Attorney Ted Hong's response, on behalf of Connections Public Charter School administrative assistant Eric Boyd, to Hawaii State Ethics Commission.

1. - ·, .. I'
TED H. S. HONG 3569
Attorney at Law
101 Aupuni Street, Ste. 1014 A-3
P. 0. Box 4217
12 HAY 10 All :20
Hilo, HI 96720
Telephone No. 808.960.3156
Facsimile No. 808/933.1919
THSHong@msn.com
Attorney for Respondent
WILLIAM ERIC BOYD
HAWAII STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
STATE OF HAWAII
HAWAII STATE ETHIC COMMISSION, ) CHARGE NO. 10-Cg-4
)
Complainant, ) RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO
) CHARGEANDFURTHERSTATEMENT
vs. ) OF ALLEGED VIOLATION DATED
) APRIL 18, 2012; REQUEST FOR
WILLIAM ERIC BOYD, ) FORMAL AND CONTESTED HEARING;
) REQUEST FOR OPEN HEARING;
Respondent. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO CHARGE AND FURTHER STATEMENT OF
ALLEGED VIOLATION DATED APRIL 18, 2012
COMES NOW Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD (hereinafter referred to as
"Respondent") by and through his undersigned counsel and hereby submits his Answer to the
Charge dated October 20, 2010, and Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012
pursuant to Section 84-31, Hawaii Revised Statues (hereinafter referred to as "HRS") and
Section 21-5-2( c), Hawaii Administrative Rules (hereinafter referred to as "HAR"), as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE-ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS (Charge dated October 20. 2010)
1. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, of the

2. t;* , ..
Charge.
2. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4~
41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,
67,68,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,91,92,and93
of the Charge.
3. Respondent denies any and all other allegations contained in the Charge that were
not previously addressed herein.
SECOND DEFENSE-WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF INFORMATION (Charge dated October
20, 2010)
4. Respondent, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 3, 89, and 90 of the Charge and hereby denies
the same.
THIRD DEFENSE-LACK OF JURISDICTION (Charge dated October 20, 2010)
5. Pursuant to Sections 302B-7( c) and 302B-9(a), HRS, the Hawaii State Ethics
Commission has no jurisdiction-over employees ofNew Century Public Charter Schools.
FOURTH DEFENSE- FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Charge dated October 20, 2010)
6. The Charge fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
FIFTH DEFENSE -VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
(Charge dated October 20. 2010 and Further Statement of Alleged Violation
dated April18, 2012)
7. Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive
Director and representatives and employees have violated the Respondent's substantive and
2

3. •'
procedural due process of law, including but not limited to:
a. Conducting an investigation after charges had already been filed against
the Respondent;
b. Failing to allow Respondent's counsel to adequately represent and
defend him during forced and compelled interrogations by Complainants;
c. Unlawfully invading the Attorney-Client Privilege between
Respondent's counsel and Respondent;
d. Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners,
Executive Director and representatives and employees are fundamentally and
legally incapable of hearing or rendering a fair, impartial decision on the charges
in this matter as they have been unlawfully briefed by the Complainant, its
Executive Director and its counsel, about the substance of the charges against the
Respondent, and predetermined the Respondent's guilt in the present matter.
e. The Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners,
Executive Director and representatives and employees have predetermined the
Respondent's guilt by: (1) filing the charges against the Respondent on October
20, 2010; (2) allowing Complainant's counsel to conduct further investigation
after the charges had been filed and the Respondent having formally answered the
October 20, 2010 charges; (3) exploiting the Respondent's Answer to the October
20 I 0 charges by delaying any hearing to wrongfully use their investigative powers
to counter the Respondent's defenses; (4) delaying any hearing on the charges in
the present matter until the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,
3

4. •'
Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees
manipulated a change in the laws applicable to State employees to negate the
Respondent's defenses to the original October 20, 2010 charge; (5) after
successfully manipulating the Legislature to change the law to negate the
Respondent's defenses, the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,
Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees filed a
second set of charges reflected in the Further Statement of Alleged Violation.
8. That such actions deprived the Respondent of a legally cognizable defense.
9. The Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive
Director and representatives and employees have been engaged in a pattern, practice and
conspiracy to deprive the Respondent ofhis constitutional right to due process of law, including
but not limited to a fair, impartial and unbiased hearing on the October 20, 2010 charges and the
further charges filed on April18, 2012, in violation of Title 42 U.S.C., Sec. 1983.
10. That the Further Statement ofViolation dated April18, 2012, was brought
resulting from a conspiracy between the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,
Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees to single out, punish and
retaliate against the Respondent for having filed a civil action against the Complainant and
Executive Director and make hold the Respondent out as an example to any and all future State
employees not to oppose or challenge the Complainant in any manner.
11. That the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners,
Executive Director and representatives and employees have been engaged in a pattern, practice
and conspiracy of manipulating the charges and law in order for an improper purpose including
4

5. •'
but not limited to, engaging in a discriminatory pattern, practice and conspiracy to engage in a
discriminatory action against the Respondent including by manipulating the charges and law
against the Respondent in order to force the Respondent to plead guilty to the present charges or
find the Respondent automatically guilty of the present charges without regard to the
Respondent's defenses and evidence.
12. That the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners,
Executive Director and representatives and employees have been engaged in a pattern, practice
and conspiracy of depriving the Respondent of due process to have a hearing held in a timely
manner, in violation of its own rules and regulations and that as a result of the Complainant, its
Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and
employees intentional delay in setting the public hearing concerning the charges in the present
matter, the Respondent has been deprived of his constitutional right to adequately defend himself
due to the passage of time and is unconstitutionally prejudiced because the memories of
witnesses have faded, evidence has been lost and the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice
Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees have been
engaged in a pattern, practice and conspiracy of refusing to produce any statement ofwitnesses,
and transcripts of forced interrogations made under oath or any evidence that the Respondent can
use to defend himself or adequately prepare his defense.
SIXTH DEFENSE-ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS (Further Statement of Alleged
Violation dated April18. 2012.
13. Respondent denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs I.A.l and 2; I.B.3, 4, 5,
6, 7; II.A.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, II.B.l9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28;
5

6. III.A.29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, III.B.39, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,
and 52 of the Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012.
14. Respondent denies any and all other allegations contained in the Further
Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012 that were not previously addressed herein.
SEVENTH DEFENSE-WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF INFORMATION
(Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated Aprill8, 2012.)
15. · Respondent, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraphs I.A.l and 2; I.B.3, 4, 5, 6, 7; II.A.8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, II.B.l9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28; III.A.29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37, III.B.39, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 ofthe Further
Statement of Alleged Violation dated Apri118, 2012 and hereby denies the same.
EIGHTH DEFENSE-LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated Aprill8, 2012.)
16. Pursuant to Sections 302B-7( c) and 302B-9(a), HRS, the Hawaii State Ethics
Commission has no jurisdiction over employees ofNew Century Public Charter Schools.
17. The 20 12 law that makes employees of Charter Schools "state employees" may
not be enforced retroactively.
NINTH DEFENSE- FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
((Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18. 2012.)
18. The Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April 18, 2012 fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
TENTH DEFENSE- VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS
(Charge dated October 20, 2010 and Further Statement of
Alleged Violation dated Aprill8, 2012)
6

7. 19. That the Complainant has exceeded the time to bring the Charge dated October
20,2010 and Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18, 2012.
20. That the Complaint,, by and through its officers, agents, representatives and
employees, violated Chapter 84, HRS and Title 21, chapters 1 through and including 6, HAR by
filing the Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April 18, 2012, without any legal
authority or following proper procedures.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD, prays that the Commission:
(a) Find that the Complainant, by and through its officers, agents, representatives and
employees, have deprived the Respondent of his constitutional due process rights and dismiss the
Charge dated October 20, 2010 and the Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April18,
2012;
(b) Find that the Complainant, by and through its officers, agents, representatives and
employees, have deprived the Respondent of his constitutional due process rights and dismiss the
Charge dated October 20, 2010 and the Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April 18,
2012 were brought for an improper purpose and dismiss the charges;
( c) Find that the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners,
Executive Director and representatives and employees are incapable of hearing, deciding or
rendering an impartial, unbiased and objective manner and/or decision and dismiss the charges
against the Respondent;
( d) Find that the Commission has no jurisdiction over New Century Public Charter
Schools and its employees and may not retroactively apply any new laws as an excuse to ensnare
7

8. ·. .·
the Respondent and find him guilty of the present charges;
(e) Find that the Complainant, its Executive Director, its officers, agents and employees
wrongfully delayed the hearing in the present case depriving the Respondent of his constitutional
protections to adequately prepare his defense due to the passage of time and was
unconstitutionally prejudiced because the memories of witnesses have faded, evidence has been
lost and the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director
and representatives and employees have been engaged in a pattern, practice and conspiracy of
refusing to produce any statement of witnesses, and transcripts of forced interrogations made
under oath or any evidence that the Respondent can use to defend himself or adequately prepare
his defense
(f) Find that Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD did not violate Chapter 84, HRS;
(g) Find that the Complainant, its Executive Director, its officers, agents and employees
violated the Respondent's substantive and procedural due process rights by unlawfully
discriminating against the Respondent;
(h) Find that the Complainant, its Executive Director, its officers, agents and employees
conducted the present investigation in a grossly negligent and unprofessional manner which rose
to the level of violating the Respondent's substantive and procedural due process rights;
(i) In the alternative, find that actions set forth in the Charge were de minimus and fail to
rise to the level of any violation of Chapter 84, HRS;
G) Find that the Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD acted at all times in good faith;
(k) Award Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD any fees and costs arising from this
case;
8

9. •' :
(1) Award Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD any other relief within its discretion, and
that is equitable;
(m) Initiate proceedings to terminate the continued employment of the Executive
Director, Stanley Chong, Esq., and any other officers, agents, representatives and employees who
actively participated in the present case, for their grossly negligent mishandling of the present
charges and investigation against the Respondent, including but not limited to a violation of the
Respondent's substantive and procedural due process rights, in exchange for the Respondent
waiving any future litigation against the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,
Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees in their individual
capacities.
DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2012.
~{{Lfj ;;;~
Attorney at Law
Attorney for Respondent
WILLIAM ERIC BOYD
9

10. ·. ,
.
I
HAWAII STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
STATE OF HAWAII
HAWAII STATE ETHIC COMMISSION, ) CHARGE NO. 10-Cg-4
)
Complainant, ) REQUEST FOR FORMAL AND
) CONTESTED HEARING
vs. )
)
WILLIAM ERIC BOYD, )
)
Respondent. )
REQUEST FOR FORMAL AND CONTESTED HEARING
COMES NOW Respondent, WILLIAM ERIC BOYD (hereinafter referred to as
"Respondent") by and through his undersigned counsel and hereby requests that the hearing on
the Charge and the Further Statement of Alleged Violation, dated April 18, 2012, in the present
case be a formal and contested case hearing pursuant to Chapter 91, HRS and 21-5-5, 21-5-6 and
21-5-7, HAR.
DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2012.
xl:/2(~/)/H
Attorney at Law
Attorney for Respondent
WILLIAM ERIC BOYD

11. .
' I
HAWAli STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
STATE OF HAWAII
HAWAII STATE ETHIC COMMISSION, ) CHARGE NO. 10-Cg-4
)
Complainant, ) REQUEST FOR OPEN HEARING
)
vs. )
)
WILLIAM ERJC BOYD, )
)
Respondent. )
REQUEST FOR OPEN HEARING
COMES NOW Respondent, WILLIAM ERJC BOYD (hereinafter referred to as
"Respondent") by and through his undersigned counsel and hereby requests that the hearing on
the Charge and the Further Statement of Alleged Violation, dated April 18, 2012 in the present
case be open to the public and news media pursuant to Section 21-5-6, HAR, to demonstrate the
Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and
representatives and employees: (1) grossly negligent mishandling of the investigation, Charge
and Further Statement of Alleged Violation dated April IS, 2012; (2) the deprivation ofthe
Respondent's substantive and procedural due process rights by the Complainant, the
Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and
employees inability to conduct, hold and decide the charges against the Respondent in a fair,
objective and impartial manner; (3) how the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,
Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees have prejudged the issues
in the present case; and (4) how the Complainant, its Chairperson, Vice Chairperson,
Commissioners, Executive Director and representatives and employees attempt to punish the

12. ' :
t' .~
Respondent through discriminatory and unlawful actions in violation of federal and state
constitutional protections.
DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2012
Attorney at Law
Attorney for Respondent
WILLIAM ERIC BOYD
2

13. .• ..
'
' "'.. ,. : ...
HAWAII STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
STATE OF HA WAil
HAWAII STATE ETHIC COMMISSION, ) CHARGE NO. 10-Cg-4
)
Complainant, ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
)
vs. )
)
WILLIAM ERIC BOYD, )
)
Respondent. )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document to be served on the following persons by facsimile or U.S. mail, postage prepaid (as
indicated below) to their respective addresses:
STANLEY K. W. CHONG, ESQ.
Hawaii State Ethics Commission
American Savings Bank Tower
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 970
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Attorney for Complainant
HA WAil STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
DATED: Hilo, Hawaii, May 8, 2012
~{)!JJ{h
Attorney at Law
Attorney for Respondent
WILLIAM ERIC BOYD