TAKING THE CAKE, PAW PRINTS AND ALL: Though we mentioned it yesterday we thought we’d delve into the latest massacre of the English language by a Board of Ethics (BOE) member in attempting to make a farce of the county charter provision banning county employees and board and commission members from appearing before other county agencies, boards and commissions on behalf of a private interest.
First there was Mark Hubbard’s delusional contention that his personal interest like getting a driver’s license would be banned using equivocational definitions of “private” and “interest” and separating each to change the meaning of the whole phrase which has a distinct meaning when the words are used together.
But yesterday reporter Mike Levine reported an, if possible, even more bizarre try at parsing the phrase out of existence when BOE member Paul Weil said essentially that if representing “a private interest” was banned that didn’t include non-profit organizations since they acted “in the public interest”.
Here’s what Levine wrote:
Weil said he voted in June to give (BOE Members Judy) Lenthall and (Mark) Hubbard passes on their apparent violations of the charter because they appeared in front of the County Council on behalf of nonprofit organizations that do work in the public interest, not fitting the description of a “private interest.”
Where to start, where to start...
First of all non-profits do not always act in the public’s interest such as trade organizations and many other types. They are in fact private entities as opposed to “the” public entity- the government. The juxtaposition of private sector and public sector aptly describes the difference with non-profits falling on the private side. Non-profits are not subject to governmental laws such as the sunshine law or procurement laws.
But much more important is the abuse of the language in equivocating the word “interest”.
According to the on-line hyperdictionary “interest” has no less than 10 distinct meanings, many totally unrelated to others.
#2 says: interest can mean:
[n] a reason for wanting something done; "for your sake"; "died for the sake of his country"; "in the interest of safety"; "in the common interest"
That is what “in the public interest” means
But #6 says it can mean:
[n] a right or legal share of something; a financial involvement with something; "they have interests all over the world"; "a stake in the company's future"
That is what “a private interest” is.
Weil is an attorney by trade and it shows. He uses one of the oldest shyster lawyer tricks in the book blurring equivocal meanings of a word to confuse and make a bogus point.
The phrase “a private interest”, is a concrete thing, as denoted by the use of the article “a”. As a phrase it means an entity as represented by the phrase, not necessarily the individual words- another trick of wordsmithing sometimes called false deconstruction and reconstruction.
“Acting in the public interest” uses a whole other definition of the word interest denoting a concept to be is acted upon. That’s represented by the prepositional phrase “in the”.
What are they going to come up with next?
In the somewhat distant past (maybe a decade or so) and in semi-related matters the county attorney tried to say that because board and commission members weren’t paid they weren’t “employees” of the county. But that was eventually struck down as the absurdity it was and those trying to foist it on government watchdogs gave up because that would have opened a whole other can of worms- one of which was that then they wouldn’t qualify for the privacy afforded employees.
We covered quite a few others in our three part report “Unethical Culture- Government Service With the Personal ‘Touch’”-
Part 1- Bored of Ethics on the Board of Ethics?Part 2- The Long and Winding Road to InertiaPart 3- Deep Thoughts- A “Handy” Diversion
Like an adolescent who just discovered argumentation based on language but isn’t quite literate enough to pull it off yet, they’ve tried to use it to avoid all sorts of things.
“Take out the trash? I am- we have a date Saturday night.”
“Is your bed made? Yes- and Serta did a very good manufacturing job”
But this latest is a real prize winner so to you, Paul Weil, we present this month’s “What Am I a Freakin’ Idiot?” Award.
Grand prize is your own easy chair at the old boys and girls Crony Club where, if you can negotiate the revolving door, you’ll get an all expenses unpaid stay in the lap of Board and Commission Chief John Isobe. There you can bullshit your way into a future well-paid position with the administration or council of your choice (as if there was ever going to be a choice) stonewalling information requests and spinning incompetence to your hearts delight.
You can pick up your trophy anywhere... just bend over.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
LETTING LYIN’ DOGS LIE
LETTING LYIN’ DOGS LIE: We’ve been an unabashed fan of reporter Michael Levine whose clear informative prose in covering, first the police and courts beat and now county government, has been a breath of fresh air, joining now-Editor Nathan Eagle in bringing long needed professionalism and basic literacy to the local paper.
But today’s four-part report (here, here, here, and here) on last Thursday’s Board of Ethics (BOE) session was, in the parlance, off the hook. We struggled for days to make sense of three different reports from attendees and it was like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant.
The details of the “through the looking glass” session- with Levine playing Alice- are a must read for anyone who doubts the “incestuous” nature of the population of boards and commissions on Kaua`i (as Levine reports Cost Commission Chair Randy Finlay “acknowledged”). And it’s but the latest chapter in the associated Tales of the Minotaur’s Labyrinth.
One new wrinkle to the effort to butcher the language and make a mockery of critical reading skills came disappointingly from new BOE member Paul Weil who has usually been a breath of clean air on the board.
Weil is trying to interpret the infamous 20.02(d) charter provision banning board and commission (B &C) members from “appearing” before other Bs and Cs on behalf of “private interests”, using the word not as opposed to “personal interest” in the broad definition of a private interest, but by claiming that non-profit organizations operate in the “public interest”- a notion about non-profits that, even if it did apply, is patently absurd what with trade organizations and other private interest non-profits.
But that matter notwithstanding, one thing is clear- there is no longer doubt that any hope that new county Attorney Al Castillo might ignore those who butter his bread, lies face down in the dust bunnies in the corner of the maze.
To insist that an ordinance can change the plain reading of a charter provision is something that can only happen on Kaua`i where rule of law is notoriously a “wonderland” experience and “execution first, trial later” is the order of the day.
Yet despite original promises by Castillo that he would reverse such holdings, his position has now morphed into a validation of the crooked opinions of the past on the matter. Not only that but he didn’t even have the guts to do it himself and sent a henchman, new Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Track, to deliver the bad news.
The fact is that the ordinance- which like the controlling charter provision and the state constructional section on ethics- is confusingly called the "Code of Ethics"- is flawed, written by sycophants of the revolving-door, old boys and girls network, intentionally and illegally to reverse a charter provision barring them from doing their dirty work though quid pro quos and mutual handwashing.
The ones that would act to change that- the county council-certainly don’t seem like it’s even on their radar screen- they like it just the way it is and wouldn’t want to upset the ethical apple cart that routinely clears them of serious charges under absurd BOE rulings
Apparently the only avenue left is to have a judge strike down the ordinance since, even by Castillo’s own admission, it muddies a clear and controlling charter provision
Although we’ve been loath to report this fact because of dubious relevance it now seems more than relevant given Castillo’s 180. According to a reliable source Castillo has said he consulted with former Councilperson and current Circuit Court judge Randall Valenciano on the subject.
That apparently “ex-parte” communication seems to have changed Castillo’s mind because right after it he was quoted as worrying that if the charter provision is enforced “no one will be able to serve” citing that as an “absurd” result even though there are literally tens of thousand of people on the island who would have no problem meeting the standards.
And guess who would most likely hear a suit to enforce the notorious 20.02(d)? You got it- Valenciano, with the other 5th Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe (yes- we’ve finally started spelling it right) having set aside most of her calendar for the next year for the “Pflueger vs. everyone on gods formerly green earth” series of lawsuits.
But assuming that even Valenciano couldn’t dispute basic supremacy laws and if he does that that he would be reversed on appeal, the little red hen’s question stands out.... And who will file the suit?
“Not I” said the sustainability organization.
“Not I” said the land use non profit.
“Not I” said the beach clean-up brigade.
“Not I” said the coastal path enthusiasts.
“Not I” said the organic farmer.
“Not I” said the head in the said new-age “too spiritual to care” minions.
But you can be. If someone did file suit the refrain to the question of who will help me to enjoy the benefits of this now-functional, responsive, open government would be “I will, I will, I will, I will”
As always on Kaua`i the $64 question is “who will help...”. For some reason this island is unique in all the country in that no one seems care enough any more about good governance issues, at least enough to get some basic insane and illegal practices before the judiciary.
And guess what? As far as the council and administration are concerned, the name of the place is I like it like that.
The corporate elite routinely intimidates the council into actions that favor them with threats of a lawsuit.
Attorney for the Board of Realtors Jonathan Chun threatened suit last summer if the council didn’t flout the law in grandfathering apparent illegal vacation rental in residential areas and viola- vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods that were forbidden by controlling state law to start with.
And now suing in the public interest? Introducing... nobody.
It’s happening again right now with attorneys Lorna Nishimitsu and, disappointingly, Dan Hempey doing the same for owners of vacation rentals on ag land where state law specifically forbids “overnight accommodations” on ag land ancillary operations.
Yet the council seems poised to pass a bill to, if not give them illegal “use permits” as the planning commission recommended, actually require the planning department to enter into (get this) “non enforcement agreements”, as stated in the original council bill
Years ago citizens had some leverage when Kaua`i activist extraordinaire Ray Chuan’s "Limu Coalition" dared to file suit a few times and put the county on notice that someone was willing to challenge their patently illegal actions in court. He and the rest of the 90’s set of community advocates found out how easy it was to get positive injunctions and rulings regarding many of these absurd abuses perpetrated by county government.
That led to actions such as the opening of the access to “Queen’s Bath” where just the threat of a lawsuit by Limu-guys led to repeal of an action by the county engineer in closing the access.
But currently there seems to be no one who does anything but nibble around the edges when filing suit, such as 1000 Friends vs. County of Kaua`i suit which is still in court over the minutia surrounding the development across the street from Safeway. Even if they win it will little or nothing to change county policies although it could relatively slightly add some cost to the developers.
We’ve listed umpteen blatant abused of process over the last year and a half that are easily winnable in court, from the non enforcement of the citizen’s petition "enforcement of the General Plan" charter amendment to a slew of Sunshine Law violations with dozens of cases in between similar to the ethics situation where ordinances fly in the face of superior charter, state law and constructional provisions.
All have their root in a corrupt self-serving county attorney’s office that spins opinion out of whole cloth. Yet even with a now perpetual charter commission there has been no public advocacy- much less outcry- for changing the charter provisions for the county attorney to provide for a public component to the job or even- gasp- electing the CA to provide for autonomy.
No one seems motivated to dig into their pockets to file suit on these broad issues. Until we do, no amount of great reporting will do anything but cause more head shaking and a deeper sense of helplessness and apathy.
But today’s four-part report (here, here, here, and here) on last Thursday’s Board of Ethics (BOE) session was, in the parlance, off the hook. We struggled for days to make sense of three different reports from attendees and it was like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant.
The details of the “through the looking glass” session- with Levine playing Alice- are a must read for anyone who doubts the “incestuous” nature of the population of boards and commissions on Kaua`i (as Levine reports Cost Commission Chair Randy Finlay “acknowledged”). And it’s but the latest chapter in the associated Tales of the Minotaur’s Labyrinth.
One new wrinkle to the effort to butcher the language and make a mockery of critical reading skills came disappointingly from new BOE member Paul Weil who has usually been a breath of clean air on the board.
Weil is trying to interpret the infamous 20.02(d) charter provision banning board and commission (B &C) members from “appearing” before other Bs and Cs on behalf of “private interests”, using the word not as opposed to “personal interest” in the broad definition of a private interest, but by claiming that non-profit organizations operate in the “public interest”- a notion about non-profits that, even if it did apply, is patently absurd what with trade organizations and other private interest non-profits.
But that matter notwithstanding, one thing is clear- there is no longer doubt that any hope that new county Attorney Al Castillo might ignore those who butter his bread, lies face down in the dust bunnies in the corner of the maze.
To insist that an ordinance can change the plain reading of a charter provision is something that can only happen on Kaua`i where rule of law is notoriously a “wonderland” experience and “execution first, trial later” is the order of the day.
Yet despite original promises by Castillo that he would reverse such holdings, his position has now morphed into a validation of the crooked opinions of the past on the matter. Not only that but he didn’t even have the guts to do it himself and sent a henchman, new Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Track, to deliver the bad news.
The fact is that the ordinance- which like the controlling charter provision and the state constructional section on ethics- is confusingly called the "Code of Ethics"- is flawed, written by sycophants of the revolving-door, old boys and girls network, intentionally and illegally to reverse a charter provision barring them from doing their dirty work though quid pro quos and mutual handwashing.
The ones that would act to change that- the county council-certainly don’t seem like it’s even on their radar screen- they like it just the way it is and wouldn’t want to upset the ethical apple cart that routinely clears them of serious charges under absurd BOE rulings
Apparently the only avenue left is to have a judge strike down the ordinance since, even by Castillo’s own admission, it muddies a clear and controlling charter provision
Although we’ve been loath to report this fact because of dubious relevance it now seems more than relevant given Castillo’s 180. According to a reliable source Castillo has said he consulted with former Councilperson and current Circuit Court judge Randall Valenciano on the subject.
That apparently “ex-parte” communication seems to have changed Castillo’s mind because right after it he was quoted as worrying that if the charter provision is enforced “no one will be able to serve” citing that as an “absurd” result even though there are literally tens of thousand of people on the island who would have no problem meeting the standards.
And guess who would most likely hear a suit to enforce the notorious 20.02(d)? You got it- Valenciano, with the other 5th Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe (yes- we’ve finally started spelling it right) having set aside most of her calendar for the next year for the “Pflueger vs. everyone on gods formerly green earth” series of lawsuits.
But assuming that even Valenciano couldn’t dispute basic supremacy laws and if he does that that he would be reversed on appeal, the little red hen’s question stands out.... And who will file the suit?
“Not I” said the sustainability organization.
“Not I” said the land use non profit.
“Not I” said the beach clean-up brigade.
“Not I” said the coastal path enthusiasts.
“Not I” said the organic farmer.
“Not I” said the head in the said new-age “too spiritual to care” minions.
But you can be. If someone did file suit the refrain to the question of who will help me to enjoy the benefits of this now-functional, responsive, open government would be “I will, I will, I will, I will”
As always on Kaua`i the $64 question is “who will help...”. For some reason this island is unique in all the country in that no one seems care enough any more about good governance issues, at least enough to get some basic insane and illegal practices before the judiciary.
And guess what? As far as the council and administration are concerned, the name of the place is I like it like that.
The corporate elite routinely intimidates the council into actions that favor them with threats of a lawsuit.
Attorney for the Board of Realtors Jonathan Chun threatened suit last summer if the council didn’t flout the law in grandfathering apparent illegal vacation rental in residential areas and viola- vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods that were forbidden by controlling state law to start with.
And now suing in the public interest? Introducing... nobody.
It’s happening again right now with attorneys Lorna Nishimitsu and, disappointingly, Dan Hempey doing the same for owners of vacation rentals on ag land where state law specifically forbids “overnight accommodations” on ag land ancillary operations.
Yet the council seems poised to pass a bill to, if not give them illegal “use permits” as the planning commission recommended, actually require the planning department to enter into (get this) “non enforcement agreements”, as stated in the original council bill
Years ago citizens had some leverage when Kaua`i activist extraordinaire Ray Chuan’s "Limu Coalition" dared to file suit a few times and put the county on notice that someone was willing to challenge their patently illegal actions in court. He and the rest of the 90’s set of community advocates found out how easy it was to get positive injunctions and rulings regarding many of these absurd abuses perpetrated by county government.
That led to actions such as the opening of the access to “Queen’s Bath” where just the threat of a lawsuit by Limu-guys led to repeal of an action by the county engineer in closing the access.
But currently there seems to be no one who does anything but nibble around the edges when filing suit, such as 1000 Friends vs. County of Kaua`i suit which is still in court over the minutia surrounding the development across the street from Safeway. Even if they win it will little or nothing to change county policies although it could relatively slightly add some cost to the developers.
We’ve listed umpteen blatant abused of process over the last year and a half that are easily winnable in court, from the non enforcement of the citizen’s petition "enforcement of the General Plan" charter amendment to a slew of Sunshine Law violations with dozens of cases in between similar to the ethics situation where ordinances fly in the face of superior charter, state law and constructional provisions.
All have their root in a corrupt self-serving county attorney’s office that spins opinion out of whole cloth. Yet even with a now perpetual charter commission there has been no public advocacy- much less outcry- for changing the charter provisions for the county attorney to provide for a public component to the job or even- gasp- electing the CA to provide for autonomy.
No one seems motivated to dig into their pockets to file suit on these broad issues. Until we do, no amount of great reporting will do anything but cause more head shaking and a deeper sense of helplessness and apathy.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
WAY BACK WITH PEABODY
WAY BACK WITH PEABODY: One of the first things they teach you in Journalism schools is about the lead or “lede” as they spell it in the trade- the first sentence or paragraph that tells the reader in a nutshell what the most important things in the story are.
And the second thing you learn is to not “bury the lede”, meaning you don’t have a “punch line” at the end that reveals the most important information- info that should be in the first 25 words or so.
So maybe it was just being new in town that caused ace reporter at the local newspaper Michael Levine to end a snoozer about the cost control commission’s troubles effecting energy savings with this:
Next month, the commission will host a discussion with television station Ho`ike regarding the broadcast of county government meetings. The Boards and Commissions Office is currently in contract negotiations with Ho`ike, a staff member said.
(Cost Control Commission Chair Randy)Finlay said it would be “fruitless” to hold the discussion after the contract is executed, adding that the county “would appreciate the scrutiny” that the commission offers and that he hopes the status quo month-to-month arrangement will be allowed to continue until after the commission’s August meeting.
If we read this right the big news is that after more than a decade and a half of demands that the county expand their TV coverage of boards and commissions (Bs & Cs) we may actually get to subject some of their all important processes to public scrutiny.
Many of the most corrupt decisions in county government occur for all intent and purpose in total secrecy since there are slew of these Bs & Cs that have most likely never seen a member of the public at their sessions and wouldn’t know what to do with one if someone attended.
Others have been meeting in executive session without any notice and without following procedures for doing so and only complying with the sunshine law when people start showing up... as happened recently with the ethics board.
It’s no wonder- it’s in conformance with the Minotaur conciseness of “doing what’s wrong as long as they can” that has pervaded Kaua`i county operations for decades.
In late 90’s the county council used to meet in executive session preceded by an announcement that they were going into executive session and nothing more- no specific reasons for doing so, no individual sessions for each item and no listing of which eight specific exemption under the sunshine law for each specific item.
After a year of complaints from PNN the council complied with the law but only after then council chair Ron Kouchi told the county attorney to start doing so.
That led a short time later to both PNN and the Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter Anthony Sommer attending a police commission meeting and requesting compliance. That “request” surprisingly spurred compliance the very next meeting when two then-new commissioners, Michael Ching and Carol Furtado demanded the commission follow the law.
Other Bs & Cs have complied with the law over the years but there are still some that act as if someone walked in on their private little wing of the labyrinth if someone actually shows up.
Years previous to the early 90’s when cablecasting of council meetings began, the council was quite the same way according to Jean Holmes who took over the job of editor of the local newspaper in the early 60’s.
She told us that when she came in as editor the council coverage in the newspaper consisted of what one of the councilmen- note the gender specific reference- came by the paper and told them supposedly happened.
Jean says that she decided to attend a council meeting and when she did “they practically had to put on their pants” as she said. There had never been a reporter or pretty much any member of the public- much less a woman- in the council chambers before but she told them they’d better get used to it and made it a point to include objective independent coverage thereafter.
But there are still B’s and C’s that have that reaction when someone walks in.
Beyond the possibility that some other Bs’ and Cs’ meetings might be televised lies the other revelation- that the contract for producing the recordings of them is up for renewal and rather than put the contract out for bid- as the county was forced to do in the past- they are rather “negotiating” a new contract with the notoriously incompetent and sycophantic Ho`ike.
About a decade ago activists demanded that the contract be put out to bid so that one of the myriad of professional video service companies on the island might bid on it.
For a year or so, the contract went to Kaua`i Worldwide Communications (KWC) run by Carol Bain and Ed Coll. They reportedly bid on it as a public service and to show how a well run outfit would do the job even though they knew they would lose money doing so.
And indeed many of the complaints about the Ho`ike service were resolved through KWC’s production.
The distracting and bothersome “open captions” that are used by Ho`ike to this day because they can’t competently produce closed captioning were eliminated and closed captioning was working fine. The recordings were day and time stamped on the screen so they people knew what the date of the meeting being shown was and which point in the meeting they were viewing.
But the reason they knew they would lose money was that although Ho`ike is required to provide for the actual telecast of the meetings no matter who produces them, production itself is up to the county to pay for.
And when the county bought the original equipment, after a few years of Ho`ike production- all without a contract- somehow the equipment became the property of Ho`ike. Also Ho`ike was and is using the money they get from the tax on everyone’s cable bill that supports Public, Government and Education channels to subsidize their bid meaning that other bidders had to compete with an outfit that was not only using their own tax dollars to compete with them but had their equipment paid for.
The county, with the help of Ho`ike, also harassed KWC and after the year was up, they rewrote the procurement specifications to virtually make sure that Ho`ike would be the only bidder. KWC lost money on the deal and couldn’t compete with the Ho`ike bid and Ho`ike has controlled the whole process ever since.
We are somewhat trepidatious that this might be only for the cost control commission. It makes us wonder when reading that “the county ‘would appreciate the scrutiny’ that the commission offers” if the county would televise the meetings of things like the ethics board and many others that might NOT “ appreciate the scrutiny”.
At any rate, it’s not clear from Levine’s coverage whether the county intends to televise all or even any other B and C meetings but if they do so it would seem to require a new open bidding process, not just for the news ones but the current council, police commission and planning commission meetings as well. and they might just consider requiring the equipment the taxpayers paid for be passed on to any new winning bidder as well as making sure the Ho`ike bid doesn’t take advantage of being a quasi-governmental entity.
And the second thing you learn is to not “bury the lede”, meaning you don’t have a “punch line” at the end that reveals the most important information- info that should be in the first 25 words or so.
So maybe it was just being new in town that caused ace reporter at the local newspaper Michael Levine to end a snoozer about the cost control commission’s troubles effecting energy savings with this:
Next month, the commission will host a discussion with television station Ho`ike regarding the broadcast of county government meetings. The Boards and Commissions Office is currently in contract negotiations with Ho`ike, a staff member said.
(Cost Control Commission Chair Randy)Finlay said it would be “fruitless” to hold the discussion after the contract is executed, adding that the county “would appreciate the scrutiny” that the commission offers and that he hopes the status quo month-to-month arrangement will be allowed to continue until after the commission’s August meeting.
If we read this right the big news is that after more than a decade and a half of demands that the county expand their TV coverage of boards and commissions (Bs & Cs) we may actually get to subject some of their all important processes to public scrutiny.
Many of the most corrupt decisions in county government occur for all intent and purpose in total secrecy since there are slew of these Bs & Cs that have most likely never seen a member of the public at their sessions and wouldn’t know what to do with one if someone attended.
Others have been meeting in executive session without any notice and without following procedures for doing so and only complying with the sunshine law when people start showing up... as happened recently with the ethics board.
It’s no wonder- it’s in conformance with the Minotaur conciseness of “doing what’s wrong as long as they can” that has pervaded Kaua`i county operations for decades.
In late 90’s the county council used to meet in executive session preceded by an announcement that they were going into executive session and nothing more- no specific reasons for doing so, no individual sessions for each item and no listing of which eight specific exemption under the sunshine law for each specific item.
After a year of complaints from PNN the council complied with the law but only after then council chair Ron Kouchi told the county attorney to start doing so.
That led a short time later to both PNN and the Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter Anthony Sommer attending a police commission meeting and requesting compliance. That “request” surprisingly spurred compliance the very next meeting when two then-new commissioners, Michael Ching and Carol Furtado demanded the commission follow the law.
Other Bs & Cs have complied with the law over the years but there are still some that act as if someone walked in on their private little wing of the labyrinth if someone actually shows up.
Years previous to the early 90’s when cablecasting of council meetings began, the council was quite the same way according to Jean Holmes who took over the job of editor of the local newspaper in the early 60’s.
She told us that when she came in as editor the council coverage in the newspaper consisted of what one of the councilmen- note the gender specific reference- came by the paper and told them supposedly happened.
Jean says that she decided to attend a council meeting and when she did “they practically had to put on their pants” as she said. There had never been a reporter or pretty much any member of the public- much less a woman- in the council chambers before but she told them they’d better get used to it and made it a point to include objective independent coverage thereafter.
But there are still B’s and C’s that have that reaction when someone walks in.
Beyond the possibility that some other Bs’ and Cs’ meetings might be televised lies the other revelation- that the contract for producing the recordings of them is up for renewal and rather than put the contract out for bid- as the county was forced to do in the past- they are rather “negotiating” a new contract with the notoriously incompetent and sycophantic Ho`ike.
About a decade ago activists demanded that the contract be put out to bid so that one of the myriad of professional video service companies on the island might bid on it.
For a year or so, the contract went to Kaua`i Worldwide Communications (KWC) run by Carol Bain and Ed Coll. They reportedly bid on it as a public service and to show how a well run outfit would do the job even though they knew they would lose money doing so.
And indeed many of the complaints about the Ho`ike service were resolved through KWC’s production.
The distracting and bothersome “open captions” that are used by Ho`ike to this day because they can’t competently produce closed captioning were eliminated and closed captioning was working fine. The recordings were day and time stamped on the screen so they people knew what the date of the meeting being shown was and which point in the meeting they were viewing.
But the reason they knew they would lose money was that although Ho`ike is required to provide for the actual telecast of the meetings no matter who produces them, production itself is up to the county to pay for.
And when the county bought the original equipment, after a few years of Ho`ike production- all without a contract- somehow the equipment became the property of Ho`ike. Also Ho`ike was and is using the money they get from the tax on everyone’s cable bill that supports Public, Government and Education channels to subsidize their bid meaning that other bidders had to compete with an outfit that was not only using their own tax dollars to compete with them but had their equipment paid for.
The county, with the help of Ho`ike, also harassed KWC and after the year was up, they rewrote the procurement specifications to virtually make sure that Ho`ike would be the only bidder. KWC lost money on the deal and couldn’t compete with the Ho`ike bid and Ho`ike has controlled the whole process ever since.
We are somewhat trepidatious that this might be only for the cost control commission. It makes us wonder when reading that “the county ‘would appreciate the scrutiny’ that the commission offers” if the county would televise the meetings of things like the ethics board and many others that might NOT “ appreciate the scrutiny”.
At any rate, it’s not clear from Levine’s coverage whether the county intends to televise all or even any other B and C meetings but if they do so it would seem to require a new open bidding process, not just for the news ones but the current council, police commission and planning commission meetings as well. and they might just consider requiring the equipment the taxpayers paid for be passed on to any new winning bidder as well as making sure the Ho`ike bid doesn’t take advantage of being a quasi-governmental entity.
Monday, July 13, 2009
(PNN) STATE DISABILITIES BOARD SAYS LACK OF ON-LINE ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC “TEXT” DOCUMENTS APPARENTLY VIOLATES ADA
STATE DISABILITIES BOARD SAYS LACK OF ON-LINE ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC “TEXT” DOCUMENTS APPARENTLY VIOLATES ADA
(PNN) The council’s on-line posting of documents in “image files” rather than “text files” is not just an issue of accessibility by the general public but may be an issue of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) according to Francine Wai, Executive Director of the state’s Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB).
It turns out that “text” files are required for the visually impaired to use “Screen Reader” software that can voice aloud documents if and only if they are provided in the searchable “text” format, which allows users to "copy and paste” words, sentences and paragraphs.
According to Wai, all government “programs, services and activities” are required to be accessible to the disabled.
“It’s the contention of most people in our files that this is a program of the government,” she said. “We don’t consider (image files) to be accessible.
“It is our advice that this is a program, service or activity (that) is required” she said with one caveat- the law was written before there even was an internet so does not of course specifically mention the posting of documents on-line as being an ADA covered program.
Wai says that although “litigation is not 100% consistent” there has been at least one case involving Southwest Airlines that says that on-line services by private entities is not necessarily required to be accessible to the blind, the same standard does not apply to governmental entities.
“Any case relating to the private sector is not transferable” she said. “I can’t give you a legal opinion but I believe that within a very short time this will be the way government will release information”.
One of the main goals of Kaua`i County Council reform advocates Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara has been the public’s “on-line” access to council documents.
In recent months PNN has delved in depth into the stonewalling of electronic access the full array of pertinent council materials by Chair Kaipo Asing and County Clerk Peter Nakamura and the local newspaper has provided some coverage as well since the Bynum and Kawahara “went public” with an almost encyclopedic list of obstructionist actions by the Asing and Nakamura, along with proposed solutions at their kauaiinfo.org web site in early May.
When the council services responded early this month with the posting of a small handful of recent meeting minutes, outrage again boiled over, not just at the lack of anything but the minutes and “recap memos” and their outdated nature, but at the fact that they were posted in a format that is useless for anything but reading and printing them out.
Two “letters to the editor” in the local paper – one from IT Professor Ed Coll of Kaua`i Community College and another from Koloa Librarian David Thorp- chided the council for providing only “image” files rather than “text” files.
Only the latter format can used to search the documents by word and allows for “copying and pasting” exact quotations for the preparation of things like letters, testimonies and commentaries without having to re-type them.
Those letters seem to have spurred the council to re-post the small handful of minutes and recap memos that are now at the council’s web site, this time in “text” although there are still only five- the latest being from the June 16th meeting- whereas those at kauaiinfo.org go back to January of 2006.
The problem there is that despite the fact that they were created in electronic form, to post the older ones even Bynum, a member of the council, could not gain access to the original electronic versions and had to “scan” paper copies and create an “image file” and then “convert” them back into text- a method that can sometimes lead to errors in the newly re-created text file when compared with the original.
The ADA requirements do have one exception for governmental entities according to Wai and that is that, if the provision of the service, program or activity would present an undefined “undue burden” on the government they may not have to provide it.
In this case its hard to see where any undue burden would be since almost all public documents- especially government documents but even those submitted from outside entities- are created electronically these days. For the few that aren’t the conversion software is easy and quick to use and is even available as free “shareware” if cost of the software is held to be an obstacle.
As a matter of fact the only undue burden to a government agency appears to be in denying text versions to the blind.
Wai explained that until on-line versions of text files combined with the Screen Reader software make for a “do it yourself at home” way for the blind to access documents, the main way the visually disabled are served is and has been via telephone.
That means that if a document isn’t available in Braille or a blind person can’t read Braille, access requires the vocalization of a document, which is the job of DCAB itself .
Wai says that much of her office’s time is taken up accessing such documents and reading them aloud over the phone, something that could eventually be a thing of the past if documents were all available in text.
While the state legislature’s “paperless” system was instituted this year, the administration and the counties have yet to adapt to such a program.
Wai did note that because of the higher than normal cost of the computer hardware that’s required- and to a lesser extent but still high cost of the software- there is still a big impediment in blind people obtaining the technologic instruments required to use on-line access to documents even when they are in text form
One solution says Wai lies in DCAB’s efforts to provide people with the systems that might actually pay for themselves by freeing up time and energy on all sides of the equation.
She also said that there some confusion on the matter because a whole separate federal provision in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires agencies who receive federal money to use accessible technology.
Title II of the ADA pertains to all government agencies but doesn’t mention ubiquitous on-line technologies which could not have been foreseen when the ADA was passed.
(PNN) The council’s on-line posting of documents in “image files” rather than “text files” is not just an issue of accessibility by the general public but may be an issue of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) according to Francine Wai, Executive Director of the state’s Disability and Communication Access Board (DCAB).
It turns out that “text” files are required for the visually impaired to use “Screen Reader” software that can voice aloud documents if and only if they are provided in the searchable “text” format, which allows users to "copy and paste” words, sentences and paragraphs.
According to Wai, all government “programs, services and activities” are required to be accessible to the disabled.
“It’s the contention of most people in our files that this is a program of the government,” she said. “We don’t consider (image files) to be accessible.
“It is our advice that this is a program, service or activity (that) is required” she said with one caveat- the law was written before there even was an internet so does not of course specifically mention the posting of documents on-line as being an ADA covered program.
Wai says that although “litigation is not 100% consistent” there has been at least one case involving Southwest Airlines that says that on-line services by private entities is not necessarily required to be accessible to the blind, the same standard does not apply to governmental entities.
“Any case relating to the private sector is not transferable” she said. “I can’t give you a legal opinion but I believe that within a very short time this will be the way government will release information”.
One of the main goals of Kaua`i County Council reform advocates Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara has been the public’s “on-line” access to council documents.
In recent months PNN has delved in depth into the stonewalling of electronic access the full array of pertinent council materials by Chair Kaipo Asing and County Clerk Peter Nakamura and the local newspaper has provided some coverage as well since the Bynum and Kawahara “went public” with an almost encyclopedic list of obstructionist actions by the Asing and Nakamura, along with proposed solutions at their kauaiinfo.org web site in early May.
When the council services responded early this month with the posting of a small handful of recent meeting minutes, outrage again boiled over, not just at the lack of anything but the minutes and “recap memos” and their outdated nature, but at the fact that they were posted in a format that is useless for anything but reading and printing them out.
Two “letters to the editor” in the local paper – one from IT Professor Ed Coll of Kaua`i Community College and another from Koloa Librarian David Thorp- chided the council for providing only “image” files rather than “text” files.
Only the latter format can used to search the documents by word and allows for “copying and pasting” exact quotations for the preparation of things like letters, testimonies and commentaries without having to re-type them.
Those letters seem to have spurred the council to re-post the small handful of minutes and recap memos that are now at the council’s web site, this time in “text” although there are still only five- the latest being from the June 16th meeting- whereas those at kauaiinfo.org go back to January of 2006.
The problem there is that despite the fact that they were created in electronic form, to post the older ones even Bynum, a member of the council, could not gain access to the original electronic versions and had to “scan” paper copies and create an “image file” and then “convert” them back into text- a method that can sometimes lead to errors in the newly re-created text file when compared with the original.
The ADA requirements do have one exception for governmental entities according to Wai and that is that, if the provision of the service, program or activity would present an undefined “undue burden” on the government they may not have to provide it.
In this case its hard to see where any undue burden would be since almost all public documents- especially government documents but even those submitted from outside entities- are created electronically these days. For the few that aren’t the conversion software is easy and quick to use and is even available as free “shareware” if cost of the software is held to be an obstacle.
As a matter of fact the only undue burden to a government agency appears to be in denying text versions to the blind.
Wai explained that until on-line versions of text files combined with the Screen Reader software make for a “do it yourself at home” way for the blind to access documents, the main way the visually disabled are served is and has been via telephone.
That means that if a document isn’t available in Braille or a blind person can’t read Braille, access requires the vocalization of a document, which is the job of DCAB itself .
Wai says that much of her office’s time is taken up accessing such documents and reading them aloud over the phone, something that could eventually be a thing of the past if documents were all available in text.
While the state legislature’s “paperless” system was instituted this year, the administration and the counties have yet to adapt to such a program.
Wai did note that because of the higher than normal cost of the computer hardware that’s required- and to a lesser extent but still high cost of the software- there is still a big impediment in blind people obtaining the technologic instruments required to use on-line access to documents even when they are in text form
One solution says Wai lies in DCAB’s efforts to provide people with the systems that might actually pay for themselves by freeing up time and energy on all sides of the equation.
She also said that there some confusion on the matter because a whole separate federal provision in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires agencies who receive federal money to use accessible technology.
Title II of the ADA pertains to all government agencies but doesn’t mention ubiquitous on-line technologies which could not have been foreseen when the ADA was passed.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
RUNNIN’ IN CIRCLES
RUNNIN’ IN CIRCLES: Anyone who thought Councilperson Jay Furfaro might be abandoning his post at the walls of the Minotaur’s labyrinth and doing a “180” by joining the transparency and open governance dissidents on the council can abandon all hope after reading his letter to the editor today spinning yet another 180 to complete a 360 like a political Baryshnikov.
Furfaro’s letter attempts “to clarify- in the interest of full transparency” the contentions, in a letter from former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber a week before.
Bieber said that there are “unacceptable levels of county government secrecy” and that his testimony was apparently deliberately withheld from at least some councilmember’s purview.
Furfaro however, in “protesting too much”, actually presents the crux of the dynamics of the lack of proper distribution of pertinent paperwork and constituent testimony that Councilperson Tim Bynum has detailed at his and Councilperson Lani Kawahara’s kauaiinfo.org web site.
Bieber describes his efforts to make sure testimony on one specific agenda item last November- the council’s discussion of a method of releasing those “secret” county attorney opinions- reached councilmembers as well as his persistence in the attempt with no less then three separate tries at making sure councilpersons got the testimony before and at the meeting along with the other materials they routinely receive.
Furfaro throws any number of excuses against the wall hoping one will stick, although it only underlines how the council did not receive the testimony as part of the official packet of communications and presumably constituent testimony.
Furfaro writes:
Mr. Bieber contends that information he sent to councilmembers — via e-mail to the county clerk on Nov. 1, 2008 — which he wished the members to consider for an item on the Nov. 6, 2008 agenda, did not reach members prior to that meeting. This assertion is false.
But the only thing that is false is Furfaro’s weasely straw man arguments and the red herrings he so disingenuously points out.
After selectively scrupulously and needlessly describing only one of the efforts of Bieber, detailing the original receipt of Bieber’s testimony by County Clerk Peter Nakamura he says:
Mr. Nakamura printed and date-stamped copies of this communication and deposited them in each of the councilmembers’ mailboxes. I still have my copy of that communication with the date stamp...
Although I don’t recall the exchange, it could very well have been me to which Mr. Bieber is referring. Because of the election and its related activities, I had not checked my council mailbox since the preceding Saturday, and would not have been familiar with the documentation placed there prior to that day.
And that is precisely the problem. First of all the fact that Furfaro received it and others apparently didn’t- as Bieber details in his letter- shows the selective distribution of testimony by the clerk- one of Bynum’s biggest gripes. But more important is the method- stuffing a paper copy into councilperson’s mailboxes instead of distributing it in the packet where testimony belongs.
This assures it will sometimes get lost along with the myriad other stuff in the mailbox and should not be the preferred method of distributing testimony. It assures that some matter will be lost in the shuffle, as happened in this case.
Electronic distribution seem to be a concept that Furfaro can’t abide, showing either he doesn’t understand the technology or seeks to ignore it.
Here’s how Bieber described what happened:
Nov. 1, 2008, I received an e-mail response from the county clerk telling me that although the office was very busy with general elections, copies of case law (Akaku v. Bennett) I sent directly to the clerk’s office for council view regarding C2008-319 would be “distributed to all council members for the Thursday, Nov. 6 meeting.”
Importantly, the County Attorney’s Office was copied in my communication to the clerk.The evening before the council meeting I decided to testify before council on C2008-319. Up until then, I assumed the Akaku e-mail to the council and county attorney was enough. For courtesy, I delivered a brief e-mail testimony to the “County of Kaua`i/ Council” making sure again the county attorney was copied. The correspondence contained two questions for the council to answer concerning the relevance of Akaku on release of county attorney opinions.
Curious is what happened next.
The following afternoon, Nov. 6, 2008, during council recess shortly before C2008-319, I asked a councilman outside chambers if he had received the Akaku case law. He said he did not. I inquired if he knew anything about my written testimony concerning the agenda item. He said no.
A moment later, before I could arrive to the entrance of council chambers, I was asked to step into a small council office room behind the chamber by the council’s “in-house” attorney. Alone, he urged me not to give testimony on C2008-319. He said it would be a waste of time, that I may embarrass myself and that the case law itself was irrelevant. I responded politely and told him I intended to testify anyway.
Five days before, the clerk told me he would distribute the case law. But then at least one council member said he knew nothing of it and shortly thereafter the council’s attorney discouraged me from giving testimony.
Something was wrong.
Events following are illustrated by council minutes of C2008-319, Nov. 6, 2008 and Ho`ike video in my possession:
Bieber to council: “Did you receive my e-mail, the .pdf file from [County Clerk], the case law?”
[Councilman whom I addressed earlier outside]: “I did not receive anything.”
At that point, the council’s attorney who discouraged my testimony began distributing the case law and written testimony around the table to the council members. Lots of uncomfortable laughter ensued. Perhaps only by coincidence did then the deputy county attorney leave chambers on his phone.
Chairman Furfaro: “May I take a moment before you start [Bieber’s] time. Just to remind everyone that often when you respond to County of Kaua`i, there is a timing issue with circulation and if you use our personal e-mails ... we are able to expedite the communication quicker.”
Finally, if you read the minutes or view video, Akaku was anything but “irrelevant” — it sparked lengthy debate amongst council members and the deputy county attorney concerning release of county attorney opinions.
Although Bieber just describes the facts it’s apparent that someone didn’t want the testimony distributed and it wasn’t.
But Furfaro’s response is especially non responsive to what Bieber actually alleged
Mr. Bieber states in his letter that, upon approaching an unnamed councilmember at the meeting on Nov. 6, he was told by that councilmember that he had not received the information e-mailed on Nov. 1...
While my colleagues and I try diligently to “do our homework” prior to all official proceedings, during election week it is especially difficult to do so. It would not surprise me if other councilmembers had arrived for that Nov. 6 meeting without fully reviewing all of the mail that had accumulated from the week before.
In my mind, there is a significant distinction between not receiving information and not having had the opportunity to review it. No such distinction was made by Mr. Bieber.
What the relevance of the opportunity to review the testimony has in relation to the charges Bieber makes is unknown to anyone by Furfaro. It’s not a distinction but it’s certainly a distraction. If anything it points out that not only wasn’t it properly distributed prior to the meeting but at it as well.
How any of this is relevant is a mystery only Furfaro can answer but his weak attempt at making excuses for the fact that the testimony did not appear on the desks of councilmembers at the meeting until it had to be pried from the hands of staff indicates precisely the problem Furfaro seeks to pooh-pooh.
Plus the fact that he didn’t check his mailbox shows just how inefficient the method of distribution is, as Bynum has detailed.
At any rate, note how Furfaro says HE received it and wants us to infer all others had too although he doesn’t state that. But selective distribution is common practice according to Bynum. Notice also how he presumes he was the one who denied having read it to distract from the fact that it could well have been someone else... or implying he’s so important his reading of it was sufficient for all members to have read it, another common Furfaro-ism.
But it’s the misdirection, irrelevant details and condescending tone in light of the lack of content that stand out. Bieber’s description of “the council’s ‘in-house’ attorney” is attacked by Furfaro who says in fact that “(t)he person to whom he refers to was not the council’s attorney. He was the council’s analyst — another important distinction”.
Another half-truth that tries to misrepresent. In fact the council’s “legislative analysts” are all attorneys who in fact are “in house” as opposed to the attorneys from the county attorney’s office- one of whom was mentioned by Bieber in the letter.
Bieber’s description is exceptionally apt, especially considering the function of at least one of them, Ricky Wantanabe who, it should be mentioned at least once, is more than likely the brains behind chair Kaipo Asing’s dictatorial reign and the whole council secrecy scheme.
Wantanbe basically runs the whole operation, as anyone who has observed the council for any amount of time can tell you. And although we don’t know for sure, we can pretty well guess is the one who pulled Bieber aside to discourage his testimony.
Not only that but the feeble excuse of it being election day doesn’t hold water. Not only isn’t this an isolated incident but getting testimony to councilpersons without citizens’ having to exhibit bulldog persistence should be de rigor no matter what else is going on.
Oh and by the way Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion is in charge of running the day to day operation of the election, not Nakamura who, although Kaua`i chief election officer by law, is really the overall administrator and troubleshooter.
But more important than anything is the fact that Furfaro is seeking to play both sides of the fence here, claiming “I’m a dissident too” as he sees that the public outrage grows over the iron fisted reign of Asing, while at the same time protecting the entrenched systematic way that the council and the administrative boards and commissions treat the public with distain and seek to protect members from their inquires and testimony unless people persist beyond all reason.
If Furfaro had any integrity he would choose a side and either stand at the gates of stonewall with Asing, Nakamura and Wantanabe or join what is now an island wide movement that is disgusted with this old boy protection racket and will presumably be demanding change in November 2010.
Bieber’s experience is, as he notes, not an isolated incident as anyone who deals with Nakamura’s council services will tell you. But Furfaro has shown his stripes and any more half hearted attempts to disassociate himself from the forces of opaque governance will be greeted with the derision it so aptly deserves.
Furfaro’s letter attempts “to clarify- in the interest of full transparency” the contentions, in a letter from former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber a week before.
Bieber said that there are “unacceptable levels of county government secrecy” and that his testimony was apparently deliberately withheld from at least some councilmember’s purview.
Furfaro however, in “protesting too much”, actually presents the crux of the dynamics of the lack of proper distribution of pertinent paperwork and constituent testimony that Councilperson Tim Bynum has detailed at his and Councilperson Lani Kawahara’s kauaiinfo.org web site.
Bieber describes his efforts to make sure testimony on one specific agenda item last November- the council’s discussion of a method of releasing those “secret” county attorney opinions- reached councilmembers as well as his persistence in the attempt with no less then three separate tries at making sure councilpersons got the testimony before and at the meeting along with the other materials they routinely receive.
Furfaro throws any number of excuses against the wall hoping one will stick, although it only underlines how the council did not receive the testimony as part of the official packet of communications and presumably constituent testimony.
Furfaro writes:
Mr. Bieber contends that information he sent to councilmembers — via e-mail to the county clerk on Nov. 1, 2008 — which he wished the members to consider for an item on the Nov. 6, 2008 agenda, did not reach members prior to that meeting. This assertion is false.
But the only thing that is false is Furfaro’s weasely straw man arguments and the red herrings he so disingenuously points out.
After selectively scrupulously and needlessly describing only one of the efforts of Bieber, detailing the original receipt of Bieber’s testimony by County Clerk Peter Nakamura he says:
Mr. Nakamura printed and date-stamped copies of this communication and deposited them in each of the councilmembers’ mailboxes. I still have my copy of that communication with the date stamp...
Although I don’t recall the exchange, it could very well have been me to which Mr. Bieber is referring. Because of the election and its related activities, I had not checked my council mailbox since the preceding Saturday, and would not have been familiar with the documentation placed there prior to that day.
And that is precisely the problem. First of all the fact that Furfaro received it and others apparently didn’t- as Bieber details in his letter- shows the selective distribution of testimony by the clerk- one of Bynum’s biggest gripes. But more important is the method- stuffing a paper copy into councilperson’s mailboxes instead of distributing it in the packet where testimony belongs.
This assures it will sometimes get lost along with the myriad other stuff in the mailbox and should not be the preferred method of distributing testimony. It assures that some matter will be lost in the shuffle, as happened in this case.
Electronic distribution seem to be a concept that Furfaro can’t abide, showing either he doesn’t understand the technology or seeks to ignore it.
Here’s how Bieber described what happened:
Nov. 1, 2008, I received an e-mail response from the county clerk telling me that although the office was very busy with general elections, copies of case law (Akaku v. Bennett) I sent directly to the clerk’s office for council view regarding C2008-319 would be “distributed to all council members for the Thursday, Nov. 6 meeting.”
Importantly, the County Attorney’s Office was copied in my communication to the clerk.The evening before the council meeting I decided to testify before council on C2008-319. Up until then, I assumed the Akaku e-mail to the council and county attorney was enough. For courtesy, I delivered a brief e-mail testimony to the “County of Kaua`i/ Council” making sure again the county attorney was copied. The correspondence contained two questions for the council to answer concerning the relevance of Akaku on release of county attorney opinions.
Curious is what happened next.
The following afternoon, Nov. 6, 2008, during council recess shortly before C2008-319, I asked a councilman outside chambers if he had received the Akaku case law. He said he did not. I inquired if he knew anything about my written testimony concerning the agenda item. He said no.
A moment later, before I could arrive to the entrance of council chambers, I was asked to step into a small council office room behind the chamber by the council’s “in-house” attorney. Alone, he urged me not to give testimony on C2008-319. He said it would be a waste of time, that I may embarrass myself and that the case law itself was irrelevant. I responded politely and told him I intended to testify anyway.
Five days before, the clerk told me he would distribute the case law. But then at least one council member said he knew nothing of it and shortly thereafter the council’s attorney discouraged me from giving testimony.
Something was wrong.
Events following are illustrated by council minutes of C2008-319, Nov. 6, 2008 and Ho`ike video in my possession:
Bieber to council: “Did you receive my e-mail, the .pdf file from [County Clerk], the case law?”
[Councilman whom I addressed earlier outside]: “I did not receive anything.”
At that point, the council’s attorney who discouraged my testimony began distributing the case law and written testimony around the table to the council members. Lots of uncomfortable laughter ensued. Perhaps only by coincidence did then the deputy county attorney leave chambers on his phone.
Chairman Furfaro: “May I take a moment before you start [Bieber’s] time. Just to remind everyone that often when you respond to County of Kaua`i, there is a timing issue with circulation and if you use our personal e-mails ... we are able to expedite the communication quicker.”
Finally, if you read the minutes or view video, Akaku was anything but “irrelevant” — it sparked lengthy debate amongst council members and the deputy county attorney concerning release of county attorney opinions.
Although Bieber just describes the facts it’s apparent that someone didn’t want the testimony distributed and it wasn’t.
But Furfaro’s response is especially non responsive to what Bieber actually alleged
Mr. Bieber states in his letter that, upon approaching an unnamed councilmember at the meeting on Nov. 6, he was told by that councilmember that he had not received the information e-mailed on Nov. 1...
While my colleagues and I try diligently to “do our homework” prior to all official proceedings, during election week it is especially difficult to do so. It would not surprise me if other councilmembers had arrived for that Nov. 6 meeting without fully reviewing all of the mail that had accumulated from the week before.
In my mind, there is a significant distinction between not receiving information and not having had the opportunity to review it. No such distinction was made by Mr. Bieber.
What the relevance of the opportunity to review the testimony has in relation to the charges Bieber makes is unknown to anyone by Furfaro. It’s not a distinction but it’s certainly a distraction. If anything it points out that not only wasn’t it properly distributed prior to the meeting but at it as well.
How any of this is relevant is a mystery only Furfaro can answer but his weak attempt at making excuses for the fact that the testimony did not appear on the desks of councilmembers at the meeting until it had to be pried from the hands of staff indicates precisely the problem Furfaro seeks to pooh-pooh.
Plus the fact that he didn’t check his mailbox shows just how inefficient the method of distribution is, as Bynum has detailed.
At any rate, note how Furfaro says HE received it and wants us to infer all others had too although he doesn’t state that. But selective distribution is common practice according to Bynum. Notice also how he presumes he was the one who denied having read it to distract from the fact that it could well have been someone else... or implying he’s so important his reading of it was sufficient for all members to have read it, another common Furfaro-ism.
But it’s the misdirection, irrelevant details and condescending tone in light of the lack of content that stand out. Bieber’s description of “the council’s ‘in-house’ attorney” is attacked by Furfaro who says in fact that “(t)he person to whom he refers to was not the council’s attorney. He was the council’s analyst — another important distinction”.
Another half-truth that tries to misrepresent. In fact the council’s “legislative analysts” are all attorneys who in fact are “in house” as opposed to the attorneys from the county attorney’s office- one of whom was mentioned by Bieber in the letter.
Bieber’s description is exceptionally apt, especially considering the function of at least one of them, Ricky Wantanabe who, it should be mentioned at least once, is more than likely the brains behind chair Kaipo Asing’s dictatorial reign and the whole council secrecy scheme.
Wantanbe basically runs the whole operation, as anyone who has observed the council for any amount of time can tell you. And although we don’t know for sure, we can pretty well guess is the one who pulled Bieber aside to discourage his testimony.
Not only that but the feeble excuse of it being election day doesn’t hold water. Not only isn’t this an isolated incident but getting testimony to councilpersons without citizens’ having to exhibit bulldog persistence should be de rigor no matter what else is going on.
Oh and by the way Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion is in charge of running the day to day operation of the election, not Nakamura who, although Kaua`i chief election officer by law, is really the overall administrator and troubleshooter.
But more important than anything is the fact that Furfaro is seeking to play both sides of the fence here, claiming “I’m a dissident too” as he sees that the public outrage grows over the iron fisted reign of Asing, while at the same time protecting the entrenched systematic way that the council and the administrative boards and commissions treat the public with distain and seek to protect members from their inquires and testimony unless people persist beyond all reason.
If Furfaro had any integrity he would choose a side and either stand at the gates of stonewall with Asing, Nakamura and Wantanabe or join what is now an island wide movement that is disgusted with this old boy protection racket and will presumably be demanding change in November 2010.
Bieber’s experience is, as he notes, not an isolated incident as anyone who deals with Nakamura’s council services will tell you. But Furfaro has shown his stripes and any more half hearted attempts to disassociate himself from the forces of opaque governance will be greeted with the derision it so aptly deserves.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
SCOOBY ON THE CASE
SCOOBY ON THE CASE: Our excoriation of the “out with the old in with the even older” rehiring of, if not disgraced, at least disgraceful excuse for a journalist Paul Curtis as the police and courts reporter at the local newspaper, filled our inbox with a few other stories of Curtis’ lack of acumen and talent.
But in an un-bylined rewrite of a county press release today it appeared at first blush that his knack for lack of clarity was apparently rubbing off.
Here’s the “news” as the paper reported it:
A 25-year-old Lihu`e man was arrested after attempting to sell stolen jewelry at a pawn shop.Roger Parks, owner of the Gold and Silver Trading Company in Lihu`e, recognized the jewelry as his own and called police to report the incident while the suspect was still in the store, a county news release said Monday.The man was arrested Thursday for second degree theft and released pending further investigation.Parks told police that he discovered Thursday morning that the jewelry was missing from his vehicle which was parked in the parking lot of his Lihu`e condominium. Park had left the jewelry in the trunk of the vehicle the night before, the release says.
Huh? What the heck was Parks doing at this pawn shop when the man tried to sell the jewelry? Was it a miraculous coincidence? Was he there checking to see if anyone had pawned his jewelry? There certainly must be more to the story.
But a check of the county press release shows that the lack of clarity was anything but the paper’s fault although you’d think that they would check the details before regurgitating whatever the county PIO told them.
Well the Hercule Poirot’s among you may have figured it out by now but it took the Honolulu Star Bulletin to make it clear in their re-write:
Pawnshop owner pitched his own jewelry
Kauai pawnshop owner Roger Parks had more than a hunch that the jewelry a man was trying to sell was hot.
Parks recognized the jewelry as his own -- stolen the night before from his vehicle, parked at his condominium in Lihue.
Parks, owner of the Gold and Silver Trading Co. in Lihue, called police while the suspect was waiting in the store trying to sell the stolen merchandise. (emphases added)
Police arrested a 25-year-old man Thursday for second-degree theft.
The man was later released, pending further investigation.
Parks told police he discovered Thursday morning that the jewelry had been stolen.
“Now zat I hev all zee articles here in one room, zee mee-star-ee ees no mee-star-ee at all. Eet is YOU Roger Parks zat ees the ownah of BOTH see pawn shop AND zees Gold and Seelver Tradeeng Companee because- een fact zey are one and de same!
“Now Madam Murphy tell me about zeeze overalls een your chowder.
But in an un-bylined rewrite of a county press release today it appeared at first blush that his knack for lack of clarity was apparently rubbing off.
Here’s the “news” as the paper reported it:
A 25-year-old Lihu`e man was arrested after attempting to sell stolen jewelry at a pawn shop.Roger Parks, owner of the Gold and Silver Trading Company in Lihu`e, recognized the jewelry as his own and called police to report the incident while the suspect was still in the store, a county news release said Monday.The man was arrested Thursday for second degree theft and released pending further investigation.Parks told police that he discovered Thursday morning that the jewelry was missing from his vehicle which was parked in the parking lot of his Lihu`e condominium. Park had left the jewelry in the trunk of the vehicle the night before, the release says.
Huh? What the heck was Parks doing at this pawn shop when the man tried to sell the jewelry? Was it a miraculous coincidence? Was he there checking to see if anyone had pawned his jewelry? There certainly must be more to the story.
But a check of the county press release shows that the lack of clarity was anything but the paper’s fault although you’d think that they would check the details before regurgitating whatever the county PIO told them.
Well the Hercule Poirot’s among you may have figured it out by now but it took the Honolulu Star Bulletin to make it clear in their re-write:
Pawnshop owner pitched his own jewelry
Kauai pawnshop owner Roger Parks had more than a hunch that the jewelry a man was trying to sell was hot.
Parks recognized the jewelry as his own -- stolen the night before from his vehicle, parked at his condominium in Lihue.
Parks, owner of the Gold and Silver Trading Co. in Lihue, called police while the suspect was waiting in the store trying to sell the stolen merchandise. (emphases added)
Police arrested a 25-year-old man Thursday for second-degree theft.
The man was later released, pending further investigation.
Parks told police he discovered Thursday morning that the jewelry had been stolen.
“Now zat I hev all zee articles here in one room, zee mee-star-ee ees no mee-star-ee at all. Eet is YOU Roger Parks zat ees the ownah of BOTH see pawn shop AND zees Gold and Seelver Tradeeng Companee because- een fact zey are one and de same!
“Now Madam Murphy tell me about zeeze overalls een your chowder.
Monday, July 6, 2009
CAN’T YOU SMELL THAT?
CAN’T YOU SMELL THAT?: The Board of Ethics (BOE) is meeting this Thursday and as usual the agenda promises a fun-filled theater of the absurd. All the “regulars” will all be there and you couldn’t find a better morning’s entertainment.
Just show up at 9 a.m. at Liquor Conference Room on 1st Floor of the Mo‘ikeha Building.
For a preview of one item here’s a piece titled “Fair Treatment” from BOE watchdog Horace Stoessel.
If a person had been treated like the Board of Ethics and county attorney’s office have treated Charter Section 20.02D, how would the person feel?
During the last year and a half the board, relying on legal opinions, has (1) given Jonathan Chun permission to continue representing clients before county agencies even though 20.02D prohibits such activities by officers of the county, and (2) dismissed three ethics complaints filed by Rolf Bieber alleging violations of 20.02D.
Note: According to Charter Section 20.05G, the complaints could not be upheld as long as the Chun decision remains in force.
I have followed the process closely. There has been no shortage of statements from the board and attorney’s office aimed at proving that 20.02D cannot possibly mean what it says, or that the County Code amends or modifies the language of 20.02D, or that 20.02D is unfair and leads to absurdities and therefore should not be enforced.
County officers pledge to support and defend the charter. Bearing that fact in mind, I tried to remember statements I had heard or read from the board and the attorney’s office supporting and defending 20.02D. I couldn’t think of a single example.
20.02D appears in an executive session item on the board’s agenda for July 9 related to the ethics complaints dismissed by the board on June 4. The notice for executive session reads in part: “…to consider a communication from the County Attorney clarifying the opinion he gave to the Board on June 4, 2009 and providing the substantive basis for that opinion regarding Charter §20.02 D, County Code 3-1.7 and prior Attorney’s opinion dated March 5, 2008.”
Following the executive session the board will publicly “ratify” matters from the session. Since the board has already approved Chun’s actions and dismissed the complaints, can we reasonably expect the board or the attorney to “support and defend” 20.02D on July 9?
In case you missed it, check out our three part series on the BOE, titled “Unethical Culture- Government Service with a Personal ‘Touch’” linked on the left rail or click here for other PNN/gw? coverage of the circus.
Just show up at 9 a.m. at Liquor Conference Room on 1st Floor of the Mo‘ikeha Building.
For a preview of one item here’s a piece titled “Fair Treatment” from BOE watchdog Horace Stoessel.
If a person had been treated like the Board of Ethics and county attorney’s office have treated Charter Section 20.02D, how would the person feel?
During the last year and a half the board, relying on legal opinions, has (1) given Jonathan Chun permission to continue representing clients before county agencies even though 20.02D prohibits such activities by officers of the county, and (2) dismissed three ethics complaints filed by Rolf Bieber alleging violations of 20.02D.
Note: According to Charter Section 20.05G, the complaints could not be upheld as long as the Chun decision remains in force.
I have followed the process closely. There has been no shortage of statements from the board and attorney’s office aimed at proving that 20.02D cannot possibly mean what it says, or that the County Code amends or modifies the language of 20.02D, or that 20.02D is unfair and leads to absurdities and therefore should not be enforced.
County officers pledge to support and defend the charter. Bearing that fact in mind, I tried to remember statements I had heard or read from the board and the attorney’s office supporting and defending 20.02D. I couldn’t think of a single example.
20.02D appears in an executive session item on the board’s agenda for July 9 related to the ethics complaints dismissed by the board on June 4. The notice for executive session reads in part: “…to consider a communication from the County Attorney clarifying the opinion he gave to the Board on June 4, 2009 and providing the substantive basis for that opinion regarding Charter §20.02 D, County Code 3-1.7 and prior Attorney’s opinion dated March 5, 2008.”
Following the executive session the board will publicly “ratify” matters from the session. Since the board has already approved Chun’s actions and dismissed the complaints, can we reasonably expect the board or the attorney to “support and defend” 20.02D on July 9?
In case you missed it, check out our three part series on the BOE, titled “Unethical Culture- Government Service with a Personal ‘Touch’” linked on the left rail or click here for other PNN/gw? coverage of the circus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
