The county Ethics Board yesterday considered whether attorney Jonathan Chun should relinquish his seat on the county Charter Review Commission because he at times represents private interests before other county agencies. After hearing arguments at the Mo‘ikeha Building from residents
The county Ethics Board yesterday considered whether attorney Jonathan Chun should relinquish his seat on the county Charter Review Commission because he at times represents private interests before other county agencies.
After hearing arguments at the Mo‘ikeha Building from residents claiming the county charter specifically outlaws this conflict of interest, the board unanimously deferred its decision pending a written opinion from the deputy county attorney.
Board Chair Mark Hubbard said a narrow interpretation of the law seems to allow an individual to “wear more than one hat.”
But attorney Horace Stoessel said the charter is “clear and unambiguous.”
He and a few residents referenced charter section 20.02D, which states in part that “no officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency.”
Chun has represented real estate agents before the County Council and various private entities before the county Planning Commission.
He recused himself from the Charter Review Commission’s most recent meeting after Kapa‘a resident Glenn Mickens, who says he has no animosity toward Chun, asked him to step down due to the apparent violation.
Chun, who was absent from the board meeting yesterday, asked the Ethics Board to issue an opinion.
It remained uncertain at press time whether Deputy County Attorney Margaret Sueoka would have the opinion ready or if it would be made available to the public.
The board also deferred to its attorney on what Chun should do in the meantime.
He did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Board member Judith Lenthall acknowledged that the county charter seems “cut and dry,” but said “it almost gets to the level of absurdity if you take it at face value.”
Hubbard expanded on this remark earlier in the meeting. He suggested he would be unable to apply for a driver’s license if the law was applied overly broad.
The chair also pointed to other personal examples.
For the past 10 years or more, Hubbard said he has represented Grove Farm in the real property tax division for agricultural land dedications. During this same time, he has served on two salary commissions and one ethics board.
“If you read it broadly, I shouldn’t have been able to,” he said. “You have to have some room for interpretation even though it sure looks clear.”
Hubbard pointed to two key words in the law — “appear” and “represent.” He said a “reasonable interpretation” of “appear” would be “wearing the hat of.”
Retired attorney Walter Lewis disagreed.
A person should not try to serve two masters when their interests could be perceived to be in conflict, he told the board.
The charter sets the policies for the community and how government is supposed to function, Taylor said.
It becomes “an awkward situation,” he added, when an individual creates policies and then represents clients who fight for or against those rules.
From a list of 92 advisory opinions the board has accumulated since 1977, Hubbard said six construe the law broadly and 12 maintain a narrow definition of 22.02D — including its most recent ruling in December.
Although not wanting to leave Chun “in limbo,” Hubbard said he is “not an English major” and supported board member Leila Fuller’s motion to obtain a written legal opinion from the county attorney on what the relevant laws mean.
Mickens said he failed to see “any wiggle room” in the charter.
The Ethics Board’s next meeting is at 9 a.m., March 13, in the Liquor Conference Room at the Mo‘ikeha Building.
The Charter Review Commission’s next meeting is at 4 p.m., Feb. 25, in Council Chambers at the Historic County Building.
• Nathan Eagle, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 224) or neagle@kauaipubco.com.
