|You are here: Main / Neighborhood Commission Office / com / 04 / Neighborhood Commission September 2004 Minutes|
COMPLAINT HEARING TRANSCRIPT
SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Kalene Sakamoto, Pohai Ryan, Jeanette Nekota, Ed Gall and Roy Wickramaratna.
Members Absent: Clara Ching, Ben Sanchez and Ben Gudoy.
Staff: Benjamin Kama (Executive Secretary) and Sheri Kajiwara.
Guests: Elizabeth Reider, Hank Reider, Michael Golojuch, Jr., Michele Golojuch, Carolyn
Golojuch, Debbi Glanstein (
Karen Ah Mai (Diamond Head/Kapahulu/St.
Jennifer Waihe’e (City Corporation Counsel), Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood
Board No. 34: Linda Young, Michael Golojuch, Maeda Timson, Kioni Dudley and Brent
Wickramaratna: I’d like to call the meeting to order (6:30 p.m.). I apologize for the incident at last meeting. Thank you for your concern. Introduction of Commissioners...
Sakamoto: Kalene Sakamoto.
Ryan: Pohai Ryan.
Nekota: Jeanette Nekota.
Gall: Ed Gall.
Wickramaratna: Roy Wickramaratna,
Ryan: First for the record, I just want Ben to state how this meeting is being recorded.
Ryan: I’d like to put a motion forward that we go into Executive Session.
Wickramaratna: All in favor. . .
All Commissioners: Aye.
(Guests exited the room as Executive Session began)
(Executive Session ended)
Ryan: At this time I’d like to make a motion to rule on the complaints by Michael Golojuch verses Neighborhood Board No. 34. . .
Michael Golojuch: (Interrupt) Point of Order. Mike Golojuch never got a chance to cross-examine Kioni Dudley.
Wickramaratna: No Point of Order can be called by you. Thank You.
Ryan: All presentations were made by the complainants prior to the last hearing.
Ryan: I move to dismiss the complaints filed by Martha Makaiwi, Jane Ross, Michael Golojuch and Michelle Golojuch vs. Neighborhood Board No. 34 on grounds that no harm has not been proven to the individuals, but instead, recommend that all testimony given by the parties in support of their complaint be supported under the complaints of Linda Young vs. Neighborhood Board 34 and Maeda Timson vs. Neighborhood Board No. 34~ A & B.
Sakamoto: I second.
Wickramaratna: Any discussion?
Michael Golojuch: From the complainant? Yes, there is. . . I'd like to make a statement at this time, given the fact that we never finished the actual first process of the first complaint.
Ryan: I’m sorry, is your name Michael?
Michael Golojuch: Yes.
Ryan: We’re already ruling. The last hearing was Dr. Dudley’s presentation. We’re already making a ruling on the...
Michael Golojuch: (Interrupts) You need the follow the rules that were set forth and handed out to us, following Corp. Counsel’s ruling on this and follow the entire process ‘til its end.
Ryan: We are determining the end at this time, we are determining the end at this time,
Michael Golojuch: Actually ma’am, you need to follow the rules of Corp. Counsel. Corp. Counsel stated that you need to follow the entire process and for there to be a complete process of the first complaint. Mike Golojuch Complaint, he needs to be able to cross-examine
Ryan: Out of Order, Out of Order.
Wickramaratna: We shall proceed with our motion. All in favor?
All Commissioners: Aye.
Wickramaratna: Motion passed
Wickramaratna: Moving on, Dr. Dudley.
K. Dudley: As I understand it then, I would discuss the complaint by Linda Young and the complaint by Maeda Timson.
Wickramaratna: That’s correct.
K. Dudley: Ok, thank you very much.
Wickramaratna: And Carolyn Golojuch.
Ryan: First address in order, Linda Young vs. Neighborhood Board please.
K. Dudley: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission thank you again for the opportunity to address you tonight. I’d like to begin by saying that first of all, I don’t think that it is proper for this Commission to in anyway embrace, endorse or use in anyway, a letter that was written in collusion by neighborhood board members, in clear violation of the Sunshine Law. I have support from the Office of Information Practices that there was indeed a violation and I would like to explain the situation and go over that evidence with you before beginning.
Wickramaratna: No, it will not be taken up at this time.
Ryan: Because, the complaint that we have before us was written by Linda Young and signed by Linda Young.
K. Dudley: I would like to show where Linda Young and Maeda Timson colluded in the writing of this letter. And I have the evidence that I can lay before you and I really do believe that if there is collusion…
Nekota: (Interrupt) But you know, that’s a whole separate issue. Right now we’re looking at the complaint, the complaint that Linda Young submitted was that you took a piece of paper from her hand and that she had a paper cut.
Ryan: Dr. Dudley, what you are saying is that you have proof to another complaint? We have to address the complaint that is before us. The complaint that you’re saying is in regards to the Sunshine Law correct?
K. Dudley: That’s true.
Ryan: That’s a separate complaint. We cannot hear that tonight. We have to address what the complaints are before us…. Ms. Young’s letter.
K. Dudley: So, is it the consensus of the Commission then, to use something which is collusion in defiance of the Sunshine Act, Sunshine Law is something that we wanted to use as the primary piece of evidence?
Nekota: That could be filed as a complaint that you can file against the board that they colluded together and wrote the letters and then you can prove it that way. But right now, what we’re looking at is the complaints that we’re brought before neighborhood board No. 34 and agreed upon, and the consensus was that they accepted the complaint and that’s what we’re looking at right now.
K. Dudley: I’d like to turn to her complaint then and I’d like to go down paragraph by paragraph. In the first paragraph she says that she is a board member and that she’s filing a complaint against me for inappropriate behavior unbecoming a member of the board at the last neighborhood board meeting held on Wednesday, January 28, 2004. I must say that there has been no evidence to show that I am guilty of inappropriate behavior. I showed a film of my actions in that meeting. I think that people would pretty much agree that I was respectful, I was acting with decorum and that I was acting properly. There also was no “call to order” ever during that January meeting. If I were acting improperly, it would have been proper to have a “Call to Order”. I’d like to have that then denied. The next paragraph actually leads into the following one. “First the actual threatening actions of violence against myself and another member and officer of the board”. The third paragraph: “When board member asked to present his presentation of home-porting of the Navy carrier in
M, Timson: (Interrupt) Can we please keep them separately? Is Linda’s done now?
Nekota: No, this is her complaint.
Wickramaratna: One question Dr. Dudley, when you say it’s only half the truth, is there any truth in it?
K. Dudley: Well, yes.
Wickramaratna: Thank you.
K. Dudley: The next paragraph, “Chairperson Timson asked the board if they would let Kioni do his presentation. Board member Jane Ross stated that she agreed as long as it was no longer than ten minutes”. I don’t see any charge against me in that. The next paragraph states, “due to the items still left on the agenda, I also agreed to hear him and stated as long as it is less than ten-minutes and he didn’t read the report word-for-word since I had the report in hand”. What I’d like to do is show the tape of this and see if we agree that she stated or was she actually shouting at this time.
Nekota: But Mr. Dudley, did you read the report? Because if I remember, I followed your report and you read it word-by-word.
K. Dudley: That’s right . . . and what is the problem though? Did I say something wrong okay.
K. Dudley: “With that, Kioni forcefully ripped the report from my hand, thereby leaving a paper-cut across my palm”. Now, there’s been absolutely no evidence of that at all. I don’t think that I ripped this forcefully from her hand. I’d like to ask you if you could take a couple pieces of paper and put them in your hand and if you could pull it out of your hand and see how violent that is please. Is it possible to do that? Could you do that for me?
Nekota: Not all paper gives you a paper-cut. I can lick ten envelopes and maybe not get a paper-cut. I could lick ten more envelopes and get one paper-cut.
K. Dudley: Okay, what I’m trying to address is the “forcefully ripped”. I don’t believe that I forcefully ripped anything from anybody’s hand. I think that this is an overstatement and accusatory. What I did was take back my papers, as simple as that. She was sitting there trying to get Maeda Timson’s attention; I just simply reached over and took back my papers from her hand.
Nekota: Did you see her hand? Did it have a paper-cut or didn’t it have a paper-cut?
K. Dudley: I did not see her hand, I had a witness that was supposed to be here tonight, but unfortunately, this is the fourth time he supposed to come down and I don’t see him here. But, he was ready to testify, that he was sitting next to her and there was no paper-cut. This is Brent Buckley; he is a member of the board. He has not come in. So, what I’m saying to you is there was no paper-cut. And what I am saying that it’s a lie that there was a paper-cut. I must say that I am sorry to Linda Young for her feeling that she received some kind of terrible treatment that night, I’m sorry for that. But, it’s not true, what she received was treatment from a gentleman, acting in the best way that he knew how in a situation where he had waited for six minutes to speak and she was trying to get the chair’s attention to force him not to he able to speak on an issue that was extremely important to the community. I’d like to emphasize that you know you’re aware that the newspapers have come out recently in the last week or so, with statements about the home porting. You’re aware the people are finally becoming aware of the fact that it is going to bring us major problems . . . the hundred thousand or the hundred thirty thousand people. It was important to begin to get that word out so that people begin to think about it.
Ryan: Dr. Dudley, at our last hearing, we’re not questioning the contents of your presentation on the motive, but we do have to address Ms. Young’s complaint. In reading her letter that she submitted for her complaint, I get a sense of fear from Ms. Young. Whether it’s real or perceived, it’s still her complaint. I know that you are repeating what you tried to establish last week and I’m not saying that there’s no merit, but it’s not the complaint that we are here to address, whether your representation for your community is being suppressed or whatever. But we are here to address whether you physically took the paper from Ms. Young. If you have anymore to say addressing that, I would like to ask that you stay focused on that answer. When you are done, I would like to ask Ms. Young a couple questions.
K. Dudley: May I show the tape.
Wickramaratna: You may.
K. Dudley: We’re going to pick-up the tape at the point where we’ve been talking about whether or not to allow me to give my address. This is the point where you will hear Ms. Young saying “as long as he doesn’t read it” or something to that effect. You’ll hear me say to her “but it’s my own writing...”
Wickramaratna: Let’s see the tape.
(K. Dudley begins the tape)
(K. Dudley ends the tape)
K. Dudley: Contrary, I can see on my own television at home that she is smiling at me. I don’t know if you can see that here.
M. Timson: (Interrupt) Sorry we cannot hear what he is saying.
K. Dudley: I’m saying that with my television at home, which is clearly than this and bigger than this, you can see very clearly that she is smiling there and I don’t believe that’s really obvious with this. However, at the time that you see her there at the end, I’ve already taken the paper from her and she is laughing with the man next to her who is Brent Buckley.
Nekota: I have a question because I’m a social worker and do therapy. Do you know the difference between a laugh of humor and a laugh of disbelief in a sort of unbelievable? It’s a response that we do a lot of times. It’s a response that we give a lot of times.
K. Dudley: Yes we do. What I’m trying to say is you wouldn’t be giving either if you were suffering a cut on your hand. What I showed you was immediately after I took the paper from her. You didn’t see her holding her hand, you didn’t see telling him about how the paper-cut was on her hand or anything like that, instead she was laughing with him.
K. Dudley: Basically what I’m saying then is that I deny that there was any paper-cut and I really deny that there was ally kind of violence. I think that I just simply took back my paper, which I had given her a couple minutes before that.
K. Dudley: Sir, I’m saying that I just simply took it. I believe that what she did was she had it in her hand, I just reached over and took it and that there was no snatch, there was nothing.
Gall: Were there other people with the same documents in their hands?
K. Dudley: Yes.
Gall: Why did you not take it back from them?
K. Dudley: My feeling was that she was going to keep hollering “as long as he doesn’t read it, I don’t want him to read it” and that this was going to cause the Chair to not allowing me to speak. So in order to be able to speak to the community, I took it back from her so that she would quiet down and relax.
Wickramaratna: That’s before they gave you the ten minutes or after?
K. Dudley: This was right before I started the ten minutes. You see me there walking up to the podium and beginning to talk. So that was the ten minutes.
K. Dudley: Again I just want to say that I really do apologize to her if there was any kind of harm that I did her. I’m not a violent person and I just don’t think that there was any harm whatsoever.
K. Dudley: Okay, she goes on. She says, “my second example of inappropriate behavior/unbecoming of a boardmember is where Kioni disrespectfully addresses the board chairperson Maeda Timson as ‘darling’ and he upsets the community with verbal attacks.” I again don’t think that that was disrespectful, the mention of "darling". I think that it was without even any thought, the mention of “darling”. I disagree that I upset the community with any attacks. There were no attacks; I was just speaking facts about what the problem would be if the aircraft carrier was home-ported here. On the next page she says, “I feel that this is so uncalled for and very inappropriate toward the chairperson and the community”. The next paragraph “Kioni’s inappropriate behavior seems to have escalated in violence since the August 2003 meeting until now. I am afraid of what he may say or do”. We heard her at the first meeting I believe it was, come before the group here and say that she was unaware of any escalation at all. She goes on and says, “In my mind, I equate this with workplace violence. In a situation like this, members of the board and the community fear the unknown of what Kioni may say or do to them”. I just don’t think that’s true. I think that what we’ve done here is taken a situation where I simply took back the paper that belonged to me and she is pushing this into a work-place violence. I called the office of Denise Sukiyama, she’s a lawyer at Equal Opportunity for the City. I talked with her about this and I said that you know, I don’t think that I was violent and she said, “I question whether workplace violence actually covers your board”. She said, “With workplace violence, there is only one law that I’m aware of; it’s a very short law. She said there is only one law and she said workplace violence is not something that there are many laws covering and she said it takes care of the workplace and it takes pare not only public workplace but also private businesses, I think a lot of these things just don’t apply and I think that there are being unfairly applied to me. She (Young) goes on to say the same thing again I equate this to workplace violence in a situation like this...” I think I read that. “I request that the Commission look into this matter in an expeditious manner so that Kioni will not be threatening or terrorizing the community or a boardmember”. And then she says something about an email from August of 2003 but that’s more than 45 days after the fact and should not be allowed in this letter. I think what I’d like to do is to call my wife as a witness for a second if I could please.
K. Dudley: Okay, my wife’s name is Doris Dudley. Mrs. Dudley, could we find out from you, how many years have you known me?
K. Dudley: And during, that thirty-three years, have you ever seen me do any violent act?
K. Dudley: In those thirty-three years, have I ever raised my hand to you?
K. Dudley: Have I ever touched you in anger?
K. Dudley: In thirty-three years I’ve never touched in you anger once?
K. Dudley: You had two sons, did I ever lay a hand on either one of the boys?
K. Dudley: Okay. Is there anything else that you can tell us that would give us some insight into my violence or lack of violence?
Nekota: (Interrupt) Mr. Chair, can we address the complaint?
D. Dudley: It has a lot to do with it because it tells you what he’s like and he’s not violent and has absolutely direct relation to the charges, it’s amazing that anyone can make a charge like that:
Wickramaratna: Mrs. Dudley? Dr. will have to address the complaint.
Wickramaratna: Dr. Dudley will have to address the complaint.
K. Dudley: That would be fine, thank you.
Wickramaratna: You’re welcome.
K. Dudley: Okay, the last paragraph: “Chairperson Timson even reads Section 4-94 through 4-9-4 on Order and Decorum of the Revised Neighborhood Plan at the beginning of each meeting as a reminder to all as to the way we are to conduct our meetings”. I must say I comply with that at every meeting. I don’t think that there are people who can find anything that they can show us on tape, that shows me doing anything at all that is not respectful, that is not totally in keeping with the way that a neighborhood board person should act towards his chairperson and towards the other boardmembers and towards the community. She finally finishes “Unfortunately, Kioni Dudley feels that he is above these rules and continues to conduct himself on a very crude, caveman-like manner”. I think that this last sentence is a culmination of exactly what we got here. We’ve got overstatement, things that just aren’t true. I don’t know how someone can accuse me of “caveman like”. Think of what that means.
And certainly no one intends that when they say “caveman like” right? But is what they do mean even true? I don’t think it is at all. I’d like to bring again I've brought some witnesses night after night after night so that they could speak. I’d like to give just a minute to Mr. Hank Reider to come up and address this issue.
Ryan: Dr. Dudley, is he addressing the meeting that we’re concerned with?
Nekota: Was he at that meeting?
Ryan: If not...
K. Dudley: Were you at this meeting?
H. Reider: No, I saw it on the television.
Ryan: Sorry, we will not accept it.
K. Dudley: And so you’re not going to allow him to speak about any of the meetings he was at?
Nekota: We’re talking about this particular meeting, January 28.
K. Dudley: Well ladies and gentlemen, I must say to you again, what we have here is a series of lies and I ask you to not accept it and I ask you to realize that what you seen on the TV and what you see here are two totally different things entirely. I think that you need to recognize truth. I don’t think that Ms. Young has proved anything nor the other people who have made statements about me and the situation with the paper. There are sentences in one person’s testimony that say that I lunged at her. There is a sentence in another person’s testimony that says that I snatched the paper away. There is the statement that says I ripped it forcefully out of her hands. All of these things are hyperbole, but they are the hyperbole that we see in everyone of these letters. Hyperbole is not the truth. Hyperbole is outrageous overstatement. I’ve been accused of things that plainly are not true and I ask you to realize that. Thank you.
Ryan: Okay, at this time I’d like to call
Ryan: Thank You, you were not at the meeting.
Ryan: I have some questions for Ms. Young.
Ryan: Regarding you letter of complaint, I just want to be clear on your complaint first. You are complaining that Dr Dudley committed threatening actions of violence against yourself Correct? The second complaint is that he did not honor the agenda? The third complaint is that he addressed Chairperson Maeda Timson inappropriately? Yes, and that was brought up at the last meeting. Tonight you have heard Dr. Dudley apologize for what he did. Though he did not acknowledge that what he did to you created fear in you, what kind of corrective action do you think is appropriate?
Young: I’m not sure. I just don’t want that kind of behavior to happen again. And I’m afraid for the people in the community and also on the board.
Ryan: Though it is not what we’re addressing, Dr. Dudley seems to repeatedly bring up the fact that he feels his representation is being suppressed. Do you agree with that point of view?
Wickramaratna: Any further questions?
Ryan: For Dr. Dudley?
Young: For me?
Young: You have more questions for me?
Ryan: No, that’s all we have. -
Ryan: Do you have anything else, because you have already had all your witnesses presented.
Young: But, I’m supposed to have the time to cross-examine.
Ryan: Do you think it’s necessary, he’s already admitted to the act, both acts actually.
Young: But he doesn’t see anything wrong with it.
Ryan: But that’s our job to address the corrective measure. So, do you think that you need to cross-examine anymore?
Young: Other than asking him about the cut in the tape and that tape doesn’t show everything.
Ryan: Yes, well as someone who has watched the tape, you cannot see everything. Do other Commissioners have anything to comment about that? We all understand that the whole environment cannot be captured on the video.
Young: Okay, that’s it then for me.
Ryan: Thank You.
Nekota: Was this person at the meeting in question?
K. Dudley: Yes.
Buckley: Good evening members.
K. Dudley: Dr. Buckley, we just seen the tape again, unfortunately the tape is not really clear and on my television at home, you can see that Linda is actually smiling and talking with you right after I go up to stand at the podium. Can you tell us, did she show you any cut on her hand?
K. Dudley: Did she look to you like she had a cut on her hand?
K. Dudley: Do you think that a person with a cut on their hand would have mentioned that to you at that time since immediately after the fact?
Buckley: That’s cause for speculation. I have no idea. I may have showed her that if it was mine or I may not have. She didn’t show it to me if she did cut her hand.
K. Dudley: Did she seem at all distressed, like there was some kind of pain that she was in?
Buckley: Not that I remember.
K. Dudley: Is there anything else that you can tell us about this incident or about the meeting that night that can give us anymore insight into what happened here?
Buckley: Well I have to apologize members that I was late. I had a meeting with some students, so I’m not quite sure all we’ve covered. Essentially the meeting proceeded somewhat normally for our neighborhood board. Although I was late that evening, when I got there we were only on “Community Announcements”, which was about 8:30 p.m. I wanted to make a comment on that and that Mr. Scott Ishikawa was commenting and he talked for about five minutes after I got through during a one-minute comment period. I understand basically on the minutes he probably talked twenty minutes before that That’s one of the issues that’s involved with this, is whether or not Mr. Dudley was in fact discriminated against with a ten-minute limitation when everyone else that evening had no limitations. But that is typical of our meetings. There are no time limitations in general and that’s what makes this one unusual.
Wickrarmaratna: Dr. Buckley, when you say that Dr. Dudley was given ten minutes, was that a bold decision?
Buckley: There was no vote. There was several people that spoke out of order, who said that that was okay but there was no vote, there was no consensus, there was maybe no objections but there was no official ten minutes this is it.
Nekota: Did you say anything during that time?
Buckley: I thought it might be appropriate given what Mr. Dudley had said in the prelude that you guys all saw in the video that he said he could do it in the ten minutes.
Ryan: One last question, thank you for coming, I know it’s an inconvenience. So you did see Dr. Dudley take the paper from Mr. Young.
Buckley: Yes, he did take the paper from Ms. Young.
Nekota: On a normal meeting, does Linda Young talk to you during the meeting?
Buckley: If I’m sitting beside her she may . . . you know that’s typical we’re as bad at meeting people as everyone. There may be whispers or whatever but not long lengthy conversations.
Nekota: Did you see her get up and go to the Chair?
Buckley: To be honest, no, I don’t recall; I was listening to Dr. Dudley’s talk and reading along and listening and trying to think about that. She probably did but it wasn’t something that I was thinking that there was anything really going on.
Wickramaratna: Thank you.
Buckley: Is that all.. .thank you.
Sakamoto: Would you like to cross-exam?
Young: Yes, I’d like to cross-examine Brent.
Young: Brent, you said that on our agenda for the neighborhood board that there are no time limits set on the agenda?
Buckley: No, I didn’t say that. I said we don’t normally abide by the time limits on the board.
Young: And the ten minutes that was asked for the presentation, do you remember who initiated the ten minutes?
Buckley: No, I do not. What I remember was Ms. Ross saying that she didn’t want to hear it very long and I think I remember you echoing that. And that’s all I remember.
Young: And in the minutes, it does state that Dr. Dudley stated that he needed about ten minutes. You don’t remember that?
Buckley: I think I said that earlier, but I thought that’s what the video said, yes. And then, you and Ms. Ross echoing it, yes.
Young: Right, but you didn’t remember who initiated it, which was Dr. Dudley, saying that he could do it in ten minutes.
Buckley: No I do not.
Young: Okay, even though it’s stated in the minutes, okay.
Young: At this time because... for the record, I’d like on record, the cross-examining that I didn’t do earlier because I didn’t think I really needed to but I’d like it in the minutes or the transcripts of the meeting, for the record. So since you were able to bring Brent up out-of-order, I’d like to go back to finish my cross-examining.
Sakamoto: Who are you cross-examining?
Young: Dr. Dudley.
Sakamoto: He’s not a witness.
Wickramaratna: Dr. Dudley is not a witness.
Young: He gave statements against my charges.
Wickramaratna: He’s the respondent.
Young: But he gave evidence.
Young: When we did the first complaint against Michael we were allowed the person up here which was Michael. Michael got cross-examined.
Young: So then you’re saying that we were following the procedures out of order?
Ryan: I’d like to move for a recess for five minutes while we confer with counsel please. Any second?
Gail: I second.
Wickramaratna: All in favor?
Wickramaratna: The meeting is called back to order.
Ryan: At this time the Commission has agreed to rule on this complaint of Linda Young verses Neighborhood Board No. 34. I move that we rule in favor of the complaint by Linda Young but clarify that we do not find that it is workplace vio1ence or in that nature of threatening actions because it is out of our authority, but find that Dr. Dudley has acknowledged the actions that be is accused of and the Commission urges Dr. Dudley to present a formal apology at the next Neighborhood Board 34 neighborhood board meeting publicly apologizing to Ms. Young. That is my motion.
Wickramaratna: Any discussion?
Wickramaratna: All in favor?
Wickramaratna: Motion carries
K. Dudley: Young Mr. Golojuch insists on sitting in the back and going “Toupee” referring to my hairpiece, and I wish we could instruct young Mr. Golojuch that that’s improper conduct and that it could stop.
Ryan: I think that we need remind everyone in the audience that this is a Neighborhood Board Commission meeting and not a Neighborhood Board meeting and that we expect a certain decorum also. Please refrain from intimidating remarks or remarks that are offensive. At this time we’d like to address the next complaint, Carolyn Golojuch verses Neighborhood Board No. 34. Dr. Dudley please.
Ryan: Dr. Dudley, do you have anything that you want to address regarding this complaint by Carolyn Golojuch?
K. Dudley: I’m looking for my file.
K. Dudley: I would like a clarification from the Board please. It is my understanding that you just voted to support the complaint against me, is that correct?
K. Dudley: I must say I just can’t believe that but I guess we’ll move on. Commission members, you supported everything they said which was false, and the one thing that was the meat, you said that that wasn’t true. Well, let us turn to Carolyn Golojuch’s paper and see what damage we can do to Dr. Dudley here. She say’s in the first paragraph “I feel compelled to file this complaint against Kioni Dudley of the Neighborhood Board No. 34 because of his unprofessional behavior during the regular meeting of January 28, 2004”. I would say that there is absolutely no proof of that whatsoever, however, you already supported a similar statement in the other case. “He is an elected official and represents the residents of this area which makes his behavior of this evening so disturbing and so divisive. As a wife of a retired Air Force officer of twenty-three years, it was painful to hear Mr. Dudley condemn and vilify the military community and their families by painting all military families of inconsiderate of local history, customs and sensitivity”.
Ryan: Dr. Dudley, we’ve all read the letter could you address whether . . . .in your defense.
K. Dudley: I think I’ve showed you the tape. I think the only defense I can have is show you the tape again.
Ryan: No thank you. I’m ready to rule on this.
K. Dudley: I bow to the greater wisdom of this illustrious committee.
Sakamoto: Mr. Dudley, you have no other further witnesses with regards to this particular complaint?
K. Dudley: Yes, I do. I have a letter from the Representative for our area.
Nekota: Was that submitted as exhibits already?
K. Dudley: He is one of my witnesses. He is not able to attend tonight and so he sent a letter instead. This would be his testimony; he’s on my list of witnesses.
Nekota: I don’t think it’s fair because I think everybody who filed a complaint could have done the same thing and got letters from various people too. And it was not part of your exhibits that you submitted to us.
K. Dudley: .Alright, let me tell you that I did present his name and you know, this is our fourth meeting and we can’t expect that people are going to keep coming from Makakilo down here.
J. Nekota: Did he come to any of the meetings before?
K. Dudley: No he hasn’t, no he hasn’t.
K. Dudley: I bow to the Committee’s decision.
Ryan: I have a motion to decide on this complaint.
Sakamoto: Can we get Corp. Counsel’s clarification on whether or not, and put it on the record, whether or not we can accept written testimony from Representative Mark Moses who is not able to attend tonight.
Waihee: Yes, this is within the discretion of the Commission whether or not to accept...
C. Golojuch: (Interrupt) When do I get to cross-examine him then?
Wickramaratna: No interruptions please.
Corp. Counsel: It would be similar to submitting an affidavit or declaration possibly in a situation like this, in lieu of testimony as long as the opposing party has a chance to examine and speak to it. But again, this is within the discretion of the Commission, there’s no black and white rule saying whether or not this is or this is not allowable evidence.
Ryan: We’ve already declined accepting the letter by Representative Moses. We’re not accepting it as evidence.
Ryan: I make a motion that we dismiss this complaint on the grounds that the presentation was not proven to be offensive to the general community.
Sakamoto: I second.
Ryan: I do want to repeat what was said at the last meeting, that this Neighborhood Board Commission does not have the authority to determine the validity of anyone’s testimony or presentation and the facts that they present.
Wickramaratna: That’s correct.
Wickramaratna: We have a motion. All in favor? -
Ryan: Complaint dismissed.
C. Golojuch: As a former Air Force wife, you have no right to tell me how to feel. And what you’ve done here tonight was to vilify and (inaudible) all the Air Force and military women and their children, family, friends and community.
Wickramaratna: Thank you very much.
Ryan: The next complaint is Maeda Timson verses Neighborhood Board 34, A.
K. Dudley: Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission I think that this two letters are written in such extreme hyperbole that neither one of them can be acknowledged as having anything of value whatsoever to say. I’d like to begin with the letter to Mr. Kama that is written as the Chairperson, the one that says “as Chair of Neighborhood Board 34”.
Ryan: Are you planning to read it Dr. Dudley?
K. Dudley: No I was just going to comment on things.
Ryan: Alright, thank you.
K. Dudley: In the middle of the first paragraph, she says that “
Ryan: Go on, the Commission determines whether you need to stop reading.
K. Dudley: I’ve become a threat to other boardmembers and guests with my malicious statements, aggressive behavior and harassment? I think again that his kind of wild overstatement is taking some small point, twisting it, blowing it all proportion and repeating it again and again until you accept it as truth. There’s not a shred of evidence for any part of that whatsoever. I’d like to move on to page two.
(Outburst from audience)
Wickramaratna: Order please.
K. Dudley: The next paragraph, “
(More outbursts from the audience)
K. Dudley: I didn’t get a word in edgewise. I just stood there. After this fellow finished-telling me off, this is Mr. Toyama, the head of the shipyard union, he said “and that’s it”, and he turned to walk away and I said “don’t I get to say anything” and he said “no” and continued walking. By this time, Carolyn Golojuch was at the microphone screaming at me. It says, “this person left in anger and was followed out by Dudley who wanted to continue the argument”. I never moved from the spot. I stood right there listened to Carolyn and so forth. Then, the next paragraph ‘
Ryan: Dr. Dudley, you’re reading evidence for the next complaint, Item B.
K.. Dudley: Oops, are you sure?
Ryan: Yeah, we lost where you were.
Ryan: We know your position. Actually, most of it was stated in the evidence submitted for Complaint B. At this time, I’d like to call Maeda Timson also to the podium so that when I read she can affirm whether I’m correct in the way I’m reading it for the Commission.
K. Dudley: Madam Chair, I’m afraid to be too close to Maeda Timson.
M. Timson: I want to stay here because he’s just getting all excited and all upset and I do not want to stand near that man.
Ryan: We’re on Complaint A. I just want to clarify, your first complaint is terroristic behavior displayed to you by Dr. Dudley during the meeting, correct?
M. Timson: Yes.
Ryan: The second complaint specifically states his disrespectful comment to you, which you define as sexual harassment by calling you “darling” and “God”, correct?
M. Timson: Yes.
Ryan: The third you address an email you categorize as vulgar that he sent to you and quote some of the items that was sent.
M. Timson: Yes, as well as some of the other points of evidence that’s in there.
Ryan: You go on to say that he has made further derogatory statements about you.
M. Timson: Yes.
Ryan: Okay. My question to you Ms. Timson is Dr. Dudley has acknowledged one of the things that he did say to you and has apologized, but could you tell us...
M. Timson: (Interrupt) No, wait a minute. Who did he apologize to?
Ryan: No, I’m not done. He did apologize at this at this forum but I’m not saying that that was a. . .you know he expressed that he was remorseful for the incident where he used the work “darling”. In regards to you other complaints, which we have supporting documents for, what do you feel is a suitable remedy?
M. Timson: I feel that he cannot be removed from the board because he doesn’t know how to behave, the least that should occur is that all this bad behavior and horrible things that he said in public, he needs to apologize in public and he needs a class in anger management. And if he did that I will be fine.
Ryan: The Commission will consider but the ultimate corrective action recommendation will be made by the Commission. Thank you Ms. Timson.
M. Timson: Well, you asked me that’s why.
Ryan: Thank you.
Ryan: You can go on Dr. Dudley.
K. Dudley: I’d like to get straight what pages we have. The one that begins as Chair of Neighborhood Board 34...
Sakamoto: No. It’s dated February 17, 2004 with Maeda Timson at the top. The first paragraph, “I must bring to your attention the continuing terroristic behavior. .
K. Dudley: And the next page of that begins with...?
Sakamoto: “Last August, after a violent outburst from
K. Dudley: Okay, and the last page is “Commission Action...?”
Sakamoto: . . .and then the complaint form.
K. Dudley: Now I was dealing with the other letter, so let me then work with this one. In the first paragraph she talks about continuing terroristic behavior, I don’t think that there is such a thing for me. Now it has escalated to other boardmembers and members of the community. Again, this is blowing things completely out of proportion and twisting and blowing them out of proportion. “The recent terroristic behavior was witnessed at our monthly meeting in January”. I don’t think that there is any terroristic behavior. I just want to ask you, do you realize what these words mean? Do you realize what she’s accusing me of? Terroristic Behavior and it has escalated to other boardmernbers and community?” I mean this must be recognized by your Commission as absolutely patently false.
Nekota: I have a question. Dr. Dudley, on August 14, 2003, did you receive a letter from Ben Kama of the Neighborhood Commission Office?
K. Dudley: Yes, I did.
Nekota: And what did that letter state?
K. Dudley: A number of things. Telling me that I need to behave at board meetings and telling me that Maeda Timson had been given tools to remove me. In general, that was the sense of it.
Nekota: So, at that time, what did you do with the letter? Did you take it to heart that there seems to be a problem going on to receive this kind of letter in the mail?
K. Dudley: In actuality, I didn’t answer the letter. I talked to the Chairperson of the Neighborhood Commission about it. He recommended that I just lay the letter aside and he said that Mr. Kama has not looked at your side at all. In order to be fair, he should have at least called you in, he should talk to you, he shouldn’t send you a letter before getting your side of the story. So I agreed with that, laid the letter aside and did nothing about it. Now I must tell you though, the lady that brought the letter to the meeting and gave it to me, it was a hand-carried letter, I believe is Terrylyn, but I’m not sure, sat in at the meeting and after the meeting was over, she came up to me and said “you know, you didn’t do anything in this meeting, I think that this letter should go to Maeda Timson”.
Nekota: Well, you can’t really take that as anything, you’re just hear-saying and we don’t have that person to confirm that they actually said that.
Kajiwara: I was the person that delivered that, but I’m sorry, I don’t recall making such a statement Mr. Dudley. We discussed after the meeting and you asked me how your behavior was at the meeting. I sat in at. I did agree that I did not see anything inappropriate in the time that I was sitting there observing but I don’t ever recall saying that I think the letter should be delivered to Maeda Timson.
K. Dudley: Okay. Do you remember saying anything at all about Maeda Timson.. .that she was the problem?
Kajiwara: I didn’t see anything inappropriate in Ms. Timson behavior too. I thought that it was a very well run meeting and I think I talked to you that I didn’t notice a problem that night.
K. Dudley: Okay, thank you.
K. Dudley: Do you have any other questions?
The motion by the Commission regarding the Young vs NB#34 Complaint:
Commissioner Ryan moved and was seconded by Commissioner Sakamoto to rule in favor of the complainant Linda Young but clarified that they did not find that it was workplace violence or in that a nature of threatening actions, because it was out of the Commissions authority, but found Kioni Dudley had acknowledged the actions of what he was accused of and that the Commission urged Dr. Dudley to present a formal apology to Linda Young at the next Neighborhood Board 34 meeting publicly.
The motion by the Commission regarding the Timson. Maeda vs NB#34 A Complaint:
Ryan announced, It is outside the purview of this Neighborhood Commission to rule on terroristic behavior and sexual harassment as given in the complaint by Ms. Timson. We find in favor of Ms. Timson, of Dr. Dudley addressing Ms Timson in an inappropriate manner as the Chair under order and decorum , specifically his remark of “thank you dahling”.
The corrective action: That Dr. Dudley is to issue a public apology at the next Neighborhood Board 34
meeting tomorrow night and refrain from contacting Ms. Timson outside of the Neighborhood
Board/Commission meetings. And if communication is necessary he is to go to the Executive
Secretary, Benjamin Kama, Jr. to communicate with Ms. Timson.
The motion by the Commission regarding the Timson. Maeda vs NB#34 B Complaint:
Sakamoto announced: I’d like to make a motion to dismiss this complaint.
Looking at the complaint paragraph by paragraph, I believe that a big portion has been already addressed in the previous complaint. And once again we cannot address the sexual harassment portion of the complaint and also I do not believe that the aggressive lunge was actually substantiated in the evidence on the complainants part. That is my motion.
Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of the motion to dismiss.
K. Dudley: Announced after vote was taken that he would resign from the board in exchange for not having to apologize.
Second Motion made by Commission after hearing Dr. Dudley’s conditions.
Ryan announced: That we consider Dr. Dudley’s request to resign in place of a public apology. That is my motion.
No vote was taken.
Commission went into Executive Session.
Commission Returned From Executive Session.
Ryan asked for a clarification from
K. Dudley: I’m suggesting that I will resign from the neighborhood board immediately, but, that on one condition that nothing is said negatively about me whatsoever at tomorrow night’s meeting or any future meeting except that about the announcement that Dr. Dudley resigned.
Ryan: OK, I have to withdraw my motion that was made before the recess: Because we do not have the authority to accept your resignation, your neighborhood board has to accept your resignation. So, the ruling will stand and you can submit your resignation to your neighborhood board.
K. Dudley: So, in other words, what happens tomorrow night?
Ryan: Don’t you have a neighborhood board meeting tomorrow night?
K. Dudley: Yes.
Ryan: In other words if you sent a letter that says, “I resign” that’s how they have to read it.
K. Dudley: OK. The way the Neighborhood Plan reads is the Neighborhood Commission is supposed to take care of the problems in the neighborhood board. Now what I’m saying is I will write a letter tomorrow resigning effective tonight and out of it, if there are any negative comments made then I expect you folks to say to those folks who are getting everything they want right now, including my resignation, I want them to know that they had better not, ever, say anything negative about me. OK? I want that understood. And I want that to come from you guys.
Ryan: I think that’s a fair request and it is so noted in the minutes which is public record..
M. Timson: Requested equal time to talk.
M. Timson: This is really disturbing to me. And what is disturbing is that Kioni Dudley would rather resign than admit or be sorry for what he did. So its real clear to me that he is going to continue to do this. And folks just listen to what some of the things that were said tonight. He said, that I purposely called everyone members, because, (background voices can be heard) Chair, Chair.
M. Timson: That’s crazy. Right there. See.
K. Dudley: You have said enough lady, you have said enough lady.
Wickramaratna: Order please.
M. Timson: I did not interrupt him when he said very negative and rude things and insulting things. He should not interrupt me. When he said that I purposely called people members, so I could call him a penis. How vulgar and insulting. Just another way to show you. And you know folks when we refer to our people at church we refer to them as members. So does that mean that every person we refer to at my church I call them a penis. How shameful. And how insulting. And you know I tell you something. I am really disappointed that you didn’t support the claims of the things that he wrote. He wrote them. He said he was out sniffing my ash and he is going to fart in my face. And he said that it was written about the oozing of puss in his back and all that. He said that. And that is insulting, that’s rude. And I’ll tell you, I have been in my community since 1972.1 have worked hard in my community as a community person that whole time. I was given the most prestigious award for my community work. Of working with people and being a good person. I have the lifetime service award, I have Community Service award and another Community Service award. I am the only person that holds those awards. Nobody, I was also the youngest. So what I am saying is that I am not that awful person. That is so rude because I am not. And there are some really bad things that were said. My husband was accused of threatening
Wickramaratna: Thank you very much.
Background shouts and angry shouts started to erupt in the chambers regarding “You don’t touch me. You don’t touch me”, etc, etc.
Wickramaratna: Adjourned the meeting.
|Thursday, November 18, 2004|