Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-08 Regular Session Minutes HAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES—REGULAR SESSION Tuesday, March 8, 2016 10:02 a.m. to 12:02 p.m. Hawai`i County Building 25 Aupuni Street County Council Chambers Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Members and Staff Present: Ku Kahakalau, Chair Kenneth Goodenow, Vice-Chair Douglass Adams, Member Rick Robinson, Member J Yoshimoto, Deputy Corporation Counsel Emily V. Hirayama, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Kahakalau called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS There were no public statements from Hilo and Kohala. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF JULY 8, SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 AND FEBRUARY 10, 2016. Ms. Kahakalau: We would like to continue with the approval of the regular session minutes of July 8, September and February. Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to approve the July 8 minutes. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members voted aye. Ms. Kahakalau: Next are the minutes of September 9. Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to approve the September 9 minutes. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members voted aye. Ms. Kahakalau: The next set of minutes is the ones from the most recent meeting on February 10. Mr. Adams: I appreciated getting them a little earlier. Ms. Kahakalau: It definitely helps with Rick recalling what was said. Any other discussion? 1 Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to approve the February 10 minutes. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members voted aye 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2016-02: Request for informal advisory opinion from a County employee, to determine compliance with Section 2-83 (c)(1) (Fair Treatment) of the Code of Ethics because her husband is an independent contractor who bids for County projects. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have anybody here to? Mr. Yoshimoto: If no one's here then. Ms. Kahakalau: Mrs. Naomi O'Dell? No, okay. Commissioner's do we have any.... Mr. Goodenow: Is it a closed hearing? Mr. Adams: She didn't request one. Ms. Kahakalau: She didn't request... Mr. Goodenow: So I guess I moved that we issue an informal advisory opinion. Correct motion? Do I have to state...stating what it will state? Mr. Yoshimoto: Basically, she's not here, but you can either continue the matter or you can dismiss it or you can...it's up to the Board what you want to do. We haven't received any communication from her that she's not going to be here. So we expected her to be here. Mr. Adams: Right, so do you want to make the motion? Mr. Goodenow: Go ahead. Mr. Adams: Okay. So I would move that we find in an informal advisory opinion that we....2016-02 petition as explained is not in violation of County Code 2-83(b)(1), 84(a)(1) or 84(b). None of those in the current ordinance are violated by informal opinion request in 2016-02. That's the motion. Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion in regards to this motion? 2 Mr. Adams: Yes. I'd like to...if that's okay Madame Chair. This particular petition actually refers to a section that will not take effect until July 1, 2016. Part of the ordinance 2015- 103, it's my opinion that we're not allowed to use ordinances that are not yet in affect in the making of our decisions. But with that understanding, when I go back and I take a look at the current code 2-83(b)(1), 84(a)(1) and 84(b) are potentially affected by this situation as explained as fact situation. I don't think any those however have violated by the fact situation in my opinion and therefore I would I make the motion that I did and I will support the motion that I made. Ms. Kahakalau: So just for clarification on my part. Would you want to include a sentence in regards to what happens when the 2- 83(c)(1) changes? Becomes effective in July? Or is it not necessary? Mr. Adams: My view on that is not necessarily everybody's view. My view is it is not law yet. Yeah I know it's there, but our job in my opinion is to take the law as it currently is and apply the law to the set of facts that we have in front of us. And that's what we're supposed to do and anything else further than that is speculation with....yes I understand the Mayor's...County Council has passed that, Mayor signed it back in November. It's going to take effect July 1. It's not law yet. Ms. Kahakalau: So I guess basically my suggestion was just to put into the informal opinion based on the current law so that...So since Mrs. O'Dell is not here now, that she understands on what premise this decision was made. Mr. Yoshimoto: Madame Chair. So I would just like to clarify that the petitioner's requesting as it pertains to the new law effective July 1, 2016. The Board can decide whatever it feels appropriate to do. I also think that it is also possible for the Board to make a ruling based upon the facts and circumstances presented today so long as they don't change. Whether this would be in compliance or not come effective July 1, 2016. My understanding is this person is seeking clarification ahead of time right, because the problem is when you look at the ordinance as written. It talks about"in full disclosure to the agency seeking goods or services as part of the bid for a contract or response to a request for proposal". The RFP's and bids come out way 3 before the effective date of the contract. So what I'm trying to say is things that go into effective July 1 are already being processed now. In a sense, there's some logic to trying to get things squared away with the Board ahead of time. What we're doing now, technically speaking, there in compliance as this Board is having this discussion right. Come July 1, this new law will take into effect, but it won't really kick in as far as the bid notice requirements until the next go around. So I think what's happening, I'm speculating, I think what's happening is their trying to make sure their okay in the interim period between July 1 until the next time the contract comes around. But if the Board decides to do what it's doing now I mean we're on solid, legal basis as far as being in compliance now for the current law. The question pertains to come July 1. Like Board member Adams said, he's more comfortable in doing with the here and now which is of course the safest approach to take. Mr. Adams: If I might Madame Chair. I don't think it's safe, I think it's the law. Right and so that's just my, that's how...it's not just how I feel about it, it's what I think is correct. Mr. Robinson: Madame Chair if I may. I note that the provision requires disclosure in the course of the bid process and also seeking an opinion which she's doing so I mean even with the new law she would still be in compliance by having informed this Board ahead of time and then disclosing in the bid process. So I don't have problem with it currently or in the future as well provided they disclose it in the bid process. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Any further discussion in regards to this matter? Mr. Yoshimoto: I have one point of clarification then. So as part of the new law, basically it states here"Board opinion shall continue to satisfy this requirement until a change occurs in the financial interest or role of the County officer". So is what this Board saying is that the petition and facts as presented is okay now?And after July 1 or the petitioner have to come back after July 1 to get another opinion? I want to make that clear so we're not wasting their time. Mr. Adams: The motion I made refers to the law now. If there is a desire to include things about any future situation or future law, that's not my motion. That would have to be an amendment or a separate motion. 4 Mr. Goodenow: I do note the Charter does say right that as far as the duties of the Board of Ethics is interpret the Code of Ethics for both County officials and the public. Render advisory opinions with respect to the Code of Ethics. So I guess my question would be, would you consider an ordinance that is passed. Part of the code even if the effective date is July 1. I don't know if our Counsel care to render an opinion on that? Mr. Yoshimoto: As I stated earlier, I believe we would be...it would be appropriate to find, pursuant to their request that... Mr. Goodenow: Well with that understanding then, I have no trouble proceeding though I understand Mr. Adams position and I do believe there might be issues later on. You don't know what will happen right. I recall once wasn't there an ordinance that took effect years and years. I don't know if we're on a slippery slope or not, but I willing to follow our legal Counsel saying it's okay. I would support an amendment to the motion to allow that. Ms. Kahakalau: So is that an official amendment that you're making to the motion? Mr. Goodenow: He made the motion. Mr. Adams: You can make an amendment to the motion. I'm not making an amendment to the motion. Mr. Robinson: If you're making an amendment to the motion, I would second the amendment as well for clarification. Mr. Goodenow: Alright. I will amend the motion to include the language that it would comport with the newly adopted language that takes place effect July 1. I hope that's clear enough. Ms. Kahakalau: And then we have a second to that amendment. Mr. Robinson: You have a second to that. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Any further discussion?Alright I call for the question, all in favor of issuing the informal advisory opinion in regards to this matter. 5 Mr. Adams: Actually, Madame Chair I think we have to vote on the amendment first and then the motion depending on whether or not it passes. Ms. Kahakalau: So all favor of the amendment to the motion, please say aye. Mr. Robinson: Aye. Mr. Goodenow: Aye. Ms. Kahakalau: Aye. Any oppose? Mr. Adams: No. Ms. Kahakalau: So we have three and one. So that means that amendment passed and we want to vote the motion as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Mr. Goodenow: Aye. Mr. Robinson: Aye. Ms. Kahakalau: Any oppose? Mr. Adams: No. Ms. Kahakalau: And one oppose. Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved that there is no violation of the current ordinance of the County Code. Mr. Goodenow amended the motion to include the newly adopted language effective July 1,2016. Mr.Robinson seconded the motion. Three members voted aye and one oppose. b. Petition No. 2016-03: Initial review of a petition alleging that County employees are using County funds to pay for travel and per diem expenses in violation of Section 2-80 of the Code of Ethics and Section 14-2 of the Hawaii County Charter. Mr. Yoshimoto: Board members, Madame Chair. Our office just received a message from Mr. Hyland saying his ride has not showed up yet and he ask that we start without him. However, he did leave his cell number in case anyone wanted to talk to him. Mr. Goodenow: Given that, I move that we dismiss petition 2016-03. 6 Mr. Robinson: I'd second that motion. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion? Mr. Adams: I would make the following comments. Federal Government in 2002 passed public law 107107 that specifically discuss the issue of federal employees and their ability to have for their personal benefit frequent flyer miles and other types of travel benefits that might come their way through no fault of their own. The State of Hawaii back in 1992 through the Department of Accounting and General Services actually after a ruling by the State Ethics Commission on this matter discussed this and tried to parse this in such a way that took into account what the current state of the art was in terms of frequent flyer benefits at the airlines were doing and the cost benefit analysis of the State being able to administratively manage following all that. Ultimately, the phrasing that they used was while the current frequent flyer programs have added numerous complications to the administration of travel benefits, never the less travel benefits accrued on State travel must were all possible be used for State business. That's their starting point. Employees should unless not permitted by the airlines establish and maintain separate State and personnel travel accounts. Where separate accounts are not allowed, and State and personnel travel credits are commingled in a single account, State credits must still be used for State travel to the extent that it is possible. If the benefits cannot be used for future State purpose, the employee may use State travel benefits for personal travel. I think that's where we stand, twenty-two, twenty-four years later. I think that the idea that and when I picked this up, this appeared to be something that was supposedly for both State and County governments. Now I have been able replicate that in my views since I don't know that the County actually has some type of view on travel benefits relating to frequent flyer type programs for County employees specifically. Which makes this actually a little troublesome for me because it's not our job to making policy. It's our job to follow the policy that is made. However, I think that the reason for my discussion is that when you take a look at the Federal government and you take a look at what the State government has done. They are taking in account the fact that these benefits are de minimis in large part that they are...it's not something 7 that is contrary frankly to what Mr. Hyland says in his petition that it's not something that only County employees have and it's not costing the County anything for these benefits to accrue to individual persons. So I support the dismissal of the petition. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much. Any further discussion? Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to dismiss the petition. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members said aye. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2015-10: Review of petition alleging that a County Officer or employee is in violation of Sections 2-83 (Fair Treatment), 2-84 (Conflict of Interest), 2-91.3 (Lobbyist Registration), and 2-91.4 (Gifts) of the Code of Ethics because he was influenced and accepted gifts by an unregistered lobbyist organization. [Continued from last meeting] Ms. Kahakalau: This a petition continued from last meeting and there's a correspondence dated February 9, received from Jessica Yamauchi, Executive Director of Hawai`i Public Health Institute. Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair. Point of information. I know this does relate to in one sense whether we can vote or not because of those other complaints. Until that's resolved, I don't think we can address this issue. I'm going to move that this be continued until after the other matters are resolved. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Do I hear a second? Any discussion in regards to moving Petition No. 2015-10 after b, c and d at this time? Mr. Yoshimoto: Madame Chair before we go on, we just got a message that Mr. Hyland arrived at the Kohala site so I don't know...I know we just finished his item. I'm just letting the Board members know and the second issue is on Petition 2015-10 my recollection is there was email from the petitioner requesting a continuance of this matter. Did the Board members see that? Ms. Kahakalau, Mr. Adams, Mr. Goodenow: Yes. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay. Just so that you're aware of it. 8 Mr. Goodenow: Can I amend my motion that we continue to the next meeting. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Petition No. 2015-10. Mr. Goodenow: Right the one we're on. Ms. Kahakalau: Amended motion. Mr. Goodenow: To the next meeting. Ms. Kahakalau: That we continue Petition No. 2015-10 to the next meeting. Mr. Yoshimoto: He emailed us. It should be in your packet. Ms. Kahakalau: So do I have a second for that motion? Mr. Adams: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion in regards to continuing that petition? Mr. Adams: If I could Madame Chair I noticed that we do have respondents that are part of the petition as well. It's clearly up to the Chair, but I would ask if Chair might inquire whether or not they'd be interested in having an opportunity to make any comments. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. I think that's certainly reasonable to ask anybody that's here in regards to that motion, excuse me in regards to Petition No. 2015-10 if they would like to make any comments. Okay Mr. Kanuha. And this is just specifically now about that petition. Mr. Kanuha: Good morning Madame Chair and members of the Board. I appreciate the opportunity to come up and just say a few words. I don't know exactly what you guys are going to do, but you know this has been going on a long time and I know you guys got to deal with the fact that there are petitions against a few of you. And that might be a reason to deal with this later on, but I do want to emphasize that you know we gave our statements, myself and Mr. Revell. I don't even remember when that was and we discussed this pretty thoroughly and there was a reason to continue it on for decision making in the future. We are in the future and I apologize for not being here the last Board meeting. I 9 never knew when the Board was actually gonna meet again and I was on the mainland at the times. So I do apologize that I couldn't be here for that particular meeting. But you know I don't know exactly when this is going to be heard, it's really difficult to keep on coming back to Hilo again and again and never know exactly when the mattes gonna be taken under consideration. It's really tough. Next month especially, we're going to be dealing with the four hundred, approximately fifty million dollar budget that I'm going to be vetting through the Council. It's a really hard time. So just wanted to state that I'm here to share if there's any more information you want to get from me at this time. Please ask. Of course I will be here when this matter does come up on the agenda, I will take the time out to be here. I know it's important to you folks and it is important to my constituents that this matter does get finished with as soon as possible. So I don't know, I'm just here to answer any questions that you may or may not have, but I just want to be here for that particular reason. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much Mr. Kanuha, we appreciated that and do any of the members have questions. Mr. Goodenow: Just a point of information and I'm really sorry. I picked up the wrong file, the file from last month's meeting so I don't have everything in front of me. But if you refresh my recollection, I don't know if the secretary or our Counsel. We already voted, right on this issue? However, we didn't prepare the actual order because of the conflicts. Is that correct...I mean I thought we already decided this, but it got held up because of the conflicts. Mr. Yoshimoto: I don't believe a decision was made. There was a discussion, there was a motion I think it failed, and then there was a motion to continue to the next meeting. Mr. Goodenow: That's right the motion failed. Thank you for refreshing my memory. So we are still pending on the main discussion. Alright, well I just wanted to thank you for coming Chair Kanuha and I really don't have any questions. To me it's pretty clear. Thank you. Ms. Kahakalau: For me, it's the same thing. I'm clear on what happened, I'm clear what my vote is and the only thing I would ask if you could perhaps be there for the next two just in case there's questions there. 10 Mr. Kanuha: Absolutely. I mean again I will be here. The next meeting is when you guys do have it, I'll be here every meeting hopefully the next meeting is the last time you know. Again, emphasizing that this is a really, really, next month is gonna be really, really tough time. Again, vetting a four hundred fifty million dollar budget is not easy. It does take a lot of time and a lot of energy. So I will be here at the next meeting, hopefully nothing within now and then happens, but I guess just Mahalo for hearing me and giving me an opportunity to come up here. Thank you. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Appreciate that. So we have a motion on the floor to continue this matter to the next meeting. Is there any further discussion? Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to continue Petition No. 2015-10 to the next meeting. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. All members said aye. b. Petition No. 2015-15: Initial review of petition alleging that County Officers or employees were in violation of the Rules of Practice and Procedures of the Board of Ethics Section 1.5 (Disqualification of Board members,Bias, or prejudice) when they reviewed and ruled on a petition that could be a conflict of interest. Ms. Kahakalau: We do have a correspondence that was received in October from one our members Kenneth Goodenow. Did you folks get a copy of that correspondence? Mr. Adams: Yes. I would move that we continue this petition to the next meeting. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay do we have a second for that? Mr. Robinson: You want to continue this to the next meeting? Mr. Adams: Yes. I can't really talk about it until I have a second. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have a second? Mr. Goodenow: Well as much as I have a conflict, I think I can still second that for discussion purposes. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Any discussion? 11 Mr. Adams: This particular petition refers to two of our members that are currently here. Assuming those two would not be able to vote on this particular thing, that means we would then have a lack of quorum to consider this petition. Mr. Robinson: I don't see the reason the why these two folks are subject to this, could not vote on it. I mean I think that we should really have a discussion in considerate today and I think we should deal with this so that the next meeting we're very clear when we deal with this deferred petition 2015-10 instead of waiting until then. I would prefer to deal with it today. That would be my position. Ms. Kahakalau: Because it has been dragging out so long, I would also be in favor of dealing with it as soon as possible. Perhaps that when it's...in regards to Ken, I vote and when it's in regards to me, that Ken has the opportunity to vote. There shouldn't be any conflict of interest there because we...I don't know if there should be anything in terms of us to...so I think we still would be able to vote, but obviously if it's about Ken for him to recuse himself and if it's the position that's specifically deals with myself then I would recuse myself. Mr. Robinson: I don't really know that the other Board members gonna be at the next meeting either so it could be same four people sitting here again. Ms. Kahakalau: Yes and I have to say I did try to make contact unsuccessfully. So Mr. Adams? Mr. Adams: So I would note our Rules of Practice and Procedures 1.5 which refers to "Disqualification of Board members; Bias or Prejudice". Which actually lays out how this is supposed to work I guess for this Board. So any person, officer, or employee may file an affidavit that one or more of the Board members has a personal bias or prejudice. Such affidavit may be filed on any matter before the Board affecting or involving such person, officer, or employee. The Board member against whom the affidavit is filed may answer the affidavit or may file a disqualifying certificate with the Board. So what we have here then and that's the first portion of that. What we have here is we have this 2015-15 which for the purposes of discussion I would identify as an affidavit in the terminology of the rules. We have one level of correspondence which is from Mr. 12 Goodenow and so that would be I think the answer from Mr. Goodenow. If we view that as such, then the way that we're supposed to proceed according to the rules. Is the remaining Board members shall decide whether or not that Board member should be disqualified from proceeding therein? So that's a vote that we would handle. Mr. Goodenow is not the only one that's listed Madame Chair and so I'm a little bit at a lost because I'm not sure how we handle that. Mr. Robinson: If I could from an administrative stand point. It's unfortunate that the petition covered two, it should have been one petition for each. But I think if we bifurcate this petition and deal with each one separately, that we could proceed. I'd prefer to do it that way. Ms. Kahakalau: And I have to apologize. I was under the impression that an oral statement would be sufficient in this case. The way I read it, I thought an oral statement would be sufficient and I'm prepared to make an oral statement in regards to this matter. Mr. Adams: That would be great. The only other thing that I would before we would move on with that. The only other thing I would note is that the...on the matter that we had 2015-10 I believe that Mr. Revell whose the petitioner in this particular 2015-15. I think he was referring to this complaint as well when he was asking for continuation. So I would just raise that. It doesn't mean that we have to, I would just note that he did ask for that. Ms. Kahakalau: Is that how Counsel interpreted it, the request for continuation? Mr. Yoshimoto: Yes. I took as he's requesting all matters pertaining to what he has before the Board, he wanted it continued because I think in the email he stated his perception or belief as to how things might transpire today. So that is a concern, he has been here whenever the matter has brought up except for today. So that should be considered by the Board. Your discretion. Ms. Kahakalau: Anybody...would it make sense for me to do an oral...addressing this matter orally at this point in time make any sense or should we wait then for that as well? 13 Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair. I really like the idea of bifurcating and except for the fact that Mr. Revell has requested the continuance and he has been here frequently. I would agree with following that process, however, since has requested a continuance I think we should. I think we should bifurcate it now, so at the next meeting that option in case we don't have quorum we can proceed. So I would ask that...did I make the motion or I think Doug...whoever made the motion, we withdraw it. The first thing we do is we bifurcate it and then we move to continue both items to the next meeting. Ms. Kahakalau: It would actually be all four items to the next meeting right because it would also include petition 2015-17 and 18 which are already bifurcated. That's the part I'm really don't understand the difference between two fifteen as a joint one and then seventeen and eighteen as separate ones. Mr. Adams: If I might Madame Chair. Seventeen and eighteen are a different petitioner. And I'm not sure whether or not that petitioner's present or not. He is? So there's no reason for us necessarily to have to not consider seventeen and eighteen if we decide to do that. This refers specifically to fifteen. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Alright so we do have a motion on the floor. Mr. Adams: I would be willing to withdraw my motion pending the second's desire. Mr. Goodenow: I withdraw my second. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright then do we...do I hear a new motion? Mr. Adams: So I would move that we bifurcate petition 2015-15 to the extent that the two new petitions would consider Ku Kahakalau and Kenneth Goodenow separately. Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Any further discussion in this matter? Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to bifurcate Petition No. 2015-15 into separate petitions for Ku Kahakalau and Kenneth Goodenow. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members said aye. 14 Mr. Adams: I would move that we continue 2015 bifurcated petitions to the next Board of Ethics meeting. Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion in regards to that? I have one question, would the Counsel prefer a written response? Okay I will do that by the next meeting. Thank you. Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to continue the bifurcated petitions to the next Board of Ethics meeting. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. c. Petition No. 2015-17: Initial review of petition alleging that a Board member had a conflict of interest when she participated in hearing the initial review of Petition No. 2015-10, as they both sat together on the Hawaii Island Burial Council. Ms. Kahakalau: So I need to ask if I need to recuse myself immediately at this point and turn it over to Mr. Goodenow as the Vice- Chair or what is you pleasure Counsel. Mr. Yoshimoto: Madame Chair that's up to you at this point because I don't know you've stated the position as far as this particular petition. In other words, you're going to state verbally right what your position is right so if you feel more comfortable you can hand it over to the Vice-Chair. Ms. Kahakalau: Yes I would like to do that. For the purpose of this petition, that I turn over chairmanship to our Vice-Chair Mr. Goodenow. Mr. Goodenow: Okay. Before we take a motion, I believe the petitioner would like to make a statement. Mr. Anderson: Yes,just really quick. Madame Chair and Counsel thank you so much. The last time I was here there was three of you. I'm glad to see a fourth. Actually, I wasn't able to come last week cause I had just broken my ankle and I had surgery about two weeks ago. I think there was three or four months that we weren't able to all meet up at the right time and then when it finally did meet up I just the day before broken my ankle. With the pain meds that I've been on, I've been unable to really prepare anything now that I knew that it was going through. I didn't take any pain meds today because I knew I had to drive from Kona and 15 I'm in some pretty good pain right now. I was actually when you guys were discussing, I was hoping we could, if possible...I mean it's hard for me to even think and I've been goofy' for the last three weeks on pain meds. So I haven't been able to really get...prepare anything other than what's in the back of my head right now. And it would be great if we could continue once more if possible. Also, being that the last time I was here there was three chairs and it looks like there will be still three chairs cause you would maybe recuse yourself. I would like to have in all fairness four chairs to be able to hear the matters. Cause it know with three chairs, only one has to say no and it doesn't carry. So with all fairness, there should be five chairs and I would like to wait for that as well. Just to make sure that everything is heard and fairly discussed I guess. But mostly I'm just in pain right now and it's hard for me to think what's going on. Mr. Goodenow: Alright. Thank you. Mr. Adams? Mr. Adams: May I ask the testifier a question here? Mr. Goodenow: Please. Mr. Adams: Just for purposes of discussion. Would you be against us combining your petition with Mr. Revell's? Petitions for consideration by this Board. Mr. Anderson: No problem. Mr. Goodenow: Any other further questions for the petitioner? Mr. Adams: I would move continuance of 2015-17 and 2015-... let me re-phrase that. I would move that we combine 2015-17 and 2015-18 with the bifurcated 2015-15 for future considerations at a future Board meeting. Mr. Robinson: I'd second that. Mr. Goodenow: Any discussion? Mr. Robinson: So we'd take 2015-17 as it applies to Ms. Kahakalau and take 2015-18 as it applies to Mr. Goodenow. Put it together the newly re-constituted 2015-15 "a" and"b". So "a" would be for Mr. Goodenow and"b"would be for Ms. 16 Kahakalau. It would be combined, we would deal with them together next meeting. Mr. Adams: Right. Ms. Kahakalau: I'd just like to say that with this nature of the motion, I don't feel any need to recuse myself on the vote because it would be either one of us or both of us would have to do it so. But I think that it's not an opinion kind of a vote, it's just a procedural vote and so I do want to state that based on it being a procedural vote. I will vote. Mr. Goodenow: Any other discussion? Mr. Robinson: If I could just ask Mr. Anderson one more question. The next meeting will be April 12. Is there any reason you can't be there? Mr. Anderson: No. I'll make sure and by then hopefully I'll be in a walking cast of sort. Mr. Robinson: How'd you break your ankle? Mr. Anderson: Fell down some stairs. I was in Oahu to testify at the Senate against vaping and the whole thing that's going. I fell down the stairs. Ms. Kahakalau: I do want to say while do appreciate your request for a full Board. That's not something that we can promise because it's frankly out of our control. Mr. Anderson: I understand. Mr. Goodenow: Any other discussion? If not I would just like to note that our next meeting may be in Kona, I'm not sure. Would that be a problem for you? Mr. Anderson: No, I live in Kona. Mr. Goodenow: No guarantees. I would just like to ask our Corporation Counsel as far as this consolidating (inaudible). Do we give them new numbers? What do we do? It would be 15a and 17...how would we deal with that? Mr. Yoshimoto: I take the motion to mean that you're consolidating the petitions for discussion purposes and that they'll be 17 separate orders for each petitions. So each petition stands on its own, but the discussion is consolidated for ease of use. And Mr. Anderson has agreed to that and we were fine going forward. Mr. Goodenow: No questions by anyone on that...what's been said. And for 2015-15, we would have an"a" and "b" is that correct? Since it's been bifurcated. Mr. Yoshimoto: Yes. I don't... Mr. Goodenow: I think that's what we've done in the past. Mr. Yoshimoto: I don't have an opinion as to that as far as whether it would be designated"a" or"b", but it definitely be again separate opinions. Mr. Goodenow: Alright. We'll let you work that out for next time. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of consolidating for discussion purposes petitions 2015-15 in relevant part with 2015-17. I guess 2015-18 that they be consolidated for discussion and continued to the next meeting. Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved that we combine 2015-17 and 2015-18 with the bifurcated 2015-15 for future considerations at a future Board meeting. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. Mr. Goodenow: I will now relinquish the Chair back to Ms. Kahakalau. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Yoshimoto: I'm sorry so we...there was a vote to consolidate and to continue was that... Ms. Kahakalau: Yes. Based on the petition as requested. Mr. Yoshimoto: Madame Chair one more thing. Mr. Hyland is waiting in Kohala. He just wanted to know if he's gonna have an opportunity to say anything. So if you can address him and then we can go forward. Ms. Kahakalau: Yes, actually we have Petition No. 2015-19 has to do with Mr. Hyland and I was going to ask him there, but is there anything on an earlier agenda item as well? No? 18 • d. Petition No. 2015-18: Initial review of petition alleging that a Board member had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself from hearing Petition No. 2015-10, as the Board member's wife works for Council Services. Petition No. 2015-18 being combined with bifurcated 2015-15 for further discussion at the next Board meeting e. Petition No. 2015-19: Review draft informal advisory opinion dismissing petition by Lanric Hyland alleging that County Officers or employees were in violation of Sections 2-80,2-83 and 2.91 of the Code of Ethics because it is not acceptable that County employees involved with the courts should exhibit anything but the highest standards of ethical conduct. Mr. Yoshimoto: Madame Chair because I'm conflicted on this, I'm gonna step out of the room. If you need assistance, Mr. Murai is now available so I would suggest if you need assistance then we would have to contact him. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Mr. Hyland? Mr. Hyland: Yes mame. Ms. Kahakalau: Good morning. Mr. Hyland: Good morning. Ms. Kahakalau: We were wondering if you had anything to say on Petition No. 2015-19. Mr. Hyland: Dash what mame? Ms. Kahakalau: We're on Petition No. 2015-19 to see if you had any statements in regards to that petition. Mr. Hyland: This is what we did last month, is that correct? Ms. Kahakalau: Yes. Mr. Hyland: Okay. Well no my statement is just it's kind of given the law reads that she required consent from all...from the other two parties and she didn't get it. I would say you had my word, that fact against what she testified to and as I understand it you believed what she testified to so I don't really have anything further to say. 19 Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much. Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair. I move that we approve the order dismissing petition...the draft which has been presented to us. Mr. Adams: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Any discussion? Mr. Robinson: (inaudible) motion to dismiss... Mr. Goodenow: To approve the... Ms. Kahakalau: The informal advisory opinion which dismisses the petition. Mr. Robinson: Okay now I get it. Yes okay. Mr. Adams: If we could, let's finish 2015-19 and then have that conversation. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have any further discussions in regards to this petition?No. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to approve the order dismissing Petition No. 2015-19. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. All members said aye. Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Hyland. Is it okay with the Board that we take on Petition No. 2016-02 at this point or would you prefer to continue? Mr. Adams: I think its 03, right. Ms. Kahakalau: 03 sorry. Mr. Adams: So Madame Chair. We have considered 2016-03 and dispensed with that particular motion. I'm not sure that we are able to open up...as a matter of fact I think it's okay for Counsel to come back in. So we've already taken up, considered and dispensed with 2016-03. And so I would think that actually means that we're not able to hear somebody on that particular motion. I am open to hearing, since he was unable to be here and he did notify us. He decides to make a statement as a member of the public on 20 an agenda item, I'd be okay with him being able to do that. So that would mean being going back to agenda item number 2 "statement from the public on agenda items", he would have three minutes to talk about each agenda item that he wants to talk to and so I would be...I personally would be okay with that. That's kind of your call as the Chair. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Mr. Robinson: I'd be okay with that. Mr. Goodenow: I'm okay with that. I agree though Robert's Rules of Order would prohibit any further discussion on sixteen o three without some motion to reconsider. So but I feel you're right, I mean if it's just he wants to make on any item, we want to give him that opportunity now. I would agree with that. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright Mr. Hyland. I'm not sure if you were able to hear us, but basically due to the fact that you were not able to be here at the beginning of the meeting when we had statements from the public on agenda items. We would like to give you that opportunity now to present any statement on any agenda item within the three minute limit. Mr. Hyland: Madame Chair. I'm having...thank you for allowing me this opportunity, but I'm having a hard time crediting what I'm hearing. Robert's Rules of Order can be waived and if you waive it so I can go back or so you can go back to item number two on the agenda. You can certainly waive it to go back to item number four and hear the matter on the merits. I will point out that the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai`i has ruled that as a matter of law in Hawai`i issues...contended issues...contentious issues are to be tried on the merits if at all possible rather than on mere technicalities. I would suggest to you that...and you ask Mr. Yoshimoto if that same rule does not apply to your Commission...to your Board. In which case, I'd like to stop here and get your response to that please. Ms. Kahakalau: Well I think the response has to do with the merit piece of it and so if you would like to make your statement and then it's gonna be up to us to determine whether your statements are going to in any way substantially merit an opening of this specific petition. 21 Mr. Hyland: Okay. Once again you seem to have run afoul of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai`i. They just decided the telescope case and the reason that they ruled against the government on the telescope case was because the Board...land board...commission had already decided before they listen with quote "opened mind". That's not the way it works. If I understand what you have done. What the Board member said was you've already decided issue number two and you denied it. Now if that's the case, then it doesn't do me any good to speak. You have to reopen it so that you accept what you accept is my apologies for being late. My ride didn't get to me in time for me to get here, in time to be here when you heard it to begin with, but I'm only ten or fifteen minutes past that and I did call and notify you and asked you to please continue it. Now in addition to that, unless you discuss the matter on the merits I would suggest that you're also making a mockery out of your own rules which say that you can act and you can investigate any matter which is brought to your attention. You don't need me testifying in order for you to rule on the merits of whether frequent flyer funds are unethical to be used by County employees. Ms. Kahakalau: That's correct. Mr. Hyland: Thank you. Ms. Kahakalau: That's exactly what we did. Mr. Yoshimoto: Madame Chair if I may. We just need to clarify. Mr. Hyland this is Mr. Yoshimoto. I just want to clarify for the record that we got the message correct. At approximately 10:08 this morning, I received a message from our office saying that you had called our office and it states here "his ride has not showed up yet and he asked that you start without him". Is that...was that your intention or did you want us to continue the matter? Cause you just said continue so I'm just not sure what your intentions was. Mr. Hyland: My intention was you start without me. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay, because basically Mr. Hyland what happened was the Board did proceed without your presence here and so to me the cleanest way would be is the Board wants to do a motion for reconsideration to bring up your petition 2016 if 22 can and then it can deliberate...right. Aside from that I see what you're saying Mr. Hyland I mean so it's up to the Board how it wishes to proceed. If you're going to deliberate the matter, you should call the matter back you to the agenda because it defeats the purpose of having a public statement if you've already decided that would run afoul of the Sunshine Law and due process. Mr. Robinson: So you're saying that if we even allow him to have under statements from the public any public input even though the matters already been decided that we're run afoul of the Sunshine Laws. Mr. Yoshimoto: Yes. In sort of a...basically we need to take public input at the beginning before we start deliberation and we had already closed public testimony so we're okay on that end. The problem becomes when we're trying to go backwards, so if we're gonna go backwards we should do it correctly and I think we should do a motion for reconsideration. Bring the matter back up forward, hear from Mr. Hyland, let him have his say, follow his due process rights. That would be the cleanest...I think if we just hear public statements after the fact,that does lead to complications and problems. Mr. Robinson: But if we reopen the matter and allow Mr. Hyland to have discuss again...I mean what's the point even having rules and regulations to follow on our agenda. Mr. Yoshimoto: Right so that's up to the Board discretion because what happened is the Board deliberated, had its discussion and then issued its findings and conclusions of law. So that's up to the Board. Mr. Adams: Within the...if I could...so within the rules though as I understand them. There is always the opportunity for the Board to reconsider it's decisions. That's the motion to reconsider, right. What happens in that case? So let's say there's a motion to reconsider, what happens? Mr. Yoshimoto: If there's a motion for reconsideration to bring up agenda item 2016-03 and that passes. Then the Board goes back to where it left off prior to making its decision and then at that point.... 23 Mr. Goodenow: You know I...the other Board members may not like this. Mr. Hyland you said continued, we did that. Hey we did it, it's over, but out of an abundance of wanting to make sure you feel that you've had your say. At this time, I'm going to move that we reconsider our decision on 2016-03 so that we may return to discussion on that matter. Mr. Adams: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright any further discussion in regards to that motion? Mr. Robinson: I just don't feel that we owe Mr. Hyland any greater benefit than we do everyone else and I feel that we're doing that. We're making exceptions for Mr. Hyland and Mr. Hyland has many exceptions. Ms. Kahakalau: I tend to feel the same way. If you didn't specifically say to continue and would've asked us to wait on that I would've honored that because we do want to be as inclusive as possible. But given the go ahead to continue and given the amount of things we do have on the agenda. If we would have to do this each time, it would really be arduous for us as a Council to do our job. Alright and further discussion? Mr. Goodenow: Motion to consider does that require a two-thirds vote? I'm sorry it's been a little rusty on my... Mr. Yoshimoto: Robert's Rules right? Mr. Goodenow: Yeah. Mr. Yoshimoto: I gotta check. I don't have Robert's Rules with me. We should take a recess so that I can check on that. Up to you Mr... Mr. Goodenow: Alright. I guess...I just want to withdraw my motion, but could we have a brief recess Madame Chair? 11:02 a.m. The Board took a brief recess. 11:05 a.m. The Board returned from recess. Mr. Adams: Call for the question Madame Chair. 24 Ms. Kahakalau: I call for the question regarding re-opening Petition No. 2016-03. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Vote to re-open Petition No. 2016-03: Mr. Goodenow and Mr. Adams voted aye. Ms. Kahakalau and Mr. Robinson voted no. Ms. Kahakalau: So two and two. Mr. Yoshimoto: So motion fails. Ms. Kahakalau: So the motion fails. Thank you Mr. Hyland. Mr. Hyland: Thank you for your reconsideration. f. Petition No. 2015-11: Review draft informal advisory opinion regarding petition from a County Officer or employee, to determine whether there would be any conflict of interest with his employment as an electrical inspector and performing electrical work for friends and family. [Continued from last meeting/Closed hearing requested] Mr. Adams: Madame Chair if I could. I'm not sure how we...this is an open vote right Counsel? Even though the issue is a closed hearing? Mr. Yoshimoto: Correct. The vote is open yes. Mr. Robinson: I make a motion to approve. Mr. Adams: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright any discussion?No further discussion? Motion and Vote: Mr.Robinson moved to approve the informal advisory opinion. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. All members said aye. b. Petition No. 2015-16: Request for informal advisory opinion from a County Officer or employee,to determine whether he can make his rental unit available to the HUD Section 8 program even though he is an inspector for Housing Quality Standards (HQS) in the HUD Section 8 program. [Closed hearing requested] Ms. Kahakalau: This was also heard in a closed hearing, but we're doing an open vote. Do I hear a motion? Mr. Adams: I move approval of the informal advisory opinion regarding Petition No. 2015-16. 25 Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Any further discussion? Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to approve the informal advisory opinion of Petition No. 2015-16. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members said aye. f. Petition No. 2016-01: Review draft informal advisory opinion regarding Councilman Danny Paleka,to determine if his actions are permissible pursuant to Section 2-84 of the Hawaii County Code of Ethics. Mr. Robinson: Motion to approve. Mr. Goodenow: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Approval and a second. Any discussion in regards to the matter? Mr. Adams: I would just note that in the conclusion of law of this advisory opinion that the Board saw fit to indicate that it was not 2-84 of the Code of Ethics that were at in discussion here, it was 2-94.4. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Any further discussion? So we have a motion and a second in regards to approval of advisory opinion regarding Petition No. 2016-01 with that one correction that is section 94.2-94.4. Mr. Adams: 91.4 right. Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to approve informal advisory opinion. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members said aye. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved that the Board of Ethics on March 8,2016 go into executive session for the purposes of considering the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of an officer or employee of the County of Hawaii,where considerations of matters affecting privacy will be involved and to consult with the Board's attorney. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. 11:10 a.m. The Board left regular session and took a brief recess. Dis-connect from Kohala. 11:46 a.m. The Board returned to regular session and re-connect with Kohala. 6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS 26 a. Review of the executive session minutes of September 9, 2015 & February 10, 2016. Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to approval of the minutes of September 9,2015 and February 10,2016. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members voted aye. b. Review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms filed pursuant to Section 2-91.1(d), Hawaii County Code, by County board and commission members and designated County employees,where personal matters will be reviewed. Ms. Kahakalau: We have done a review of Confidential Financial Disclosure Forms and we are returning seven and seventeen for further re-review. Mr. Goodenow: Do we need a motion? Ms. Kahakalau: Do we need a motion in regards to that? Mr. Yoshimoto: Yeah. Motion to accept whatever you're accepting. Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to approve the acceptance of those except for the ones noted with exceptions. Mr. Adams 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 HAWAII Ms. Kahakalau: I just had a clarifying question if I may. It's sort of also overlaps with agenda item number eight because from my understanding in the Rules of Practice and Procedures or somewhere in there it talks about our monthly meetings. Mr. Adams: It does. Ms. Kahakalau: So I don't know if we want do those together or we want to keep them separate. Either way is fine. Mr. Adams: If I might Madame Chair I would say that we can move on from item seven. I probably said last meeting that I'd have something for this meeting, but I spoke to early, but the idea is to have something for next meeting. Something that is laid out and includes the notwithstanding my previous concerns about doing anything that has to do with laws that aren't yet effective. Making sure that our rules to the extent that they would be considered at the beginning of the 27 next fiscal year with include...would then be reflected of the Code that would be precedent at that time. Anyway, the idea is to have that and be able to present that for discussion either in April or May. Okay. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you so are we making any kind of motion in regards to agenda item number seven? Mr. Adams: No. We are not. Ms. Kahakalau: We're just moving on? Mr. Adams: Yes. Ms. Kahakalau: Is that alright with everybody? Mr. Goodenow: Just a little further discussion. You know I was thinking...I mean it's awfully hard to do the rules and meetings like this when we're all kind of separate. I mean I don't know if we would consider doing a permitted interaction group. You know it's an add-on committee where we could just meet without Sunshine Law worries. But I just throw that out there if maybe something we could discuss next time. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Any further discussion in regards to item number seven? Thank you. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGES TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS MONTHLY MEETING SCHEDULE. Mr. Goodenow: Well I guess I'll Madame Chair by saying I really appreciate the accommodation. The next meeting though of the Campaign Spending Commission is not going to be held so we're free to meet on...we don't have to waive the rules for that if that's what you want. But as I said before their practices, they vote on all of these meetings and it's in their rules to and it's harder for them to accommodate it but I'll leave it at that. Mr. Robinson: So we're scheduled for Tuesday. Mr. Goodenow: When is our next meeting scheduled? Ms. Kahakalau: So at this point we've already scheduled for the Tuesday, the twelfth and moved from basically a Wednesday the Thirteen. 28 Mr. Goodenow: I really appreciate it. Mr. Robinson: I like Tuesdays better myself actually. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. For me either one is fine, however, the section "b" part about the other location is unfortunately a concern for me. When I was approached about being on this Council. The statement was made to me that the meetings will be in Hilo and I accepted based on that and I have to say it's not that I don't enjoy Kona, but I'm a primary care giver for my mother. And I'm not able to leave here for a super extended period of time which would be an additional three hours of driving to and from Kona. So I really bad if I would've know that that was a part of the deal which I know the other Council it is and I'm not saying that's...it's just my personal issue then I wouldn't have agreed to being on this Board because unfortunately I'm not able to make that kind of a commitment so that's just for all it's worth. Mr. Robinson: And for me I live in Kona and I don't mind driving to Hilo at all. So it's not a problem. Mr. Adams: I understand that part and I had jury duty over in Kealakekua for a year, it's not a big deal. But I think that it's not necessarily just us, right I think there's something about this Board in particular being present around the County at times. I know that there are technological solutions some of that and it is possible I guess the Council according to Counsel has on occasion be able to have different members at different meeting during their meetings because they can be present during video teleconferences or whatever. So that's an option that allows you to continue to serve and maybe allows us to have presence in some other parts of the County for our meetings to. Ms. Kahakalau: I agree about the part about the Council you know being accessible in other places so I don't have any philosophical issues with that whatsoever and I would be happy to here in Hilo during that time. I don't have any problems with that as well. I don't know as far as running the meeting, it would probably make more sense for the person who is where the majority of members are. But I totally open to all of that, but I just wanted to discuss that. 29 Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair I do note...looking at the notice right that if for technical reasons the stream is lost, the meeting will be terminated. My understanding is that that's required under the Sunshine Law where you have members participating at different sites, but if we're all in Hilo and we're just having people in Waimea watch. You could put language that says if it goes down, the meeting will continue in Hilo. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. So I don't know given that we lost...I'm going off agenda a little,but if we're not in different locations maybe we should put that down just in case? Just a thought. Ms. Kahakalau: So we don't have to wait.. Mr. Goodenow: We don't have to terminate the meeting. Ms. Kahakalau: As long as all the Council members are present. Mr. Goodenow: But if we were going to different locations, which is to tie it into the discussion here. We would have...if it went down, we would have to of course terminate. Mr. Yoshimoto: We can do that if that's what the Board wants to do. My concern always is that if we have that option and there's someone who is an interested party in the proceedings. They might have an objection to that right like so this way there's no option and you just make it crystal clear that if transmission goes down. Mr. Goodenow: I'm fine with that. Just thought I'd throw it out there. Ms. Kahakalau: Emily could we please find out from you as I said I did try and contact our other new member unsuccessfully, but did they have any Mana`o in regards to this particular agenda item as far as time and/or location of the meeting. Ms. Hirayama: She for some reason was under the impression that she was nominated to the Board, that she would be able to do conferencing from Kona. It wasn't an option to appear in Hilo because she doesn't drive. She depends on her son to take her where she needs to go. Mr. Robinson: She more than welcomed to ride with me. Ms. Hirayama: So I notified her as far as being available for this particular meeting and she said she had prior plans. 30 Ms. Kahakalau: But we would assume that from April on she would will be actively participating in the Board. Ms. Hirayama: We would hope so. When I talk to her initially, she wasn't even sure that she was starting this soon. Ms. Kahakalau: Yes Mr. Goodenow? Mr. Goodenow: As far as having meetings in Kona, do you have any idea of I mean what the cost would be for the staff? I mean we would have to...you would get I guess per diem, but it wouldn't be that...is that a problem? Do you need approval from your department head or anything to travel to Kona or... Mr. Yoshimoto: We haven't addressed it, but I don't see any problem in us going over because it would just be for the day. I don't think...it wouldn't be an issue. Main thing we get a location. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay so basically, I'm hearing several things. One of them is the part about exploring having meetings also in Kona particularly if the petitioners are from Kona. I'm I hearing that correctly? Mr. Adams: Sure. Ms. Kahakalau: And that in general, we are open to that right? I mean we're just discussing it now, but just so that we have something and then the second part. Open to having it in Hilo, in Kona, but also an opportunity for Council members to participate from Hilo. The same goes for when we have meetings in Hilo that Council members from Kona can participate in Kona as part of being on the Council. And the second part would have to do with in general changing the day of the meeting from Wednesday to a Tuesday in order to accommodate Mr. Goodenow's conflict of interest as far as serving on another Board. Mr. Robinson: Also it's better for me. Ms. Kahakalau: So we have two members there and Doug do you have any... 31 Mr. Adams: All days are problematic sometimes so you just work around it. Ms. Kahakalau: I'm also perfectly fine. So, however the issue is basically that it is in our...it is in the rules, right? Is that the correct term? Mr. Goodenow: So do we have to suspend the rule? Mr. Yoshimoto: Yeah. That would be the cleanest way to do it. I would do it at every meeting so it's clear. Mr. Goodenow: Madame Chair that we suspend the rules to allow for the next meeting to be held on April 12, Tuesday, as opposed to Wednesday, April 13. Mr. Robinson: Second. Mr. Adams: I was just gonna say I think that the...we're doing it for a couple reasons. One is for Mr. Goodenow, but the other is because the Council has asked us to move because they're having their budget meeting or something as well that Wednesday. That was already being done so in any event, but...do we need to agendize this vote or is it something we can just come up with as part of...I'm not sure where we would include it as a part of the agenda. When we would want to...you know if we're gonna do...suspend the rules, do we need to agendize that so that... Mr. Yoshimoto: I would say yes like how you have here. "Discussion regarding changes to the monthly meeting schedule" in number eight. I think we should do that until we amend the rules that give us some flexibility. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Do we have any further discussion in regards to this matter? Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to suspend the rule concerning the Board's regularly scheduled meetings held on the second Wednesday of each month. Mr.Adams seconded the motion. All members voted aye. 32 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Kahakalau: As we mentioned the next monthly meeting of the Board of Ethics is scheduled for Tuesday, April 12 at 10 a.m. here in the Hawai`i County Building. Are we still okay with that? It's still here. 10. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Kahakalau adjourned the meeting at 12:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted: V . ILA Com. Emily V. H. aya a, Secretary 33