COH Home | CC Home | About | FAQ | Attorneys | Practice Groups | Legal Opinions | Court Documents | Employment | Contact | Resources |
From
the Desk of Archives |
|
The
Countys lawsuit against UniDev is returned to State court. On December 24, 2009, the United States Federal
District Court for the District of Hawaii entered an order recommending the County
of Hawaiis lawsuit filed against the developer of the Waikoloa Housing Project
be returned (remanded) to the state court. The
County had made this request of the federal court after the developer, UniDev, had removed
(transferred) the case to federal court. Defendants
in lawsuits often try to remove the case from state to federal court, since
they attempt to avoid the jurisdiction and rules of the state court, which they generally
believe are not favorable to them.
Earlier
this year on July 1, 2009, the County filed this lawsuit against UniDev, alleging UniDev
made false claims for payment against the County, intentionally made numerous false
representations and provided false documentation that induced the County to provide
funding for the workforce housing, and failed to obtain prior approval before entering
into various consultant contracts.
The
federal court also recommended the Countys request for attorneys fees and
costs in bringing this action to remand also be granted, finding that UniDevs
arguments for removal were objectively unreasonable.
The
County of Hawaii is being represented by Assistant Corporation Counsel Katherine A.
Garson and Deputy Corporation Counsel Laureen Martin.
Both attorneys are experienced litigators and members of our Fraud Division.
If
you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us,
or via telephone at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This
message was posted on December 24, 2009, at 1:30 p.m.
What
really happened with the West Hawaii Todays lawsuit against the Hawaii
County Council. On October 13, 2009 the
West Hawaii Today and County entered into a settlement agreement disposing of all
allegations and claims made by the newspaper against the Hawaii County
Council. The WHT earlier sued the Council, claiming the Council had violated
Hawaiis Sunshine Law since more than four members of the Council
discussed the possible reorganization of leadership in June of 2009 outside of an
officially noticed meeting. The WHT also claimed more than two Council members
participated in an April 2009 trip to Oahu to lobby State legislators; the WHT alleges
that during this trip official board business was discussed and agreements
were made to submit and pass legislation once the councilors returned to the Big Island.
In
my previous service to our community as a prosecutor, I was involved in many cases
followed and reported by our local media. As previously expressed in past website
messages, no doubt it is difficult for reporters (through no fault of their own) with
limited legal background and limited column space to sometimes accurately and completely
report on legal events. Public misinformation is further proliferated through
thoughtless and inaccurate public commentary found throughout the internet. We noted
at least one blogger was someone who held themselves out as an attorney and was offering
commentary. As all competent trial
attorneys know, actual knowledge of the crucial details of a case is necessary in order
for credible and accurate commentary to be offered. If
not, misrepresentations and misinformation grow legs and begin to walk around as
facts. This case was no different.
The original allegation
On
June 18, 2009, the attorney for the West Hawaii Today filed a formal complaint with
the State of Hawaii Office of Information Practices, alleging that the Sunshine Law
had been violated. In its statement of facts, the newspaper stated as
follows:
During
the discussions, several council members referred to a meeting between Council Chair J
Yoshimoto, County Clerk Kenneth Goodenow and Pete Hoffmann, in which Yoshimoto apparently
told Hoffmann he had five votes to make the measures pass even without
Hoffmanns support. Hoffmann provided an account of this conversation.
That conversation took place Wednesday, June 10.
This
complaint to OIP was premised on the erroneous belief there was discussion among the
five majority members. The following heated exchange occurred at the
June 16, 2009 meeting of the Council:
MS.
FORD: Excuse me, am I going to be allowed to comment without
interruption?
MR. GOODENOW: The Rules say that you should speak on the merits or demerits of
the bill
MS. FORD: I am.
MR. GOODENOW: I think we are straying from
MS. FORD: I dont think we are because we have a Sunshine Law
violation here and we have some untruths being spoken to different Council Members in
order to round up the votes. And now I find out that five of you have agreed to these
resolutions before we even got our boards or, at least, before I got my board.
The
allegation Mr. Yoshimoto spoke with at least four other Council members was further
proliferated in WHTs court documents. This was stated and repeated in court
documents filed on July 10, 2009, July 15, 2009, and July 16, 2009.
The
unfortunate injustice is this misinformation was not stopped when it should have
been. As the WHT loaded up to attack the Council Chair for his apparent
admission he spoke with four other Council members, the County was placed in
the position of having to defend individual Council members from threats made by the WHT
that they would be seeking a criminal prosecution. On September 2, 2009, in
notifying the County the WHT intended to amend their complaint to include the allegations
involving the Oahu trip, their attorney notified me via email as follows:
Based
on the newly discovered information I will be making a referral of the matter to the
Attorney General and Prosecuting Attorney. I will copy you on those referrals as
soon as they are completed.
Hoffmann NEVER said
Yoshimoto spoke with four others
In
defending against the WHTs request for a temporary restraining order, the County
submitted to the Court an affidavit from Mr. Yoshimoto stating he did not tell,
suggest, imply, or infer to Mr. Hoffmann that (he) had five votes to pass the subject
reorganization resolutions. There was some criticism from the public as well
as two Council members who at the time questioned why an affidavit from Mr. Hoffmann was
not included. This discussion with the Council was occurring in open session, and it
would have been legally and ethically improper for me to respond publicly.
Here
is a copy of Mr. Hoffmanns affidavit. As you can see,
Mr. Hoffmann makes clear Mr. Yoshimoto never said he spoke with any other Council member
other than Dennis Onishi and Guy Enriques. If
this statement of having five votes was made (either by Mr. Yoshimoto or Mr.
Hoffmann), it was a simple recognition that Mr. Yoshimoto did not need to speak with Council Members Donald
Ikeda and Emily Nae`ole, as it was likely they would support the proposed reorganization.
Thus
the WHTs case with respect to allegations Mr. Yoshimoto spoke with four
others had no factual basis. What was left was their allegation the total
number of Council members involved in the discussion (whether for or against the
reorganization) exceeded four. This meant at least one of the minority
members of the Council would have to be part of the serial communication
in order for their lawsuit to stick.
After
it was revealed what Mr. Hoffmann would say if called to testify, the WHT amended their
lawsuit a second time to include the allegations that the majority members
violated the Sunshine Law while on their trip to the State Legislature.
Why were private attorneys
necessary for some Council members?
When
the WHT attorney threatened in writing to make a referral of the matter to the
Attorney General and the Prosecuting Attorney, our office was ethically obliged to
consult with another County client, the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, to determine
if they would waive any conflict of interest if we continued to represent individual
Council members with respect to issues related to their possible criminal misconduct. Although the likelihood of a criminal prosecution
under these facts was remote at best, we followed our responsibility under the
Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct. After
consultation, the Prosecuting Attorney administration refused to waive conflict. What this meant was the Corporation Counsel would
not be allowed to represent individual Council members with respect to their potential
criminal liability exposure.
Some
will say in hindsight this was a waste of time and money.
The County will be required to pay the legal fees and costs of the private
attorneys hired. However this action was
necessitated by threats made by the WHT (it is our understanding such a referral was never
made). The threat was made before the commencement of the evidentiary hearing
in Court where the WHT had subpoenaed all nine Council members. This is why it was necessary to have private
counsel on board for individual Council members, and not wait to see what
happens. On September 10, 2009, we
notified each Council member in writing as to the WHTs threats and the Prosecuting
Attorneys decision to not waive any conflict of interest.
So was there a Sunshine Law
violation prior to the first reorganization attempt?
The
WHT claims victory in their paper and boasts of the landmark ruling since the
Court issued a temporary restraining order. No doubt this order motivated the
Council to undo their reorganization (and provides the basis for the payment of a portion
of the WHT attorney fees); the County does not dispute that. However the simple fact
is it was an order of limited duration (this is why it is called temporary and
why an evidentiary hearing on the preliminary and permanent injunction is required by
Court rule). Further, the order never came into effect so as to block
any action of the Council, since the Council undid their reorganization prior to the
effective date of the order. The hearing on the preliminary injunction (which would
have led to a definitive judicial finding of whether the Council violated the Sunshine
Law) was halted because of this settlement.
The
WHT initiated settlement negotiations in this case, not the County. Their initial offer of October 1, 2009 required the
County to admit there was a Sunshine Law
violation in the June 16 reorganization effort, and pay
all attorney fees and costs. This was rejected by the County on October 9, 2009.
The
Countys offer of settlement dated October 9, 2009 required a
complete dismissal of all claims with prejudice, and the payment of only a portion of the
WHTs attorney fees. This was accepted by
the WHT on October 12, 2009.
So
will we ever know if there was a Sunshine Law violation? OIP continues their
investigation. It is very possible they may find a Sunshine Law violation occurred,
but as we submitted from the inception of this case, any violation was inadvertent.
Then again, they may find no violation, since there is no evidence at any one time more
than four members of the Council who discussed the reorganization were either
for or against the measure. There is a reason their opinion
is taking so long. It is an unsettled area of the law and no OIP or Attorney General
legal opinions exist. It is a case of first impression for the Sunshine
Law.
In
any event, the setting aside of the action taken, or redoing the action (as the Council
had done in this case) is the only practical remedy found in
Hawaiis Sunshine Law. This was
done early on by the Council (before the TRO came into effect); this is the reason the
Court granted the Countys motion to dismiss a portion of the WHT lawsuit as moot. There was no other pound of flesh the
WHT could extract from the Council majority.
When
interviewed by a WHT reporter on October 13, 2009, I asked the County be given a fair
chance to express its reaction to the settlement of this lawsuit. I indicated a
balanced playing field was necessary for the public benefit, and expressed my reservations
since the recent article on the Brenda Ford lawsuit written by a Hawaii
Tribune-Herald reporter appeared in the WHT, but with all of my comments eliminated.
What
was not reported in the WHT article about the WHT case was our observation this
lawsuit revealed this was not an East Hawaii versus West
Hawaii or Majority versus Minority issue. In order for a
Sunshine Law violation to stick, it was clear members from both East and West
Hawaii, as well as from the majority and minority factions
of the Council were necessarily involved in discussions. In a time of public
divisiveness this was a very important development. In my recent observations and
discussions with the Council, I find their on camera and in the heat of
the meeting actions somewhat more theater than malice towards one another.
Their non-meeting interaction with one another differs dramatically and is professional
and warm.
I
was also asked by the WHT reporter what I believed the Council learned from this
experience. I always look for the positive in things; even difficult and trying
circumstances present learning opportunities for the future.
Again what was not reported was my observation that the litigation process,
although at times difficult for many members, had the product of galvanizing the entire
Council. Whether East or West or majority or minority, the Council understands its
successes in the future will be the direct result of their willingness to cordially and
professionally interact with one another, whether they agree or disagree on contentious
County issues. This by far is the best development in this case. A recent WHT
editorial talks about winning or losing the lawsuit. This
bravado is not important for the County. What is important is the recognition the
only party we should fight for is the community we all serve. To this end this
settlement that brings an end to the litigation and serves as the catalyst for healthier
Council relations in the future will indeed serve the people.
If
you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us,
or via telephone at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This
message was posted on October 16, 2009, at 8:45 a.m.
Money paid
out and collected by the County in 2008-2009. The Office of the
Corporation Counsel was asked to provide information about taxpayer money paid out in
litigation cases in fiscal year 2008-2009. We
were also asked for information concerning efforts made over the past year in the
collection of delinquent accounts for water, solid waste, and other service fees due the
County. This information will be included as
part of the Countys annual report required by our laws.
The
office settled six major lawsuits during the fiscal year for a total of $3,595,500. The potential monetary liability exposure for these
cases was $8,302,000. The difference between
the potential exposure and actual settlement amount was +$4,706,500 in favor of the
County. Of the
$3,595,500 in settlement for the fiscal year, $3.4 of it is attributable to one case.
In the aforementioned case,
a Department of Environmental Management tractor trailer was traveling northbound on Queen
Kaahumanu Highway when a small pickup truck slowed to turn into an access road to
Kiholo Beach Park. The County driver was unable to slow and stop, striking the rear
of the pickup truck causing it to careen across the highway where it impacted with a Ford
F-150. The driver of the Ford F-150 had
medical expenses totalling approximately $368,000.00, but will incur potential future
medical costs. He has since returned to work in almost a full capacity but has significant
loss of function of his legs and foot. The $3.4 million will be paid over time with
the last installment due in 2012.
Two
other major cases were dismissed by court order (one case remains on appeal), and three
cases were partially dismissed.
There were 65 claims for
damages against the County investigated. The
total amount paid for all valid claims was $54,974.
What is the County doing to
reduce its liability exposure in future years? The
brutal reality is any government body offering a wide range of services to the public will
be exposed to a certain degree of liability. With over 2,300 employees and a number of
direct services such as police, fire, solid waste, water, recreation and sanitation
offered to the public, there will be times when injury occurs and the County will need to
be held financially responsible. As
illustrated above, the $3.5 million incurred during the past fiscal year involved just six
cases, with one case accounting for $3.4 million of the total. Suffice it to say these were major cases involving
extraordinary factual circumstances and thankfully represent the exception and not the
norm. Mitigating future liability is addressed
through the Countys Risk Management Division responsible for assessing what
happened, how it can be avoided in the future, and what steps the County can take to
address the risk factors. To this end, the
County welcomes input and recommendations from the public we serve whenever there are any concerns. Please contact our office and we will make sure the
Risk Management Division is notified.
With
respect to collections on delinquent accounts owed the County, the total collected for the
fiscal year totaled $4,317,833. This
represents actual cash in hand, and not promissory notes or other promises to pay in the
future. Special recognition goes to Deputy
Corporation Counsel Molly Lugo who heads our collection unit and effort while balancing
the rest of her legal work and caseload.
If
you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or via telephone at
(808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on October 7, 2009, at 8:15 p.m.
Council
Sunshine Law Lawsuit: Not a legal conflict, but a political
conflict. On July 23, 2009, Third
Circuit Court Administrative Judge Ron Ibarra ruled on the West Hawaii Todays
motion for a temporary restraining order. The
WHT originally sued the Hawaii County Council, alleging they violated the State
Sunshine Law (open meetings law) and sought to have the reorganization of the
Councils leadership voided, as well as all official action taken by the Council
since the reorganization. After the lawsuit
was filed, the WHT filed an additional request with the Court, asking that an order be
immediately issued preventing the Council from transacting any official business.
Judge
Ibarra denied the WHTs request for the immediate issuance of an injunction. Instead, the Court ordered an injunction will issue
at 6:00 p.m. on August 5, 2009. Why this is
significant is because the Council has scheduled a meeting the day before (August 4, 2009)
and plans to revert back to the leadership lineup that was in place prior to June 16,
2009. For all practical purposes, so long as
the Council follows through on what was unanimously decided at its most recent Council
meeting on July 22, 2009, Judge Ibarras order will be effectively moot, and there
will be no need for the injunction.
During
the briefing with the Council on July 22, 2009, a question was posed by two Council
members why certain legal action was taken by our office in the defense of the Council in
this lawsuit. A recent newspaper article
written by a WHT reporter (the same WHT that has sued the County) questioned whether our
office had a legal conflict of interest in the representation of the many parties involved
in this lawsuit. The real question and issue
should be focused on the Council members involved,
and whether they have a political conflict that
prevents them from fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to the County they serve.
Copied
below are our answers (in blue) to questions posed by the WHT reporter, many of which were
omitted from their newspaper article:
My
questions are of the "serve many masters" variety. How does a Corporation
Counsel in general (and I guess you in particular) handle the demands of differing
clients?
These demands
can be significant. The key is identifying the true client. For
example in the case of the Council, it is the Council as a whole that is the
organizational client whose interest we are obligated to protect.
Individual members and their personal interests are not clients of the Corporation
Counsel. Of course Council members take action (or inaction) on behalf of the
organizational client we represent, but so long as they are not named as defendants in
their personal capacity, there should be no conflict in our representing the
organization, even if they have different views. This is where it can be confusing
for Council members, and I understand that.
In the recent
Council reorganization discussion, the first thing we asked all Council members is to
spend some time thinking whether they have a personal view about the
reorganization, or a personal interest. Anyone can have a view, and that
doesnt place you in conflict. However if you have a personal interest that
differs from the organizational client, the Council member may have a problem.
When the WHT
filed their motion for the TRO, it was clear the interest of the organizational client
Council was to oppose any order that would prohibit it from unduly performing their
official duties. No Council member disagreed with that. The WHT targeted Chairman J
Yoshimoto asserting he had willfully violated the Sunshine Law. Had the Court found
there had been a willful violation, it would be more likely to immediately grant the TRO,
instead of delaying the implementation of the order as the Court eventually did.
In Court, we
presented evidence on behalf of the Council that Mr. Yoshimoto disputed any allegation he
had actually spoke with more than a quorum of members prior to his contacting Mr.
Hoffmann. The statement of Mr. Hoffmann that contradicted Mr. Yoshimoto was already part
of the record and the County stipulated (agreed) the Court could consider it. This
raised questions by Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Yagong. After discussing this with Mr.
Hoffmann, he understood the legal need for the Council to take this position, and
appreciates this had nothing to do with any assertion he was not telling the truth.
In fact, in discussing this with Mr. Hoffmann, he acknowledged that Mr. Yoshimoto never
said he spoke with Mr. Ikeda and Ms. Nae`ole. It was not unreasonable to
conclude that even if that statement of having five votes was made, Mr.
Yoshimoto correctly concluded Mr. Ikeda and Ms. Nae`ole would support him, as they have
historically done in the past. I urge you to confirm this with Mr. Hoffmann;
there appears to be some severe public confusion and misunderstanding that Mr. Hoffmann
reported that Mr. Yoshimoto in fact said he actually spoke to Mr. Ikeda and Ms.
Nae`ole. This is simply not true.
In the case of
Mr. Yagong, he questioned whether there was preferential treatment for Mr.
Yoshimoto. This raises more concern regarding a conflict of interest on his
part. The question each Council member needs to ask is What outcome do I want
to see in this lawsuit? If the answer is a finding of a willful violation
against any of its members, then there is a problem. This is because the actions of any
member will be construed as the actions of the Council, since all nine members were
sued in their official capacities. If any Council member is in a position where they
are advocating for a result (or otherwise has a personal interest in the result)
inconsistent with that of the Council as a whole, they need to carefully consider whether
they are abiding by their fiduciary responsibility as a County officer. I am not
suggesting Mr. Yagong or any member is in conflict; but this is why we emphatically asked
each member to take some time to think about it, and even discuss it with a private
attorney if they wanted to.
So the short
answer is there is no short answer. Handling different demands of County
clients can be difficult, but our Rules of Professional Conduct (Hawaii Supreme
Court rules) guide us.
Would
you say your 1st responsibility is to:
1) the public 2) the administration that hires you 3) the council 4) the council chair 5)
the council majority?
Our first
responsibility is to the public. No question about that. In fact the Rules of
Professional Responsibility provide there is no attorney-client privilege with respect to
government waste or abuse.
However what is
not clearly understood by many is although we are public servants, the public at large is not
our client. The brutal reality is the judicial system in our country is an
adversarial one with both sides of any conflict having the right to zealous legal
representation. Courts are called upon to oversee these disputes, and require both
sides follow rules of practice and procedure that seek to discover the truth. The
Councils reorganization best exemplifies this. Those that are critical of the
Councils decision to reorganize also criticize our office for defending the actions
of the majority vote of the Council. They incorrectly conclude that since we are
public servants, we somehow have a duty to advocate the personal views of some
members of the public. I understand why they feel this way, and will never criticize
anyone for having views. But the reality is our job is to represent the majority vote
(not members) of legally defensible Council action. During the previous Council
term, when other members of our Council comprised the majority, similarly our role was to
advocate and defend the legally defensible actions taken by the majority vote of
the Council. This is something that happens all the time, I dont recall ever
hearing any criticism of the legal services provided by our office. I suppose it is
getting much more attention today since the conflicts between some Council members
concerning the reorganization appear to be more political than legal.
The other
entities you mention (administration, Council, Council chair, Council majority) are all
part of the County of Hawaii. This is the client (County of Hawaii) and
our responsibility is to support the policies established by both the administration and
Council, so long as they are legally defensible (note here these policies may not be
popular with the public, but we do not have the prerogative to pick and choose
which policies to legally protect).
The Council will
often feel their interests are secondary to the administration, since the
Corporation Counsel is appointed by the Mayor. This is completely
understandable. The only way we can hope to show the Councils legal interests
are equally as important is through our actions.
Within the
Council, we stress that it is the majority vote that we seek to protect (so long as
it is legally defensible) and not the majority members. Of course much of the
legislation that passes is done by whoever is in the majority, so it will naturally appear
it is their interest that is being advocated vis-`-vis the other
members.
The recent
Council reorganization is the best example of this. When the reorganization
resolution passed, there did appear to be inadvertent violations of the Sunshine
Law. We advised (and the Council concurred) to put all contacts Council members had
with one another on the record in order to mitigate any harm to the public. The Council
was advised to move forward; we recognized had there been no lawsuit within 90 days of any
opinion letter being filed by OIP, the actions of the Council would be protected from
legal challenge.
The WHT lawsuit
changed that. In hindsight, it did the Council a big favor. It caused this
issue to come to a head sooner than later, and this will help the Council get back on
track and return to doing the peoples business. There will be no 90 days
of uncertainty, wondering if there will be a lawsuit challenging the actions taken
by the reorganized Council. Any Council member can have a personal view that
the reorganization was invalid or should not have been done. No problem there.
The problem arises where a Council member has a personal interest contrary to
the majority vote of the Council. In the case of Mr. Hoffmann, there is no
problem. He may be called as a witness by the WHT in this case, and that is alright.
He does not have a personal interest in the outcome of this lawsuit, and irrespective of
his personal views, he does not actively advocate a position contrary to the position
taken by the County in the lawsuit.
How do you
prioritize that list?
There should be
no priority between the administration and Council; their interests should be
consistentdoing what is best for the people of our County. In those instances
where there may be a conflict with respect to the manner in which to achieve this
objective, we do our best to avoid that conflict from materializing. Much of my time
is spent mediating as much as lawyering. However in those cases where the conflict exists,
special counsel may be employed. Trying to erect a screening procedure
in our office (i.e., having two different attorneys assigned with one representing each
side of the dispute), although well-intended, may not be practically possible and
admittedly does little to ease the concerns of both clients.
do you also
represent the clerk?
Yes, for his/her
actions taken in the course and scope of his/her duties.
In this
particular lawsuit, you are faced with 2 coucilmembers who have different recollections of
a meeting. the third party to the conversation, the clerk, is likely to be called as a
witness by one side or the other. can you represent all three? will someone in you office
handle some of the burden? or does outside counsel play a part? Will you be recommending
Mr Hoffmann in particular have a different attorney? (he said he is expecting t be talking
with you today)
I think I
covered this earlier. The two different recollections is not legally significant for
purposes of legal representation, and that does not place either Mr. Yoshimoto or Mr.
Hoffmann in conflict. Look at it this way: When I was a prosecutor, there were times
in a case where a police officer may have had testimony or evidence that conflicted with
the prosecutions theory of the case. The law calls this exculpatory
evidence. Often it will be the defense that would call these police officers
as witnesses. No problem. And it is no problem since the police officer has no
personal interest in the outcome of the case (in fact presumably his personal view and
interest is that the prosecution should prevail). The last trials I did as a
prosecutor were the Pauline/Schweitzer cases involving the kidnap, rape and murder of Dana
Ireland. In those cases, the defense called many County police personnel as
witnesses since they were alleging the DNA did not match the perpetrators and exonerated
their clients. Even if the DNA evidence (lack of sufficient sample for a match)
conflicted with the wealth of other probative evidence the prosecution had, it didnt
place the County police officers in conflict such that independent counsel was necessary
for them, or anything close to that. Turning back to the Councils
reorganization scenario, this is why Council members have been asked and reminded to
remember it is the Council as an organization that is the client we represent, and not the
personal interests of its individual members.
would you agree with Mr. Hoffmann that this is an area the charter Commission might look
at when it offers amendments to the charter?
Absolutely.
It is something that should constantly be looked at. But as long as we are talking
about this, I think everyone should be aware of some of the unintended consequences.
These include (1) lengthy and expensive litigation (when multiple lawyers are involved,
invariably there will be legal conflict that may be drawn out over years), and (2) the
mistake some Council officers and employees may make in believing they have a
personal attorney.
But beyond that,
I think it is important the Charter Commission take a close look at this issue and hear as
much input as possible. I think they could benefit from hearing from other
jurisdictions around our State and country that deal with these potential conflicts from
time to time. Former County Clerk (and present Charter Commission member and UH Law
Professor) Casey Jarman had an excellent suggestion concerning some changes to the Charter
involving Corporation Counsel. Admittedly at first I told her I thought the
attendant financial costs were too great, but I am reconsidering and thinking her
suggestions may be some the Commission should consider. Either way, what is most important
is public awareness and information. We need to do a better job with that and let
the public know why legal decisions are made.
anything else you want to add is appreciated.
If
you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or via telephone at
(808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on
July
27, 2009, at 7:45 a.m.
The West
Hawaii Todays lawsuit against the Hawaii County Council. On July 10, 2009, the West
Hawaii Today newspaper filed suit against the Hawaii County Council and all
nine Council members in their official capacity, alleging a violation of
Hawaiis Sunshine Law. The
lawsuit is based on the Councils reorganization of some leadership positions at
their June 16, 2009 meeting in Kona. The
lawsuit alleges some Council members engaged in a series of serial
communications that circumvented the States Sunshine Law, and had the net
effect of allowing the Council members to discuss the reorganization outside of a properly
noticed meeting.
The
State of Hawaiis Sunshine Law is commonly referred to as the open
meetings law; it requires all boards under its jurisdiction to transact official
business at a properly noticed meeting. The
law prohibits informal meetings to discuss official business between more than two board
members.
One
exception to the general two member rule is the discussion of the boards
leadership. For nine-member boards like our
Council, the law permits up to four members to privately discuss leadership without
limitation or subsequent reporting. This
means unlike the permitted two member rule, the Sunshine Law allows up to four
Council members to discuss how they will vote on a particular measure concerning the
future leadership of their board.
The
West Hawaii Todays lawsuit seeks three basic things:
1.
A
declaration from the Court that there was a Sunshine Law violation;
2.
A
declaration from the Court that the reorganization was invalid; and
3.
Reasonable
attorneys fees and costs.
Our
office also confirmed with the West Hawaii Todays attorney, Robert Kim, Esq.,
that the newspaper also seeks to have all official actions taken by the reorganized
Council and committees declared invalid. We
thank Mr. Kim for his candor and providing the Council a heads up on the
remedies their lawsuit seeks. In my many
dealings with Mr. Kim, he has consistently demonstrated he is the finest example of a
lawyer gentleman and his civility is much appreciated.
At
the request of the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and with the consent of the
Hawaii County Council, the Corporation Counsel responded to three complaints filed
with OIP concerning the reorganization of the leadership of the Council and its standing
committees. You may read the full text of the
Countys email response here. At the request of OIP, since time was of the
essence, they sought a response from the Council as soon as possible.
Inadvertent violations of
the Sunshine Law
Unfortunately,
inadvertent violations of the Sunshine Law by board members when discussing leadership
changes is common. OIPs recent legal
opinion concerning serial communications has dramatically (and properly)
limited the extent that board members may discuss board business. Prior to the serial communications
opinion, two board members would routinely discuss board business. Once that discussion was completed, they would move
on to discuss the same board business with another board member, and so on. OIP correctly opined that such serial
communications violated the intent of the Sunshine Law by essentially allowing more
than two board members to discuss board business.
However
you can see how the discussion of leadership changes
(where up to four members may participate) may
be problematic for board members. Since they
are not limited to discussing the matter with just two members, unless they know who the
other board member discussed the matter with, inadvertent violations of the Sunshine Law
may frequently occur.
So
where did that leave our Council on June 16? Instead
of retreating into a recess or attempting to defer the matter to another day,
the Council moved forward to determine what occurred and to seek a possible remedy or
cure. The Sunshine Law provides no guidance
with respect to what to do when possible violations have occurred. In prior discussions with the former leadership of
OIP, the remedy of placing the nature of the contacts on the record was viewed as a way of
mitigating any violation. This is exactly what
was done by the present Council on June 16. Each
Council member was asked to place on the record who they spoke with to discuss the
reorganization. This is how we learned of the
seven members being involved either directly or serially as discussed above. Although this effort may fall short of a
cure since the violation had already occurred, it nonetheless served as an
attempt by the Council to mitigate the harm caused by the violation by placing into the
public record all contacts they had with one
another concerning the reorganization.
Of
course, OIP will ultimately decide to what extent the Sunshine Law was violated, and the
range of remedies available to the Council and public.
One possible extreme is a finding that the actions of the Council were willful. This would subject the Council to possible criminal
prosecution. Although unlikely, it serves as a
very important reminder to all board members of the sanctity of the Sunshine Law and the
need to respect the publics right to participate in the official affairs of their
government.
Having
now the benefit of hindsight, and having read the lawsuit filed by the West Hawaii
Today, we have the following observations concerning the highly publicized Council meeting
of June 16:
1.
The Councils coup. Some local media sources have described the
actions of the Council majority on June 16 as a coup. Merriam-Webster defines coup as a
brilliant, sudden, and unusually highly successful stroke or act. We surmise these media sources really intended to
infer there was a coups d`etat, defined as a sudden decisive exercise of
force in politics. What definition most
accurately describes the actions of the Council on June 16 will most likely be determined
by the future of the present majority, their initiatives and their ability to craft
meaningful legislation for the benefit of all island residents.
2.
The Sunshine Law encourages
self-reporting of violations. Historically there has
been some valid criticism of the Sunshine Law lacking teeth in enforcing
violations. Absent the provision calling for
criminal prosecution where there are willful violations, there are no civil remedies such
as the imposition of fines or even the setting aside of actions taken by the board (with
the exception of a lawsuit being filed within the statutorily mandated time, as West
Hawaii Today has done). However this
absence of an immediate civil penalty has the effect of encouraging board members to admit
violations of the Sunshine Law and in turn, provides the public with information they
would not ordinarily have. This is a good
thing. An example of this occurred at the June
16 Council meeting. All Council members were
asked in public and on the record to disclose the contacts they had with one another, and
they did so. Now we recognize there may be
some criticism that not all members were candid, or did not describe the extent of their
contact with one another, or that they should not
have violated the Sunshine Law in the first place.
We cannot and do not endeavor to control what some may think or believe. The option
the Council followed was not to retreat into recess or defer discussion of the
allegations, but instead to individually ask all members to place on the record who they
discussed the proposed reorganization with. When
considering the extreme option of having the Council members make no statement and simply allowing the OIP to conduct
an investigation devoid of facts, it appears the route followed by the Council was
preferable.
What does the Council need
to do now?
Within
20 days after service of the lawsuit on the County, our office will be filing a response
to the West Hawaii Todays lawsuit in Court.
Since the lawsuit seeks to invalidate all post-reorganization actions taken by the
Council, a decision was made by the Council to cancel the committee meetings scheduled for
July 21, 2009. This will allow attorneys from
our office to properly brief the Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 22,
2009 with respect to the specifics of this lawsuit, and the ramifications of the Council
moving ahead in taking official action while the lawsuit is pending.
There is no unringing
of the bell
Some
public criticism has focused on the discussion of the Council on June 16 once possible
violations were revealed by them. On the one
extreme, there are some who believe the violations were willful and the only possible
cure is the criminal prosecution of the offending Council members. As with all matters involving our local government,
every citizen is entitled to their opinion, and that right will always be respected. However before there is a rush to judgment and
conviction, respect for the adjudicatory process and hearing all sides of any controversy
is imperative and strongly urged.
In
the case of the Councils reorganization, there can be no unringing of the
bell. Assuming a violation is found,
this harm to the public is the basis upon which much of the present vocal criticism is
premised.
On
June 16, after the Council placed all of their contacts on the record, that was the extent
of what they could do. Had no lawsuit been
filed, upon expiration of ninety days from the date of OIPs opinion, Council
business would have continued based on the reorganization.
This is not uncommon. When boards
subject to the Sunshine Law commit inadvertent violations, often the contacts that are the
basis of the violation are placed on the record by board members. Assuming the public is satisfied with this remedy,
the board proceeds without the need to take any other formal action.
The
filing of West Hawaii Todays lawsuit dramatically changes things. Since the lawsuit seeks the invalidation of the
reorganization, the Court will now be asked to determine to what extent any Sunshine Law
violation invalidated the reorganization and any subsequent official action taken by the
Council. The Court may very well find there
was an inadvertent violation and allow the reorganization to stand. Similarly the Court may find there was an
inadvertent violation, but based on the harm to the public, the reorganization is invalid. The Court could further order subsequent official
actions of the reorganized Council are invalid.
These
(and the other possible) outcomes are something outside the ultimate control of the West
Hawaii Today and the Council. For the
Council, their present charge must be to move forward with the peoples business in a
responsible manner while being cognizant of the legal challenges that they face. This may include
a collective decision by the Council to hear the reorganization resolutions again, as well
as all resolutions and bills heard, deliberated and decided by the Council and its
committees on July 7 and 8.
The danger of public
advocacy based on misinformation
A
remarkable written public statement concerning the Councils response to OIPs
inquiry, made by member of the public and brought to our attention was this:
Sadly
the joke of the day is the report prepared by Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida,
submitted to the Office of Information Practices (OIP). His report was written in response
to OIP's inquiry about a possible violation of the Sunshine Law resulting from the private
interactions of certain council members planning the ouster of council members Ford and
Yagong as Chairs of certain council committees and of Pete Hoffmann from his officer
position as council Vice Chair. Lincoln Ashida's "coup report" does not identify
any willful violation of the Sunshine Law and instead argues in favor of absolving the
council members of any wrongdoing.
The
suggestion that the attorney for the Council should advocate that his clients willfully
violated the Sunshine Law (thereby subjecting them to criminal prosecution) is something
we would expect from laypeople unfamiliar with the Hawaii Rules of Professional
Conduct. What was truly astounding was the
above statement was made by an attorney who has been licensed to practice in Hawaii
since 2006.
The
very heart of the Hawaii Supreme Courts rules governing attorney conduct in
Hawaii says As an advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the clients
position under the rules of the adversary system. This is further embodied in Rule
3.1 of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct, which states in pertinent part
(emphasis supplied) that A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result
in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every
element of the case be established.
As
has been repeatedly pointed out in the media, the finding of a willful violation of the
Sunshine Law by Council members may subject them to criminal prosecution with a resulting
jail sentence. It is disingenuous for any
lawyer with any knowledge of Hawaiis rules of ethics to assert that an
attorney should throw their client under the bus for the sake of currying
favor with polarized public sentiment. The
adversarial system contemplates, and our ethics rules demand that attorneys conduct
themselves in a manner consistent with having both sides of any dispute bring all of their
arguments forward so that a court or other fact-finding body may come to an informed
decision.
The
argument by this lawyer is similar to the uninformed criticism I heard when I served this
County as a prosecutor. Public defenders are
public servants who are charged with representing individuals accused of criminal acts. I sometimes heard the criticism of them, How
can they represent crooks, by a portion of the public that believed all accused law
offenders should bypass the judicial process and proceed straight to jail.
This
is not to suggest our citizens cannot have these views and voice their opinions. However attorneys in our State have a greater
responsibility. Hawaii Supreme Court
Chief Justice Ronald Moon has been a tireless advocate for the need of all attorneys in
Hawaii to do their part to improve the image of the legal profession. The Chief Justices charge to all of us has
gone beyond promoting the aspirational requirement of pro bono service contemplated in our ethics rules,
but extends to ensuring the rules of civility and fair dealing are strictly enforced. To this end, lawyers should not knowingly publicly
advocate a duty on the part of Corporation Counsel that is diametrically
repugnant to the core responsibility a lawyer has of zealous representation in the
adversarial system.
This
is also not to suggest in any way that the Corporation Counsel would ever further any effort that would not be
consistent with the best interests of the government or public. We are well aware of our obligation under Rule 1.13
of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Had
there been any indication the acts of any
Council member were willful with respect to a violation of the Sunshine Law, appropriate
action would have been taken. In the present
case, by having the Office of Information Practices conduct an independent review and
analysis, we have complied with part (f)(3) of the rule by advising that a separate
legal opinion on the matter be sought and considered.
In
our weekly message of April 21, 2008 (you can read it here), we explained the duty attorneys
have to their clients, and why under our laws the public at large is not the client, despite our roles as public
servants. All of this may not change
someones opinion about how things should be. However we hope this has provided adequate
background and reasons as to why the Corporation Counsel is required to take certain legal
positions on various issues. The critical
review and commentary of the actions of elected and appointed public servants is important
for a strong democracy. However irresponsible
and inflammatory statements made by an attorney advocating a position contrary to the
requirements of the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct is contrary to the Chief
Justices vision of improving the image of the legal profession.
It
is an honor to serve all the people of the County of Hawaii. As ever, if you have any questions on the above,
please contact me via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us,
or telephone at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This
message was posted on July 15, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.
UPDATE (July 16, 2009): Attorneys for the West
Hawaii Today have indicated they will be filing an Amended Complaint to their
lawsuit, seeking an injunction against the Council from taking further official action
under their reorganized form. This case has
been assigned to Third Circuit Court Administrative Judge Ronald Ibarra, and a hearing on
the plaintiffs motion for an injunction should be scheduled and heard within the
next few days.
This
message was posted on July 16, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
Council
pay raises. On Tuesday, July 7, 2009,
the Hawaii County Council Committee on Finance voted down a resolution that sought
to recommend the Countys Salary Commission reconsider their earlier action in 2008
that provided for a 22% pay increase for all nine Council members. The introducer of the measure, Council Member
Dominic Yagong, was commended for his forward thinking.
Our office also commended him for following the lead of Mayor Billy Kenoi, who
earlier this year voluntarily took a one-day-per-month furlough and mandated
his appointed office staff do the same. Mayor
Kenoi recognized the cost savings to the County would obviously not solve the
Countys budgetary shortfalls, but would serve as a representation of leadership from
the Countys top executive.
Although
what was primarily reported in the media were the sentiments of some Council members who
felt their pay was fair and necessary for their sustenance, much of the discussion focused
on the desire of the majority of Council members not to meddle in the affairs
of the Salary Commission and thereby politicize the salary process.
Here
is a more detailed summary of the discussion as well as a recommendation made by our
office:
1.
The De-politicization of
the Salary Commission. Via Charter amendment in
2000, the voters in our County amended our Charter to delete any requirement that the
salaries set by the Countys Salary Commission be approved or otherwise ratified by
the Mayor or Council. This significant
amendment was viewed as a positive step toward removing the politics from the
setting of salaries for the Countys top officers.
Some Council members felt any official communication from the Council to the Salary
Commission would again politicize the process.
This is because Salary Commission members (all volunteers from our community) may
feel pressured to follow direction from the Council on a publicly popular position, while
their legal charge is to only consider the setting of salaries consistent with
compensation in the public and private sectors.
2.
Sometimes You can always get what you want
. I could not resist the Rolling Stones
reference. Despite Mr. Yagongs
resolution not passing, there is a very simple
way for him and other Council members to achieve the very same result without the involvement or concurrence of the
Salary Commission. After all, there would be
no guarantee the Salary Commission would agree with such a Council recommendation, since
their charge under the law does not include the consideration of payment sources or the
ability of the County to fund any pay increases.
a.
Following our Mayor. Mayor Kenois
furlough of himself and his appointed staff for one day a month for an entire year
amounted to a pay cut. Last week,
in a much publicized case on Oahu, First Circuit Court Judge Karl Sakamoto granted an
injunction sought by employer unions against Governor Linda Lingle. Judge Sakamotos order prevents the Governor
from unilaterally furloughing civil service employees without first bargaining
with the unions. The Judges order notes
that a furlough is the functional equivalent of a pay cut. Although the term furlough has been
widely used, it is not an accurate description. In the case of our Mayor, there will be no loss in service to the public. In other words, the Mayor and his staff will
continue to come to work each and every day, but be simply paid one day less per month.
Council members, as elected (exempt) public officers, can do the very same thing.
b. Different Council members, different means. Council member salaries presently differ based on
their years of service on the Council. Council
members differ with respect to other income they may or may not have, and other personal
financial circumstances. The taking of
furloughs by Council members (like our Mayor) will allow them to determine how
much they can afford to have their pay cut without placing themselves in personal
financial jeopardy. We verified with the
fiscal staff of the County Clerks Office as well as with the County of
Hawaiis Department of Human Resources that these furloughs could
be implemented immediately (even retroactively). In
sum, Council members may individually achieve what Mr. Yagongs resolution sought, and bypass the Salary Commission while accommodating
the unique financial circumstances of each Council member.
c.
The public is not furloughed. As discussed above, all of this may easily be
achieved without any loss in services being delivered to the public. Council members will continue to serve as they
presently do. Their willingness to make a
personal financial sacrifice will be much appreciated and recognized as Council members
doing their part in following the excellent example set by our Mayor.
It is truly an
honor to serve the people of the County of Hawaii.
As ever, if you have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please
feel free to email our office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us,
or call me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This
message was posted on July 8, 2009, at 4:30 p.m.
The
Waikoloa Workforce Housing Project. In September of 2004, the
County issued a request for proposal for the Waikoloa Employee Housing Project, seeking an
experienced developer to plan, design and construct 1,000 affordable homes for people
employed in businesses in our South Kohala district (primarily hotel and other visitor
industry employees). The homes were to be
built on County-owned land in Waikoloa Village. The
successful bidder UniDev responded to the Countys request stating UniDev
brings complete financing capabilities to each of its projects through its financing
relationships with Citigroup and Fannie Mae. This
allows the company to provide pre-development, construction and operating funds secured by
the land and the future development. The
project sponsor (County) is required only to commit the land and the approvals and
entitlements necessary to permit construction of the project to proceed.
In
2005, UniDev made this further representation: This
entire transaction can be structured such that the County, in its sole discretion, will
have no continuing obligations or liabilities;
UniDev will provide, through our
financing partners, 100% of the financing for this project; UniDevs financing
arrangements for this project will be non-recourse to the County
Based
on the above and other similar representations made by UniDev, the County awarded UniDev
the project. Despite their promises and legal
commitment to obtain financing, UniDev failed to do so, requiring the County to allocate
approximately $40 million in taxpayer money to pay for the infrastructure in order to
further this much needed project for our island residents.
This
past Monday the County on behalf of our taxpayers sued UniDev in Third Circuit Court. One of the charges is for false claims
under Hawaii State law. UniDev submitted
claims for payment to the County, knowing they were false or fraudulent. The County also sued UniDev alleging intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentations and fraudulent inducement based on their
claim they could obtain the necessary financing. The
County alleges UniDev knew it could not obtain this financing yet made these
representations to the County in order to induce the County to award this project to them.
In
our lawsuit, the County seeks an order from the Court directing UniDev to pay civil
penalties three times the amount of damages, special and general damages, punitive
damages, and the Countys attorney fees and costs.
Although
the County is very disturbed our residents who need affordable housing on the West side of
our island will not be able to enjoy home ownership as promised by UniDev, the County
looks forward to having all of the facts and evidence that substantiate
the Countys claims in its lawsuit brought into the public domain. As the Countys Office of Housing and
Community Development moves forward to build these homes, the Corporation Counsel
anxiously awaits the opportunity to have UniDev held legally accountable for its actions
and to reimburse our taxpayers accordingly.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on July 1, 2009, at 1:00 p.m.
What is
the legal difference between a voter initiative and an ordinance? During the recent lively
Hawaii County Council debate concerning the two-year suspension of payments into the
Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund, a question asked was
whether voter initiatives enjoy greater legal recognition and protection than ordinances
passed by the Council. This question was asked
in the context of arguments made that voter initiatives should not be subject to amendment
by the Countys legislative body.
The
short answer is there is no legal difference. Voter
initiatives once passed, become ordinances with no greater or less recognition than
ordinances (laws) passed by our Council. This
means they are subject to amendment and repeal or other modification as any other local
law.
In
the 2008 general election our Hawaii County Charter was amended to provide voter
initiatives that become ordinances cannot be amended unless there is a two-thirds vote of
the Council. This amendment applies to voter
initiatives passed after the 2008 general
election, so it did not apply to the amendments made by the Council to the Public Access,
Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund ordinance. However, the 2008 amendment to the Charter makes
clear the will of the voters is to extend greater recognition and protection to voter
initiatives compared to Council-passed ordinances. This
is a positive step in our democratic process that affords our voters an active role in
public policy formulation at the County government level.
For
those in County government responsible for overseeing our public elections, this means
even greater care must be deployed in ensuring proper information is provided to the
public. From distributing public information
reciting pros and cons to crafting neutral ballot language, voter education is
critical. Luckily, our County is blessed with
a very effective County Clerk and a very efficient Elections Division. As the opportunity for greater public involvement
in the County government process grows, our County legislative branch is up to the
challenge of ensuring all members of our island community are informed.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on June 16, 2009, at 10:20 a.m.
County
internet records, not scandal. On April 17, 2009, we
explained why the County's internet use
records must remain confidential while an ongoing investigation is being conducted
into allegations of inappropriate use. Monitoring
of County employee internet use has been an ongoing effort for some time. Unfortunately, this process became publicly known
as the County internet scandal when a Council member opted to report to the
media that he had not been granted access to the individual reports for each County
department. Sharing of confidential and
sensitive information within the County is done on a need to know basis. In fact, the internet use reports for our County
have not even been shared with the Mayor, but only with the department head of each County
department or agency, per the requirements of the Countys existing policy. The Council member averred that his unsubstantiated
claim of internet abuse (i.e., excessive web surfing during work hours) had a direct
relationship to a lack of productivity, and this was an issue that should be addressed by
the Council in their review of the Countys operating budget.
A
review of the records from the major departments in our County reveals no evidence of
widespread illegal or highly inappropriate internet use.
For those isolated cases where there has been inappropriate use, department heads
are authorized to conduct their own internal investigation and mete out discipline where
appropriate. This is exactly why there were
objections to having the Council member peruse these reports. Representatives of the legislative branch are not the appointing or supervising authority of
administration employees (and vice versa), and lack jurisdiction to mete out discipline if
warranted. You may view the Corporation
Counsels internet use records for the calendar year 2008 here.
Earlier
this week, a summary report on internet use for 2008 was sent to each department head. The department head must decide whether there is
any information in these reports that must be redacted before they are released publicly. For example, the Civil Defense Agency has already
pointed out that a secure website periodically accessed by them through the Fire
Department (this site is identified by a numeric code) contains highly sensitive
information and should not be released for fear of creating unwarranted widespread public
panic since the information contained therein may not be the most current or updated. It is not a matter of playing hide the
ball. It is a matter of making sure the
County executes its responsibility of ensuring only credible information is released to
the public in a timely manner, and to prevent hackers and other persons with
nefarious interests to create public panic.
Once
any redactions to these summaries are completed, the reports will be available to the
public for their inspection and review.
Having
accepted the Council members recommendation, the Countys Department of Data
Systems is also compiling detailed reports for the top internet users in each department. These separate reports are not all completed. They will be forwarded to the respective department
head for review. The department head may then
review the reports and conduct additional investigation if warranted. If it is determined the nature of the sites visited
and/or their duration are inappropriate, discipline may be meted out to the employee,
along with other corrective action. The reason
this must be done on a case-by-case basis is there may be a legitimate work-related reason
for visiting certain sites, or for using the internet for extended periods of time. The productivity of the particular employee will
also be a factor. Is the employee getting
their work done or are they asking for overtime? The
software used by the County has its natural limitations; it can only tell you what sites
were visited and for how long the internet was being accessed; it can never tell you
whether the employee was actively navigating the internet during those times (the internet
could have been minimized on their screen) or what else the employee may have been doing. To this end, there is no substitute for each
department having appropriate accountability safeguards such as supervision, timesheets,
and progress monitoring.
If
discipline is meted out by a department head, the detailed internet use records for that particular employee may be withheld from
public inspection. State law allows the
employer to withhold this information since it involves the significant privacy interest
of the employee.
If
no discipline is meted out, the detailed report should be released, together with any
redactions consistent with protecting the identity of secured sites as explained above.
When
will all this happen? Data Systems reports the
individual summaries take anywhere between 5-8 hours per
employee to run. But since this is an
ongoing process, and we recognize and respect the request for information made by the
Hawaii Tribune-Herald newspaper, the reports will be released once the department
head has an opportunity to determine whether discipline is warranted.
When
I was a youngster in the 1980s, Scandal was a rock band I listened to on
MTV. More appropriately Merriam-Webster
defines scandal as loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent
violation of morality or propriety. Perhaps
an even more appropriate definition by Merriam-Webster is malicious or defamatory
gossip. The rush to judgment by some in
the local media in labeling this investigation as a scandal was made without
responsible attention to the establishment of underlying facts to support such a claim.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on June 3, 2009, at 2:00 p.m.
Why
negligent homicide suspects are normally released pending further investigation. A very sad story was
reported in our local media over the past weekend, where a one year-old child was killed
in a traffic collision. The news report says
the driver of a pickup truck ran a red light and collided into a vehicle occupied by the
one year-old child. The Police are attributed
as saying speed and alcohol were factors in the crash. The driver of the pickup truck is reported to have
a DUI conviction from 21 years ago. The driver
of the pickup truck was arrested, but not immediately charged and released pending further
investigation.
Some
have wondered why the driver was released without charges.
Unfortunately, some in our community who have written anonymous responses to the
newspaper article have already concluded this is the product of police ineptitude or
corruption. Oscar Wilde once said By
giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance
of the community. I am not that cynical,
and believe all citizens are entitled to their opinions based upon their previous
interactions with the police and other personal experiences in their lives. However for those persons who are genuinely
interested in the procedural requirements of the law and why certain actions are taken by
our police, I am hoping the following explanation based on my professional experience will
allow them to form their own opinions.
Under
Hawaii law, the crime of Negligent Homicide requires proof of two distinct facts:
(1) Operation of a vehicle in a negligent manner, and (2) operation of a vehicle while
under the influence of alcohol. Since it is a
crime, the government is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
which is the highest burden of proof provided for in our laws. It is erroneous to conclude no test of the
suspects blood for blood alcohol content was conducted. Under Hawaii law, anytime there is a death
that arises from a motor vehicle collision, the government may compel a suspect to provide
a blood sample. However an analysis of this
blood sample does not occur instantaneously, and must be properly tested by a qualified
laboratory.
The
release of Negligent Homicide suspects is not unusual.
If the suspect were held in custody, the Constitution and case law require a
preliminary hearing (mini-trial) to be held within 48 hours.
This does not give the government enough time to (1) have the suspects blood
properly tested, (2) have an autopsy conducted (cause of death must also be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt; the government must prove a nexus between the collision and death, and
prove that the death was not brought about by some other superseding or intervening
factor), (3) locate witnesses and ensure their testimony is consistent with establishing
negligence, and (4) obtain the services of a collision reconstruction expert
to conclusively determine the behavior of the vehicles, including speed. If the government is required to forge ahead
because the suspect is in custody, the prosecution runs the risk of having the case
dismissed with prejudice, meaning charges may never be
brought.
This
is because the 5th Amendment to our federal Constitution protects suspects from
double jeopardy. The 5th Amendment
also provides for a speedy trial. If charges
are brought immediately, the government would have only 6 months to try the suspect. Given the need for a thorough investigation and
trial preparation, this may not be enough time for the prosecution to properly put a case
together. It is not as simple as filing
charges and then having a trial. In criminal
cases, a significant portion of the work that is not normally reported by the media is the
discovery process and pretrial motions process. Further,
the 5th Amendment also requires a judicial determination of probable cause
before someone may be bound over for trial in a felony case.
Since the Grand Jury in our judicial circuit does not meet every day, holding a
person in custody before this probable cause determination would violate their
constitutional rights.
No
doubt this is a very emotional case. However,
holding a person in custody may not be the wisest course when the required follow-up
investigation cannot be concluded within the 48-hour time period mandated by our laws. Allowing the police and prosecutors time to
complete their work, presenting the case to a Grand Jury to obtain a true bill of
indictment, and then having the suspect arrested
and held for trial strengthens the criminal case
while protecting the rights of the accused.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on May 26, 2009, at 1:50 p.m.
The
difficulty our local media sometimes have in reporting on legal events. Court documents are
sometimes hard to read and understand. For
non-lawyers, it seems lawyer memos and orders by judges speak in some form of
code. Sometimes this is true. In my Introduction to Legal Systems class I teach
at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, one of the things we cover is how the law loves
tradition and loathes dramatic change. This is
evident in everything ranging from the legal doctrine of precedent courts are
required to follow, to the required skirts for women and ties for men that are part of
courtroom attire. One of my
favorite quotations is by Henry Ward Beecher, who said Laws like clocks, must be
occasionally cleansed, wound, and set to true time.
Mr. Beechers great words notwithstanding, the code spoken by
lawyers and judges are the necessary result of legal terms having very exact and
particular meaning.
Concerns
arise when reporters in our local community who may not be as experienced as others,
report on legal events. When a news article is
written by reading and reporting on a court judgment only, it is very difficult to
accurately and completely report it as news given the print space limitations, time
constraints, and the need to say it in simple English. What is also required to provide full and balanced
coverage is a review of all court documents filed to date.
A
recent article written about the pending lawsuits filed by former Hawaii County
Council Member Stacy Higa against the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the County of Hawaii is a good example.
In this article, it was reported as follows:
A federal
district judge dismissed a lawsuit that former county Councilman Stacy Higa filed against
the head of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Higa's lawsuit against Hawaii County and
Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida for allegedly failing to represent him properly is
still pending in the state court system.
What
is not clearly reported is the Federal Court also dismissed the lawsuit against the County
(Corporation Counsel) as well. In the Federal
Court case, the County joined the effort of the EEOC lawyers in seeking a
dismissal. This was done to save our taxpayers
money. Since we are required to have special
counsel (private attorneys) represent the County in these cases, we wanted to keep our
legal fees low. We accomplished this by having
the EEOC lawyers conduct the majority of research and writing, and to have our attorneys
simply join the County in their effort.
In
the State court case, only the County has been sued. This
is because Hawaii State courts have no jurisdiction over the EEOC.
But
reading the above passage would lead a reasonable person to conclude that (1) Higas
lawsuit against the EEOC was tossed out, and (2) Higas lawsuit against the
Corporation Counsel was not. Although
technically somewhat correct, I think seeing the broader picture would provide the public
a better understanding of what happened and why, and the effort taken by the County to
spare taxpayer funds even in the face of contentious litigation.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on May 21, 2009, at 3:50 p.m.
The County
is not a traditional business. In challenging economic
times, a recurring question asked by many is, Why isnt the County run like a
business? There is some validity to this
sentiment, although the County by virtue of the nature of services it provides does not
fit within a traditional business model.
A
positive work ethic is something valuable in both the private and public employment
sectors, as is a desire to provide excellent customer service. In private business, poor customer service results
in the customer not coming back and going elsewhere. For
government services, the public does not have this choice, but government workers must
nonetheless commit to providing the very best possible service. Here the golden rule should guide County employees: Do unto others as you have others do unto you.
In
recent years, through the committed effort of the Countys Department of Human
Resources, County employees have been afforded training in customer service. Department heads in the County have also taken the
challenge and have committed to ensuring their employees demonstrate the highest level of
courtesy and service to the public we serve. We
recognize this is a work in progress, and the end result will not appear overnight. But through continued and vigilant emphasis, the
County is working to provide customer service that will become the standard by which all
other businesses may be measured. Is this an
unrealistic ambition? For County employees, we
are calling upon them to take on this challenge.
Unlike
private business however, the County does not provide services based on a supply/demand
model, or based on an individuals ability to pay.
When a member of our community is in distress and calls for an ambulance, they are
served, no matter what their financial ability. The
County paramedic doesnt ask for a credit card or cash only before
deciding whether to offer emergency medical services.
The same goes for firefighters responding to a house fire, police responding to
victims who need assistance, and the many other County services we all sometimes take for
granted. If a true supply/demand model was
part of government service, only the wealthy could afford those services related to life
and health. This is why it is important for
the County not to be run like a traditional
business. This ensures the vast majority of
our population who may not have the most financial wealth are guaranteed needed services.
Our
Fire Departments present practice in not seeking
reimbursement for rescue expenses is an excellent example of this. Although the County has an ordinance in place that
allows the County to seek reimbursement for expenses incurred by the County in performing
search and rescue missions, the County rarely (if at all) seeks this reimbursement. The Fire Department believes seeking reimbursement
would serve as a disincentive for persons and family members to call for assistance if
someone is lost or in need of emergency assistance. Here
the present Fire Department administration has made a commitment that the value of a human
life should not be an economic decision.
When
a private business faces an increase in operating costs, they can look to either reduce
the size of their expenses or increase the cost of their product. The County also goes through this analysis when
there is an increase in operating costs (many of which are outside the control of the
County). After looking to reduce expenses, the
only option left for the County is to (1) increase property taxes (the main source of
revenue for the County), or (2) charge for services. As
evidenced above, charging for basic services tends to prejudice and discriminate against
those persons with limited financial means. Raising
taxes is never politically popular, although necessary at times.
The
present balanced budget submitted by Mayor Billy Kenoi to the Hawaii County Council
takes all of the above into account. It
reduced the size of government, maintained the present level of services being delivered
to our citizens, does not include any provision for charging for individual services, and
does not raise taxes. This budget has been
described by many as balanced and fair. Looking
at the alternatives discussed above, the fairness is enjoyed by everyone in our County, irrespective of financial
means.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on May 3, 2009, at 4:50 p.m.
What is a
furlough? Recent discussion in our
media have included the possibility of furloughs for County of Hawaii employees. What is a furlough?
The term furlough does not appear in the collective bargaining
agreements (union contracts) for the employees of the major unions our County employs. Merriam-Webster defines furlough as
a leave of absence from duty granted especially to a soldier.
Suffice
it to say what proponents of employee furloughs for the County envision are days County
employees dont have to come to work, and consequently the County will not have to
pay them, leading to a cost savings. However
it is not as simple as that.
First
of all, its important to distinguish between County officers and County employees. Officers
are either elected or appointed and serve at will. For
example, the Mayor, Prosecutor, Council members, and department heads are County officers. Employees as that term is used when
referring to proposed furloughs covers those persons whose wages are bargained for and who
have rights under their respective collective bargaining agreement. The appointing authority of the officers may order furloughs at any time. For example, Mayor Billy Kenoi has already directed
each officer in the Mayors Office to be furloughed one day a month for an entire
year. Although the cost savings will be far
from enough to make up for any budget shortfall caused by the Legislatures proposed
reduction in the TAT contribution to our County, every little bit helps, and it is
leadership by example.
For
union employees, furloughs are much more problematic.
While
litigating a recent labor case on behalf of our County, I had the opportunity to research
and learn about the civil service system and merit principle that is at the heart of
government employment in Hawaii. In a
recent decision, our Hawaii Supreme Court recognized the merit principle as being
fundamental to the recruitment and hiring of qualified individuals to serve in the public
sector. The vast majority of positions in our
County require the applicants to meet certain minimum qualifications, and to pass a
written test to determine whether they are able to perform the job, and to gauge their
qualifications vis-`-vis other applicants. This
merit principle effectively ensures only qualified individuals are hired in the government
service. In turn, they are afforded a number
of rights found in their collective bargaining agreements as authorized by our State
Legislature.
The
collective bargaining agreements (contracts) between the County and the worker unions are
something that are negotiated and agreed upon on a statewide level. If the County is to furlough its
employees for any period of time, the contract requires the parties to follow a very
specific process.
Whether
you support furloughs for our County employees or not is a personal decision. There are legitimate arguments on both sides and
ultimately it will be the State Legislatures decision regarding our TAT contribution
that will for all practical purposes dictate whether employee furloughs must be pursued.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on May 1, 2009, at 1:30 p.m.
Why investigative reports must
remain confidential. A recent media article
discussed a Council Members request to obtain information from the Countys
Department of Data Systems concerning alleged internet abuse by County employees. The Department of Data Systems declined to provide
the Council Member the records, explaining that an ongoing investigation into this alleged
abuse is ongoing. Unfortunately, subsequent
blog entries and even an editorial written by a journalist professional characterized the
conduct of County employees as pervasive. We
understand how erroneous conclusions can be drawn based upon the fact the County cannot
make these records public at this time.
Investigation
into internet abuse in the County began in mid-2008 and has been ongoing. One employee has already been disciplined and his
case remains pending with an administrative agency. There
are other potential cases that remain under investigation.
This is what the County can disclose at the moment:
1.
The
records compiled by the Department of Data Systems are highly sensitive, and have not been
shared outside of their department with any County
department, agency or person, other than on a need to know basis. This is because many County officer and employees
(including the Council) may be called as witnesses in future cases.
2.
If
the records are released prior to formal charges
(administrative or criminal) being filed, the integrity of the case and investigation may
be compromised. When I served as a prosecutor,
such unlawful premature release of information would be cause for dismissal or other
disciplinary action.
3.
These
records will ultimately be released, once all
investigations are completed.
Some
may wonder what the harm is if these records reveal only past internet sites visited. The reason this could harm future cases and the
County is because:
1.
The
investigation includes sites currently being visited in order to establish trends. This also involves forensic examination of hardware
and downloading of saved content.
2.
Disclosing
the records would identify particular individuals who may not be eventually charged
administratively or criminally.
No
doubt the public is entitled to view these records. The
sole issue is one of timing. Once the investigations are completed and final
decisions are made on administrative and criminal charges, the records will be released. The County is committed to conducting and
completing thorough investigations in all allegations involving employee misconduct. We are also committed to being fair to all persons
involved in the investigation, and not do anything that would jeopardize its integrity.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on April 17, 2009, at 1:55 p.m.
Shared
sacrifice. There have been many recent
articles in our local media concerning the budgetary shortfall the County of Hawai`i
government faces. According to our laws, the
Mayor must submit a balanced budget to the Council before the start of every fiscal year. With the pending legislation before the Hawai`i
State Legislature that would place a moratorium on the transfer of the Transient
Accommodation Tax (TAT) to the counties, our County is looking at an
additional $18 million shortfall for fiscal year 2009-2010 alone.
Unfortunately,
recent media headlines have focused on shortsighted and uninformed opinions concerning the
ways the County could trim its budget. This
has had the unfortunate effect of proliferating the unfair stereotyping of our public
servants and causing unnecessary divisiveness in our communities. Threatening workers they will lose their jobs or
creating unsubstantiated hysteria concerning internet use serves no productive purpose and
is counterproductive to the need for communities to come together and share the burden of
the economic downturn.
Mayor
Billy Kenoi has been very vigilant and proactive in his effort to meet this budgetary
shortfall. In fact, on the very day he took
office on December 1, 2008, there was an immediate suspension of hiring for all
non-essential positions. Having carefully
examined the Countys workforce prior to officially taking office, Mayor Kenoi
ensured only those positions directly affecting the public health and safety (such as Fire
and Police) would be filled.
Mayor
Kenoi also mandated immediate cost-saving measures by requiring all County departments to
make 5% across-the-board cuts to their present budgets, and reduce their budgets by an
additional 10% for the next fiscal year.
Many
members of Mayor Kenois cabinet also took substantial salary cuts. The above are just a sampling of the many things
that never got reported in the media but were done in an effort to meet the financial
challenges of the economic downturn.
On
the Council side, Chairman J Yoshimoto has been a leader in looking at ways the
legislative branch of our County government could reduce costs. He has quietly and without drawing bravado to
himself proposed reductions to various accounts managed by the Council while not
eliminating Council meetings in West Hawai`i and continuing to provide services that allow
the public to participate in their government.
All
this occurred while there was no reduction in
services to the public, and no increase in taxes or
user fees.
This
highlights the most significant difference between public service and private business. Unlike private business, where the motive is to
make a profit, public service is focused solely on the delivery of services.
These services are delivered no matter what economic conditions exist, and are afforded to
everyone fairly irrespective of financial
capacity. If you need police assistance, or if
you call for an ambulance from our Fire Department, you will not be asked whether you have
the means to pay for it. If
government were run as a true business as some have suggested, market demand would dictate
the cost of services to the public. Thankfully
you never need to ask, How much is it worth to save a life before you call the
Police or Fire Department? No
matter what, your County government is always there to serve.
In
times of economic challenge, we as a community can only persevere if we work together and
share in the sacrifice. Balancing the budget
on the backs of County employees alone will not solve the budget shortfall, and in fact
creates greater long range problems. The
Mayors budget is fair and balanced. It ensures the continued and uninterrupted delivery of
services to the public without the need for an increase in taxes.
A
famous adage reads, The true test of a mans character is not when he is faced
with adversity, but when he is given power. It
is easy for opportunistic politicians to criticize others or to look for scapegoats to
rally public support for themselves during trying economic times.
However
the sound and effective policies and proposals implemented by our Mayor and Council Chair
have demonstrated our County is in good hands. The
road to recovery begins right now, and we are fortunate to have Mayor Kenoi and Chairman
Yoshimoto at the helm.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on April 3, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.
When does
the County hire special counsel? Under our laws, the
Corporation Counsel is authorized to hire special counsel whenever there is a
genuine need. Each year many lawyers and law
firms send in applications to the County offering their legal services for fee. Recently an unfortunate and inaccurate editorial in
one of our local newspapers regarding a reduction in the Countys budget contained
the following statement:
What is at hand is a reduction in services, but not people. We will
have the same number of employees delivering fewer services. That makes no sense,
logically or fiscally. Already there is an ambient question among many in our community:
What do all these government employees do? When the county is sued, we hire outside
attorneys. When we need to figure out solid waste, we hire outside consultants. When we
need to plan a public park, we hire outside planners. What do all the county
"planners," "engineers" and "experts" do that we must rely
upon "outside" talent? Are county workers that untalented? If so, let the
blood-letting ensue.
If
in fact there is an ambient question among many in our community why the
Corporation Counsel hires special counsel, we appreciate this opportunity to explain why.
First
of all, over the past eight years, this office has hired special counsel in only nine
cases. For the majority of these cases,
special counsel was legally required since there was
a conflict of interest for the Corporation Counsel to serve as the attorney. The editorial cited above makes the
inflammatory inference that Corporation Counsel lawyers somehow abdicated their
responsibility in not representing the County. This
is nonsense. A simple review of the special
counsel contracts (these are public government records available to anyone who asks) would
readily reveal the conflict of interest was the sole reason why special counsel was legally and ethically required.
Our
office agrees if there is a question why government funds are spent for a certain purpose
it should be asked and promptly answered. We
welcome the opportunity to provide our community the facts they deserve. However inaccurate and inflammatory newspaper
editorials that do not provide the public the whole picture divide our community and do
little to educate the community that our office is committed to serving.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on March 3, 2009 at 2:20 p.m.
Support
for our Police. Recent media articles
appearing in our local West side newspaper have brought into question the actions of our
police in enforcing public drinking in the Kailua-Kona business area. The incident in question involved our police
arresting two persons who were observed drinking beer near the Kailua Pier. Unfortunately, the spin that critics of
our police put on this incident led our public to believe this was heavy-handed police
enforcement against two elderly women, and that a warning would have been more
appropriate.
In
the County of Hawai`i, unlike some jurisdiction on the mainland, public consumption of
intoxicating beverages is not permitted. Through
a cooperative effort between retail merchants and residents in the Kailua-Kona area, our
police formed a special task force to clean up the area through increased
police presence and law enforcement. As a
result, violent crime has gone down in the area over the past six months, and business
employees have commended our police and say they are no longer afraid to walk to their
cars late at night. Police Chief Harry
Kubojiri recently said he is very appreciative of the thanks and positive feedback he has
gotten from the Kailua-Kona business community, and pledges to continue working with all
communities on our island to develop innovative programs such as this which do not require
any additional funding, but creative reallocation of existing police resources.
In
the present case, the two arrestees were not tourists sipping cocktails as
some police critics have erroneously inferred. Proper
police procedure was followed in the making of a lawful and peaceful arrest, which
provides for the safety of both the officer and the arrestee.
Critics
of our police are entitled to their opinion; no question about that. However before the majority of law-abiding and
supportive members of our community are unfairly prejudiced by one-sided and inaccurate
media reports and publications, anyone with any doubts or questions should contact the
Police Departments public information officer for the straight scoop.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on February 23, 2009, at 7:20 a.m.
Its
all about the service. Challenging economic times
require many businesses and families to make necessary adjustments to their budgets and to
review and revise their spending priorities. The
County of Hawai`i government is no exception. On
our island, the significant majority of our County revenues come from the collection of
real property taxes. These monies pay for fire
and police service, roads, parks, and many other services provided throughout our
community. Some recent editorials and letters
to the editor (including blog entries) in our local newspapers seem to imply the County is
immune from these hardships, and its officers and employees are not sensitive to the
reduction in revenues and economic downturn.
Doing
more with less is not simple rhetoric under Mayor Billy Kenois administration,
but a mandate for all departments to follow. A
hiring freeze has been implemented to ensure only essential County employees that have a
direct effect on the public health and safety will be hired.
All County departments have been asked to cut 5% from their present fiscal year
budgets and another 10% from their operating budgets for next fiscal year. Unlike private business, the County cannot
reduce hours or cut services.
The public demands and rightfully expects that the County continue to provide
services that the County is responsible for dispensing.
No matter that real property tax valuations and collections may be down; County
government cannot let basic services get reduced no matter what the external
economic conditions.
No
doubt some of the criticism directed at government workers in the past has some validity. As with any large organization with thousands of
employees, there will always be problem areas where belt tightening is warranted. We make no excuse for that. However under the new leadership of both the
mayoral administration and Council, attitudinal shifts by County officers and employees
will be expected. Treat the
taxpayers money like your own will be the guiding value to ensure each County
officer and employee under the new leadership is truly a steward of our hard-earned money.
Your
County government is served by many fine individuals who have committed their lives and
careers to serving their community. Many have
foregone the opportunity for financial wealth in the private sector, or have passed on
opportunities to work on the mainland or elsewhere. It
really is about the service, and that is something that we can pledge to each of you, no
matter what the economic conditions are.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on January 19, 2009, at 12:00 p.m.
What are
contingency relief funds? Many of you have heard of
the contingency relief fund account that is held and administered by the
Hawai`i County Council. When you review a
meeting agenda for the Council, or watch Council meeting proceedings on television, you
see County funds ranging from small to large amounts transferred from the Councils
account to various County departments. Many of
these funds ultimately find their way to private nonprofit groups in our community.
Where
do these funds come from? The funds are
allocated each year from the Countys general fund account to the Council. The primary source of revenue for our County is
real property tax revenues. The amount of the
contingency relief fund account varies from year to year; in leaner years, the fund has
been zero. A few years ago, the fund was $2.7
million. The Mayor, through the Finance
Department, makes a recommendation each year as to how much money should be placed in this
fund. When the Council reviews the budget
(which is an ordinance) they may increase or decrease this amount. When the budget is returned to the Mayor, he may
sign it into law, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it. If six members of the Council agree, they may
override the Mayors veto. It is this
process of checks and balances that ensures full community input and a
thoughtful discussion and deliberation of the best use of our valuable taxpayer funds.
What
are these funds used for? Council members
throughout the years should be commended for their effort in helping our community in
proposing legislation to release funds into our community.
Historically, contingency relief funds were used to pay for unanticipated
shortfalls in department budgets. For example,
if an electronic scoreboard at one of our County parks broke during the Countys
fiscal year, and there were not funds allocated during that year for a replacement, the
Council member from the district may be asked to release funds to purchase a new
scoreboard.
In
recent years however, recognizing the importance of public-private partnerships in our
communities, contingency relief funds have been released to private nonprofits who work
together with our County departments to further County programs and projects. This includes Neighborhood Watch programs,
anti-domestic violence and anti-sexual assault initiatives, and Grad Nites for
our local high school seniors, just to name a few. Our
laws simply require that the nonprofit organization be a 501c(3) organization, and that
the organization furthers a County program or project.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on January 12, 2009, at 3:45 p.m.
The
generous spirit of Christmas. The holiday season is a
time for many of us to reflect upon the past year, to give thanks for our friends and
family, and to look optimistically ahead at what the New Year will bring. However
for many in our community, the holiday season is a time of continuing financial struggle
and uncertainty. Not having a place to live, enough food to eat, or clean clothes
for the kids to go to school are just some of the challenges too many in our community
face every day.
This
year the Office of the Corporation Counsel began what will be an annual office
tradition. Office team members were asked to reach deep into their hearts, cupboards
and closets to find donations of food, clothing and personal hygiene items for Hilo's
emergency homeless shelter run by the Office of Social Ministries. Donations were
also sought for brand new toys for kids living at the shelter.
On
the Friday before Christmas, office team members delivered four full van loads of
goods to the shelter. Donations of food items, good clean clothing, and brand new
personal hygiene products will go a long way in helping needy families get back on their
feet. Brand new toys will help make Christmas special for the children as it should
be.
Kahiau
is the Hawaiian word that means "selfless giving without the expectation of
return." The Corporation Counsel family was happy to be a small part of
making Christmas a little brighter for families in need.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on December 22, 2008, at 2:45 p.m.
No pay
raise for the new Police Chief. A Stephens Media news
report that ran in both the Hawai`i Tribune-Herald and West Hawai`i Today on separate days
reported that the new incoming Police Chief would receive a substantial pay raise even
before taking office. The article gave the
clear impression that the County of Hawai`i Salary Commission, after hearing input from
the Hawai`i Police Commission, increased the pay for the new Chief far beyond what he
would have made once he assumed that office. Blog
entries from readers for both articles clearly reveal this was the (mis)impression
provided by this incomplete news report.
The truth is the
Salary Commission adjusted the salary of the new Chief to the exact amount the
Chiefs position makes, and nothing more. In
other words, the new Chief received no raise as
inferred in the article, but simply what pay was already allocated and previously approved
for the Chiefs position. This adjustment
required no increase in the Police Departments budget; in other words, there was no
additional burden placed on our taxpayers. Had
the Salary Commission not made this adjustment, the
new Chief would have taken a substantial pay cut in order to assume the responsibilities
of Chief.
Unfortunately, due
to the existing pay plan for appointed officers in our County, the present Human Resources
Director is of the opinion that seniority, years of service and exemplary performance as a
public servant are not relevant for determining starting pay in an appointed County
position. In other words, County officers can
be promoted into top positions and be required
to take a substantial pay cut.
Now, there are
some who may still believe that you knew how much the job paid when you applied for
it, and that if it requires a pay cut, so be it.
We fully respect those persons who believe this salary inversion problem is really
no problem at all. However our concern in this
matter centers solely on the misimpression given the newspaper readers in our community,
and the mistaken belief our Chief sought a pay raise beyond what was already allocated in
the Countys budget for that position.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on December 16, 2008, at 7:50 a.m.
What
happens when misinformation gets repeated in the media?
At
a recent public hearing in
A reporter from
the Hawai`i Tribune-Herald, one of
It was unfortunate
this reporter did not stay for the entire meeting, or did not attempt to independently
verify the accuracy of this representation (or did not point out clearly in his article
that this was only the opinion of a testifier, and not corroborated by the Police
Commission or other County authority).
Hawai`i
Countys police chief vacancy was advertised statewide.
This was done by placing advertisements in our Countys two dailies, the
Hawai`i Tribune-Herald and the West Hawai`i Today, two newspapers with statewide
circulation. The Police Commission even paid
an extra monetary fee to have this vacancy listed on the Tribune-Heralds Top
Job section at the newspapers website.
In fact, there was
an applicant from the mainland, but he was deemed ineligible for the position, since he
was not a
The suggestion
there was a concerted effort to recruit only from within the Hawai`i County Police
Department is simply not true. The fact of the
matter is only four applications were received despite the position being advertised for
three consecutive weeks in two newspapers and on the Tribune-Heralds website.
No doubt
transparency is absolutely critical in order for government to maintain the public trust. To this end, government often relies on our local
media to accurately report matters of importance to our community members, and to not lead
the public to believe as fact the uninformed opinion of a single testifier.
As ever, if you
have any comments or questions on the above or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on November 24, 2008, at 11:15 a.m.
What
happens when the Council passes laws that are unenforceable? There has been significant
discussion in our media concerning the enforceability of two new Hawai`i County laws. On November 4, 2008, the voters of our County
passed the lowest law enforcement priority initiative that mandates that our
police make the adult possession of marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority. This initiative also prevents the police from
accepting federal and state monies earmarked for drug eradication and anti-drug education. On November 13, 2008, the Hawai`i County Council
overrode Mayor Harry Kims veto of the GMO bill. This legislation prevents the genetic modification
of taro and coffee in our County; an issue that created divisiveness in our community from
those opposed to genetic modification versus proponents of GMO research.
After the laws
passed, questions turned to enforceability. With
respect to the marijuana initiative, concerns regarding the federal and state preemption
remain. Preemption is the legal
doctrine that generally provides that local county laws will always be subservient to
federal and state laws that conflict with it. Since
marijuana in any quantity remains illegal under both federal and state law, arguably the
County cannot pass any law that would prevent the police from enforcing it. In fact, an argument could be made that it would
necessarily result in the police violating their oath of office to simply look the
other way in an effort to enforce the County initiative.
Yet another issue
with the marijuana initiative is the doctrine of the separation of powers. Generally speaking, the legislative branch cannot
direct the day to day operations of executive branch departments. The argument goes that the legislature effectively
engages in law enforcement by passing a law that tells the police what laws to enforce
aggressively and what laws to make a low priority. Our office has opined that you cannot do via
initiative what you could not do via ordinance.
Thus it is arguable that an initiative that goes too far, like an ordinance that
goes too far, may be void as it violates the separation of powers doctrine.
With respect to
the GMO bill, our office has opined that the Council was within its authority to pass this
legislation. Federal and state law had not
preempted any County effort in regulating this activity.
The issue of concern is enforceability. How
do our police and prosecutors enforce this ban? With
the burden of proof in criminal cases being beyond a reasonable doubt, there
is no question some degree of scientific verification and/or corroboration will be
necessary in order for this law to have teeth via enforcement.
No doubt the above
two issues have been very contentious for some involved.
Despite differing views on these and many issues, I think we all agree we are
fortunate to live and work in a democracy that allows for all views to be heard and for
matters to be placed before our voters. No
matter what side of the fence you may be on, we can all agree to civilly disagree. Although some may disagree with the outcome, there
must be respect for the process.
As the legal
representative of our County government, our pledge is to always respect the will of our
voters and to work with our
If you have any
questions or comments concerning this article or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on November 18, 2008, at 12:30 p.m.
The
search for a new Chief of Police has begun. The Hawai`i Police
Commission has begun the process of searching for Hawai`i Countys new Police Chief,
with the announced retirement of Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna effective December 31, 2008. Under County law, the nine-member citizen board has
the sole authority to hire and fire the Chief of Police.
The Police
Commission encourages all persons who are interested in applying for this position to
submit an application to the Police Commission office in
The
If you have any
questions or comments concerning this article or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on October 22, 2008, at 11:00 a.m.
How does
the Council decide who will be its Chair? After the General Election
on November 4, 2008, all nine Hawai`i County Council seats will be officially filled with
the terms of all members to begin at 1:00 p.m. on December 1, 2008. People often ask how it is that the Council selects
its chairperson, and how can they organize before December 1 while complying with the
State Sunshine Law?
Is this a good
law? Yes and no.
On the one hand, there is the argument that all
discussions and decision making should occur in the public forum. On the other hand, this exception allows the
minority faction of a board to meet in private to discuss leadership issues without
allowing the majority to control the discussion and decision making.
Practically all
legislative bodies in the modern world have a majority and a
minority. Often, these lines are
drawn across political party lines, such as republicans and democrats. In Hawai`i County, all County elections are
nonpartisan, meaning there is no requirement to declare a political party. For this reason, a political majority is often
comprised of those persons who share similar philosophies or who simply get along and
trust one another. Advocates of the
majority/minority system say this is an expedient and efficient way of getting things
done. With an identified majority, there will
be the necessary votes to initiate and pass needed legislation. Critics say this type of you scratch my back,
Ill scratch yours is patent political corruption, and each member of the board
should have the courage to vote their conscience, irrespective of what the vote count is.
One thing is
certain if there is a decided split Council without a supermajority (at least
six members): There is a slight imbalance in
favor of the administration (Mayor) with respect to the separation of powers. Without six votes, the Council is without power to
override a mayoral veto. This means the mayor
will have the power to effectively kill any legislation brought forward by the Council.
As you can see,
the system of laws in our County does present the possibility for
confrontation between Council members and the mayor. However
to the credit of our sitting Council members and our Mayor, a commitment to civility has
prevailed. Although there are times Council
members have spirited disagreements as they discuss contentious issues, or there is open
disagreement with the administration (Mayor) as to policies or priorities, at the end of
the day, there is respect for the right of everyone to voice their opinion and to execute
their respective duties. Although County
government officials are sometimes criticized for what is described as
in-fighting or other conflict, there is no question as to their commitment and
desire to work towards a better
If you have any
questions or comments concerning this article or any matter, please feel free to email our
office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me
at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. This message
was posted on October 20, 2008, at 3:10 p.m.
Fire
Inspector cleared of any wrongdoing by Board of Ethics. On October 8, 2008, the
Hawai`i County Board of Ethics considered a charge of ethical misconduct brought by the
former manager of a now defunct
As public
servants, we recognize there will be times we need to make hard decisions that may not be
welcomed by some members of the public. In
matters related to the public health and safety such as our Fire Code and Building Code,
we believe the vast majority of the public we serve recognize this and expect no less.
Unfortunately,
often the allegations of government misconduct
are prominently reported in the newspapers but the follow up end result is not. This is not necessarily the fault of our local
media; they are charged with covering a wide range of issues and stories, and are often
confronted with manpower shortages as well. However
as shown in the present case, unfortunate allegations tend to tarnish the reputation of
exemplary public servants when the public is not informed of its outcome.
Granted there are
cases where there has been misconduct found on the part of County employees. A check of the records of the Board of Ethics
(these are public records) reveals the Board has been very diligent in recent years in
investigating charges of misconduct, and finding violations where they do exist. Thankfully these instances are infrequent, and the
Board is quick to issue corrective guidance to the County employee involved.
The Board of
Ethics is a citizen board staffed with five volunteers who come from different parts of
our island, and from various backgrounds. Their
function is to independently and fairly investigate allegations of ethical misconduct on
the part of County employees, and to make a decision whether there has been a violation of
the Code of Ethics. They take their
responsibility very seriously.
If you have any
questions concerning this article or any matter, please feel free to email our office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me at (808)
961-8304, extension 118. This message was
posted on October 14, 2008, at 8:45 a.m.
The
difference between an administrative investigation and police investigation. It was recently reported in
our local media that a Violence in the Workplace investigation was recently completed
concerning an incident that occurred between two Council members. A police investigation was also conducted into
these alleged threats that were made by one Council member and directed to another. The public may wonder, How can the
This is because
the burden of proof in each investigation is separate. The Clerk, who conducted the administrative
investigation, is required to determine whether by preponderance of the
evidence there is enough evidence to show that the threat happened. Preponderance of the evidence means
that it is more likely than not that something happened. Lawyers sometimes say you have to prove that it
happened by 51% of the evidence.
However in police
investigations that are sent to the Prosecuting Attorney, the burden of proof is
beyond a reasonable doubt. This is
the highest standard of proof recognized in our judicial system. We are fortunate that our County is served by an
honorable Prosecuting Attorney,
This is why
sometimes (like in this case) you see two different conclusions for the same incident. It doesnt mean there is inconsistency, it
means both sides (the administrative and criminal) are required to follow different
standards of proof.
If you have any
questions concerning this article or any matter, please feel free to email our office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me at (808)
961-8304, extension 118. This message was
updated on October 3, 2008, at 9 a.m.
Plastic
bag ban not sacked yet. Despite the recent veto
of the Council bill seeking to ban non-biodegradable plastic bags in our County, both the
County administration (Mayors Office) and the Council continue to work on a new bill
that addresses many of the concerns raised in both the Mayors veto as well as by our
citizens during public testimony when the original bill was deliberated by the Council. Working together, it is hoped the County will have
a good bill that when signed into law will help our fragile environment, be fair to
businesses, and promote recycling and other sustainability initiatives our County needs. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Director of the
Department of Environmental Management and Council Member
If you have any
questions concerning this law, please feel free to email our office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me at (808)
961-8304, extension 118. This message was
updated on September 29, 2008 at 2:20 p.m.
Acting
Mayor Kaetsu vetoes plastic bag ban bill. This afternoon (September
19, 2008), the Office of the Mayor delivered a veto message to the Hawai`i County Council,
vetoing the proposed legislative ban on plastic bags.
In the veto message, Acting Mayor Dixie Kaetsu states in pertinent part as follows:
There
are two reasons for this veto. First, there
are concerns specific to this bill. They
relate to certain provisions in the bill and how the bill was handled in regards to public
involvement. Second is a more philosophical
issue about whether this is the right way to address the environmental problems caused by
plastic bags when they are not disposed of properly.
The
specific concerns with Bill 326 Draft 2 that led to this veto action follow:
·
Non-profit
organizations: no opportunity for input
Bill 326 Draft 2 was passed without the public having a full understanding of what
businesses would be affected by this measure.
I watched a recording of the Councils discussion at its August 27 meeting
where this bill passed second and final reading. It
was made clear in the discussion that non-profit organizations such as churches, schools,
community groups and sports teams will also be prohibited from using plastic bags at their
fundraisers.
It
was also clear that until the August 27 meeting, even some Council members were not aware
of this impact on non-profit organizations. Not
realizing that this bill would apply to them, non-profit groups did not provide comments
and input before the bills passage.
On
August 1, 2007, Mayor Kim wrote to the Council in another veto message:
It
has always been the goal and policy of this administration to ensure that whenever any
major policy changes are pursued, a forum of some sort is to be conducted to allow those
who would be affected an opportunity to air their concerns.
Since
non-profit organizations would be impacted by this bill, and it was not clear to all that
they would be impacted, efforts should have been made to solicit input from these
organizations before adoption.
·
Small
business impacts
While supermarkets and larger retail chains are not happy about the impact this
bill will have on costs to their customers, they have said they will accept it and live
with it. It is our small businesses that will
be most harmed by the higher cost of paper bags. Our
small businesses already have a difficult time competing in the marketplace and cannot
take advantage of the same economies of scale in purchasing as the larger stores. Small businesses that would be negatively impacted
include vendors at farmers markets, swap meets, and flea markets. It is noted that this bill would even make it
illegal to place goods purchased at garage sales into reused plastic bags.
These
impacts are an unreasonable burden on small businesses.
·
Effective
date
Bill 326 Draft 2 provides that the ban on plastic bags at point of sale becomes
effective one year after the bill is approved, that is September 2009. This is not long enough for retailers, especially
small businesses, and consumers to prepare to implement this ban. One local source of plastic and paper bags for
about 650 small business customers provided an example of how this effective date can
impact smaller companies. One customer
recently placed an order for custom printed plastic bags.
To obtain a reasonable unit cost, the customer ordered a quantity that will
probably last at least a year and a half. The
bags are still in transit, and if a ban takes effect in one year, this small business will
be out money it can ill spare for bags it cannot legally use after September 2009. Compare this to the larger stores where most if not
all of them will be able to use up their present stock within a year. Smaller stores, to take advantage of the economies
of scale, are more likely to purchase and have on hand an excess of plastic bags extending
beyond a years supply.
A
review of the effective date of measures in other jurisdictions shows that with the
exception of
·
Penalties It is felt that the fine and
community service penalty proposed in Bill 326 Draft 2 is too high. A more reasonable penalty provided in the
pioneering
In
addition, as discussed at the August 27 Council meeting, the penalty section refers to
persons being penalized, not businesses. According to Corporation Counsel, this could result
in any person employed by a business being cited under this section. For example, in the case of a supermarket, a clerk
bagging the groceries in plastic bags could be cited and fined rather than the responsible
management of the store. While this may seem
an unlikely possibility, it could happen under the bill as written.
A
third issue with the penalty section is that it provides for fines collected under the
section to be deposited in the Countys Public Access, Open Space and Natural
Resources Fund. Bill 326 Draft 2 provides that
upon conviction, a person is sentenced to pay the fine and/or perform community service. Being convicted implies that this is a
matter that will be taken up at District Court. Fines
collected by the Court are kept by the State of
·
Location
in the Hawaii County Code
Bill 326 Draft 2 amends Chapter 20 of the Hawaii County Code, which deals
with refuse and solid waste. Since the bill
does not ban plastic from landfills or transfer stations, but rather bans the retail
distribution of plastic bags, there is a question whether this is the appropriate section
of the Code for such a provision. Instead, it
might have been better placed in Chapter 14, General Welfare.
If you have any
questions concerning this bill, please feel free to email our office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me at (808)
961-8304, extension 118. This message was
updated on September 19, 2008 at 5:10 p.m.
Welcome to our
message for the week of September 15, 2008.
Councilman
Higa files a lawsuit against the County. As you may have read in
our daily newspapers, Councilman Stacy Higa from Council District 4 filed two lawsuits
last week related to the ongoing Melissa Chang EEOC case.
In the lawsuit filed in State Circuit court, Mr. Higa essentially claims the
Corporation Counsel failed to provide him legal counsel in the Chang case (the Corporation
Counsel represented the County of Hawai`i and not Mr. Higa personally, since he was never
a named party in that case). In the Federal
Court case, Mr. Higa is seeking declaratory relief by asking the Court to set aside an
earlier decision by a federal administrative law judge, and preventing the County from
possibly settling the EEOC case.
We did not go into
detail with the media in responding to these allegations.
Councilman Higa is a sitting member of the Hawai`i County Council, and we did not
believe it appropriate to comment on the merits of his claims in the midst of a contested
mayoral election where he is a candidate. As
we instruct our staff, he is owed respect as a County officer, notwithstanding these
lawsuits filed against our County.
Plastic
or
This Thursday is the
deadline for the Mayor to sign or veto the recently passed ban on plastic bags on
If you have any
comments regarding any of the above, or wish to have any County issue or question
addressed, please email me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. We will try to respond to you directly, or place
and informational post in this weekly message column.
Happy Week of
September 8, 2008!
Sixth
Annual Statewide Municipal Attorneys Training Conference a success. The Sixth Annual
Statewide Municipal Attorneys Training Conference, hosted by the
Through the
generosity of Laserfiche. a hands-on computer lab with 15 laptop computers was set up to
deliver training to all county personnel on paperless document imaging and management. The finance directors from all four counties also
collaborated with our office to hold their second annual meeting as part of our Sixth
Annual conference.
As ever, if you
have any questions concerning our County government, or if our office can assist you in
heading you in the right direction to get any information or service, please contact me at
(808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. Take care and have a wonderful week!
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of August 18,
2008.
Marijuana
initiative on the November ballot. As you may have read and
heard in the local media over the past few days, the Council last Wednesday via a 5-4 vote
overrode the determination of the
Adam Lehmann, a
very nice and respectful person, was the coordinator of Project Peaceful Sky,
a group seeking to have our police and prosecutors make marijuana possession by adults in
certain circumstances the lowest priority for both enforcement and
prosecution. The initiative also prohibits the
County from accepting federal and state funds earmarked for marijuana eradication and
interdiction programs, such as anti-drug education at our schools.
Unfortunately for
Lehmann, his intended message of seeking to have our law enforcement agencies make the
enforcement of drugs like ice a higher priority got blurred in the debate. This is because this initiative drew public
testimony from persons who were critical of our police, and who otherwise spoke about the
States medical marijuana law, which remains unaffected by this initiative.
The public is
encouraged to study this issue carefully. If
you have any questions concerning this bill, please contact our office or email me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us.
Take care and have
a great week!
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of July 21,
2008.
Deadline
for filing for elective office is tomorrow! Tomorrow (June 22) is the
filing deadline for all candidates seeking elective office in the State of
Many people ask us
whether present sitting County elected officials must resign to run for
elective office. The answer is, it
depends. It depends on the type of
office that elected official is seeking, and when the term of his/her present office ends. As an example, two Council members, Stacy Higa and
K. Angel Pilago, are seeking election as Mayor of our County. Since their present Council terms end before the mayoral term they are seeking begins,
they do not have to resign their present Council
office. However, for those elected officials
in our State seeking to run for an office that beings before their present elective term ends, they do need to resign their present office upon them filing
their official nomination documents with the Office of Elections.
As ever, if you
have any questions concerning our County government, or if our office can assist you in
heading you in the right direction to get any information or service, please contact me at
(808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. Take care and have a wonderful week!
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of July 14,
2008.
Lawsuits
and claims against the County. Both the Hawai`i
Tribune-Herald and West Hawai`i Today ran articles over the past few days about the monies
expended by the County over the past eight years in settling lawsuits. Although the vast majority of comments received
commended the County in keeping these expenditures relatively low, there was one comment
questioning the dollar amount of claims paid out. The
That being said,
we as a County can always do better. As the
legal representative of the County, our attorneys focus on a vision of zero-liability for
our client departments. This utopian vision
motivates us to work with our client departments to continue providing the best service
for our citizens in a safe manner, while also limiting the liability exposure inherent in
any enterprise dealing directly with the consuming public.
Make no mistake about thiswe do not simply live with the
liability the County pays for. We always learn
from the many cases that are filed against the County (even those we win), and look at
ways to have our client departments serve our community better.
As ever, if you
have any questions concerning our County government, or if our office can assist you in
heading you in the right direction to get any information or service, please contact me at
(808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. Take care and have a wonderful week!
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of July 7,
2008.
County
documents at your fingertips. The
As with all new
technology, there may be bugs that need to be worked out, as well as an adjustment period
for our County employees who will be using this new tool.
With the Countys commitment to move forward with this aggressive technology,
we will better serve the public, and provide community members information in a timely
manner.
Would
you like to serve your County as a board or commission member? There are a number of
present vacancies on some very important County boards and commissions. For example, we have vacancies in selected
districts on the Planning Commission, Police Commission, Water Board, Salary Commission,
and Public Access Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission (PONC). We also have some vacancies on our Board of Ethics. If you are interested in serving, please complete
an application by clicking on this link: http://www.hawaii-county.com/mayor/boards_&_commissions.htm.
Many of our board
and commission members have commented they found their service to be rewarding, and have
enjoyed meeting different people from around our beautiful island. Membership on a County board or commission also
provides you the unique opportunity of learning more about our County government, as well
as having a role in shaping the future quality of life for all our island residents.
As ever, if you
have any questions concerning our County government, or if our office can assist you in
heading you in the right direction to get any information or service, please contact me at
(808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. Take care and have a wonderful week!Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of June 30,
2008.
Mayors
veto of Countys Operating Budget stands. The Council on June 30,
2008 sought to override Mayor Harry Kims veto of the operating budget for the County
for fiscal year 2008-2009. After lengthy
discussion, the override attempt by the Council failed.
Voting in favor of the override were Council Members Pete Hoffmann, Angel Pilago,
Brenda Ford,
Special
Counsel hired for County in Waikoloa Workforce Housing project. The Office of the
Corporation Counsel awarded a special counsel contract to the law firm of McCorriston
Miller Mukai and MacKinnon of Oahu last week. We
had previously obtained the consent of the Hawai`i County Council to hire special counsel
to assist our attorneys in possible litigation stemming from the Waikoloa Workforce
Housing project, and to ensure proper protection of the Countys interests. The contract amount is $150,000, and our attorneys
are charged with working together with the McCorriston attorneys as co-counsel. The McCorriston law firm was selected from a number
of other law firms that had indicated a willingness to serve as special counsel. In the litigious world we live in today, it simply
makes sense for the County to seek out attorneys in our legal community who possess
specialized skill and experience in specific areas of practice, on a case-by-case and on
an as needed basis. For this particular
housing project, it was important for the County to hire attorneys with experience in this
area of the law.
As ever, if you
have any questions concerning our County government, or if our office can assist you in
heading you in the right direction to get any information or service, please contact me at
(808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. Take care and have a wonderful week!
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of June 16,
2008.
Mayor
vetoes Countys Operating Budget. As you all have read in our local newspapers, Mayor
Harry Kim has vetoed the Hawai`i County Councils amended version of the Operating
Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. According to
our laws, a balanced budget must be in place come July 1, the beginning of the
Countys fiscal year. The Mayor vetoed
the budget primarily because of his belief that the Councils expectations with
respect to the fund balance were not realistic.
The fund balance is the money from all County departments, agencies and projects
that is left over after the end of the current fiscal year that is carried
over into the following fiscal year budget. What
happens now? The Council may schedule a
special session before June 30, 2008 in order to consider an override of the Mayors
veto. In order for the Council to do this,
they need six (out of nine) votes, or a super majority. If the Council is not successful in overriding the
Mayors veto, then the Mayors original budget becomes law.
Thank
you! Over the past months, we have received many
telephone calls, emails, and other communications from grateful members of our community
commending the work of our legal staff. Our
staff understands and appreciates the trust the community has placed in us as public
servants, and we work hard every day to never let the public down. Thank you to all of you who are so kind and took
the time to acknowledge us.
As ever, if you
have any questions concerning our County government, or if our office can assist you in
heading you in the right direction to get any information or service, please contact me at
(808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. Take care and have a wonderful week!
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of June 9,
2008.
Summer
Fun training completed. One of the many good things our County does that
rarely gets reported in our local print media are the child care programs sponsored by our
Department of Parks and Recreation. With work,
financial and other demands placed on many young parents, affordable child care can be a
nightmare for many families. Our Summer Fun
programs are something many people take for granted; you know--we all went to these summer
programs when we were kids growing up here in
Budget
sent to the Mayor. The
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of June 2,
2008.
Welcome
to our new legal interns. Our office welcomes three
legal interns to our office for the summer.
Madeline Reed
just completed her second year of instruction at the William S. Richardson School of Law
at the
Cheryl Shitabata
recently completed her first year at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law. Cheryl is a native of North Hilo, and a graduate of
Kelci Paiva
just graduated from
Each year, the
Office of the Corporation Counsel seeks to recruit law students and college students who
wish to work in a law office and develop their legal skills under the mentorship of our
fifteen attorneys and legal staff. If you or
someone you know is interested in a position, please contact Deputy Corporation Counsel
The cost
of marked specialized Police cars. There has been recent
criticism of the County and Hawai`i Police Department concerning the purchase of
specialized patrol vehicles. The marked police
car initiative was one advocated for years by the West Hawai`i Crimestoppers. After a joint County-community task force examined
this issue, the Police Department purchased these new vehicles. Unfortunately, the Police Department administration
has not had the opportunity to publicly respond to the criticism concerning the cost of
these vehicles. The Police Department
administration will be briefing the Hawai`i Police Commission at their next meeting on
June 20, 2008, beginning at 9:00 a.m., at the King Kamehameha Hotel in Kailua-Kona. Many of the misconceptions and misinformation
concerning the cost of these vehicles will be addressed at this meeting.
On a related note,
a concerned citizen submitted the following statement in a local newspaper blog entry:
I have REPEATEDLY called the Corporation Counsel, and sent over 100 letter (sic) to
police, mayor, feds, etc... The citizen
was outraged concerning the cost of the police vehicles.
The attorneys and staff of our office are committed to providing our County clients
and the public the very best service. To this
end, our staff understands and appreciates the need to always provide to the public we
serve any information we are legally and ethically able to share. If anyone ever has any problems concerning
obtaining information, or feel they are getting the runaround from any County
department or agency, please feel free to contact me (Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us). I would be more than happy to assist any of our
citizens and hopefully get them headed in the right direction.
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of May 26,
2008.
Budget time for the
Fund Balance Message to Council
Mr. Takabas
letter contains an excellent question and answer section that provides answers to many
frequently asked questions by the public. As
ever, if you have any follow-up questions or comments, please feel free to contact me
anytime at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or by
calling me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118.
Take care, and
have a great week!
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of May 19,
2008.
The Sunshine Law and Government Records Law. Our office recently completed our annual
training for all new board and commission members on the State Sunshine Law and Government
Records Law. Our office hosts this training
annually, with four training sessions; two in
One of the many
excellent questions raised was how many board members may communicate about board business
outside of a properly noticed meeting. The
answer is two. No more than two members of a
board may discuss board business (matters that are before the board for official action or
are reasonably anticipated to come before the board in the near future), so long as no
commitment to vote is sought. By way of
example, this means two members of the Council may discuss official Council business
privately, so long as (1) they dont discuss the matter with any other member of the
Council, and (2) they do not promise to vote a certain way, or seek a commitment from the
other Council member to vote a certain way.
Like many of our
laws that regulate the conduct of government officers and employees, the Sunshine Law is
self regulating. This means it is
incumbent on all County officers and employees to not only abide by the letter but also
the spirit of the Sunshine Law. To this end,
our attorneys consistently advise our County clients to err on the side of caution, and do
nothing that would serve to compromise the trust of the public. There is a famous adage in the law that goes,
If it seems wrong, it probably is. With
the Sunshine Law, with the public trust at stake, this is very good advice indeed.
If you have any
questions about our Sunshine Law or Government Records Law, please feel free to contact
me. We will do our best to answer your
questions. My email address is Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, and my direct telephone
number is (808) 961-8304, extension 118. Take
care, and have a wonderful week.
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of May 12,
2008.
Salaries of County government officers. There have been recent editorials and letters
in both the West Hawai`i and
In 2000, the
voters of the
Salary Commission
members are non-paid citizen volunteers from our community.
They have no hidden agenda or ulterior purpose other than to perform
their duties consistent with the requirements of our Charter; to ensure that the salary
and benefits of County officers have a reasonable relationship to compensation in
the public and private sectors.
There are
presently four vacancies on the nine-member Salary Commission. We are looking for dedicated and concerned citizens
from Council Districts 4 (
Take care, and
have a wonderful week!
Application
- Hawaii County Boards and Commissions
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of May 5, 2008.
What is the difference
between the Charter and the
On the other hand,
the administration is responsible for carrying out and enforcing the laws passed by the
Council. The doctrines of separation of
powers and checks and balances ensures that both branches of our County
government perform their specific functions, while providing built-in safeguards that
prevent one branch from overreaching its authority into the jurisdiction of the other. Our County supports the strong mayor, strong
council doctrine. This doctrine promotes
the harmonious working relationship between the two branches, and encourages County
officers and employees in both branches to work together to further the common good of our
island community.
Since our Charter
is much like a constitution, amending it is not easy.
Only our voters may amend the Charter. The
Council is required to pass an ordinance authorizing the amendment of the Charter. A super majority (6 Council votes) is
required to allow the voters the opportunity to seek changes to the Charter. The bill must go through three public readings
before the Council. Once on the ballot, the
majority number of votes cast on the particular measure is necessary for the Charter
amendment to pass. The Mayor is not involved
in this process.
The process for
amending the Hawai`i County Code is different. Council
members introduce bills (ordinances) that require two public readings. A bare majority (5 Council votes) is required to
pass a bill, unless it is a bill seeking to amend the Countys budget, which requires
a super majority (6 Council votes). Once a
bill passes through the Council, the Mayor has three options: The Mayor may (1) sign the bill into law, (2) veto
the bill, or (3) do nothing.
If the Mayor does
nothing, the bill becomes law without his/her signature.
Sometimes mayors do this as a way of indicating they do not necessarily agree with
the legislation passed by the Council, but do not feel a veto is appropriate.
If the Mayor
vetoes the bill, the Council has the opportunity to override the veto. They may do this by garnering a super majority (6
Council votes). If the Mayors veto is
overridden, the bill becomes law.
As we describe in
our FAQ section of this website, our office cannot ethically dispense legal advice to the
public at large. However, our office is always
more than willing and happy to provide the public we serve general information concerning
our County government, or steer you in the right direction to get your questions answered. I invite you to contact me via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or at (808) 961-8304,
extension 118, if I may ever be of service to you. Take
care, and have a great week!
Aloha! Welcome to our message for the week of April 28,
2008. We hope you all will have a wonderful
and healthy week.
To appeal or not to appeal. As we discussed in our messages below for the
weeks of April 7 and 21, the case of Melissa Chang
v. County of Hawai`i, Hawai`i County Council has consumed significant headlines and
discussion in our local media. The public
often asks when does the County decide to appeal a ruling adverse to it, and who is
responsible for that decision? To appeal a
trial or appellate court decision, or the decision of an administrative law tribunal such
as the forum utilized in this case, a notice of appeal must generally be filed
within a specified period of time following the entry of the decision. In cases involving our County, these notices are
generally filed routinely so long as our attorneys have a good faith belief as to the
existence of an issue appropriate for appeal.
In some cases,
courts have held that failing to take the necessary steps to file an appeal may subject an
attorney to discipline as this may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Of course, many cases that are appealed do not run
a full appellate course. Negotiations normally
ensue as there are risks for all parties involved in a case, in the event an appellate
court or tribunal reviews the proceedings of the lower court. In this particular case, although it is the decision of the Corporation Counsel
to file the notice of appeal, it will be the Council who will ultimately make final
decisions with respect to pursuing the appeal to its end, or negotiating a settlement.
Our office takes
very seriously our responsibility of being stewards of the taxpayers money. For this reason, the Council will be carefully
briefed and only responsible recommendations will be made with respect to the future
course of this case. One citizen in a local
media blog feared this case may take a similar course as the William Silva v. County of Hawai`i rigged police
promotions case, which occurred prior to the present mayoral and Council administrations. No doubt these fears may be justified, assuming
this case is not followed carefully and prudently. However,
our commitment to our taxpayers and County, as in all cases, is to zealously defend our
County coffers while being fair and just to all legitimate claimants.
Finally, the same
blogger asked whether this Chang case will incur
significant legal expense, like the Silva case. The answer is no.
In the Silva case, the State Supreme
Court determined there was a conflict of interest between the named defendants, and this
necessitated the hiring of numerous special counsel (private attorneys) to defend each
defendant (including the County). This is not the case here.
Our attorneys are scheduled to handle the entire defense of this case. Our attorneys are salaried professionals, who are
not paid overtime or any additional compensation for working beyond normal work
hours.
Legal assistance for those in need. Our Hawai`i Supreme Court rules recommend all
attorneys in our State provide pro bono legal
service to the community, particularly for those persons who may not otherwise be able to
afford to hire a lawyer. I am happy to report
Corporation Counsel attorneys in our County take this charge very seriously, and provide pro bono service to clients so long as there is no
conflict with the County. Our attorneys also
serve on many private non-profit boards in our community and donate their time and share
their expertise with kahiau. One board I serve on is Volunteer Legal Services
Hawai`i. VLSH is committed to recruiting
attorney volunteers in our community to provide legal representation in all types of
non-criminal cases for those members of our community who cannot afford an attorney. If you or someone you know needs a lawyer, but
cannot afford to hire one, please call the VLSH offices toll free on
The staff of the
Office of the Corporation Counsel feel very grateful we have the opportunity to serve our
public. Our core value commitments of
professionalism, accountability and teamwork guide us in everything we do, everyday. If you have any comments, or if you need assistance
from our office in guiding you in the right direction in our County, please email me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call (808) 961-8304,
extension 118. Please have a safe and
wonderful week!
Aloha! This has been a busy week in the
Bill 270: A proposed Charter amendment seeking to create an
Office of Police Oversight and Complaints. As reported in our
message for the week of April 14, 2008, Councilman Bob Jacobson (Council District 6)
earlier introduced legislation seeking to amend our Charter to create an Office of Police
Oversight and Complaints. Since this was a
proposed Charter amendment, three separate readings on three separate days is required by
our laws. At the Council meeting on April 22
(first reading), the majority of the Council voted against this bill. The Council also agreed to waive the
attorney-client privilege with respect to our legal analysis and recommendations
concerning this bill. Click on this link to
view our opinion:
Bill 209: Authorizing
the Board of Ethics to impose fines for violations of the
The Countys
Code of Ethics governs all County officers and employees, as well as former employees in
limited circumstances. It seeks to promote the
highest standard of conduct by all County personnel in their delivery of services to the
public. Our office provides legal and clerical
support to the five-member board (all
community volunteers). If you have any
questions regarding the Board, or if you wish to file a complaint, please feel free to
contact our office or me directly.
Bill 257: A proposed Charter amendment seeking to revise the
initiative and referendum process. One of the important
rights our citizens enjoy is the right of initiative and referendum. This allows citizens to petition our government to
have laws passed or repealed at the ballot. No
doubt the present process in our Charter may at times be confusing. Through the effort of the League of Women Voters
and other concerned citizens, a new and improved process has been presented to the
Council. On April 22 the Council approved this
bill at its third and final reading. The
voters of our County will now be asked at the next election whether it is their will to
amend our Charter to adopt this new process, or allow the existing process to remain in
our laws.
Bill 262: A proposed
Charter amendment seeking to reorganize the
Bill 224: The Council overrides the Mayors veto of the
smoking ban at all County parks and facilities. The Council garnered the
sufficient number of votes to override Mayor Harry Kims veto of the smoking ban at
all County parks and facilities. Since the
Mayors veto has been legally overridden, the ordinance immediately becomes law. Smoking is now prohibited at all County parks and
facilities.
As ever, if I may
be of assistance to you in any way, or provide you information about our County or head
you in the right direction, please email me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us,
or call me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118. Have
a great rest of the week!
Aloha and welcome
to our message for the week of April 21, 2008.
The Councils request
to be briefed on the Melissa Chang case. As reported last week in
our local print media, Council Member Dominic Yagong (District 1) has requested the
Corporation Counsel schedule an executive meeting (closed to the public) to discuss Melissa Chang v. County of Hawai`i, Hawai`i County
Council. In response to this request, our
office issued the following letter today:
Melissa Chang v. County of Hawaii - Hawaii County
Council
The setting of
Council agenda items is within the discretion of its chair.
If this matter is scheduled in the upcoming weeks at a meeting of our Council, our
office will be prepared to brief them on this case.
As we reported
previously, the Administrative Law Judges order imposing the Federal Privacy Act
prevents any of the parties from discussing the contents of the records of this case
publicly. However, as we note in our letter,
this does not prevent our office from discussing the case with the Council, since they are
the client. Further, the Hawai`i Rules of
Professional Responsibility mandate that attorneys keep their clients reasonably informed
on material developments in cases, upon request of the client.
Shouldnt the information be shared with the
public, since the taxpayers are the client? Understandably,
one of the common misconceptions in public sector law is that the public is the
client. This is not legally correct. In the
We also recognize
court orders and other laws sometime restrict the ability of the County to share
information publicly. As attorneys, this is
something we must honor. However, under our
laws, once the reason for the sealing of records or an executive meeting no longer exists,
or with the passage of time or the extinguishing of a significant privacy interest, the
records of a case or matter generally become public. Further,
the County cannot expend funds without information concerning the amount being made
public. For these reasons, although
information may be generally withheld during the early stages of any case due to court
orders or statutory laws, the information will generally become public in the near future.
As ever, if I may be of assistance to you in any way, or provide you information about our County or head you in the right direction, please email me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118.
Aloha and welcome
to our message for the week of April 14, 2008.
Independent Police Auditor. Last week the Hawai`i County Council Committee
on Public Works and Intergovernmental Relations voted 5-2 in opposition to a Charter
amendment that would create an Office of Police Oversight and Complaints. This proposal was brought forward by Council Member
Independent Legislative Auditor. A proposed Charter amendment that did pass
second reading (three readings are required) before our Council last week was an effort to
amend our laws to create an Independent Legislative Auditor.
This proposal would mandate that the Legislative Auditor conduct performance and
financial audits of all County departments, agencies and entities that receive County
funds. This is an excellent step in the right
direction to promote transparency in County government and to promote accountability. If this measure passes during the 2008 election (a
majority of votes cast must approve all Charter amendments), the present Office of the
Legislative Auditor will transform into an auditing office. Presently, the Legislative Auditor assists Council
members with the research and drafting of legislation.
Their new audit duties will be a significant departure from their present
responsibilities, but a welcome part of regaining and maintaining the trust of the public
we all serve.
As ever, if I may be of assistance to you in any way, or provide you information about
our County or head you in the right direction, please email me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me at (808)
961-8304, extension 118.
Aloha and welcome
to our message for the week of April 7, 2008.
Individual
privacy rights and the media. The April 5, 2008 edition of our local papers
included a story concerning a sexual harassment complaint filed by a County employee
against a sitting Council member. When our office was contacted for comment, we
could not make any substantive statement, as there is an order by a federal administrative
law judge sealing the records of this case. No doubt this may be very frustrating
for members of the interested public. It is also very frustrating for the attorneys
in our office, as these second-hand and confidential sources in many cases
often provide incorrect or misleading information. In this particular case, the
bottom line is our attorneys were not given a choice whether to release information or
not. As attorneys licensed in
11-30-07
Letter to Newton Chu from Lincoln Ashida re HTH request
The duty to
defend our County officers and employees. In cases where County officers or
employees are sued or claims are made against them for workplace misconduct against
subordinate employees, the County will generally always be named as the responsible
party. This is because complainants normally allege the County is under obligation
to provide a workplace free of intimidation. This is a requirement of all employers,
and a responsibility our County takes very seriously. Members of the public often
ask whether the County would be financially responsible for the payment of any damages, in
the event after all appeal processes conclude the County was to be found
responsible. The answer is yes. This is because under our laws in the
As ever, if I may be of assistance to you in any way, or provide you information about our County or head you in the right direction, please email me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118.
Aloha and welcome
to our message for the week of March 31, 2008.
Briefings by the Mayor with the
To the credit of the Hawai`i Tribune-Herald, a follow-up story was written to properly
inform the public of the OIPs decision, and to possibly cure any earlier impression
given by the Lava Tube award that the Mayor and Council had somehow violated the law. Our office commends the Press Club and
Tribune-Herald for bringing this issue forward. Ironically,
Mayor Kims desire to promptly brief all Council members to ensure that accurate information would be released
to the public by our County leaders was the very basis upon which the Press Club launched
its complaint, claiming that this prompt action by Mayor Kim and our Council that did not
violate our law somehow contributed to government secrecy.
What is also not reported in the media is that Mayor Kim has afforded the media
unprecedented access to the Civil Defense Agencys
The Sunshine Law is a very important part of our laws that regulate boards and
commissions in our local government. This law
ensures that all meetings of boards and commissions (including our Council) that deal with
the boards official business are properly noticed so that the public can have a
meaningful opportunity to participate. In some
cases, the
For further information about the Sunshine Law that may not be reported in the mainstream media, or if you have any concerns about any County board or commission, please contact me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. Our Countys commitment to you the taxpayer is we will always follow the law, and will do nothing to undermine your trust in our County government.
Solid Waste Advisory Committee. State law (HRS Section 342G-22) requires each county to form a Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) composed of representatives from citizen organizations, industry, the private solid waste industry operating within the county, the private recycling or scrap material processing industry operating within the county, the county coordinator, and any other persons deemed appropriate by the mayor. This committee is required to review the Countys integrated solid waste management plan. If you or someone you know is interested in applying for appointment to this committee, please contact the Department of Environmental Management at cohdem@co.hawaii.hi.us to request an application form, or simply contact our office at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us
Aloha and welcome to our message for the week of February 4, 2008.
Proposed smoking ban at all County parks and
recreational facilities. On Tuesday,
February 5, 2008, the Hawai`i County Council Committee on Public Safety and Parks and
Recreation will consider Bill 224, seeking to amend our
Proposed
Amendments to Geothermal Relocation Program Allow Broader Use of Geothermal Royalties. On
Tuesday, February 5, 2008, the Hawai`i County Council Committee on Finance will consider
Bill 225, proposed by Council Member Emily Nae`ole, which would amend our County Code by
revising the Geothermal Relocation Program. Under the legislation, the special fund
currently designated for geothermal relocation of displaced residents could also be used
for community benefits in the Puna District, such as road improvements, land
acquisition, and parks and recreational facility needs.
The geothermal relocation fund is primarily fed with the geothermal royalties that
our County receives each year from the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. The
Committee meeting is scheduled to begin at 10:45 at the Council Room in
Proposed ban on panhandling. On Wednesday, February 6, 2008, the Hawai`i
County Council will hear at first reading Council Member Emily Nae`oles (District 5)
proposed island-wide ban on panhandling. Earlier
media reports indicated Councilwoman Nae`ole initiated this legislation in response to
requests from constituent business owners in the Puna district who expressed concern over
excessive panhandling. The existing ordinance,
successfully introduced years earlier by former Councilwoman Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd,
prohibits panhandling in the downtown
Pro bono is good for our community. In an effort to promote the donation of time
and service to those less fortunate in our community, Hawai`i Supreme Court Chief Justice
Ronald Moon challenged all attorneys in
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118, or via email at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us. Take care, and have a wonderful week!
Week of January 28, 2008.
Boards and Commissions. There are still vacancies on some County boards and commissions, and the County is actively seeking qualified volunteers. If you feel you could contribute in helping make our island community a better and stronger place, please consider volunteering for a board or commission. Go to the Countys website at http://co.hawaii.hi.us/, and click on the board/commission link to read about all of our boards and commissions. The vacancy information however is not updated, so if you have questions about specific board or commission vacancies, please contact me.
As ever, if I may be of assistance to you in any way, or provide you information about our County or head you in the right direction, please email me at Lashida@co.hawaii.hi.us, or call me at (808) 961-8304, extension 118.
Home | About the Office | Attorneys | Practice Groups | Legal Opinions | Employment | Contact us | Resources |
Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer |