AND SO THE POOR DOG HAD NONE

AND SO THE POOR DOG HAD NONE: Our three part series on the Unethical Culture of some members of the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) detailed the cases of three members of that board who have and continue to violate the plain reading of the county charter’s Code of Ethics which prohibits members of boards and commissions from appearing on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions, including the county council.

As we concluded. what was missing was that, in order to get the ball rolling to force them to either remove themselves from office or quit representing private interests was an actual complaint filed with the BOE.

So over the weekend, Rolf Bieber felt responsible as a BOE member to take matters into his own hands and file three complaints- two against his fellow BOE members Mark Hubbard and Judy Lenthall and one against attorney Lorna Nishimitsu who sits on the Cost Control Commission.

Bieber, who ran for mayor last fall, told us it wasn’t anything personal and that he respects the three immensely but that the board needed to move forward on the matter because, as it stands there was no enforcement whatsoever of the provision based on BOE decisions in other cases last and earlier this year.

His notarized complaints include the transcripts from the three county council meetings where the three represented private interests- Hubbard for the Kaua`i Action and Planning Alliance, Lenthall for the Kaua`i Food Bank and Nishimitsu for Kikia`ola Land Corporation.

Although none of them would comment for our series, that wasn’t the case when reporter for the local newspaper Michael Levine contacted them for comment on his story today regarding Bieber’s complaints.

And if anyone thought that perhaps Hubbard- the former Chair and now Vice Chair of the BOE- was in need of professional mental health after reading his ramblings in our article his comments to Levine certainly approximate the classic response of a paranoid schizophrenic.

There are apparently at least two Mark Hubbard’s existing nowhere but in Hubbard’s own mind depending on what covers the head that contains the various Hubbard’s.

In classic gibberish Hubbard told Levine:

“The way I read it (Section 20.02(D)) is very simple. When I was sitting there in front of the County Council, the hat I wore was Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance. I made no representation, I was not considered, not looked upon as vice chair of Ethics. It had nothing to do with Ethics even though I am on that board.

“I didn’t appear as the Ethics person, I appeared as the treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance,” Hubbard said. “The Board of Ethics person wasn’t around. The treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance was around. Yes, it happens to be the same person.”

Hats? What awesome powers do bonnets bestow? They apparently give the wearer the ability to change identity like some kind of incognito emissary in a spy movie attempting to bamboozle his enemies.

Perhaps Hubbard has a secret collection of headwear that allows him to change personas whenever he chooses, much like Superman’s glasses can convince Lois Lane he’s actually mild mannered reporter Clark Kent.

One possible explanation is that it’s the good Mark Hubbard that selflessly appears on behalf of KPPA and his evil twin that sits on the BOE.

But we can only hope Hubbard guards his chapeau collection well lest they fall into the hands of those who do us harm. Imagine the problems it would pose for the courts if the criminal element could avoid prosecution by simply making the right choice at the haberdashers.

Good thing we can trust Hubbard not to abuse his Superhero status...uh he does belong to the Legion of Justice doesn’t he?... or does he simply have a hat for that.

He must have had Tom Terrific’s magic thinking cap to come up with what Levine reported he said next

Asked about the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest if council members were to one day have to answer to the Board of Ethics, Hubbard said “there’s no such thing.”

“When people talk about the appearance of conflict of interest, to me, that has nothing to do with the Board of Ethics,” he said. “Is there a conflict of interest or isn’t there? There’s no such thing as appearance."

No such thing? Good thing the news hasn’t reached Kaua`i Mark because there 943,000 results for “appearance of a conflict of interest” at Google including the one at Wikipedia which starts off it’s “conflict of interest” entry by saying

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization... has an interest that might compromise their reliability.

A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization.

Ask yourself what you would do if appointed for a body that oversees ethics and deals with conflicts of interest. Would you not review what an appearance of conflict of interest actually is before you said it doesn’t exist?

Not our pal Mark- get this final gobbledy-gook

“There is no conflict because I went and asked the council for something. Their choice is to say yes or no. ... I could feel good about that, or bad about that, and I could act. I have some authority, I have a vote on the Board of Ethics. ... (but) I didn’t have a financial interest (in KPAA). That’s the charter and the county regs — it has to be financial.”

No financial interest? KPPA is one of the Kaua`i government’s favorite recipients of their largess, to be distributed to others for various planning projects at PPPA’s pleasure... quite the powerful position.

As a matter of fact, Levine’s article reports, Hubbard’s appearance was quite successful since an extra $14,500 appears in the supplemental budget that came after his “appearance on behalf of” KPPA.

The article also notes that Executive Director Lenthall got $20,000 more in the supplemental budget after her appearance on behalf of the Food Bank.

Lenthall for her part still clings to the inability to distinguish between a personal and private interest telling Levine:

Lenthall said it was unfair to her as an unpaid volunteer that she be expected to give up rights guaranteed to private citizens, citing as an example her right to appeal a property tax assessment, and said the language as currently written could discourage volunteers from helping the county, something she does “out of the goodness of my heart.”

What Lenthall fails to recognize is that it has nothing to do with the “goodness of her heart” and whether she wants to “help the county”. 99.9% of the residents of Kaua`i have and will never come before a board or commission asking for money or tangible considerations. The fact that a small handful of those who do populate these boards and commissions reflect the inherent moral bankruptcy and corrupt mindset of those who feed at the government trough is no coincident born of necessity.

The insinuation that Hubbard is not Hubbard at certain times or that there are multiple Hubbard’s stretches credulity to the breaking point, especially with the quasi-judicial nature of the BOE.

In any other judicial proceeding just the fact that a judge or juror even knows the defendant is cause for them to be excused from the proceedings.

The fact that Hubbard has ruled on the ethics complaints filed against member of the county council in the past makes his claim that he should be permitted to solicit funds from them the construction of an unethical if not criminal mind and one certainly not suited to sit on any county body much less the ethics board.

What are we- a bunch of freakin' idiots? You can certainly check off a big fat “yes” when it comes to what Hubbard and Lenthall think.

MOTHER HUBBARD’S LAMENT

MOTHER HUBBARD’S LAMENT: Government bureaucrats have never been known for their competence or honesty.

But with the way some are being ridiculed by judges lately you’d think people like Honolulu County clerk Denise Decosta and Chief Elections officer Kevin Cronin would show some integrity or at least shame- and resign.

Cronin’s penchant for making it up as he goes along- as pilloried by an administrative judge last week was- surpassed by Decosta in her convoluted attempt to keep a citizen initiative against rail in Honolulu off the ballot because even though it was legally submitted to qualify for the general election the petitioners mentioned a special election in their preface.

Judge Karl Sakamoto’s now “instant classic” ruling yesterday that “(t)he voice of the people should not be suffocated by the erroneous readings of the law by its own government" was apparently part of a new spate of recent rulings by judges asking government officials “what am I an idiot?” in light of their intentional administrative twistings of the law.

The actual Honlulu City Charter provisions- which trumps the confusing special ordinance and administrative rules- says:

Any petition for proposed ordinance which has been filed with the council at least ninety days prior to a general election and which has been certified by the clerk, shall be submitted to electors for the aforementioned general election."

So how old is Decosta? Six? When they read her the actual prevailing rules of the game she apparently pointed to an out of context phrase, showed us what her mommy said, put her fingers in her ears and yelled “You said it- nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah- I can’t hear you- nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.”

But on Kaua`i we’ve apparently got a new judge for whom the answer to what am I an idiot? is an unqualified “yes” when it comes to abuses of administrative a-holes

But what do you expect? Firth Circuit Court judge Kathleen Wantanbe came straight from the government bureaucracy to her perch on the bench and seemingly her rulings don’t just give the benefit of the doubt to government officials but they consider complaints about it to be a nuisance- just like her bureaucratic brethren .

Yesterday’s hearing in Joe Brescia’s genocide and desecration case was punctuated by a distinct flavor of telling the government that they can do no wrong if press reports are accurate.

First she ruled that only the reportedly allegedly corrupt Kaua`i State Archeologist Nancy McMahon could testify but not archeologist Dr. Michael “No Pun Intended” Graves who represented the aggrieved iwi and their descendents.

Independent reporter Joan Conrow described it this way this morning

Before the proceedings got to that place, Watanabe refused to qualify Dr. Michael Graves, a witness called by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., as an expert in Hawaiian archaeology. Never mind that he spent 21 years at UH teaching undergraduate and graduate students in archaeology and served as head of the department.

Since that prohibited Graves from discussing whether the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) acted properly in its treatment of the Naue burials, much of the hearing was devoted to Kauai state archaeologist Nancy McMahon defending her decisions regarding the burials there.

What a surprise- a career government lawyer deciding that self-serving government officials’ testimony is expert- even one whose job is in jeopardy, being under fire for not knowing what the heck she is doing, what the law really says and lying to both the Kaua`i Burial Council and Planning Commission- and denying a private sector university professor with no bone to pick, so to speak.

And what they were arguing about puts the meter on Wantanabe’s “what am I an idiot?” rating in the red zone.

As Star-Bulletin reporter Tom Finnegan said today

The Native Hawaiian Legal Corp.. argued that the state archaeologist reversed the decision of the Kauai Ni`ihau Burial Council when she allowed Brescia's contractors to build the home and cap seven grave sites with concrete.

Chandler's lawyers blame state Historic Preservation Division archaeologist and Kauai County Council candidate Nancy McMahon for pushing through both the permits at the county level and the burial council's plan to keep the burials in place. Then, the lawyers argued, she approved the contractor's plan without returning to the burial council for its input.

McMahon, who testified yesterday, said that... no evidence has been found that would make anyone believe the area was a cemetery, rather than 30 individual graves. (emphasis added)

However, Alan Murakami, Chandler's lawyer, said that the burial council wanted to preserve the burials as a unit, and McMahon took it on her own to interpret its ruling.

By allowing the house to be built atop the graves, rather than preserving them, "the state has disemboweled the burial council," Murakami added.

Oh- well, that explains it all- it’s just a coincidence. Those stupid Hawaiians just threw their dead all over the place and randomly and independently decided to inter their dead there in a concentration that exponentially outstrips most other nearby locations of “iwi kupuna”

Apparently there was no actual plan to screw poor Joe Brescia 500 years in the future by burying all the bodes in one place bodies there.

Well, we’d better pull our tongue out of our cheek long enough to ask if McMahon’s contention exposes anything but the depth of depravity of the administrative scope of genocide that continues to percolate through the Hawai`i State apparatus.

If she contends that despite the concentration of 30 full sets of remains in an 18,000-square-foot beachfront property it was not purposefully done as what westerners would call a cemetery she obviously presumes that the pre-western contact Hawaiians were too dumb to coordinate a place to inter their dead.

After all those brown skinned people are akin to a bunch of animals who have no capacity to concentrate their burials in a certain area with any intent..

Because as we all know a concentration of trees is not forest- unless you look at a dictionary.

The significance of this is that McMahon has used this as the premise- in addition to using tortured readings the law- to take away authority from the burial council to preserve the area.

And so Wantanbe acceded to this shibai by accepting the “30 burials do not a cemetery make” postulate in allowing construction to continue at least until the hearing continues weeks from now, saying essentially the only reason she wasn’t dismissing the case was that "I understand the community is split... I understand the need for finality and ... some closure." according to Finnegan.

This is the same judge that, for example, refused to allow public examination of the minutes of a Kaua`i County Council Executive session minutes as the OIP called for because it was “impossibly intertwined” with the material OIP had suggested be redacted when the rest was released.

What is it with Kaua`i judges? Well maybe it’s that “once a bureaucrat, always a bureaucrat”.

With Wantanbe and ex-politician Randall Valenciano- he of the famous refusal to hear the challenges to the Superferry after the Supreme Court remanding to a similar court on Maui- filling the bench over here we can expect any tortured reading of the law that allows political manipulation of people’s rights to be upheld.

If Decosta and Cronin finally do get canned we have a feeling that they’d always have a job on Kaua`i where our government functionaries can just make up the law as they go along and get their former cronies, now on the bench, to uphold them.