Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-09 Regular Session Minutes HAWAII COUNTY BOARD,OF ETHICS MINUTES—REGULAR SESSION Tuesday, August 9, 2016 10:01 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Hawai`i County Building 25 Aupuni Street County Council Chambers Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Members and Staff Present: Ku Kahakalau, Chair Kenneth Goodenow, Vice-Chair Douglass Adams, Member Rick Robinson, Member Darnel Kalele, Member J Yoshimoto, Deputy Corporation Counsel Gary Murai, Special Corporation Counsel Emily Hirayama, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Kahakalau called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. Board members please go ahead and introduce yourselves. Rick Robinson, Ken Goodenow, Pili Kalele and Doug Adams. Thank you. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Kahakalau: We will start with our statements...I don't see anything here...no public statements here in Hilo. Do we have a public statement in Kohala? Ms. Sweeney: Aloha Chair...we have no public statements here in Kohala today. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF July 12, 2016. Ms. Kahakalau: Our next item on the agenda hearing that we have no statements from the public on any agenda items is the approval of the regular session minutes of July 12. Mr. Robinson: Motion to approve. Mr. Goodenow: Second. 1 Ms. Kahakalau: Alright... is there any discussion in regards to the meeting minutes? No discussions. Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members voted aye. 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2016-09: Review of a petition alleging that a Board member was in violation of the Hawaii County Charter Section 14-1(b) (Enactment and Policy), Hawaii County Code Sections 2-80 (Interpretation of article), 2-82 (Definitions) and 2-86(b) of the Code of Ethics. Ms. Kahakalau: Moving right on. We were gonna move to new business...Petition No. 2016-09, but I think we need to wait for our AG from Maui...and so can we have a request to move that petition back or move 2016-10. Mr. Adams: Madame Chair I would move that we delay taking up Petition No. 2016-09 until after 10 & 11. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Do we have a second on that? Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion? Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams made a motion to review this petition after Petition Nos. 2016-10 and 11. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. Members Kahakalau, Kalele, Robinson and Adams voted aye. Mr. Goodenow abstained. Mr. Murai: Madame Chair...this is Special Deputy Corporation Counsel Gary Murai. Could we have a brief recess...about two minutes? Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. We will call for a short two minute recess. Thank you. 10: 46 am. The Board took a brief recess to change out Corporation Counsel. 10:52 a.m. The Board returned from recess. ***Begin Review of Petition No. 2016-09 ***Minutes 2 Ms. Kahakalau: So we are going to continue with Petition No. 2016-09. The petitioner according to this paper...there's two petitioner's...Karen Martinez and Lanric Hyland. There not here in Hilo...I just want to double check if they're in Kohala. Ms. Sweeney: I have no one here in Kohala Chair. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you very much. So we do not have either one of the two petitioners present and so I am going to ask the...maybe we can start with the AG as far as a recommendation what we should do in the case when the petitioner is not here. Mr. Murai: Madame Chair...Special Deputy Corporation Counsel Gary Murai. I am aware that Mr. Hyland...one of the petitioners submitted...sent an email to the Board's secretary dated August 3, 2016 when he indicated that he decided he would not be participating in these proceedings anymore. I'm also aware that the Board's secretary contacted or attempted to contact Mr. Hyland to confirm that. Emily...did Mr. Hyland...did not receive a reply but in an abundance of caution I recommended that we do set up the remote Kohala site in case he does change his mind and I think we've already made a record of neither Ms. Martinez or Mr. Hyland appearing and I also note that the gallery of our meeting room is empty. I see no one outside. I also note that...so Madame Chair with those elements made as part of the record. I think the Board would need to decide how it wants to dispose of this matter that's before which is a petition. It was intended to be filed in a related matter 15-03, but because of the way it processed it was given a new petition number. So it's treated as a brand new petition. Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow. Mr. Goodenow: Prior to anyone making a motion, I just want to put on the record that as the person being complained about...I am recusing myself from any voting and under Robert's Rules...discussion as well. I am not going to participate. Mr. Adams: If I might...if I can ask the Vice-Chair...are you not interested in giving any testimony at all in this particular petition? 3 Mr. Goodenow: Well I would say it's really not my practice to comment on allegations....anonymous....alleged anonymous statements so no I'll just leave it to the Board to proceed. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you Mr. Goodenow. Mr. Robinson: Madame Chair...I would like to make a motion...make a motion to dismiss this petition. In making that motion I want to note that I find it strange to have a petition submitted that makes accusations against one of the Board members and it's anonymous and it has no reference to anyone. Anonymous petitions or anonymous statements I give zero credibility to so I just think we're wasting our time to even review it. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Mr. Robinson: That was my motion will a little bit of added bravado at the end. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Do we have a second? Mr. Adams: I would second. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have any further discussion in regards to this motion? Mr. Adams: I do. These petitions will come in front of this Board occasionally that will indicate dissatisfaction with the variety of the Board members. It's part of the responsibility of the Board in my view that we take them seriously and that we manage our way through them looking at the ordinances that we have...the Code and the Charter...related to the way that the petition is talking about it...when I'm looking at the petition...the crucks of the petition in itself was essentially some type of behavior...didn't have anything to do with any type of comments. The comments themselves were factual as far as I understand them...and so the idea that this petition is going to...one an anonymous understanding by somebody who's never been met...Mr. Goodenow and then relaying that...and that individual not being available...yes we don't have judicial evidentiary requirements but we still have to take into account the idea that somebody doesn't just get to say and then remain anonymous. That doesn't make any sense particularly 4 when you're going to then disparage that person's...disparage the character as part of the petition. I don't think that the idea that...you make a statement that someone's not been fair and impartial...you need more than what I see here to back that up...a lot more and so I just want to make sure that as we had gone through 2-83 and a variety of portions of 2-83...applied that to this petition...I did second the motion and I will vote for the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you Mr. Adams. I want to say I agree with the fact that we're not taking these kinds of things lightly. You know that we are here and we have a specific...as the Board and we have a very specific and important responsibility to uphold the highest standards of ethics and make sure that that also happens throughout Hawai`i County and so this not something that we just...whenever accusations happen...we have to take those to heart but at the same time...the accusation has to have merit and in this case he said she said kind of a thing to me is not something that merits and nobody here to explain further and give us any further information or any other substantial evidence of what happened or didn't happen. I think based on that I do also agree with Mr. Adams and with Mr. Robinson and I will also vote in favor of this motion. Do we have any further discussion? Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to dismiss the petition. Mr. Adams seconded the motion. Member Kahakalau, Adams, Robinson and Kalele voted aye. Mr. Goodenow abstained. Ms. Kahakalau: This motion has been dismissed. Thank you. *** End of Minutes for Petition No. 2016-09 4a*** 11:00 a.m. The Board changed Corporation Counsels b. Petition No. 2016-10: Request for an informal advisory opinion from a County officer or employee, to determine whether there would be any conflict of interest with her employment in the County Purchasing Division and a vendor who is a relative and participates in bids and proposals with the County of Hawaii. (Closed hearing requested) 5 Ms. Kahakalau: Hello. If you could please state your name and the agenda item that you're testifying that we know, but just for the record and anything you have to say in addition to the petition itself. Ms. Shikuma: My name is Lori Shikuma and I'm here in regards to Ordinance 15-103 which took effect July 1, 2016. I'm requesting a closed hearing. Ms. Kahakalau: That was going to be my next question. So you are requesting a closed hearing which you obviously have the right to do. So I would like to do is... Mr. Yoshimoto: So before we move to the closed hearing, the Board just needs to make finding per our rules that it's reasonable to go a closed hearing. So we need a motion to that effect. Mr. Adams: I would move that we move into closed hearing in accordance with our rules. Mr. Robinson: I would second that motion. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion? Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to go into a closed hearing. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. 10:04 a.m. The Board went into executive session to review Petition No. 2016-10. 10:25 a.m. The Board returned into regular session. c. Petition No. 2016-11: Request for an informal advisory opinion from a County officer or employee, to determine whether there would be any conflict of interest with an employee whose father is the owner of a construction business who is on the list that does work for the Office of Housing & Community Development(OCHD). Ms. Kahakalau: We have the petitioner here with us Ms. Akiyama. Can you please come up? If you can state your name and we wanted to ask you if you request a closed or open hearing. Ms. Akiyama: No closed hearing. 6 Ms. Kahakalau: Okay so open hearing is fine. So if you could just please state a little bit more beyond the petition that you provided why you're here this morning. Ms. Akiyama: Okay. My name is Susan Akiyama and I'm the administrator for the Office of Housing and Community Development. I'd like to introduce Megan DeCoito who is my staff and she works in the office who administers this particular program that I'm gonna tell you about. So one of the grant programs that we run is a residential emergency repair program and it basically it's a low interest loan program to help eligible participants to do renovations on their homes to extend the life of the dwelling unit. There's a limit of$25, 000 loan and it's a 3 % interest loan...so there's construction activities that usually get funded. In our administrative rules for this particular program, you will find that the agreement for the construction is done solely between the homeowner and the contractor. The office of housing does not participate in the selection of or the contracting of the contractor. Megan who works in our office...here father has periodically been selected as a contractor by the families that we loan monies to. So we wanted to bring this situation to this Board to make a determination for us. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you. Mr. Adams? Mr. Adams: The loan itself..what's the process for making the loan? Ms. Akiyama: The participant would come into the office and fill out an application. There's an income eligibility criteria...so they have to go thru the checking of their income documents and things like that. And once these specialists determines that the family is eligible for the loan...they would...we send an inspector out to the house to do an inspection to make sure that what they're applying for is really the situation at hand. There would be a check list created of the type of work that needs to be done and the participant would be notified that whether or not the loan was approved and whether or not the activities are eligible. They would then be instructed to go out and select a contractor. The list that we refer to in our explanation is not a professional services list. It's just a...it's an informal list that over the years OHCD has created...and basically the way we put this list together is every time a contractor gets hired by a family and they were...had the 7 proper certification...their name gets added. What we found in the past is that a lot of the families...this is the first time...they don't do these types of construction projects...they don't know who to call. So they always ask us...so what we do is we give them a list of contractors who have done work with the program in the past and they are clearly told that here's an example of people you could try to call. Yellow pages is also a good places to look or referrals from other family members or friends that you know of. The selection of the contractor is totally up to them. Mr. Adams: The list itself...just to take it quick tangential...quick tangent here. The list itself...is there some phrasing on there that indicates that the office or the County is not endorsing any of these contractors? Ms. Akiyama; I don't think honestly that there's that language on the list. It's just a list of names. Mr. Adams: Far it from me to suggest you might include that. Ms. Akiyama: I think that's a good idea...but also the administrative rules that clearly defines for them that they make the choice is also distributed to them. So...but I think that's a good idea. Mr. Adams: But they understand based on your explanation that they also have the ability to go to other folks...there's other sources...there's no requirement to choose from that list that's provided....is that right? Ms. Akiyama: But the notation on the list is what you're recommending. Mr. Adams: They're also told this though I'm assuming. Ms. Akiyama: Yes. Mr. Adams: But it's probably not a bad idea to include that information if you're handing out that information out. Just saying. Ms. Akiyama: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Adams: So...I'm sorry. Ms. DeCoito what's your position in the office? Ms. DeCoito: I'm a clerk. Mr. Adams: And...do you as I...as the administrator talked about the decision that there's a specialist that determines eligibility...there's an inspector that goes out to the house...checklist of items based on 8 that inspection and the eligibility portion and then the homeowner themselves go out and find a contractor. Are you involved in any of those steps in this program? Ms. DeCoito: There is a stack of applications that I give out to homeowners who are interested in the program. Mr. Adams: So you give the blank applications out or? Ms. DeCoito: The blank applications. Mr. Adams: Okay so you're like at the very beginning of this process. Ms. DeCoito: Yes. Mr. Adams: Okay. Do you give them any recommendations of any kind as a part of it? I mean do they...how do you get involved in handing out the applications out? Ms. DeCoito: They just ask me if there's any programs that help with any homeowner repairs. Mr. Adams: Right. Ms. DeCoito: And I just suggest our RERP program and I give them the application to review and then they would turn it in and I'll just give it back to Brandi to look it over. Mr. Adams: Do you...make suggestions of other programs as well? Ms. DeCoito: Actually don't know of any other programs. Mr. Adams: Okay. Ms. Akiyama: The Residential Emergency Repair Program is the only low interest loan repair program that we run. So there wouldn't be any others. Mr. Adams: The application goes out...they can fill it out or not fill it out...they fill it out probably most of the time and then comes back into another member of the office and is that specialist the one that then approves the application for the program or who makes the actual approval? 9 Ms. Akiyama: She'll review the application based on the eligibility requirements and make a recommendation to the office manager who runs the office and she would make the final approval. Mr. Adams: The manager would? Ms. Akiyama: The manager. Mr. Adams: Okay. And you have no connection with that process...that approval process...you don't see these applications after you've handed them out? Ms. DeCoito: No. Mr. Adams: Do you have any connection with your father's business? Ms. DeCoito: No. Mr. Adams: Not a shareholder...you don't do any work on the weekends...nothing like that? Ms. DeCoito: Not at all. Mr. Adams: Okay. Thank you. Ms. DeCoito: Thank you. Mr. Robinson: I'm interested in this program...the RERP program. What's the level of loans that you normally make? Ms. Akiyama: The largest amount of loan that we can make is up to $25,000. Mr. Robinson: $25,000...and that's really just a repair older homes that... Ms. Akiyama: Replace old gas tanks...do roof repairs...we find a lot of roof repairs...from time to time because they're older homes...there is lead based paint mitigation that we have to do...fix a window...door jams...a wide range. Mr. Robinson: So these aren't grants...these are loans. Ms. Akiyama: These are loans. Mr. Robinson: They have to pay them back. Ms. Akiyama: They have to pay them back. 10 Mr. Robinson: And what is the interest rate normally charged. Ms. Akiyama: 3% Mr. Robinson: 3%. Okay. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we hear a motion somewhere? Mr. Robinson: I find that because of the limited involvement of Ms. DeCoito...no involvement in the approval process that there would be no conflict of interest. That's my motion. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have a second? Mr. Goodenow: Before I second...I...it says here petition to provide...to inform, but I think you also asking if it's appropriate to have a company RAD on the list right...I mean...I just add to your motion if you would consider that in saying that there's not a problem with RAD being on their list. Mr. Robinson: And my motion would include that there would be no problem with the company of RAD being on the list of contractors that would be operating as long as...and hopefully you'll do the disclosure that we're not recommending...this is just a list...we make not preferences or references. Mr. Goodenow: I'll second that. Ms. Kahakalau: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Adams: I would. I guess I am...I like to use the word troubled...I am troubled that we have this list...I'm not troubled that the office is trying to help these folks out. I think that's great. The problem is that may not be office's responsibility when determining who the contractors might be because there isn't any specific process or procedural safe guards in identifying who those folks are. You ran us through how you add to the list...I get it...and that seems the common sense to me. The problem is that...there's a potential problem for me I guess with that and you're gonna take a look at that and add to that which is fine. So where am I going with that? I think...as a part of this...have you ever done any follow up to determine whether or not the contractors that are chosen by the folks that engage in this...participate in this program...do most of the contractors come off of the list? Only a percentage of them? 11 Because you're getting asked...you want to do...provide a service and you're doing that. Just to make sure that we're not...again not having government endorse any of these folks...maybe just to check whether informal or whether it's a survey...whatever it is to go back and say you know we're doing this...are we in fact...not because we're trying to but because we're providing this list folks are...outside the normal statistical boundaries of something...they're choosing folks from this list kind of idea. That might...be worth a little bit of effort just to protect the office and protect the County. So that would be my comment I guess on that... I don't have any problems. Ms. Akiyama: So Mr. Adams just to make sure that I understand. You're recommending that we perhaps do a review or survey of the contractors that have been selected...kind of do a statistical... Mr. Adams: Compare them against. Compare them off of your...the list that you have been putting together. Ms. Akiyama: Who's actually been selected...how often...things like that. Mr. Adams: It may or may not lead to anything...the information would be...what would be the consequences of something like that? I would hope that generally you would find that the list is not necessarily the only place that people end up going to but they also choose from other sources that are out there. Because it would seem to me that if it's only the list that folks are choosing the primary number of contractors off of...then that actually is indicative of potential endorsement concerns. Ms. Akiyama: Okay. Mr. Goodenow: I just wanted to ask...how many names or contractors are on the list? Approximately? Ms. Akiyama: I would be totally guessing right now. About a page. Mr. Goodenow: So maybe thirty...something like that. Ms. Akiyama: Yeah...potentially. Mr. Goodenow: Your goal really is...you just want everyone who is licensed or whatever meets the criteria to be on the list...just to give people...I 12 think Mr. Adams suggestion is really good...I think you should put something like we do not endorse anyone.. Ms. Akiyama: I will. Mr. Goodenow: It is just provided for your convenience...these are people that have done it before. Something like that and I think that's good comment but I don't feel that that's a...as far as what the petition is requesting regarding Ms. DeCoito. I don't have a problem. Mr. Adams: Right. Right. I would just notice that in your petition...you do say that the office does confirm that the contractor meets licensing, insurance and is in good standing to work in the state requirements prior to the actual work being done...but then the follow up activities that occur that the office does...one you're not involved in any of that. Ms. DeCoito: Not at all. Mr. Adams: Not at all and then the office itself..it's review of that...done by the inspectors or by specialist? Ms. Akiyama: Inspector and the specialist. Ms. Kahakalau: I don't hear any more discussion, but I agree as far as protecting your own selves to and then stating that again specifically also that they can choose any contractor of their choice I think that would just cover you more than anything else and the County. Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved that because of the limited involvement of Ms. DeCoito and no involvement in the approval process that there would be no conflict of interest and also that there would be no problem to have the company RAD on the list of contractors. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members voted aye. Ms. Kahakalau: Next item on the agenda is Petition No. 2016-09. ***Review of Petition No. 2016-09*** Minutes added to 4a 13 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Petition No. 2016-02: Review draft informal advisory opinion regarding the petition from Naomi O'Dell, 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. 1. Review a dissenting order opinion drafted by Board member Adams to be included with this informal advisory opinion. Mr. Goodenow: I believe there's a pending motion right...we continued...I mentioned...I asked for the continuance because I thought maybe we could reconsider and drop all the July Pt issue out of there...but after the meeting...reviewing Robert's Rules because we had heard this already once before...motion for reconsideration is not appropriate. And so there are other options...rescind...repeal...but my thinking is...I support just moving forward with this... it is what it is...let's just leave it and I don't think it's gonna establish a huge precedential value because the law is in effect now... I'm willing to just move forward. So sorry I continued last time. I continued because I thought we could amend it by taking out some of..reconsider Naomi O'Dell's...taking out...because it's after July 1st. I thought we could fix it up, but then looking at Robert's Rules we had met twice on this and so reconsideration is not allowed under Robert's Rules in that situation. So I'm fine with just moving forward. Mr. Adams: Just so understand my vote on this particular...my vote here just indicates that I support that this is in fact the petition that was voted on. It's not a reaffirmation of the petition? Is that correct? Counsel? Let me try that again. The vote that I'm going to be making here on this draft with the dissent included is an affirmation that this reflects the votes that we took. It's not an affirmation of the content...is that right? Mr. Yoshimoto: That's correct. Mr. Goodenow: And likewise...as far as the content of the dissenting opinion...I'm not really...when I vote yes to approve...I'm not making any comments on what's in the dissent. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. So that's fine. Mr. Adams: I move approval of Petition No. 2016-02. 14 Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Do we have any further discussion in regards to this? I just want to note that I think as we're going through this and finding our way as to how to proceed with this law in place now. To just keep the communications I think between the AG office and us open and so that if there are any guidelines or guidance that can be provided to us from that prospective...that we continue to just communicate and make sure that we're all on the same page because it's gonna be a little bit challenging I think until these things work themselves out. And then if there's no further discussion. Mr. Adams: I would just reiterate my primary concern that I had in the dissent that we didn't...that we had...we made a decision...part of the findings of facts and conclusions of law were based on an ordinance that was going to take effect...we knew that it was going to take effect but it had not taken effect. I would hope that as has been stated in discussion a few minutes ago that this is not precedential in any way that we understand that this was a special case apparently...that's how the Board looked at it but...we will continue to use the law as it is on the books for the determination of the decisions that we make in the future. Ms. Kahakalau: I think we're in agreement with that. Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved that we approve this petition. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. b. Petition No. 2016-06: Review of draft informal advisory opinion regarding the petition from Terin Gloor, to determine whether there would be any conflict of interest with him being able to bid for County of Hawaii projects excluding the department in which is wife is employed by. Mr. Goodenow: I move to approve. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have a second? Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion there? I think it was a pretty straight forward... Mr. Adams: That's what happened in this one. Ms. Kahakalau: Yes...because now we actually were within the time line to discuss it. Alright hearing no further discussion. 15 Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to approve this petition. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. c. Petition No. 2016-07: Review of draft informal advisory opinion regarding the petition from Susan Akiyama, to determine whether there would be any conflict of interest with an employee's spouse doing key and lock services for the Office of Housing& Community Development (OCHD). Mr. Goodenow: I move to approve. Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion? Hearing none. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to approve this petition. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. d. Petition No. 2016-08: Review of draft informal advisory opinion regarding the petition from Susan Akiyama, to determine whether there would be any conflict of interest of an employee of the Office of Housing& Community Development (OCHD) and a vendor who a relative is doing printing services for their office. Mr. Goodenow: Move to approve. Mr. Robinson: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussions? Hearing none. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to approve this petition. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to go into executive session. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All members voted aye. 11:08 a.m. The Board moved into executive session. 11:25 a.m. The Board returned into regular session. 6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS a. Review of the executive session minutes of July 12, 2016. 16 Ms. Kahakalau: We're back from executive session and we're on executive session minutes of July 12, 2016. Motion and Vote: Mr. Robinson moved to approve the executive session minutes of July 12, 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 also had a review of one confidential financial disclosure form which was filed. Mr. Adams: Is that actually a motion requirement? Don't we have to move to accept it? Mr. Yoshimoto: Move to accept. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Do we have a motion please? Mr. Adams: Move to accept the confidential disclosure form that we reviewed. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have a second? Ms. Kalele: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Do we have any discussion? Motion and Vote: Mr. Adams moved to accept the confidential financial disclosure form as reviewed. Ms. Kalele 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 Mr. Adams: Madame Chair if I might. I'm aware that members of the Board actually have a...have some time crunches here. What I'd like to do rather than run through some of the notes that I've prepared for this is come back if not next month but the following month...at least not in November. September...October with a draft of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Board to consider. Ms. Kahakalau: I think that would probably expedite the process and also by having an opportunity perhaps read it ahead of time...you know we kind of... 17 Mr. Adams: No promises on ahead of time come September. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Mr. Robinson: You're saying the Rules of Practice and Procedures dated 01/12/1990...update to that? Mr. Adams: That's correct. Mr. Robinson: Okay. Mr. Goodenow: Thank you for taking on that...the initial effort...we appreciate that. Ms. Kahakalau: It's basically a best practice. Mr. Adams: It's just a draft, because of course the Council will have the lion's share managing it. Mr. Goodenow: So the motion is to continue to the next meeting or... Mr. Adams: We don't have a motion on here...it's just an agenda item. So I'm assuming the agenda item will continue to be there as part of the agenda item then I would commit to bringing a draft of the Rules of Practice and Procedures for us and we can then make a motion to accept and then have discussion on it. Mr. Goodenow: Thank you. • 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS MONTHLY MEETING SCHEDULE. Ms. Kahakalau: I think we're still on the Tuesdays. Mr. Goodenow: Yes. Thank you for that accommodations. Ms. Kahakalau: Unless there's any other discussion in regards to that item. None? 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Kahakalau announced the Board's next meeting on September 13, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. at the Hawai`i County Building, Council Chambers, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 or at another location to be determined. 18 Mr. Goodenow: Sorry Madame Chair just to...I think at the last time we moved to suspend the rules...so I move to suspend the rules in order to have the meeting on September 13. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to suspend the rule concerning Wednesday meeting days. Ms. Kalele seconded the motion. All members voted aye. Ms. Kahakalau: I just want to say that I will not be back by September 13...so Vice-Chair taking over that duty. 10. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Kahakalau adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Emily Hira �, Secreta 19