Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011_1014_Minutes Open_APPROVED COUNTY OF KAUAI Minutes of Meeting OPEN SESSION Approved as circulated 11/10/11 Board/Committee: BOARD OF ETHICS Meeting Date I October 14, 2011 Location Mo`ikeha Building, Liquor Conference Room 3 Start of Meeting: 9:01 a.m. End of Meeting: 11:05 a.m. Present Chair Paul Weil; Vice-Chair Mark Hubbard; Secretary Warren Perry; Member: Brad Nagano Also: Deputy Attorney Mona Clark; Boards & Commissions Office Staff: Support Clerk Barbara Davis; Administrative Aide Paula Morikami Audience: John Isobe, Administrator; Mel Rapozo, Councilmember; Bruce Pleas, Chairman KHCBCAC; Jose Bulatao, Jr., Vice-chair KHCBCAC; Patrick Perreira, Kekaha resident; Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, Prosecuting Attorney Excused Members: Kurt Akamine; Kathy Clark Absent SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Note for the record: Students from Anahola High School were in attendance to participate in a special project to videotape the proceedings of the meeting as art of their study on government. Call To Order Chair Weil called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. with a quorum of 4 present. Approval of Regular Open Session Minutes of September 9, 2011 Mr. Perry moved to approve the minutes as Minutes circulated. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. Deputy Attorney Clark asked to address an issue regarding an item that she thought was miscategorized on the agenda RAO 11-005 was listed as a Request for an Advisory Opinion but was in actuality a complaint. Deputy Attorney Clark explained that the Charter was very specific about what had to be done when there was a complaint and where a complaint could be heard. Section 20.05 requires a complaint to be heard in closed session and RAO 11-005 was an end-run around that and should not be permitted. Advisory Opinions can only be requested by officers or employees regarding their own conduct; this was clearly a complaint related to the activity of the Salary Commission and Mr. Isobe. Deputy Attorney Clark said there was a request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by Mr. Isobe but it was not received until the day before yesterday which meant it would need to be placed on next month's agenda. The complaint from Mr. Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 2 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Rapozo) affected people on the Salary Commission as well as Mr. Isobe and could not be held in Open Session. The Board should require that complaints comply with the complaint procedure. Chair Weil asked the Attorney if she was advising the Board that they were unable to consider the matter at this meeting and should defer it to the neat agenda. Deputy Attorney Clark responded yes to both queries. Mr. Perry asked where the limitation was on Advisory Opinions. Deputy Attorney Clark said 20.05 D (2) reads: "To render advisory opinions or interpretations with respect to application of the code on request. ..........Opinions rendered or deemed rendered shall be binding on the board in any subsequent charges concerning the officer or employee of the county until said opinion is amended or revoked....." That section referred to the officer or employee's own conduct as clarified in the Board's Rule 5.1. Deputy Attorney Clark then cited Rule 5.1: "Advisory opinions may be requested by officers or employees to assist them in the proper performance of their official duties and responsibilities in accordance with the Code of Ethics." Deputy Attorney Clark pointed out that Mr. Rapozo did not request that the Board opine on his conduct; he requested they rule on somebody else's conduct. There is a very fundamental due process of law in question. If somebody is going to have an action they have to have notice; they have to have the opportunity to be heard. You have to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act for contested cases; none of that was complied here. You can have an Advisory Opinion rendered without any of that proceeding. Mr. Hubbard said what the Attorney said sounded logical, but he read the Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 3 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION request for an Advisory Opinion not as a complaint that there was something wrong, but rather was there any basis for a complaint. Deputy Attorney Clark stated that Mr. Rapozo had asked whether actions taken by the Salary Commission in adopting Resolution 2011-1 contained conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are prohibited acts under the Charter that require a ruling on something that have a specific set of circumstances and an effect. Mr. Perry thought perhaps the letter sent in was not styled in the most proper way to fit into the cubbyhole of an Advisory Opinion or the cubbyhole of a complaint. Mr. Perry was not sure jumping from the Charter to the Board's Rules and using the Ordinance as the gap to actually state this was a complaint as opposed to an Advisory Opinion. Mr. Perry did not see anything in 20.05 D of the Charter that restricted a request for an Advisory Opinion to someone asking about himself. Mr. Perry stated he felt he was able to take the request for an Advisory Opinion (submitted by Mr. Rapozo) and be willing to render a decision. Deputy Attorney Clark referred the Board to Section 20.05 G (of the Charter): "If an officer or employee, or former officer or employee, shall obtain an advisory opinion from the board and shall govern himself accordingly, or shall act in accordance with the opinions of the board, he shall not be held guilty of violating any of the provisions of the code." That makes it clear that the person who requests the opinion is the one who is the asker. Deputy Attorney Clark suggested the Board should follow the Rules that had been adopted. Mr. Hubbard asked the Attorney that if the Board should find no conflict of interest in this item on the agenda, would that be in violation of anyone's due process? Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 4 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Deputy Attorney Clark said if what the Board had before them was a complaint there were various people that would need to be served with notice of the complaint, including the members of the Salary Commission and anyone implicated by the complaint. If the Board rendered a decision on what was actually a complaint, without going through the due process procedure which would be binding on the Board, people would be deprived of their due process rights. In order to have a finding, the Board would need to go through a hearing procedure with evidence submitted on which the Board could make a ruling. Section 20.05 F of the Charter requires that a complaint be held in closed session. It would set a very bad precedent to allow people to request Advisory Opinions on other people's behavior. Mr. Rapozo said he was present as an individual Councilmember and found it quite disturbing that the Attorney was just now indicating there was a problem with the agenda posting. Mr. Rapozo further questioned Mona Clark as the Counsel for the Board because she was also Counsel for the Salary Commission, which would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Rapozo stated he had two options of which one was to file a complaint and the second was to file an advisory request; he opted to file the advisory request. If the Board wants him to file a complaint, Mr. Rapozo said he would retain an attorney and do it that way but that was not what he was looking to do. Mr. Rapozo asked to be allowed to present his testimony, whether or not the Board acted on it. Mr. Rapozo said the posted agenda reflected his letter for which, under the Sunshine Law, allowed him the right to read and discuss that letter. Deputy Attorney Clark stated that Mr. Rapozo would be in violation of the Charter if he proceeded on a complaint. Mr. Rapozo suggested another attorney be brought in to advise the Board Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 5 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION and pointed out that his testimony was not about the person but rather about the process, which he was asking the Board to evaluate. Mr. Rapozo stated that he wanted to know if the process was proper and that was what he had requested an opinion for. Chair Weil stated the Board was also not aware of the improper listing on the agenda and the Board would act to receive Mr. Rapozo's written testimony. Chair Weil assured Mr. Rapozo that he would receive a full and fair hearing whether on a complaint or a request for an advisory opinion. Mr. Rapozo said he assumed the agenda was vetted through the Deputy Attorney's Office before posting and if there was an error with his request that he would have been notified accordingly. Mr. Rapozo requested that he be allowed to exercise his right to testify on a posted agenda item in accordance with the Sunshine Law. Mr. Rapozo pointed out there were not enough members present to go into Executive Session. Mr. Perry pointed out there was a motion on the floor to approve the minutes from which they had digressed to whether there was a need to approve the agenda which then brought forth discussion on one of the agenda items. Chair Weil said a motion to approve the agenda was not required but noted he had failed to state that the Board would proceed on the agenda as circulated unless there were additions or corrections. He further noted that there was a motion pending on the floor to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Motion to appr ove the minutes carried 4:0. Communication BOE 2011-19 Memorandum dated September 14, 2011 from the Board of Ethics to the Charter Review Commission providing input and comments regarding specific areas of concern or issues related to Article XX, Code of Ethics. Mr. Hubbard moved to receive the Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 6 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION communication and order it filed. Mr. Perry seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0. Request for an RAO 11-005 Letter dated 9/27/11 from Councilmember Mel Rapozo Advisory requesting an opinion from the Board of Ethics as to whether conflicts of Opinion interest exist with the role of the Boards & Commissions Administrator and the Kaua'i Countv Charter duties and responsibilities of the Salary Commission. a. Communication dated 10/3/11 from Rov Morita testifying as an individual regarding the role of the Boards & Commissions Administrator and those duties and responsibilities to all boards and commissions. Chair Weil noted the Board was returning to the agenda item to which they had previously jumped. He suggested this item be deferred based on advice from the Deputy Attorney's Office or establish a basis to move forward. Deputy Attorney Clark said if the Board proceeded on this item and heard testimony in Open Session that had to do with individuals and a complaint, the Board would be in violation of 20.05 F. Chair Weil said he was not taking testimony but would allow Mr. Isobe to respond to the agenda item. Mr. Perry said if they took testimony, if it was a complaint, were the members of the Board comfortable that it was a complaint or an Advisory Opinion. Mr. Isobe extended his appreciation to the Deputy Attorney for her recommendation. Mr. Isobe noted that the information and the request for an Advisory Opinion had already been publicized so whether it was taken in the form of a complaint and put it into Executive Session, the issue was Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 7 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION already in public. Mr. Isobe stated he did not speak for any member of the Administration or the members of the Salary Commission but under Rule 5 (d), if it was deemed a complaint he had no problem waiving his rights to privacy and would like this matter vetted in a public forum for several reasons. Mr. Isobe said the outcome and decision would ultimately impact his behavior,the behavior of the Office of Boards and Commissions and how the Salary Commission and/or any other board or commission could move forward and operate. Mr. Isobe hoped the Board would proceed and allow Councilmember Rapozo to read his testimony into the record with full and open discussion on the process and procedures that government should rightfully follow in conducting its business. Mr. Isobe assured the Board that he had no problem allowing this matter to be vetted publicly but reminded the Board that he was not speaking for any other person. Chair Weil said the right of privacy extended to others besides Mr. Isobe and the Board could not leap-frog those rights. Mr. Rapozo reiterated that the matter before the Board was not a complaint and he did not want it to be pushed to a complaint. He asked the Board to review the facts and issue an opinion on the process because he thought the process was flawed; there was no malicious intent with his request. Mr. Hubbard moved that the Board consider this request for an Advisory Opinion at this time. Mr. Perry seconded the motion. Chair Weil noted that if in fact this provided a conflict because it could readily be construed as the filing of a complaint, the Board could be creating further problems down the line. Deputy Attorney Clark stated that in the neat to last paragraph of Mr. Rapozo's letter he asked for a ruling on whether the process contained conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are violations under the Charter Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 8 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION with repercussions for the people that engaged in them. The determination made would be binding on the Board in any subsequent actions and, through what is done today, would determine individual rights. There is an appropriate forum for this process, which is a complaint. Mr. Perry said Mr. Rapozo's letter seemed to indicate the possibility of conflicts on the Salary Commission,the Mayor, Mr. Isobe and maybe even the County Council. Did the paragraph cited by Deputy Attorney Clark affect only the Salary Commission and if it was decided the Salary Commission violated the Code of Ethics, did the Administration violate the Code of Ethics. Mr. Isobe was not mentioned in that penultimate paragraph. Mr. Perry stated that he was ready, willing and able to render an Advisory Opinion as to whether there were violations by the Salary Commission and/or the Administration or even County Council. Motion to consider as an Advisory Opinion failed: 2 ayes; 1 nay (Nagano); 1 abstain (Weil) Chair Weil asked for a motion to consider this as a complaint, a request for an Advisory Opinion or defer this item to the neat agenda Mr. Rapozo said for the Board to convert this to a complaint,they needed a complainant and he had not asked for this to be treated as a complaint. If the Board should say today this was not the proper format, he would withdraw his request and file a complaint though an attorney but he did not want to do that. Deputy Attorney Clark offered a third option in that Rule 10 of the Board's Rules allowed for the Board to issue a Declaratory Order for a broad question of law. Chair Weil suggested deferring this request, with Mr. Rapozo's agreement, so that it could be heard in the proper format. Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 9 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Mr. Rapozo said he would welcome another opportunity in front of more Board members but noted for the record that the Attorney for the Salary Commission was also the Attorney for the Board of Ethics and asked that arrangements be made to remove that perception. Deputy Attorney Clark said if this matter was heard as either a Declaratory Order or as a complaint at some point in the future and it concerned matters with the Salary Commission, she would recuse herself from being Counsel to the Board of Ethics. Mr. Rapozo questioned why Deputy Attorney Clark did not recuse herself from this meeting. Mr. Hubbard moved that based on written testimony, the Board of Ethics render an Advisory Opinion that the actions taken by the Salary Commission in adopting Resolution 2011-1 did not contain conflicts of interest between the Administration and the Salary Commission. Mr. Perry seconded the motion. Motion failed: 3 ayes — 1 nay (Weil) Mr. Rapozo said he had to raise the issue that the motion to discuss this matter today failed. A subsequent motion was made to make a ruling on an issue that wasn't put on the floor. Mr. Rapozo said he would wait to see if this request would reappear on the next agenda but expressed his disappointment that there was no discussion on his request for an Advisory Opinion today. Chair Weil called for a motion to receive Mr. Rapozo's written testimony and order it filed. Mr. Perry moved to receive the testimony and order it filed. Mr. Nagano seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0 Chair Weil called for a motion to receive Mr. Isobe's written testimony and Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 10 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION order it filed. Mr. Perry moved to receive the testimony and order it filed. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0 Chair Weil noted that Mr. Rapozo had requested permission to read and present his testimony and called for a motion to suspend the Rules to allow Mr. Rapozo to do so. Mr. Perry moved to suspend the Rules. Chair Weil seconded the motion. Motion failed 3 ayes — 1 abstain (Nagano) As a point of order, Mr. Rapozo said he believed the suspension of the rules was the prerogative of the Chair. Chair Weil asked if there was a motion to defer this agenda matter to the next meeting. Chair Weil was reminded of the 45-day time period in which an Advisory Opinion has to be rendered. Mr. Isobe made a request to the Board that they hold a special meeting as soon as practical when the majority of the members could be present in order to dispense with this matter appropriately and expeditiously. Mr. Perry noted that if the Board went beyond the 45-days, there would be no breach of the code and so the Board should consider a special meeting. Mr. Rapozo asked if there was a time limit in which to file a complaint and was advised there was no such time frame. Mr. Rapozo said he would proceed along that route as it would be cleaner. He also might consider filing a"Dec' (Declaratory) Request because, although the Board was responding to advice from their Counsel, he thought the Board was doing everything they could not to hear his request. Mr. Rapozo said he respected Mr. Hubbard for making a stand with his motion but disagreed with him and felt the Board was discouraging the public from bringing forth their concerns. Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 11 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Chair Weil assured Mr. Rapozo the Board would give him an opportunity at the neat hearing in this matter. Chair Weil asked if the Board had any conflicts with scheduling a special meeting. Mr. Hubbard noted they voted to receive this communication and there was a request pending for an Advisory Request from John Isobe which would address the issue. Mr. Rapozo (off mic) said that was not true; Mr. Isobe did not file a request. Mr. Isobe clarified for the record that he did not file a request for an Advisory Opinion. He had responded to a request for an Advisory Opinion that was listed on the agenda. Chair Weil offered October 25, 27 or November 1, 3, or 4 as available dates for a special meeting. Hearing no conflicts, it was suggested the Staff consult with all members of the Board to establish the special meeting date and give proper notice. Mr. Perry moved to defer RAO 11-005 to be considered at a special meeting which will be scheduled for this purpose. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0 Mr. Rapozo asked what would happen at the special meeting and would he again be told he could not request an Advisory Opinion and should file as a complaint. Mr. Perry said he also questioned what matter was being deferred to a special meeting. Chair Weil said he would like to proceed and take care of this matter at that meeting. Mr. Perry moved to receive Mr. Morita's written Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 12 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION testimony (RAO 11-005 a). Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0 RAO 11-006 E-mail dated 10/4/11 from Bruce Pleas, Chairman of the Kekaha Host Community Benefit Action Committee (KHCBCAC) requesting a decision (Advisory Opinion) on whether KHCBCAC members are required to submit a financial Disclosure Statement to the Board of Ethics. a. E-mail dated 10/4/11 from Jose Bulatao, Vice-chair of KHCBCAC offering testimonv as to why KHCBCAC members are not required to submit a financial Disclosure Statement to the Board of Ethics and requesting an opinion. Mr. Perry moved to receive both communications. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0 Mr. Perry moved to render an Advisory Opinion that KHCBCAC members are not required to submit financial disclosure statements to the Board of Ethics. Mr. Hubbard seconded the motion. Mr. Bulatao said he was utterly pleased with the manner and style in which the Board expeditiously came to the conclusion that KHCBCAC members would not be required to file disclosures. Mr. Pleas submitted excerpts of the KHCBCAC meeting minutes (12/20/10, 2/7/11, 3/21/118/15/11 and 8/29/11) which discussed conflict in disclosures. Mr. Pleas said from the beginning he supported disclosure of interest because Kekaha is a small community with a high, high probability of conflicts and how they would be recognized. In the Committee's Rules,the members are to make disclosure if they feel they have a conflict of interest. Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 13 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION The question was how would the members and the public know of a conflict of interest? It was a blank slate because there was no list of any CAC member available as to what organizations they belonged to, who they worked with and what could be a possible conflict of interest. There may be problems down the road should a third party say a member voted on an item that their family member belonged to; this should be avoided. If a disclosure is not required by the Board of Ethics then Mr. Pleas would try to get a disclosure going in-house. Chair Weil said Mr. Pleas raised the question that bothered him the most about this request. Without looking into any of the technicalities, Mr. Weil said he personally believed in transparency and asked what would be wrong with filing disclosures. Mr. Pleas referred that question to the Vice-chair, Mr. Bulatao. Mr. Perry asked Mr. Pleas if the CAC's internal rules regarding disclosures were not enough. Mr. Pleas' concern was with legality down the line; if the CAC did not file disclosure forms and it was determined at a future date that they should have, the whole process could be gone. There have been differences of opinions among the County Attorneys which was why the question was before the Board of Ethics. Deputy Attorney Clark commented on the background of the County Attorney opinion regarding the disclosure statement policy started in Article XIV, Code of Ethics, State Constitution which requires the counties to adopt a Code of Ethics to include financial disclosure statements and would apply to members of boards, commissions and other bodies. OIP opinion 01-01 dealt with vision teams similar to the situation as the Host Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 14 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION Community Benefits Citizen Advisory Committee. When presented as to whether they were boards and commissions for the purpose of the Sunshine Law, OIP stated those bodies were in fact boards and commissions which have advisory authority and were deemed to be boards and commissions. Under the Charter the Mayor has the authority to appoint boards and commissions and can create committees under section 6.03. Normally advisory committees only give informal advice but they are not required to hold meetings, have an agenda or comply with the Sunshine Law. In the case of the vision teams or the Citizen Advisory Committee this would not be true; they are required to hold meetings, have agendas and proceed. If you look at what constitutes an officer of the County as defined in 23.01 D (2), it is any person appointed as a member of a board or commission. If you look at what is required by the State Constitution and read it in conjunction with the Charter,the purpose is to require disclosure as in the situation of the Citizen Advisory Committee who acts as the agency which funnels all of the decisions of who can receive this money, which is a substantial amount,to the Mayor. In this limited circumstance where they act as a board of the County under State law, it should be read as requiring disclosure. Mr. Bulatao said he had served as a volunteer on previous CACs for the County of Kaua'i and was never required to submit disclosure forms required by the Board of Ethics. One committee was the site selection committee looking at possible areas where the landfill might be re-sited from where it currently exists. There should be a consistency factor in terms of why one CAC may be required to file disclosure forms and another may not. The site selection committee also dealt with a large sum of money, possibly because siting a landfill elsewhere would cost a lot of money, but the site selection committee did not actually handle that money nor did the CAC of the HCB actually handle any large sum of money directly. Being a member of a CAC,they were never required to take an Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 15 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION oath and never required to be approved by the County Council to serve in a capacity of a volunteer member appointed by the Mayor. If disclosures are going to be required they should be done consistently upfront. Mr. Bulato would not have had an objection to filing a disclosure had this been requested up front 2 '/2 years ago but was offended by the request at this date. Mr. Bulatao questioned the County Attorney's opinion that the CAC was required to file a disclosure or be fined or put in jail 2 '/2 years later. Mr. Perry supported his motion which was not to require the CAC to provide financial disclosures. Mr. Hubbard noted that the Charter excluded members of committees as being required to file disclosures but Chapter 3 of the County Ordinance included committees under the definition of employee, and employees are not to take official action except as noted under Conflicts of Interest in the Code. In that regard, Mr. Hubbard agreed with the motion on the floor. Chair Weil noted appreciation for the testimonies of Mr. Bulatao and Mr. Pleas but felt disclosure was the salvation of our form of democracy; anything less than open and honest disclosure was a fatal mistake and a fatal flaw. For that reason Chair Weil stated he could not support the motion. Mr. Bulatao reiterated he would have had no objection had this process been applied up front. Mr. Nagano asked the Deputy Attorney if the Board would be in violation should they rule differently from the Attorney's opinion. Deputy Attorney Clark stated that the Board of Ethics had the final determination with disclosure statements. The County Attorney's Office Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 16 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION was advising what it believed was the appropriate decision. Mr. Perreira pointed out that for over 2 '/2 years there had been a variety of County Attorneys serving as ex-officio members of this committee and there were no disclosures done. Commissions and boards hold certain powers and are very different from advisory committees. If this Board rules the people on the committee have to file disclosures 2 '/2 years later then the Board needs to go one step further because the committee has been operating illegally and will have to start all over. Mr. Perreira read from a research paper and indicated that the disclosure section of the Charter was silent, at best, regarding members of advisory committees. Ms. Iseri-Carvalho felt that after listening to the proceedings it left the public with a lot of confusion and looked very chaotic. She said it was difficult when members of the public took time off to hear matters of significant importance to them but not have the ability to receive a determination because of the lack of the number of members present. Maybe the Boards and Commissions Administrator needs to ensure that there are sufficient members present so when the public takes the time to come to a meeting they are treated with the utmost respect and have their testimony heard. There seems to be a continual sentiment that the County Attorney's Office was not providing the services to the public and to the Boards and Commissions. Ms. Iseri-Carvalho agreed with the Chair that it was ideal to be transparent and accountable and to have all the information and disclosure made up front but it is very frustrating for these volunteer members to come up and have to now deal with a law that is quite foreign to them. The County needs to encourage participation by the public and by the community and if your ruling is not in support of the members that are here, it would definitely discourage members from participating. Ms. Iseri-Carvalho agreed that it would be very ideal to have disclosures up front. In heropinion, she did not think that this was a requirement, Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 17 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION especially given the circumstances that had been provided to the Board by members of the community. Ms. Iseri-Carvalho recommended that the Board support the members of the community who were present at the meeting and not require the disclosure forms for the reasons they had stated. Chair Weil stated that the Board was short by one person and two members could not be present because of other commitments. That was why the Board continued the other important matters to a special meeting which requires another day of the Board's volunteer time. Mr. Pleas advised the Board that Deputy County Attorney Kealoha was assigned to the Committee for the first three meetings. Since then it had been Deputy County Attorney Trask who was not aware that the Committee members had not submitted disclosure statements and advised the Motion to render an Advisory Opinion not Committee they submit them. requiring KHCBCAC members to file disclosures failed 3:1 (nay—Weil) Chair Weil said if it was the Board's desire, he would not have an objection to bringing this matter up at the special meeting when more Ethics members should be present. Mr. Perry thought the person who dissented on this action would have to make the motion to reconsider. Mr. Hubbard asked if the County Attorney's Office had advised any other advisory committee to file disclosure forms. Deputy Attorney Clark did not know but felt there was a distinction on the type of advisory committees and the manner in which they operated. This CAC had a specific ordinance that went before the Council who allocated Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 18 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION $95,000 for the process and it would be through the CAC to make the recommendations as to how the funds would be expended. Mr. Bulatao wanted to clarify a misconception about the role and responsibility of the Kekaha HCBCAC and the reference to handling money. Even if the CAC recommended something, the Mayor and or the Council would have the final yea or nay on it. The CAC is a conduit through which the CAC would invite and encourage recommendations from the community. The money has no bearing on whether or not the CAC should be accountable for the handling of the money. Mr. Perry said he meant no disrespect but the vote had been taken and there should not be further conversation with the public on the issue at this time. Chair Weil stated that the CAC made recommendations concerning disposition of finances, which was why he felt disclosure of potential conflicts would be necessary. Mr. Pleas said the CAC had spent$6,000 for a PA (public address) system and that money was not from the Kekaha Host Community Benefit allocations. That money was from the County Council allocation of $95,000 to keep the meetings going for one more year. BOE 2011-20 Consideration of changing the November meeting date to Thursday. November 10. 2011 at 9:00 a.m. to accommodate the November holidav schedule. Mr. Perry moved to change the November meeting to Thursday, November 10. Chair Weil seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0 Disclosures a. Nathaniel Childs (Public Access/Open Space Commission) b. Arryl Kaneshiro (Cost Control Commission) c. Lance Kobashi awa(Deputy Prosecuting Attorney) Board of Ethics Open Session October 14, 2011 Page 19 SUBJECT DISCUSSION ACTION d. John Isobe (Boards & Commissions) Mr. Perry moved that disclosures a. through d. were deemed complete and ordered to be filed. Mr. Nagano seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0 ES-7: Executive Session Minutes of September 9, 2011 Mr. Hubbard moved to approve in Open Session the Executive Session Minutes of September 9, 2011. Mr. Perry seconded the motion. Motion failed 3:1 abstain—Weil) Announcements Next Meeting: Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. plus the Special Meeting on a date to be confirmed based on availability of members. Adjournment I Chair Weil adjourned the meeting at 11:05 a.m. Submitted by: Reviewed and Approved by: Barbara Davis, Staff Support Clerk Paul Weil, Chair O Approved as is. O Approved with amendments. See minutes of meeting.