Video from Hawaii County Council, Voice of Stephanie Salazar

HILO, Hawaii – Last week, Albertini claimed vindication following a Memorandum received from Hawaii County Corporation Council Lincoln Ashida.

The Memorandum was sent to the members of the Hawaii County Council, at the request of Kona Councilwoman Karen Eoff, following an incident in February in which Albertini was interrupted by Eoff during public testimony. Albertini was testifying in support of Home Rule Resolution 272 and against Genetically Modified Organisms.

Jim Albertini, file photo

Video of the incident – taken from the official recording of the meeting – can be seen above.

Ashida advised the council that citizens have a right to criticize council members and the council should be careful of free speech and civil rights violations.

Albertini says Eoff apologized to him and he says he has no hard feelings. Albertini said it’s a sad fact that a citizen’s right to criticize council members has to be clarified.

From an email sent by Jim Albertini on March 11, 2014

Jim Albertini

“Attached is a copy of a Memorandum, dated March 7, 2014, that I received today from Hawaii County Corporation Council Lincoln T. Ashida. The Memorandum has been sent to Hawaii County Council members on citizen free speech rights in testifying before the Council. This Memorandum is a result of a request made by Councilwoman Karen Eoff to Mr. Ashida on Feb. 20th following my oral testimony (see copy below) at a Feb. 19th Council meeting where I was interrupted and then later cut off from continuing my testimony in support of Home Rule Resolution 272 and against GMOs. To her credit, Councilwoman Eoff apologized to me the day after the hearing . She said I was right about free speech and civil rights to criticize council people in testimony. She said she felt bad in cutting me off. She asked Corp council – Lincoln Ashida, to draft a memo to all the council members on this. Eoff said It was Ashida who advised her at the break in the Feb. 19th Council meeting that citizens have a right to criticize council members and the council should be careful of free speech and civil rights violations. In my phone conversation with Councilwoman Eoff I told her I appreciated her apology and said I have no hard feelings toward her. I said I’m glad free speech rights will be clarified but it’s a sad fact that a citizen’s right to criticize council members has to be clarified. We are suppose to be living in a democracy. I have never heard a council member object when they are named and praised in council testimony, so why should they object when they are named and criticized? The main thing is we try to be civil to one another. We all live on this island together.”

Here is the content of the Memorandum that Albertini references. It was issued by the Office of the County Clerk, Stewart Maeda and had the signature of Lincoln Ashida.

RE: Reminder concerning content and manner of public testimony

Over the past few meetings where the Council took on very contentious legislation and heard very passionate testimony, some testifiers have made derogatory comments about various Council members, and directed derogatory comments or questions towards specific Council members.

This is a reminder that the public has a right to criticize specific Council member(s), so long as the public testimony is related to an agenda item. The following is intended as a quick guide for all Council members, and particular the chairs of the various committees to ensure appropriate receipt of testimony at meetings:

1. A good rule to remember is this: ” We should not regulate the content of speech, but we may regulate the manner of speech.”

2. Manner: Screaming, yelling and/ or other unruly behavior while testifying may be interrupted. The testifier may be asked to refrain from such actions.

3. The times when content MAY be regulated: The use of swear or cuss words, or inflammatory language beyond poor taste ( what our courts have called” fighting words”). The testifier may be asked to refrain from such actions.

Note that in the situations outlined above, a good practice is to warn the testifier to stop his/ her behavior. Only after a warning is not heeded should consideration be given to cutting off their testimony.Hawaii County Clerk Stewart Maeda – March 7, 2014