|You are here: Main / Neighborhood Commission Office / com / 08 / NC November Minutes|
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Grant Tanimoto called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Sheila Apisa, Brandon Bailey, Clara Ching, Robert Finley, Ron Mobley, Grant Tanimoto and Sylvia Young.
Members Absent: Ed Gall and Jeanette Nekota.
Guests: Debbi Glanstein, Linda Ure, Jim Corcoran and Jon Chinen (Members, Kailua Neighborhood Board No. 32); Ron Lockwood (Chair) and Clifton Takamura (McCully-Moi’ili’ili Neighborhood Board No. 8); Jo Jordan (Chair), Pat Patterson and Marilyn Kurshals (Waianae Neighborhood Board No. 24); Patty Teruya (Chair), Neddie Waiamau-Nunuha, Kimo Keli’i and Hanalei Aipoalani (Nanakuli Neighborhood Board No. 36),
II. ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS: A roll call of Commissioner’s was administered. A quorum was present with seven (7) of nine (9) members (Apisa, Bailey, Ching, Finley, Mobley, Tanimoto, and Young).
III. MONTHLY REPORTS:
A. Executive Secretary – Joan Manke reported:
· Neighborhood Plan 2008 – Work is in progress to finalize the index portion of the new Neighborhood Plan (NP) before mass printing. It is also available on the NCO’s website or come by the office for a hard copy. The new NP went into effect October 20, 2008.
· Staffing – A replacement is being sought to fill the position of Michelle Kidani and Neighborhood Assistant Ivy Yeung’s last day with the NCO is December 5, 2008.
· Scheduled Training – In the interim, the Training and Minute Taking Committees are still meeting. Dates for training are being planned with more updates to follow.
B. Chair Grant Tanimoto – announced that the Commission worked diligently on a number of items not listed on the agenda. Of much importance is online voting to be discussed further on tonight’s agenda.
IV. PUBLIC CONCERNS:
A. New Neighborhood Plan – Lynn Matusow expressed: 1) concerns that copies of new Neighborhood Plan were not available to board members. 2) She asked that copies made available at her December 4, 2008 board meeting. 3) She also expressed her dismay that the Commission is not following the Sunshine Law. Further, Matusow referred to the Commission’s last meeting agenda where an item appeared twice on the agenda that implied action would be taken, which a violation and should not have appeared under Commission Business.
Chair Tanimoto advised that hard copies of the new Plan were issued to chairs/vice chairs at the COC and a copy can be viewed on the NCO website at www1.honolulu.gov/nco or hard copies available for pickup at the NCO.
Discussion continued, notifying the following: 1) Ure noted their neighborhood assistant told them in writing that the board could be charged if they obtained a copy of the Plan from the NCO. Manke advised there is no charge. 2) Takamura stated that he participated in the RNP review process and commended those who also participated in the process. He advised that he printed a copy off the website at the library. 3) Heinrich noted that the new candidate registration deadline is February 20, 2009, since the NP and the Rules of the Commission are now in effect. He also suggested that the Commission look an overall policy for a strategic type discussion with reference to Executive Session (ES) meeting minutes that primarily deals with the NP remain confidential. Heinrich suggested that those minutes may be made be made public at this time. 4) In regards to a question as to whether action had been taken on the Election PIG recommendation at the previous meeting, Chair Tanimoto indicated that a report was made and no action taken. 5) Ure expressed concern of not having received acknowledgement from the Commission Chair or secretary regarding emails she sent regarding having to do letters with COR opinions. Chair Tanimoto recalled a request concerning opinions be made available on the website, and will discuss this with NCO staff. Ure was thanked for the reminder.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The approval of minutes will follow agenda item 7, Commission Business on tonight’s agenda; no objections followed.
1. Budget – Kalene Sakamoto’s appointment to the Commission has expired. A replacement is being sought to lead the Budget Committee as Chair. However, there was no interest at this time.
2. Training – Manke reported that Nekota is out of town. Currently in works are training meeting dates for January, but a date has not been selected.
3. Neighborhood Board System Audit – As is for the Audit Committee as well.
B. Permitted Interaction Groups – Chair Tanimoto announced the following:
1. Elections – would be discussed further on tonight’s agenda.
2. Conference of Chairs (COC) – was completed August 2008 and looking forward to the next COC.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Elections Permitted Interaction Group recommendation regarding 2009 Neighborhood Board Elections
– Online Voting with Proxy Phone Voting – Brendan Bailey re-read the findings and recommendations the same presentation of the November 10, 2008 Special Meeting. This was for the benefit of tonight’s discussion.
Mobley moved that the Commission approve Online Voting with the Proxy Phone Voting; Apisa seconded the motion. Chair Tanimoto announced that testimonies would each have a to two-minute time limit. The Commission would hear from the audience, followed by discussion and deliberation of the Commission. Testimonies followed:
1) Tom Smyth (NB 13) asked if mailed notification would be sent to all registered voters; Bailey replied yes.
2) Kimo Keli’i (NB 36) received several calls from area kupuna who are not computer savvy or ready for this change at this time. He suggested a creative method such as using Waimanalo Gulch funding to mail paper ballots to their own area, so the kupuna can continue to vote.
3) Smyth (NB 13) supports the online voting process with reservation. He added there should be creative ways to allow for opportunity to vote at neighborhood board meetings.
4) Clifton Takamura (NB 8) was involved in the State Election System and understands that many elderly have problems with electronic voting. He questioned the availability of voting locations (public library, NB meetings, etc), and added that paper ballots are still available for state elections.
5) Donna Wong (NB 31) expressed the following: a) a newspaper article stating that online voting was already expected to pass when the Commission did not vote yet; b) that a vendor had already been selected, and was there a bidding process and what were the criteria by which the vendor had been selected. c) For years, paper ballots were mailed out, and to include secrecy of the voting process, double envelopes were included. Proxy phone voting or email voting is not a secret ballot, nor is it fundamentally right to vote secretly. d) How many phone lines would be dedicated, and who is going to do the verification.
6) Jim Corcoran (NB 31) was against the motion noting the following: a number of unanswered questions need to be answered first before a vote can be put forth; how many NB’s are in favor or against online/proxy phone voting. Last year, the
7) Debbi Glanstein (NB 31) added that the key to success of NB’s and the NB System is participation. Given the results from previous when online voting was tried, what are the assurances. PIGroup members include Bailey, Gall, Mobley and Tanimoto.
8) Ron Lockwood (NB 8) added that the top online vote getter on his board received six (6) votes. It needs to be clear to administration and council that with this new online voting, previous vote counts cannot affect the budget, and that this is the only voting system in the State where non-citizens’ are qualified to vote.
9) Lynn Matusow (NB 13) said the board took a position several months ago to oppose online voting and she requested better explanation how the proxy voting would work. She also lacked to see any attempt of her suggestion for the Commission to fundraise or to postpone the election a year so more lobbying to get City Council to put in the necessary funding for next year. Those who would be disenfranchised would not only include the elderly, but the immigrants and “shut-ins.” She suggested amending the new Plan to extend the board’s term, and go before Council in March to request enough funding to run the election.
10) Ure (NB 31) noted the following: a) a conflict in the new Plan relating to voting and the ballots; and b) that NB’s did not have a cycle to review the PIGroup report given 14 days ago, and the minutes were not available. NB’s were asked their thoughts and NB 32 and other NB’s who were on top of the issue had given input, but still other NB’s were totally unaware. There are a lot of shut-ins and elderly in her neighborhood. And in her community, even the uncontested races voted because they were notified by her community association. She added that the NCO lost the ability to advertise and unfortunately, cutting out the mail ballots take away the rights of the elderly, the shut-ins, the immigrants, and the military personnel. She suggested postponing tonight’s vote.
11) Jon Chinen (NB 31) is computer literate and though he felt comfortable about online voting, he had to consider his constituents and their concerns about this type of automated (American Idol) type system might determine that you lost the election because someone punched-in the wrong number. For this reason, he asked the Commission rethink the matter.
12) Corcoran (NB 31) asked Commissioner Bailey, the cost of putting up booths at City Satellites and across the island at the parks and Honolulu Hale because he did not see a cost factor listed. The Commission should answers to questions of cost overruns. Bailey replied that he did not have an exact figure but that it was factored into the over all figure of the budget.
13) In answer to Glanstein’s (NB 31) question about proxy phone voting, Chair Tanimoto thanked her for bringing it up and that the Commission can circle back on more details during deliberation.
14) Keli’i (NB 36) said the locations listed in the newspaper included the public library but the entire coast has only one public library. And if voting will be held at the parks, there are issues being considered such as security and limited resources. Keli’i agreed that the process is good and that times are changing, but that the Nanakuli and Ma’ili communities are not ready for it now. He asked for time to educate the community and to look for a location.
15) Matusow (NB 13) asked about absentee ballots; Bailey noted it was not an option with the online voting.
16) Ure (NB 31) noted if the NB managed to get out submissions for all vacant and current seats, there would be a total of 444 candidates. She questioned if that would blow the budget; Bailey replied was no.
Chair Tanimoto ended public testimony to allow the Commissioner’s to go into discussion and deliberation:
1) Finley complimented the work done, but in hearing the testimonies, it is too late to get a consensus of the boards. He referred to COR for input, however, Deputy Counsel Don Kitaoka can only advise the Commission should there be a question and cannot advise the public. Relating to the new Plan, the question of whether it is allowable, Kitaoka indicated it is allowable under the provision, that it gives the Commission the ability to determine other means as found in Section 2-17-101; that elections shall be by mail ballot unless otherwise directed by the Commission.
2) Mobley empathized but stressed that there is just not enough money. The Commission and NB’s cannot legitimately do any kind of fundraising; and all that can be done is what’s allowable in the budget to do the voting. It is setup to mail the tri-fold to all registered voters with an identification number, and by matching that with the last four digits of your social security number (SSN) identifies the voter. The process is the same for both online and phone proxy and that’s the security of the system. He also added that this type of election has worked in many countries and in many elections within the
3) In answer to Young’s question about the deadline date, Manke said because of the new plan, the deadline extended one month to February, so a decision made sooner than later is better.
4) Bailey noted that all the issues raised are valid and every concern raised has been addressed by the PIGroup. As a baseline measurement, the PIGroup used mailed paper ballots; and that measurement was used for secrecy, accessibility, etc.
Accessibility – The PIGroup believes that online voting is greater, if not better because everyone has a phone. If they don’t know how to use a computer, the directions are set forth in the tri-fold direct mailer that will go to each registered voter. The process is the same for computers because it is identical.
Secrecy – CDS (Computer Data Systems) assured that there’s no way to identify the person placing the vote, even if they person called in. The unique identification number would have to be matched up with the last four digits of SSN, and no exchange of names, etc.
Women League of Voters (WLV) – There will be a bank of WLV volunteers available to man the phones and flexible enough to add on more volunteers depending on the flow of calls.
Hearing no further deliberation by the Commission, the motion was ADOPTED, 6-1-0. Aye: Apisa, Bailey, Ching, Mobley, Tanimoto and Young. No: Finley.
The Commission recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. (seven members present).
B. Resolution regarding the Amendment to Initiative Petition for Mililani/Waipio/Melemanu Neighborhood Board No. 25 that proposes to decrease subdistrict seats from 19 to 15 and increase at-large seats from 4 to 8; total seats to remain at 23; Public Hearing held on August 27, 2008 –Apisa moved to adopt; Young seconded the motion. Tanimoto added that Nekota attended that hearing and the comments were positive. Discussion followed noting the following two points by Heinrich, a reminder for a demographics review of all the NB’s, and his position to oppose At Large positions that the new Plan still allows both concurrently. His feeling is that having both, At Large and Sub Districts, on a board further confuses the election process. But that’s a policy issue of the Commission which that might want to at. The motion was ADOPTED by unanimous consent, 7-0-0. Aye: Apisa, Bailey, Ching, Finley, Mobley, Tanimoto and Young.
Chair Tanimoto asked that the order of the agenda be switched, item D before C; no objections followed.
D. Dismissal of Complaint: Les Among vs.
Young moved to dismiss the complaint; seconded by Mobley. Finley, also the chair of the Waikiki Neighborhood Board, recused himself from the vote. The motion was ADOPTED, 6-0-1. Aye: Apisa, Bailey, Ching, Mobley, Tanimoto and Young. Abstention/Recusal: Finley.
C. Complaints Hearing: Marilyn Kurshals vs.
Opening statement: Kurshals thanked the Commission and the members of the Waianae community for coming tonight. The complaint was filed on August 30, 2007 after the proposed special meeting did not happen. The former chair, Teruya proposed to have this meeting in August to address community concerns of the continued use of Waimanalo Gulch Landfill.
Kurshals’ complaint was: a) that a special meeting was agreed upon by a majority vote with public officials in attendance, but that did not happen; b) that Teruya was responsible for scheduling the meeting in a timely manner, but that did not occur; and c) due to the lack of scheduling that special meeting, the board was not able to take a position, prior to a Council hearing on September 4, 2007; d) and instead, a “town meeting” by the Mayor was held to do a presentation on Waimanalo Gulch Landfill.
Kurshals furnished evidence claiming serious breech and lack of commitment. Documents introduced included: written testimony from Rodlyn Brown (not present), and a letter from Karen Young (not present). Exhibit 1: DVD – a three minute excerpt, the motion by Teruya to have a special meeting of the WNB #24 in August 2007 (shown into evidence);
Exhibit 2: Email testimony from Representative Shimabukuro; email correspondence between WNB members, Hanalei Aipoalani, David Brown and Kurshals encouraging the scheduling of the special meeting in August; and in Teruya’s defense the administration was already planning a community meeting.”
Exhibit 3: Cynthia Rezentes, email regarding potential willful violations of the Sunshine Law if members (more than a quorum) attend the Mayor’s Town Meeting on August 28, 2007;
Exhibit 4: Neighborhood Commission response form: regarding dismissal by the WNB #24 members of Kurshals’ complaint and Teruya’s apology to the WNB #24 and complainant; and Witness list: Jo Jordan, Pat Patterson and David Brown.
In conclusion, Kurshals emphasized the board was entrusted by the community to represent them on many critical issues that this community is faced with. But because the board did not have this special meeting in August, there was an injustice to the community. She believes that in the future, a message be sent to NB’s making them accountable to the community to follow-through.
A brief discussion ensued; a point of order was raised by Patty Teruya of the complaint and notification process and asked what capacity does she respond regarding the complaint. Chair Tanimoto explained that the complaint was addressed to the Waianae NB and the “then” chair, Patty Teruya, when the complaint was filed. Not debating the process Teruya just wanted clarification for she was not noticed to attend and out of curiosity she came tonight.
Opening statement: Patty Teruya, former chair WNB No. 24 and current chair, NMNB No. 36 greeted the Commission. Teruya explained during the filing of the boards meeting agenda, a complication that the Waimanalo Gulch issue was not on the agenda. Meanwhile, the administration approached and asked if this matter could be on the agenda due to its timeliness and controversial need to be addressed. Knowing her agenda had already been filed under the Sunshine Law, she sought the advice of the NCO Executive Secretary, Joan Manke and Michelle Kidani. In speaking with Kidani, Teruya stated being informed it was possible and has happened before. So, on the advice of the NCO, a revised agenda was sent out adding item 8.1 – Request to support the City’s Continued Use of Waimanalo Gulch and that Eric Takamura, Director, Environmental Services, would provide a presentation at the August 7, 2007 board meeting.
Rezentes, during this time, emailed Teruya of the violation. In defense, Teruya turned the matter over to the Commission to respond about the violation. Teruya added that the meeting was quite confusing with having to explain the whole scenario of the revised agenda. The discussion concerning the special meeting was lengthy, and dependent upon availability of a meeting location, she said a motion was passed. Teruya did not intentionally ignored this sensitive issue of the City’s landfill.
Continuing on, Teruya was then informed by the Executive Secretary and Kidani that the Mayor and his administration was having a town meeting scheduled in August. Teruya noted having no power of the Mayor’s decision of when and where this town meeting would happen, it was held at
In conclusion, Teruya again explaining that she did not intentionally try to push this matter aside. She then asked Kimo Keli’i to assist in trying to find a location. A special meeting was finally scheduled for September and all interested persons had the opportunity to participate in discussion. A motion was entertained and voted down. She was deeply apologetic that there was no intention on her part and her first complaint since she’s been on the board.
Chair Tanimoto opened the evidentiary portion of the hearing beginning with Kurshals.
Marilyn Kurshals – said the complaint was specifically related to the motion made to have a special meeting in August; and it is not relevant that a special meeting was held a month later. Using the DVD, she explained was critical for the purpose that the minutes did not reflect what happened at the meeting.
Chair Tanimoto read into the minutes written testimonies of Rodalyn Brown and Karen Young (copy available). Commissioner Apisa noticed that the letter from Karen Young was not signed; also an error in the date indicating August 7, 2008.
WITNESSES WERE CALLED FORWARD for Marilyn Kurshals:
Jo Jordan – former member of WNB No. 24 testified that an agenda was filed meeting the Sunshine Law requirement of six days. Following Teruya’s scenario, the board continued with the revised agenda. Teruya recommended polling a meeting in August which was unanimously supported. The board still had until August 23 to agenda a meeting in time for the board to take a position before the hearing with City Council on September 4, 2007; and not be timely for the board to take any position since it was a regular meeting night.
The issue came up again October 2007 after Kurshals filed her complaint. The board discussed the issue and Teruya apologized. A motion to dismiss the complaint followed and
Teruya commented that the apology was not an admission of guilt but rather encouragement by a few old time members to resolve the matter so the board can move forward. Teruya stated her sincere apology to the board as to not dwell on the matter further. Teruya had no questions for what transpired was touched on by
David Lawrence Brown – former member of WNB No. 24 let his email stand as testimony, along with the DVD that a motion was made regarding the issue relating to Waimanalo Gulch and to get a position before the hearing with City Council. Teruya had no questions for Brown.
Pat Patterson – resident of Makaha testified in support of Kurshals’ complaint. She also stated having difficulty trying to file a complaint with the NCO at the Kapolei office. Patterson read and provided a copy of her statement which highlighted all the same points and concluded by stating that Teruya twice denied the fellow members to exercise their responsibilities, and further denied them the same rights that other community members have to be listened to and provide input for issues important to the Waianae Coast’s present and future. Teruya had no questions for Patterson.
William Aila – resident who attended the meeting on August 7, 2007 and wanted to attest to the facts mentioned and the common sense approach is to issue a finding. He hoped that something constructive will derive from this and perhaps an advisory to all NB’s chairs to follow-up on the motions that the boards take action on. Teruya asked Aila to point out in the Plan that talks about a timeline; Aila was not certain whether the rules of the old or new Plan would prevail.
Fred Dodge – resident and retired physician mentioned having the same evidence as his wife, Karen Young (written testimony copy was available). He attended that same meeting to testify against the extension of Waimanalo Dump and that priority is given to find alternatives and solutions. Teruya had no questions for Dodge.
Lucy Gay – resident who attended the August 7, 2007 meeting added that an attempt on the part of two board members (Marilyn Kurshals and Black Hoohuli) to avert this problem and aware of the pressing timeline. In their need to seek help on what to do, Gay’s advice was to help Teruya to put an agenda together; and to further reach out and help her. Teruya had no questions for Gay.
Kurshals also stated that the issue was on behalf of the community and although a meeting was held afterwards, it was only because City Council extended the comment deadline for Waimanalo Gulch, otherwise, the WNB would never have been able to take a position and the reason why the meeting was so critical and why she filed this complaint. This concluded Kurshals evidentiary portion.
WITNESSES WERE CALLED FORWARD for Patty Teruya: Teruya made the following clarifications on some of the statements on the email. Teruya stated that the Mayor had intended on coming to inform the community about Waimanalo Gulch and being such a sensitive issue, he took time to have a special meeting.
The email stated that the Mayor lied to the community which Teruya stated that the Mayor is not a liar. Secondly, the email stated there was a conflict because she works for the City for 16 years; Teruya stated that she does not work for the Mayor’s Office but that she works for the Department of Customer Service and a member of the board since 1994. Teruya was bothered that such a statement was made about an honorable man, such as the Mayor.
In conclusion, Teruya has volunteered her time on the board since 1994 without missing a meeting, she is very dedicated to her community and doing outreach work as well; and truly believes in participation of the NB System, the grass roots between government and public.
Kimo Keli’i – stated the importance of having the Plan available. When the WNB separated it was imperative that they have the Plan. There is no one issue, more critical then the other, but rather he sees all issues as critical. He cited numerous occasions under a prior chair (Cynthia Rezentes) on the many times when a number of meetings he thought to be critical, it was not scheduled. But what instead happened, was Rezentes apologized and they worked on it. He explained Teruya could not find a location for the meeting, but by the time of the DVD, Teruya had gotten a commitment to use Waianae District Park, although a date had not been scheduled, there was commitment for a location. Besides the Mayor’s town meeting, a number of other goings on in the community was occurring as well. So, Teruya contacted Keli’i to ask his assistance. Keli’i noted that scheduling a meeting is not entirely left on her shoulders. He cited the Plan, section 4-7.1 that indicates a special meeting can be called by the chair or the majority of the board.
Kurshals sent an email to all board members with emails and got only responses from D. Brown and H. Aipoalani. She did not know Keli’i was attempting a meeting for he made no contact with her and had that been the case, she would have assisted him. Keli’i replied his relationship with Kurshals was not great at the time; and even as being a committee chair, she lacked follow-ups on several of her committee items. There was a brief interruption of disagreement with Kurshals and Keli’i, at which time Chair Tanimoto had to bring the meeting back to order.
Hanalei Aipoalani – former member of WNB No. 24 and current member of the NMNB No. 36 verified his response to Kurshals email, along with D. Brown for it was a pressing issue which they wanted on the agenda. Aipoalani also stated at no time did he hold the chair (Teruya) personally responsible for being a district vice chair on the executive committee he would have had to assume responsibility as well. He added on the
Neddie Waiamau-Nunuha – a board member for 22 years and the Sergeant-At-Arms for a number of years thereafter. The out of order incident that came up previously (Keli’i and Kurshals), Waiamau-Nunuha had expected to be handled more appropriately in a more timely manner. She felt it was unfair and it should have been called out of order immediately before escalating. Although it seems that at times it’s chaotic, the members enjoy what they do and work well together; and perhaps the Commission can assist with a solution. Kurshals asked Waiamau-Nunuha whether she believe that Kurshals loves her community and stands up for what she believes in. Waiamau-Nunuha replied in the beginning.
Comments from the Commission: 1) Mobley stated: a) if the WNB No. 24 is considered a small board, the question asked was whether the chair is allowed to make a motion. If WNB is considered a small board, the answer is yes by Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO); and small is considered 12 or less. But his understanding is that the WNB is 15–18, which the chair should not have made a motion. But because there was no objection, it’s still agreeable. Once the motion was made and approved by the NB, the only thing is that the officers of that board are then obligated to carry out the motion. And in this case, if it was to be carried out in August, then the officers of the board were then obligated to carry out the motion. Teruya was not totally responsibility, but the entire NB was responsible. The Plan specifically allows for either the chair or board to call a special meeting; and personally, as a Parliamentarian, Mobley does not fault Teruya for anything in what he heard and nothing in evidence that said she was deliberate. 2) Apisa agreed with what was said and getting only responses to Kurshals email indicated that it was not one everyone’s priority and her recommendation is to accept the apology and move on. 3) Young noted that in the all that she’s heard, Brown was the only one who indicated it was a motion; all others indicated either a suggestion or recommendation; and that Kurshals’ testimony was also conflicting with the video and other testimonies. 4) Finley noted in the October 2, 2007 meeting there was a strong majority to discuss the complaint, so he would have to agree with Apisa, to apologize and move on.
Young moved to dismiss the complaint; Finley seconded the motion. Mobley did not think it appropriate to completely ignore the complaint, but thinks a letter would be sufficient to let them know it’s not proper in that there were obligated to the community through their action taken. Also noted was his embarrassment in that the Commission’s meeting tonight was over 60 days and under the new Plan. The new Plan says there is to be a meeting every 60 days, therefore in violation. The motion was NOT adopted, 5-2-0. Aye: Apisa, Bailey, Finley, Young, Tanimoto. NO: Ching, Mobley.
Bailey agreed with Mobley in that there were mitigating factors, a valid motion was passed and action should have been taken. Bailey moved to send a letter to the Waianae and Nanakuli neighborhood boards. Discussion followed: Aipoalani asked what determines action; when action has already taken place. Teruya, Keli’i and Kurshals, all took steps toward that action, so what constitutes action where action has already taken place. Aila felt that action is sending the letter to simply remind boards of the rights and privileges. Kurshals admitted that this is not a pleasant process but there needs to be accountability.
Bailey restated: that the motion is to recognize that it was a valid motion, approved by the board and that the board should have acted upon it by calling a meeting consistent with the motion that was passed. And further recommendation was made to accept the apology that, that was adequate to address the concerns and that the Commission’s action would be to send out a letter, a reminder to all the boards that if a valid motion was approved by the board that the board should have called a meeting consistent with the motion that was passed. The motion was ADOPTED unanimously. 7-0-0. Aye: Apisa, Bailey, Ching, Finley, Mobley, Young, Tanimoto.
If there are no objections, Chair Tanimoto entertained deferring approval of the minutes. Ching only wanted to state a comment that her corrections were not reflected in the (September’s) minutes.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
|Wednesday, March 11, 2009|