms. Kahakalau: For a recess. I make a motion that we recess is everybody in favor
of that? So we will recess until we discuss this matter further.
11:53 a.m. The Board went into recess.
11:57 a.m. The Board returned from recess.
Ms. Kahakalau: Are we ready to re-adjourn?
Mr. Adams: Call the meeting back to order.
Ms. Kahakalau: Calling the meeting back to order. Thank you very much.
34
Mr. Adams: Just for the sake of clarification Madame Chair if I could ask Vice-
Chair to give a little bit of a synopsis of what the conversation was.
Mr. Goodenow: Sure. We really didn't discuss the Mayor. All we discussed was
we have two rules; an interesting situation. We have Robert's
Rules of Order that says that a motion for reconsideration should
be on, only on, the immediate proceeding vote, right, so that would
be the motion that we had. But, the Corp. Counsel I think brings a
valid point up that this order that's being proposed is just what
we've done. It's just stating that on this date, this is what we did.
It doesn't do much else, so basically it says that we approved that
then, we can reconsider and then do another order saying we've
reconsidered. It's really up to the Board, I don't know if you want
to go into executive session to discuss the minutiae, but that
basically is where we're at. It's my opinion, I think that we
should follow Robert's Rules, reconsider and then the order can be
or why do two orders, but I defer to Corp. Counsel on that.
Ms. Kahakalau: I would like to defer to our Co-Counsel as well in that matter if
that's alright with you Mr. Adams?
Mr. Adams: I think is it's been our practice that we have the orders that have
been written, then we deal with the orders and so what we've
already made a decision on here. This order that's in front of us is
not the vote on this particular order is really a vote that says that
this is a valid reconstruction of what the motion was. The motion
was already been made, so in my opinion we vote on the order and
then we can take any particular follow on motion into account.
Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Is there any motion then in regards to order petition that
deals with petition number 2015-03?
Mr. Adams: I move that we approve the order granting motion to defer hearing
of petition 2015-03.
Mr. Goodenow: Second.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to approve the order granting motion to defer
hearing Petition 2015-03. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members voted aye.
Mr. Hyland: Madame Chair question.
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes sir.
Mr. Hyland: I'm I picking too fine a nit to suggest that you don't have anybody
from Corp. Counsel sitting with you? Because on the matter of
2015-03 the gentleman from Maui is your Counsel and not Mr.
Yoshimoto?
35
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes sir that was case. Even last time when we discussed this
petition because of a conflict of perceived possible conflict of
interest we have our Maui Corp. Counsel instead of our Hawai`i
island one and it's the same person that was here from our last
hearing as well.
Mr. Hyland: Thank you.
Ms. Kahakalau: Now in regards to the communication from Mr. Hyland vs. the
petition itself and then also your letter. Do we have any specific
pleasure?
Mr. Goodenow: I'll move that we reconsider our decision to defer our investigation
until disposition of the Attorney Generals' investigation.
Mr. Adams: Seconded.
Ms. Kahakalau: So then I would like to ask for some discussion in regards to that
matter please.
Mr. Murai: Sorry Madame Chair may I also point out that Mr. Hyland has
filed a similar, if not identical motion. Are you going to hear them
separately or?
Ms. Kahakalau: That's why I was just asking which way we should go in terms of
the communication from Mr. Hyland and the petition and what I
heard was that we start with the petition because of. But I'm open
just so long we clear that there two separate items.
Mr. Murai: You mean Mr. Goodenow's motion and Mr. Hyland's motion are
going to be treated separately.
6c. Communication from Lanric Hyland dated May 18, 2015, regarding Motion
for Reconsideration of Petition No. 2015-03.
Mr. Goodenow: Why don't we take Mr. Hyland's, I'll withdraw my last motion.
Let's take Mr. Hyland's communication first.
Mr. Adams: I'm fine with that as a second.
Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. So we're all in favor of moving forward and using, letting
Mr. Hyland. Mr. Hyland can you please then speak to your
communication.
Mr. Murai: I'm sorry before we proceed on that, Madame Chair I do have a
question for Mr. Hyland. That's whether Mr. Hyland served the
36
Mayor or his Counsel or Ms. Sako or her Counsel with his motion
to reconsider? Mr. Hyland did you hear me?
Mr. Hyland: I'm sorry no sir I did not.
Mr. Murai: Madame Chair in that case I do want to state.
Mr. Hyland: I'm frankly confused.
Mr. Murai: Mr. Hyland I don't know if you recall, but at the last hearing I
believe there's discussion about whenever people, whenever
parties file any documents or pleading or submitting any
documents to the Board. That they should be providing copies to
the other parties to the case. Now, Madame Chair for the record
yesterday the Board secretary Ms. Hirayama contacted me and told
me that she was not sure whether Mr. Kenoi or Ms. Sako or their
attorneys received notice of Mr. Hyland's motion to reconsider.
So what we decided to do out of an abundance of caution, was to
email that motion to the parties yesterday. I don't know whether
Mr. De Lima saw it, but I was contacted by Mr. Kenoi's attorney
who said that he told me that did not receive a copy of the motion
from Mr. Hyland and that he objected to the request to reconsider.
Ms. Kahakalau: So Mr. Hyland the question was whether you served a copy of
your motion to Mr. Kenoi or to Ms. Sako or their attorneys.
Mr. Hyland: No I did not because of my understanding that the Board ruled
which is the Board forwards the motion to the parties and I say that
because one of my problems here again from a due process stand
point is item b as in boy, 6b as in boy review memorandum
submitted by Vice-Chair Goodenow. I asked to see a copy of that
and I was told by Emily that I couldn't have a copy because it
hadn't been introduced in public. So I'm assuming that that rule
applies both ways and therefore I counted on the Board to send
whatever they should have been served with to the other parties
that are involved.
Mr. Kahakalau: Counsel can you respond to that please.
Mr. Adams: If I might. Mr. Hyland I appreciate the position you just took,but
there's nothing that ever prevents you from sending anything that
you're sending to the Board sending it to all the other parties.
There would not be anything. Now you may have may assume
that the Board or the Board staff would make that available to
respondents, but of course there's nothing that prevents you from
doing the same.
37
Mr. Hyland: Well if I may point out. Mayor Kenoi's attorney did not show that
same courtesy to me. Ms. Sako's attorney did, but Mayor Kenoi's
did not. I'd never received anything from Mayor Kenoi's attorney.
Mr. Murai: Mr. Hyland we mentioned that at the last hearing that it could be
because the copy that Mayor Kenoi's attorney received from the
Board was redacted. Your address and contact information were,
because they're deemed confidential by the Board rules, they
didn't have your address at the time. I don't know whether they
have it now, but I think that was the situation the last time.
Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair. Thank you. I think I can maybe we can just move
forward beyond this because there is no right of a member of the
public to reconsider an action, Mr. Hyland. So because of that,
that's one of the reasons I submitted my motion for reconsideration
so it can be discussed. It's not really a petition, is it numbered as a
petition no, it's a communication correct. So I just move that we
file Mr. Hyland's communications and that we treat the substantive
component of all this in the next item. So I move that we file
this communication, is that correct?
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes. So Mr. Hyland because we will be talking about the same
issue, as part of the memorandum submitted by Vice-Chair
Goodenow we would like to file the communication. Your
communication from May 18 for the reasons that the other parties
did not get a copy of it and then also what was just stated by Vice-
Chair Goodenow.
Mr. Hyland: With that explanation by Vice-Chair Goodenow, I withdraw my
due process complaint and have no problem with proceeding as
you indicated.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much. Alright so then we're moving to.
Mr. Goodenow: File. I'll move to file.
Ms. Kahakalau: So there's a motion to move to file the communication from Mr.
Hyland?
Mr. Adams: Second.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to file the communication from Mr. Hyland. Mr.
Adams seconded the motion. All members voted aye.
Ms. Kahakalau: So we're moving on then now to petition no. 2015-03 on your
communication. Yes, thank you.
38
6b. Review Memorandum submitted on June 25, 2015 by Vice-Chair Goodenow
re: Notice of Motion to Reconsider concerning Petition No. 2015-03.
Mr. Goodenow: I move that we reconsider the action previously taken at the last
Board meeting to defer our investigation pending the outcome of
the disposition of the Attorney Generals' investigation.
Mr. Adams: Seconded.
Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. We're ready for the discussion.
Mr. Goodenow: At this point, I mean there's several things that will happen. I
think we have to reconsider so we can take Deanna Sako off of it
number one, which I plan to do. That's one reason, but then we
can also discuss the substantive matter of our deferral again that
would be the second component. So I ask that we approve the
motion to reconsider.
Mr. Adams: I think it's important as a part of the discussion to recognize that
we don't necessarily have the respondent available and so that as a
part of this process that I would anticipate that although we may
receive testimony associated with 2015-03. It would probably be
an inappropriate first to make any decision today based on any
testimony we heard without the respondents here.
Mr. Goodenow: Other than to vote it down, I agree.
Ms. Kahakalau: Counsel do you have any.
Mr. Murai: No.
Mr. Goodenow: On the motion to reconsider.
Ms. Kahakalau: So then we would like to vote on the motion to reconsider petition
number 2015-03.
Mr. Goodenow: Our previous decision.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to defer the notice of motion to reconsider
submitted by Vice-Chair Goodenow's concerning petition number 2015-03. Mr. Adams
seconded the motion. All members voted aye.
Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair I would like to move we remove, I agree with what
Mr. Adams just said about proper notice and taking action, but
since removing Deanna Sako was discussed in the earlier matter,
it was on the agenda, I don't think there's any Sunshine Law
problem or due process rights problem. So I move that we delete
Deanna Sako from Petition 2015-03.
39
Mr. Adams: Dismiss.
Mr. Goodenow: Dismiss her portion of it. I'm sorry I don't know the exact
wording, I defer to Corp. Counsel.
Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have a second to that motion? Mr. Adams: Second. Any
discussion?
Mr. Hyland: But the Chair tell me when I can speak.
Ms. Kahakalau: Go ahead sir.
Mr. Hyland: I just wanted to know when it's appropriate for me to speak against
the motion.
Ms. Kahakalau: Yes go ahead.
Mr. Hyland: I'm really at a loss here. Boy, talk about due process. You just
dismissed a stand-alone motion for Ms. Sako on the basis of the
fact that her appointment and keep in mind she became Finance
Director subject to your ethical rules according to your rules. On
the day that she was nominated, not the day that she was appointed
to be Finance Director. But on the day in December that I assume
or maybe it was November when she was nominated to replace
Ms. Crawford. So from that point on, if I understood the basis for
the dismissal it was because of this what I read the sixty(60) day
cycle with which she had to investigate. Well, you heard her
testimony previously that there had been at least two (2) years'
worth of discussion leading up to Ms. Crawford's' total frustration
and resigning her employment in frustration with the Mayor
continuing to do what the Mayor continued to do. Now, she
resigned rather than exercise her ethical responsibility to simply
take away the Mayor's P-card. That did not leave Ms. Sako
relieved of the responsibility for taking away the Mayor's P-card
and there were all the charges prior to her appointment that were
with that sixty(60) days, were the sixty(60) days had already
expired and she was privy to that but her own testimony because
she had participated she said in those discussions between the
Mayor and Ms. Crawford. So the basis for your previous motion
to deny 07 evaporated and now you want to us the same basis to
deny this? No I'm sorry I do not agree to dismiss Ms. Sako as
party to this action for the reasons that I've stated. She became
responsible when she was nominated to be Finance Director and
her responsibility had nothing to do with her being subordinate to
the Mayor in the respect to this responsibility she was his superior.
She had an obligation under the ethics laws, ethics rules and ethics
40