Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you. . do do

Thank you.

Sorry, that was me. Okay, so I don't have to unmute the speaker. Okay. Well, the Government Relations Ethics and Transparency Committee meeting of August 18, 2026 comes to order. It is 1.35 p.m. I am your chair, Colin Abutungan. Members. In accordance with the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the drone vehicle or with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Committee Vice Chair Nohidani Wadis.

Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm still at my parents' private residence. Couple things for me, Chair. I'm going to have to take this meeting on my phone for a little bit as I pick up my son from elementary school, and then I will be recusing myself for the second item on your agenda as it relates to the arbitration for the firefighters' contracts, but I will be on for the first and third. Thank you.

I'm just, thank you, Vice Chair. Council Member Tom Cook. Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon. Council Member Gabe Johnson.

Aloha, Chair, Council Members, community members. There's no testifiers at the Lanai District Office.

And I'm alone on my side of the office with a snoring doggy.

Thank you. No testifiers here. Ready to work.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Council Chair Alice Lee.

Hello, Oman from Jamaica. I'm here in my workspace and No one's here except my little kitty cat, snoring. She's snoring like a dog.

Thank you very much, Chair. Council Member Tamara Paulton.

Aloha wina loa and elo kakou. I'm streaming live and direct from my kitchen table in Mapili. I have with me one adult human male. George Vieira and two minor canines who shall remain unnamed.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you, Member Halton. Is Council Member Rollins-Fernandez with us? Okay. She will be joining us shortly. Council Member Shane Sinensi is excused. Council Member Yuki Leishigimura.

SHANE SINENSI- Good afternoon, Chair. Looking forward to this meeting. I'm going to have to leave for a 3.30 meeting and I'm in a private office. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Member Sugimura. Then from Corporation Council, we have with us Deputy Corporation Council Pasquale and Deputy Corporation Council Gores. Oh, and I see Deputy Corporation Council Rowe also joining us. Good afternoon. Are you taking over as the Deputy Staffing Great, Mr. Rowe?

Yes, I am. Yes, I am.

Okay, I see Mr. Pasquale, and we have with us Mr. Gores as well.

Good afternoon, Glenn Pascual, Deputy Corporation Counsel. I also have Isaac Rao from ESA, ES&A Incorporated, who's going to be participating as well.

Perfect. Thank you very much. Seth, did you catch that? Yeah. And then with us from FIRE, we have either FIRE Chief or Representative Yeah, I don't see anybody from the fire department on at the moment. Staff, can you let me know when we get them online? And then the director of personnel services or the representative.

Good afternoon.

Can you, for the record, state your title? I'm not clear what you're at the moment.

Acting Director of Personnel Services. Sorry about that. Thank you.

Thank you very much for being with us. Okay. And then I see Isaac Rowe. Are you the resource for that Deputy Pasquale reference? Are you here representing FIRE?

Yes, sir. My name is Isaac Rowe. I'm an attorney with ESNA. I am here in representation of Captain Scott Martin.

Thank you very much. We also have with us our great committee staff. Good afternoon, everybody. Members of the public, please see the last page of the agenda for meeting connectivity. Okay, members, we have before us resolution 26-131, which would authorize an increase of $250,000 for total compensation not exceeding $450,000 for employment of special counsel, ESNA Inc., a law corporation, for the representation of Scott Martin, an employee of the Department of Fire and Public Safety, and Chelsea Evans individually, and as the personal representative of the estate of Trey Pu'uwae La'ahia'o Lopaka Amele Pu'anani Evans Dumourand, deceased versus Scott Martin, Civil 2CCV-24-000034 under Charter Section 3-6-6. along with Deputy Corporation Counsel Pasquale, we have with us today, Isaac Rowe, a representative from ESNA Inc. Law Corporation to provide an update on this case. You guys have already introduced yourselves. Members, if there are no objections, I'd like to designate these individuals as resources under Rule 18A of the Rules of the Council due to their expertise on this matter. No objections.

No objections.

Thank you, members. At this point, may I please have opening comments from Deputy Corporation Counsel and Special Counsel.

Good afternoon, Chair Patangan, Vice Chair Guhajan, and members of the Great Committee. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. Yes, we can.

As you know, the Council previously authorized the retention of ES&A Incorporated as Special Counsel to represent Captain Scott Martin, in the lawsuit filed by Chelsea Evans, the mother and personal representative of the estate of Trey Evans Dumouron. Isaac Rao, an attorney with ESNA, is present via videoconference. Anna Elendos-Sneed, the lead attorney from ESNA, is not able to attend, as she had previously scheduled a settlement conference in another matter that required her presence. I am here today requesting authorization to raise the compensation limit for the employment of Special Counsel ES&A from $200,000 to $450,000. This increase is requested in anticipation of the increased time and expenses that will be incurred in litigating and defending Captain Scott Martin to trial. Trial is currently set for June 7, 2027. The anticipated time and expenses would be for things such as conducting and reviewing discovery depositions, expert witnesses, motions, and court hearings. Because this case involves ongoing litigation, we're requesting the opportunity to convene an executive meeting to discuss questions and issues pertaining to the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities of the county.

Thank you very much. Mr. Rold, did you have any opening remarks that you'd like to offer?

Yes, I just wanted to say that I am happy to be here. Thank you for having me. I can and will answer any questions you may have pertaining to the case, providing the information you seek as part of the public record. However, the why rules of professional conduct for attorneys, Rule 1.6 specifically, prohibits me from revealing any confidential information relating to the representation of my client in this lawsuit. But I am available for any questions that you may have. But understand that I may decline to answer because if you're seeking information that's confidential or covered by attorney-client privilege or covered by the attorney work product doctrine.

Thank you very much. Staff, do we have anybody from the Department of Fire online? We have...

I'm on.

Okay. Would you like to offer opening remarks?

No, I have nothing to say right now. Thank you.

Okay. And then I guess, can you just introduce yourself for the record? Name and title, please.

Gavin Fujioka, Deputy Fire Chief.

Thank you for being with us today.

Thank you.

All right, members, before moving on to discussion, let's receive testimony for grade 1133. Staff, is there anybody wishing to testify on this item? Yes, sure. We have one person that's raising their hand if you want to read the testimony disclaimer. One sec, let me get that up. Testifiers wanting to provide testimony should sign up in the lobby, join the online meeting via the Teams link, or call into the phone number noted on today's agenda. Briefing testimony is encouraged and can be submitted via the e-comment link at mawekhani.us slash agendas as well. Under the Sunshine Law, the chair will receive oral testimony for agenda items as the item is called up. For individuals wishing to testify via Teams, please raise your hand by clicking the Raise Your Hand button. If calling in, please follow the prompts via phone, star 5 to raise and lower your hand, star 6 to mute and unmute. Staff will add names to the testifier list in order testifiers sign up or raise their hands. For those on Teams, staff will lower your hand once your name is added. Staff will then call the name you're logged in under or the last four digits of your phone number when it is your time to testify. At that time, staff will also enable your microphone and video. Please ensure your name appears on Microsoft Teams as the name you prefer to be referred to or as anonymous if you wish to testify anonymously. If you're in person, please notify staff that you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of your testimony. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes per item. If you're still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. Once you're done testifying, or if you do not wish to testify, you can also view the meeting on Nakaku Channel 53, Facebook Live, or mycounty.us.agendas. We will do our best to take each person up in an orderly fashion. We'll now call on testifiers wishing to testify at the beginning of the meeting. Staff, please call the first testifier. Thank you, Chair. We'll go first to the individual calling from the phone number ending in 4945. I'm in an undisclosed location.

I will reveal that I'm less than a mile away from the fire station over there in Kahului. And I'd just like to say that I'm glad there's a man that's in charge today of the meeting. I'm glad Mr. Fujioka is there because he's been pretty good to me. So this is, I'll use this as an example. I did not prepare any kind of written testimony. Just found out in the past 10 minutes what was on the agenda. Thank you, Mr. Big Brother David Rotz. And I will reveal to the public information that I know Mr. Rotz is listening because he's very interested in this subject too. He tells me that he's also born in 1966, the year of the fire horse. So, okay, now I'll get into the meat and potatoes of this. I got my timer running. The previous chair was ripping me off on my minutes, so I appreciate you giving me a little bit of leeway on the test on the relativity of the testimony there. So this is why it's important to keep the public involved in what's going on with the government because it might give you guys some little grains of salt to use to decide what you're going to do. You're supposed to be very responsible with the public's money. So I'm kind of, I was thinking at first that... I just want to get this thing over with. I don't know why. It seems like the lawyers are making a whole lot of money. And my recent experience with lawyers with the county had four lawyers in the courtroom. I don't know how much they're getting paid, but these lawyers making $250,000. Wow. I wish I could make even a tenth of that. So... I'm going to let you guys do what you got to do, but I won't try to lean one way or another on this. I'm kind of trying to ride down the middle of the road. But I am, I would like to see justice for Trey. So whatever the lawyers are getting, I think the family should get 10 times more than that. And that kind of covers both. So, I mean, that's just on the Trey Evans Dumourin case. I met his grandfather. He's He's a pretty nice guy. He's working for the community also.

And so the second, I'm not going to stick around for the whole meeting because I know you're- We're only taking testimony on item grade 1133, resolution 26131.

I'd just like to tell Mr. Fujioka while he's there that I still support my local fire department, but I've been having some tiliquia lately with some of the guys there. So please get him straight. And that's my three minutes. Aloha.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions for the testifier? Seeing none, staff, can you please call the next testifier?

I'd be sure the next testifier is Tanner Mosher on Teams.

Good morning, everyone. Morning.

Morning.

Hi. Thanks for having me. I just wanted to testify appreciating you guys putting forward this resolution and recommending it. I can't stress how much it means to us. You know, I am currently the Maui Division Chair for Maui Fire Department. I got seven years in, and I feel like this is a great step in the right direction, especially due to the fact that recruitment is at an all-time low and the cost of living is at an all-time high. So I just really want that to be stated for the record that this is really instrumental in moving us to the right direction, and we appreciate all the hard work you do and can't be thankful enough. Thank you.

Thank you. Just to clarify, this testimony is for the compensation for special counsel on the Trey Evans lawsuit, or this is for the second item related to the settlement authorization?

The second item, Resolution 133. Okay. Thank you.

Member Paulton, I saw you had your hand up. Did you have a question for the testifier as well? no no same um clarification that you um just made okay thank you um mr mosher just a heads up so we're on the first item resolution 26 131 uh we'll be taking up the settlement resolution next are you planning to stick around for that one yes of course sorry i thought i heard you say one three three um thank you i support one third as well thank you Okay, thank you. Staff, anybody else sign up to testify? The next set to fire is James Langford on Teams. Mr. Langford, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to share some wisdom here. When considering the expanding the legal representation. And just because ethics is part of this committee and without, you know, this is very neutral, just straight ahead. What I'd love to hear is, you know, an ethical review. So you guys have an opportunity to hear from the ethics committee about which way so that you're not expending funds just to defend because you can outspend the ethics. So I'm inviting you folks to be able to ask court counsel and the ethics committee for opinions on these types of issues so that you can insulate your experience. Oh, that is one of the minors bargain. So anyway, just as a point of concern for you folks in this type of situation is where I'm coming from. And thank you to the lawyers and of course, thank you to the fire department and always protect our first responders with our ethics and integrity. So thank you, sir, for holding this meeting. I'm really enjoying the work that you're doing and how you structure your language. It's very educational for the community. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, members. Any clarifying questions for the testifier? Seeing none, staff, is there anybody else scheduled to testify? Chair, that's currently all the individuals signed up. I can do a last call for... Testimony, if anyone would like to testify, please approach the testifier station outside the finance conference room or raise your hand on Microsoft Teams. The last call is three, two, one. Seeing no one share, no one has indicated they wish to testify. Thank you. Members, seeing as there are no more individuals wishing to testify without objection, I will now close oral testimony for this item. No objections. Thank you, members. As a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted. Okay, members, we did get a request from Deputy Corporation Counsel to go into executive session. You may recall that the last time this lawsuit was brought up, it was not for a compensation increase, it was for a status update on the case. And at that time, Director Ratz came up to from his office to the chamber saying, do not let our special counsel into executive session. It's because special counsel does not represent the council or the county as a body, and executive session is legally restricted to conferring strictly with our own legal counsel, in this case, corporation counsel. So special counsel will not be permitted to enter or participate in the executive session. to obtain any necessary updates or responses from special counsel in open session, either prior to or following our executive discussion with corporation counsel. So with that being said, is there anybody who has any questions for special counsel at this time? Because I've been told we cannot permit him into the executive session. Member Paulson.

I don't have a question for special counsel. I think it could be for regular counsel, but I believe it's an open session question. Are we just having open session questions for special counsel now or open session question for a lawyer?

We should take any open session questions at this time, not just those directed toward special counsel. So I guess with that, we'll do a three-minute questioning round. And I'll go by show of hands rather than go down the list. So I'll start with Member Paulton, and the next hand I saw was Member Johnson.

Thank you. I just wanted to re-clarify, you know, just based on one of the testifiers' testimony as well as for the family that this is, we're required to represent Captain Martin. It's not a choice, not saying that I wouldn't do it if it was a choice, but I just wanted to clarify, we're required to represent him because he came under lawsuit in the course of him doing his job for the county, that's the way it works? Or if you can clarify that.

Deputy Pastor? Can you hear me? Yes.

Thank you, Member Paulton. I appreciate the question. The answer is yes, there is a Hawaii revised statute 46-35 that requires us that we have a duty to defend in these types of situations. So that's the basis.

Okay, and I just wanted to clarify that I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for this, but that we have to do it. So for anybody that might be watching and saying, why is the county fighting? We kind of have to because the law said, right? Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Paulton. Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. For my quick open meeting question is, I assume we're doing two executive sessions. And is your plan to end this meeting at 4.30? Because I have something to go leave at 4.30. That's my hard stop.

Yes, I anticipate leaving at 4.30 as well. We didn't do a good job of managing our time last time. So it would be really helpful in the course of our deliberations if we kept our questions and deliberations germane. I think the last great committee meeting also had three litigation items as well. You know, I... It... I know we were all very curious as to some of the details, like whether the right foot or the left foot got run over wasn't super germane to whether or not we were going to authorize settlement at the recommended amount. So with regards to time, I think if we could all keep our discussions, I don't know, focused, that'll go a long way in keeping us on track. So my hope is to end at 4.30. I know that there are others who have to leave even before then. And I guess I would just be trying to, I will do my best to keep us to that timeline by keeping us more focused in our discussions.

Okay, you answered my question. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Oh, Member Rollins-Fernandez, staff told me that you are logged in. Would you like to offer your disclosure?

Aloha, awin ala. I call on my for my tardiness. I'm in my vehicle ala.

Okay, thank you. Do you have any questions for Corporation Council or Special Counsel? Okay. I have one as a follow-up to what Member Paulton had asked. Deputy Pasquale, you mentioned that we were required to represent Captain Martin Is it in manners like this or something to that effect? Can you go into a little bit more detail? Is it because he was acting in his official capacity at the time the incident occurred?

Well, yes. Let me just share with you what Hawaii Revised Statute 46-35 says. It says that whenever any firefighter is sued in any civil case for acts done in performance of the firefighter's duty as a firefighter, the firefighter shall be represented and defended. So it's a shall be represented and defended. So that's a requirement.

Thank you very much. Members, any other questions for open session? Seeing none, let me turn to my notes regarding the call for a vote to go into executive session. I will now entertain a motion to convene an executive meeting in accordance with section 92-5A4 of the revised statutes to consult with legal counsel on questions and issues pertaining to the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities of the county, the council, and the committee. And section 92-5A8, vote your by statutes to deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law or a court order. We will need two-thirds of the voting members present to pass this motion. So a motion made by Member Cook. Do I have a second? Seconded by Council Member Sugimura. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Sure, that's eight ayes, zero noes. Member Sinensi excused, motion passes. Thank you. For the record, the following personnel will be attending the executive meeting, all council members in attendance. That's everybody but Member Sinensi from Office of Council Services. We have Peter Hanano, legislative attorney. Is there any other legislative attorneys that will be here? Committee Secretary Maria Leon, Corporation Council, can I please ask you to state who from the administration is going to be participating in this? I know yourself and those from Corporation Council. One thing I need you to clarify for me is whether or not representatives from Fire Department will be entering the executive session as well.

Thank you, Chair. I do not require anybody from the Department of Fire to Can I participate?

Then can you please just speak for the record? Who from Corporation Council and Special Counsel will be participating?

I'll be myself, Glenn Pasquale, Deputy Corporation Council, I believe. Is Caleb Rowe included as the counsel for the committee?

Yes.

Okay. And I was hoping for Isaac Rao from ESNA to be included as well.

I have been directed by the OCS director that one, we legally cannot invite him in and two, anything that he shared with us would be open to would not be covered by attorney fine privilege. So I am going to recommend against that.

Okay, that's that's fair enough. Then it'll be just myself and Caleb Rowe.

Okay. Okay. Member Paulton, I see you seeking recognition.

Thank you. I just thought we've included our hired private counsel in the past. Did a law change or something? We were doing it wrong before.

The explanation given to me was that special counsel was permitted into executive session in the past when we were the client and he represented either the council the county or the county but i will refer to our ocs legislative attorney or our our committee deputy corporation council on that matter uh mr hanano mr roe uh yeah sure so like you said uh last time we were here for a 7b case update

from the executive session, because for the reason that special counsel does not represent the county, so any discussions from special counsel would not be covered under the .

Meaning, as we go into discovery, anything he shared with us would then appear in court.

Okay, I just thought you were paying the bill that we're also part of the...

I also asked that question to Director Rods.

Okay. Maybe if we change the rules next term or something.

Yeah, I'm not sure. Yeah, I mean, we're going by HRS Hawaii Vice statutes. So changing council rules would not change that.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

All right. So there we have, I guess that concludes the list of individuals who will be attending the executive session. At this time, I would like to call for a five-minute recess till 2.10 p.m. We will convene in an executive meeting. This meeting of the grade committee is now in recess. Mr. Fandano, can you please give a summary in accordance with Hawaii Rights Statute section 92-4? Yes, thank you, Chair.

The Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee met in Executive Session on Resolution 26-131 to discuss with its attorney legal advice regarding the powers, duties, privileges, humanities, and liabilities of the company. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, is there any further discussion before the Chair's recommendation? Seeing none, I would like to entertain a motion to recommend adoption of Resolution 26131, including any non-substantive revisions. Motion made by Member Sugimura, seconded by Member Cook. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none. Oh, is that Deputy Pasquale seating recognition for the floor? Okay. Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Chair, that's eight ayes, zero noes. Member Sinensi excused. Motion passes. Thank you, members. And thank you, Deputy Pasquale and Mr. Rowe as well.

Thank you.

Members, we now have before us Resolution 26.133, which would approve settlement of one Hawaii Firefighters Association label, or sorry, Local 1463, IAFF, AFL-CIO versus Josh Green et al. Hawaii Labor Relations Board Case 26-CE-20. 1-1-997, filed on April 10th, 2026. And two, Josh Green et al. Versus Hawaii Firefighters Association, logo 1463. IAFF, AFL-CIO, Hawaii Labor Relations Board Case 26.CU-11-417, filed on May 18, 2026, both arising from prohibited practice claims under Section 89-13, HRS connected to an interest arbitration award dated March 26, 2026. May I have opening comments from Deputy Corporation Council Gores.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm bringing before the council a full settlement of two prohibited practices complaints. The first was brought by the Hawaii Firefighters Association against Governor Green. the City and County of Honolulu's Rick Longiari, the Mayor, Mayor Sikimo Almeida of the County of Hawaii, Richard T. Bisson Jr. for the County of Maui, and Derek S.K. Kawakami, Mayor of the County of Kauai, alleging violations of the Hawaii Revised Statute Section 89 concerning deliberations made by the arbitrators. The employers group, the state and the county mayors in turn filed a prohibited practices complaint against the HFFA. We spent multiple days in mediation with a mediator and we did hammer out a tentative agreement. My understanding as I sit here today is that the State is on board with this agreement. My understanding is that the city and county of Hawaii is on board. I received notification today that the county of Kauai, their council approved the settlement, but now they have to take another step and approve the funding. And the county of Hawaii has also agreed to this agreement. i was informed that on july 30th the hawaii firefighters association also ratified the settlement agreement and i do see there has been some written testimony from the hawaii firefighters association in support of this uh we did work hard to get to this point and we're seeking the council's approval Now, I would like to speak about what the terms of the settlement agreement are, since pretty much everybody, I think, knows what it is, except for maybe the council members. The first would be that effective July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2029, we will be continuing the step movements for the Firefighters Unit 11 employees that is in the prior collective bargaining agreement. The next point would be that effective July 1, 2027, the employees of EU11 would receive an additional 1.5% salary increase across their salaries in addition to the arbitration award of 2.5%, so come out to 4%. The same would be for July 1 of 2028, We would add an additional 1.5% for salary increases on top of the 2.5% that came out of the arbitration award. This council has approved the arbitration award. And we would also be continuing our drug and alcohol testing memorandum of agreement through June 30th of 2029, and neither party could unilaterally withdraw from it. There would be no amendment or modification or change to the prior arbitration award that started this that would still stand. This is a settlement of the prohibited practices complaints. Both sides would dismiss their prohibited practices complaints with prejudice. And that's basically the agreement. If you have any questions, I'm happy to discuss them. I know Ms. Iwoge is here on behalf of DPS. And I'm not sure if there's anyone else here from FIDR.

Mr. Wilhite, did you have any opening remarks? Or Mr. California Johnson, did you have any questions at this time?

Okay, sure. Clarifying questions. You said that both sides wanted to get rid of the random drug testing, but they're locked in. They cannot. Can you clarify that?

What I'm saying is we have a memorandum of agreement for the drug and alcohol testing agreement that was in place that expired at the end of the term. We've agreed to continue it. through June 30th, 2029, and neither side can just unilaterally pull out of that. That's language from you. So it's in place through June 30th of 2029.

And neither side can pull out of that MOU, you said?

Through that date, correct.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Ogilvie.

Thank you, Chair. Just along with Deputy Corporation John Gores, yes, both sides have reached an agreement which was ratified by all of the firefighters and we're just hoping to get this additional compensation implemented for them sooner rather than later. Thank you.

Thank you very much. OK, so I noticed that we had Tanner Mosher testify earlier. And then we have Deputy Chief Gavin Fujioka on the line. Does anybody have any, or I guess I should start with, does the department have any opening comments that they'd like to make? And if not, that's okay too.

Chair, we have no comments. Just thank you everybody for their work. Thank you.

And then members, Would you guys be willing to designate those two individuals, Mr. Mosher and Mr. Fujioka, as resource personnel in case there's questions for the department or the union through our deliberations? Sure. No objections. No objections. Thank you very much. Okay. Before moving on to discussion, I'll receive testimony for this item, grade 1135. Staff, is there anybody wishing to testify at this time? Yes, sir. We have individual calling from the phone number last four digits 4945. Mr. Law, you have three minutes for resolution 26133.

Oh, Chair, before he starts, can I make a disclaimer? I have one unnamed minor and just returned home from school at this moment.

Thank you very much. Mr. Long.

Aloha. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, well, yeah, I take it back what I said earlier, I wouldn't go hang on, but I did. I got interested in this stuff because I wanted to add that I read in the, I'm sure they had a whole bunch of laws ever since the kingdom laws back in the day, but in the civil code of the original kingdom, there's an interesting court in there about the fire department. And as a lot of you know, the fire department goes back way back to Kamehameha the third. And I hope Mr. Fujioka from the fire department over here in Kahului is listening because I don't have any, I have a slight reservation against this agreement to pay all the firefighters because not all of them are Pono in my opinion. So I know you can't really like pick the fly specks out of the pepper so to see, but I was thinking like, so there was some kind of thing maybe a month or so ago about the firefighters and how much the pay was. And I was thinking I didn't get to add it back then. So I'm glad that something came up again. where I think the police department has some kind of thing where they can work overtime doing private security for, because what gave me the idea was I saw the cops at Home Depot doing overtime stuff. So maybe they can add that into the, somehow change the law where the fire department so they do not get some of the guys that have extra time and girls too. They can like play, do guard duty for some of these guys corporations like Walmart and Home Depot and stuff like that get some of our money back from the corporations taking over the kingdom. And also, if you guys check that out, it's very interesting where the, I want to make sure I get this one in. I think it said where the fire department, anybody that works there doesn't have to pay taxes. So I hate to throw that on the lawyer guy. I think his name is John Ward. I can't recognize his voice, but I And I can see a space in my mind and that's another reason why people should be allowed to go to the meetings personally instead of trying to call in on the phone. But yeah, maybe he can work on that to work out with the United States IRS department where the fire guys don't have to pay taxes to the United States. And also I think it said in there to get a free horse too. So that's about it. I kind of ran out of thoughts there. So and one more thing. I wish that I think Mr. Fujioka has an office over there where he can watch the meetings and stuff. But the lawyers in the county over there on the third floor have spread their disease of the, you know, watch out for J.C. Long. They're trying to keep me out.

I don't know if you can hear the buzzer, but your three minutes is up. Can you please conclude?

Yeah, this one. And finally, thank you for the extra 30 seconds there, Chair Omolu.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions for the testifier? Seeing none, can you please call up the next testifier? And while the next person's up, can you try to get the buzzer louder? Chair, there's no one else currently signed up, so I'll do a last call for oral testimony. Thank you very much. If anyone would like to testify, please approach the testifier station outside the finance conference room or try to see that Tanner Musher is raising his hand. Okay. Okay, since he already testified on the last item for this item, does the Sunshine Law allow for that?

Ask Mr. Renato. Yeah, I think he, well, he testified on the other item, so you can testify. All right, Mr. Mosher, you have three minutes.

Sorry, thanks again. I just wanted to make sure I testified on the appropriate item. But yeah, thanks again for everything. I don't want to keep this too long. I appreciate all your guys' support. It means a lot to all of us. So thank you so much. Just wanted to make sure that my testimony was for the right item. Thank you.

And I probably should have asked you before designating you, but are you willing to serve as a resource in case any of the members have any questions? Yes, I would love to. Thank you. Okay. Members, any clarifying questions for the testifier? Seeing none, staff, can you please call the next testifier?

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is James Langford.

Mr. Langford, you have three minutes. Yes, sir. I just wanted to second the last testifier's testimony and whatever we could do to specifically the battalion chief. Um, whatever we can do to alleviate stress in the fire department, um, on the human level is, uh, is really essential. Folks are, uh, under a lot of stress and, um, I suggest, uh, reinforcing whatever capital needs they may have, you know, and mental health services as well as, uh, more childcare for the families. And that's been proven in other municipalities that have written reports for that. Anyway, I can't speak to the exact numbers, but it really helps the community trust building part that comes from when our community is in the situation like we are. So here we are supporting fire department to folks hearing different ways on the human side of their experience to make their own.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, staff, is there anybody else wishing to testify? We don't have anyone else signed up, so I will do the last call again. If anyone would like to testify, please approach the testifier station or raise your hand on Microsoft Teams and staff will unmute you. The count is 3, 2, 1.

Seeing none chair, no one has indicated that they wish to testify. Thank you.

Members, seeing as there are no more individuals wishing to testify, without objection, I will now close oral testimony for this item. No objections. Thank you, members. Right there, written testimony will continue to be accepted. I will implement a three-minute questioning period for a member. but we can go by show of hands first. Does anybody have any questions for the resource personnel? We have Pro Counsel, Personnel Services, and FHIR available. I see Member Paltin.

Thank you. I was wondering if anyone could mention what the prohibited practices that were, like I know, I don't know how, what they were specifically and how we can avoid doing them in the future. Because my understanding is this is a settlement because we're accused of prohibited practices. So it's not going to be decided by a judge if we were wrong or right about the prohibited practices. But what are the prohibited practices. I couldn't understand. And how do we avoid doing that in the future?

Mr. Gores. You're still muted.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to try to answer that as generally as I can without getting into what should be an executive session. Essentially, in the complaint, that the firefighters brought, they were unhappy with the employer's group's designated arbitrator deliberating with the neutral arbitrator and the firefighters arbitrator. There were issues.

Sorry, that was my kid. Okay. Still open session.

We in turn brought up prohibited practices complaint that the firefighters arbitrator disclosed confidential discussions between the arbitrators to essentially bring their prohibited practices complaint. Typically, communications between the arbitrators is typically confidential because that's just like a jury, they meet in a locked room and come to a decision and reach their decision. That's generally the basis of it without getting into the specifics. But that's what I can tell you. But I think the parties are extremely satisfied with this result. And I think it would behoove us not to do this. We got to do this. It's our recommendation.

Oh, yes, for sure. And I didn't hear how we're going to not do prohibited practices in the future.

The prohibited practices statute, it's a statutory complaint. And some of the terms are not what I would call specifically defined. And so they were hooking this into a vague term under the statute. I don't think we did anything wrong. uh and and part of this agreement is nobody's admitting they did anything uh this is just to settle the case and move on and bring peace into both our house and their house and we can work together in harmony that's that's the whole purpose thank you um i love peace and harmony um i love love peace and harmony um very much um

just i guess in the future would like to not be part of prohibited practices even if the end result is love peace and harmony um if we can just try tighten that up in the future and not do prohibited things yeah this one was a hard one

I agree. This one was a hard one to figure out where it actually fit in.

But there's creative arguments.

It's probably the best I would say. And I think everyone wants to avoid prohibited practices on both sides. I think the feeling is the same. But I think we have a good result.

And I guess for the acting director of personnel,

Ms. Saovi. Ms.

Thank you. Is there any strategies in negotiations to avoid even the appearance of prohibited practices going forward in any of the negotiations? Because you guys' personnel represents us, right, at the negotiations? Ms.

Yes, that is correct. A person from DPS represents the mayor. at these negotiations, yes. I believe, you know, the employer group are in discussions of the negotiation strategies and coming up for the next round.

Okay, and I guess it might, I don't know if it's for this time, but I have a lot of questions about that. I think it's not germane, though. But maybe I'll come visit you one day.

Sure, yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Paulton, I don't know if you could hear the buzzer, but the three minutes did go off. I think you have additional questions, but before we get to those, I'd like to ask if any other members have questions for the resource personnel, and then we can circle back to you.

I don't have additional. Yeah, thank you. I heard a ding, but I didn't know it was the buzzer. I thought it was like my email notification or something.

That probably wasn't it. And you probably still couldn't hear it. We'll continue to work on that. I'll just say hi. Okay. Thank you, County. Anybody else have any questions for the resource personnel? We have personnel services, corporation council, and both leadership and union representation from the fire department. If not, I can recommend adoption for Resolution 26-133, including non-substantive revisions. If nobody has any discussion, would anybody like to make a motion? Oh, so moved by Member Sugimura, we have a second. Seconded by Member Cook. Any discussion on the matter? Member Paltin, followed by Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Oh, I thought you were, gonna let us know what we're voting on? Like, how much do we need to go into executive session for the information? Like, I mean, I'm voting, I'll vote to ratify it, but don't we need to know how much? Like, I mean, I guess if you think we don't need to know.

Mr. Gores, would you like to go? Do you have questions for Mr. Gores in executive session to learn those details?

I mean, I just want to know what I'm voting on. Like I, I vote to support the fire department for sure, but I don't know how much, what the settlement was.

Mr. Chair, I have no objection going into executive session to discuss the class.

Would the maker and seconder of the motion be willing to withdraw so we can, uh, entertain a motion to go into executive session and hear from Deputy Corporation Counsel.

Yes.

Okay, so withdrawn and withdrawn. Would anybody like to make a motion to go into executive session to hear the terms of the settlement offer? So moved. Okay, moved by Member, seconded by Member Paulton. Actually, I'll flip that since she was the one who requested it. I just happened to see you second. I'll take your motion and then I'll take the second from Member Pah. Any discussion on the motion to go into executive session? Seeing none, I'll call for the question. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Let's try to have Seven ayes, zero noes. Members Bhajans and Smeds excused. Motion passes. Okay, so sorry, one excused and one recused. So just for the record, we'll be going into executive session And according to section 925A4, holy rights statutes to consult with legal counsel on questions and issues pertaining to powers, duties, and privileges, immunities, and liabilities of the county, the council, and committee. And section 925A8, holy rights statutes to deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law or a court order. We held them both already. For the record, again, the call on personnel will be at 10 points. Myself, committee chair, Colin Batongan. OCES, if a member is conflicted out, are they allowed into executive session? Oh, okay. Sorry, Nonik, you are not permitted to attend this executive meeting. Council Member Tom Cook will be, along with Council Member Gabe Johnson, Council Chair Alice Lee, Council Member Tamara Paulton, Council Member Keanu Alex Fernandez, and Council Member Yukile Sugimura. From OCS, we will have with us Peter Hanano, Legislative Attorney. Is Ms. Moniz going to be joining us as well? No, it's not for this one. Okay. And then Committee Secretary Maria Leon, Mr. Gores, can you please state who from the administration will be attending?

Deputy Corporation Counsel Caleb Rowe, I believe, will be here. Deputy Corporation John Gores, and I believe Ms. Ilohi from the Department of Personnel Services Acting Director will be present as well.

Okay. And just to confirm, nobody from the Department of Fire?

I don't think it would be an issue with the deputy chief being present, but I'm not sure Mr. Mosher, what his position is, but fire wants to be present. It can be, but we're just gonna run through the numbers.

I guess to be equitable, we will tell them both no.

Okay.

Okay, so members, if you have any questions for Deputy Chief or for the union representative, you have to ask them in open. Okay. Okay, so at this time, I will call for a five minute recess so that we can get it settled and then we will reconvene in an executive meeting. The time is now 3.13, so we'll be back at 3.18. The Great Committee Meeting is now in recess. The Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee Meeting will reconvene. It is 3.55 p.m. Members, we have just completed our Executive Meeting on Resolution 26.133. Mr. Hanano, can you please provide a summary of our discussion in accordance with your revised statute, section 92-4? Yes, thank you, Chair.

The Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee met in executive session on Resolution 26-133 to discuss with its attorney legal advice relating to the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities of the company, including contract negotiations, financial impact is healthy. Also for the record, chair, council members, we're on the executive meeting at approximately 3.30. Thank you very much.

Members, is there any further discussion before the chair's recommendation? Seeing none, I would like to entertain a motion to recommend adoption of resolution 26.133, including any non-substantive revisions. So moved. Moved by Member Cook, seconded by Member Rollins-Fernandez. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call for the question. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Chair, that's six ayes, zero noes. Members Sugimura and Sinenci excused, and Member Kulohajan's abstaining. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Members, Oh, and thank you very much to our resources. I especially want to thank Personnel Services and FIRE for being with us right now. Okay, members, we have before us Resolution 26.1.3.2, which would authorize an increase of $75,000 for a total compensation not exceeding $1 million for employment for Special Counsel Kobayashi Tsukita N'goda, LLP, for the representation of the County of Maui, the Mayor, and the Director of the Department of Planning. In Christopher Salem v. the County of Maui et al. Civil 2 CCB-21-000048 under Charter Section 3-66, the additional funds would cover ongoing post-judgment motions, reconsideration proceedings, a motion to recover the county's taxable costs, and a potential appeal to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Can I, at this time, get opening comments from Deputy Corporation Counsel Gores and any special counsel representatives that you might have with us?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here today with Mr. Craig Shikuma from the law firm of Kobayashi, Sugita, and Goda. He's our special counsel representing the county in Mr. Salem's lawsuit. At this point in time, what I can tell the is that the court has dismissed all of Mr. Salem's claims against the county with prejudice. The special counsel has proceeded to bring additional motions and responses in response to Mr. Salem, who has been fairly litigious in this case. There is a cost award in excess of $88,000 that has been awarded by the court in our favor, in favor of the county. I'll let Mr. Shikuma explain that to you a little bit more. But at this point, there was insufficient funds to proceed further. We did receive a recent billing for three months from the law firm, which we are out of funds to pay. We don't have enough to pay, I would say. and we're anticipating more and a likely appeal at this point. So we're asking for and I have requested a budget from Mr. Shikuma and taking into account what's owed and what's anticipated. This was the budget that he sent to us. And Mr. Shikuma is here. I saw him earlier on this.

Mr. Shikuma, would you like to offer any opening remarks?

Just a clarification. So the court granted two motions that we brought. One was a motion for our fees and costs that the court ordered with respect to a specific motion or number of motions that Mr. Salem brought. And then the other motion was a motion for costs, which was brought on behalf of the county as a prevailing party. What I'm looking at is the reconciliation that we filed with the court. The total under those two motions was just shy of $95,000. Okay.

Anybody else wishing to offer opening comments before we accept public testimony? Is Catherine Flayt seeking to provide public testimony or are they with the legal team? Or is she with the legal team? Mr. Gores is that your resources? Okay. Don't know that name. Okay, before we move on to public testimony, without objection members, I'd like to designate Mr. Shikuma a resource person for the committee.

No objections.

Thank you members. Staff, that's received testimony for this item, grade 1134. Is there anybody signed up to testify? Yes, Chair. The first person signed up is calling with the number last four digits, 0788.

You can do star six to unmute themselves.

Caller with the last four digits, 0788, you have three minutes, are you there? Not sure, we can come back to them and go to Catherine Flint. Okay, let's do that. Ms. Flint, you have three minutes.

She's also been promoted so she can unmute and begin.

Ms. Flint, you can unmute your microphone and camera.

Can you hear me now?

Now we can, yes.

Oh, okay. Okay. I timed myself, and I might go over about 10 seconds. Is that okay?

You have three minutes, and then we'll give you an additional 30 seconds as a courtesy to wrap up.

Okay, thank you so much. Okay, I am testifying in protest of the additional legal fees requested by the agenda today until council members investigate and address this issue. No more taxpayers' money should be funneled to a court case that could easily be settled by sending a letter to comply to the actual party at fault. This now includes five existing owners of Hooey Road E subdivision. So this issue has the potential to drag on for years and no one wants to pay for that, especially taxpayers. I was tasked with an insurance inspection of the house on Hooey E Road. I became aware it was missing a fire hydrant that Planning and Public Works had no answers for. Serendipitously, I found a box of documents in the garage, one of which was an SMA permit for this re-subdivision of lot 48A. In black and white, it clearly states without any question, developer 48A LLC was required to finish all infrastructure requirements listed, including the fire hydrant, before being allowed to subdivide into two more lots. Standing on the spot the fire hydrant was meant to be made it obvious the developer never finished their SMA requirements, which puts them solely in breach of the SMA permit requirements stipulated by the council. No matter what happened for this to fall through the cracks years ago, it still holds the developers solely responsible for completing their permit requirements today and no one else. So clearly, the county is in court with the wrong party here, but why? This is where it gets really confusing. Public Works chimed in stating the five existing owners on Hooey Road would be required to pay for infrastructure improvements that are now clearly established with the developer's responsibility, all while being told the SMA permit was completed. so isn't it true if i'm being told the sma permit is complete why are the five owners financially on the hook for said infrastructure improvements and where's the fire hydrant am i wrong but doesn't the county's own rules govern that they need to be held hold the risk developer responsible for finishing their sma permit now it has come to light they are a delinquent so again why is the county spending money on a lawsuit with clearly the wrong party and now future multiple plaintiffs when the only guilty party here is a developer that is not being held accountable for their obligations they knowingly signed up for this is clearly the path of less resistance financially moving forward correct 30 seconds to conclude Okay, obviously an oversight was made signing off on the development years ago, but that should not mean the existing owner's financial burden nor problems now or in the future. It still always comes back to the same question. Why is a developer not being held accountable for their infrastructure obligations so this whole mess can just go away and be resolved already? So I'm kind of looking, I'm kind of demanding an investigation by the council before any more public funds are spent on this frivolous litigation.

Thank you. Members, any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, staff, can you circle back to the caller with the last four digits, 0788, before we move on to the next person? Yes, so the call has been promoted on our end, so if they can dial star six to unmute themselves, they can begin their testimony at this time. Caller, the last four digits, 0788. All right. If you're not able to unmute, I think I saw another hand in Teams. Staff, can you move on and we can circle back again? Yes. The next testifier is representing the Royal Patagonian Kingdom.

Aloha. Representing the Royal Patagonian Kingdom and any subdividing lands and dividing lands, anything like that, is a violation and plus because and it would be a violation because the heirs have not been contacted for any kind of developments whatsoever. And the lands belong to the Royal patented original title holders from the Mahele and their descendants, and none of them have been contacted and is a violation on HRS 172-11. And yeah, and please return the lands to the specific people that are owners of that land forever, royal patented, allodial titled. And yeah, please call the descendants and contact them because they haven't been contacted. Mahalo.

Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, let's circle back one more time to the caller. The last four digits, 0788. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. You have three minutes.

Great. Thank you. You know, Chris Salem is an experienced and very successful developer and builder. Long before he took a pay cut, first as a council member's staff and later on the mayor's staff, Salem was challenging development abuses on Maui. In Kahana, he supported community opposition to Ken Smith and planning consultant Michelle McLean. When the planning commission ultimately agreed they violated the community plan, Salem received a death threat. Salem blew the whistle on Peter Martin in Oluwole and Greg Brown Monster Hotel in Napili, which Michelle McLean personally facilitated. Because this council has the power to do so, we asked the council to investigate Greg Brown. Nine to zero, you agreed. That investigation estimated to cost $92,000. If it had not been killed, you would not be now spending a million dollars on this case and more. Investigating Michelle McLean is particularly right because she's now been stripped of her professional planning accreditation following disciplinary proceedings concerning her vendetta-based decision-making and unprofessional abuse of authority. Mayor Victorino hired Salem to help stop the abuse and resolve the deferral agreement mess. You just heard about a homeowner who's being harmed by a three-lot deferral agreement that mysteriously covers five lots. Through Salem's case, we discovered that the government agreement was altered in the dark through private warranty deeds filed by private attorney David Nakamura that the county never approved. We now have the records to expose fraud perpetrated by past public works director Milton Arakawa that continues to harm the public. Ask why the audit of the 1600 deferral agreements was suspended. Why was David Nakamura brought in to represent the auditor at the Ethics Commission? I'm told that the council thinks highly of the auditor. No one else does. His website proudly states he follows Gagas, yet there's been no required external peer review every three years since 2018, which was a scant assessment of unprofessionalism. You also paid KSG $1,550,000 in public funds to defend the auditor's private license from a DCCA challenge filed by Chris Salem. Did this committee approve KSG's response written under Corp Council's undue influence that the auditor does not have to follow Gagas? Which is lying? The county's website or Corporation Council? In the Leo Pears case, you replaced Corp Council's conflicted handler, but not before she lied about the level of Corp Council's involvement. There is no Chinese wall. Corp Council wasted taxpayers' dollars defending Salem's wrongful termination case for years, knowing they were conflicted from the start. Can you please wrap up? Now we're wasting a million dollars on KSG. The good news is that the public, for the public, is that discovery in this case has finally produced government documents that court counsel obstructed for decades. Investigate Michelle McLean and Greg Brown. Investigate David Nakamura's warranty deeds and the deferral agreement. Investigate why Lance Taguchi stopped the audit and filed and failed to obtain required peer reviews. Investigate why the Greg Brown investigation was killed. The OIP is already subpoenaed past executive session.

In this case, members, any questions for the testifier? Thank you. Staff, can you please call the next testifier please? Yes, sure. The next testifier is James Langford. Mr. Langford, you have three minutes. Yes, sir.

Hello, everyone. Thank you, Chair. It sounds like in order to build more public trust and that and protect the hard work that you folks are doing and the momentum that you have on all the positive things. Today is a tough day based on litigiousness, unfortunately. So just to hold shape for the momentum going forward, as I testified earlier, some things aren't Like, you got to cut your losses sometimes when things are obvious and egregious. And I'm so sorry that you folks are in this position because it's hard for you folks. And I'd like to start showing more empathy to you. uh to where you're at um with the information that you folks have so uh and i hope all the other testifiers can start understanding that instead of blaming you folks um it it must be very difficult i've experienced it in different ways but just i want to reach out to you folks and say thank you for the work you're doing um Always doing the right thing in the long run is best for our community. And thank you for this work that you're doing. And my now is, you know, I sympathize and empathize with you folks. And I look forward to your integrity, Shiny. Thank you again, Council Chair, and all of you folks there today. Thank you. Thank you.

Any clarifying questions, members? Seeing none, staff, is there anybody else wishing to testify at this time? Sure, that's all the individuals signed up. I'll provide a last call for oral testimony. If anyone else would like to testify, please. Actually, we just have one more, so I will promote them now. All right. The next testifier is Mr. Salem. Mr. Salem, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to confirm that the microphone is on. We can hear you. Thank you so much. I'm not here today to provide any education to the council as it relates to this case and what the judge has actually ordered compared to what was just presented. We can deal with that at a different time. But there's a reason this is up to a million dollars. I don't believe this council is being told consistently all of the matters that are in play. So with that said, there's no dispute that the recovery and determination of financial harm to the county and taxpayers because of my efforts over the last 30 years in cooperation with upstanding council members is enormous. The Supreme Court has affirmed that squashing whistleblowers would have a chilling effect on our island communities. However, that is exactly what Preparation Council is trying to do here today. It won't work. So let's roll back the clock. And I'm specifically speaking with a council member who continues to shake their head during this testimony. Over seven years ago in an open council meeting, questions about this specific SMA permit were raised to the attorney seeking the position of the director of court counselor. The question was, do you know any reason the county should not enforce an SMA permit the mayor agreed to? The answer was, I'm not sure what that's about. I really have no idea. So perhaps Mr. Gore and Mr. Shakuma should tell you whether that statement made in the council is actually true. and doesn't completely conflict with the court records. That attorney was the attorney of record on multiple matters involving this SMA case. In street terms, she lied to the council. The corporation council director, as at the end of the day, and in this current action, knew that the SMA permit is incomplete. The infrastructure and fire heartliner conditioned SMA permit was never complete, and the SMA permits were concealed by the planning director for almost a decade. I'll state again, after 15 years of pursuing an inspection by the planning department on the Surly Road subdivision through injunctive relief granted in my favor by Judge Cahill, the record is now set straight. Don't be misled today by outside counsel on the legal impacts of the established court record in multiple legal proceedings, including the federal bankruptcy claim. I hope once again they tell you the truth. In closing, they don't represent those developers. And Judge Cahill told us, go down the hall and pursue the developers, which I will do in three different forms. bankruptcy courts i'll i'll wrap it up i'll wrap it up in closing 30 seconds the developer walked in my neighborhood and i was mining my own business and cultivating my garden and celebrating my life on maui told me they were going to re-subdivide lot 48a i said you can't do that without an sma major or completing the three lots or less subdivision agreement They looked me right in the eye and said, watch us. Watch us now that we have the record and court stipulation that the SMA permit is, in fact, incomplete. So my goal today is this. I'm willing to settle with the County of Maui, and I'll wrap up my testimony. I'm willing to settle with it. And you could join hands with me and pursue that developer and get back every cent you spent on this case. Or we fight for years. It's your choice.

Thank you. Members, any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, staff, is there anybody else wishing to testify? Chair, there's no more individuals signed up, so we'll again do a last call for oral testimony if anyone would like to testify. Please approach the testifier station outside of the conference room or raise your hand on teams and staff will promote you. The count is three, two, one. Seeing none, Chair, no one has indicated that they wish to testify. Thank you. Members, seeing as there are no more individuals wishing to testify, without objection, I will now close oral testimony in this item. Objections? Okay. As a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted. Mr. Gores, we have about 10 minutes left of this meeting. Does this item require action at today's meeting, or are we able to take this up at the following one?

We scheduled this so that action could be taken today so that it could be dealt with at your next meeting at the council. I think there's more activity coming and I think Mr. Shikuma could address that better than I could.

No, that's okay. Okay, so members try to be respectful of time. By a show of hands, who has questions for our resources on this matter? So, Mr. Gorsk, in your opening remarks, did you say that there are currently billings in excess of what has already been appropriated?

Yes, we received billings in July for a three-month period. We have insufficient funds in our account to cover that. And we know there's more that's going to be coming based on This is August and Mr. Shikuma's firm has brought these additional motions.

So I'm supportive of giving the department the resources that it needs to represent the county. But this is the second time that this issue has come up. The first time we let it go and the council unanimously passed on the floor, um a budget ceiling increase but i had spoken to you and to uh corporation council takiesu prior to ask that this not happen again and i want to reiterate that incurring obligations against the county in excess of appropriations made by the council is a violation of section 912 of the charter those obligations for that section are to be voided, and you personally can be held liable for those obligations. Can I ask for, I don't know, my initial request didn't seem to yield any results. Can I ask what we can do differently to ensure that this doesn't keep happening?

The issue would be getting the billings, getting the reconciliations for them on a monthly basis. But I understand as well that KSG has been actively working on this case because of the deadlines imposed by the court and the litigious nature of what's been going on. That's really the best that I can tell you is that we do need the billings on a monthly basis in order to see what's going on and to be able to process it.

So I guess this could be for yourself or for Mr. Shikuma. I had been a consultant and worked with the county in the past. And normally when I approach our budget ceilings, we give the county a heads up so that they're aware. And we generally don't issue a billing in excess of an appropriation or what's called for under our contract. Can you help me understand how it is that we receive billings in excess of what was appropriated? Does the contract not stipulate a budget ceiling? Does your firm not adhere to that practice of giving the county or your clients a heads up when you're approaching your budget ceilings?

Mr. Chair, I am not absolutely confident on where the timing of the billing and the approaching of the budget cap. I know there have been some challenges within my office to get the billings to Mr. Gore's in the format that they need and on the schedule that they need. I think we've done better and are doing better in getting those bills to Mr. Gore's on time. and in the format that he needs with all the questions answered. In defense of Mr. Gores and his office, I will say that some of the issues are because they are doing a good job in reviewing our bills, asking us for clarification, asking us to make edits to our bills, which we have done. So to some extent, that does delay the final approval by Mr. Gores' office of our bills, but then again, that is to make sure that they understand what we're billing for and that our bills are correct. The last thing I'll say in sort of my defense is that unlike some other type of consultant work, our work is to some extent dependent upon what the opposition does in the case, which we have no control over. and also the court deadlines, which we cannot, you know, if we miss those court deadlines, then it's to the detriment of the county's case. So really, that's not an excuse, but more of an explanation of why sometimes it's difficult to predict with certainty what anticipated fees and costs will be in the case.

Thank you. That's all I have for now. Members, does anybody have any questions for the resource personnel? If that being the case, Chair would make a recommendation. I'd like to entertain a motion to recommend adoption of Resolution 26.132, including any non-substantive provisions. I see Chair Lee's hand up. So motion made by Chair Lee, seconded by Vice-Chair Uhu Hodgins. Any discussion on the matter? Again, this is to approve a budget ceiling increase of $75,000 to cover post-judgment motions, reconsideration proceedings, and a motion to recover the county's taxable costs and potentially an appeal to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeal. Seeing none, I'll call for the question. All in favor of recommending adoption of Resolution 26.132, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Chair, that's seven ayes, zero noes. Members... Oh. Oh. Oh. Okay. Seven ayes, zero noes. Members, so next, we have three more excused motion passes. Thank you, members. That takes us to the end of our agenda today. This concludes the Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee meeting. Thank you very much, members. And I appreciate how efficient you were, especially in the beginning and towards the end of today's meeting. You have three minutes back in your day. This meeting is adjourned at two minutes now, 4.28 p.m. Thank you.