FLASH YOUR GET OUT OF DOGHOUSE FREE CARD:

FLASH YOUR GET OUT OF DOGHOUSE FREE CARD: So how many Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) members does it take to enforce the ethics laws (Sect XX) in the County Charter?

Apparently at least one more than they have.

In yet another awesome display of abuse of power the BOE has cleared Councilman Mel Rapozo’s company’s contract with the county to execute subpoenas despite his authority to appropriate and authorize those funds according to reports in the local paper today.

The Charter says that :

(20.02. ) No officer or employee of the county shall:
C. Acquire financial interest in business enterprises which he may be directly involved in official action to be taken by him.
D. Appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency.
E. Use his official position to secure a special benefit, privilege or exemption for himself or others.

(20.03). Contracts
A. The county shall not enter into any contract with an officer or employee or with a firm in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest involving services or property of a value in excess of $500.00 unless the contract is made after competitive bidding.
B. The county shall not enter into a contract with any person or firm which is represented or assisted personally in the matter by a person who has been an employee of the agency within the preceding six months and who participated while in county employment with the subject matter of the contract.

But the violations of the plain wording and lack of comprehension if not enforcement by the BOE may be secondary to the supportive excuses put forth by both the current Prosecutor Craig DeCosta and his heir apparent to the elective office, Councilwoman Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho who is running for the office when DeCosta leave this November.

They both reportedly cite Rapozo’s M&P Legal Support Services’ contract as an attempt to clear a severe backlog of unserved subpoenas in trumping the quite obvious Charter Ethics violations and Iseri was reported to be “surprised someone voiced ethics concerns” telling the BOE that “the impact on the community is horrendous,” when the subpoenas aren’t served.

The position of Prosecutor is the one that ultimately enforces the laws of the County by prosecuting offenders or using “prosecutorial discretion” to decline to do so.

The article says that De Costa said that the contract was awarded to Rapozo because there were no other bidders.

Rapozo did recuse himself from the council vote to appropriate the $46,640 for the job using funds from a special “Justice Assistance Grant”.

As to the Charter Section 20.02 C it bans “enterprises which he may be directly involved in official action to be taken by him.” (emphasis added) so his recusal seems to be irrelevant..

Under 20.02 D Rapozo certainly “(a)ppear(ed) in behalf of private interests before (a) agency.”

As to 20.02 E It is up to the cumulative evidence to determine if Rapozo abused “his official position to secure a special benefit, privilege or exemption for himself or others.”

But 20.03 is interesting in saying “The county shall not enter into any contract with an officer or employee or with a firm in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest involving services or property of a value in excess of $500.00 unless the contract is made after competitive bidding.” (emphasis added).

Although a bidding process was used it can certainly not be said to have been a competitive one... afterall who’s going to bid against a powerful Councilperson who may have the okay of a contract appropriation for a competitor in the future?

And finally 20.03 B says that “The county shall not enter into a contract.(with) a person who has been an employee of the agency within the preceding six months and who participated while in county employment with the subject matter of the contract.”

The last six months includes right now and appropriating money- even approving grants- is one of the prime purviews of the County Council.

So did Rapozo violate 20.02 E- the very provision he and Iseri used to hang former Police Commission Chair Mike Ching in what many claim is the kangaroo court of the BOE?

Rapozo reportedly says “I believe that there was no conflict because I recused myself from the grant approval when it was heard at the council meeting, disclosing my reasons on the record,” telling the board that it’s only a “perception is reality.” problem and wondering why he was singled out among county employees.

He did not apparently enumerate others that may be violating the Ethics code..

The Council approves appointees for the BOE.

Maybe the other BOE- Education- can solve this because not only can’t Keone read but it seems that many of our most appointable citizens can’t either.

The fact that there were no other bids for the contract Rapozo won was pointed out by De Costa and Iseri as why there was no ethical violation apparently saying we need to get the bad guys off the street so much that we don’t care what the ethics laws are.

One is and the other wants to be your Prosecutor. Is it any wonder there have been no prosecutions for Ethics and Sunshine Law violations when priorities make certain laws unconsequential when they disfavor county employees.

There are reasons why the Charter- which is law that can only be changed at the ballot box- has these ethical standards. Even if nothing else they are there to prevent powerful people who work for the county from doing business with the county. As everywhere else in the world, failing to do so is the official formula for theft and corruption.

According to the article, the matter has been referred to the black hole of the County Attorney’s office where it may be opined upon but the public will never find out if it has even been adjudicated much less what it says due to the current lack of Sunshine that pervades county government on Kaua`i, as unenforced by the count Prosecutor.