Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-18 Regular Session MinutesHAWAII COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS MINUTES — REGULAR SESSION Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:01 a.m. to 12:01 a.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 Nan Sumner -Mack, Member David Wiseman, Member J Yoshimoto, Deputy Corporation Counsel Emily Hirayama & Maria Pagala, Secretaries 1. CALL TO ORDER (10:00 a.m.) Ms. Kahakalau: Aloha Kakahiaka. Good Morning. I'd like to call the meeting for the Board of Ethics County of Hawaii for September 11, 2018 to order at 10:00 sharp. 2. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS (10:00 a.m.) Ms. Kahakalau: We will start with statements from the public on agenda items, however it does not appear like there are any. So we will move right along to number 3 on the agenda which is the approval of the regular session minutes of August 14, 2018. 3. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR SESSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2018 (10:01 a.m.) Ms. Kahakalau: I believe everybody got those minutes in their packets. If there any questions or discussion maybe after the motion we can do that. Whoops I forgot for you folks to introduce yourselves. I'm sorry. Before we start I'm sorry. Short agenda I wanted to go through. I'm Ku Kahakalau, I'm the Chair of the Hawaii County Board of Ethics and then... Mr. Goodenow: Hi, Ken Goodenow, Vice -Chair. Ms. Sumner -Mack: Nan Sumner -Mack. Mr. Wiseman: And David Wiseman. 1 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Sumner -Mack Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Kahakalau: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Ms. Kahakalau: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Thank you. So do we have a motion in regards to these minutes before we start any discussions? So moved. I'd like to ask if we were...was I supposed to get a pdf that I overlooked about of the Charter relevant Charter amendment? Right I think that was mentioned in the minutes whether it was done or not I don't know but just to approve the minutes. I think the minutes do accurately reflect that. Okay. I'll second the motion at this point but we can have further discussion. So now that we have a motion and a second. Yes there was a pdf that was sent out I think I got it yesterday. If I'm not mistaken. That kind of...was referred to in the minutes. We emailed the code section for the gift provisions that was discussed last time. But I didn't email the Charter because the Charter is in your binders. Sorry I overlooked it. So what was sent by email? I overlooked it so. That pertained to a question I guess in general that the Board had in terns of the gift provisions how the County accepts gifts but that's not on the agenda today. Would you like us to resend that? Do you think you didn't get it? I'd like to know who sent it so I can look it up. It's easier to look up in my email. What's your first name? Maria Pagala. I'll check with you. Right the minutes do reflect what they reflect though right. Okay. Right. Got you. 2 Ms. Kahakalau: Any further discussion in regards to the minutes? Hearing none. Should I wait a little more? No...okay. All in favor of approving the minutes of August 14, 2018 say aye. Any opposed? Okay so that motion is carried. Thank you very much. Our next agenda item is new business item 4a. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiseman moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Goodenow seconded. All members voted ayes. 4. NEW BUSINESS (10:05 a.m.) a. Communication dated August 1, 2018 from Chair Douglas Shipman Adams. Seeking Input for the Hawaii County Charter Commission. Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Discussion with the Charter Chair Mr. Douglass Shipman Adams regarding his communication dated August 1, 2018. Move to file I guess. I see Mr. Adams here. Do we have any questions for him would we like to...please come up and... I'd like to start and I wanna thank the Charter Commission for coming to us to ask for input and everyone else. You've got a big task. Perhaps the most important commission in the County. So good luck with your work. I had a few comments. I don't know if this is the right time or would you like to speak first? Mr. Adams: Let me just say a couple of words is that okay. Mr. Goodenow: Great. Mr. Adams: You can hear me? I did press it. First of all thank you for inviting me. As you know the Charter Commission meets essentially every ten years. It's our attempt within the...can you hear is it good? We meet every ten years. The purpose of which is to take a look at our essentially county's framers document the County Charter. And in doing so we wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to hear from all who are listed in the Charter. Of course the Board of Ethic has its own section in the Charter... Article 14 and see if there was...give everybody the opportunity. Departments, council, boards and commissions, the opportunity to reflect on the things that perhaps they've seen. Whether experiments that were tried previously need to be changed or whether everybody's pretty happy with the status quo as we move forward. So that was really the intent of the missive that we sent to 3 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: you and I am at your service to answer any questions that you may have and any comments that you may have. I have a copy of the...you know essentially its 2 1/2...3 pages...I guess 2 1/2 pages or so. Sections 14...1 through 14.6 of the code and so I'd be happy to look at any of those and be interested in your comments if you have any. Thank you very much. We have a two...well concerns...he calls them concerns so I will call them concerns as well. From one of our members, Mr. Rick Robinson, who couldn't be here today... he's out of the country. And if it's alright I would like to read those for the record. The first point being and he asked us to share those with you. First point being...the Ethics Board should receive disclosure statements from politicians, senior county management officials and from special contract individuals...that's the part that he's highlighting. The special contract individuals hired under none bid contract for county work. So that is his first concern. Getting those disclosures statements from politicians, senior county management officials, as well as special contract individuals hired under none bid contract for county work. And his second concern is that special contract issued by the Mayor should be forwarded to the Board of Ethics as a matter of business for review prior to issuance. That review should include a justification of why this contract is being issued. So that was again Mr. Rick Robinson who is one of the members of the Board of Ethics. These were his two concerns that he asked us to share with you. Just add one little bit to that cause I know Mr. Robinson mentioned this at the other meeting. Is that...I know if you look at the Charter section 14-3. Under the disclosure of interest provision there it says it shall be incumbent upon all employees or officers of the County to make full disclosure in writing to the appointing authority or to the council and the case of an elective officer. These interests and file a disclosure with a County Clerk shall be a matter of public record. It's not really clear. I think about how we do that and Mr. Robinson for example said well...if a County elected officer it gets put there for the public yes but in the charter it also states that the board is...you know to interpret the code and do these things and shouldn't we be looking at it. I mean we look at the other ones that get sent to us right and we...I don't know how. We at least see if there's discrepancies or we want more information we do that...but we don't do that with these and maybe we should as it does relate to the Code of Ethics. 4 Mr. Adams: Just so I understand when you say "these" you're talking about those special contract or politicians... Mr. Goodenow: No. Just the disclosure of interest. Mr. Adams: Okay. Mr. Goodenow: Right the disclosure of interest forms. Ms. Kahakalau: Judge Wiseman, you had a comment? Mr. Wiseman: Yeah. Well I concur with what Ken stated with respect to the language and the statute of officers and employees of the County. My concern would be in I think elected officials are surely included in that group. But my concern would be what... is there any provision or procedure at the end of the year are periodically for an office in the government to check and see among all the employees and others required to submit a disclosure statement who has not by a certain deadline. In form of a governments I've worked in...yes is a public auditor who has control. He would come up with a list, a deadline, and then there's a fine after that deadline if they didn't submit, etc. So I'm not aware of any provision here that would have that check or not. Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Goodenow: Right. I think there is in the code. I think we are the responsible party except for candidates running for office. Is that...could you refresh my memory on that? Mr. Yoshimoto. You were doing great Mr. Goodenow. We touched upon this I believe the last time. So the County Code specifies specific procedures pertaining to this clause of filing financial disclosures right so office employees, certain boards. Whereas the public officials, their disclosures are filed with the Clerks office so we don't review them as a matter of course as opposed to...so the code basically sets forth the criteria. If that wants to be changed, that's a different matter because...if the question is directed at the Charter, the Charter is more this broad view of what general parameters we want right? I think the question was...do we have the authority to review the elected officials' disclosure...even though they're public. Do we have any authority and that's why I thought maybe it'd be relevant to the Charter. I know Mr. Robinson...I'm just speaking for Rick who couldn't be here but I know that was a concern for him. 5 Mr. Yoshimoto: Well so do you have the authority? I don't recall there being an explicit provision as to the public official. So you're correct. Mr. Goodenow: Correct. Mr. Yoshimoto: So if you want clarity, then that's something that could be clarified. The question of whether it needs to be in the charter in the code...I mean that's really...a decision that... Mr. Goodenow: Right. Well I leave that to you. That's a policy kind of thing too right? Mr. Adams: Well actually if we had this conversation surely. So the way our rules work on the Charter Commission is that the Commissioners themselves will be making the proposals right? But the proposals can come from and we anticipate that they'll come from a variety of sources and so as you...if you would like to provide a little bit more for example clarity on making more explicit the authority of the Board of Ethics in reviewing the disclosure of interest forms. There's nothing that prevents you from adding that as a charter item. What we'll look at and as we have discussed at the Charter Commission already is...Is this a charter item or is this a code item. For example, if it falls into those kinds of silos. But authority of course is a big picture kind of thing so you would anticipate that that might be something that would be considered at a Charter level perhaps. I don't make those decisions that's the entire Commission of course it will review that. Ms. Sumner -Mack: I'm afraid that I. When I read this idea from Mr. Robinson, I thought he was mainly speaking about item 2...the special contracts provisions and that I thought that was related to something that came up recently in our deliberations about. I don't know if you call it a sole source or special contract that doesn't comply with all the rules about you know getting bids and that sort of thing. So I don't know whether this would apply to the charter or to the code. I'm not an attorney, but anyway. Does anyone else have that impression that it was dealing a lot with that? Mr. Goodenow: Kind of related to that...I'm sorry I digressed just a bit...but I don't know what Mr. Adams would like from us and I'm not sure what we'd like to give to him but you know there's two ways I see this. One is we can just share hey this is our experience. I read this section disclosure of interest is not clear and just give you some ideas of what we're thinking or we could formally have our Chair write a letter and put things in it and we could have a subsequent meeting where we have a draft you know and discuss 6 Mr. Adams: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Adams: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: that. I don't know what other departments are doing or what you prefer in that regard. What we prefer? Change that question. I withdraw that question. What can you live with? What we can live with is we can live with any of that. Right? So I'm taking notes now because you guys are bringing these things up. But at the same time, if you as a Board decide you're gonna send a communication to the Charter Commission...that's gonna be taken with little bit probably more...I wouldn't say consideration but gravitas perhaps. Then simply my notes on what you have said. Ultimately whatever comes will be...if it is deemed important enough it will be put into a proposal and then the Charter will have a conversation about it. And to narrow it down. What were we talking about in number 1 of the request is for elected officials, isn't it? Well that was 1. And at this time we don't review those. Right. And then the other one was the second issue of the contracts. Right. And there we had kind of...I don't want to say differing opinions but we had some concerns with the disclosure and the timelines that these contractors have to work under especially if it's an emergency situation like let's say there's a storm and something has to happen quickly because half of Hilo is under water. You know then to have to go through these multiple steps before work can begin is kind of to me unrealistic. I can see the theory of it and the intent of it as you know as being important just so that there is transparency. But sometimes with these particular groups...these special contract individuals...it is done in sort of an emergency kind of a situation so that's just putting that out there. I would reiterate my statement at the last meeting with respect to what I deem as a sole source contract which would fit the circumstances you presented. And I would reiterate that there is a presumption of validity that they have gone through and again I 7 don't know what the code provides or the regulations for the Mayor's office or any department here to issue a sole source contract. But I would...I'm not a gambling man, but I would make a bet that there are steps and procedures including public notices in all sorts of steps and anyone can come in and challenge it and so on. So I am...I am opposed against us reviewing a special contract in number 2. And to weigh in on the justification for that. I mean these justifications that are... I'm very familiar with it cause...as one of my special calendars as a judge was all administrative appeals. You know majority of them were all procurement issues and sole source contracts. But in my experience, these sole source contracts, all these steps they go through. There's numerous justifications in there...you can't get a sole source contract in any civilized government without having a justification. A good one. Not just a...some blanket provision. So these steps are all in there. And for us to take the position that we wanna look at these before issuance. I think is creating a very unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, red tape and delay. And I don't see any need for our...and who are we to weigh in on the justification. Especially most sole source contracts have a specific specialty, specific professions or skills or experience in the government where there's public works or computers or something. And we don't have that expertise among us. So for all those reasons plus a lot more I could go on with. I'm against number 2 on the proposal. Number 2. Ms. Sumner -Mack: But the...could we just ask for the Charter Commission to consider this because we found out through a case that came before us recently that there were 14 such contracts issued by the County and that seemed to be a huge number. So I think...I think that was Mr. Robinson's basic concern that at least there should be you know a paper trail and give us a chance. I don't know how is best to do it but for the count maybe the Charter Commission could consider whether some other body could be... Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow and then Judge... Mr. Goodenow: Yeah. I just note that you know when you look at the current provisions of the charter that...except for...there are standards about conflict of interest and financial gain and all that. But there's nothing really in here about contracts such as the new code that we had and July where these contracts they gotta get clearance by us. It's not really there and I think what it says that you know it shall constitute a conflict of interest...just so...solicit, accept gifts, or use your position in these things that would cover a sole source contract gone bad for example. And that would fit in the current 8 charter and we could still do all that. I'd be a little leery of adding in these...you know...we don't have all that other contract stuff in the charter that's more for the code in my opinion. And it might be in another section of the charter for...under financial operations or something. I don't really...I think our code would cover that situation of a quid pro quo or something. I'll just throw that out there. Ms. Kahakalau: Thank you Mr. Goodenow. Judge Wiseman. Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Adams: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: I would just point out the 14 cases that my colleague pointed out. We were made aware of them because of a challenge to one of those contracts. And that's how the system works. I mean if something...if it smells, someone's gonna smell and bring it to someone's attention, most likely us, so that's...that's my position. Yeah so...I read both concerns because I was asked to do so. But I'm also of the opinion that the special contract individual, because of the nature of their work, should really not have to go through an extra step when lives could be at matter or property could be in danger and etc. So that's my personal opinion as well. But it is something you know if the Charter Commission feels that that's in their area and they would like to discuss it you know, it did come up as a suggestion by one of our members. Thank you I mean I appreciate the discussion in the different areas. Do we have any other wisdom to say? Well no. Well that was Rick. For me, the one thing I wanted to talk about was...well the most important would be...and I don't know if we have to do it but if you look at section 14-6 it gives penalties, failure to comply with provisions of the charter there...shall constitute a cause for suspension, removal from office or employment, or other such penalty as the council may prescribe by ordinance. So it sounds kind of open. The reason I bring it up...doing civil fines...and I notice in the other counties' charters. Let me just read to you from Honolulu... Make sure I get this right. Honolulu. They put in penalties. "The failure to comply with or any provision of the standards of contact established by this article of the charter or by ordinance shall be grounds for impeachment of elected officers and for the removal from office or from employment of all other officers, employees. The appointing authority may upon the recommendation of the ethics commission reprimand, put on promotion, demote, suspend, discharge"...for violating right? "The ethics commission may also impose civil 9 fines established by ordinance for violations of the standards of conduct committed by elected and appointed officials", etc. So they actually put it in there and they also put in again in another section. "The commission may impose civil fines established by ordinance against elected and appointed officers and employees of the city with significant discretionary or fiscal power found by the commission to have violated the standards of conduct." And in Maui...similarly...they put in... I won't go too much but Maui and Kauai have the same thing. Maui... Actually Maui is interesting, listen to this. "The Board of Ethics shall consist of nine members." The boards shall and it lists things and "b. initiate impeachment proceedings against elected officers and officers appointed to elective office who are found by the board after investigation to have violated this Article." I don't know if we want to go that far but wow. They have a whole new... And that's policy, right? I don't wanna make recommendations as to that. I'm just throwing it out there. We...the council has said we want to have our violations civil penalties. I don't know. Maybe we don't need it when I read ours, it's broad but all the other counties do it I think you should look at that. And related to that... You know so you remember being on our Board right? People would come to get an informal advisory opinion and the question is...oh well if they do that I think it's in the code... it says right that they are presumed that yes too and acted in good faith or whatever. I don't know if that's in our code. But the other charters, some of them actually put that in there. And I think the problem is...even if it's in the code or its precedent right? That if you get it we don't do anything. What if you violate a charter provision? Well then...right...would we really if we gave an advisory opinion and said oh, this is okay. And I mean unlikely that this would happen but let's say it turns out a subsequent board said...hey you violated the charter and you know they say...hey it doesn't matter right. Would they really be protected? I don't know if we want to go there, but I note the other charters include language. For example...ah let's see. Sorry I ran out of post it notes and then I started bending pages...that never works good. Well "if any office, employee or former office employee shall obtain an advisory opinion from the board and shall govern oneself accordingly shall act in accordance with the provisions...opinions of the board. Such person shall not be held guilty of violating any provisions of the code." That's actually in their...the Code of Ethics meaning the Charter Code of Ethics. That's the Charter of Kauai. Another similar provisions. Maybe we don't wanna put that in there. What do we...refresh my memory Mr. Yoshimoto. What do we...cause people have asked that right? They think if I get an opinion and I'm okay, then I'm protected right? 10 Mr. Yoshimoto: Generally, yes but then normally the orders will specify that you still need to be in compliance with the code. I other words, did they change the facts and circumstances...I don't know. You're talking about in the past we had contracts that were bid for and they had to go through the Board of Ethics right? Mr. Goodenow: Right. Mr. Yoshimoto: There's always the caveat that provided that the things don't change because sometimes they do so. 1 mean generally yes...we would honor previous... Mr. Goodenow: We say that in the...and as long as you follow this and it doesn't change... Mr. Yoshimoto: In those particular opinions that is my recollection but generally yes it's they'd obtain an opinion and the things remain the same. You know then they've gotten the approval from the board because the board is empowered to make those opinions. So we would stand behind them of course...if things change in the future or... Mr. Goodenow: Right. Mr. Yoshimoto: Or somehow right I mean. It depends. Mr. Goodenow: I guess this might be highly technical but... Mr. Wiseman: With respect to one suggestion for the Charter Commission is that you know there's many goals, regulations and even laws on the books of many, many jurisdictions that require something. Must file this document within 30 days. And the question I would always keep in mind is, "or else what?" It has to be an "or else". It comes in with the penalty provision. If there's no penalty. I've had situations like that. They didn't file...okay...they didn't file. There's no "or else what"? There is no penalty. Just a suggestion. Mr. Goodenow: Thank you. I agree with that. Ms. Kahakalau: Well since we are sort of on that subject and you have to excuse me because I'm not quite sure if it's a code issue or a charter issue. But we've had over the past...I've had individuals coming in front of the Board and I'm just gonna put it broadly saying wasting our time. I could explain it in many other words but I think you know what I'm talking about and there's the same thing you know. If it's clearly unsubstantiated and it happens the same...multiple 11 Mr. Adams: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Adams: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: times and things like that. Is there any kinds of provisions and I wouldn't again know if it's a charter or code thing. But same thing, you know that "so what" if those kind of things happen that it's... That situation happens if that's something you could look into. I think that would be something that could strengthen the way that this Board operates. You know if we're protected let's say or cushioned against that kind of practice. So if I may, Madam Chair, let me just ask...follow one question to that. You're talking...what I hear you talking about is what others had talked about is frivolous petitions. Yes. Typically if you're going to at least in my experience and others have different experiences I'm sure. But in my experience, if you want to tackle that in the charter and maybe even in the code. That means that you are potentially narrowing your...narrowing the ability for folks to make petitions. Question is...is that your intent? That's a very good question. Not...oh sorry go ahead. No I was just going to say maybe not the intent exactly but a way that if they're going to be rejected anyway to streamline the process. But I don't know...I mean...I see where you are coming from. Do we have...does it give the authority of the chair to do it? Is there an appeal of that? It's a good question. Judge Wiseman. Yeah the advisory opinion, I mean, it should be pretty open and allowable. We don't wanna create a chilling effect in those and so long as we have some protection where we can reject them if it's something outlandish we would have the authority to some type of reprimand or sanction. Then I think we should just leave it alone. In an advisory opinions, I'm not clear but I think they do have some requirements before submissions right? Yes. But they're more technical I would say than substantial. Right. I think in Honolulu's Charter or maybe even Maui right? I think only Honolulu, the staff has a screening process right? They have a whole different set up and they have actually a Board of 12 Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Adams: Appeals, Ethics Board of Appeals just for the Board of Ethics so it's very different... So long as we have the right, can we reject them without hearing? See I agree with you though and with all respect Madam Chair. I think maybe by our rules we can have a process of where the Chair does something and it's ratified at the meeting but...no matter how frivolous I think we should have a hearing. Our U.S. Supreme Court gets...they got about 14,000 appeals this year. They heard 61. So the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals gets an average about 12,000 cases a year...appeals. And they're the largest circuit in the country. And they hear every one. Or they...but they can reject an appeal without hearing so. Interesting. Just an analogy. I don't know how many frivolous complaints you've heard cause I'm fairly new on the Board but my observation in the 8 or 9 months I've been on...is that you haven't had an overabundance of this kind of thing. They've mostly been fairly serious. I think the issue...another issue that has come up in our discussions has been whether or not we can or should in certain cases impose fines. That is a question that people ask. If we don't specify that we have the power to do that then people are left uncertain as to whether that can happen. So that's another thing that might be discussed. As for the special contract, of course there are emergency situations where they have to get somebody in right away. I mean, I understand that. But in the case that came before us, there was over 6 month before the service was needed and the suggestion just sat on someone's desk for 6 months before they decided to act on it and that's the kind of situation where it might be considered inappropriate to just you know go ahead with the decision without and violating human resource rules or other conditions of employment. Just quickly if I may. When you were raising... Vice -Chair Goodenow...when you were raising the conversation or the items about civil fines. Was that...that's to delineate it...make sure that that's different from the administrative finds that's in our ordinances... 13 Mr. Goodenow: Mils. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Adams: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Well just to make sure that the authority is there from the top. I mean, I agree if you read our section and it says penalties or any such penalty as the council may prescribe by ordinance. I think that probably would be covered. I just note that every other charter puts in a specific provision that states that there is authority to fine and if you...I mean you can go online and look up the charters of the other Counties. So that kind of stood out when I was reviewing them. I certainly don't want to narrow the right of the people to come in front of the Board of Ethics. But unfortunately I was little bit scarred from my first two years on the Board where the frivolous petitions you know were just really slowing down our process and really putting undue hardship on everybody and we used to have meetings that went on until 4 o'clock. You know so. You're bringing back the memories. Luckily we haven't had any issues like that which is great. But it's just something that has happened and so I just wanted to bring it out. But I do appreciate it. Do we have any other thoughts to share with Mr. Adams? Madam Chair, if I may, so obviously if you decide that as a Board that you would to write the Commission at letter, send a communication of some kind to fill out some of the thoughts that you've had here or to add new thoughts of course we welcome those. I would tell you that on a timeline perspective that we will be looking to develop and have a first reading of our proposals by the end of this year or the beginning of next. No later than January because we have public hearing requirements and we want to be going forward with them so we have a very tight timeline in prepping these things. So to the extent that you all are interested in...desire to send us additional information or a letter by all means. Please do so but more quickly than not. We appreciate sharing that timeline with us. Go ahead Mr. Goodenow. I was just gonna say we trust you to take back our...what we've written or I do. I wanted to state...you know there's some bills are before the council that relate to the Board of Ethics and I don't think we should go into the policy aspects of that. But I would like to note that if you put too much in the charter right? It can be very difficult for us in interpreting it and to...you know anything new. I don't want to go to specifics right but things like that might be 14 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Adams: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: difficult for us to really define and that kind of you know...I'd be very weary of people making charter proposals that really should be in the code maybe that would make it very... Cause you know you gotta have definitions in all this and I'm just concerned about that. Thank you for keeping it simple and broad. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much Mr. Adams for coming today. We really appreciate it. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for all that you do for our County. This is...when I had the opportunity to serve, I always felt that this was the one place that residence actually, anybody had an opportunity to come and you know kind speak truth to power to some degree. So thank you very much. Thank you. Our next agenda item is still under new business review of a gift disclosure statement received from the following County officer or employee. Madam Chair you had a motion to file that communication? You wanna take a quick vote on that and then we can dispose of that. Thank you! Aloha! Was there a second? Was there a second, I don't know? Second. Any discussion in regards to the gift disclosure statement? Oh no that was as to Mr. Adams' communication. I thought Mr. Goodenow did a motion to file. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Alright sorry we're going back to 4. a. motion to file. I think Mr. Robinson's letter. Oh right. Wasn't it? Mr. Robinson's letter? That's what you're talking about? I'm talking about Mr. Adams' letter when we brought it up Mr. Goodenow I thought made a motion to file the communication 15 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Motion and Vote: there was a second I think from Mr. Wiseman. And we just need to vote on that and then get that filed away and then move on to the next one. And then we do Robinson's one too? No that wasn't on the agenda. That was just a communication he wanted to share. But that wasn't placed on the agenda. Would that be included in the minutes. Be in the minutes. Yeah. Be included in the minutes...I think that's important that we do that. Thank you. The communication that we're talking about is that one that was received from Charter Chair Douglass Shipman Adams on and is dated August 1, 2018. We have a motion on the floor to accept and to file that communication...all in favor say aye. Any opposed? So that motion is carried. Apologize okay. And now moving on to new business b. Mr. Goodenow moved for a motion to file. Mr. Wiseman seconded. All members voted aye. b. Review of Gift Disclosure Statements received from the following County officer or employee. 1. Rose Bautista Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: And we have that here. I must have missed that. Thank you. Yes it goes along with several that we received last time for the same trip if I'm not mistaken there. We're just approving this. We're reviewing and unless you have a ...you wanna mention anything about it. I guess we move to file. I'll move to file. Ms. Sumner -Mack: Second. 16 Ms. Kahakalau: Okay we'll wait until Judge Wiseman has an opportunity to look at it and then I will call for the question if there is no further discussion. Mr. Wiseman: Yeah, okay. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. All in good favor say aye. Any opposed? Alright so that motion is carried. Thank you. Maika'i. Next item on the agenda is a communication dated August 10, 2018 from Bill Kikuchi regarding consideration of research in Claim No 17-0056. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to file. Ms. Sumner -Mack seconded. All members voted aye. c. Communication dated August 10, 2018 from Bill Kikuchi regarding consideration of research into Claim #17-0056. Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Yeah. I have some comments in that. Okay. Go ahead sir. Yeah. As you'll note, he's asking if the Board would consider this matter and I don't think we should. It's a legal question...so legal matter. His whole thing is a tree fell on his property, the County was gonna remove it, they asked him to sign a waiver. And he said according to him that he asked if signing the waiver would prevent any future claims and someone allegedly, an attorney said yes it will... or no it won't. So he could still bring future claims. So I have a lot of problems with that. It wasn't his lawyer. He didn't seek legal advice. We don't know what the lawyer really said. It could be taken out of context. There's a whole ramification in if he's gonna sue, he's claiming $18,000 for damages to his other trees when they removed the mango tree from the road. Yeah and this is strictly a legal matter. A lot of legal questions. A lot of facts to be discovered and I don't think it's within our parameters to do so. Thank you Judge Wiseman. Any other discussion? I guess we really have... I concur and I only note too that of the email that was given to us says...Corporation Counsel misspoke...it's not even saying that he you know lied or did...you know so I agree this really should be... He...they may have a claim in court, we don't know, as Judge Wiseman said but that's really the appropriate venue. 17 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: I need assistance as to what we do with this now please, from our Counsel. Yes Madam Chair so first of all we should probably have a motion to file the communication then we can discuss it further. Why don't we do that first? Mr. Goodenow: So moved. Mr. Wiseman: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Alright. Mr. Yoshimoto: Okay and so...at this point the Board has several options right...the Board could notify the...Mr. Kikuchi....basically what is done and it will not take any further action. We can do this by letter from the Chair or we could do it... Yeah I'm thinking that's the best way because this is not a petition so there is no opinion or anything to generate. This is just basically saying...we've received your request, we're not taking any further action at this time. Mr. Wiseman: Received and reviewed your request and it's not a matter for the Board to consider. Mr. Yoshimoto: Right. I think that would probably the...cause this is unusual...this hasn't happened right? Ms. Kahakalau: No. Mr. Yoshimoto: In our time here so. Mr. Wiseman: I would move that a short communication to that effect. Mr. Goodenow: I'd second that...along the lines explained by Mr. Yoshimoto. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. Mr. Yoshimoto: And the Chair be authorized to sign that on behalf of the Board. Mr. Goodenow: Yes. Ms. Kahakalau: Okay. So we still have the first motion as far as filing the communication. So can I ask for that question first? 18 Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Technically I think you gotta do the first...the other thing first before you close the file...I don't know. Oh okay, okay. Sorry about that alright so there is a motion to send the...to send a motion...I'm sorry. There's a motion to sign a letter...ah send a letter to Mr. Kikuchi explaining our process to him and that we don't feel that this is a matter for the Board. And we have a motion and a second in regards to that. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? So that motion is carried and then I guess we still need to file. Okay so we had an earlier...can we keep our earlier motion and second? Okay. Any discussion? All in favor of filing the communication say aye. Any opposed? So that motion is carried and thank you very much for that and for new business 4 d. we have one more communication dated 8/27/18 from Barbara Lively who is a Legislative Assistant in District 4. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved for motion to file. Mr. Wiseman seconded. All members voted aye. Mr. Wiseman moved for a motion to send communication to Mr. Kikuchi. Mr. Goodenow seconded. All members voted aye. d. Communication dated August 27, 2003 from Barbara Lively, Legislative Assistant, District 4, regarding Proposal Code Amendment: Ch. 2 Article 15 Code of Ethics and review of Bill introduced by Council Eileen O'Hara. Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Do we have any motion there to file the communication? Or any other motion? Well, yeah let's start with motion to file and we can always close with that. I move to file. Second. Alright. Any discussion? Well...I don't know we could just send a letter saying it's a policy decision. But I would like to say that if they do enact this, that they should provide a definition as to what is accurate and factual information. I don't...I don't know. I mean that's a...the way it's described here is Chapter 2. I'm looking at the Code of Ethics which has sections 2 in its Article 15 and then she says Chapter 2, Article 15 Code of Ethics. So is...I'd ask our legal counsel...is Article 15 within Chapter 2 of 19 something? The way the Code of Ethics I'm looking at...it's Article 15 Code of Ethics and then section 2 - and so on. So my question is...where she's saying code amendment to Chapter 2... Mr. Yoshimoto: Right. Mr. Wiseman: Article 15. Mr. Yoshimoto: So this is in Article 15. Correct. Yes. Mr. Wiseman: Okay. Mr. Yoshimoto: So she's basically just trying to add... Mr. Wiseman: It's actually section 2, should be section 2, Article 15. That's the way the codes are listed. Mr. Yoshimoto: Right. Mr. Wiseman: Section 279 through... Mr. Yoshimoto: You're correct, it is Section 2, Article 15. Yes. Mr. Wiseman: Alright, and if that's the case, there's no indication within those many pages what they want to amend. Or what's proposed... Mr. Yoshimoto: So on the second page, there's a draft of a Bill that the council is considering and they're basically proposing to yeah. Add the underlying portion on section 4. Mr. Wiseman: I don't have that but why don't you go ahead and explain it. Ms. Kahakalau: Yeah it's in the... Mr. Goodenow: I'll show you. Ms. Sumner -Mack: The second page of that. The attached. Mr. Wiseman: Somehow I don't have that. Mr. Goodenow: If you look at this code 2-83. I'd put it right there, that gives you a bigger picture of it if you look at it that way. I'd like to comment in that. So it's under the fair treatment section right and it's saying all officers, employees shall adhere to these precepts. Mr. Wiseman: I have that. Is this what the amendment? 20 Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: You know and says shall provide accurate...well I don't know...I mean...you may honestly believe something to be true and accurate when it may not factually be accurate. I...but I don't know if we should wade into a policy discussion here. My advice is to say that it it's a policy question. We only ask that you look at the definition section in that section and see if you might not provide. Well I don't know I... Personally I have problems but I don't know if it's really for us to be... You know I'm not the policy maker. I don't know what to do. I would suggest that we acknowledge receipt of it and... It is policy and this is for the council. Right. Well maybe we just respond that way. So just as a note, I didn't attend the last council meeting but what I was informed was, was that the council members specifically mentioned on the record that this matter...this Bill was being referred to the Board, this Board of Ethics for review and comments. So just so you know that... Oh. Well wouldn't we need a formal letter from the clerk or the chair saying that we're submitting this? That would be better. But then this is what happened basically. Her staff emailed this to me and asked us to be reviewed by the Board. I was told that's the representation that was made. Just so the Board is aware. Actually one problem I like the catch all...to the best of ability of the employee ability and knowledge...that's good. But I do have a...I shared a concern of the word accurate. We can go through with this all of us and find something that will serve the same purpose and be less demanding. That's a very demanding term...accurate. Yeah. Then I would also have a suggestion...that they include another word in number 3. Which would be...all persons shall be treated in a courteous, fair and impartial manner and with dignity. And with what? Dignity. Dignity. 21 Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Or in a dignified manner. But aren't the first 4 or 3 items already in the Charter? Yes. So they just wanna add number 4, so we're not really asked to rule anything on 3. Well I think they're asking for our opinion in general. And so if we have an opinion on 3, I don't think there's any problem with us forwarding that opinion to them. You know then it's up to them to figure out if that's what they want or not. I really like that dignity part. To me it spells aloha which is what we're all about so whether it's dignified you know added dignified in there or add with dignity. Yeah. Yeah. Fair and dignified manner. Or respectful. Would that be...would that work? Respectful manner. I like dignity. I like both. Respectful and dignified but I'd say in a courteous, fair and impartial manner with well... You know it's fine if we wanna throw that in. They ask for our opinion, we can give any answer back we want. And then perhaps as far as number 4 is concerned, taking out the "accurate" and just keeping the factual because you know I mean...technically you could say if it's factual than it should be accurate as well. Should be honest. What are they trying to get at right? Someone goes say through a department and the person doesn't tell um everything they should know right? Is it complete right? Or they're not...they're actually lying right? Would all that actually be covered by fair in number 3? I mean I don't know I just wonder...I just have trouble how else...cause we're the ones that are gonna have to define what is accurate and factual to the best of their abilities and knowledge. Well he should have known this. I don't know. I think really what we're trying to do is that everyone is fair and does the best job in serving the public that they cannot take in any favorites or that's what we're really getting at. Then again my advice is we send a letter saying thank you...it's a policy decision and then 22 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: maybe if anything add we are concerned however regarding the interpretation and would seek guidance on what is meant by just quoted...accurate, factual information to the best of each officers ability or...I don't know. It's my 2 cents. Sorry for being long winded today. I really like your suggestion about the complete and factual information because I know that that has been an issue with people going to County and not giving all the information and then they're halfway through the project and oh we weren't told that part...kind of thing so. From personal experience and from you know social media and all of that and even to a certain extent a little bit here as well over the years but I think that the part about the complete...I really like to and versus accurate...if we put "complete and factual" so if you're gonna draft a letter that I would like to include...if it's alright with everybody...that "dignified" part of in the number 3 and "complete and factual" in the other one. Just so that it...that that's very clear to the officers and employees and when somebody comes that the entire scenarios are explained. Right. Complete also sort of implies an accurate statement. Yeah. Okay. If so what I am hearing is that there may be a motion then to send the communication. I'll make a motion. Alright. I make a motion that with respect to the amendment sent to us by the Council...that we approve section be amended. We approve the amendment to section 4 or item 4, (a) 4 or section 2 of article 15 with respect, subject to a change in lieu of the word accurate that we use the word complete and I would. And in a further note, we would make a suggestion that item number 3...remove the word "and"...and after "impartial manner" place the words "in a dignified manner". Do we have a second. Should be "in a dignified manner". I'll second that motion. Any further discussion? Normally you wouldn't second the motion but anyway. As far as "dignified" then so there is no definition for dignified in the code. Is that something the Board wants to...because the Board will be...if this passes the Board will be charged with interpreting this section? I just want to make sure that if the Board is comfortable in the way it is right now...then that's... 23 Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Goodenow: We would use a common application of it. Okay. My question is that...what Mr. Wiseman has proposed isn't seemed to fit. The wording isn't quite...doesn't jive. Now maybe I got my green eye shade on this morning. Can you read us...read to us how you really want it to read. Alright. I would suggest in number 3 be changed to read all... persons shall be treated in a courteous, fair and impartial manner in a dignified... Could I make a suggestion? Impartial and dignified manner perhaps. How about...all person shall be treated with dignity in a courteous fair and impartial manner. Good. Not that I'm going to vote for it by the way. I'm not sure cause I have trouble with number 4. I'm thinking but I'm not sure yet. Thank you. I would amend my motion to use that language in lieu of mine with respect to the suggested number 3 change. All persons shall be treated with dignity in a courteous, fair and unpartial manner. Okay so what I'm hearing is that we may have an issue with 4 but not with 3. If we don't have any further discussion we can...I can call for the vote. And then we will see where...where we are at upset. Oh go ahead. Since we are exchanging... I don't see any reason to take out accurate in number 4. Why can't we just say...complete, accurate and factual information to the public. Why do we have to take out accurate? No. I mean personally I'm kind of against both because what is complete? I mean we're talking...so the guy goes in for a road variance and or something right and the guy says okay you gotta do this, this, and that and then you know he goes back and then later finds out he needs a water variance....so well why didn't you 24 tell me I needed a water variance...well you asked about the road variance. I think it's opening up a Pandora's Box. The bottom line is people should be treated fairly and courteously... and that goes without saying that the public official is not gonna lie, he's not gonna purposely mislead or withhold information that's needed. I can see putting it in there for the effect of just stating it. I grant you that. But I think defining what's accurate, complete, fair to the persons understanding at the time the advice was given. I think that needs to be tightened up personally. But my feeling is...it is policy and that should be the council and sorry I'm blabbering again. Thank you. Ms. Sumner -Mack: No. Excuse me but I'm...you know...I just think complete open does open it up. Because...but accurate...I mean I'm thinking about financial information. And I think accuracy is very important and I think that is an ethical issue and it could come up in terms of budgets and that's what I'm going to say I think. I'd like to keep the accurate. If you want to drop the complete, I'd be happy with that too. But I see no reason why we can't have both. Mr. Wiseman: The problem I have with the accurate too is... Okay let's say someone calls, oh can I get my tax assessment. I lost the bill or whatever. And the clerk accidentally transposes two numbers, right? Makes a mistake, now that person could sue or file a complaint...was that an ethics violation? I don't know, I have more questions than answers at this point. But again this is a policy call so, I'm not gonna go there. I'd just ask it be clear. Ms. Kahakalau: Judge Wiseman. Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: We're just offering an opinion on this proposed amendment. And apparently, if you look through the 4 items here under section 2. There's nothing in there that deals with giving someone information. It's just treatment, etc. So perhaps they have a good reason for putting something like that in there. That if you're going to be dealing with someone that you provide them factual information. I maintain opposition to the word accurate cause it implies...it implies almost is on the borderline of a legal definition...a legal Pandora's Box. So I'm sorta against that but the...we could just take out accurate and just leave it as without any adjective...just the factual information. But the people who are proposing this through the council or who have previously approved it...apparently had some basis for thinking that it would be important to stress this. And I think a bookkeeper, anybody who's charged with dispensing information 25 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: to the public, should be reminded constantly that they are responsible for providing complete, accurate and factual...or complete accurate, factual information...you could even take the "and" out. But I think some public employees do, they get rushed or they're negligent or they're waiting to go to lunch and they don't give you the whole facts and I have suffered from this. And they have given inaccurate information. And I think it...you know it doesn't hurt for us to come through and on the side of saying...it's an expected service. Anyway, that's enough for me. The motion on the floor is still complete and factual and the person who introduced that motion is against the accurate part so as far as the amendment... Move to amend it. It might get voted down or you can just forward with the way it is. Accurate again just one more statement on discussion. Accurate... you know it opens up a legal challenge. Someone has a 2 instead of a 3 that was innocently put in there...you're gonna challenge it...you didn't give me accurate information cause she said $2 instead of $3 ...even though it was an innocent mistake...it opens the door for challenges. Not to say that the others don't, but not to the degree that an accurate...it's like a CPA statement...must be accurate. But less than that...so I mean...the same purpose can be accomplished by complete and factual or if you want put something in there in lieu of accurate. Can always put honest but that's sort of going through a... Anyway I maintain on my motion. Okay. Are we ready to vote? Okay, all in favor of approving our latest motion say aye. Anybody opposed? So we have 2 opposed and 2 forward. So the motion does not carry. So we just file. I move that we write a letter and state that it's a policy matter and we leave it to the council though we request that any definition...we consider providing definitions for interpretation and just leave it at that. Any seconds? I know that we don't even write back I guess. I would amend that but again second to suggest a different word than accurate. If we're not going to...but then, then it defeats the purpose. Anyway withdraw that. Having served in public places, libraries and such...as a bookkeeper and a record keeper, I think accuracy is very important and I think that as an ethics advisory it behooves us to stress that, 26 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: that accuracy is a...an ethical issue. If you choose not to be accurate...if you choose to fudge the numbers...that's a violation of ethics not... And completeness as more vague to me but I don't object to that but I really think it's important for everyone to keep in mind that accuracy is...is a matter of honesty in some cases. So just to go back we have a motion but I'm not too sure if it was seconded. No it wasn't. It wasn't right so... My motion is we just respond back saying thank you...this is a policy call that the council can make. We only ask that guidance be provided regarding definitions used in the amendment. Do we hear a second for that? I still have a problem with the word accurate. Here's the definition to the accurate...correct, precise, exact, right, error free, perfect... It's crazy. In dealing with a government, government stand is although I agree with Nan, in that they should reach that level or strive for that level it's very rarely achieved. I'm gonna then, I mean the other option is which goes against my, what I just said why I was voting, not to be involved in the policy decision. But we could say, as written, we do not support...given concerns over definitions...given concern over the word accurate and the lack of other definitions. Accurate is not normally construed to be imperfect. It would be if there's no definition or we had to... Well we'd have to have a definition but...but it doesn't ordinarily assert perfection. In my experience. Well so in this case now. A. We have a motion we still don't have a second and basically all we're asking is that they will define, right? Clearly define whatever they mean by these... The terms used. 27 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Yeah. By the terns that are being used currently which include accurate. Don't dismiss the catch all language...to the best of each employee's abilities and knowledge...now that puts an obligation there to come out with everything that they know about it. So do we have a second for the latest motion? Which was? Are we going with we're not supporting...I prefer my...the motion that I thought is pending that we... It's we write a letter back thanking them stating that it's a policy call. We only ask as the body to interpret any amendments that the terms be clearly defined. And we could put including but not limited to accurate...if you want to...but I don't have that I'm just saying that it'd be clearly defined. So that would be the motion. Do I hear a second? Okay for the purpose of discussion, I going to second it. Do we have any discussion? If not, I'll call for the question. Oh, sorry. I can go along with that motion however I would like to add with respect to a definition to be defined in particular the word accurate. Good. I support that. Do we have a friendly amendment to that motion? Is the person who seconded...in agreement to that, okay. I support it. I think that's a good suggestion. That's alright. There'll be 3 against... They're asking us as an ethics body to... If they left it in, then the accurate would be in there. It will just be a definition that they would provide. Yeah. So at this point we are not suggesting any changes to the...as presented here. But we are asking for definitions for each of the words...specifically accurate. Mr. Goodenow: We're stating we're taking no position on the substantive. 28 Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Kahakalau: Because it's a policy. Call for the council. Alright, any further discussion? Counsel? So I'm trying to make sure. So the motion is to ask for a definition of accurate... Just send a letter back thanking them for our...their request and stating that as...regarding the substance of the amendment we defer to the council being the policy-making body...however we do request guidance regarding the definition of the terms used in the amendment in particular the word accurate. Okay. Are you leaving out any reference to item 3? Yeah...at this point we're not making any changes to the ordinance amending...amendment at this point and time. Right cause that first motion failed right, okay. With this motion...no amendments...just definition specifically... accurate. Right. I move for the question. And can I say including but not limited to the term accurate. Just so they don't think well that's the only problem. I'm also wondering about this other thing here. Okay so we're deferring so we're not commenting on this. Other than to request a definition. So the Board is okay with...well not okay...it's deferring without comment as to the...okay just so it's clear because then this is gonna be in a letter from the Chair to the Council member. Okay. Now calling for the question. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Ms. Sumner -Mack: Oh...you got three. Mr. Goodenow: But you gotta record it. Ms. Sumner -Mack: Oh... oh...no. 29 Ms. Kahakalau: So we have 3 ayes and 1 nay. Ms. Sumner -Mack: Nay... sorry. Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: But the motion is carried. Turning attention the item 3. I would move that the...just a short a...suggestion. That, that item 3 be amended to read that the...what was it Ken that language All persons shall be treated with dignity in a courteous, fair and impartial manner. Yes. Do I have a second on that? Ms. Sumner -Mack: Second. Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Kahakalau: Just to clarify. This isn't in...this is just a...wait we're asking that they consider code amendment. Yes. So via separate letter or in the same letter? Same...I would think the same letter would be okay. Yeah, same letter would be fine. Well my only issue with that is now are we taking a substantive position. So I can vote no and the three of you can vote yes. Friendly suggestion is what I would consider it you know. Okay... So just as an FYI...so just as a quick word search. Dignity is a state of...the state of quality of being worthy of honor or respect. So that's the common definition that I quickly pulled up right...so just that we know what we were suggesting...because this Board will be charged if passed to interpret that. So as long as the Board's okay with that then...that's where we're gonna go. Yes. And I think respect was mentioned earlier it is similar. Okay so any further discussions? Calling for the question. All in favor, 30 Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: say aye. Any opposed? Okay so yeah. 1 opposed and 3 ayes which means the motion is carried. I have one detailed motion. I would also make a motion that the item 3 as Ken suggested being a separate letter. Oh... okay. I would prefer that. Alright. Just say that the Board of Ethics reviewing the section 15, section 2-83 would like to request that this be added. Yeah cause it wouldn't be consistent with... So it's a motion? It'll just be a separate letter. Okay so we don't have to vote on it...I'm okay with that as well. Thank you. I don't think we need an official motion. Okay. Regarding to the filing of the communication... We could send it one week later...just kidding. In regard to the filing also communication. Okay so just as a...for information purposes right? My recollection was that we're the only County that has this provision...that calls for courteous, fair and impartial treatment so now we're...by this amendment this Board is refining that to... To stress the underline dignity of all human beings. So that I'm clear...by adding the word "with dignity" that expands the responsibility...increases the responsibility right of County and employees and officials. Correct? Yeah. Right...I mean that's what we're doing. 31 Mr. Goodenow: Yes my lord. Mr. Yoshimoto: No...I'm just asking the question. Okay...I'm just curious alright we're good. Ms. Kahakalau: Filing? Do we still need to...don't need to...any further motion or... Mr. Goodenow: We had a motion to file. Ms. Kahakalau: Yeah. Mr. Yoshimoto: Right. Mr. Goodenow: So we gotta have the vote or how else to close it. Ms. Kahakalau: So can I call for the question then? All in favor of filing the communication say aye. Any opposed? Alright that motion is carried unanimously. Wonderful. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved the motion to file. Mr. Wiseman seconded the motion. All members voted aye. Mr. Goodenow moved to send a communication Council O'Hara. Ms. Kahakalau seconded the motion. 3 Members voted aye with 1 nay. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (10:34 a.m.) Ms. Kahakalau: Our next item off the agenda is usually unfinished business...however since there is no unfinished business we're moving right into the executive session where are looking at all kinds of tasks. Primarily, the minutes and then the review of our confidential disclosure forms we have received 4 with 1 being a re- review. So if we can have a motion to go into executive session. Ms. Sumner -Mack: I shall move. Ms. Kahakalau: Any second? Mr. Goodenow: For the purpose of...did you say all that. Ms. Kahakalau: I sort of mumbled it. Mr. Goodenow: You said it...we're fine...I'll second. 32 Ms. Kahakalau: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Alright so we are going to go into executive session at this point and time. Motion and Vote: Ms. Sumner -Mack moved to go into executive session. Mr. Goodenow seconded the motion. All members voted aye. 11:23 a.m. The Board moved into executive session. * * * * 11:50 a.m. The Board returned from executive session. 6. VOTING ON EXECUTIVE SESSION MATTERS (11:50a.m.) a. Review of the executive session minutes of June 12, 2018. Ms. Kahakalau: I would like to call the meeting of the Hawaii County Board of Ethics back to order at 11:50. We are corning out of executive session and I'm looking for a motion for the approval of the executive session minutes. Ms. Sumner -Mack: So moved. Mr. Wiseman: Second. Ms. Kahakalau: Great. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? So the executive session minute of August 14, 2018 are approved. Motion and Vote: Ms. Sumner -Mack moved for a motion to approve minutes of the executive session. Mr. Wiseman seconded. 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: Anything in regards to the confidential disclosure forms? Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Ms. Sumner -Mack: No. We don't need a motion do we? It's just to file. Well I move that we accept and file the 4 reports...disclosure statements forms. Second? Second. 33 Ms. Kahakalau: Okay, any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? So that has been filed. It's approved to be filed. Our next agenda item is number 7. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to file all the items. Ms. Sumner -Mack seconded. 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. (11:53 a.m.) Ms. Kahakalau: Which we have been fortunate to have our Vice -Chair Goodenow taking the lead on. Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Ms. Kahakalau: Well yes though I kind of stumbled this time. So here's where we are as I see it...we need to review chapters 5 and 6. Oh sorry I...just to make sure I have it right I'm gonna look at it. We've already done rules 1 through 4. 5, 6 and 7 are all related and that's kind of the hefty, heavy lifting that's the hearing process right then the formal hearing process as well. And so and then we have 8 and 9 which are kind of just simple and short. So we have 2 more reviews and then I believe that our 2 Members here at my end of the table are going to kind of act as the language/proofreading...you know the language is consistent and any kind of edits like that. I mean even I think like Hawaiian diacritical marks if we need that...that kind of thing. So that's 3 reviews and then one final by corp. counsel...but that could actually be kind of simultaneous with the last review. So I don't know if we'll finish by the end of the year but we're close and I was gonna try and do the review of rules 5, 6, and 7 at this meeting but because Mr. Robinson wasn't going to be here cause we a have the charter stuff and because the whole back wall of my office after the hurricane they had to dig it out...take my bookshelves down...water had come in from the building. Fortunately, it's not my insurance that covers it's the building. Cause it came from outside, so I don't have to pay. But things are in disarray and I couldn't find the...my computer got moved and I couldn't find the word version of our rules. My secretary's gonna kill me if I lost them, she'll have to re -do it. But for those reasons I thought ah, we'll just put it off one meeting. I appreciate your patience. I wanna know what...I'm sorry kala mai. What does that mean? Kala is to forgive. So kala mai means please excuse me. Excuse me or to forgive literally. 34 Ms. Sumner -Mack: Thank you. Ms. Kahakalau: And I am...unconsciously using Hawaiian and so thank you for asking. It is one of our State languages so I could hold this whole meeting in Hawaiian if I chose to do so, however until we normalize the language again, I will restrict myself. But as I said unconsciously... Ms. Sumner -Mack: No, I love it. I love it and I want to learn more words so don't hold back. Ms. Kahakalau: To using some of the more commonly known verbiage but please ask anytime. I'm not doing it on purpose it just kind of happens. Ms. Sumner -Mack: No, I like that but I just don't have a Hawaiian dictionary. Ms. Kahakalau: So do we have any further discussion in regards to the amendments or the plan to get through amendment from 5 to 9. Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Kahakalau: I'll put something out for the next meeting, you guys will get it in your packets and I know that's not a lot of time to review but basically all I'm gonna do is what I've been doing. I'm gonna do a chart with our charter and the other counties. If anyone has suggestions bring it up at the meeting. I think that format has been very helpful for me. Easy to look at and it's thought provoking because sometimes there's something in another charter that completely lacks in ours or its presented in a different way and it just kind gives me some idea of which direction I, we could go into as we are looking at amendments so I appreciate that procedure. It definitely works for me. Mr. Goodenow: Thank you. Ms. Sumner -Mack: And so that's going to be on October 15? Ms. Kahakalau: So that's...that's going to be our next item if we're finished with the discussion regarding the amendments. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGES TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS MONTHLY MEETING SCHEDULE. (11:57 a.m.) Ms. Kahakalau: At this point we have it scheduled for October 15, 2018, however both myself as well as Judge Wiseman won't be able to make that meeting since I'll be out the country and he'll be out of the islands. 35 Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: We're not a 100% sure about Mr. Robinson. However, there was an informal suggestion earlier in terms of possibly postponing that meeting to a November meeting. I don't know. Do we have to have a monthly meeting scheduled and then cancel it or could we just say there doesn't seem to be much business, quorum's a problem...we're gonna just wait till November. Is that legit? Well we have two options right if the members know they're not available on that particular day, we don't have quorum then we can just...cancel that and reschedule for November. I think I have November 15th as the next...oh 13 I'm sorry...November 13. There's no or else We don't know whether Mr. Robinson's available or not available but we know for sure that 2 of us won't be here. And I have court at 11 that I can't change so I'd only be available for 50 minutes. Okay. In November...I'm off for a week on November 10th 10th. So we'd have to change that November meeting. So right now it's scheduled for the 13th. What would work for you? I have any time before the 10th or after the 18tH So that the 20th would be the 6th or the 20th...as far as Tuesday is concern. I don't know what the calendar looks like as far using the room Maria? I have an administrative hearing that morning. On which day? The 20th at 8...and I think it would be hard to change...I just had it changed. What about the 6th? 36 Ms. Pagala: Election Day. Ms. Sumner -Mack: That's right, it's Election Day. Ms. Kahakalau: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Goodenow: Mr. Wiseman: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Yoshimoto: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Kahakalau: Mr. Goodenow: Ms. Sumner -Mack: It's Election Day. That would be better maybe because we won't have...we won't meet again until that day so it might be better to have it earlier. Yeah. Is everybody okay with the 6th being Election Day? The room I'm sure is being used as a part of the counting center. But I meant well we could try Wednesday. We could do the 5t''. Yeah I guess I could. Wednesday...we don't have to do it on Tuesday. Yeah Wednesday the 7t'' I'm free. I've got court at 8:30 but it's short. I would definitely be available at 10. What about the 7t''. good...at this point. So what we'll do then...we'll check with the staff to see if this room is available on either of those dates and we'll let you know. That's probably the best way cause we need to get a location. I would move however well...so we're gonna leave the 15t'' though we all well as a wink and a nod we know there won't be quorum and it'll get canceled. It's gonna be canceled because of quorum. Okay. Then the next meeting I move that we suspend the rules and have the November meeting either on November 5t'' or 7t'' or as determined by the Chair. Okay. That sounds good. Second? We need a second. Second. 37 Ms. Kahakalau: Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Alright so we have that 5, 7 or discretion of the Chair for our November meeting. Motion and Vote: Mr. Goodenow moved to suspend the rules and change the regular scheduled meeting date to September 5t1' or 7th or as determined by the Chair. Ms. Sumner -Mack Seconded. All members voted aye. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS (12:01 p.m.) Ms. Kahakalau: And any other announcements. Anything? 10. ADJOURNMENT (12:01 p.m.) Ms. Kahakalau: Then I will...l will adjourn this meeting at 12:01. Respectfully submitted: Maria Pagala, Secretary 38