IF TREES FALL ON KAUA`I WILL DEVELOPERS COMPREHENSIVELY ZONE IT?

IF TREES FALL ON KAUA`I WILL DEVELOPERS COMPREHENSIVELY ZONE IT?: The first step in what will arguably be the most important process taken up by the county council in recent memory was taken today after more than 20 years of discussion.

And most likely no one will notice. Or care.

The long delayed "CZO update" passed "first reading" today and will be going to a public hearing soon. But the measure, designed to clarify and simplify zoning on the island will probably do more to confuse and complicate matters than anything else.

According to the purpose statement of the bill (#2433) this "first phase" of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) update is "focusing on organizational and format changes," and said to be "non-substantive" by council staffer Peter Morimoto.

It's 166 pages long... and that's the short version. The full "Ramseyered" version- with underlines and brackets to denote additions and deletions, respectively- is a thick monster of a document which was waved in the air at today's meeting. But since it replaces the entire CZO it has been introduced in the "short" form.

But just wait. The second "substantive bill" will no doubt be even longer and more complicated because it contains all the changes that the council and planning department have been putting off ever since the original CZO was passed in 1972.

Prior to then Kaua`i was "anything goes" when it came to building anything at all, anywhere one desired. That's why you see structures over 40 years old that make you ask "how did they ever allow that to be built?"--not just for the construction itself but for the location.

The 1972 CZO established standards for the first time on Kaua`i and has been amended in dribs and drabs over the years to form what one council member called a "hodgepodge" of a document that has plagued everyone who's tried to use it for decades.

Many "general" amendments were delayed or just blown off because no one knew where to put them or what precisely needed to change. And the ones that did get passed were just stuck in anywhere.

Since the mid 80's, every time the council came up against a problem with the document they would inevitably throw up their hands and say, "well- that's another one for the 'CZO update'." But of course that update never happened- until now.

Former Mayor from 1988-94 and now Council member JoAnn Yukimura told the council at today's "extended" meeting (after yesterday's power outage caused the meeting to be re-convened this morning) that her administration had worked on getting it done. And Council Chair Jay Furfaro said that when he served as Chair of the Planning Commission in 1997 he was promised by the planning department that it would be ready for commission scrutiny "by the end of the year."

Over the past decade-plus the council has appropriated money at least twice (some say three times but who's counting?) to allow the planning department to hire a consultant as the process became longer and more complicated.

That was during the reign of Planning Director Ian Costa whose use of what we've called "the fog" managed to bamboozle the council with promises of "soon" followed by requests for more money, followed by more promises of "soon" and more requests for more money.

Anyway, according to the purpose section of this first "housekeeping" bill:

The County of Kaua`i adopted the first General Plan in 1971 (updated in 1984 and 2000).

Subsequently, the County of Kaua`i adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) in 1972. Since its adoption, the County of Kaua`i has approved several amendments to specific provisions of the CZO. However, the CZO has not been updated in a comprehensive manner since its adoption.

In order to present the CZO update in a more orderly fashion, the CZO Update has been divided into two phases, with the first phase focusing on organizational and format changes. This involves mainly moving or relocating existing provisions to more appropriate locations in the code. The first phase also includes the re-codification of ordinance amendments made to the CZO. The second phase will show the newly reformatted document with recommended substantive changes to the code in a Ramseyered format which will be forthcoming after the first phase has been completed.

Thus, the purpose of this ordinance is to complete the first phase of the CZO update by adopting all organizational, format changes, and to re-codify ordinance amendments made to the CZO to date.

The "second phase" will supposedly contain all the changes that people have sought over the years. But that, in and of itself, is going to be much longer and much, much more complicated.

And of course controversial.

You can count on the fact that developers will want certain measures to be amenable to development while the public interest will be to maintain control over that very development.

The devil will be in the details. With hundreds of pages of old and new provisions all up for grabs you can bet that the monied side will have banks of attorneys scrutinizing each "shall," "will" and "may" for an advantage- that all important "technicality" that will make a judge take notice.

Add to that the recent cap on development that was instituted after a petition-derived charter amendment limited growth to an amount determined in the general plan. And add to that the fact that another general plan update is due to commence any time now with the last one having been completed in 2002 and a charter mandate that they occur once every 10 years.

You can bet that the "development community" will be seeking to water down slow growth and "keep Kaua`i, Kaua`i" forces at bay at every step of the process.

The second phase will not be introduced until this first phase is done according to council staff and the content will come from the planning department where it will go though public hearings and planning commission approval before it eventually reaches the council.

If regular citizens want to participate in that process, the time to organize is not when the bill hits the council floor, but now while there is still time to formulate positions and get ready for those first planning commission hearings.

What the timeline is for all of this is anyone's guess. But those who are concerned about growth on Kaua`i can't start paying attention to this one too soon because there is no doubt the other side is already at work, having waited many years for this "opportunity."

As an aside, the actual text of the bill is available on-line, although apparently council members weren't aware of that today. That's probably because it's not at the council's page at the county web site but as part of the "Granicus" site, which is the company that does the video of the council meetings and where items are both streamed live and archived.

It's also where the "paperwork" accompanying each item on the council's agenda is now being posted.

A couple of weeks ago we wrote about the appearance of this "paperwork" for council agenda items on-line after years of delay- much of the delay, as we said, apparently intentional. At the time we complained that although Granicus was finally posting the material it was not in "text" form but rather as a scanned document.
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/03/now-you-dont-see-it-now-you-still-dont.html

This week, however, many of the documents- including bills, resolutions and other communications- started to appear in text form, allowing the words to be copied and pasted from the document.

That's where the CZO update bill is posted and since the "new" CZO will replace the old one in its entirety, the new one is simply posted in its entirety.

We point this out because the council seemed blissfully unaware of the posting, even through apparently someone on their staff provided Granicus with the documents in the text format.

During the meeting council members kept asking their staff to "scan" and post a copy, seemingly unaware of the fact that it was available to the public in a text format through Granicus, although not in the Ramseyer format. But if Granicus could post the one they have there now, couldn't they also have put up a text-format copy of the Ramseyered document? (Unless the purpose is to cut down thousands of trees to provide paper to print everything out.)

Did anyone ever check to see if Kaipo Asing or Peter Nakamura had stock in either Georgia Pacific or Weyerhauser?

Well, we wouldn't be happy if we didn't have something to complain about.

ROOM AT THE TOP

ROOM AT THE TOP: When former County Clerk Peter Nakamura was fired- or, according to some, quit amidst council executive-session-protected investigations of various and sundry allegations of wrong doing- we didn't really expect to hear anything until the decision on a new clerk was a "done deal."

So when our sources at council services told us that ads were placed in both the local and Honolulu newspapers soliciting applications and that there were a significant number of applicants- even from the mainland- though it was nice to think that there might be a little public scrutiny of the list, we didn't hold out much hope.

And we haven't been disappointed in our pessimism.

The job description of the position of clerk is not just "the council's lackey" even though Nakamura's stint under former Chair Kaipo Asing might have given that impressions. He- or she (yeah- that'll happen)- is also the county's chief elections officer and has numerous other important public duties and responsibilities.

But of course the process- and the names of the applicants- has been a tightly held secret with closed-to-the-public, executive sessions the order of the day for review of those seeking the job.

But given the brouhaha over the release of the judicial appointment list and the Office of Information Practices' (OIP) original stance that the names should have been made public- with which a circuit court judge agreed before the judicial selection committee decided was the best policy on their part after all- we wondered if there might be enough of a public interest in release of the names of county clerk applicants to overcome the privacy concerns in the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), HRS Chapter 92F.

Silly wabbit.

We gave a call to the attorney of the day at OIP and got an interesting if negatory answer. Staff Attorney Carlotta Amerino wrote:

This email responds to your telephone call to the Office of Information Practices (OIP) on November 17, 2011. You explained that the Kauai County Council is in the process of filling a vacant county clerk position and would be meeting on this matter on November 21. You asked whether you may know the names of all the applicants.

The Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), Chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (UIPA) requires generally that government records are available to the public. HRS section 92F-11. However, the UIPA does not require disclosure of records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. HRS section 92F-13(1). Applications for government positions carry significant privacy interests under HRS section 92F-14(b)(4), which, when balanced against the public interest in disclosure, have often outweighed the public interest. See OIP Ltrs. No 90-14, 91-8, and 95-2. In Opinion 03-03, OIP found that a list of judicial nominees could be disclosed publicly, but that opinion was based in part upon the fact that judges have a great impact upon the public.

The UIPA also allows government agencies to withhold information if disclosure would cause the frustration of a legitimate government function. HRS section 92F-13(3). While OIP has not been asked to issue a formal opinion on your specific question, and has not discussed this matter with the County Council, it would not unreasonable for the Council to invoke the "frustration" exception if it feels that qualified applicants would not apply for government jobs if that fact is made public even for the unsuccessful applicants.

I hope this information is helpful.

Carlotta Amerino
Staff Attorney

Basically it's not really an answer because although the judicial selection process is cited, that process is detailed in both the Hawai`i State Constitution and in law and administrative rules whereas the county clerk simply serves "at the pleasure" of the council

That leaves what Amerino refers to as the "frustration" exception which says that things may be kept secret if revealing them would "frustrate a legitimate government function."

In the case of the judicial nominees, Governor Neil Abercrombie claimed the frustration clause in that it would have a "chilling effect" on attorneys causing many to decline to apply. But even that doesn't seem to be the case with the county attorney position any more than any other job where one might not want their current employer to know they were seeking another job. And, of course, in any event, the court struck down such an exception in the judicial selection case.

We haven't formally requested the list of applicants mostly because it would take at least a few weeks just to get an answer from the council- which we know would be "no" anyway- and then we would have to submit that refusal to the OIP for disposition and they are so "busy" and toothless these days we'd be lucky to get a "formal opinion" at all and if we did it could take months if not years.

And by then, most likely we'll have a new clerk.

It may be best to wait for the appointment and then ask for the list- we might have more of a chance then because there would be no way the release could effect the outcome due to political pressures, which Amerino suggested to us on the phone might be applicable in this situation.

It's been noted in national surveys that Hawai`i has one of the best sunshine/open records laws in the country- and one of the worst records for actually keeping meetings open and releasing records.

The minotaur thinks the labyrinth is working just the way it's been designed, thank you very much.

IN THE BEGINNING...

IN THE BEGINNING...: At least new Council Chair Jay Furfaro is trying. Problem is that he's extremely trying.

Since he took over after the de-throning of long time Minotaur and champion of opaque governance, Kaipo Asing, Furfaro has managed to continue the policies that make sure that any potentially relevant or revelatory testimony from the public is squelched. His favorite ploy is what we've come to call the "Jeopardy! Exclusion" where he cuts off discussion between members of the public and other councilpersons just when it begins to cut to the chase because the councilperson didn't put their comment in the form of a question.

But whereas Asing was sharply cunning and devious, Furfaro seems to get more and more befuddled every week by his own attempts at control and command.

As our readers know, emerging under the guise of new council rules were two measures designed to reduce that pesky "public participation in the governing process" which, in Furfaro's mind, is apparently a dastardly plan to delay lunch.

The first rule change was filed under "the old switcheroo" when a plan to allow people to testify on any council-related topic at the beginning of a meeting came back out of the rules sub-committee as a rule simply allowing for testimony on any regular agenda items at the start of the day... if and only if the testifier gives up their right to testify later in the day when the matter is taken up.

Then there was the "consent calendar," a rule to allow the council to simply ignore a slew of communications such as bill submittal letters and various reports and such. It dispenses with a public reading of the measures and allows the council to pass them all in one fell swoop, assuring that no one in the viewing public will ever know what the measures were about and stopping attendees from having an extra chance to testify on bills and resolutions being introduced.

But for some reason, after a month or more of these changes, unlike Asing who used to take advantage of new rules without even passing them (don't ask), Furfaro still can't figure out what his own rule changes actually were.

Last Wednesday Furfaro started the day supposedly taking up the new "consent calendar" by announcing that "if you talk now you can't talk when the agenda item comes up later" obviously confusing the two rule changes once again.

After some testimony- not on any items that had been placed on the consent calendar but on the "no drinking, pissing or crapping on the county building grounds" laws- he again asked if anyone wanted to talk on the consent calendar.

You could see it on the faces of the staff that they wanted to figure out a way to say "uh, Jay..." but didn't want to embarrass or confuse the easily-offended and already bemused and bewildered Furfaro any further.

Finally it took council regular Ken Taylor- ever the diplomat- to suggest that perhaps if they put the "time for the public to testify on agenda items" on the agenda itself Furfaro might see it there and finally be able to comprehend that not all the rules passed this year are called "the consent calendar."

But what's a poor Minotaur to do? With the firing (no,he quit- no, he was fired- no, he quit- no, he was fired) of former County Clerk Peter Nakamura, Furfaro's flank is exposed since acting clerk Ricky Watanabe has left it to the staff to follow and read the agenda items and none of them has the nerve to try to correct their boss- as Nakamura used to do- when he gets off into La-La land.

We know it probably doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things if Furfaro learns how to chair his way out of a paper bag. But it sure is fun to watch him try.

THE RULING CLASS

THE RULING CLASS: We've been fairly merciless with Council Chair Jay Furfaro and his foibles and blunders, not to mention his tendency toward chest-beating blowhardism.

His insistence that his business experience in the tourism industry can be translated and applied to just about any situation has resulted in some real head-scratchers and outright bad results.

But recently, out of the blue, Furfaro has suddenly rectified one of the most blatant violations of the state Sunshine Law- one which, despite our constant whining, sniveling and even letters to the Office of Information Practices (OIP) asking them to intercede, has never been enforced on Kaua`i.

In the late 90's we made it our mission to drag the council- often kicking and screaming- as well as other boards and commissions, into compliance with the simplest of sunshine law provisions.

We joined with then Honolulu Star Bulletin Kaua`i Bureau Chief Anthony Sommer- author of KPD Blue (see left rail)- to request the listing of each specific executive session (ES) on council agendas. At the time, council chairs had always just announced that "we're going into executive session now so please clear the room."

Although the move was at first resisted by then Council Chair Ron Kouchi, it was first instituted by the Police Commission when then new Chair Michael Ching and new Vice Chair Carol Furtado acquiesced, saying they couldn’t believe it had never been done before.

Well soon Kouchi consulted then County Attorney Hartwell Blake, waking him up from his notorious perch under the air conditioner at the back of the council chambers, and finally the specific ES's began to appear routinely on council agendas, starting with ES-1 (we're now up to ES-505).

The Sunshine law provision regarding executive sessions reads

§92-4 Executive meetings. A board may hold an executive meeting closed to the public upon an affirmative vote, taken at an open meeting, of two-thirds of the members present; provided the affirmative vote constitutes a majority of the members to which the board is entitled. A meeting closed to the public shall be limited to matters exempted by section 92-5. The reason for holding such a meeting shall be publicly announced and the vote of each member on the question of holding a meeting closed to the public shall be recorded, and entered into the minutes of the meeting. (emphasis added)

But when we asked Kouchi to take a recorded, roll call vote he failed to respond and when Kaipo Asing took over as chair he continued the tradition despite years of prodding from us before we finally just gave up.

Well lo and behold a few weeks ago our ears and eyes perked up when the council was about to go into executive session and Furfaro asked then County Clerk Peter Nakamura for a roll call vote on each matter. And he's done so for each matter at each meeting since.

But of course for every step forward it's two steps backward for the Kaua`i County Council.

Furfaro is a stickler for the "council rules" which are generally passed by resolution at the inaugural meeting every two years, although they can be amended at any time by reso, as they were this year after a committee examined them.

But although community activist Bruce Pleas made it an issue a few years back, the following extremely important rule has gone back to non-enforcement status under Furfaro.

Rule 12 under Public Hearings states in Section e(4)C states that:

(C) Persons testifying shall clearly state their name, address, whom they represent, and whether they are a registered lobbyist, in compliance with H.R.S. Chapter 97, Lobbyist Law.

Not only is this a council rule but a state law.

Anyone either attending or watching the meeting on TV or on-line knows that this rule is never enforced. Recently during the debate over asking the legislature to close the loopholes in the solar hot water heater requirement for new homes, lobbyists from the Gas Company filed up to testify against the measure. They even flew one in from Honolulu. Not one identified themselves as a lobbyist, nor were they asked.

But Furfaro, who seems to constantly cite the rules, especially when it comes to limiting public testimony, seems to have somehow missed this provision.

Apparently the minotaur giveth, the minotaur taketh away.

LIKE A GLOVE

LIKE A GLOVE: It isn't like it was a surprise when Kauai County Clerk Peter Nakamura* was apparently fired this week.

After all, the first shoe had been dropped over and over throughout the years with allegations that he had cost the county a cool quarter-million in the Margaret Hanson Sueoka harassment suit along with his alleged misdoings in collecting unapproved cash-for-vacation-time from former Chair Kaipo Asing as has been splashed all over the front page of the local newspaper recently.

Not only that but the second shoe had been poised for a gravity-driven trip for months with executive sessions concerning his employ showing up on the council's agenda almost every time they met.

But the fact that Nakamura was offered and accepted a job in the planning department was a bit odd given that the revolving door was wide open for him after his performance as perhaps the best flack-catcher the county has even seen.

We've had a love/hate relationship with Nakamura throughout his tenure. Early in his tenure his penchant for providing information and documents was unique in the county if not the state, where our sunshine law has been cited nationally for being one of the best while showing up among the worst when it comes to how it actually functions.

But that was before the ascendancy of Asing and, in serving the new king, Nakamura of course took to carrying the king's sword which in Asing's case was a heavy instrument indeed.

As per Asing's instructions, Nakamura became the scrooge of public information, fighting with aplomb councilmembers' battles with the Office of Information Practices (OIP)- like the one over the infamous ES-177 that eventually resulted in the recent full de-toothification of the OIP.

Someone that is willing to fall on his sword like that is invaluable in the corporate world and Kaua`i is littered with such former county officials who have found a place in the close knit Kaua`i business community based on their ability to take a bullet for their bosses... people like current Grove Farm VP Mike Tressler who, as Finance Director, parlayed his part in the pogrom that resulted in the removal of former Police Chief KC Lum, into his current high-paying position.

Could it be that Nakamura's claim that he was returning to his first love- planning- actually be true?

Whether or not that's the full explanation, his trip across the street to the administrative offices, while unique, fits quite well into Mayor Bernard Carvalho's scheme for filling positions with "protected" cronies. Anyone who has served with the kind of blind loyalty Nakamura has exhibited over the years can't help but be an asset to Carvalho in a way few if any from the outside can be.

But would Nakamura settle for a position as a lowly planner when lucrative job the business sector beckons? Of course not.

It just so happens that the planning department has a "temporary" director right now- Mike Dahilig who, according to the county charter, is unqualified to take the position permanently. And he has done the job he was sent to do- take over the reins of a department allegedly under FBI investigation and get the feds off their backs... not to mention guiding the difficult and potentially contentious process of passing the all important ordinance that returns scrutiny of tourist accommodation permits from the council back to the planning department in compliance with the so-called citizen-petitioned General Plan charter amendment.

Nakamura- who ironically served as Planning Director under then-Mayor, now-Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura (who apparently was instrumental in his firing)- seems to be the beneficiary of a circumstance that makes his future as planning director all but a formality once the commission acts.

So all's well in the Minotaur’s labyrinth as the bone mill cranks out another bowl of that distinctly Kaua`i-flavored porridge which, while sweet-smelling to the minotaur and his minions, stinks to high heaven to the rest of the island's denizens.

-----

*Correction: We inadvertently left off Peter Nakamura's name in the first paragraph. This on-line version has been corrected. We apologize for the error.

FOURTH AND FORTY

FOURTH AND FORTY: The Office of Information Practices (OIP) has been taking it on the chin lately over what has been described ad nausium as their decision to "punt" to the courts on this issue of whether Governor Neil Abercrombie had to reveal the full list of his judicial nominees after he made the appointment.

For those who haven't been following the story Abercrombie's predecessors routinely released the list but he claims that doing so would result in attorneys' reluctance to apply, should their law firms or clients find out.

The story has been reported and analyzed in the mainstream and alternative press as well as blogs- both mainstream and alternative- culminating with a Honolulu Star Advertiser editorial today and all have one thing in common- they routinely miss the point in criticizing the OIP for not opining on the matter since, they say, the law appears to require them to do so.

Typical of the criticisms is today's post by S-A columnist/blogger Dave Shapiro who, in telling the saga thus far, writes:

The saga of Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s secrecy on the names of judicial candidates has taken a troubling new turn with his hand-picked director of the Office of Information Practices, Cheryl Kakazu Park, refusing to issue an opinion on whether state law allows the governor to keep secret the nominees given him by the Judicial Selection Commission.

Park said it’s a waste of time for OIP to become further involved because Abercrombie has said he’ll ignore any OIP opinion against him unless a court tells him he must abide.

Park’s “punt,” as one news story described it, isn’t surprising; her predecessor, Cathy Takase, was fired after ruling against Abercrombie with a letter reiterating a 2003 OIP ruling that the names must be released.

The troubling part is that the governor now has not only shut the public out of the process of selecting judges who wield great power over our lives, but has politicized the OIP in an unprecedented way that diminishes its credibility and relevance.

And the law seems to be clear as is set out in this passage from blogger Ian Lind's post on the subject:

In Section 92F-42, which sets out the powers and responsibilities of OIP, this is right there at the top of the list. Responsibility #1.

The director of the office of information practices: (1) Shall, upon request, review and rule on an agency denial of access to information or records, or an agency’s granting of access;

I added the bold type on the word “shall.” OIP shall rule on an agency’s denial of access. It doesn’t use the word “may,” which would have given OIP discretion on whether to issue a ruling. It doesn’t say that OIP shall rule except when it looks futile because an agency stubbornly insists that it has the right to do whatever it wants. It says, simply, OIP shall do this job. It’s #1 responsibility. Top of the list, top line priority.

Someone needs to go back to OIP and ask what legal authority they have to “punt” in this case, given what appears to be clear statutory language (emphasis Ian's).


The problem is that each and every one who has written on the subject has either failed to read or comprehend the operative sentence in the letter from Park:

Toward the end of her memo she simply writes that:

since the Hawaii Supreme Court's (ruling) in County of Kaua`i vs Office of Information Practices OIP has been issuing advisory opinions rather than determinations.

For those for whom the case doesn't ring a bell it revolves around the infamous Kaua`i County

Council executive session- ES 177- the tentacles of which not only chimed over and over in Kaua`i Police Deportment politics for years but was one of the major highlights of the tale told in the book KPD Blue (see right rail).

At the secret conclave, then and now-again Councilmember Mel Rapozo, who was present at the infamous lap dance party at KPD headquarters and lost his cop job because of it- went off on KPD personnel blasting Chief KC Lum and others in the department according to an OIP memo observed but not copied by PNN at the time.

After an "on camera" examination the OIP ordered the minutes of the meeting to be released but the county, in the person of County Clerk Peter Nakamura, acting on the orders of then Council Chair Kaipo Asing, refused and decided to sue in circuit court.

The problem, as far as the OIP was concerned, was that the OIP was set up, in part, just to avoid these kinds of inter-agency lawsuits and then Director Les Kondo fought the case tooth and nail to avoid having the OIP become a "toothless tiger".

He argued that the provision allowing parties aggrieved by the OIP to sue in circuit court was to provide due process to individuals who were denied access to records, not for agencies told to "give 'em up" to sue the OIP. And he presented not just the specific wording of the law but the legislative committee reports- which clearly stated stated as much- as evidence.

But, to perhaps over simplify, the Supreme Court (SC) didn't listen or didn't care what Kondo foresaw happening to the OIP.

They essentially ruled that the county was entitled to access to the courts if due process was to be served. They also ruled, somewhat bizarrely, that although the request was for the minutes of ES-177- a "record request" over which the law clearly gave OIP authority in HRS 92F- it was actually a suit regarding a meeting, which falls the Sunshine Law (HRS 92) where the OIP did not have the "final bite of the apple" authority.

That essentially meant ithat Kondo's argument was deemed irrelevant.

And now the chickens have come home to roost.

In dealing with the ruling the OIP has simply stopped handing down binding opinions as the law calls for and now simply issues "advisory opinions", all of which can be appealed to the circuit court by anyone, as the SC precedent said.

Kondo was almost apoplectic over what he saw as the end of the OIP and of course he was right. But the Hawai`i press still doesn’t get it.

The SC opinion is not entirely clear as to whether the case was decided on the minutes vs open meeting matter or the lack of due process, the latter seeming to be just to get around Kondo's argument and get to what they- and the C of K- saw as the meat of the issue at hand... the release of the ES-177 minutes.

The County may have won the case but people who value open government and records rue the day that the decision came down. And until our punditry class cuts through the clutter of the politics of the judicial appointment list case and recognize the roots of the OIP's action, we'll continue to be kept in the dark about the state of affairs in the OIP.

(PNN) OIP RULES FURFARO MEMO DISCUSSING DRAFT BILL NOT ILLEGAL ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SENT

OIP RULES FURFARO MEMO DISCUSSING DRAFT BILL NOT ILLEGAL ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SENT

(PNN) -- The Office of Information Practices has ruled that Kaua`i Council Chair Jay Furfaro did not violate the Sunshine Law because, according to County Clerk Peter Nakamura, a letter to fellow councilpersons discussing and soliciting support for a draft bill was never sent.

But OIP Acting Director Cathy L. Takase said that if Furfaro’s letter “had been circulated to all members, it would constitute a discussion of the Board’s ‘official business’ in violation of the Sunshine Law’s open meeting requirement because the letter does more than transmit the draft bill.”

The bill- one that would have allowed Transient Vacation Rentals (TVRs) on agricultural lands via “non-enforcement agreements”- and cover letter in question first appeared in a since-removed blog post by local real estate agent Ronnie Margolis in December of 2008.

When PNN published the letter with allegations of a Sunshine Law violation on Friday, December 19, 2008 the OIP opened a case (S INVES-P 09-5) and in January sent a letter asking Furfaro for a response.

But instead of Furfaro responding personally, in February Nakamura wrote a letter defending Furfaro claiming that the letter in question was never sent to councilmembers. The letter also included a defense saying that even if he did send the letter the contents weren’t in violation of the law.

The OIP’s “Memorandum Opinion,” addressed to PNN’s Editor/Publisher/Reporter Andy Parx, does not indicate whether the councilpersons who were listed as recipients of the letter were asked if they received it.

The opinion begins by noting the “Request for Investigation” saying

Requester asked for an investigation into whether a violation of the Sunshine Law occurred based upon the distribution of a letter dated November 28, 2008 from then Vice Chair Jay Furfaro to the remaining members of the Kauai County Council concerning a bill proposing amendments to Kauai County Ordinance No. 864.

It then states the simple “Opinion” stating that

Based upon representations made on behalf of Vice Chair Furfaro and the Council, OIP finds that no violation occurred.

The “Statement of Reasons for Opinion” goes on to say:

In response to OIP’s request, Kauai County Clerk Peter Nakamura provided a response to Requester’s complaint on behalf of Vice Chair Furfaro and the Council. Specifically, Mr. Nakamura stated that the November 28th letter was a draft letter that was never signed nor circulated to the members. Mr. Nakamura further states that, as evidenced by your complaint, this draft transmittal was somehow obtained by the public. We note that the copy you provided to OIP is unsigned, which is consistent with this statement. Accordingly, we find no substantiation for your complaint of violation.

It is interesting to note that the OIP did not address an issue raised by PNN regarding the use of the media, including on-line posting, to attempt to circumvent the prohibitions in the Sunshine Law. The representation that the “draft transmittal was somehow (emphasis added) obtained by the public” though it is consistent with the fact that Margolis never stated unequivocally from whom he obtained the bill and letter.

As to who actually did receive the letter, the opinion says that

Mr. Nakamura did state that the Council Chair alone was provided a copy of the draft “transmittal” letter and draft bill, in accordance with the Council’s standing practice, to consider approval for inclusion on the Council’s meeting agenda.

Disclosure to the Chair alone would not violate the Sunshine Law because discussion between two Council members is allowed under the two-member permitted interaction. See HRS § 92-2.5(a).

But then the memo gets to the heart of the matter.

Furfaro has stated that he has been engaged with the OIP over the past two years- and says he spent $1700 in the process- trying to establish a defense basically saying that even if it was sent it didn’t violate the law.

But the OIP disagreed setting a precedent and sending a message to Furfaro that this kind of communication is illegal.

Takase wrote:

We note, however, that given the content of the ‘transmittal” letter, we believe that if it had been circulated to all members, it would constitute a discussion of the Board’s ‘official business” in violation of the Sunshine Law’s open meeting requirement because the letter does more than transmit the draft bill. It specifically discusses the content of the draft bill and reasons why it should be adopted. A member’s expression of his or her views to other members on “official business” constitutes a prohibited discussion outside of a meeting regardless of whether the other members are physically present to hear an oral communication of those views or receive those views through other means, including through written correspondence. OIP Op. Ltr. No. 04-0 1 (position statements circulated and signed by members constituted discussions and voting outside of a meeting in violation of the Sunshine Law); HRS § 92-5(b)(no electronic communication shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of this part to deliberate upon board business).

The opinion concludes by describing the “Right to Bring Suit to Enforce Sunshine Law and to Void Board Action” saying:

Any person may file a lawsuit to require compliance with or to prevent a violation of the Sunshine Law or to determine the applicability of the Sunshine Law to discussions or decisions of a government board. HRS § 92-12. The court may order payment of reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in such a lawsuit.

Where a final action of a board was taken in violation of the open meeting and notice requirements of the Sunshine Law, that action may be voided by the court. HRS § 92-11. A suit to void any final action must be commenced within ninety days of the action.

The original letter was addressed to the following councilmembers :

Mel Rapozo
Tim Bynum
Ronald D. Kouchi
Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho
Daryl W. Kaneshiro
Joann A. Yukimura

Thus far none have confirmed or denied receiving Furfaro’s cover letter. PNN plans no court action unless one or more of them come forward to say he or she received the letter from Furfaro.

... SAME AS THE OLD BOSS

... SAME AS THE OLD BOSS: When we last reported on “pay-raise-gate”- the scandal regarding the illegal pay raise that County Clerk Peter Nakamura received via a brief memo written by former Kaua`i County Council Chair Kaipo Asing, rather than following the evaluation and reporting process proscribed by the rules of the Salary Commission- we relied on a confusing local newspaper account that seemed to say that the confidential personnel memo was released by mayoral assistant Beth Tokioka.

But now we are finally in possession of a key document in the saga- a so-called “Media Statement” written and distributed by current Council Chair Jay Furfaro to various media outlets.

Although the article states that:

(i)n a “media statement” last week, Furfaro said Bynum voted in favor of measures concerning Nakamura’s pay raise twice, once when receiving the commission’s communication and again when approving the FY11 budget

it never made clear whether this was merely a verbal statement or the detailed one page manuscript attached to 21 pages of supporting documents Furfaro provided, including the memo from Asing.

The article also said that:

A memo from the council chair to the personnel director seems to back up (Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura’s) claim (that a the Salary Commission mandated process was not followed) ... The memo does not indicate that there was any attachment that could contain the evaluation required by the rules. County spokeswoman Beth Tokioka confirmed Wednesday that there was no evaluation attached to the memo.

Although many interpreted that to mean that Tokioka revealed the memo- which was part of Nakamura’s confidential personnel file- it was in fact the last document provided in Furfaro’s “Media Statement” packet.

The Statement provides the basis for the contention that the council’s acceptance of the original Salary Commission Resolution (2009-2) was sufficient to serve as the formal process for the evaluation of Nakamura saying:

Under Section 29.03 of the Kaua`i County Charter, the Salary Commission adopts a resolution setting forth the salaries of various elected and non-elected County officers and employees. The resolution is then forwarded to the Mayor and the Council. The Council may, by a vote of not less than five members, reject all and any selected portion of the resolution. (Section 29.03 is attached hereto).

On August 25, 2009, the Salary Commission transmitted the Resolution No. 2002-2 to the County Council. (Transmittal and Resolution No. 2009-2 are attached hereto). The Resolution was placed on the September 23, 2009 Council agenda. Councilmember Tim Bynum seconded the motion to receive the Resolution, meaning that the Council would not be rejecting any portion of the Resolution, including the line item that set the County Clerk’s salary. (Relevant portions of the minutes of the September 23, 2009 Council meeting are attached hereto).

The Statement doesn’t however even mention the Salary Commission mandated, formal evaluation process to actually set the exact amount of the salary (within a proscribed “range”) and effectuate the raise, which the council must follow as the “appointing authority” for the county clerk- separate from its function regarding the Salary Commission Resolution as provided in the county charter.

According to the resolution- and the Salary Commission rules- that process includes providing the Director of Personnel with:

- A memo from the officer’s or employee’s appointing authority at least 30 days prior to the increase certifying that appointee’s performance has been evaluated pursuant to procedures established by the personnel director.

- A copy of the officer’s or employee’s completed performance evaluation evidencing that the appointee has met or exceeded job requirements.

- Based on the evaluation, the appointing authority’s recommendation on whether a proposed increase should be granted.

The mention of Bynum’s “second” is apparently designed to question why Bynum has been one of the two council voices- along with Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura- to question the process, by making it personal- apparently trying to say that, if you buy the false premise that accepting the Salary Commission’s recommendation is enough to effectuate Nakamura’s raise, Bynum’s second would make his raising of issues with the process duplicitous.

It ignores of course that many times people second a motion for discussion purposes and that a second in no way requires one to vote for the motion according to Roberts Rule of Order.

The statement goes on to describe the process that Asing did use in supplanting the correct procedure saying.

The Council Chair Kaipo Asing circulated evaluations forms prepared by the Director of Personnel. I filled out the evaluation and I know that Mr. Nakamura was also evaluated by Councilmember Derek Kawakami and Mr. Bynum. While I cannot disclose the contents of the evaluation because it is a personnel matter, I am confident that Mr. Nakamura met the requirements for his raise. Council Chair Asing sent a memorandum to the Director of Personnel indicating that Mr. Nakamura met the criteria and was entitled to his salary. (A copy of the memorandum is attached hereto).

The Statement further states that:

On April 1, 2010, Mr. Bynum submitted written testimony to the Salary Commission. In the testimony, he stated that, “Currently, the County Clerk, County Auditor and Prosecutor all have salaries greater that the Mayor” and asked the Salary Commission to adjust the salaries. (A copy of the testimony is attached hereto). Mr. Bynum appeared before the Salary Commission and testified that the salaries should be adjusted not because of any concern about the Clerk’s performance, but because it was improper for the clerk, auditor and persecutor to have higher salaries than the mayor (a copy of the minutes are attached hereto).

It’s not clear what the relevance of this might be other than to again try to use the false premise to personally discredit Bynum.

Finally Furfaro makes one more reach, this time with a paragraph saying

On May 26, 2010, the County Council unanimously approved Bill No. 2356, Draft 1, which again included a line item that set the County Clerk’s salary. (Relevant portions of Bill No 2356 are attached hereto). As you can see from the record of the votes cast, Mr. Bynum voted for approval of this bill.

That one is particularly silly considering that the council negotiates line items in the budget for weeks on end and, although no one supports every single line, in the end the “compromise” package is usually passed unanimously- as Furfaro has himself stated publicly on occasion.

The 21 pages of documents in the packet include:

- Article XXIX of the County Charter regarding the Salary commission

- The memorandum communicating the resolution from the Salary Commission

- The Resolution itself (five pages)

- Minutes of the September 23, 2009 council meeting regarding the resolution including a conversation with County Attorney Al Castillo regarding the process for “receiving” the resolution so as to make it effective or for rejecting it by the vote of at east five councilmembers, as provided in County Charter Article XXIX (seven pages)

- The FY 2010-11 Budget Ordinance with a county clerk salary line item and certification page (three pages)

-Bynum’s testimony, with cover letter, to the Salary Commission (two pages)

-Asing’s one paragraph memo to Director of Personnel Malcolm Fernandez, in violation of both the rules for effectuating the county clerk’s raise and the County Code of Ethics (as discussed in our coverage linked above)

What is most distressing in all this is that rather than coming forward and recommending that the proper process be followed and declaring that Asing’s memo was done in violation of the law or at least “done in error,” he chose to defend Asing’s actions and declare that it was “close enough for government work” as the expression goes, supplanting fully extraneous material- which included an invasion of privacy in releasing the contents of Nakamura’s personnel file- and attempting to personally discredit one of the two councilmembers who acted as “whistleblowers.”

This is not the type of leadership the people of Kaua`i want or deserve.

We call on Furfaro to either rectify this by complying with the law and scheduling the proper agenda items to conduct the proper evaluation - even though the timeframe violation cannot be overcome- or, if he continues to stonewall and obfuscate, to resign his post as Chair.

And, if he will not resign as chair we ask the other six councilmembers to remove him.

We also call on the county prosecutor and the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) to investigate this matter.

CONFIRMATION

CONFIRMATION: One thing reporters for the local newspaper can do that we have trouble doing is compelling newsmakers to answer questions for fear that their spin will be left out of whatever is written on a given subject.

And today’s article on the illegal pay raise County Clerk Peter Nakamura received- as we’ve detailed the past two Mondays - confirms our speculation that indeed former Chair Kaipo Asing successfully circumvented the law in getting the raise approved.

After a lot of irrelevant “that’s my story and I’m sticking too it” hoo-ha from current Council Chair Jay Furfaro regarding his contention that the original vote on the salary commission’s pay raise resolution for all department heads should have sufficed for the fully separate process of the full council’s action as the appointing authority for the clerk- and a listing of the three required evaluation related documents from the appointing authority (the council in the case of the clerk) to the personnel director to effectuate any raise, the article reveals that:

On Dec. 14, 2009, two weeks after Nakamura’s pay increase took effect, Asing sent Fernandez a one-paragraph memo stating that Nakamura had met or exceeded job requirements for the position of county clerk.

“I understand that you will transmit the results of his evaluation to the Salary Commission,” Asing said in his memo to (Personnel Director Malcolm) Fernandez, almost four months after the commission submitted its resolution to the council and almost three months after the council unanimously received it.

The only person copied on the memo was Nakamura. The memo does not indicate that there was any attachment that could contain the evaluation required by the rules. County spokeswoman Beth Tokioka confirmed Wednesday that there was no evaluation attached to the memo.

“He sent that over there without any council approval, on his own, unilaterally,” (former Councilperson Lani) Kawahara said of the memo Asing sent to Fernandez, adding that the chair can not act alone as the appointing authority.

“It needs to be presented to the full body,” she said. “That memo was sent without the body’s authority.”

Even though that crux of the story was buried after a lot of irrelevant silliness about Bynum seconding the original salary commission resolution and other blather the story does reveal that, although at one point Asing handed out evaluation forms to council members there was never a meeting where the evaluation was approved meaning Asing did act on his own, using his position to give a special privilege to Nakamura in violation of the Kaua`i County Charter’s Code of Ethics (20.02E).

Just as interesting are some of the quotes regarding Asing’s action and the lack of documentation in Nakamura’s file:

Furfaro said that on Sept. 23, 2009, Asing circulated evaluation forms prepared by Personnel Director Malcolm Fernandez.

All seven council members serving on the legislative body at the time confirmed they completed the evaluation form.

Because it is a personnel matter, Furfaro said he could not disclose the contents of the evaluation.

“I am confident that Mr. Nakamura met the requirements for his raise,” he said in a statement.

Bynum, however, said there is no evaluation in Nakamura’s personnel files.

“How could the Salary Commission or the personnel director have an evaluation when it doesn’t exist in his file?” Bynum said.

Though some might question the propriety of revealing something in Nakamura’s personnel file it appears that those quoted are rather, revealing the lack of anything in the file.

The real violation of privacy might just be that of mayoral assistant Beth Tokioka who apparently provided whatever Asing sent to Fernandez- who also apparently violated the law by okaying the raise without the required evaluation forms from the council, rather substituting the one-paragraph memo from Asing.

That said the state’s open records laws (UIPA-HRS 92F- 12-13) say that the decision to reveal matters covered by privacy of personnel files has to balance the need for that privacy and the public interest in opening those records to scrutiny. In addition, if a crime has been committed, whistleblower provisions might protect anyone that reveals confidential information.

It appears that Furfaro’s “new style” of leadership is going to be an extension of the same old “stonewall, distract and deny” approach of his predecessor and that some of his supporters are willing to use rose-colored glasses to ignore his evasions and outright violations of law in the name of paternalism.

The issue is not Clerk Nakamura any more than the issue was former Chief of Police KC Lum, who was the victim of a deceitful determination of the similar ethics case that wrongfully chided then Police Commission Chair Michael Ching. Though Nakamura, was the recipient of the special favor on Asing’s part the blame is with Asing and Fernandez for failing to follow the law.

But if people are unwilling to publicly say “enough” due to past vendetta’s and political alliances we can expect more of the same from this “new era” of the Kaua`i County Council.

----

We’ll be taking a long weekend. Be back Monday.

WHO PUT THE OVERALLS IN MRS. MURPHY’S CHOWDER?:

WHO PUT THE OVERALLS IN MRS. MURPHY’S CHOWDER?: Much has been said and written the allegedly “illegal” pay raise received by County Clerk Peter Nakamura, including our detailing last Monday of a December 1 memo from Councilperson Tim Bynum explaining how Nakamura received the maximum allowable raise despite the lack of the required approval by his “appointing authority,” the Kaua`i County Council.

But while some have intimated that Nakamura might have perpetuated the fraud himself, when all the evidence is examined the inevitable conclusion is that he couldn’t have done it without a violation of the Kaua`i County Charter, the salary resolution and most importantly the Code of Ethics by former Council Chair Kaipo Asing.

According to Charter Section 29.03 after the Salary Commission’s resolution becomes law:

The respective appointing authority may set the salary of an appointee at a figure lower than the figure established by ordinance for the position.

And so, Salary Resolution No. 2009-2 authorizes a pay increase for the county clerk, deputy county clerk provided that the Director of Personnel receives:

1) a memo from the appointing authority at least thirty (30) days prior to the increase certifying that the appointee’s performance has been evaluated pursuant to procedures established by the Director of Personnel;

2) a copy of the appointee’s completed performance evaluation evidencing that the appointee has met or exceeded job requirements for the appraisal period; and

3) based on the evaluation results, the appointing authority’s recommendation on whether a proposed increase should be granted.

As stated in the county charter (Sect 5.1A) the appointing authority for the county clerk is the full council, not the council chair. But according to Bynum’s letter the council never performed this evaluation or made any recommendation so any letter sent to the director of personnel would necessarily be fraudulent and make the pay raise illegal.

Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura concurred saying in an interview that “(t)here is no record, to my knowledge, of a council recommendation of this pay raise.”

Neither Bynum nor Yukimura say exactly how the pay raise came about but, given the evaluation process and all the required paperwork surrounding the implementation of the raise, there are really only three possibilities.

The first and least likely is that the director of personnel, on his own, fabricated the memo from the appointing authority certifying the evaluation of Nakamura’s performance, the copy of his evaluation and the recommendation itself and forged the required signatures

The second is that Nakamura did the same.

But both of those are so unlikely as to be patently absurd.

That leaves the third and only possible explanation: that former Chair Kaipo Asing completed and signed off on all three- as he would have had the council actually completed the evaluation- and forwarded them to the director of finance in violation of the charter and salary commission resolution.

The same goes for the “cashing in” of Nakamura’s vacation time that Bynum refers to in his memo which states that:

Over the last several years, without the knowledge of the Council body, the Clerk accepted and was paid unused vacation time.

According to a knowledgeable source within the county:

The general rule by which a county employee may be authorized to accept cash payment in lieu of vacation is as follows: Whenever an employee’s accumulated vacation credit exceeds ninety (90) working days the employee shall receive cash payment in lieu of vacation to the extent of the excess if, upon investigation by the county director of finance, it is found that the excess vacation credit resulted from the employee’s inability to be allowed vacation time off because of orders of the employee’s appointing authority; otherwise the employee shall automatically forfeit the excess. (emphasis added)

Again, unless either Nakamura or the director of personnel forged documents, it appears that Asing signed off on the vacation time without the approval of the full council.

According to county charter Section 20.02E:

No officer or employee of the county shall... (u)se his official position to secure a special benefit, privilege or exemption for himself or others.

If Asing indeed took it upon himself to act for the council without consultation, it’s hard to imagine a case that could be a more blatant word-for-word violation of that section of the Kaua`i County Code of Ethics.

BRASS TACKS

BRASS TACKS: Much like eggs eaten three days ago making their reappearance in an unanticipated belch, local newspaper reporter Leo Azambuja is back and filing disjointed “day late and a dollar short” stories, not the least of which is Sunday’s attempt to make up for saying that Councilpersons Tim Bynum and JoAnn Yukimura "gave no reason” for asking that County Clerk Peter Nakamura not be reappointed at the inaugural meeting.

But in light of the elephant in the room- Nakamura’s harassment of former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson which apparently cost the county $250,000 in settling an EEOC case- one line in the story speaks volumes:

Repeated attempts to reach Nakamura for comment failed prior to press time. Phone messages and a message left in person at the council services office in Nawiliwili Friday were not returned.

Though we’ve been attacked for reporting the story no one else will touch, the dearth of denials goes a long way toward corroboration.
Although the actual documents are “confidential” the reports continue to roll in from people who tell of the workplace harassment of Hanson after she and Nakamura broke off their “relationship”... although many-even most- say that the allegation made by some of physical violence on Nakamura’s part may be incorrect.

The quarter-million-dollar settlement by the county is apparently what’s at the unspoken heart of the two memos sent out by Bynum and Yukimura in an attempt to start a professional search for a county clerk.

Another quote in the newspaper story from Yukimura seems to confirm something that doesn’t meet the eye is up:

(Yukimura) also said she didn’t have access to the county’s legal or human-resources advice and counsel.

“The county attorney (Al Castillo) opined that I could not have access to the information or counsel until I became an officer of the county by being sworn in,” she said.

Because of the short time to review those documents, Yukimura said she did not have enough time to perform the required due diligence before voting for the clerk.

The obvious question this raises is why are the other four councilmembers so apparently unconcerned?

We’ll get to that analysis another day but suffice to say Nakamura has shown his ability to protect councilmembers from themselves through selective release of documents and other manipulations from which each, as charter members of “the club,” intend to benefit or have benefited.

Today, since no one else has, we’re going to concentrate on the serious charges made in Bynum’s memo going over our experiences with Nakamura and county procedures and laws in that context.

Bynum’s letter (in full) is in italics.

After long and serious consideration of the issues, I have decided that I will not be voting for Peter Nakamura to be reappointed as County Clerk this term. At a prior meeting I recommended that the Council appoint one of our capable current staff as an interim County Clerk and conduct an open search for the best-qualified candidate available to lead Council Services. Had we gone this route, Mr. Nakamura could have applied as a candidate in the search process.

While I recognize Mr. Nakamura’s talents, contributions and strong work ethic, there are, in my opinion, unresolved issues. The following are among those that led to my decision.

UIPA

The Uniform Information Practices Act is State law and requires that an agency provide a response to requests for public documents within ten business days. The Clerk has repeatedly failed to respond as required by law in the required time frame and, in a number of instances, has completely ignored the request and not responded at all. For example, a UIPA request for documents was made by Council members on May 26, 2009 and no response was received until July 8, 2009, and then only after follow-up memos from the Council members and an admonition from the County Attorney.

We’ve submitted no less than a dozen official documents requests that were fully ignored by Nakamura. While council services staff are usually forthcoming with regular public documents many times they are not under instructions from Nakamura.

At first we were unaware of the process for dealing with being ignored. Eventually we found out that the government official in charge of the record has 10 days by law to respond to a written request.

But if the official decides to ignore you your only option is to go to the toothless tiger of the Offices of Information Practices (OIP), which will usually fire off a letter to the denying official. Then, when that’s ignored another letter... and another... and another... until everyone just gives up.

Even when he does finally respond Nakamura has become a master of stonewalling giving excuse after excuse often dragging out cases for years.

Bynum then asks a question we asked a few months back- what ever happened to documents the local newspaper’s ace reporter Mike Levine requested which were similarly ignored during his Levine’s all-too-short stint here and, of course, once he left.

As another example, The Garden Island on their web site (http://thegardenisland.com/app/sunshine ) lists records requests made to various County departments, all of which were responded to within the timeline required by State law, except for those requests filed with the County Clerk. The requests made to Council Services were all ignored and not responded to at all. Other members of the public have informed me that their UIPA request for documents have gone unanswered.

That last sentence the understatement of the year.

Records

The Kaua`i County Charter requires the Clerk to “take charge of, safely keep and dispose of all books, papers and records which may properly be filed in his office and keep in separate files all ordinances, resolutions and regulations and cumulative indices of the same, or exact copies thereof, enacted or adopted by the council.”

One of the Clerk’s important responsibilities is to keep the County Code up-to-date. One can do a Google search of any Hawai`i county, except Kaua`i, and easily find an updated code. Not only can the public not find the Kaua`i County Code online, an up-to-date codified version has not been available in any form since 2006.

If we had a nickel for every time we’ve written about this, it wouldn’t amount to as much as we would have if we had one for every time we’ve had to tell someone shocked neophyte that there is not only no on-line version of our local county code- the laws of the island- but that it’s virtually impossible to get hard copies of them at the clerks office, since you have to ask for them by number and there’s no way to find out the number since there’s no available index.

Ordinances passed since 2006 are simply shoved loose in the back of the file so the actual pre-2006 code is incorrect unless it’s cross-referenced with every “loose” ordinance

We’re not surprised at all that there hasn’t been a codified version available since 2006, especially since there wasn’t even a codified version of the county charter available for many years until it was recently compiled, apparently by the county attorney’s office since the clerk- who is responsible for doing it- couldn’t seem to get it together.

If you requested a copy of the charter since 2002 the amendments were - yup - shoved in loose at the end, often unnumbered and in a different font.

When Council members sought electronic minutes of Council meetings, the Clerk informed Council members in writing that he “had difficulty locating electronic copies of Council meeting minutes” and that “extensive agency efforts have been required to search for and prepare the records for copying.” This response and other instances related to key Council records have raised alarms about the integrity of Council records and led to the submission to the Clerk of the following written inquiry in July 2009: “Is it the case then that our key public documents exist only on paper in the Historic County building? Is it the case that our office documents are not backed up on the County network? Is it the case that we are not availing ourselves of the backup capabilities provided by the County IT department? Does this not leave an unacceptable risk that these key public documents could be lost completely?” There has been, to this date, no response to this written inquiry and my concerns about the integrity of County records remain.

It’s simply unbelievable that this kind of thing has been going on. Yet it’s also our experience and that of many others we’ve spoken to. It’s apparently why there was such blowback when it became time to put all this stuff on-line last summer.

What Bynum leaves out is that according to Eric Knutzen, the county’s IT director, he’s been ready to go, literally for years, saying it’s a matter of will on the part of the clerk and council.

That’s why the mutual admiration society of Nakamura and former Chair Kaipo Asing functioned so well- each had an interest in keeping the public in the dark.

But as to the Nakamura salary issues rather than reading the newspaper version or other recent charicterizations, you may want to read what Bynum actually wrote to understand why some were calling it illegally done.

Salary Issues

The County Charter requires that department head salaries be determined by the Salary Commission. The County Clerk is a Department head. By Salary Commission resolution, requirements for department head raises include: 1) “employee’s completed performance evaluation evidencing that the appointee has met or exceeds job requirements” and 2) “the appointing authority’s recommendation on whether a proposed increase should be granted”.

Although neither criterion was met, the County Clerk received a pay raise in December 2009.

Other department heads and the mayor did not receive a salary increase in December 2009 due to economic conditions. This has led to a situation where the clerk’s current salary at $114,848.00 is higher than that of the Mayor’s.

The key here is that, while the salary commission okays a raise it only authorizes a range of salary. The actual salary is awarded based on the recommendation of the appointing authority, based on their evaluation.

But with the council-clerk relationship the council serves two different functions. First, they have a bite at the apple of the salary commission’s recommendation which they can either reject or, through inaction, implicitly approve without really approving.

But then they are also the “appointing authority” so they are responsible for going through the evaluation process to set the actual salary. That’s what never happened, yet Nakamura got his raise- one to the highest level of the “range” set by the commission- anyway.

Then there’s the kicker.

Over the last several years, without the knowledge of the Council body, the Clerk accepted and was paid unused vacation time. This is contrary to the County’s policy and practice with other County employees. Unused vacation time pay paid to the clerk is in the neighborhood of $50,000.00. The funds were apparently available without a separate appropriation because of salary surpluses in the Council Services budget resulting from vacancies. (Positions have remained unfilled for extended periods of time. Example: In the FY06-07 budget, a clerk typist position was added by a unanimous vote of the Council. Despite repeated Council requests and promises from the Clerk made in each budget cycle, the position remains unfilled four years later.)

We know many county employees who would love to have gotten this kind of deal. Many have also accumulated a huge bundle of vacation time and were forced to take it or lose it. One way around it has been to “use” it right before they retire so in essence the last “X” number of weeks- or, more usually, months- of employment are actually vacations.

But we’ve never heard of a county employee being allowed to just take the money and run. And certainly not without authorization of their boss... in this case, the council

Bynum’s letter concludes:

The Garden Island opined in November of this year, “When the council goes to organize itself, we also hope the members do their due diligence to ensure the current county clerk and the individuals holding other key positions are still the most appropriate choices for those jobs.”

This position I am taking and observations I have made are a result of my process of due diligence and the belief that this course of action is in the best interest of the County and its citizens.

Finally, since there’s been so much written about Yukimura’s “motion” to conduct an executive search, we will post her memo below in full.

PROPOSAL RE SELECTION OF THE COUNTY CLERK

TO: Kaua`i County Councilmembers-elect

FROM: Councilmember-elect JoAnn A. Yukimura

DATE: November 22, 2010

Motion: That the Council secure the assistance of an Executive Search firm and with such assistance, create and follow an executive search process for selecting the County Clerk that clearly defines the leadership and management skills, knowledge and qualities required and preferred for the position of County Clerk, solicits applications and evaluates the candidates for ultimate selection by the Council.

Background: By job description, the Clerk is equivalent of a Department Head. Department Heads constitute the highest level of administration in the County, next to the Mayor and Managing Director. Department heads are extremely important to the quality of operations and performance of any corporation, whether private or public. If our goal as County leaders is to support the “highest standards of government performance and service,” we have a responsibility to select the best possible candidate for the position of County Clerk.

Rationale:

1. An executive search is a business “best practice” that will increase the chances of finding the best qualified person. It will minimize the “politics” and focus instead on qualifications.

2. As an open, competitive process, it will provide the best choices available.

3. It will increase accountability.

4. By adopting such a process, the Council will demonstrate its commitment to the highest standards of government performance and service.

5. The Council will be using a process used successfully by the Police Commission; it produced a Police Chief, who, most people agree, is a capable leader and manager.

6. It will help to professionalize the County, which means it could enable the County to achieve some of the goals of a County Manager system within the existing “strong mayor” form of government.

7. An executive search process will be fair to the existing County Clerk. The executive search will not remove him from his position because his current position ends at noon on December 1, 2010. The process will allow him to apply for the new position, and if he chooses to apply he will arguably have an advantage by having served in previous years. If he is selected as the best of the candidates, the process will still be worthwhile in bringing greater clarity between the Council and the Clerk as to expectations, goals and the evaluation process to be followed. There will also likely be a greater appreciation and awareness of the qualifications and gifts that the present County Clerk has to offer because of the process he would have gone through.

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN: We’re still counting our blessings that the local newspaper’s Editor Nathan Eagle has taken an “if you want something done right, do it yourself” attitude toward covering county government- a fear-struck moment of seeing Leo Azambuja’s name on an article yesterday notwithstanding.

Although it’s a bit ambiguous, his rewrite of a county press release on the hiring of former Planning Director Dee Crowell as new Director Mike Dahilig’s deputy contained this tidbit the county release left out.

Crowell will replace current Deputy Planning Director Imai Aiu.

We’re not sure whether that’s just a good assumption on Eagle’s part- since the deputy job is non civil service and there’s only one “deputy director” budgeted in planning- or whether the other shoe has actually dropped due to the FBI probe of former Director Ian Costa and Aiu which we reported Monday and so is confirmation that Aiu is actually out of a job too.

It’s not unheard of on Kaua`i to see a former appointee who was forced out to be hired in a civil service position in the same department as happened with County Engineer Cesar Portugal during the Kusaka administration.

But Eagle’s by-lined article was even more revelatory, reporting that the Kaua`i County Council “met behind closed doors” yesterday to discuss the fate of County Clerk Peter Nakamura who apparently cost the county a quarter million dollars in a recently settled EEOC case.

Eagle fails to mention that the meeting was apparently not duly agendaed, as it does not appear on the county council web site, perhaps not trying to toot his own horn in ferreting out the secret confab.

But Eagle’s main story is one he’s been championing since last week- including in a weekend editorial- regarding whether the council should hire an executive search team to look for a county clerk, writing”

Community members have voiced their concerns over the cost of an executive search while others have said such a process is necessary in this instance.

But the question for the council may not be a matter of best practices vs. cost but a matter of fear and necessity.

In the wake of Police Commission Chair Michael Ching’s ethics case- where Ching was unceremoniously dumped for merely stating his preference for former Chief KC Lum during the process of the commission’s deliberations on hiring a new chief- local boards who hire and fire department heads are apparently scared bleepless to do the job themselves.

When the police commission hired a chief after Lum’s departure they indeed got the council to appropriate money for a professional search for a new chief even though they had apparently already decided to hire current Chief Darryl Perry, who had come in second in the process of hiring Lum.

Since then there have been no other hirings or firings by boards or commissions- the heads of the Fire, Liquor, and Personnel Departments remain on the job- although now of course the planning commission will be hiring a new permanent planning director too.

Any taint of favoritism of one candidate over another during the hiring process will naturally be seen as an ethics violation based on the precedent of the Ching case- which is, according to the county charter, binding on future cases until and unless it’s overturned by the Board of Ethics (BOE).

And indeed what the council does will also be seen as a precedent for the planning commission who will either take a hiring of a county clerk without a search as a green light for a simple selection process or take the hiring of professional search consultant as a signal they had better follow suit.

Though of course it’s silly to think that hiring a consultant is now going to be mandatory for all county boards and commissions that hire their department heads, so was the ethics case against Ching who was essential skewered for doing what he was supposed to do- picking one candidate and convincing the others that the person is the best one for the job.

The political repercussions of spending money on a search may be minor compared to those of going through a process of another trumped up ethics case based on the political persecutions of the past.

But of course the Ching case was a bed made by a past council- one that included the two new council returnees- and one in which the current members will have to lay.

NOTHING LIKE BEING THERE

NOTHING LIKE BEING THERE: And speaking of getting “quitted” it appears the brief tenure of the worst reporter in the local newspaper’s annuls (yes, even Lester Chang) has ended after a week or so’s absence of the name of Leo Azambuja from the paper’s pages and today’s coverage of yesterday’s council’s organizational meeting by council neophyte Vanessa Van Voorhis.

For the record Editor Nathan Eagle did not return multiple emails seeking information on Azambuja’s job status.

Although the pedestrian coverage appeared adequate we can’t help wonder whether it’s a disease or a habit of the paper’s reporters to use the kind of “lede” that first day J-school students are warned against.

Professor: They know there was a meeting yesterday because you’re writing about it. Pick something that happened there- the most important thing- and put it at the top, in 25 words or less. Then follow the “inverted triangle” format- Don’t report events chronologically but by order of importance.

But speaking of neophytes- at least as far attending or even watching council meetings- Joan Conrow has her own first hand account today.

It’s nice to occasionally have the two newspaper experience on Kaua`i but someone was obviously having a bit of fun with both Van Voorhis and Conrow on the subject of having the meeting open to the public.

As we wrote last week, a few councils have actually done their organizational business in open session. The issue is always whether they appear to have been scripted.

But Van Voorhis wrote that “(o)fficials said the meeting was unprecedented in that it was the first time a Kaua`i County Council held such a caucus open to the public” while Conrow said “in a nod to 'transparency and open government' — words rendered as meaningless as pristine and sustainability — the new County Council did its organizing for the first time in public”.

Oh well. If either decides to attend on a regular basis they’ll get the hang of not believing a word of what they’re hearing and only half of what they’re seeing.

But we were especially taken aback by this quip from Conrow whose malice toward Tim Bynum has been hardly concealed of late:

Tim said he was expecting Councilmembers to have “equal and equitable access to the key documents that are theirs” before going on to say he wants to structure the Council so that decisions made in Executive Session are made public. That way, you see, he won’t have to risk violating executive privilege by leaking them to a certain blogger.

Ah, engaging in libel per se now, eh Joan?

For the record our report on the Margaret Hanson Sueoka suit last month was based on having attended council meetings for many years which enabled us to go back to our notes and decipher the background of the Margaret Hanson EEOC harassment case, without any conversation whatsoever on the subject about it with Bynum.

Seeing recent executive sessions listed to evaluate Nakamura’s performance right after one to consider the Hanson settlement helped tip us off. Then, upon hearing the council’s discussion of the plethora of harassment suits including an oblique reference to a case “right here” in council services- and knowing that deputies in the county attorney’s office serve both the administration and the council- we realized that perhaps Hanson’s suit may not have had anything to do with her experiences with the administration, as we had previously theorized.

Years of leg work- something our bum back prevents us from doing these days- paid off.

We remembered the incident with Nakamura years ago and sure enough when we checked our files from the era, it turned out that it was Hanson that was the deputy county attorney assigned to the council at the time- the one who was harassed by her then-boyfriend County Clerk Peter Nakamura, according to many council regulars and employees of council services at the time.

As they say, we deny the allegation and we deny the alligator- we did not seek, receive nor use any illegally obtained information in our report.

It’s all especially strange considering Conrow’s final statement:

In the end, Tim got what he wanted in terms of committee assignments, and so did JoAnn. The question now is whether they’ll also get something else they want — an executive search firm to find a new County Clerk. Mel and Derek said they like current Clerk Peter Nakamura and Nadine had to recuse herself because he’s her brother-in-law.

I know why Tim doesn’t like Peter, but I’m not sure what JoAnn has against him. I’m pretty sure he had to go through Seven Habits when he was her planning director.....

Maybe that search is because Nakamura’s actions in harassing Hanson cost the county the $250,000.

Actually JoAnn wasn’t enamored with Steve Covey and “The Seven Habits of Truly Disingenuous and Irritating Assholes” when she was mayor. As a matter of fact it was because of her 180 from the micromanaging of where every paperclip went as mayor to seeking to become the consummate politician when the voters threw her out of office, that she turning to Covey.

Funny story here- at the actual first “public” organizational meeting of the council when Yukimura returned to elective office after a hiatus, we actually asked Yukimura whether she was going to support Nakamura’s reappointment and she replied “why wouldn’t I- he was my planning director”... which we always thought to be a strange statement in and of itself because the planning commission appoints the planning director... which of course reinforced her penchant for micromanagement reputation.

So Round and Round the Mulberry Bush they go and it helps to see every council meeting for a decade plus and report on county government for 25 years if you want to be able to tell the monkeys from the weasels.

(PNN) $250,000 SETTLEMENT IN “DOE V COK” EEOC CASE BEGAN WITH ALLEGED ‘02 ASSAULT BY COUNTY CLERK NAKAMURA UPON COUNCIL’S DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY

$250,000 SETTLEMENT IN “DOE V COK” EEOC CASE BEGAN WITH ALLEGED ‘02 ASSAULT BY COUNTY CLERK NAKAMURA UPON COUNCIL’S DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY

“DOE” ILLEGALLY IDED AS HANSON-SUEOKA BY CA CASTILLO, WHO FIRED HER IN ‘08

by Andy Parx

(PNN) -- The $250,000 settlement of a “hostile/violent work environment” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint identified only as “Jane Doe vs. County of Kaua`i” was actually a complaint filed by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson-Sueoka according to records illegally revealed by County Attorney Al Castillo.

The case apparently goes back to early 2002 during the waning days of Mayor Maryanne Kusaka’s administration but the precipitating incident occurred, not in administration offices where the county attorney’s offices are housed but in the “workplace” of council services.

According to numerous council services employees, past reporters and “regulars” at council meetings at the time, then and present County Clerk Peter Nakamura allegedly “beat up” Hanson-Sueoka, who was at the time his “girlfriend”, causing Hanson to seek a restraining order against Nakamura.

Though some alleged that at the time Nakamura was actually arrested others claim that he was not, with some of those saying that this was due to his position and Hanson-Sueoka’s refusal to press charges due to fear of repercussions on her job situation. Almost all however agreed in maintaining that Hanson had obtained a protective restraining order against Nakamura after telling people she was assaulted by him.

Although the county clerk heads the “council services” office and runs every aspect of council doings including hiring and firing of personnel, technically Hanson-Sueoka’s boss was the county attorney although the attorney assigned to the council often works closely and under the supervision of the county clerk.

But EEOC law also covers those that, while technically are not “superiors, but those that act as such.

An examination of county records and newspaper articles indicates Hanson-Sueoka was soon terminated from her plum assignment as attorney for the council and, when the Bryan Baptiste administration took over in December of 2002, she was retained as a deputy in new CA Lani Nakazawa’s office but assigned to attend various long and often boring and routine board and commission meetings to provide attorney advice.

Hanson-Sueoka remained with the office when Nakazawa left and was replaced by CA Matthew Pyun, and was the main county attorney involved in the infamous removal from office of Police Commission Chair Michael Ching- as well as the cover-up of the hearing judge’s full report exonerating Ching- and the resulting politically motivated firing of Police Chief KC Lum.

But when Bernard Carvalho was elected as mayor in 2008 and appointed Castillo, Hanson was fired for no stated reason, although her EEOC case presumably maintains it was retaliatory for whistle-blowing for past the incidents.

The EEOC complaint was filed after Hanson-Sueoka’s firing by Castillo and confirmation of the $250,000 award- along with the confirmation that it was a hostile/violent workplace compliant- came at least week’s council meeting as part of a presentation by Councilpersons Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum on the pervasive disregard for sexual harassment and hostile work environment laws by the county.

At the meeting the pair cited the “Jane Doe” case and that of Kristan Hirakawa- a case detailed by PNN over the past year- saying cases against the county are rarely if ever even investigated and that harassers are apparently never disciplined much less fired even after judgments against the county.

The incident in 2002 was the talk of the county building at the time including among councilmembers who were called into executive session to discuss personnel issues within council services although none would confirm publicly that the subject was Nakamura who remains on the job today despite the settlement.

Though the incident occurred during the time when then Councilperson Ron Kouchi was the chair of the council after the 2002 election- where he ran and lost in a bid to be mayor- current Chair Kaipo Asing took over and has remained chair ever since okaying, along with the rest of the council, various settlements for harassment of county employees as well as reappointing Nakamura as county clerk every two years.

Though EEOC cases are, by federal law, to be kept confidential, after firing Hanson-Sueoka Castillo twice revealed that indeed she was the EEOC plaintiff, the first time on the council agenda for April 22, 2009 where he requested executive session (ES) 382 which read in part,

the Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to provide the Council a briefing on Margaret H. Sueoka v. County of Kaua`i, EEOC Charge No. 486-2009-00268 and/or related matters and/or subsequent legal proceedings resulting in any way from this matter.

Then, even after a rejected request from PNN to examine the EEOC case files- where we were told by the CA’s office that federal law maintains strict confidentiality for EEOC complaints, superseding the state sunshine law- in a local newspaper article on August 28, 2009 about the $3 million that has been spent on outside counsel to defend lawsuits against the county, reporter Michael Levine wrote:

“Since I’ve been here, the only (lawsuit) that is mine is the Sueoka case, and that’s one where we really didn’t have a choice,” Castillo said, in reference to an equal employment opportunity claim filed against the county by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Sueoka. He said having a staff attorney handle the case could constitute a conflict of interest.

But recently all references on council agendas to the Hanson-Sueoka case were noted as “Jane Doe vs. County of Kaua`i” although both the recent postings and the one for April of 2009 referred to the same “Charge number”, 486-2009-00268.

Talk regarding the original incident when Nakamura was alleged to have “beat up” Hanson- who has since married and changed her name to Sueoka- was pervasive at the county building in 2002 when PNN was actively covering weekly council meetings and, while more than a dozen people repeated the story about Nakamura and Hanson, PNN has not been able to confirm the incidents through documentation.

It should be noted that this report was compiled after speaking to many knowledgeable sources both in 2002 and this week and after a review of our notes from that era. It is the best available rendering of the truth of what has occurred in this case. All undocumented allegation are just that- undocumented allegations.

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

ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGING

(PNN) -- The release of information on the applications of prospective board and commission (B&C) members took another turn today when, on instructions from the Office of Information Practices (OIP), good government activist Rob Abrew filed for that information and also submitted a written request to “seek clarification in writing from the County Clerk’s office as to whether and to what extent all the applications received in the Clerk’s office concerning the Mayor's successful applicants to various Kauai County Boards and Commission's, will be made available to the public”.

Abrew also asked “before any additional action is taken by the Clerks Office and by the Kauai County Council on any appointments not already approved, that the Clerk respond to this request”.

Abrew’s complete letter to County Clerk Peter Nakamura is reproduced below.

In response to a request by Abrew for guidance as to how to proceed given previous OIP rulings on the matter (see PNN/gw?) Friday - COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS) the OIP’s Acting Director Cathy L. Takase told Abrew that:

We have received your email dated January 7, 2010 asking that the Office of Information Practices (OIP) review whether or not the Kauai County Council must disclose the application of a successful applicant for a county board or commission prior to their action on that applicant, i.e., where the Mayor has appointed the individual and that individual's appointment is now before the Council for confirmation. You stated that you orally asked the County Clerk's office for copies of the applications and were orally denied access to them.

OIP does not generally issue opinions based upon informal requests (i.e., oral requests) made to agencies for records under the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) (the UIPA). Therefore, we will not be opening a case file for your request. However, we note that you are correct that OIP has previously opined that Council confirmation of board and commission appointees must be done in an open meeting and that successful nominee applications are generally public with respect to information such as names, employment history, current occupations and education. See oip Op. Ltr. No. 05-04 (issued to Council member JoAnn Yukimura); Op. Ltr. No. 91-8 (application information to be disclosed for Governor's nominees).

It is our understanding that the meeting at which the Mayor's nominees were confirmed has passed. Given this fact, we presume that you are no longer interested in getting the actual applications, but are instead seeking to get clarification for future confirmations. Given these facts, we suggest that you seek clarification in writing from the County Clerk's office or the County Attorney's office as to whether and to what extent applications of successful mayoral nominees for boards and commissions will be made available. You may provide them with a copy of this letter, and they may consult with 01? if desired. If you receive a response that is inconsistent with the above-referenced 01P opinions, you may request an opinion at that time, enclosing a copy of your request and any written agency response received.

Although many of the nominees were confirmed last Wednesday without the information being publicly available despite a verbal request by Abrew, in today’s written document request Abrew asked for the applications of those prospective B&C members whose confirmations have been deferred because the council had to reschedule their interviews.

Verbal request for public documents related to current agenda items are always granted by council services without delay or charge. Written requests for documents can face a 10 business day delay before a response is sent, according to state law.

Since agendas need not be filed until six calendar days before a meeting, a document may not be available until well after the meeting.

According to sources, Nakamura and the council are seeking to set the responsibility for redacting the parts of the applications that do not fall into the “public interest” category- like phone numbers and other extraneous information- and releasing them.

But the OIP has said that it is the council’s responsibility to make the documents available before the meeting because the trigger for releasing the information is the public nature of the confirmation process and the public’s right to testify on each nominee armed with the information contained in the applications.

Abrew also submitted his testimony from last Wednesday’s council meeting as well as the letter from Takase along with the two requests.

The summaries and complete texts of OIP Opinion. Letters No. 91-8 and 05-04 are available on-line at:
91-8 Summery -- Full Text
05-04 Summery -- Full Text

---------

Abrew’s letter to County Clerk Nakamura

01/11/10
Mr. Peter Nakamura, Kauai County Clerk

I would like to seek clarification in writing from the County Clerks office as to weather and to what extent all the applications received in the Clerks office concerning the Mayor's successful applicants to various Kauai County Boards and Commission's , will be made available to the public.

This clarification is in response to a oral request for these applications that was denied on January 4 2010 from this Office at the counter.

I would ask the County Clerk to respond to this request for clarification as soon as possible due to a letter I received from the State of Hawaii Office of Information Practices on January 8 2010. This letter addresses a previous letter sent to The County Clerks Office IE.. OIP 05-04. This letter is attached to this request.

I also ask before any additional action is taken by the Clerks Office and by the Kauai County Council on any appointments not already approved that the Clerk respond to this request

I have also included in this request for clarification, the testimony I presented to the County Council on 1-05-10. This testimony describes in detail my concerns with information not available to the public as required by law for the County Council to review and act on the Mayor’s selected appointments to various County Boards and Commissions.

Mahalo,
Rob Abrew