AND WE GET ON OUR KNEES AND PRAY...

AND WE GET ON OUR KNEES AND PRAY...: It's no secret among Kaua`i county-watchers. Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s attempt at power grabbing is nothing new- this time by claiming authority in disciplining Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry.

For a few years now Carvalho has been running a different but related proposal up the flagpole, one which would change the Kaua`i County Charter to take the power of appointment of department heads away from the boards and commissions that currently have it and give it to the mayor.

To hizzonah's chagrin though, there wasn't much saluting going on.

Currently the Kaua`i charter gives the power to appoint and remove their respective department heads to the Fire, Civil Service, Planning, Liquor Control and Police Commissions. In the case of the police chiefs of the various counties, it is a set-up that has been mandated by state law, making any charter change to give mayors that power effective only after legislative action.

The common wisdom behind this type of police department set-up (one that is used in most US jurisdictions) is that the local "para-military" constabulary should be under civilian control so as to "take the politics out of the police department."

Carvalho took his proposal to the police commission for their support, saying that, of course, there would first need to be a change in state law- something for which he said he was lobbying.

But the commission rebuffed his request. Of course being political appointees they weren't about to piss off their "boss" so, although they diplomatically said they "trusted" Carvalho himself to not interject politics into department business (perish the thought) were he to have the power to do so, they feared his successors might not be inclined to be as altruistic.

That's been percolating around the back of our mind while watching the current political circus, assuming that any charter change of this nature would have to wait for a change in Hawai`i Revised Statues (HRS).

You'd think we'd have learned by now. To paraphrase another meshugana, fool us 1,274 times... you can still get fooled again... and again... and again.

HRS 52D regulates county "Police Departments." Prior to 2010, HRS Section 52D-2 read "Chief of police. The police commission shall appoint a chief of police. "

However, unbeknownst to many, the 2010 legislature passed SB 2177 SD1, deleting those two sentences and substituting the following words "A chief of police shall be appointed and may be removed as prescribed by the charter of each county."

That means that, although the current charter remains legally binding, were the charter commission or the county council to place a different "prescription" before the electorate and should it pass, it would no longer be illegal to have any structure of control they desire- including of course moving the authority to hire and fire the chief of police from the police commission to the mayor.

Watch out for this one.

The Charter Review Commission (CRC) has been meeting to consider the current Perry vs Carvalho brouhaha as recently as this past Monday when they held a closed door executive session on the matter where presumably they considered a charter change to address the current "constitutional crisis."

As we described a week ago Thursday the current "crisis" is based on the fact that the charter is essentially silent on the disciplining of the police chief allowing both the mayor and the police commission to claim control- even though neither is given that clear authority in the charter.

The CRC used to meet every 10 years but now sits continually until 2016 after a charter change in 2006. Prior to the current election cycle, the CRC has been extremely independent, doing their work without checking with anyone regarding their proposed amendments. However the current CRC has been anything but independent with Chair and noted county lap-dog Sherman Shiraishi constantly coming before the council looking for scratches behind the ear and tummy rubs of approval on every move the commission is considering.

The mayor has had a more direct pipeline, not just as an ex-officio member of the CRC but through the Director of Boards and Commissions who was, until recently, Carvalho's spying eyes, ears and mouthpiece, John Isobe.

All Carvalho has to do is simply tell Shiraishi what he wants on the ballot- something he has not been shy about doing, sometimes even in writing. And in the Shiraishi family tradition, Sherm, like Clint before him, makes no bones about indicating his and the commission's desire to be as accommodating of elected officials as possible. After all it isn't like the Shiraishis haven't been on the receiving end of such largess for generations.

Oh, and even though the CRC is set up to be an independent, alternative to having the council propose charter amendments (they may also be proposed via citizen petition) the CRC has become simply an arms-length method of politically insulating the council from having to propose politically sensitive amendments in an election year.

That could well be the scenario that plays out this year. The council actually could take the reins over who can discipline the chief of police via an ordinance if they wanted to, leaving the appointment scheme the way it is now.

Yeah- right... right after they raise taxes and their salaries. Anyone got a 10 foot pole? Do we hear 20?

With the way the local press is led around by county-installed brass rings through their collective noses we wouldn't put it past the administration to try to get away with proposing an amendment that purports to "clear up" the confusion over who is in charge of disciplining the chief but actually transfers control over hiring and firing.

It wouldn't be the first time that the electorate was hornschwoggled via a "trick question" on the ballot- one that doesn't really reflect what the content of the amendment is. Remember that "conform to the sunshine law" bamboozle that actually did anything but "turn off the dark?"

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that in "clarifying" who has control of discipline of the chief the administration would also try to slip in a provision to give the mayor a little more power.

And if voters did somehow figure it out, the few that actually pay attention can be told that it was an innocent provision to avoid future conflict, resolving it in favor of "accountability to an elected official," the mayor, rather than an appointed group, the commission.

After all, Bernard has put so much effort into his patronage-based, "members only" cronyism, especially in the appointment of all boards members and commissioners, it'd be a shame to see it all go to waste.

IT'S NEWS TO ME

IT'S NEWS TO ME: It only took a decade or so, which anywhere else might be seen as a snail's pace. But here on Kaua`i when it "only" takes a dozen to get the government follow the law your first thought is that it's miraculous that they complied at all.

When a long list of nominees for various boards and commissions were scheduled for interviews a week ago Tuesday we had little hope of seeing them on television. After all, it took over five year of complaining on our part to even get the Office of Information Practices (OIP) to tell the council to end the practice of holding the interviews in secret executive sessions and then another few years for the paternalistic then-Council Chair, Kaipo Asing, to actually comply.

But it took still a few more years before the council allowed the interviews to be video-recorded claiming they didn't have the money to do so- even though they paid to caption and televise up to an hour a week of those "grip and grin" certificates and awards that they present to auntie and uncle every time they sneeze and to every sports team that came in anywhere but last in Honolulu... especially around election time.

Now, after some dribs and drabs of individual interviews interspersed with council meetings over the last year or so, the yearly appointments- and more importantly reappointments- of a slew of board and commission members was actually televised last week.

And guess what? It actually produced news of sorts, although you wouldn't know it from perusing the local newspaper, probably because you had to actually be paying attention to both the interviews and the way government works around here to find it.

The biggest news came from outspoken Planning Commissioner Jay Kimura who has ascended to chair this year. Kimura is the one who, when you watch the planning commission meetings, is continually shaking his head in disbelief over the fact that transient vacation rentals (TVRs) can be put on agricultural lands in the first place, denouncing the way the permits for all types of TVRs are approved willy-nilly regardless of compliance with the law and generally kvetching about the lack of enforcement of TVR regulations for both existing permit holders and those for who have been rejected but continue to operate.

The news is that anyone who was wondering at the time exactly what happened in executive session when former Planning Director Ian Costa left his post under investigation by the FBI can wonder no more whether he resigned or was actually fired by the planning commission.

Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. was certainly circumspect about the circumstances, probably because he has since "hired" Costa- or at least told his former campaign manager Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation Lenny Rapozo to hire Costa- as a deputy director under Rapozo.

During Kimura's questioning Councilmember Tim Bynum directly asked Kimura "during your tenure the planning director changed. That was a decision of the board, correct?"

Kimura simply answered "Yes."

Bynum continued the questioning as to whether Kimura was happy with the new Director, former Deputy County Attorney Mike Dahilig, to which Kimura replied that he would "rather keep my opinion to myself," even though his disgust with Dahilig's lack of enforcement and lax attitude toward TVR permitting in general hasn't been very well disguised at planning commission meetings.

But now we do know that Costa was fired- as if there was really any doubt until now in the minds of any but the most rabid of Carvalho sycophants. Oh- that and, according to Rapozo, the "fact" that state attorney general is "going over the approved 'TVRs on ag land' permits"... whatever that means.

Another bit of major news is that Board and Commission Director John Isobe has "retired" and been replaced by former state House Representative from 1992-1993, Paula Ishii Morikami (D-12th District) who is apparently now the latest politically-connected apparatchik to join the Carvalho administration.

Isobe's "retirement" has yet to be formally announced but it came up during the interview with former District Court Judge Calvin Morishige who has been nominated to be on the Kaua`i Board of Ethics.

One bit of news of sorts that Morishige made was to say, in response to questions from Councilmember Mel Rapozo, that his opinion was that county attorneys who advise boards and commissions actually do just that and only that- advise them.

"Their opinion is only their opinion- the decision is up to the board," he told the council.

Now anywhere else in the world this would not be news. But under the Carvalho administration, County Attorney Al Castillo’s opinions are to be followed blindly by all. And if they are not, board and commission members have been threatened with the withholding of county representation should they be sued for their official actions, according to a lengthy discourse on the subject by Rapozo.

This has been especially true with the Ethics Board where commissioners have actually battled deputy county attorneys to get them to change their written opinion rather than make a ruling that would treat their advise as, well, advice as opposed to a dictum.

There was probably more news but it was really hard to stay awake through all the fawning and phoney praise for both the nominees and Carvalho for his wonderful choices... alternating with the occasional grinning through gritted teeth by both councilmembers and appointees, holding back what they really wanted to say.

It kind of makes you wonder what "news" might have come up behind closed doors for all those years where they didn't have to watch what they were saying. But then again current councilmembers are new at this "conducting the public’s' business in public" stuff, especially when it comes to having to interact with those who have seen the corruption of the Carvalho administration up close and personal and then allowing them to discuss it on TV.

---------

(Sorry for any flubs today- our editor's computer is down.)

MEET THE NEW BOSS

MEET THE NEW BOSS: The Charter Commission continues its work without much public oversight except when they bring their work before the county council to ask permission to do it- a very strange obsession since the council can put charter amendments on the ballot all on their lonesome.

But it hasn't escaped our attention that Mayor Bernard Carvalho has been on a crusade to use the commission to consolidate power in the mayor's office.

Using his crony Boards and Commissions chief John Isobe as a cudgel, he has sought amendments to the charter that would take away the appointing power of the few boards and commissions that appoint their respective department directors, such as the Police, Fire, Planning and Civil Service Commissions.

But we've gotta ask why he bothers because he and his predecessors been able to evade the law so successfully for decades.

Case in point? Yesterday's thus far unreported Planning Commission (PC) vote to remove the term "Interim" from the title of now permanent Planning Director (PD) Michael Dahilig.

As many may remember when former PD Ian Costa went up in flames amidst an FBI investigation, Dahilig was whisked from the county attorney's office and dispatched to the top planning spot by Carvalho amidst much hoopla over the usurping of the commission's prerogative to appoint their own director.

Of course the same thing had happened when Costa himself was installed over a decade ago when former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka installed then acting County Engineer Costa with only a pro-forma vote by the commission.

This time however many thought the opportunity to initiate a search for a real live professional with experience might be in store, maybe even one that would be a good fit for the island's controlled growth paradigm, as demanded by voters, who approved the charter amendment to put some teeth into the general plan growth numbers in 2008.

But a search of the last six months of PC agendas shows only regular executive sessions to evaluate Dahilig and nothing whatsoever dealing with any search.

So it shouldn’t have been any surprise when this week's PC meeting agenda came out and the first item of business was the "(a)ppointment of the Planning Director pursuant to Section 14.04 of the Charter of the County of Kaua'i."

And since there had been no search, no one could be surprised when Carvalho's hand picked PD Dahilig was permanently installed in the planning department’s top job.

Well, there has never, in our memory, been a planning director actually appointed by the PC without having been hand selected by the mayor, so why start now?

PAY THE LADY

PAY THE LADY: Kaua`i County Council meetings are generally political exercises with long-winded, often well-deserved finger pointing at a stumble-bum mayor and his ever expanding cadre of appointed dimwitted cronies being the rule rather than the exception.

So it was no surprise that the subject of paying them all resulted in a few of the wilder politically-tinged sessions, with each councilmember unable to agree with any of the others on what the biggest issue was but all agreeing there's something rotten in the state of Lihu`e.

We've yet to view yesterday's finale to the latest chapter in the continuing saga regarding the most recent Salary Commission resolution where it was allowed to become law, if (always a big if) the local newspaper article is to be believed.

But anyone who has paid attention over the years knows that the debacle of political gamesmanship in every nook and cranny of Kaua`i government is the result of an ironic and iconic self-lit exploding cigar.

The subject of any legislative body's salaries is always a touchy subject. Kaua`i was no different and decades back the Salary Commission (SC) was created to take some of the pressure off the council so they could get a raise without really proposing one.

The only problem was that even with a recommendation from the SC, the council still had to ultimately vote to raise their own salaries. They tried some tinkering over the years, once to change the county charter to make any raise take effect only after the next election. But that didn't do any good because everyone knew that the incumbents were reelected over and over.

So throughout the 90's and into the 2000's, the council's, the mayor's and all other appointed officials' salaries remained the same because the council couldn’t stand the political heat associated with raising them. The council's salary for what was turning into a full time job as the island grew, was stuck at $28,000 and $32,000 for the chair. Some of their clerks were getting almost twice that.

It got to the point where civil service workers in many departments were getting paid a lot more than the department heads. In one case the salary for the County Engineer- the head of the Public Works Department- was so low he quit to take a civil service job in the behemoth department, leaving the job open for many years because no one who was qualified would take it.

Finally a solution was proposed. In an "experiment to take the politics out of the process," as it was called, the SC resolution wasn't advisory any more but would automatically take effect unless five or more members of the council voted stop it.

But really it was just an illusory change and although the smoke and mirror machines were fully engaged, people saw- or at least the council assumed the people saw, which is the same thing- that the council was still, in essence, in charge of either accepting or rejecting their own raises.

Though the first few raises went through with minimal grumbling because voters accepted the "salary inversion" excuse cited above, no one foresaw that the exponentially ballooning pay raises contained in the multiple-year resolutions would become outrageous when things like "furlough Fridays" and 5% pay cuts came about after the bottom fell out of the free enterprise system.

All of a sudden the whole process had to be reversed and the council was faced with a "yes means no and no means yes" situation where allowing the current resolution to pass would actually be giving out pay cuts and voting to reject the reso would allow raises to go into effect.

That's where the incompetence of the local newspaper comes in because none of the council members trusted reporter Leo Azambuja to correctly report the story so each councilmember, with visions of "Council Votes For Pay Raise Resolution" headlines, came up with his or her own excuse for why they were voting against the reso.

Some cited the March 15 date in the charter by which the resolution "shall" be forwarded to the council. One cited the apparent ethical violation allowing Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe to write the actual resolution lowering everyone's salary but giving himself a raise. Another claimed that the mayor directed the whole thing, charging impropriety through interference with the supposedly independent SC. Still another complained about the fact that the budget didn’t reflect the resolution even though the amounts were actually less than the salaries appropriated in the budget.

It got so wild that, in an unprecedented move, County Attorney Al Castillo took the hot seat and gave off-the-cuff verbal legal advice, trying to placate councilmembers' various phoney finaglings, with often conflicting and confusing opinions... made all the more perplexing when Castillo's deputy Mona Clarke sat in and gave even more advice, much of which was at odds with Castillo's counsel.

It's no wonder that the the council couldn’t even actively decide to "receive" the reso, essentially killing it and had to kill it via a reported tie vote which had the same effect of receiving it but without the full set of fingerprints.

Meanwhile any changes to Article XXIX of the charter regarding the Salary Commission isn't even on the radar screen of the Charter Commission which is contemplating asking voters once again to remove the prohibition on board and commission members from asking for money, favors and otherwise lobbying the council, planning commission and other boards and commissions... even though the same amendment was soundly rejected in 2010.

If campaign money is the mother's milk of politics then the actual salaries of elected officials is the meat and potatoes. But either way there's bound to a nice buffet spread to enable the expected politically-motivated food fight when next year's salary resolution hits the council floor.

BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH

BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH: Reading the local newspaper for information is normally like drinking diet soda looking for nutrition. And when it comes to government beat reporter Leo Azambuja's dispatches, it's often as if someone slipped a Mickey in your drink.

But if a particularly complicated discussion takes place in the council chambers, readers will probably wind up with a can of dehydrated water.

Such was our little buddy's report on the Salary Commission resolution being considered by the council last Wednesday, mostly because the very basic prerequisite facts for understanding what happened were either missing, mentioned without any context or explanation, or placed at the very end of the article.

One such missing fact is that the way salaries for appointed and elected officials are designated in the Kaua`i County Charter is that our Salary Commission set "caps" for the amount and then the appointing authority in each case designates the actual salaries. And, most importantly, the council must actively reject the resolution from the commission with at least five votes or it is automatically deemed to have been passed.

Those few words might have made the article intelligible but the "automatic passage" fact was missing in action and the words "appointing authority" not only appear 1022 words into a 1330 word piece but just kind of float there like a bug in our aforementioned soft drink.

But really that's beside the point because the real news from the meeting- what should have been the "lede"- could be summed up in the headline: Rapozo Levels Ethics Charges Against Isobe In Pay Raise Flap.

In all fairness this is what did appear 217 words before the end of the article:

Rapozo said it was ironic that the person who crafted the resolution, Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe, was the only county official who would get a pay raise if the new resolution is approved. Isobe’s position is not listed in the new resolution.

Ironic? How about corrupt.

Rapozo actually detailed how, according to salary commission documents and minutes, the salary commission, under Chair Charley King of King Auto Center, decided to allow Isobe to draft the actual resolution to be sent to the council, supposedly freezing many executive salaries at a lower level than had been contained in the previous resolution.

But when the final reso showed up before the council the only one whose salary cap was actually raised rather than lowered was Isobe's.

But it got worse. In trying to deny that any funny business took place, Council Chair Jay Furfaro took the tactic of defending, not Isobe but King, saying his integrity was essentially beyond reproach.

But if Charley is cast in the role of Caesar's wife then Leo is a competent journalist.

King has been a chief Republican leader and fundraiser for decades on Kaua`i and was widely thought to be the most influential person in the administrations of former Mayors Maryanne Kusaka and Bryan Baptiste.

As to King's "ethics" one example that sticks in out mind is "Big Red Chrysler-gate."

Kusaka was known to like "nice things." When she first got elected she was discovered to be selling jewelry to people seeking favors from her- right out of her office- in order to support her own expensive habit.

But one thing she didn't have was a nice big luxury car. So when she showed up driving a big red top-of-the-line Chrysler New Yorker people started to ask questions.

Well it seems that when Kusaka took office she had suckered the council into what was called "program based budgeting." The conflicts with the prior council and then Mayor, now Councilmember, JoAnn Yukimura, were legendary. So, in those post-Rodney King "why can't we all just get along" days, she brought in Steven Covey of the infamous "7 Habits of Highly Manipulative Jerkwads" or something like that and held love fests with the legislators.

In a gesture of this spirit of Kumbaya, the council eliminated "line-item" budgeting- where every expenditure is specifically appropriated by the council- to this "program based" system where the council essentially threw a big old heap of money at each department with little or no accountability for what it was spent on.

And one of the biggest mounds of moolah was that for the mayor's office which included not only her staff's expenses and salaries but those of most of the "agencies" that aren't created by the county charter.

So, with what amounted to her own multi-million-dollar slush fund, rather than buy her own car and charge the county for official uses, Kusaka didn't just get the county to buy the car but actually leased the Chrysler at multiples of what the purchase would have cost taxpayers.

And who did she lease it from? Why of course her chief adviser and campaign contributor and bundler Charley King who also made out pretty well on the exorbitant terms of the lease.

And of course it was almost impossible to actually figure all this out because there was no real record of it- or at last none that were reported to the council which is the body responsible for overseeing the purse strings of the county. It took some loose lips in the administration and a bit of investigative work by Honolulu Star-Bulletin Bureau Chief Anthony Sommer- the author of KPD Blue (see left rail)- to break the story to the "shocked-shocked" councilmembers who promptly went back to line-item budgeting... at their earliest possible convenience.

We have to admit that the funniest part of all of this was Furfaro's Shakespearean "but Charley is an honorable man" routine. But the tragedy just may be that the Friends, Romans and Countrymen on the Ethics Board- overseen by (drum roll, please) John Isobe- will not probably be lending their ears to anything.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE

NOTHING TO SEE HERE: One thing that rampant county cronyism creates is a bunch of well-connected board and commission members whose qualifications are often as dubious as their conscientiousness.

When Charter Commission Chair Sherman Shiraishi showed up at last Wednesday's Council Committee of the Whole meeting to request the council's input on a "proposal to establish a permanent Charter Review Commission," it was the council that seemed befuddled as to why the commission is sitting for 10 years in the first place.

Seems that when the 2007-8 commission was empaneled for the then-usual "once every 10 years" assemblage there were so many proposals for changes to the charter that they had to limit the number that made it to the ballot to 15 from as many as 50 at one point, just so as not to overwhelm voters.

And that was without even touching the whole "county manager" mess or the apparent need for a slew of housekeeping changes.

As the session began a letter from Mayor Bernard Carvalho to the commission and council was produced raising the question as to why, if the commission was good to go until 2018, it was necessary to make it permanent now.

Well that was enough for Shiraishi to take his cue and all of a sudden, after months of charter commission meetings and weeks of council deferrals until Shiraishi could come to address the council, he instantly decided he agreed with the mayor after all.

Nope- no cronyism here... just good old independent thought.

But since Shiraishi and Board and Commissions Director John Isobe were there anyway the councilmembers decided to air some gripes about the charter and past amendments- whether they had any idea what they were talking about or not.

First up was Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who has a special black place in her heart for the ease with which citizen's can petition for a charter amendment- a 5% of registered voters threshold. That came about after she initiated and led the court fight- where the county sued the county- against the "Proposition 13" style property tax amendment that passed overwhelmingly in the early 2000's, only to be overturned by the Hawai`i Supreme Court in a confused ruling that no one really understood.

She and others maintain that a county's charter is "like the federal or state constitutions" in that it should be hard to change since it is a guiding document. But the difference is that while the federal and state constitutions grant rights to citizens and delineate powers, local charters merely take the powers left over and delineate the structure of the legislative and executive branches and list the various departments, board and commissions and the like, describing their functions- nuts and bolts measures that occasionally need revision due to changes in the needs of the community.

But that's a philosophical matter that can be argued either way. What wasn't was Yukimura's bemoaning of the fact that the people of Kaua`i "still need education" after they rejected changes to the infamous anti-cronyism section 20.02(D) of the charter which prohibits members of boards and commissions from "(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency."

It's a simple measure that stops perceptions of conflicts of interest before they start so that the "one hand washes the other" style of governance can be nipped in the bud.

It seems the charter commission has recently lost three of its members because they routinely represented clients before the council and planning commission and even though there are only a handful of such good old boys and girls on the island they have populated boards and commissions in droves. The county tried to ignore the provision for years even appointing conflicted individuals to the Ethics Board to rule for allowing the practice.

But when they finally tried to change the charter the voters rejected it and the Ethics Board was left with no other choice to finally issue an opinion enforcing the charter.

Of course there were nods of agreement around the council table as well as from Shiraishi and Isobe that indeed it is the voters who "don't get it."

Despite the need for things like reform of the county attorney section (we're the only island without a "corporation counsel") and a the transformation of the Department of Personnel Services into a modern Department Human Resources (another example of changing times leading to the need for changes to the charter) as well as a slew of needed housekeeping changes (like removing all the references to "he") councilmembers insist on the commission asking voters the same questions over and over (like four year council terms) even when they've been answered again and again... resoundingly.

Once again the trophy for the most dunderheaded performance of the day had to go to- who else- Chair Jay Furfaro.

Recently the council discovered that the Cost Control Commission (CCC) was taking the powers the charter gave them seriously, such as requiring the administration to submit bills to the council to carry out their recommendations within 30 days of their request. But despite the charter requirement, the administration had simply ignored three such requests in 2009.

That apparently got Furfaro looking through CCC documents where he noticed that they were discussing possible changes to the real property tax laws- something that Furfaro rarely fails to tell the public, whether it's on the agenda or not, that he is working on reforming.

Like a lion building up from a growl to a roar, Furfaro essentially asked what the heck the CCC was doing butting into the council's kuleana finally reading Section 3.10 from the charter:

Annual Budget and Capital Program. The council shall enact an annual budget ordinance, which shall include both the operational and capital expenditures for the fiscal year and the method of financing same. The council shall provide sufficient revenues to assure a balanced budget (emphasis his).

The council is in charge of property taxes, he bellowed, not the cost control commission.

Apparently Furfaro failed to read the charter's Section 28, regarding the CCC. Isobe, left with no choice but to defend the CCC- and so himself as the person in charge- then read 28.04 aloud:

The commission shall review personnel costs, real property taxes (emphasis added), travel budgets, contract procedures; review with the aim of eliminating programs and services available or more efficiently supplied by other governments or organizations; eliminate or consolidate overlapping or duplicate programs and services; scrutinize for reduction any county operation.

Furfaro hemmed and hawed and with a Ralph Kramden "hahmana-hamamana" quickly changed the subject but we were laughing too hard to hear what he said next.

What wasn't surprising at all was how quickly Shiraishi changed from the need for a perpetual charter commission to saying that there was barely any work to do as soon as the mayor told him what to think- and how fast the council agreed.

Because after all what's the good of being able to nominate and confirm a select set of yes men and women to board and commissions if they start to tell you no?

STRIKING DEEP

STRIKING DEEP: Kaua`i has been called “The Garden Island”, “The Separate Kingdom” and a lot of other things but with the strict controls brought on by Mayor Bernard Carvalho and his insular “team” after last November’s election the name “The Paranoiac Secrecy Island” has become the more appropriate moniker.

Carvalho’s county employees- the same ones who be abused with politcally motivated unnecessary furloughs- are now under a gag edict that forbids them from speaking to the media or anyone likely to repeat what they say in a public way, according to numerous county employees.

But while Carvalho and his PR mastermind Beth Tokioka have the ability to control employees under threat of losing their jobs- despite their civil service employment- there’s a whole other set of county functionaries that have less to lose by acting on their own and actually doing their job competently rather than whatever way the administration directs them to act.

The scores of board and commission (B&C) members are usually a pretty compliant lot having been selected more often for their cronyism than their expertise. But there’s always a few, eh?...

Since their meetings are open to the public and their minutes are either available on-line now or will be very soon, what they say may not be what the administration wants the public to hear.

So it shouldn’t be any surprise that B&C Administrator John Isobe has come up with a plan to make sure that those “few” will receive the proper indoctrination to ensure that any and all things said or done are subject to the proper PR filter.

That’s why Isobe is seeking to procure- albeit in as secretive manner as possible- a “person to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai” at an estimated Cost of $15,000.00 - $ 30,000.00 a year with the ability to extend the contract.

First of all we have to ask the question, “isn’t that Isobe’s job?” And where exactly is the money coming from? Isn’t it a line item in the county budget?

Those will have to be asked rhetorically for now. The bigger concern is how the PR person will be selected- and controlled.

As the document we obtained this week says in it’s “Description of proposed procurement”:

The Office of Boards and Commissions anticipates the need to select a person or firm qualified to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai. The objectives of this effort are to:

• Provide general public relations support and assistance to County Boards and Commissions;

• Assist and facilitate public educational efforts as any be required related to specific issues or topics under consideration by the various Boards and Commissions;

• Directly advise board and staff members with tips and talking points needed to enhance communication and relationship skills to factually, diplomatically and courteously address public concerns and issues that are brought before a Board or Commission;

• Develop and implement a public relations program that will improve awareness. Knowledge and perception about the service and value that Boards and Commissions provide to the County;

Interested person or firms should have at least five (5) years of combined experience in public relations on the island of Kaua`i that demonstrate knowledge about the pros & cons of current government and community issues. Desirable qualifications also include previous work experience directly related to the State of County government.

But even with the restrictive way the qualifications are written there are dozens of PR firms out there and if the contract was indeed subject to normal procurement it would have to be widely advertised and the person selected based on the best qualifications and price quote.

Obviously that won’t do- they need someone who will teach them to shut up, not to actually speak to the public and press.

So Isobe has received a waiver from the procurement process because, as Isobe writes in his “Explanation describing how procurement by competitive means is either not practical or not advantageous to the County”:

Public Relations is more an "art" than a "science". The creativity, resourcefulness, background experience, and work ethic/style of an individual or the firm are important in ensuring a good working foundation and relationship.

A negotiated process provides the venue for Q&A to properly evaluate and select the most appropriate and qualified person/firm to meet the objectives and scope for an effective public relations program effort.

But even without proper procurement processes how can Isobe make sure the person selected is a true crony who will do as he or she is told?

In the “Details of the process or procedures to be followed in determining or developing at a list of eligible persons/entities, and in selecting the vendor to ensure maximum fair and open competition” it says:

A solicitation requesting resumes from qualified persons or firms interested in undertaking this work will be advertised in a local newspaper(s) of general circulation and posted on the website (htto://www.spo.hawaii.gov).

Resumes will then be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation committee consisting of three (3) members. Immediately thereafter, a three (3) member committee will negotiate the terms and conditions for a contract with the top ranked respondent.

And who might the three people be?

Why of course Isobe and two other mayoral appointees who work directly out of the office of the mayor and can be fired on the spot by the mayor: ADA Coordinator, Christina Pilkington and Anti-Drug Coordinator, Theresa Koki.

As the wall between the public and Carvalho’s minions gets higher and higher we can expect that this is just the beginning of an era of darkness and obfuscation that few could have imagined could have gotten much more opaque before last November.

For those seeking information from the county it’s going to be a long four years.

(PNN) MAYOR WITHDRAWS LIQUOR COMMISSION NOMINATION AFTER WATCHDOG CHALLENGE

MAYOR WITHDRAWS LIQUOR COMMISSION NOMINATION AFTER WATCHDOG CHALLENGE

(PNN) -- Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s nomination of Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission has been withdrawn after the county attorney’s office told the administration that “it would be prudent to withdraw this nomination to avoid any potential conflicts given the fact that part of Costco's merchandising includes alcoholic beverages.” according to a letter to councilmembers from Board and Commission administrator John Isobe.

As PNN reported last month Ms. Yamamoto’s job at Costco would make her ineligible to serve due to the plain language of the county charter which prohibits anyone “who is or becomes engaged, or is directly or indirectly interested in any business for the manufacture or sale of liquor”.

Council watchdog Rob Abrew who discovered the conflict of interest obtained the letter only after the council voted to receive the resolution that would have confirmed Yamamoto.

At first the administration tried to go forward with the nomination claiming that since Yamamoto didn’t deal directly with liquor in her job duties she was exempt from following the law.

Abrew persisted in trying to get answers from the council as to what happened in the interim during his public testimony and finally was told of the letter. Then, during a recess Abrew said was chided by an angry Councilperson Jay Furfaro for exposing the matter to on-camera public scrutiny.

Abrew discovered the conflict of interest after a successful battle earlier this year to obtain the applications of prospective board and commission members when their names are put before the council, a practice that the Office of Information Practices (OIP) required in a previous opinion.

Abrew still has an outstanding case with the OIP after filing a complaint earlier this year due to what he says was stonewalling and intentional delays by the council in following the sunshine law.

For PNN’s prior coverage of Abrew’s attempts to bring sunshine to the board and commission nomination process see:

Friday, January 8, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS

Monday, January 11, 2010 (PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGING

Monday, January 25, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST

Friday, February 19, 2010 (PNN) ABREW SUCCEEDS IN OBTAINING PROSPECTIVE B&C MEMBERS’ APPLICATIONS

Monday, March 22, 2010
(PNN) CARVALHO, ISOBE VIOLATE CHARTER IN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION APPOINTMENT, APPLICATION REVEALS

The following is the full text of the letter from the county attorney

----

(To) Honorable Kaipo Asing, Council Chairperson; Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Vice Chairperson
(From) Mr. John Isobe, Executive Assistant to the Mayor

April 12, 2010

Withdrawal of Appointment to Liquor Commission

This responds to your request for clarification regarding a possible conflict of interest on the appointment of Ms. Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission based on her employment at Costco, who is a retailer of liquor.

This matter was referred to the County Attorney's Office for review and opinion along with Ms. Yamamoto's job responsibilities none of which include a reference to the manufacture or sale of liquor. Although the County Attorney's Office did not provide a definitive answer, they have advised that it would be prudent to withdraw this nomination to avoid any potential conflicts given the fact that part of Costco's merchandising includes alcoholic beverages.

For this reason, we are hereby withdrawing the appointment of Ms. Heidy Yamamoto to the Liquor Commission.

Please be informed that we have advised Ms. Yamamoto about this possible conflict and she is in agreement with this course of action.

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.

(PNN) CARVALHO, ISOBE VIOLATE CHARTER IN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION APPOINTMENT, APPLICATION REVEALS

CARVALHO, ISOBE VIOLATE CHARTER IN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION APPOINTMENT, APPLICATION REVEALS

(PNN) -- When Rob Abrew first started his campaign to force the council to provide the public with the actual applications filed by prospective board and commission members and do so in a timely manner he suspected he might be opening a can of worms.

This past Wednesday his suspicions- that the lack of sunshine might be covering up at best incompetence and at worst malfeasance on the part of Mayor Bernard Carvalho and Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe- were confirmed when he examined one of the two applications submitted by people seeking council confirmation for their appointments.

Despite the fact that Heidy Huddy-Yamamoto’s application for appointment to the Liquor Control Commission clearly states she works for Costco- an establishment that sells liquor- the fact that her membership on the commission would clearly violate the county charter, Carvalho and Isobe didn’t seem to mind.

In article 16 section 3, Disqualifications of Liquor Control Commissioners, the county charter states:

No person shall be a member or the liquor control commission who is or becomes engaged, or is directly or indirectly interested in any business for the manufacture or sale of liquor... This provision shall be enforced by the mayor by the removal of the disqualified member whenever such disqualifications shall appear.

Abrew has been successful in not only making the applications available to the public but in causing Isobe to make changes to the application forms to make sure that they include all information required by the charter including a question as to political party affiliation so as to confirms that only “a bare majority” of members of any one party sit on any individual board or commission.

But while Abrew confirms that all the latest applications do ask that question the county still has no process for ascertaining the validity of information provided with the various political parties.

When he brought the subject up at the March 3 council meeting- the first for which the applications were made available- Councilmember Tim Bynum, who has supported Abrew in his efforts, told Abrew that he had confidence that the administration would be doing their job as far as confirming the information provided and presumably checking on the legality of each appointment.

However the very next meeting on March 17 the violation of the charter presented on Yamamoto’s application was either missed or ignored by Carvalho, Isobe and apparently the council itself which, after Abrew’s testimony, deferred the resolution confirming Yamamoto’s nomination pending an interview.

Abrew thinks the action may be a violation of the code of ethics since it is a violation of both Carvalho’s and Isobe’s oath of office in which they swear to uphold the county charter.

He also wonders how many other board and commission member’s appointments have violated the charter and/or ordinances since not only are the past applications unavailable but this seems to confirm that the administration may not even be reading them much less verifying the information contained.

Abrew says that some of the applications he has seen so far have been incomplete with many unanswered “blanks” including under “employment” which might also reveal conflicts-of-interest in violation of the provisions of the code of ethics contained in the charter and county code.

For background see previous PNN news stories:

Friday, January 8, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS Monday, January 11, 2010 (PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGING

Monday, January 25, 2010 (PNN) COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST
Friday, February 19, 2010 (PNN) ABREW SUCCEEDS IN OBTAINING PROSPECTIVE B&C MEMBERS’ APPLICATIONS

EVEN MORE ‘WANTED'

EVEN MORE ‘WANTED’: When it comes to playing kissy face in covering the police and courts beat for the local newspaper “reporter” Paul Curtis is a champ with his ceaseless publication of the “Kaua`i “Most Wanted” list and write-ups for every award and commendation given at the monthly police commission (PC) meetings.

But when it comes to covering controversies that come up at the meetings Curtis’ coverage is, shall we say, strangely absent.

You’d never know it if you read the local newspaper but if you watch the government channel you know that during February’s PC meeting Mayor Carvalho’s power grab- formerly covered in January by Curtis in his usual sycophantic style- caused conniption fits on the part of at least two commissioners.

To be fair the quest to allow counties to change their charters to allow the mayors of each island to appoint their respective police chief and others department heads currently hired by boards and commissions has been requested not just by Kaua`i Mayor Bernard Carvalho but by the Hawai`i Council of Mayors- a four person group that includes all the counties’ chief executives.

Right now a state law HRS 52D requires police chiefs be appointed by citizen police commissions. But, using the seemingly phony excuse of “home rule”, Administrative Assistant Gary Heu and Board and Commission Administrator John Isobe have been pushing Senate Bill SB2177 and it’s companion House Bill HB 2016 which would allow the counties to change their charters with a vote of the people.

But when Commissioner Leon Gonsalves- the controversial commissioner who authored the “Hop Sing” email that began the political purge of former Chief KC Lum and was attending his last meeting due to term limits- got wind of it he apparently authored a scathing letter criticizing the plan and defending his now former fiefdom.

He placed the letter on the PC agenda for discussion and vetting by fellow commissioners and that brought Heu and Isobe to the meeting to defend the plan.

But it was another controversial commissioner, homophobic, former marine “Pastor Tom” Iannucci, who started off the critique accusing the administration of “entering scary territory”.

“I support my mayor” Iannucci told the assembled and TV audience in a theme he repeated at every criticism of the plan. “I just worry about what comes after him”.

Saying the police commission “should be a buffer for the people to keep politics out of pubic safety” he wondered what would happen “if we get an ‘old boy’, corrupt mayor” in the future as, he said, has happened in the past although he mentioned no names.

Failing to see the irony of his praise of Carvalho’s administration while addressing to two of the mayor’s chief ‘old boy’ operatives, Heu and Isobe, he told of how when he joined the commission he found out about how procedures called for a list of prospective KPD employees- including officers- to go to the mayor for approval. a violation of civil service law.

Iannucci began his stint on the commission during the Baptiste Administration and seemed unaware that the practice continues today according to many county employees.

“That’s the way it used to be” he said complaining how it wasn’t just the idea of the change he objected to but the way the administration was trying to flim flam the commission into “approval” of it by claiming all they wanted to do was change the state law “for now” when everyone knew and the administration admitted that this was done in order to ultimately take the hiring and firing of the chief out of the hands of the police commission.

Gonsalves, whose letter wasn’t available on the county web site, said he completely agrees with Iannucci who had cited Gonsalves letter in his rant.

“Leave it alone- don’t play with it” said Gonsalves chiding Heu and Isobe by saying they “should have approached the commissions first” and discussed it before the legislative push to change the state law, not after.

“There’s a reason it’s set up that way” he said noting that the set-up goes “back to the 40’s”.

Chief Darryl Perry agreed saying “my fear down the line (is that) things may change for the worse” adding that “ we do investigations from parking citations to the top of government.

“This process may be compromised if one person has the power over this department.”

Nowhere was a discussion of how civilian control over our paramilitary police should be the norm and that taking the politics out of police departments is the norm across the country, not the other way around.

They also failed to mention the incidents during Mayor Maryanne Kusaka’s administration when she tried to personally fire Chief George Freitas for not protecting her “people” until she was informed that only the police commission could do that. Eventually Freitas sued and got a hefty “retirement package” in exchange for dropping his suit.

Strangely enough after discussion of the “good governance” item was over- without approval or disapproval or any vote on disposition- the commission discussed whether and how they could stop the televising of police commission meetings with Iannucci saying "commissioners (are) making statements that shouldn’t go out” to the public and seemingly unaware of the sunshine law which requires open meetings.

Iannucci used the excuse of how money was tight to call for an end to televised commission meetings right before the commission went on to the subject of how many commissioners they could send to the next junket to attend a state police commissioners’ meeting on the Big Island.

We just thought that if you don’t watch the meetings on TV you might want to know about this stuff since we don’t expect Curtis will be publishing anything controversial regarding the commission or department- or the administration for that matter- any time soon.

(PNN) COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST

COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST

(PNN)The county council continued to flout county charter provisions and state open meeting and records laws last Wednesday in approving two more board and commission (B&C) members despite a request for deferral by Councilperson Lani Kawahara.

Kawahara said that the Office of Board and Commissions (OBC) is currently working on a process for releasing properly redacted applications of prospective B&C members awaiting confirmation but Chair Kaipo Asing refused to allow her to make a motion to defer approval until they can be made available to the public before confirmation as the Office of Information Practices (OIP) has required.

Despite detailed testimony to the contrary from Rob Abrew who has been championing the issue for the past month County Attorney Al Castillo told the council there was no problem with the process and they could go ahead and vote on the confirmations, saying the OIP “are not necessarily right all the time” citing recent court cases won by the county against the OIP.

The OIP is charged by the state with oversight of the state’s open meeting (HRS 92 Section I) and records (HRS 92F) laws.

Kawahara asked Castillo “do you believe we’ve done due diligence in providing the public the information that’s supposed to be made public within a reasonable amount of time... so the public can comment (on nominees)?”

In response Castillo continually referenced “these fine people” awaiting confirmation saying to Kawahara that no violation of law has occurred and that “nothing should give you pause to question the process”.

Agreeing that all the applicants are all “fine people” Kawahara said that wasn’t the point of questioning the process for confirming the almost two dozen applicants that have been recently processed.

“I don’t have any confidence that the public was able to get information they would have needed to make comments on those nominees” she said.

Kawahara did however leave some hope that when the final two nominees come up for confirmation in two weeks the information might be forthcoming saying “I’ve worked with the offices involved (to assure) that this procedure is much clearer in the future.

“I was requesting that we would honor what will be going on in the future” she noted adding “Give and take between the (council and the) public is how we make decisions, not in a vacuum”

Councilmember Tim Bynum said he appreciated Abrew’s work on the matter and Kawahara’s follow-up saying that “good questions were raised” and noted that B&C administrator John Isobe “has already responded” and that “going forward we will have a clarified process” for redacting phone numbers and addresses and releasing the rest of the applications to the public when the agenda is published- as OIP told the council to do back in January 2005.

That opinion led the council to move interviews with prospective B&C members out of executive session and into the public purview although they still refuse to televise those interviews.

Abrew had requested the information contained in the applications - including employment, experience and potential conflicts of interest- in writing on Jan. 12 but had not received a written response as of this morning, well exceeding the 10 day window for response to a record request under the state law.

The matter was brought to light by Abrew after noting that county charter provisions require that no B&C have more than a “bare majority” of members of any particular political party.

It is still unknown if the new process will include that information and how those memberships- or lack thereof- will be confirmed with the parties.

For more background information see previous PNN reports:

Monday, January 11, 2010(PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGINGFriday, January 8, 2010(PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS

...GANG AFT AGLEY

...GANG AFT AGLEY: The dysfunctionality of the corrupt crony-riddled board and commission (B&C) system on Kaua`i is not a new issue.

Prior to 2004 members were like babes in the woods, usually flung into their positions with no idea what they were supposed to do, getting on-the-job training confined to whatever dysfunctionality the current members had adopted from their predecessors.

They were selected via a closed secretive process by the mayor and interviewed in secret by the county council before an open confirmation with the public receiving little more than the name of the prospective appointees.

Most didn’t know the sunshine law from a hole in the ground and were surprised to find out they needed agendas- much less ones published and posted six days in advance- to meet and that the public was not just allowed to attend but were to be given the opportunity to testify regarding any and all agenda items.

It was so bad that the charter review commission (CRC) of that year decided that a skilled administrator and staff was needed to bring some cohesion and sunshine to the system.

But under B&C Administrator John Isobe most observers agree that if anything the lack of transparency and independence of members has gone from bad to worse with an administrator unskilled in anything but obfuscation and public relations keeping the selection process hidden, documents unreleased or difficult to obtain- one who sees open meetings and public input as a nuisance and foists that attitude on business and development oriented B&C members all too willing to help him do his dirty work for the administration.

The charter amendment- which, along with any and all amendments from the 2006 and 2008 are unavailable at the county web site, even on the non-updated page where the charter appears- was carefully drafted by the CRC to do a few things.

One was to select someone with skills and experience in doing the job.

The amendment on the ballot read:

There shall be a boards and commissions administrator and any necessary staff. The administrator shall have such training, education or experience as shall qualify the administrator to perform the duties described in this section.

Though the qualifications are pretty general it’s hard to see how Isobe meets them. Rather, a look at his past shows him to be a PR flack and himself a crony of the past three administrations.

A UH graduate and “lifelong” Hawai`i resident Isobe first shows up in 1996 as a spokesperson for Princeville corporation during a time of conflict with the homeowners there over various issues.

Though the dates are unclear his first stint with the county was as Deputy Finance Director under the Kusaka administration and was appointed to a state community-based economic development advisory council in 2006.

He was also a member of the infamous Kaua`i Economic Development Board under disgraced head Gary Baldwin who started the business-friendly pro-development board promoting a staunch chamber of commerce agenda until Baldwin left in disgrace after it was revealed that he was a wanted for running a financial scam on the mainland.

Then having proved himself adept at defending large and powerful corporations he held a positions at Kaua`i Community College (KCC) serving as director of the Kauai Rural Development Project where he developed “F.A.R.M... a strategy to bring the Kauai business community together through education” according to the Pacific Business Journal (PBJ) article in 2001.

That led to a job as training coordinator in the Office of Continuing Education and Training at KCC where, rather than offering traditional academic courses, he was part of a push to serve “business organizations, visitor bureau, chamber of commerce and (the) work-force investment board” telling PBJ in 2003 “’We are in constant contact with people in the industry and our courses revolve around their needs’" .

How that constitutes “training, education or experience as shall qualify” him to be B&C Administrator is anyone’s guess. It certainly qualifies him to know all the pro- development cronies in the Chamber of Commerce-KEDB crowd in order to make sure the B&Cs are stacked to reflect and protect their interests.

One of the most important parts of the amendment was what the administrator was supposed to do and the CRC made sure that open governance principles were to be one of the more important functions.

The charter amendment reads in part:

The administrator shall assist in providing administrative and operational support to the various county boards and commissions. Such support shall include, but not be limited to: assisting in the recruitment, orientation, education, and training of board or commission members regarding their powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities under the charter... (and) helping to educate such members about applicable state and county ethics laws and the State Sunshine Law... (emphasis added).

But the words “sunshine law” never appear at the county web site’s B&C page. Instead here’s Isobe’s blurb at the top of the B&C page:

Kauai County's 16 boards and commissions are comprised of 116 volunteer board members and commissioners who oversee and make critical decisions about key County functions and groups. Volunteers who serve on Kauai County boards and commissions are the best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources. They give an extraordinary amount of time to serve in these roles each year and make both personal and professional sacrifices to do so. Because of this and the weight of their responsibilities to our community, they are among Kauai's treasures.

Instead of trying to recruit everyday citizens who have no preconceived notions- and especially no conflicts of interests in “their fields”- rather he seeks to find the “best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources”- a euphemism for well connected people with a lot to lose if they offend the mayor, who can be counted on to “not rock the boat”... also known as his and the mayors cronies, supporters and campaign contributors, which includes Isobe.

Want more proof? Just look at the notice posted for the first B&C training session this year, scheduled for January 29th, on the “Role Of The Board/Commission Member”.

For some incredibly tone deaf reason it is not itself “agendaed” as a government meeting but rather is printed on Kaua`i Chamber of Commerce stationary and is apparently sponsored by the business promotion organization “Leadership Kaua`i”.

Among the topics covered are:

...your duties and responsibilities as a board or commission member, tips on what resources and materials are available (i.e. charter, county and state laws), general provisions of the law, standards of ethical conduct, guidelines on effective communications (and) basic parliamentary procedure.

The importance of transparency, open meetings and records and public testimony are not to be found.

This is exactly the attitude that former Board of Ethics member Rolf Bieber spoke of, especially the attitude among B&C members that they are the elite and know better than the common rabble whose testimony should be tolerated only because it is required by law- a law they are barely aware of.

John Isobe is the exact opposite of what a B&C administrator should be and is a disgrace to democracy and good governance. His resignation and replacement with a trained manager- one experienced in facilitating communication between citizen volunteers and members of the public- can only be a positive for Kaua`i which at deserves to have the charter amendment they passed honored.

---------

We’ve gotta get outta the house tomorrow and Friday. Unless we feel especially ambitious we’ll be back Monday.

UNFAIR TO MIDDLING

UNFAIR TO MIDDLING: We’d been wondering when we’d hear from Rolf Bieber himself telling the long sad story of his public service on the Board of Ethics (BOE) and his abominable treatment by just about everyone in the county administration for trying to do the job he was sworn to do- an unforgivable act on Kaua`i.

Bieber’s letter to the editor in today’s local newspaper cites his saga, chapter and verse, naming names of everyone involved from Mayor Bernard Carvalho to County Attorney Al Castillo, the rest of the BOE members, the members of the county council and assorted king’s-uniform-bedecked bureaucrats and sycophants, all carrying the kings sword.

Bieber writes that his taking of the

oath to preserve the Charter soon aligned me against BOE colleagues, mayoral appointees, the Office of Boards and Commissions (OBC), the County Attorney (CA) and apparently Mayor Carvalho himself, who inexplicably refused to reappoint me to the board for a second term.

But, although the unrivaled plodding cronyism of a politically-tone-deaf Carvalho has set the tone for this administration’s corruption as never before, it could not have been accomplished without Office Boards and Commissions (OBC) administrator John Isobe.

Bieber writes that

Mr. Isobe would on several other occasions try inappropriately to influence me — once, when I requested public documents that could expose members of the administration and commissions he asked that I not share the documents with anyone, and later calling me to meet in his office “to see how things were going” but to actually express his desire for the BOE to reach a “super-majority or unanimous-vote only for release of County Attorney opinions to the public.”

The irony in all this is that it was in fact the same good governance activists that Bieber thanks for their support at the end of the letter who were among those who helped create Isobe’s job.

When the “original” Charter Commission- the one appointed in 2004 under the “every 10 years” provision in the charter- proposed a slew of amendments for the ’06 election, one that all agreed would go a long way toward repairing the apparently broken board and commission system on Kaua`i was the creation of the OBC.

The problems the commission found were due to the lack of guidance from the administration as most newly appointed B&C members were just thrown into their position with no idea what they were doing there.

The thought was that an office of B&Cs would provide the necessary support with training and a one-stop central place for commissioners and board members to go with questions as to how to do their jobs correctly and ethically.

But, as we all find out sooner or later, you can write good legislation and charter provisions until you’re blue in the face but if corrupt-minded individuals dedicated to obedience and cronyism are elected and those elected appoint more of the same to administrative posts there’s little that will work the way it’s supposed to.

Rather than facilitating the B&C members in their quest to uphold their oath Isobe has intervened to make sure they serve the political goals of the mayor.

We can tinker with- or even fully rewrite- the Kaua`i County Charter. But if we continue to elect self-aggrandizing boobs like Carvalho with a “give the new guy a chance” and “how bad could he be” attitude we will, as Bieber says, keep finding out what we knew already... “together we can’t”

One more note- Bieber writes:

In April of 2009, Castillo told me he had meetings with Kauai Circuit Court Judge Randal Valenciano on several occasions concerning 20.02 (D)

Huh? But April of 2009 the controversy over 20.02(D) had been well underway for years with dueling “interpretations” making the matter ripe for an eventual 5th Circuit Court lawsuit.

We certainly deserve an explanation from both Castillo and Valenciano on this apparent breach of ethics.

(PNN) BIEBER TOSSED FROM ETHICS BOARD- SAYS CARVALHO. ISOBE “AFRAID AND ANGRY BECAUSE I DIDN’T DRINK THE KOOL-AID.”

BIEBER TOSSED FROM ETHICS BOARD- SAYS CARVALHO. ISOBE “AFRAID AND ANGRY BECAUSE I DIDN’T DRINK THE KOOL-AID.”

(PNN) -- They say Diogenes’ search for an honest man came up empty because there aren’t any.

Board of Ethics member Rolf Bieber found that out in spades this week. After a year of trying to bring some ethical standards to county government he was unceremoniously dumped from the Board of Ethics (BOE) by Mayor Bernard Carvalho with little or no explanation.

Bieber say that Carvalho cryptically told him via telephone that his application for a full BOE term wouldn’t be approved and when he asked why Carvalho responded with one word: “balance”

“I asked for clarification” Bieber told us in a telephone interview this morning. “Afterall, I feel like I am the balance.”

Bieber has a Monday morning appointment to get further clarification noting Carvalho also claimed “it’s not me”.

But Bieber thinks it’s pretty apparent why his service was rejected- his attempts to get others on the BOE, to enforce county charter provision 20.02(d) which prohibits county officials from appearing on behalf of private interests before county agencies, board and/or commissions- including some who have engaged in such activities

Bieber filed complaints against BOE members Mark Hubbard and Judy Lenthall who had appeared on behalf of Kauai Action and Planning Alliance and the Food Bank respectively, hat in hand, asking for money before the county council saying he felt like that was part of the job of a BOE member.

“I took an oath of office and I honored that oath. Mark and Judy were breaking the law so what was I supposed to do?” Bieber asks.

“If I have to get fired for dong my job under this administration maybe I need to run for office again next November so they can’t fire me.”

Bieber ran unsuccessfully for mayor against Carvalho in the 2008 “special” election after the death of Mayor Bryan Baptiste.

Bieber addressed the supposed “chilling effect” enforcing the charter would have on finding people to fill the volunteer slots on the many B&Cs, as cited by Board and Commissions (B&Cs) Administrator John Isobe and others.

Bieber says that “the concept that they can’t find people to fill these boards and commissions is a myth and I’m a prime example of that.

“People were aware I wanted to continue the work on the BOE. In November I had reapplied at the Boards and Commissions office for BOE and I made public statements that I was seeking a second term.

“Here we have a person who wants to serve, who has no conflicts, who’s being rejected by the administration. They’re saying they can’t find folks without conflicts of interest and I’m one who doesn’t and who wants to continue to serve and they’re rejecting me.”

One of the most controversial issues was what Bieber and fellow BOE member Paul Weil as a "fatally flawed" advisory opinion from current County Attorney Al Castillo and his Deputy Mauna Kea Trask that, despite the fact that it was "advisory" Castillo claimed was binding on the board.

The opinion would use the “Code of Ethic” ordinance to redefine 20.02(d) virtually out of existence, violating supremacy of law principles.

So why does Bieber think he was rejected, to be replaced with another county insider, former Deputy County Attorney Warren Perry who many believe to have been one of the prime behind-the-scenes movers in the firing of ex- Police Chief KC Lum- due to a BOE decision- and the installation of his brother, KPD Chief Darryl Perry, who was “runner-up” when Lum was appointed chief?

“All I can come up with is that they’re afraid and angry because I didn’t drink the Kool-aid.” he says.

Bieber does say though that he is genuinely thankful for his original appointment that came after his endorsement of Carvalho in the waning days of last years election after Bieber was eliminated in the first round.

“I appreciate the opportunity and there’s a lot of work left to be done. I want to continue it but for some reason they don’t want me to.”

As to what specifically he sees as problematic Bieber says “there’s a certain quality of openness that’s missing among many who serve on board and commissions”.
He cites an example of how, when a county worker he knows appeared before the board he felt compelled to disclose his friendship. But when BOE member Lei Fuller, who serves on the YWCA Board, heard Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho’s testimony before the BOE about a budget rearrangements in her department that would be a windfall for the “Y” she failed to note any conflict or even feel any need to disclose any potential or even appearance of a conflict of interest.

“That’s what I’m trying to bring to the BOE- a higher standard of ethics than we have now” he says.

“Hubbard doesn’t even believe in the concept of appearance of a conflict of interest- it’s another example of my ethical standard verses those of some of the other board members”.

Bieber did note that he thinks that, at least partially through his efforts, fellow BOE member Lenthall has apparently seen how the law applies to her and has not sought another term on the BOE so she can continue her work at the Food Bank without any ethical problems.

“I hope that if nothing else I’ve been able to raise these issues and maybe in the future appointments of those with obvious conflicts will be a thing of the past.”

WHERE DO THE HUSKIES GO?

WHERE DO THE HUSKIES GO?: When we first heard that former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber was appointed to the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) and heard he was seeking to clean up this town a la Marshall Dillon our world-weary, seen-it-all, smart-ass response was a decidedly satirical “good luck Chuck”.

So it’s with more than a little surprise that today the local newspaper’s Mike Levine has reported that one of the worst offenders of the charter’s ban on board and commission volunteers appearing before the county government on behalf of private interests while serving on other boards of commissions, Lorna Nishimitsu, has joined one her associates, Jonathan Chun, in resigning her Board of Review position.

It comes on the heels of course of the BOE’s decision to advise former Charter Review Commissioner (CRC) Mattie Yoshioka that she was in violation of the charter, despite a previous opinion clearing Chun who also served on the CRC.

But Nishimitsu- who has cut her teeth defending some of the more scummy developers and landowners for old boy network charter member attorney Walton Hong’s firm before moving on to Graham’s more “respectable” jerkwad-representing law corporation- had an interesting parting shot directed at the weasels on the ethics board that are also themselves in violation but have yet to resign.

After the perfunctory resignation her letter goes on to say:

“On a final note, however, please consider the irony that some of the authors of the Advisory Opinion (who, like myself, have appeared before other boards, commissions, agencies or the Council on matters unrelated to their duties as board or commission members) apparently intend to continue to serve on the Board of Ethics.”

That would be Mark Hubbard. Lei Fuller and Judy Lenthall all of whose stories have been well documented in this space.

Well, better late than never although, as with Chun, it’s a little disconcerting that their “boss” Mike Belles is a former county attorney who, by his silence in allowing them to work on cases before the county council, has also apparently been complicit in allowing the whole back-scratching county system to develop and pervade.

It’s sounding hollower and hollower each time the crony-corralling Office of Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe repeats County Attorney Al Castillo’s handwringing over, as Levine reports, some purported “chilling effect, causing a mass exodus of county volunteers” if the charter were enforced.

Are they implying that the tens of thousands of Kaua`i denizens who are unconflicted aren't “board and commission material”– and that the few hundred well connected revolving door beneficiaries apparently are- simply because they lack a rubber stamp- or more often, can’t be paid off to do the mayor’s bidding with a favorable decision by a fellow beneficiary.

But looking beyond the mucky muck and his campaign supporters would take a mayor who appoints people based on what they know, not who they know, a concept that when suggested to most people causes a short silence before rip-roaring roll-on-the-floor laughter erupts.

(PNN) COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES TO BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED

COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES TO BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED

(PNN)-- Public disclosure of financial information required by state law of certain county officials will now be subject to public review according to a letter to all board and commission members from Executive Assistant and Administrator of the Office of Boards and Commissions, John Isobe.

The Hawai`i State Constitution’s "Code of Ethics” Article XVI states that

financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures.

That has apparently never been the case on Kaua`i where the Board of Ethics (BOE) has for decades routinely received the pubic disclosures in executive session where they have redacted whatever they consider to be sensitive and/or personal and financial information as defined in the Universal Information Practices Act’s (UIPA) section 92F-14(6).

As a matter of fact, the very financial information meant to be reviewed for violations of conflict of interest provisions by the board so they can stop the conflict from occurring appear to be the ones that have been hidden from the public so as not to embarrass those required to file.

According to the County Charter, Article XX, the “mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent” are specifically required to publicly make public financial disclosures. All others may file a confidential disclosure.

According to Isobe’s letter

At its meeting on June 4, 2009, the Board of Ethics received a ruling from the Count (sic) Attorney's Office that all Disclosure Statements required to be filed with the Board are public record and must be released if requested by a member of the public.

When releasing this information, we have been instructed to only remove your personal information such as mailing address and contact phone number. For this reason, please be advised that any financial information will NOT be protected as defined under Section 92F-14(6), Hawaii Revised Statutes. (emphasis not added).

The warning is a apparently stunning admission that previously they were not “released if requested by a member of the public” and “financial information (was) protected”.

Two witnesses independently offered that the color went out of Isobe’s shocked-expression face when the board revealed the change of opinion in open session

According to the state constitution’s Code of Ethics:

financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures... All financial disclosure statements shall include, but not be limited to, sources and amounts of income, business ownership, officer and director positions, ownership of real property, debts, creditor interests in insolvent businesses and the names of persons represented before government agencies.

The practice of not disclosing public disclosures is rooted in the county ordinance and BOE rules, both also called the Code of Ethics, which conflict with the more authoritative county charter and state constitution.

Currently the administrative rules of the BOE say

3.1 WHO TO FILE

All elected and appointed officers and employees, who are elected or appointed by officers elected pursuant to law or by County agencies and who have discretionary, executive or policy making powers and responsibilities shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to Article XX the Code of Ethics

3.2 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Disclosures filed with the Board are confidential and the Board shall not release the contents thereof except as required by law except as provided under HRS 92F-14 (6).

But a new proposed change, based in part on what the county attorney has apparently told the BOE in a June 4 executive session meeting would reverse that 180 degrees and, if passed, the rules would read

RULE 3: DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

3.1 WHO MUST FILE

The mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent (3/12/09) shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to the Code of Ethics

3.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION

Disclosures filed with the Board are public record.

The matter was brought to the attention of the board beginning in March through the efforts of a handful of public watchdogs including Horace Stoessel, Glenn Mickens, Ed Coll, Walter Lewis and, especially Rob Abrew who persisted in researching and presenting the documentation that led to the new policy after BOE member Rolf Briber insisted the board pay attention to the pubic testimony.

Abrew and the others questioned why the disclosure forms were being reviewed in executive session in the first place rather than going having them go straight to public purview.

At first members of the board listed an evolving series of seemingly innocuous reasons for the secrecy, none of which indicated any changes to the substantive financial disclosures were made by the board.

But at the April 4 BOE meeting Bieber brought the matter up and the minutes indicate that what went on in executive sessions on financial disclosures was anything but innocuous.

The minutes say:

Chair (Leila) Fuller explained that the Disclosures are reviewed in Executive Session for the purpose of checking for potential conflict of interest but in those Disclosures are personal financial information that may not want to by mistake open the door for something. After they are approved in Executive Session they become a public document so the public has access to those documents once they are approved but the confidential and private information that should not be public knowledge is redacted when a member of the public requests a copy of the disclosure,

Mr. (Paul) Weil asked if they were not public documents from the beginning, the public has access to them even before we have approved or accepted them. Chair Fuller said they have no reason to be a public document before they are accepted. Mr. Weil asked to be directed to the Code that says they are not public documents until the Board has accepted them. Attorney Clark referenced HRS 92-F 14. Staff noted it was a public document except where provided under HRS 92-F 14 (6) which lists items that would be redacted before anyone looks at them.

This was the first admission by a BOE member that financial disclosures were being changed at all much less to avoid “opening the door” by disclosing too much financial information regarding conflicts of interest.

Resistance has been high to changing the rules, first proposed earlier this year, primarily by Fuller and former Chair Mark Hubbard.

Previously reasons they offered for executive session receipt of the disclosures had included making sure they were “complete” and were not “incorrect” since, they said, filers might not realize what they are filing, despite the fact in fling they are required to notarize an “affidavit”.

The further minutes reflect a desperation to find reasons to resist complete public disclosure of the completed public disclosure forms.

Mr. Bieber said his point at minimum was they have a better relationship with the public regarding this. Chair Fuller asked Mr. Bieber how he proposed (the Board) do that. Mr. Bieber said maybe there was another way they could go over the Disclosures, perhaps a packet with Disclosures in them instead of spending time in the meeting in Executive Session doing that. Chair Fuller cautioned against that because if they were to get the Disclosures in a packet that is just that many more pieces of document that are out in the public in case their briefcase gets lost or misplaced and likened it to a State computer with sensitive information on it that got misplaced or lost.

Reached for comment Bieber, said in an email:

Change in application of Disclosure Law has been long overdue for the County employees and officers of Kauai. The Board of Ethics is finally conforming to State Law properly within its Rules.

I am proud to say this came from the public. I simply moved the Board of Ethics to continue to provide the public hearing arena to maintain open dialog. Ethics agreed.

Substantial credit for this change in important Disclosure Law application goes to the public individuals who testified to bring more sunshine into County government operation, a small yet substantial victory for much needed open government and democracy on Kauai.

According to Abrew, at the June 4 meeting after an executive session on the matter the board returned armed with a new county attorney’s opinion requiring the change in policy although he could not say which whether they met with new County Attorney Al Castillo or one of his deputies.

While the written opinion has not been released as yet, the BOE has been the only board or commission to release a county attorney’s opinion in many years and it could be released at their July meeting.

The public is still awaiting a promised new opinion on the enforcement of the prohibition of board and commission members appearing on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions, as contained in the county charter’s section 20.02(d).

For more information on the BOE read PNN’s three part investigative series Unethical culture- Government service with a personal “touch”

Read Part 1- Bored of Ethics on the Board of Ethics?Read Part 2- The Long and Winding Road to InertiaRead Part 3- Deep Thoughts- A “Handy” Diversion

CHASING ANOTHER TALE

CHASING ANOTHER TALE: This week’s Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) meeting promises to be more of the same- a few hours of attempts to act unethically, cover-up past lapses of ethics by board members and hide everything else they do from the public, along with yet another attempt to strip the county charter’s ethics provisions of it’s conflict-of-interest section.

Testimony by designated BOE watchdog and “nitpicker” Horace Stoessel arrived in our inbox this morning and it’s too important to let it wait for later this week, if only so that perhaps it will motivate some to clear their calendar for this Thursday morning and show up, preferably with pitchforks and torches.

The first thing Stoessel addresses is a little item at the end of the agenda- an “executive session” closed to the public which is listed on the agenda as

ES-3: CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY
Discussion and consultation with the County Attorney regarding the process for releasing County Attorney opinions and is there a need for consistency throughout the County.

Horace wrote:

The primary fact confronting the public for months, now stretching into years, is that county agencies are not releasing opinions even though the authority and responsibility for releasing them resides with client agencies. Indeed, focusing on process and the need for uniformity has served as a prime excuse for not releasing opinions and not holding open discussions.

“Months” is an understatement since the refusal to acknowledge any public function to the office of the county attorney (CA) goes back to the beginning of Mayor Bryan Baptiste’s administration when he appointed Lani Nakazawa to the post and she redefined the job to eliminate any public component and only serve her “clients”- defined as county government officials and personnel.

At first that meant that any release of official written “opinions” had to be through the entity that asked for and got the opinion.

And that was, at first, routinely done.

But with the election of now former Councilmembers Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri Carvalho things changed in most part due to two related matters- an “investigation” of the Kaua`i Police Department the two cooked up and the council approved (but never officially executed after the council used the BOE to purge Police Chief KC Lum) and a matter known as the infamous “ES-177” where Rapozo. a former scandal-plagued KPD officer apparently said way too much behind closed doors about police matters and the then-upcoming investigation.

This led to a full clamp down on public release of all correspondence- even formal opinions on matters of law- from the CA’s office to the council.

Whereas before opinions were either released by the CA or by a councilmember if he or she originally sought it, an informal policy was used to release the opinions only after a “council approval”, where a majority vote was used at least once.

When Councilmember Tim Bynum came on board and tried to get the council to vote on the release of some of these opinions- as most councilmembers publicly promised to do- Chair Kaipo Asing and then member, now Vice Chair, Jay Furfaro claimed that before the vote there had to be a written formal policy for how the vote would be conducted and what percentage the affirmative vote had to be- just a majority, two-thirds or even unanimous.

This little ploy has now become the “de rigor” delaying tactic, not just for the council but for all boards and commissions on the island, This has especially benefited the BOE which has not just withheld opinions but constantly flouted the sunshine and open records laws, even codifying illegal activity in their administrative rules.

But that wasn’t enough of a delaying scheme to stand up forever and now, after a couple of years of playing Alphonse and Gaston the BOE came under pressure to simply enact a policy for the release of CA opinions.

Enter John Isobe, director of boards and commissions, a post created by a charter amendment in 2006 supposedly to oversee and assist commissioners and board members in fulfilling their duties.

Isobe- a long time entrenched member of the revolving-door old boys and girls network- has used his position to make sure that those citizen members did things the way they’ve always done things and not rock the boat.

In service of continuing the delay, Isobe has suggested that an individual board or commission should wait on creating a policy for CA releases until, as the agenda for ES-3 says, the question “is there a need for consistency throughout the County?” is answered.

The agenda promises to rehash an even more absurd but related matter- the attempt by the BOE to gut the county charter of the conflict of interest provisions in Section 20.02(D) of the county charter that prohibits board and commission members from representing private interest before the county, including of course boards and commissions... including the county council.

Seems some of the BOE members are still in blatant conflict of that pesky little provision.

Apparently is wasn’t enough of a rebuke to both the BOE and the charter commission when voters overwhelmingly rejected dropping the charter provision in 2008, because on the agenda this week is this item:

Letter of March 25, 2009 from Charter Review Commission requesting input from the Board of Ethics as to whether Section 20.05 D (2) of the Kaua`i County Charter should be amended and, if yes, suggestions on how it should be amended.

For years the 20.02(D) conflict provisions were just ignored by the well connected who routinely went before the council and county boards and commissions seeking, for example, things like zoning or even grants of money from the council or development projects’ approval permits from the planning commission, while serving on other boards of commissions.

But in 2007-8 a member of the charter commission, former state senator and attorney Jonathan Chun, was routinely appearing before the council representing the Board of Realtors on the vacation rental bill before the council at the time.

Chun then made a fatal error of judgment when he actually asked the BOE for a ruling on whether he was in violation of 20.02(D)

Stoessel’s testimony tells the story from there in what he calls “The Case Of 20.02D”

The issue of the County Attorney opinion related to Jonathan Chun’s request for an advisory opinion has been outstanding for more than a year. It may represent the only time the Board of Ethics has sought a legal opinion before issuing an advisory opinion. It is also interesting that the Board issued an advisory opinion involving similar circumstances just three months previously in which the Board felt no need to ask for a legal opinion or to meet in executive session.

Once the Board emerged from executive session in March, 2008 a motion was made and approved to allow Mr. Chun to continue the activities referenced in his request for an advisory opinion. The motion as approved failed to meet even the minimum test for public disclosure because it cited no statutory basis for the decision, instead making a vague and misleading reference to information in the Code of Ethics and the Charter.

The Board also refused to release the legal opinion it purportedly used to justify its decision. When I asked the Board to justify keeping the opinion secret, the chairman replied, “I do not intend to answer that, Horace. It could be that I don’t know; it could be that I just don’t wish to answer that question.”

But the BOE’s utter refusal to enforce the law- or state why- was only the beginning.

Chun wasn’t the only one engaged in this practice.

In fact then BOE Chair, now Vice Chair Mark “Mother” Hubbard was a vice president at land baron Grove Farm and he and his brethren- many also serving on boards and commissions- routinely made requests from the county council and administrative boards and commissions on behalf of themselves and/or clients.

BOE member Judy Lenthall is the Executive Director of the Kaua`i Food Bank which just received another grant from the county council this year after she appeared before them hat in hand.

Oh and by the way, the BOE has also cleared Furfaro, Asing, Rapozo and other council members from potential conflicts in the past.

So in appreciation for the clean bill of health for Chun’s apparently “dead on arrival” clearance, Chun turned around and, as a member of the charter commission, put a measure on the ballot to just eliminate that pesky 20.02(D) from the charter.

Stoessel’s testimony takes it up from the Chun decision:

In succeeding months the Board encouraged the Charter Commission to offer a charter amendment exempting all county personnel from having to comply with 20.02D rather than exempting only board/commission members. However, the commission restricted the scope of its proposed amendment to board/commission members and the amendment was then rejected by the voters in November, 2008. Their rejection revived questions about the Board’s handling of 20.02D and the March, 2008 legal opinion.

For my part as a responsible member of the public, I am still waiting for the Board to respond directly to the formal argument I offered in February, 2008 in support of basing a response to Jonathan Chun on 20.02D and to additional information I have since cited in support of that argument. The public has been prevented from further commenting directly on the Board’s actions by the Board’s failure to cite a statutory basis for its decision in the Chun case and its refusal to release the legal opinion.

The Board postponed discussion of 20.02D at the March meeting, and seemed to me to indicate that both 20.02D and the March, 2008 opinion would appear on the agenda for April. Did I miss something, or was I justified in being surprised that neither appears on the April agenda?

If it is within the scope of ES-3 (or the last item under BUSINESS), I would like to see the Board vote to release the March, 2008 legal opinion now. Failing that, I ask the Board to place on the May agenda a vote on releasing the opinion and a discussion of 20.02D. In view of the fact that the Board’s last formal statement regarding 20.02D was an expressed desire to exempt all county personnel from having to comply with it, I would like to hear what effect the November vote has had on the thinking of the Board.

So would we. If you’d like to know too go on down there and ask them.

The BOE meeting is at 9:00 A.M. this Thursday, April 9, 2009 in the Liquor Conference Room on the first floor of the Mo`ikeha Building in Lihu`e (the complex where the planning commission meets and where you get your car registered and drivers’ license renewed).