Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you. . you Thank you. Amen. you you Bye. Go.

Will the Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee meeting at June 22nd, 2026 come to order? It is 921 a.m. I am your chair, Kalani Batungan. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Chair Lee.

Good morning, and if you are going to Montana or Canada, you could say, greet people with, let's see, from the Cree nation, Tansi, Tansi. And I'm home alone in my workspace. You might hear my animals barking from time to time, but other than that, I'm here by myself.

Thank you, Chair Lee. Member Sinensi.

Aloha Chair and Tansi, everyone. I'm here at my home office and I'm also here by myself. No testifiers in Hana. Thank you.

Thank you, Member Senanti. Member Sugimura.

Good morning, everybody. Tansi and looking forward to an interesting meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Member Sugimura. And Member Johnson.

Tansi, Chair, council members, community members, there's no testifiers here at the Lanai District Office. And I'm alone on my side of the office and here and ready to work.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Johnson. Tansi, everybody. So we have... We have established quorum, but we have heard from two of our colleagues that they are on their way. I had hoped they'd be back by now, but it seems that they are still in transit, and so I'd like to give them a few more minutes to join us. My proposal is to recess until 9.40. We'll come back then. I don't know what kind of traffic we have right now that's keeping people from being in the chamber, but I'd like to give them an opportunity to hear, especially since, you know, special counsel has made it a point to join us today. So that being the case, without objections, I'd like to recess until 9.40 a.m. No objections. Thank you, members. This meeting is now in recess. Thank you. Will the Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee meeting of June 22, 2026, please come back to order. The time is now 9.41 a.m. Chair would like to recognize the two members who have now joined us. Committee Vice Chair, Nohelani Uhuhajens.

Aloha, Chair. I apologize for my tardiness.

Thank you, Vice Chair. And Council Member Tom Cook. Aloha, Chair.

Thank you for your patience.

And then for the record, Member Paltin and Member Rollins-Fernandez are both excused as they are representing us at an eight sec meeting at this time. From Corporation Council, we have with us two individuals, Deputy Corporation Council, Tom Colby, and I'm sorry, can I ask you to introduce yourself?

I don't have your- Yes, Deputy Corporation Council, Susan Leder.

Thank you, Susan. Okay, and we have with us as well, our great committee staff. Good afternoon, everybody. Okay, so today we are here to discuss a matter of significant institutional and public importance under Agenda Item Grade 1130, Case Updates and Resolutions Related to Leo Kyrus v. County of Maui et al., Civil File 2CCV-26-0000138. Our primary goal for today's meeting is twofold. First, to receive a crucial status update. We will be receiving comments from Richard Rand, a representative of Mar Jones and Wang LOP, regarding the filing and current standing of this lawsuit. Second, to actively untangle conflicts of interest. We find ourselves in a situation where special counsel handling this matter reports to individuals who have conflicts of interest with this case. It is our duty as the great committee to scrutinize the setup and evaluate how we can best ensure transparency and accountability. To that end, we have before us resolution 26-99 introduced by myself. This resolution's purpose is to require the county's legal council in this case to transmit all written settlement offers under section 3.16.020 Maui County Code and to send all invoices to the Office of Council Services for review and approval. Also in the file for this item are a memo from the committee chair transmitting a copy of the complaint available on Granticus as item number two, and a memo to Corporation Council requesting the specific reasons for preventing the department from reviewing and approving this resolution's form and legality that is available on Granticus as item number three. In addition to Deputy Corporational Counsel Tom Colby and Susan Leader, we have with us today special counsel from Mar Jones and Wang LLP. If there are no objections, I would like to designate them as resource persons under Rule 18A of the Rules of the Council because of their special expertise on this matter.

No objections.

Members, before we begin, I want to ground everyone's expectations regarding what can be discussed in both open and executive session today. There's active litigation as well as a criminal investigation related to the events described in this lawsuit. Because of this, our legal boundaries are pretty strict. We may not be able to get all the answers we are looking for today, and I don't want our actions to interfere with the case or the investigation. That being said, let us begin our work. Can I please have opening remarks from Deputy Corporation Counsel?

I'll defer to our special counsel, no opening remarks.

Thank you. Special Counsel Richard Rand, do you have any opening remarks?

Yes. First, thank you for accommodating my schedule. I know this was difficult to schedule. I'm happy to update you on the status. The last time we met, the lawsuit had not been filed. The lawsuit has been filed and we will be submitting an answer this week. And I'm happy to share where we are in this case and where it's going to go. And to the extent I can address the conflict issues as the outsider looking in, I will do my best.

Thank you very much. Before moving into discussion, let's receive testimony for grade 1130. Staff, is there anybody signed up to testify?

Thank you, Chair. There's currently no one signed up to testify.

Okay. Oh, I see an individual making his way to the podium, so I'll read the testifier instructions. Testifier is wanting to provide testimony. Oh, is he not making his way to the podium? I see. Staff, can you please do a last countdown?

Oh, excuse me, Chair. There is somebody online. Okay.

Just one moment. So then I will read the testifier script. Testifiers wanting to provide testimony should sign up in the lobby, join the meeting online via the Teams link, or call into the phone number noted in today's agenda. Written testimonies encouraged and can be submitted via the e-comment link at MauiCounty.us slash agendas as well. Under the Sunshine Law, the chair will receive oral testimony for agenda items at the beginning of the meeting and as each item is called up. for individuals wishing to testify via teams please raise your hand by clicking on 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 the 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 they are 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 in Microsoft Teams as the name you prefer to be referred to as 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 we're done testifying, or if you do not wish to testify, you can also view the meeting on Akaku Channel 53, Facebook Live, or MauiConnect.us slash agendas. We're due abreast 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.

Thank you, Chair. First, we have Christopher Salem, followed by Sam Small.

Mr. Salem, you have three minutes.

Good morning, Chair Patenga. Just want to confirm that my microphone is on and all that good stuff. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, thank you so much. My testimony this morning concerns obviously Resolution 2699 and raises a fundamental question of government accountability. What is actually in play here today? If Corporation Council acknowledged conflicts involving a county employee, and perhaps that applies to all county employees, and outside counsel has now been retained, who's reviewing the legal positions being advanced in the county's name? Has any council member or attorney within the Office of Council Services been designated to provide oversight? As a former chief judge and prosecuting attorney, Mayor Bisson has publicly characterized this whistleblower lawsuit as quote, 100% politically motivated and an attempt to revise history This statement has occurred before any discovery has been completed or the allegations have been adjudicated by a court. Such public statements are ethically out of bounds, and a former judge knows this is true. They send threatening messages to county employees who witness acts of suspected fraud, misconduct, and abuses of authority. The mayor should be publicly notified by this council. to cease any form of intimidation defamation or influence during this whistleblower judicial process certainly these politically driven statements do not represent a strength to do what is right every day furthermore council staff and the mayor's staff are themselves at will employees everybody in the room is an at-will employee and vulnerable to this kind of retaliation They remain vulnerable to reassignment, to motion, and termination. The Reese-Inspires Fraud Risk Assessment concluded that county controls are inadequate to report or mitigate fraud risks. If the employees believe there's no safe harbor for reporting wrongdoing, then the county has a serious governance problem. This matter extends beyond one lawsuit. I personally know this all too well. The council authorizes the employment of outside counsel and appropriates massive public funds for legal representation without any formal prior investigation, findings, or written conclusions. The council takes advice from conflicted attorneys and unleashes powerful attorneys with an open checkbook against whistleblowers under the tainted color of protecting the county. Who is the county? Read the County Charter, Corporation Council attorneys. It is adopted by the will of the people, not willful disregard for the rights of county employees and staff who serve local residents with dedication and purpose. With that said, this resolution presents an opportunity for this committee to establish meaningful oversight, transparency, and accountability in litigation. Oh, I will finish. the public deserves to know who's making these legal decisions and who is exercising oversight and where county employees or citizens can report suspected wrongdoing without the fear of retaliation which is ongoing in multiple lawsuits thank you for your time thank you mr salem staff next testifier thank you chair the next and final individual to testify is sam small

There we go. Okay. Got me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you so much. As always, it's an honor to be participating in this process. You know, I called in last week when you were talking about charter revisions because this reso triggered uh a a charter revision what you're what you're discussing here is a valid charter revision the council must approve settlements over 25 000 before they can be accepted yet the council never knows those settlement opportunities before they are rejected the charter says on one side But you're kept in the dark if court counsel rejects a settlement offer. And I believe that would have to be a charter revision. And that's why I wanted to talk about it, but you had a very strict agenda. So it wasn't appropriate there. But I bring it up here. If you're still working with charter amendments, this is one that is extremely valid. And Salem's case is a perfect example of how you are cut out of the process by Corporation Council. The county's outside council, KSG, offered Mr. Salem $75,000 to settle. Council members, we believe, were never informed of that offer. Can you please keep your testimony germane to today's item? Well, it's relevant. It is relevant as well. Settlement offers are not always just financial. There are very often administrative remedies that are worked into settlement offers. And you were never appraised that Corp Council and KSG said, we can't do that. The county will never accept a settlement that includes an administrative remedy. None of this information came before you guys, and that's what you need to fix. You're being cut out of the process. And that's why I'm testifying. I support this year. You absolutely need all of the stuff for Leo Cares, and Leo Cares is not an isolated incident. Everything that's going on with Leo Cares also went on with Chris Salem, and there are probably other individuals that have suffered at the hands of Corporation Counsel. And you've got to fix it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Salem. Sorry, Mr. Small.

Is there anybody else? Thank you, Chair. Yes. Travis Liggett is signed up to testify next. Mr. Liggett, you have three minutes.

Thank you. It's important to close the closet door. How's everyone? Good morning. It's from your 10th? mayoral candidate, and there's just absolutely no probability, just want to give a little general report of what my experience was, is I uncovered major, major permit violation, and I was fired with a threat 20 minutes later. Then I found the Malaya Harbor, no permits of any kind. All those wonderful organizations operating out there, I won't list them, got a strongly worded letter and it has been just a downward slide since i uncovered this major violation i reached out to the county they appeared to participate inside of the person that i uncovered the violation for of course a very high value tourist destination and it is just i'm facing the largest law firm in the world it's also the law firm that i struggle with with previous work And it has been very scary. It is at the core of why I have run for mayor because

Mr. Liggett, can you please keep your testimony focused on the item?

Yes, so the retaliation model. People need to look up the quicksand model. It has words like gang-stalking and corporate. I mean, it's heavy stuff, so far out of my league, and boy, it is a big motivator to stand up and say, Oh, this is not okay. And yeah, I just as legislators, I encourage you to really get your hands on as many facts as you can. Because there's a scientific experiment. In closing, it's called the delayed choice double slit experiment says basically light and therefore all systems behave differently when they are observed. In summary, if you take an earlier set of observations, a later entangled set of observations has to be combined with your previous set of observations and maybe your impression of your past beliefs can change. And if that law of science is not obeyed, we get something called dictatorship etc and the essence is this the information and facts have to move around if the person with them is isolated kicked out etc the information is no longer moving judgments and beliefs become fixed and that houston we have a problem I think it might be Houston. So I hope everyone's doing great. And yeah, this is so serious. This stuff is really serious. And we have to be able to constantly update our impressions of our leaders. In fact, not only the talking stick, the leadership stick, might actually need to move around in these situations. And our beliefs about our leaders must be subject to new information or we are literally violating the laws of physics. And in closing, this experiment was originally believed to cause retrocausality, but that's only true if your beliefs are fixed. So thank you and have a nice day.

Thank you, Mr. Liggett. Staff, is there anybody else wishing to testify on this item?

Thank you, Chair. There's currently no one else who has signed up to testify. Can you please do our last call? If anyone in the audience or on teams would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony or use the raise your hand function on teams and staff will unmute you. Oh, excuse me, Chair. Someone has just raised their hand on teams. One moment.

Thank you, staff. Can you please call their name and promote them for the testimony?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, the next testifier is the Royal House of Hawaii. Mr. House.

Oh, I don't know if you guys saw that I changed my name. Yeah, I'm going to change them. And that's not the name I let go by anymore. I changed my name on here. But anyway, so since you guys are talking about fraud, right, I believe, and this is a fact, by the way, that all of what the illegal state of Hawaii is doing is illegal and literally fraud. Also, since we're talking about fraud,

Kalamai, we are not talking about fraud in the general sense. We have before us case updates and resolutions related to Leo Kyrus v. County of Maui et al. Can you please keep your testimony germane to the item on today's agenda?

Yeah, yeah, can. It's not about fraud. Yeah, so in relation to settlements and stuff like that, I have a major concern about settlements to the Kanaka people that are descendants of the Royal Patents of Kamehameha III and that there is a big concern of fraud happening to other Kanaka people with their Royal patented lands, Elodio titled lands. And yeah, and that there's a major fraud problem with the lands and that it is illegally being changed on TMKs. So yeah, please fix that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any clarifying questions for the testifier? Seeing none, staff, is there anybody else wishing to testify?

Thank you, Chair. There is currently no one else signed up to testify. May I do final countdown? Yes, please. Hopefully third time. If there is anyone in the audience or on teams that would like to testify, please come up to the podium and begin your testimony or use the raise your hand function on teams and staff will unmute you. This is your final call to testify. Three, two, one.

Chair, 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 on this item. No objections. So ordered. As a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted. Okay, members, I propose we break up our questioning and commenting into two parts. The first should be focused on the status of the lawsuit, since I want to be respectful of Mr. Rand's time with us. And then we can take up questions and deliberation on the resolution. For the first part, related to our deliberations on the status of the lawsuit, I propose a three-minute questioning period. And then, if needed, and I anticipate we will need this, we can go into executive session after the first round of questions in open session. I'll start by going down the row, starting with Chair Lee. And then members, if there's anything that, I'm just gonna ask our OCS attorneys and corporation counsel to jump in if there's anything, if we start to veer into some territory that they believe needs to be handled in executive session, I'm just gonna ask that they interject. Thank you, Chair. Go up, please proceed.

Thank you. Hello, Mr. Rand. I wanted to ask you if there have been any official investigations of this case? And if so, by whom?

Well, I don't official investigation. I know that prior to the lawsuit, there were investigations that relate to this case in the sense of OED. There was an investigation of OED. There was a sort of a truncated internal investigation of somebody who worked for the mayor, and that got truncated because that person resigned. So I think there were some investigations relating to the underlying facts raised by this lawsuit, if you will. Since I've been retained, I'm not aware of any other investigations. I think they were already done by the time I got involved.

Were any of these reports or investigations transmitted to the council for review?

You know, I don't know personally. My understanding is things done by the director of finance were. I have not been privy to them, but my understanding is information was given to not the entire council, but perhaps the chair at the time and others relating to OED.

The chair of the council? Well, the chair of the council is me, and I don't keep, I'm not the keeper of records. Anything that comes to me goes to all council members.

Yeah, I don't know the protocol, but my understanding is that what that...

Okay, can I move on? Because I only have three minutes. Okay, there were no other official, because it seems that If anything, we need reports and investigations done by independent parties, not people who work for the mayor. You understand? So we need independent information. And so, like, for instance, the prosecuting attorney, was he involved in any kind... Did he provide or conduct any kind of investigation?

I cannot speak for him other than I know there is a... ongoing possible effort by his office too which i've been very careful about i know that his office is looking into what happened and has not made a final decision as far as i know because i haven't anything seen anything come out of it okay so when would you uh identify as the beginning of this when um mr cyrus uh presented his uh settlement offer or his complaint

to the county, when would that have been? Like in 2024?

Yeah, that was my involvement, late 24, I think early 25. But this case story goes back years before that, right? So that's when I was asked to help.

One last question, Mr. Chair. Sure. Go ahead. So this has been languishing for a very long time. It could have been resolved a couple of years ago. So we need to get to the root causes of all the issues and all the causes of this case not being resolved. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I guess to your question about investigations, We were never notified about anything, but through the media, we did learn that there is an active criminal investigation that's ongoing. It is currently with the Attorney General's office. The committee did reach out to that office asking if they would be able to send somebody to today's meeting, and we did not receive a response.

I stand corrected. My understanding is that the prosecutor on Maui did, I don't know what the word is, referred to the AGs, perhaps is a better term. So that's the one I was referring to.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, so based upon the information that we have, um, and we probably need way more information. That's why I appreciate this meeting today. Corp Council. What is Corp Council's positions as, as, as you see it? Because I noticed that this result is not signed. which means you are not approving the result, but as it relates to our special counsel.

Can you ask that you hold just deliberations on the resolution until the next round, and then we can address that. But Corporation Counsel, can you answer the question related to your role in overseeing special counsel?

Chair, just for clarification, are you asking what moving forward the Corporation Council's role will be in liaising with Mr. Rand?

Yes.

Yeah. My understanding is that other than providing, I guess, logistical help as needed, we are going to stay out of this one, and OCS is going to be doing the communications moving forward.

Can I clarify that that is... assuming that the resolution passes today.

Yes I think I think that's that's our position.

So going back to the question about investigations, the lawsuit that was filed was pretty detailed in terms of people that were involved and things going on. So Special Counsel, do you have any more information that you would like to share in terms of Office of Economic Development or the staff person? And there was a $40,000... I don't know if it's assumption. I don't know where you are in terms of the details or facts on what was being alleged against that person. And then there's the Office of Economic Development staff person that has these these allegations. Do you have anything you would like to add?

Yeah, I mean,

uh i think it's an understanding hold on one second just prior to prior to you uh responding i would just say that if it's related to a public um a fact that's already been uh open to the public that'd be okay any details related to how various things that might affect the liabilities of the county i would ask that that be addressed in executive session okay i will be careful um first

I think it's an understatement that the lawsuit is detailed. It's 190 paragraphs, which is extremely unusual. There's a lot of histrionics and drama in it, but I think...

Please feel free to answer the question, Mr. Rand. Yeah, thank you.

I don't think it was... I think it's a matter of public record that there were investigations of OED. I think that's a matter of public record. And so the lawsuit doesn't tell us anything new. And there's a separate issue with respect to somebody else who Mr. Karras was more involved in. But as far as the investigation into OED, that was not his kuleana. So that I think needs to be made clear.

I'll save more questions on that statement for second round.

Okay. Next up, Member Paulton's excused. Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. I think I might have questions in executive session, but just to clarify, State Attorney General is doing an investigation presently? Is that a yes?

We don't know. I mean, the matter, that's the best answer I can give you, Member Johnson. We don't know what the AG is doing.

I know that Council Member Sygenborg mentioned that the reso is not signed, but the request for legal services is not signed as well. Corporation Council, do you want to speak on why that one's not signed?

Yes, when that came to us, because we have been conflicted out, we did not sign on that, but we don't have an objection to the resolution today. We're not, we just weren't signing off on that particular resolution.

So your strategy is just don't sign on anything, whether it's legal, you're not saying whether this is legal or not. So staying out of it is what I hear.

On this particular one.

Okay. So as far as the state attorney general goes, maybe they're doing an investigation. How about anybody on a county level? Is anybody on a county level doing an investigation?

I don't know. My role is for me to defend the lawsuit thing.

That's all I got for my questions for public.

So thank you so much. Thank you chair. Thank you member Johnson members. We will get into the matter of the resolution. being reviewed for form of legality and not signed by Corporation Council when we get to that part of today's agenda. I've heard it come up twice. I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring your request. I just want to try to be as respectful as possible to Mr. Rand's time and have us focus on the lawsuit itself and the portions in which he is involved. Next up, Member Rollins-Fernandez is excused. Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. So I guess, Mr. Rand, my question would be how much time has been spent on this to date and what is the projection for the foreseeable future?

To date, not much. I had a draft the response to the answer, which was probably the most complicated answer i've had to draft so i'm going to guess i spent 25 hours on that because it's got 190 paragraphs and i'm a detailed person and i don't i want to make sure i respond correctly um going forward and what happens is we we have a meeting with the judge we set dates and both sides are supposed to disclose information that'll be the next big milestone if you will and from there it really depends on what the parties want to do including obviously the council.

Okay, thank you. My other clarifying question is why is it taking so long? Has either side delayed it or is it simply a matter of it not being pursued? It just seems like it's been languishing for a long time and I'm curious why.

The lawsuit was not filed for quite a while. The lawsuit was not filed until April of this year. We had an initial letter, which was sky high, for lack of a better term. And then it kind of went quiet. There was a request to talk before the lawsuit was filed, but my understanding was not the right time for the council. You were in budget, so we couldn't really engage. The lawsuit was filed and then not served for two months. So it's been kind of a slow roll. I can't speak to his attorney and his motivation, but we've responded as we've had to.

Thank you, sir. I have no further questions, sir.

Thank you, Member Cook. Vice Chair Uhu Hachins.

Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I stepped away when the conversation was beginning. Are we using this portion to ask Mr. Rand questions? And then we're going to have a conversation later about the reso

Yeah, so my hope is to do a round of questioning primarily focusing on the lawsuit itself since we have special counsel and then If needed, we can go into executive session to ask the questions related to the lawsuit that he can't say in the public. Then following our deliberations on the lawsuit itself, then take up the resolution. There's a lot of mechanical things with the resolution that I think members will have questions on, but I'd prefer to take that up when we're not taking up special counsel's time.

Sounds great. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Rand for being with us today. In your answer to Member Cook, you said you compiled a very complicated answer to the 190 page lawsuit. Can you share that with us? I don't know how you would share that with us. Obviously, I think we would maybe need to review that in special counsel, but I would like to see our response to this.

I gave a draft to my liaison with corporation counsel. I have like a handler, if you will, this leader. So that's where it is. And so I don't know from there when it gets distributed. It's a lot of legalese and there's a lot of things that i can't admit or deny to because of the way they're framed it's it's a very the complaint is very um dramatic is probably the best term i could use for it there's a lot of characterization of things instead of typically you know i I was negligent and my car hit your car. There's a lot more flourish, if you will, to it. So it's difficult response.

Thank you. Ms. Leder, can you please share that with us, whether we're in executive session or how can you share that with us or with OCS attorneys?

So, yes, I think Mr. Rand is still finalizing that final version. And when he is ready to have that distributed, I can let you know and Like you said, it does have a lot of legal ease. Just responses specifically admitting, denying are not enough information.

Okay, when is that going to be ready, do you think? And I asked Mr. Rand for his office.

Mr. Rand, do you know when that's going to be ready?

You could, what I said could be circulated. Okay. That's pretty much where I am.

That'd be helpful.

I don't think there's any pukas in it. I'm pretty good about checking every box.

I have a couple little... and then we can finalize today, probably.

Okay, great. Well, can we have it while we're in executive session, maybe, so we can have an update to at least what the county is feeling regarding this lawsuit?

Chair, this is Tom Colby. I wonder if OCS could weigh in on that on distributing draft documents in executive session.

We can get it and it can say draft and we can give it back to you when we're out of exec session.

Are we talking about a draft for the answer?

Yeah.

Because I would recommend not circulating the draft. You can ask some questions about the answer and perhaps maybe when the answer is filed, he can send us a copy of that. I don't want to be discussing anything that's not finalized that will be filed eventually.

Thank you.

Okay.

And I would agree with that position also. Once the answer is filed, it's a public document, of course you can read it. Prior to that, I think the opportunity for you to ask questions to Mr. Rand and to address certain issues can happen verbally.

Okay, then maybe then when we go into executive session, he can give us like a little summary play by play on maybe what he can share with us. without having any paper documentation, that'd be okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. And just for the record, I saw the attorneys nodding in response to that. You may not have caught that if you're watching from, you know, members who are watching online, but there was agreement from both our OCS attorneys and Corporation Council that that is something we can discuss in executive session. Okay. Member Sinensi.

Thank you, Chair. Just clarification for you, Chair. You wrote the resolution.

In coordination with OCS staff, yes. I was the introducer of the resolution, but we worked with our OCS attorneys

very close yes attorneys okay so uh this wasn't by the by any the mayor or anything yeah this resolution came from the legislative branch from the legislative branch okay and then uh for today it's just to accept the settlement offer is that current no today oh

No, today we were trying to get a status update on the case. And then the resolution does two things. One, it would require all settlement offers to come to the council rather than just the ones the administration chooses to transmit for our review and approval. And then two, to have the billings for special counsel be reviewed and approved by our OCS attorneys rather than corporation counsel.

Oh, okay. Got it. So thank you for that clarification. So we haven't received or we haven't received any settlement, but it sounds like in the whereas clause, the county, the mayor's office has received a settlement offer. Mr. Rand, I'll defer to you on that one.

Initially, there was a demand letter quite a while ago.

What demand letter? Okay, and then for clarity, Mr. Rand, the lawsuit was, I know last year we didn't receive it, but the county did receive the lawsuit on April 24th, yeah?

It was actually filed in the court on April, but not served, and that's a lawyer's technicality, but nothing really happens until it's served. So it was filed on April 24th and served on June 2nd.

June 2nd, when?

I think it was the 5th. I know the answer is due the 25th and it's 20 days. So I believe it was, it was, actually it was June. Yeah, so the answer is due on the 25th, which would make it served on the 5th.

Okay.

All right. Yeah, 20 days. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Sinensi. I guess I'll start my round by talking about scheduling. So Mr. Rand did mention that the lawsuit was filed in April. If I remember correctly, it was like right around the time of decision week for budget committee. And so the committee did work with Corporation Council and Special Counsel to try to schedule this meeting as soon as possible afterwards. This was the first date in which all of our calendars aligned for us to be able to bring that up. So I don't want anybody to think that there was any sort of delaying on behalf of any party within the county on this. We worked pretty hard to schedule today's meeting. And I want to thank the members who were able to carve out time to be here today, because this is not a regularly scheduled meeting. And then Mr. Rand mentioned that there was an initial demand letter. Mr. Rand, was there a written settlement offer included in that demand letter?

There was a monetary amount in that demand letter, yes.

Okay. I asked for the details of that in an executive session. You also mentioned that you spent about 25 hours drafting the response. Can I ask for a sense of billing to date? And if this is something that can't be shared in open, so be it.

I don't know what they want. I can tell you what I've done. So without the hours, how's that? After So in order to prepare the answer, I have spoken with the mayor and attorneys in the Department of Corporation Counsel who are kind of not named but referenced in the complaint to get the background so I could file the answer. So I spent some time with them. I don't know off the top of my head how much I spent. You know, obviously I had to review the complaint. So the real work has started since the lawsuit was filed. There was, I think you were aware, there was a request before the lawsuit was filed to make a settlement response and the timing just didn't work. So that was sort of a very minor thing.

Okay. And then you mentioned that there was an opportunity to discuss the matters with the council during budget, but given our schedule, it was a little difficult. Can you give a little bit more detail on that?

Well, I talked to OCS and I said, I've got this sort of gun pointing at my head here that, you know, either we start talking or they're going to file the lawsuit. And I was advised that you folks were in budget. It just the bandwidth wasn't there. You were focused deep into the budget. So it would have been very difficult and probably a distraction to come to you at that point and say, oh, let's start writing checks to him. So that was sort of the timing. I did talk to OCS about it.

Members, would you indulge me another minute of questioning? Thank you. Okay, so Mr. Rand, I think I heard you mention when you were talking about drafting the response that Deputy Susan, is it Leader? Leader was reviewing that work and then during the preparation for that, you had spoken with the mayor and others in Corporation Council. I guess for Corporation Council, I'm just trying to understand if the department was conflicted out, how is it that you are reviewing work or what's the process for directing and reviewing the work of special counsel?

Well, I have a liaison that's Ms. Leader who was not involved in the lawsuit. She was not involved in it. So she's siloed, if you will. And the reason I had to talk to the, there's a lot of allegations in here about the Department of Corporation Council and what they did or didn't do. And they were very helpful to me in getting the background and understanding what Mr. Carey's did and what he didn't do and what the facts are. So as far as reviewing my work, that's how I was directed. I have been directed already to send my invoices to OCS. So that's already being done, if that helps you.

Thank you, Mr. Rand. I guess your response does change my thinking for how I would like to approach this meeting. Can I ask you to stick around for our deliberations on the resolution? Yes, absolutely.

We're not reviewing it. I received a copy of it. Mr. Rand had some questions that had to do with people in our department that had factual background information. I'm not reviewing it or drafting it or anything like that. I simply have it. he has been talking with people that would have the, or be able to talk with who has some information to be able to provide the answers in that answer. The responses.

Thank you. Oh, thank you, Vice Chair. Chair Lee. Chair, your microphone is still muted. We can't hear what you're trying to ask.

I find that some of these answers from court counsel rather astonishing because I'm not sure why they would be that Mr. Rand would confer with them on his response and not confer with us. See, they are being accused of various things. and they get to respond on his response. So I'm finding this very unsettling. Again, we should have from the very beginning gotten an independent investigation done and not by the administration. You don't call that independent and not by Corp Council because that's not independent too. So, So we are left with having to make a decision based on information that is, to me, biased. And we need to get back on the road where we can rely on facts and information that are not colored in any way. It has to be straight facts, and that's what we need in order to make a sensible and reasonable and fair, just decision on how to proceed. I don't believe, you know, for member Uhu Hodgins to ask for a copy of Mr. Rand's transmittal to the Corp Council. I think that shouldn't have been necessary. That should have been automatic. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I see the department wanting to respond, and I'll give them an opportunity to do so in a minute. I think I just want to note that as Chair, I think that's exactly what you said is my hope for today. We don't have good mechanisms in place for when a situation arise in which both the Mayor and Corporation Council are conflicted in a case. And the resolution itself is drafted for this particular instance. But my hope is that through this, we as a council can set up systems to disentangle those conflicts for the future. It's gonna be a little messy. We are working through, it's not an abstract. There is a litigation before us and there is an investigation that we are told is happening through the media. But, you know, I just want you to know that as chair, that's what I'm attempting to do now. Deputy Corporation Counsel.

There, okay, sorry. So yeah, I just wanna clarify that the only thing that Mr. Rand was requesting is factual information. There are Corporation Council that are witnesses to some of the facts and it, I wasn't because I wasn't there. That's why I'm liaison. Just to get the factual information to Mr. Rand so that he can respond in the answer, admit, deny, or we don't have enough information. And that's solely what I was providing. Thank you.

Thank you. And I see an appetite for executive session. But before we take that, I think I'd like to comment further, given what was just said. I think that this is a difficult situation. We see... people grappling with some of the complexities of the situation. Corporation counsel was conflicted out on this case and therefore could not sign. The position of the department that the entire department is conflicted on and no deputy could have signed our result to form a legality. That's why we asked OCS attorneys to do that review even though they can't sign it. But then it creates an issue when the liaison itself is a deputy. And if the department's going to take the position that in one instance everybody's conflicted out, but then on the other hand say that this individual was not here at the time of the incident, therefore they are not conflicting. There is some... some tension and that's precisely what we're trying to work through here. There are also issues with what was just shared last week. Mr. Gore sat right there and told us that it'd be difficult for them to receive claims because We are them and they are us. Setting up firewalls within the department is apparently very difficult. And I have concerns about somebody who was not here at the time and would not have been conflicted normally, but everybody in the chain of command that they report to is conflicted. That's a problem and that's something that we need to find a solution for. My proposal to you, and we can see how it works for this case, is to have special counsel report to our OCS attorneys, to have our OCS attorneys be that liaison to do that work. And so I guess, trying to stay within the scope of the conversation that I had been trying to push everybody else towards. I think I just wanted to give you that situational awareness on what we're doing today and how that relates to this case. That being said, I do think that there is appetite for additional discussion, most of which we cannot share in open session. So at this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to go into executive session.

Second.

Okay, so I see, I'll recognize Member Cook and then second by Member Sugimura. Any deliberation on the motion before us to go into executive session?

Can we just make sure that we're prepared with that answer to go into executive by special counsel Rand?

Mr. Rand, I think the question before us is, would you be able to give us a synopsis of the response that you've prepared once we get into executive?

Yeah, it's going to be a synopsis because it's got many, many paragraphs. So I'll do the best I can, assuming... no one feels we're violating anything and OCS is okay with it too.

Okay. Sorry. Members, let me find my notes on going into executive session. Okay. Members, do you have any questions or comments for Corporation Council in an open session before we consider entering into executive session?

Seeing all members Sigma you have questions in open session at this time I just want to give them the opportunity to say anything they want Or you think it's not necessary Thank you a member Sugimura, I don't think we have any other comments in an open session Okay, and I guess we'll address the issue about who's going to be Participating in the executive session.

Thank you

Thank you, Mr. Colby. Okay, we entertain the motion to convene a meeting and executive session. I did not read the clauses that it was supposed to. So we will be entertaining a motion to convene executive session in accordance with section 92-5A4 Hawaii Vice Statutes to consult with legal counsel on questions and issues pertaining to the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liability of the county, the council, and the committee. section 92-5 a total advice statutes to deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential person to a state or federal law or a court order I Do note that we will need an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting members present Let's let me do a quick count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 so if there are 7 members we will need 5 votes The motion was made by Member Cook and seconded by Member Sugimura. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand and say aye. All opposed, nay. Chair, that's seven ayes, zero noes. Members Poulton and Rollins-Fernandez excused. The motion passes. Could you please state for the record the personnel who will be attending the executive session meeting? Okay, I'm going to go through the members, and then I might need help from our OCS attorneys when we get to staff. For the record, the following personnel will be attending the executive session meeting. All council members in attendance, that'd be myself, the committee chair, the committee vice chair, member Nohelani Uhuhajins, member Cook, member Johnson, council chair Lee, council member Shane Sinensi, council member Yukile Sugimura. From the Office of Council Services, we have Mr. Hanano, legislative attorney, and Maria Leon, committee secretary. Mr. Hanano, can I ask for your recommendation as to whether or not Corporation Council should attend this meeting? I am leaning towards no, but I'd like a second opinion on the matter.

That's within your discretion, Chair, to allow them to participate or not. And it's up to them if they feel that there's any kind of ethical reason why they shouldn't be in the session to raise that with the committee. But I don't have a preference either way.

I guess, Mr. Colby, since part of the deliberations is trying to untangle conflicts of interest with the department, I was leaning towards no. But if you feel one way or the other, I'm happy to. I guess I'll say I'm open.

OK, Chair. There are two Deputy Corporation Councils here today. I am acting in the capacity as the Counsel and Drafting Attorney advising the Great Committee. To that extent, we've taken the position that our role is to advise you on legal issues that might come up during an executive session that it wouldn't be appropriate to ask to the special counsel or that OCS might not have an answer for. So to that extent, if you wanted to benefit from that counsel, I can appear in it. Ms. Leder is here as the liaison counsel or attorney. for mr rand who obviously needs to be in special needs to be in an executive session so you can ask the questions that you want of him um his leader has already indicated that she doesn't have any factual knowledge about this case and so it's really up to you whether or not you think that's appropriate for her to be in it but otherwise uh My understanding from what she's testified, or not testified, stated today, she doesn't really review documents. She enables Mr. Rand to get a hold of the people he needs to speak with so that he can make appropriate responses in the answer. So I would say that it's up to you on both of us. If you want me in the meeting, I'll be as a great attorney. I won't be advising as to anything to do with the preparation of the answer. And same thing with Ms. Leder. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for that. I really appreciate you providing the options before the body. My personal preference is still leaning towards no, given the conflicts that we're trying to untangle. But if any of the council members really wants to have our corporation council in the meeting, I'm open as well. Is there anybody who would really, really like for them to be there? Okay, I'm not seeing anybody jumping up to indicate yes. So I guess that being the case, I think staff, that would be the entirety of the list. It would be the council members in attendance and then OCS staff, Mr. Hanano and Ms. Leon. Mr. Rand. And Mr. Rand. Thank you. That would have been bad. Yes, and Special Counsel Mr. Richard Rand. Is there anybody else I'm forgetting? That would have been terrible. Mr. Hanano, anybody else you think I'm forgetting? No, Chair. Okay. So that being the case, I would like to call for a 10-minute recess so that we can get situated and we will reconvene in an executive meeting. It is 10.42, so we will plan to be back in executive session at 10.52. Is staff gonna move us, Chair? Yes. So you just stay online as you are. Thank you. All right. It is 1042. This meeting is in recess until 1052.

Thank you.

The Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency Committee meeting will reconvene. It is now 2.03 p.m. Members, we have just completed our executive meeting. For the record, we did lose one of our members during that time. Member Sinensi had to leave. So we are reconvening with everybody that went in, minus Member Sinensi. Mr. Hanano, can you please provide a summary in accordance with Hawaii Rights Statute, section 92-4? Yes, chair, thank you.

Your government relations ethics and transparency committee met in executive session on the case of Leo Kyrus versus Kante O Maui et al. So we'll file 2CCV-26-0000138 to discuss with its attorney. special counsel's assessment of the case, settlement considerations, legal advice on the claims alleged, and the county's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hanano.

Okay, so... Members, is there any further discussion on the first part of our meeting related to the Leo Kyrus case?

Okay.

Member Sugimura.

Thank you. So I had a question in closed session or exec session that I was told I needed to ask in open. Is this the time? Or you want me to wait?

June, I can't remember what was the topic of that one?

How it would work.

If we pass the resolution, how it works. I guess I was trying to lead up to that. So if that closes the case or deliberations on the... on the status of the case we can move on to uh the resolution before us uh before we get into the nuts and bolts on that um I think there were a couple other questions that members wanted to have answered. I'll try to take them up in order and we'll get to what you had just asked. But the one that a lot of members had questions on initially was why was this resolution not signed as to form a legality and is the proposal before us legally sound? So I guess for the first part of that question, can I ask Deputy Corporation Council Leader?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. So the reason is because within this resolution, it specifically states that Corporation Council has conflicts in this matter, and that's in the second paragraph there. So because of that statement that we were conflicted out, it was not appropriate for us to sign it, but we did communicate with Mr. Hernando to get that.

So since Corporation Council was not comfortable signing to form a legality not because they had issues with the resolution itself but because of the Conflict on the matter. We did ask OCS attorneys to review. Mr. Hanano. Can you speak to that?

Yes chair. Thank you. So I drafted this resolution and we had to go through our office of council services review process which included a review and approval by director David routes. I can confirm that the resolution is approved as to form and legality thank you chair.

thank you Mr. Hanano but there' s no signature line to form and legality and can you explain that portion of it?

Yes, I think the timing of it, I think we did submit it to Corporation Council initially for approval as to form and legality and as Deputy Corporation Council Leader indicated, it was sent back and Corporation Council declined to provide the approval and review based on the circumstance that they are conflicted out.

Thanks. I guess what I was trying to lead you towards was OCS attorneys reviewed and approved it. It is to form a legality in their opinion, but since there's no mechanism for them to sign attesting that in discussion with committee staff, the recommendation was to have it stated on the floor for the record rather than us creating a new stamp within the review and approval process for county ordinances and resolutions. I think that was the question that most people had questions on. I just wanted to make sure that we were to clear that up. Was there any other questions on that matter? Okay, and then I guess to the next question, Member Sugimura. Sorry, can you repeat it for the record?

I just if this resolution does pass then how do we proceed? steps and Interact with Corp Council Thank You members to humor.

Mr. Hanano Yeah, so This resolution if passed would accomplish basically two things. So first it would require that any settlement offers that are submitted to special counsel Rand who would in turn be transmitted to the council. So that's the first one. The second one is that any invoices that Mr. Rand would submit to the county for his services in this case would be sent to the Office of Council Services who in turn would provide review and approval of the invoices. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, members, does that answer your question?

And I wonder to add on to that last statement. So before a payment can be made, the council is gonna have to meet on it and approve it before a check can be cut, or is there a whole nother process that we have to follow? I don't think it's something we ever did before, so I'm just curious.

Correct. It's not something we've ever done before. Mr. Hanano, you wanted to?

Yeah, I don't think there needs to be council approval because there already is council approval to use the funds for Mr. Rand. So I think it's more like OCS looking at the invoices and approving as to what's on the invoice. And we'll have to submit it to our Accounting department or whatever it's called to process the payment Interesting. Thank you.

Thank member cook so Chair so basically this would give transparency but not Like control over it. It's like we would see what's happening and what's proposed, and the attorney, the attorney's still going to manage the case. We basically have visibility over when they make an offer right now, if they make an offer and it isn't accepted, we don't know that they made an offer. Is that correct?

kind of. There are elements to that. I think it is a little bit more nuanced. As Mr. Hanano said, there's two elements to this. First is that all offers would come to this body, so it wouldn't be just the ones that the administration feels are worth bringing to our attention. The second part of it is the billing, and I think that's where Member Sugimura had questions, because mechanically it's not something we've ever contemplated before, and I think it might require some conversation with the OCS director. But essentially, the My intent in doing this is to have special counsel in this case, but I'm also trying to create precedent in which we could address systemic issues within the county. They would report to people who are not convicted out. And I think that's part of... We see people trying to do the right thing and just they're being... it's difficult. I think that we saw with the form and legality for example that the department really is trying to be sensitive both to the appearance of conflict but also the legal bonds that they have to work within. And we had good conversations with them to try to figure out a resolution towards that. But there doesn't seem to be, those seem to be piecemeal. And I think this gets us further along in that effort to disentangle the conflicts that exist. I think I would also add that with I recognize the effort put into creating effective firewalls in this case they brought in somebody who was not on payroll at the time that this all happened. every deputy corporation council is an at-will employee hired fired and managed by corporation council who ultimately you know is hired and fired by the mayor and in instances like this in which everybody in that chain of command has a conflict i think that is a problem itself even if you buy the argument that they could effectively put up a firewall there um you know the incentive structure is not great right like the keeping people in power is you know beneficial to that deputy um retaining their job come next cycle and so the the goal for this resolution is to break that um break that cycle and have special counsel in these matters report directly to people who are not conflicted out You know there might be have to be some conversations with with the OCS director and how he would like to manage this But I don't necessarily think that needs to be in the resolution or that it can't be Handled internally by staff. I think that at this point we have enough to untangle at least the conflicts that we are aware of and try to create better policies and procedures for these types of situations I heard the timer, but I don't think I gave you your fair shot. Go ahead, member Cook.

Thank you. Just for our colleagues at Corp Council, what we observed just recently regarding whether the clerk's office is going to continue to receive complaints or whether it was going to be accepted and firewalled within the department, it was really super aggressively pushed back no you can't have that at all you're gonna lose every case it's so I'm just sharing with you respect both of you I've never met you much we deal with each other a lot this is not critique of the department necessarily it's all of the things we're talking about but for me also it was just reinforced by corporation counsel so strongly that there is no ability to have a firewall And that was just the other day. No, that was just, that's not you folks, but I'm just sharing with you. That was really presented by Corp Council here on the floor that a complaint cannot be accepted by someone and partitioned within the department. It's different, but I'm just sharing with you. I want you to know because this is awkward.

thing we work together all the time and I have confidence in him so thank you for chair for me allowing to say that thank you remember cook okay I did not do a good job of managing deliberations in this round of conversations but so I would like to take a more structured approach now I'll start with the members who have not yet weighed in on this and see if they have any questions or comments on the resolution part of this starting with chair Lee

I really don't have any comments to make. I understand the intent of the resolution. Thank you for having it drafted, and I will support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Okay, I'll just go down the line. Member Sugimura. Okay.

Yeah, I support this resolution. Thank you for doing it. And I'm just one of the thoughts I had was if this is going to be for all complaints. I wonder how many complaints come through to Corp Council that we would then be receiving.

This is to be I don't intend this to be the model for all complaints. I really do think that Corporation Council should be handling also. This is for instances in which Corporation Council and the mayor are both conflicted. Correct. Only and hopefully we don't have very many of those situations. This is not a unique situation, but it is the one before us, and so it's the vehicle through which I'm trying to address this systematic issue. Okay, for this one then. Yeah.

Or Bill 9. This is the other one I can think of. Forward. Okay, I get it. Thanks.

Thank you, Member Sugimura. Member Johnson. Thank you, Chair. I have no questions at this time. Thank you, Member Johnson. Member Cook, did you have any additional questions? Additional questions. I'm so part of the resolution. Thank you, Member Cook. Vice Chair Uhu Hodgins.

Thank you, Chair. I don't really have any questions. Actually, I do. So when we are provided a settlement request, how will that be transmitted to the committee? Because it can't be public.

Mr. Hanano, can you walk through the mechanics of how settlement offers would be transmitted? I think it's to the council. I don't know if it would necessarily come directly to the committee. But the portion of the code that we cite has some guidance for that. I just don't have it up in front of me. Section 3.16.020.

Mr. Hanano. Thank you, Chair. So on Resolution 26-99, in the first be it resolved clause, it does say that written settlement offers to the council are required to be transmitted via attorney-client privileged communication. So it's not going to be open to the public. It has to be transmitted via attorney-client privilege, and then we can go from there as far as whether or not we're gonna do a reso or how we're gonna proceed.

So because our work is so public, it would be sent to the council, then probably what direct referred to great committee, and we'll discuss it in great committee. Oh, your mic.

I think it would depend on how council chair wants to approach it, but that would be one way is it be transmitted to committee and then the committee decide if they want to propose resolution to settle the case or not.

Okay, and then this is only as it relates to the Mr. Kyrus's case, right? Because it does say in that first be it resolved in the legal counsel, it's required. So we're not necessarily doing it for, I mean, this is a unique situation-ish and we don't deal with this too often. So only this case will be handling it by this reso and the style in this case.

Yes, absolutely. It's only for this case. Under the code, there are some other requirements that special counsel will have to fulfill. Basically, it involves providing recommendations and all that stuff too. I would imagine that's similar to what we had today in the executive session about talking about strengths, weaknesses of the case and the claims and what he would recommend.

Other than that, I don't have any other question. I do would like to just acknowledge how difficult it is to find a firewall, and I do really respect and appreciate Corp Council for all that not only they do for us as it relates in helping us try to navigate this case, but all the things you guys do for us. And it's a little weird in this situation, but I do appreciate all you guys and what you folks do. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Member Uhu-Hodgins. From myself, I'd just like to clarify that this resolution is specific to this case. I'm thinking systemically, but the resolution before us is only for this one. one case and for everybody situation awareness, you know, it's section 3.16.020 of the Maui County Code, part D reads, the council shall determine and specify from time to time by resolution claims for which all written offers a settlement are to be transmitted to the council by legal counsel. Upon adoption of such resolution, legal counsel assigned to the claim specified in the council resolution child transmit any written offer or settlement to the county promptly but no later than three working days from the receipt of the offer or prior to the expiration date of the offer if any whichever occurs first so you know this is us kind of trailblazing how to utilize that portion of the code to disentangle those conflicts It is something that I hope works out well and that we can use as a model moving forward. But to your question, Vice Chair, it is only applicable to the case before us. Make sure that's clear. Deputy Leader.

Yes, thank you, Chair. And thank you, Vice Chair and Commissioner Cook for your comments and everyone. And I just wanna say procedurally, I think that we would still get a notice when there is a settlement offer coming in and a resolution so that we can come up and be part of whatever we need to here. And maybe I can just clarify that.

All right, members, any other discussion at this time? Otherwise, I'd like to make a recommendation. I would like to entertain a motion to recommend the adoption of Resolution 2699, including any non-substantive revisions.

So moved.

Okay, moved by Member Sugimura, seconded by Member Cook. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say nay. Chair, that's six ayes, zero nos. Members Poulton, Rollins-Fernandez, and Sinensi excused. Motion passes. Thank you, members. This item will move on to the full council for consideration. There is no additional business before us today, but I would like to just let you know and let the public know that the upcoming meetings are gonna be of related topics. So our next scheduled great committee meeting is gonna be on the fraud risk and fraud, waste and abuse assessment report done by the auditors. And then following that, we will be taking up the good governance reform bills that we've been working on with the Board of Ethics. So I think there was a lot of good conversation that came up today. I think some of it fell maybe outside of the bounds of this lawsuit specifically, but you will have an opportunity in the upcoming great committee meetings to try to get at some of those broader questions that I know that have been burning within you. So I thank you for your hard work today, and I look forward to productive meetings coming up throughout the rest of the summer.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, members. The time is now 2.24 p.m. This great committee meeting is adjourned.

Great job, great job.