Submitted by margaretwille on 23 July 2009 - 5:31pmToday Judge Ibarra Ruled in favor of West Hawaii Today’s Request for a Temporary Restraining Order. The Court issued the 10 day Restraining Order in anticipation of a preliminary hearing on the matter which is scheduled for August 26, 2009 at 8:30a.m. The Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff West Hawaii Today's motion for the following reasons:1. Plaintiff demonstrated it would likely prevail on the merits of a violation of the Sunshine Law by the County Council: “It is clear that a quorum of councilors discussed resolutions regarding selection of board officers pending before the board, prior to, and outside of, the June 16, 2009 public meeting, in violation of HRS §92-2.5(c).”2. Irreparable harm will result to the public’s interest in government processes: “…the harm is to the public’s ability to witness and participate in the government process. "3. The pubic interest supports injunctive relief: “If the Defendants’ actions violated the Sunshine Law is “obviously a question of public nature; the requirement that the Council conduct its business in full view of the public and in compliance with the Sunshine Law is certainly more public than private.”“The Court therefore ordered “…that a Temporary Restraining Order be issued enjoining Defendants, as reorganized at the Council meeting of June 16, 2009, from taking any further action except to conduct further reorganization. The Council may thereafter conduct Council business pursuant to law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this Order will become effective at 6 p.m. August 5, 2009 and expire on August 15, 2009 at 12:00 p.m. unless further Order by this Court. A hearing for a preliminary injunction is set for August 26, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.”MW NOTE on timing: Temporary Restraining Orders last for 10 days. It appears the starting date of August 5 was used because Ashida argued Council would not meet before the 4th or 5th, and better to leave this Council in place until then in case of an emergency. If the INjunction started immediately this could be problematic if an emergency occurred and the Council might need to hold a Special meeting to respond to the emergency and no other organization of the Council would be in place by then. In other words, the Court did not see any harm in leaving the current leadership in place during this period when no meetings are scheduled.
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!

Comments

  • This is Mayor Kenoi's doing in wanting to have a change in the Council Member's title on board seats.

    Is this a way of budgeting to save cost which is all the hooplah these days since the Mayor is wanting to get rid of the 2% funding = current balance of $8 to 11 million in this account to purchase open space lands in need of protection of which 3 of the 7 lands are located in Kohala, birthplace of Kamehameha I?

    Mayor wants to instead use this 2% of real property taxes earmarked for open space (as requested by ballot votes) by concerned citizens to instead be utilized for "running government"; put a freeze also for 2 years on this fund...WAHT?

    Can the Mayor's request be done or will Judge Ibarra rule NOT?

    Why does the mayor want to change titles? Aren't they all doing their job well in serving their districts? Maybe too well and why he wants the change? Hmmm...I wonder if it has to do with these same properties await to be developed right away? Hmmmm interesting huh?

    We'll see what Judge Ibarra rulesl
This reply was deleted.