OIP RULES ASING HELD '09 EXECUTIVE SESSION ILLEGALLY; MEETING WAS KEY IN CHALLENGE TO ABUSE OF POWER CHARGES AGAINST FORMER CHAIR WHICH LED TO HIS OUSTER.
(PNN) A key Kaua`i County Council Executive Session (ES) held more than two years ago was not "allowed under the Sunshine Law," according to a "Memorandum Opinion" issued by the Office of Information Practices (OIP) on Friday (June 29, 2012).
The June 4, 2009 ES was a major skirmish in the war between former Council Chair Kaipo Asing and Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara over Asing's secrecy and dictatorial rule- a war which led eventually to the end of Asing's decades long political career when he was unseated in the 2010 election.
The opinion stated that:
In appropriate circumstances, a board may go into an unanticipated executive session with its attorney to discuss its ability to add an item to its agenda, so long as the board does not discuss the underlying item proposed to be added. See HRS § 92-5(a)(4) (Supp. 2011).
However, given the length of the executive session and the fact that the County Attorney publicly announced his advice on whether the proposed item could be added to the agenda by vote, OIP infers that the discussion was not limited to advice on that legal question. Because the Council failed to rebut that inference by explaining what discussion occurred during the executive session and why it properly fell within an executive session purpose, and failed to provide any evidence or arguments to meet its burden to justify the executive session, OIP cannot find that the executive session was allowed under the Sunshine Law.
As PNN reported on June 5 2009 the OIP had previously warned that holding such an ES would be a violation of the state open meetings or "Sunshine Law" (HRS 92). In the article PNN also detailed issues over Asing's abuses of power according to essays by Bynum and Kawahara. The essays were posted at their kauaiinfo.org web site which the two used to post documents and information on Asing's penchant for secrecy and, in the dust-up at hand, his use of ambiguous council rules to block Bynum from introducing measures before the council.
The opinion itself says that:
Requester (Bra Parsons) asked for an investigation into whether the Kauai County Council (Council) violated the Sunshine Law by holding an executive session to discuss a motion to add an item to the agenda for its meeting held on June 3, 2009 (the Meeting). Unless otherwise indicated, this opinion is based solely upon the facts presented in Requester’s e mail correspondence dated June 4, 2009 and attached materials. Although OIP requested the Council’s position on Requester’s complaint, including a detailed explanation of the events in question, in letters dated June 5 and December 2, 2009, the Council did not submit its position or any factual explanation of the events. OIP thus takes the factual accounts in materials submitted by Requester, and any reasonable inference therefrom, as uncontested. Requester relied primarily on the facts presented in an article in The Garden Island newspaper: Michael Levine, Following the Rules.
Levine's article, upon which OIP attorney Jennifer Brooks said she based most of the opinion, describes the meeting, saying:
With the only two avenues of adding an item to the agenda — with Asing’s initial or through a floor motion — effectively closed off, Asing, who finished fourth in voting in November’s election behind Vice Chair Jay Furfaro, newcomer Derek Kawakami and Bynum, has essentially vested in himself a preemptive veto power even surpassing that held by Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. in that Asing’s decisions cannot be overridden by a supermajority vote and that his decisions are shielded from public view.
After Bynum made the motion at the outset of Wednesday’s meeting, Asing moved the discussion to the end of the agenda.
Five hours later, after dealing with the six-page agenda, Asing said Section 92-7(d) of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes precluded the council from voting on or even discussing Bynum’s resolution because it is of “reasonably major importance and action thereon by the board will affect a significant number of persons.”
Bynum provided to his fellow council members and the public a May 15 e-mail correspondence between himself and state Office of Information Practices staff attorney Jennifer Brooks in which she told him his proposed resolution “does not appear to be of reasonably major importance or to affect a significant number of people” and “appears suitable to be added to the agenda by a 2/3 vote, and the council would be acting in good faith in so adding it.”
Castillo said the unanticipated matter should be discussed in executive session to protect the council from potential liability. After a 5-2 vote approving the secret session — Bynum and Lani Kawahara dissented — the council closed its doors for about an hour.
When it reconvened, Castillo told the council “the proposed resolution encroaches upon the duties of the chairman as the presiding officer of the council. Therefore it is of reasonably major importance. The way that the council is run affects all of the people in this county.”
“The people of Kaua‘i did not have an opportunity to know what was placed on the agenda. That’s the reason for the Sunshine Law,”Castillo said, adding that there are rules in place to govern how much time must elapse between the public posting of the agenda and the meeting to which it applies.
After Asing called the meeting back to order and ended discussion by quickly adjourning it to comply with Castillo’s advice, the chair was asked if there were plans to include Bynum’s resolution on the agenda for the next meeting.
“No,” he said.
When asked if there was any reason why it would not be, as there is now enough time to bring the council into compliance with the Sunshine Law by posting the agenda item in advance of the June 16 meeting, Asing said, “Nothing especially.”
“I am just following the rules of the council,” he said.
Readers can access additional PNN coverage of the matter via Parx News Daily archives from 2009. Some key posts include:
Tuesday, June 9, 2009: (PNN) OIP OPENS INVESTIGATION OF COUNCIL’S EXECUTIVE SESSION ON DENYING AGENDA ACCESS TO COUNCILMEMBERS
Wednesday, June 10, 2009: DON’T LET GO, DON’T LET GO
Thursday, June 11, 2009: DARKNESS, DARKNESS
Friday, June 12, 2009: ON AND ON, ON AND ON, ON AND ON
Monday, June 15, 2009: A DAY AT THE RACES
Wednesday, June 17, 2009: (PNN) KAWAHARA, BYNUM OUTMANEUVER ASING, NAKAMURA; DISCUSSION OF RULE CHANGES PUT ON FUTURE AGENDA.
Thursday, June 18, 2009: SAME OLD DOG, SAME OLD TRICK:
Because the OIP opinion is not (yet) available on line we are posting the entire "Statement of Reasons for Opinion" below:
Requester asked for an investigation and enforcement action against the Kauai County Council based on various news reports of the Meeting. Specifically, Requester questioned whether the Council’s executive session held to discuss a motion to add an item to its agenda was proper under the Sunshine Law.
At the time of the Meeting, the Council’s Rule 10 allowed any member to introduce any bill or resolution, but required bills and resolutions to be initialed by the Council Chair before being placed on an agenda. Certain members complained that the Council’s then-Chair would not initial bills and resolutions they requested, thus preventing those items from being placed on the Council’s agenda. One of the members thus affected, Tim Bynum, brought a motion during the Meeting to add to the Meeting’s agenda a resolution to amend Rule 10 to clarify that the Council Chair could not use the initialing requirement to indefinitely postpone hearing bills or resolutions requested by a Council member. The Chair moved discussion on Mr. Bynum’s pending motion to the end of the Meeting’s agenda.
When the Council reached the end of its agenda five hours later, the Chair, supported by County Attorney Al Castillo (County Attorney), stated that Mr. Bynum’s motion to add a resolution clarifying Rule 10 to the agenda could not be voted on because the issue was of reasonably major importance and action thereon would affect a significant number of persons. Mr. Bynum responded by sharing an e-mail dated May 15, 2009, from OIP Staff Attorney Jennifer Brooks, which advised that the proposed resolution did “not appear to be of reasonably major importance or to affect a significant number of people,” that it “appear[ed] suitable to be added to the agenda by a 2/3 vote,” and that the Council “would be acting in good faith in so adding it.”
The County Attorney then advised the Council, which still had not voted on the motion to add an item to its agenda, to discuss the motion in executive session to protect the Council from potential liability. The Council voted 5-2 in favor of going into executive session, apparently for the purpose of consulting with its attorney, and then went into a closed session for about an hour. When the public meeting reconvened, the County Attorney announced that “the proposed resolution encroaches upon the duties of the Chairman as the presiding officer of the Council. Therefore it is of reasonably major importance. The way that the council is run affects all of the people in this County.” The meeting was adjourned shortly thereafter, with no vote having been taken on the motion. As an initial matter, OIP notes that the e-mail setting forth OIP’s advice did not put the Council under any obligation to add the item to its agenda. An item may be added to a filed agenda only with “a two-thirds recorded vote of all members to which the board is entitled; provided that no item shall be added to the agenda if it is of reasonably major importance and action thereon by the board will affect a significant number of persons.” HRS § 92-7(b) (Supp. 2011). Thus, even if an item was qualified to be added to a Council agenda because it was not of reasonably major importance and action on it would not affect a significant number of persons, the Council’s failure to add the item to its agenda would not violate the Sunshine Law because it was up to the board to decide whether to add the item, and there was no vote to do so. OIP further notes that the c-mailed advice given to Mr. Bynum is consistent with the informal advice OIP has given in other situations regarding a board’s ability to add an alteration to the board’s internal procedures to an agenda by vote: the persons affected by a change to the Council’s rules regarding a member’s ability to place an item on the agenda would be only the nine Council members, who do not represent a significant number of persons when compared to the Council’s entire constituency.
Requester argues that the Council’s filed agenda stated that the Council can hold an unanticipated executive session “on any agenda item,” and based on that, Requester questions whether the executive session was proper when the issue being discussed was not an agenda item itself but instead was whether the Council could place an item on the agenda. The Sunshine Law anticipates that items may be added to an agenda and that an executive session not anticipated in advance need not be listed on a board’s agenda. $HRS § 92-7 (providing that notice of an executive session necessary only “when anticipated in advance” and explaining the requirements for adding an item to an agenda that has already been filed). Moreover, while section 92-5(b), HRS, bars a board from discussing matters not directly related to purposes listed in section 92-5(a), HRS, one of the permitted purposes for an executive session is “[t]o consult with the board’s attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities.” HRS § 92-5(a) (5). OIP therefore believes that in appropriate circumstances, a board may go into an unanticipated executive session with its attorney to discuss its ability to add an item to its agenda, so long as the board does not discuss the underlying item proposed to be added.
The question remaining to be resolved is whether the Council’s executive session discussion was, in fact, limited to consultation with the County Attorney regarding the Council’s ability to add the proposed item to its agenda by vote. As mentioned above, despite having been asked to provide its position on the complaint, including a detailed explanation, the Council did not provide any explanation of what it actually discussed during the executive session. OIP is required to receive and resolve complaints under the Sunshine Law, and in doing so to strictly construe the exceptions to the open meeting requirement against closed meetings. HRS §S 92-1 and 92F-42(18) (Supp. 2011). Thus, when a member of the public complains to OIP that a Council executive session was not in compliance with the Sunshine Law, the Council has the burden to justify that executive session to OIP. See id. In this case, the Council failed to meet its burden when it provided no response to OIP.
Additionally, the facts presented by Requester raise a reasonable inference that the executive session discussion was not limited to the apparent topic for which it was called, which was consultation with the County Attorney regarding the Council’s ability to add a proposed item by vote. In the public portion of the meeting, the Chair and County Attorney had already announced their conclusions on the question the board was supposedly considering, when they stated that Mr. Bynum’s motion to add a resolution clarifying Rule 10 to the agenda could not be voted on and the proposed resolution could not be added to the agenda because the issue was of reasonably major importance and action thereon would affect a significant number of persons. The County Attorney repeated his opinion when the Council emerged from the executive session, which suggests that neither the Council nor the County Attorney was primarily concerned with protecting the County Attorney’s advice on the question of whether the Council could add the proposed item to its agenda by vote. The length of the executive session, approximately an hour, also suggests that the Council’s discussion was not limited to that fairly straightforward legal question.
From the length of the session and the fact that the County Attorney’s advice was publicly announced, OIP infers that the Council’s discussion was not limited to consultation with the County Attorney regarding the Council’s ability to add the proposed item to its agenda by vote. Because the Council failed to rebut this inference by explaining what discussion occurred during the executive session and why it properly fell within an executive session purpose, and did not in any way attempt to meet its burden to justify the executive session, OIP cannot conclude that the executive session was allowed under the Sunshine Law.
Showing posts with label Tim Bynum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Bynum. Show all posts
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
PLENTY OF NOTHIN'
PLENTY OF NOTHIN': It's gonna be the best of elections. It's gonna be the worst of elections.
Yes it's a dickens o' pickin's and a tale all too sh*tty when it comes to the most dismal number of candidates for the seven seats on the the Kaua`i County Council in memory. Yet on the plus side the enumeration of only nine names includes Gary Hooser, a politician who makes us reluctant to use the term to describe Gary since it's usually reserved for corrupt cronies and despicable despots.
Hooser, who started his public service career on the council from 1998-2002 before becoming the Kauai's State Senator from 2002-2010, is returning to his roots. His presence will no doubt bring the level of council discourse and accomplishment, if not to the highest rung of the ladder of good governance, a least out of the existing swirling sewer of percolating pestilence.
The problem is that the rest of the list is made up of the same old seven incumbent-hacks we've grown to, in some cases loath, in others tolerate, plus local and UH baseball hero, Ross Kagawa, who has two chances- the proverbial slim and none, with slim nursing a terminal illness.
So we're down to a proverbial game of musical chairs and the only reason to vote in the election- the one in November that is because all will get past the August 11 "primary"- is to see who gets dumped when Hooser is inevitably added.
While we are tempted to just "plunk" for Gary (a term for not using all seven votes and simply "plunking" down only the names of those who one truly likes) and may do so in November, for now we will list the rest of those running based on exactly how much of a worthless piece of crap each one is and why.
So for all you dumpers out there (and if you're not one, please register now) here's our list of dumpees in order of dump-worthiness.
1) Dickie Chang. This is probably the hardest choice- whether to make our good friend Dickie our least favorite or save that honor for Mel Rapozo. It's like trying to decide whether you like the guy who is repeatedly plunging a knife in your back or prefer the guy who is standing there watching, trying to decide when and whether to either encourage the stabber or condemn him... although it would certainly never occur to him too stop him.
Dickie is the proverbial man who, like former State Rep Ezra Kanoho for whom the phrase was created, "never met a hotel he didn't like." Dickie's penchant for lap-dog behavior- usually in the service of Chair Jay Furfaro- is infamous and when he does take a stand it is clearly taken with clay feet planted firmly on both sides of the fence. The one thing we can say about Dickie is that this is exactly what we expected from him. That of course makes-
2) Mel Rapozo the next one to not vote for. Mel manages to play politics with the simplest of no-brainers, using his unique blend of bamboozical logic and contortionistic, convoluted unreasoning as his moral compass- a compass that continually points in one direction... toward Mel. Perhaps the most emblematic representation of this bit of Kabuki is his recent attempt to change the charter because he didn't like an opinion from County Attorney Al Castillo’s office regarding the legal use of the word "shall." Rapozo didn't like what Castillo told him the law said and what the courts have consistently ruled on the matter, so he first tried to get his cohorts to hire Mel's own personal choice of outside lawyer to tell him what he wanted the law to say. When that failed he unsuccessfully tried to garner enough votes to put the matter before the electorate even though if it did pass it would be moot from the day it was enacted because it doesn't matter what our charter says when the state courts have already ruled on the matter.
Rapozo's "are-you-going-to-believe-me-or-your-lyin'-eyes" defense of Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho as she "took the fifth" and demanded a private attorney to represent her rather than openly discuss her budget with the council- has known no bounds, making for some fascinatingly fractured farces... quintessential Rapozo.
That brings us to the aforementioned "larger than life" (both girth-wise and in his own mind-wise) current Chair-
3) Jay Furfaro. Furfaro managed to eek out a 4-3 vote for chair last election, something that he may not be able to do with Hooser on the council. More on that later.
Furfaro is a throwback to the old style Hawai`i "orator" whose chest-thumping, credit-taking, egotistical style of expression is endlessly enigmatic to watch especially as lunch and sometimes dinner breaks are approaching. As the clock ticks toward noon it invariably throws him into incoherent ramblings and rushed decision making, commensurate with the decibel level of his stomach growling. To be fair, he is diabetic but his munching-vs-governing meter is out of whack even for someone who has "the sugar." Speaking of sweetness, the next on our bottoms-up itemizing is someone who turned out to be NutraSweet. That would be-
4) Kipukai Kuali`i. Kipukai was appointed after current State Representative and then Councilmember Derek Kawakami was appointed to fill Mina Morita's spot when she was appointed to be the head the Public Utilities Commission. People expected a lot from his "win" of 2010's post-election version of musical chairs and got virtually nothing. He has turned out to be simply a little less of a political animal than Rapozo and seems quite content to learn more at Mel's feet. Although he has gone after some of the more absurd council appropriations- when they suit his political bent- the last straw was his unshakable support for Iseri after she fired the Victim/Witness Counselors in her office. That eliminated the long-time county positions and instead she contracted out the duties to (drum roll please) Kualii's employer, the YWCA, ensuring his support before the council. He not only sold his political soul but he then refused to recuse himself from participating in the council's deliberations regarding Iseri. And speaking of disappointments there's-
5) Nadine Nakamura, although in her case disappointment may be a bit strong because we never expected any more than we got. The would be a politically malleable councilmember who doesn't seem to have a position on anything other than compromise, even when one of the options is at best unpalatable, at worst patently absurd. Her prime directive for the past two years has apparently been to take good legislation and introduce difficult-to-reject amendments that make the original unacceptable, even in cases when the votes are there for passage. Even if she did govern from a progressive viewpoint no one would know it because her experience as a facilitator and mediator have made her into a gutless wonder who makes one question whether there is any substance there at all. And speaking of substance there's-
6) Tim Bynum. Some would have him positioned at the bottom of this list for his effort to allow transient vacation rentals (TVRs) on Ag land, not to mention his previous work to allow them to be grandfathered on all otherwise zoned land. We can hardly ignore that and other positions he's taken. On the other hand he was, with then Councilmember Lani Kawahara, primarily responsible for the plastic bag ban and also successfully took on then Council Chair Kaipo Asing over open governance issues. What we can say is that at least they have apparently been taken because he believes in whatever he has supported. But if for no other reason than his persecution-prosecution by political enemy Iseri in the Ricecooker-gate scandal- an abuse of power on her part that we hope will end in November with the election of Justin Kollar (more on that race in a future post)- we have positioned him among the keepers this time. He could have folded but his persistence has unveiled alleged criminal activity on Iseri's part. All that pretty much also goes for-
7) JoAnn Yukimura. It's not that our disappointment with JoAnn has diminished to a level where we enthusiastically rate her the numero uno councilmember- although she has done some really good stuff recently.* But she also went along with Bynum on the Ag TVR issue and was the prime mover behind the grandfathering efforts, preferring to knuckle under to big money developers rather than go to court to enforce the laws apparently forbidding them.
We've questioned the consistency of those we have spoken to who were dead set against supporting Bynum due to the TVR debacle but were equally as supportive of Yukimura. We've simply asked them how they can condemn Bynum on that issue without doing the same for JoAnn.
All we can say is that is, on balance- and especially given the reality of the fact that six of the seven are going to be on the council whether we like it or not- we are forced to rate Bynum and Yukimura as "plunkworthy," to coin a term.
That leaves only one issue to be decided in November when it comes to the council race- the question of council leadership, which hangs in the balance.
After the 2010 election Yukimura challenged Furfaro for chair. Furfaro had Chang's, Rapozo's and, at the time, Kawakami's votes leaving Yukimura with Bynum's and Nakamura's.
In order to wrest control of the chair- assuming either Yukimura or possibly Hooser will challenge Furfaro and that Nakamura will maintain her vote for Yukimura- the addition of Hooser makes a change in the chair a distinct possibility. That also assumes that the odd-man-out is either Chang, Rapozo or Kuali`i. We can't be sure of Kualii's vote but suspect he is politically indebted to Furfaro after Furfaro gave procedural support to Kuali`i and Rapozo during some of the budget hearings regarding Iseri.
If the election were held tomorrow in addition to being shocked, surprised and totally taken aback, we would be forced to plunk for Hooser, Yukimura, Bynum and Nakamura since leadership is the only issue to be decided. But equally as important is NOT to vote for Chang, Rapozo, Furfaro or Kuali`i.
The August primary will tell us something about the strength of each candidate- it has always been like a super-accurate poll since 14 candidates usually get though to the November vote. In this case although all - and only- nine will make it through, we'll certainly know more about the strength of each by August 12.
One thing is all but certain- this mess of a council will make it through this year's election with six or seven intact. And while it gives us plenty to froth and foam about, any plans we've had to be a kinder and gentler rabid reporter may well end up, shall we say, going to the dogs.
*Correction: It was Tim Bynum who, along with Lani Kawahara, was primarily responsible for the single use plastic bag "ban," not, as we originally said JoAnn Yukimura who was not on the council at the time the bill passed. The original on line version has been corrected. We regret the error
-------
We are heartsick over the loss of Rose Schlegel, the daughter of our good friends Sherry and Jim (Pole) Pollock, who lost her life in an apparent freak accident in Kalalau Valley Wednesday. It is horrendous to lose any loved one but to lose a child, even one aged 30, is unimaginably tragic and their pain and sorrow must be unbearable. Please keep them in your thoughts and, if appropriate, prayers. It makes one wonder how such bad things can happen to such good people while selfish and mean people go unscathed. Don't forget to hug your loved ones, especially your keiki, today and every day. Life is fragile, seemingly especially for the righteous. We love you Sherry and Pole and will hold Rose in our thoughts forever.
Yes it's a dickens o' pickin's and a tale all too sh*tty when it comes to the most dismal number of candidates for the seven seats on the the Kaua`i County Council in memory. Yet on the plus side the enumeration of only nine names includes Gary Hooser, a politician who makes us reluctant to use the term to describe Gary since it's usually reserved for corrupt cronies and despicable despots.
Hooser, who started his public service career on the council from 1998-2002 before becoming the Kauai's State Senator from 2002-2010, is returning to his roots. His presence will no doubt bring the level of council discourse and accomplishment, if not to the highest rung of the ladder of good governance, a least out of the existing swirling sewer of percolating pestilence.
The problem is that the rest of the list is made up of the same old seven incumbent-hacks we've grown to, in some cases loath, in others tolerate, plus local and UH baseball hero, Ross Kagawa, who has two chances- the proverbial slim and none, with slim nursing a terminal illness.
So we're down to a proverbial game of musical chairs and the only reason to vote in the election- the one in November that is because all will get past the August 11 "primary"- is to see who gets dumped when Hooser is inevitably added.
While we are tempted to just "plunk" for Gary (a term for not using all seven votes and simply "plunking" down only the names of those who one truly likes) and may do so in November, for now we will list the rest of those running based on exactly how much of a worthless piece of crap each one is and why.
So for all you dumpers out there (and if you're not one, please register now) here's our list of dumpees in order of dump-worthiness.
1) Dickie Chang. This is probably the hardest choice- whether to make our good friend Dickie our least favorite or save that honor for Mel Rapozo. It's like trying to decide whether you like the guy who is repeatedly plunging a knife in your back or prefer the guy who is standing there watching, trying to decide when and whether to either encourage the stabber or condemn him... although it would certainly never occur to him too stop him.
Dickie is the proverbial man who, like former State Rep Ezra Kanoho for whom the phrase was created, "never met a hotel he didn't like." Dickie's penchant for lap-dog behavior- usually in the service of Chair Jay Furfaro- is infamous and when he does take a stand it is clearly taken with clay feet planted firmly on both sides of the fence. The one thing we can say about Dickie is that this is exactly what we expected from him. That of course makes-
2) Mel Rapozo the next one to not vote for. Mel manages to play politics with the simplest of no-brainers, using his unique blend of bamboozical logic and contortionistic, convoluted unreasoning as his moral compass- a compass that continually points in one direction... toward Mel. Perhaps the most emblematic representation of this bit of Kabuki is his recent attempt to change the charter because he didn't like an opinion from County Attorney Al Castillo’s office regarding the legal use of the word "shall." Rapozo didn't like what Castillo told him the law said and what the courts have consistently ruled on the matter, so he first tried to get his cohorts to hire Mel's own personal choice of outside lawyer to tell him what he wanted the law to say. When that failed he unsuccessfully tried to garner enough votes to put the matter before the electorate even though if it did pass it would be moot from the day it was enacted because it doesn't matter what our charter says when the state courts have already ruled on the matter.
Rapozo's "are-you-going-to-believe-me-or-your-lyin'-eyes" defense of Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho as she "took the fifth" and demanded a private attorney to represent her rather than openly discuss her budget with the council- has known no bounds, making for some fascinatingly fractured farces... quintessential Rapozo.
That brings us to the aforementioned "larger than life" (both girth-wise and in his own mind-wise) current Chair-
3) Jay Furfaro. Furfaro managed to eek out a 4-3 vote for chair last election, something that he may not be able to do with Hooser on the council. More on that later.
Furfaro is a throwback to the old style Hawai`i "orator" whose chest-thumping, credit-taking, egotistical style of expression is endlessly enigmatic to watch especially as lunch and sometimes dinner breaks are approaching. As the clock ticks toward noon it invariably throws him into incoherent ramblings and rushed decision making, commensurate with the decibel level of his stomach growling. To be fair, he is diabetic but his munching-vs-governing meter is out of whack even for someone who has "the sugar." Speaking of sweetness, the next on our bottoms-up itemizing is someone who turned out to be NutraSweet. That would be-
4) Kipukai Kuali`i. Kipukai was appointed after current State Representative and then Councilmember Derek Kawakami was appointed to fill Mina Morita's spot when she was appointed to be the head the Public Utilities Commission. People expected a lot from his "win" of 2010's post-election version of musical chairs and got virtually nothing. He has turned out to be simply a little less of a political animal than Rapozo and seems quite content to learn more at Mel's feet. Although he has gone after some of the more absurd council appropriations- when they suit his political bent- the last straw was his unshakable support for Iseri after she fired the Victim/Witness Counselors in her office. That eliminated the long-time county positions and instead she contracted out the duties to (drum roll please) Kualii's employer, the YWCA, ensuring his support before the council. He not only sold his political soul but he then refused to recuse himself from participating in the council's deliberations regarding Iseri. And speaking of disappointments there's-
5) Nadine Nakamura, although in her case disappointment may be a bit strong because we never expected any more than we got. The would be a politically malleable councilmember who doesn't seem to have a position on anything other than compromise, even when one of the options is at best unpalatable, at worst patently absurd. Her prime directive for the past two years has apparently been to take good legislation and introduce difficult-to-reject amendments that make the original unacceptable, even in cases when the votes are there for passage. Even if she did govern from a progressive viewpoint no one would know it because her experience as a facilitator and mediator have made her into a gutless wonder who makes one question whether there is any substance there at all. And speaking of substance there's-
6) Tim Bynum. Some would have him positioned at the bottom of this list for his effort to allow transient vacation rentals (TVRs) on Ag land, not to mention his previous work to allow them to be grandfathered on all otherwise zoned land. We can hardly ignore that and other positions he's taken. On the other hand he was, with then Councilmember Lani Kawahara, primarily responsible for the plastic bag ban and also successfully took on then Council Chair Kaipo Asing over open governance issues. What we can say is that at least they have apparently been taken because he believes in whatever he has supported. But if for no other reason than his persecution-prosecution by political enemy Iseri in the Ricecooker-gate scandal- an abuse of power on her part that we hope will end in November with the election of Justin Kollar (more on that race in a future post)- we have positioned him among the keepers this time. He could have folded but his persistence has unveiled alleged criminal activity on Iseri's part. All that pretty much also goes for-
7) JoAnn Yukimura. It's not that our disappointment with JoAnn has diminished to a level where we enthusiastically rate her the numero uno councilmember- although she has done some really good stuff recently.* But she also went along with Bynum on the Ag TVR issue and was the prime mover behind the grandfathering efforts, preferring to knuckle under to big money developers rather than go to court to enforce the laws apparently forbidding them.
We've questioned the consistency of those we have spoken to who were dead set against supporting Bynum due to the TVR debacle but were equally as supportive of Yukimura. We've simply asked them how they can condemn Bynum on that issue without doing the same for JoAnn.
All we can say is that is, on balance- and especially given the reality of the fact that six of the seven are going to be on the council whether we like it or not- we are forced to rate Bynum and Yukimura as "plunkworthy," to coin a term.
That leaves only one issue to be decided in November when it comes to the council race- the question of council leadership, which hangs in the balance.
After the 2010 election Yukimura challenged Furfaro for chair. Furfaro had Chang's, Rapozo's and, at the time, Kawakami's votes leaving Yukimura with Bynum's and Nakamura's.
In order to wrest control of the chair- assuming either Yukimura or possibly Hooser will challenge Furfaro and that Nakamura will maintain her vote for Yukimura- the addition of Hooser makes a change in the chair a distinct possibility. That also assumes that the odd-man-out is either Chang, Rapozo or Kuali`i. We can't be sure of Kualii's vote but suspect he is politically indebted to Furfaro after Furfaro gave procedural support to Kuali`i and Rapozo during some of the budget hearings regarding Iseri.
If the election were held tomorrow in addition to being shocked, surprised and totally taken aback, we would be forced to plunk for Hooser, Yukimura, Bynum and Nakamura since leadership is the only issue to be decided. But equally as important is NOT to vote for Chang, Rapozo, Furfaro or Kuali`i.
The August primary will tell us something about the strength of each candidate- it has always been like a super-accurate poll since 14 candidates usually get though to the November vote. In this case although all - and only- nine will make it through, we'll certainly know more about the strength of each by August 12.
One thing is all but certain- this mess of a council will make it through this year's election with six or seven intact. And while it gives us plenty to froth and foam about, any plans we've had to be a kinder and gentler rabid reporter may well end up, shall we say, going to the dogs.
*Correction: It was Tim Bynum who, along with Lani Kawahara, was primarily responsible for the single use plastic bag "ban," not, as we originally said JoAnn Yukimura who was not on the council at the time the bill passed. The original on line version has been corrected. We regret the error
-------
We are heartsick over the loss of Rose Schlegel, the daughter of our good friends Sherry and Jim (Pole) Pollock, who lost her life in an apparent freak accident in Kalalau Valley Wednesday. It is horrendous to lose any loved one but to lose a child, even one aged 30, is unimaginably tragic and their pain and sorrow must be unbearable. Please keep them in your thoughts and, if appropriate, prayers. It makes one wonder how such bad things can happen to such good people while selfish and mean people go unscathed. Don't forget to hug your loved ones, especially your keiki, today and every day. Life is fragile, seemingly especially for the righteous. We love you Sherry and Pole and will hold Rose in our thoughts forever.
Friday, May 25, 2012
OFF THE DEEP END
OFF THE DEEP END: Nobody questions whether rats will desert a sinking ship. But how long they will wait before doing so probably depends on the circumstances. But when one starts, the rest usually follow
Obviously they can't take too long, which is why at least two councilmembers decided they'd waited long enough to abandon the SS P.O.H.A.K.U and they'd be damned if they were going down with Captain Spittle of Malaprop.
Councilmember Nadine Nakamura was backpedaling like Michael Jackson on steroids. She apparently didn’t like her political prospects should she let stand as her final word on the subject her recent vote to allow Kaua`i Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri Carvalho to run out the clock. And Chair Jay Furfaro also smelled trouble should he do the same.
Even Kipukai Kuali`i and Dickie Chang silently went along with the program, leaving only Iseri's first Mate Mel Rapozo standing on the deck.
For those who thought last week's vote to pass the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney's (OPA) budget without any resolution to Iseri's scandalous refusal to answer until she got a county-paid special counsel to represent her was going to be the last word on the subject, guess again.
Because Wednesday (go to 9:24:20), after Yukimura introduced a measure to ask the Board of Ethics (BOE) to look into the matter and read a statement written by Bynum (see below) detailing Iseri's misdeeds (Bynum was absent due to the imminent birth of his first grandchild), it became apparent that continuing to allow Iseri to get away with alleged crimes and misdemeanors was a bad idea if they expected to get reelected.
Before Bynum's statement was read, Iseri's First Mate, Councilmember Mel Rapozo, had attempted to defuse potential defections by launching into a "my-my, it's enough to give a lady the vapors" spiel, tying to claim that he'd never seen anything like this level of scrutiny in his political career- seemingly forgetting about his own politically motivated crusade to oust former Chief of Police KC Lum.
He then announced that, anyway, the administration had "launched an inquiry" into the whole matter.
But when Yukimura read Bynum's statement and "corrected" Rapozo by saying the administration was looking into the procurement improprieties but not the general ethics charges, it became apparent that no one was going to stay aboard with Mel and Shay.
Bynum's statement read:
On April 11, 2012 the Council met in executive session on matters that included the POHAKU program. An Executive Session was posted for a briefing related to POHAKU on April 18, 2012. On April 18th Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark responded to members questions in open session. Ms. Clark indicated that the information was time sensitive stating “I think it is important that the Council has as much information as possible, as soon as possible.” Council member Yukimura asked if there were possible liabilities for the Council that could increase if additional time went by. The answer was yes. In spite of this, a majority of the Council voted to delay the discussion for two weeks. On May 2, 2012 the briefing was finally held. However no action was taken.
I have concerns (Bynum continued) among them are:
- The use of county address as the address for the registered agent of a private business.
- The fact that the Pohakuprogram.com website directs payment to a private business and the Council has not been provided with a copy of any contract with that business.
- The Prosecutor has refused to answer questions from the Council related to the Pohaku program until the County provides her special Counsel for legal representation.
Subsequently we heard that the POHAKU program had stopped operating, however Ms. Iseri-Carvalho said last Tuesday May 15, on the Council floor “our office can internally run the P.O.H.A.K.U program, which we will continue to do almost immediately.” As of yet no one is looking into the possible Charter violations. After what, in my opinion, is too much delay the posting for this body to take appropriate action is finally here before us today.
County officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, The Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i and the Kaua‘i County Charter. I have been told by all the County Attorneys that have held the office since I became a Council member that when a question regarding a potential violation of the Charter is raised the Council has a duty to see that an appropriate inquiry is held. The Board of Ethics is an appropriate body for such an inquiry. So I will obviously support this motion.
But rather than outright supporting the call for an ethics referral, Furfaro announced that, at the request of County Attorney Al Castillo, he would support a deferral to either June 6 or 13 until the administration’s "inquiry" was finished.
But it was Nakamura who really started the stampede to the exits when she said she would essentially support the ethics referral saying she would "support the bullet points" contained in Bynum's statement. That caused the other two rats present to get caught up in the stampede and Kuali`i and Chang went along with the deferral since there were not only apparently not enough votes to defeat it but enough to approve, if not the referral to the BOE, then at least the deferral until June.
We'll see what the "inquiry" comes up with but for now there appears to be a growing awareness among councilmembers that, whether the local newspaper is covering the scandal or not, people have been following the story on TV and on-line. And if councilmembers want to maintain a spot on their own SS Council it may be time to abandon Iseri's leaky little POHAKU putt-putt.
Obviously they can't take too long, which is why at least two councilmembers decided they'd waited long enough to abandon the SS P.O.H.A.K.U and they'd be damned if they were going down with Captain Spittle of Malaprop.
Councilmember Nadine Nakamura was backpedaling like Michael Jackson on steroids. She apparently didn’t like her political prospects should she let stand as her final word on the subject her recent vote to allow Kaua`i Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri Carvalho to run out the clock. And Chair Jay Furfaro also smelled trouble should he do the same.
Even Kipukai Kuali`i and Dickie Chang silently went along with the program, leaving only Iseri's first Mate Mel Rapozo standing on the deck.
For those who thought last week's vote to pass the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney's (OPA) budget without any resolution to Iseri's scandalous refusal to answer until she got a county-paid special counsel to represent her was going to be the last word on the subject, guess again.
Because Wednesday (go to 9:24:20), after Yukimura introduced a measure to ask the Board of Ethics (BOE) to look into the matter and read a statement written by Bynum (see below) detailing Iseri's misdeeds (Bynum was absent due to the imminent birth of his first grandchild), it became apparent that continuing to allow Iseri to get away with alleged crimes and misdemeanors was a bad idea if they expected to get reelected.
Before Bynum's statement was read, Iseri's First Mate, Councilmember Mel Rapozo, had attempted to defuse potential defections by launching into a "my-my, it's enough to give a lady the vapors" spiel, tying to claim that he'd never seen anything like this level of scrutiny in his political career- seemingly forgetting about his own politically motivated crusade to oust former Chief of Police KC Lum.
He then announced that, anyway, the administration had "launched an inquiry" into the whole matter.
But when Yukimura read Bynum's statement and "corrected" Rapozo by saying the administration was looking into the procurement improprieties but not the general ethics charges, it became apparent that no one was going to stay aboard with Mel and Shay.
Bynum's statement read:
On April 11, 2012 the Council met in executive session on matters that included the POHAKU program. An Executive Session was posted for a briefing related to POHAKU on April 18, 2012. On April 18th Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark responded to members questions in open session. Ms. Clark indicated that the information was time sensitive stating “I think it is important that the Council has as much information as possible, as soon as possible.” Council member Yukimura asked if there were possible liabilities for the Council that could increase if additional time went by. The answer was yes. In spite of this, a majority of the Council voted to delay the discussion for two weeks. On May 2, 2012 the briefing was finally held. However no action was taken.
I have concerns (Bynum continued) among them are:
- The use of county address as the address for the registered agent of a private business.
- The fact that the Pohakuprogram.com website directs payment to a private business and the Council has not been provided with a copy of any contract with that business.
- The Prosecutor has refused to answer questions from the Council related to the Pohaku program until the County provides her special Counsel for legal representation.
Subsequently we heard that the POHAKU program had stopped operating, however Ms. Iseri-Carvalho said last Tuesday May 15, on the Council floor “our office can internally run the P.O.H.A.K.U program, which we will continue to do almost immediately.” As of yet no one is looking into the possible Charter violations. After what, in my opinion, is too much delay the posting for this body to take appropriate action is finally here before us today.
County officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, The Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i and the Kaua‘i County Charter. I have been told by all the County Attorneys that have held the office since I became a Council member that when a question regarding a potential violation of the Charter is raised the Council has a duty to see that an appropriate inquiry is held. The Board of Ethics is an appropriate body for such an inquiry. So I will obviously support this motion.
But rather than outright supporting the call for an ethics referral, Furfaro announced that, at the request of County Attorney Al Castillo, he would support a deferral to either June 6 or 13 until the administration’s "inquiry" was finished.
But it was Nakamura who really started the stampede to the exits when she said she would essentially support the ethics referral saying she would "support the bullet points" contained in Bynum's statement. That caused the other two rats present to get caught up in the stampede and Kuali`i and Chang went along with the deferral since there were not only apparently not enough votes to defeat it but enough to approve, if not the referral to the BOE, then at least the deferral until June.
We'll see what the "inquiry" comes up with but for now there appears to be a growing awareness among councilmembers that, whether the local newspaper is covering the scandal or not, people have been following the story on TV and on-line. And if councilmembers want to maintain a spot on their own SS Council it may be time to abandon Iseri's leaky little POHAKU putt-putt.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
BLOWING CHUNKS
BLOWING CHUNKS: It seems appropriate that sewage is once again spilling into the ocean at Nawiliwili. After all, all that crap being generated up the hill in Lihu`e this week had to go somewhere.
People all over town were asking "do you smell that?" on Tuesday and it didn't take an olfactorally-advanced detective to discover the source as being the Kaua`i County Council Chambers.
That was when our seven stilted servants once again turned to the budget for what, from all indications, appears to be the biggest criminal enterprise on Kaua`i these days- the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA). Those who have been under a pohaku might want to read up on OPA Godmother Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho and her P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
And another great must-read, blow-by-blow account of Tuesday's session is available via Joan Conrow for anyone who doesn't have the time to watch the debacle... although the latter is well worth the investment of an hour (start about an hour in) if just for the comedic value.
No one expected much in the way of discussion regarding evil mastermind Iseri's all-purpose now-you-see-it-now-you-don't combination misdemeanor diversion program/reelection campaign tool. She's been busy lawyering up and taking the fifth so to no one's surprise, with the aid of her Council(hench)man Mel Rapozo and his refuse-to-recuse sidekick Kipukai Kuali`i, her council nemesis Tim Bynum and his second JoAnn Yukimura once again failed to get any "answers" to the same kinds of questions all the other department heads had to answer in order to receive their yearly budget appropriation.
Lesser Iseri sycophants Council Chair Jay Furfaro, and Councilmembers Dickie Chang and Nadine Nakamura managed to help shut things down out and keep the relevant allegations of crimes and misdemeanors from the public's ears and eyes, running out the clock without any repercussion to the budget... and of course the local newspaper has been too busy promoting flower shows, defunct food banks and poisonous GMO corn to notice the P.O.H.A.K.U. mess.
But while the council busied itself exploring new corners and crevices on the other side of the looking glass, it might well have been County Attorney Al Castillo who stole the show.
This week's prize for "Most Convoluted Abuse of the Law" goes once again to the program "Legal Opinions From Al's Ass," the show that asks the statutory question "did he really just say that?"
This time Castillo actually told Yukimura that the council can't appropriate "line items" in the budget- specific amounts designated for specific uses like a salary for a certain position or a piece of equipment or furniture.
Despite the fact that that's what a line-item budget does by definition, Castillo told the assembled that to restrict department heads as to what the money can be used for would be violate "the separation of powers" and be "interfering with the administration."
After a few "let me get this straight" questions, Yukimura simply gave up, flabbergasted by the notion that a department head like Iseri can now take all money appropriated for her department and spend it on anything her black little heart desires.
Finally things got as curiouser as they could get when Nakamura revealed that, according to the finance director, the P.O.H.A.K.U. was either "pau" or "suspended". But attempted verification of that information apparently depended on how many times one asked the question, so the council spent the next half hour asking over and over until Iseri herself got up and told them it wasn't really pau or suspended but rather being run internally in her office.
By that point everyone was thoroughly confused and befuddled, but it didn't really matter because that was when Furfaro ruled the clock had officially run out, apparently because the only part of the day that matters to Furfaro was beckoning: lunch.
The next move in this monkey chess game will be played at this coming Wednesday's council meeting when, the council will consider the following agenda item:
C 2012-170 Communication (05/17/2012) from Councilmember Yukimura, requesting Council approval of her request that the Board of Ethics conduct an investigation of whether violations of the Code of Ethics have occurred in connection with the creation and operation of the POHAKU Program and related matters.
In addition, the matter is listed for an executive session.
And speaking of wasting time, get ready to once again to vote on a charter amendment that would give these clods four-year terms.
The claim by councilmembers is that "we can't get anything done in two years." But the message from the voters has been "we're not sure we want you to 'get anything done.' If there was a way to give you two month terms, we'd probably go for that."
It's not like Kaua`i voters haven’t said "no freakin' way" way too many times to keep track of over the past few decades. Yet the council is once again apparently going to ask the electorate to approve doubling the time between elections. The last time we said "no" was in 2006 when we also passed "term limits" of eight years.
If you get a chance watch the "debate," do so with an eye toward the unmitigated arrogance and sense of entitlement.
The assumption that these office are theirs once they are elected is palpable. Talk of "slots opening up" when the "eight-years are up" is bandied about with no sense of the fact that they have to run for re-election every two years.
The voters will no doubt reject four-year terms once again and the council will no doubt try again in a few years. If anything, we'd probably pass a charter amendment to prohibit the council from asking us more than once every 20 years.
But if you're looking for the obvious source of the sewage spill it might be the latest "big flush" of $120,000 into the Kaua`i Marathon. Every year it's been the same thing- for no apparent reason the taxpayers have been forced to shovel wads of cash into the event with promises that "this will be the last year." Only it hasn't been and apparently never will be since this year's appropriation seems to be circling the drain with little opposition from council members.
That money could go a long way if it were to be spread wisely among the charitable non-profits that serve the island's neediest. But instead it's shunted directly into the coffers of hotel owners, airlines and other off-island entities, soon to be converted into campaign contributions. Supposedly a few dollars will trickle-down to local businesses and service industry employees, but no one is really quite sure how that works, and council members didn't seem interested in asking any questions so they weren't told too many lies.
It is an election year after all. It can only get worse.
People all over town were asking "do you smell that?" on Tuesday and it didn't take an olfactorally-advanced detective to discover the source as being the Kaua`i County Council Chambers.
That was when our seven stilted servants once again turned to the budget for what, from all indications, appears to be the biggest criminal enterprise on Kaua`i these days- the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA). Those who have been under a pohaku might want to read up on OPA Godmother Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho and her P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
And another great must-read, blow-by-blow account of Tuesday's session is available via Joan Conrow for anyone who doesn't have the time to watch the debacle... although the latter is well worth the investment of an hour (start about an hour in) if just for the comedic value.
No one expected much in the way of discussion regarding evil mastermind Iseri's all-purpose now-you-see-it-now-you-don't combination misdemeanor diversion program/reelection campaign tool. She's been busy lawyering up and taking the fifth so to no one's surprise, with the aid of her Council(hench)man Mel Rapozo and his refuse-to-recuse sidekick Kipukai Kuali`i, her council nemesis Tim Bynum and his second JoAnn Yukimura once again failed to get any "answers" to the same kinds of questions all the other department heads had to answer in order to receive their yearly budget appropriation.
Lesser Iseri sycophants Council Chair Jay Furfaro, and Councilmembers Dickie Chang and Nadine Nakamura managed to help shut things down out and keep the relevant allegations of crimes and misdemeanors from the public's ears and eyes, running out the clock without any repercussion to the budget... and of course the local newspaper has been too busy promoting flower shows, defunct food banks and poisonous GMO corn to notice the P.O.H.A.K.U. mess.
But while the council busied itself exploring new corners and crevices on the other side of the looking glass, it might well have been County Attorney Al Castillo who stole the show.
This week's prize for "Most Convoluted Abuse of the Law" goes once again to the program "Legal Opinions From Al's Ass," the show that asks the statutory question "did he really just say that?"
This time Castillo actually told Yukimura that the council can't appropriate "line items" in the budget- specific amounts designated for specific uses like a salary for a certain position or a piece of equipment or furniture.
Despite the fact that that's what a line-item budget does by definition, Castillo told the assembled that to restrict department heads as to what the money can be used for would be violate "the separation of powers" and be "interfering with the administration."
After a few "let me get this straight" questions, Yukimura simply gave up, flabbergasted by the notion that a department head like Iseri can now take all money appropriated for her department and spend it on anything her black little heart desires.
Finally things got as curiouser as they could get when Nakamura revealed that, according to the finance director, the P.O.H.A.K.U. was either "pau" or "suspended". But attempted verification of that information apparently depended on how many times one asked the question, so the council spent the next half hour asking over and over until Iseri herself got up and told them it wasn't really pau or suspended but rather being run internally in her office.
By that point everyone was thoroughly confused and befuddled, but it didn't really matter because that was when Furfaro ruled the clock had officially run out, apparently because the only part of the day that matters to Furfaro was beckoning: lunch.
The next move in this monkey chess game will be played at this coming Wednesday's council meeting when, the council will consider the following agenda item:
C 2012-170 Communication (05/17/2012) from Councilmember Yukimura, requesting Council approval of her request that the Board of Ethics conduct an investigation of whether violations of the Code of Ethics have occurred in connection with the creation and operation of the POHAKU Program and related matters.
In addition, the matter is listed for an executive session.
And speaking of wasting time, get ready to once again to vote on a charter amendment that would give these clods four-year terms.
The claim by councilmembers is that "we can't get anything done in two years." But the message from the voters has been "we're not sure we want you to 'get anything done.' If there was a way to give you two month terms, we'd probably go for that."
It's not like Kaua`i voters haven’t said "no freakin' way" way too many times to keep track of over the past few decades. Yet the council is once again apparently going to ask the electorate to approve doubling the time between elections. The last time we said "no" was in 2006 when we also passed "term limits" of eight years.
If you get a chance watch the "debate," do so with an eye toward the unmitigated arrogance and sense of entitlement.
The assumption that these office are theirs once they are elected is palpable. Talk of "slots opening up" when the "eight-years are up" is bandied about with no sense of the fact that they have to run for re-election every two years.
The voters will no doubt reject four-year terms once again and the council will no doubt try again in a few years. If anything, we'd probably pass a charter amendment to prohibit the council from asking us more than once every 20 years.
But if you're looking for the obvious source of the sewage spill it might be the latest "big flush" of $120,000 into the Kaua`i Marathon. Every year it's been the same thing- for no apparent reason the taxpayers have been forced to shovel wads of cash into the event with promises that "this will be the last year." Only it hasn't been and apparently never will be since this year's appropriation seems to be circling the drain with little opposition from council members.
That money could go a long way if it were to be spread wisely among the charitable non-profits that serve the island's neediest. But instead it's shunted directly into the coffers of hotel owners, airlines and other off-island entities, soon to be converted into campaign contributions. Supposedly a few dollars will trickle-down to local businesses and service industry employees, but no one is really quite sure how that works, and council members didn't seem interested in asking any questions so they weren't told too many lies.
It is an election year after all. It can only get worse.
Friday, May 4, 2012
SPIT IT UP
SPIT IT UP: No, Shaylene didn't grab us off the street and throw us in her own personal dungeon. Nor did Beth Tokioka get out the pins and the voodoo doll.
And after an MRI "gut check" we've confirmed that our recent nausea is not, as we suspected, due to the prospect of four years of having to listen to the voice of former Governor Ben Cayetano should he become the mayor of Honolulu.
We regret the lack of a high fiber diet for the past 20 years (damn, dem Safeway baguettes is tasty), but the diverticular gods apparently have other people to sicken today so maybe between bathroom runs we can play a little catch-up today.
Of course the news that Judge Kathleen Watanabe threw out Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's politically motivated charges against her blood-feud enemy Councilmember Tim Bynum in the "Rice-Cooker-Gate" case- and made sure she couldn't file them again- wasn't much of a surprise. The real laughter was that the "special prosecutor" assigned to the case was none other than former one-term Kaua`i Councilmember and current Deputy Prosecutor on Maui, Richard "Sweating Bullets" Minatoya.
Minatoya really had little choice but to go along with Watanabe's charade of taking Iseri's department off the case and then getting someone else to "investigate" Iseri's envisioned manifestations of the criminal mind of Tim Bynum.
Apparently Watanabe couldn't bring herself to just dismiss the charges all by herself, or better still jail Iseri for fraud and other "alleged" misconduct. The Judgy-Wudgy wouldn't want to deprive Iseri of due process just because Iseri has so little regard for due process herself.
(Parenthetically we just have to ask why it is that people who hate lawyers have such reverence for judges. Where do they think judges come from- the Judge Fairy?)
Once Minatoya talked to Iseri's hench-persons in the planning department and examined some of the evidence of Shay's and her "Igor," First Deputy Prosecutor Jake Delaplane's crimes and misdemeanors, he fulfilled his role of being "shocked, shocked" to find gambling at Rick's.
As an aside we can't let the fact that Minatoya's name is in the news go by without telling the tale of how he got that middle name.
It was we believe 1998 (we don't need no stinkin' fact checks) when then one-term Councilmember Mary Thronas decided to run for mayor (if we remember the correct chronology), trying to unseat then-Mayor Maryanne Kusaka.
Thronas failed in her mayoral bid after referring to Kusaka's office as "a Filipino taxi cab" and talking about "jewing-down" somebody-or-other... all within earshot of a reporter who apparently didn't know that those kinds of things aren't supposed to be reported on Kaua`i.
We were helping produce a "Video Voters' Guide" and had a couple of freebie rooms at the old Kaua`i Resort to do it. We had prepared questions for council and mayoral candidates and the questions were to be provided to each candidate exactly one hour before their individually scheduled taping times.
When Thronas came in we handed her the questions. She looked the piece of paper and then looked back at us and then looked back to the paper as if to ask "what the heck am I supposed to do with this?"
She never did glance at the content but rather spent the next hour gossiping with her hair and makeup people as they put her face in order. We actually had to read her the questions to her before she answered them... without of course really answering them, in quite the "accomplished politician" style .
Next up was the head-shaven Minatoya who had squeaked onto the council two years previously and had not exactly spent the biennium endearing himself to the electorate, serving as just another "bum" to be thrown out... just like the bum he had replaced.
Minatoya came in ten minutes before his appointed time to receive the questions and when we told him that, to be fair, we had to wait until exactly one hour before his taping time to give him the questions, he proceeded to stare at his watch for the next 10 minutes like he was waiting for the priest to arrive for last rites.
When we finally gave him the paper he began to look it over like it was his death warrant. What had previously been a trickle of perspiration now began flowing from his chrome-dome by the barrel-full. We didn't take a lot of notice and continued to yack about nothing in particular until Minatoya jumped up and, loud enough for them to hear him at the nearby Lydgate Park Pavilion, screamed "SHUT UP- I'VE ONLY GOT AN HOUR."
Needless to say by "showtime" Minatoya looked like he'd stepped out of a dunking booth. He stumbled his way through his answers, lost the election (some say because of the performance which played for months on public access TV) and was never heard from again on Kaua`i- until now.
Anyway, now we wait for the other shoe to drop as Bynum plots his revenge against Iseri, who has been busy lawyering-up over budget-related as well as other questions the council has over her P.O.H.A.K.U. program and other assorted sordid activities.
The council met in secret executive session on Wednesday regarding P.O.H.A.K.U. and next Wednesday will discuss it in public although the effect on Iseri's budget- which goes to public hearing next Wednesday at 5 p.m.- may be negligible in an election year since "dollar-funding" the entire Office of the Prosecutor (OPA) isn't really an option.
By the way, we just can't let this go without noting how hilarious it is that other island media have- due to a well established hatred of Bynum over the transient vacation rental issue- credited Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura with leading the investigative battle to reveal Iseri's "alleged" crimes.
The fact is that Yukimura has actually been serving as a mouthpiece for Bynum's research into Iseri's activities, but because Bynum wouldn't exactly be the best front-man for any public interrogation, Yukimura, to her credit, as taken up the reigns of the fight to publicize Iseri's shenanigans.
But the real news this week is the sudden departure of the local newspaper's "new" editor Renee Haines. We hear she was fired, not because she was censoring huge swaths of copy filed by her less-than-competent staff regarding Shaylene-related scandals and instead running fluff pieces Iseri gave her.
The publisher could care less about that and might have even been ordering it. They don't really care about much as long as the Happy Camper's column isn't printed blurry.
But apparently Haines had so little news savvy after coming over from the advertising side of the newspaper business that, as a fake newsperson, she personally wrote and published a fake story from fake marine biologist named Terry Lilley- who works for fake-everything Hanalei boatyard owner Mike Sheehan- and Lilley's fake "toxic levels of heavy metals in Hanalei Bay" report- all without checking with anyone as to what the truth is.
But if the local paper is a joke, the real joke is of course the Honolulu Star-Advertiser which has yet to say a word about the whole Iseri-Bynum brouhaha. That may be changing after Bynum's attorney Dan Hempey sent out a press release regarding Watanabe's ruling yesterday. But the joke may be about to become a shaggy dog story because the reporter assigned to the neighbor islands, Rosemary "No Dateline" Bernardo, has apparently yet to set foot on a neighbor island for a story, preferring to file her stories from the S-A's city desk.
We just love this place. Even bending over the toilet, it's endlessly entertaining.
We'll be posting whenever we can.
Eat your fiber kiddies.
And after an MRI "gut check" we've confirmed that our recent nausea is not, as we suspected, due to the prospect of four years of having to listen to the voice of former Governor Ben Cayetano should he become the mayor of Honolulu.
We regret the lack of a high fiber diet for the past 20 years (damn, dem Safeway baguettes is tasty), but the diverticular gods apparently have other people to sicken today so maybe between bathroom runs we can play a little catch-up today.
Of course the news that Judge Kathleen Watanabe threw out Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's politically motivated charges against her blood-feud enemy Councilmember Tim Bynum in the "Rice-Cooker-Gate" case- and made sure she couldn't file them again- wasn't much of a surprise. The real laughter was that the "special prosecutor" assigned to the case was none other than former one-term Kaua`i Councilmember and current Deputy Prosecutor on Maui, Richard "Sweating Bullets" Minatoya.
Minatoya really had little choice but to go along with Watanabe's charade of taking Iseri's department off the case and then getting someone else to "investigate" Iseri's envisioned manifestations of the criminal mind of Tim Bynum.
Apparently Watanabe couldn't bring herself to just dismiss the charges all by herself, or better still jail Iseri for fraud and other "alleged" misconduct. The Judgy-Wudgy wouldn't want to deprive Iseri of due process just because Iseri has so little regard for due process herself.
(Parenthetically we just have to ask why it is that people who hate lawyers have such reverence for judges. Where do they think judges come from- the Judge Fairy?)
Once Minatoya talked to Iseri's hench-persons in the planning department and examined some of the evidence of Shay's and her "Igor," First Deputy Prosecutor Jake Delaplane's crimes and misdemeanors, he fulfilled his role of being "shocked, shocked" to find gambling at Rick's.
As an aside we can't let the fact that Minatoya's name is in the news go by without telling the tale of how he got that middle name.
It was we believe 1998 (we don't need no stinkin' fact checks) when then one-term Councilmember Mary Thronas decided to run for mayor (if we remember the correct chronology), trying to unseat then-Mayor Maryanne Kusaka.
Thronas failed in her mayoral bid after referring to Kusaka's office as "a Filipino taxi cab" and talking about "jewing-down" somebody-or-other... all within earshot of a reporter who apparently didn't know that those kinds of things aren't supposed to be reported on Kaua`i.
We were helping produce a "Video Voters' Guide" and had a couple of freebie rooms at the old Kaua`i Resort to do it. We had prepared questions for council and mayoral candidates and the questions were to be provided to each candidate exactly one hour before their individually scheduled taping times.
When Thronas came in we handed her the questions. She looked the piece of paper and then looked back at us and then looked back to the paper as if to ask "what the heck am I supposed to do with this?"
She never did glance at the content but rather spent the next hour gossiping with her hair and makeup people as they put her face in order. We actually had to read her the questions to her before she answered them... without of course really answering them, in quite the "accomplished politician" style .
Next up was the head-shaven Minatoya who had squeaked onto the council two years previously and had not exactly spent the biennium endearing himself to the electorate, serving as just another "bum" to be thrown out... just like the bum he had replaced.
Minatoya came in ten minutes before his appointed time to receive the questions and when we told him that, to be fair, we had to wait until exactly one hour before his taping time to give him the questions, he proceeded to stare at his watch for the next 10 minutes like he was waiting for the priest to arrive for last rites.
When we finally gave him the paper he began to look it over like it was his death warrant. What had previously been a trickle of perspiration now began flowing from his chrome-dome by the barrel-full. We didn't take a lot of notice and continued to yack about nothing in particular until Minatoya jumped up and, loud enough for them to hear him at the nearby Lydgate Park Pavilion, screamed "SHUT UP- I'VE ONLY GOT AN HOUR."
Needless to say by "showtime" Minatoya looked like he'd stepped out of a dunking booth. He stumbled his way through his answers, lost the election (some say because of the performance which played for months on public access TV) and was never heard from again on Kaua`i- until now.
Anyway, now we wait for the other shoe to drop as Bynum plots his revenge against Iseri, who has been busy lawyering-up over budget-related as well as other questions the council has over her P.O.H.A.K.U. program and other assorted sordid activities.
The council met in secret executive session on Wednesday regarding P.O.H.A.K.U. and next Wednesday will discuss it in public although the effect on Iseri's budget- which goes to public hearing next Wednesday at 5 p.m.- may be negligible in an election year since "dollar-funding" the entire Office of the Prosecutor (OPA) isn't really an option.
By the way, we just can't let this go without noting how hilarious it is that other island media have- due to a well established hatred of Bynum over the transient vacation rental issue- credited Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura with leading the investigative battle to reveal Iseri's "alleged" crimes.
The fact is that Yukimura has actually been serving as a mouthpiece for Bynum's research into Iseri's activities, but because Bynum wouldn't exactly be the best front-man for any public interrogation, Yukimura, to her credit, as taken up the reigns of the fight to publicize Iseri's shenanigans.
But the real news this week is the sudden departure of the local newspaper's "new" editor Renee Haines. We hear she was fired, not because she was censoring huge swaths of copy filed by her less-than-competent staff regarding Shaylene-related scandals and instead running fluff pieces Iseri gave her.
The publisher could care less about that and might have even been ordering it. They don't really care about much as long as the Happy Camper's column isn't printed blurry.
But apparently Haines had so little news savvy after coming over from the advertising side of the newspaper business that, as a fake newsperson, she personally wrote and published a fake story from fake marine biologist named Terry Lilley- who works for fake-everything Hanalei boatyard owner Mike Sheehan- and Lilley's fake "toxic levels of heavy metals in Hanalei Bay" report- all without checking with anyone as to what the truth is.
But if the local paper is a joke, the real joke is of course the Honolulu Star-Advertiser which has yet to say a word about the whole Iseri-Bynum brouhaha. That may be changing after Bynum's attorney Dan Hempey sent out a press release regarding Watanabe's ruling yesterday. But the joke may be about to become a shaggy dog story because the reporter assigned to the neighbor islands, Rosemary "No Dateline" Bernardo, has apparently yet to set foot on a neighbor island for a story, preferring to file her stories from the S-A's city desk.
We just love this place. Even bending over the toilet, it's endlessly entertaining.
We'll be posting whenever we can.
Eat your fiber kiddies.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
P.O.H.A.K.U.: ROCKIN' IN THE SHAY WORLD; A PNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
P.O.H.A.K.U.: ROCKIN' IN THE SHAY WORLD;
WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL WANTS ANSWERED ON PROSECUTOR'S SIGNATURE DIVERSION PROGRAM?
A PNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
(PNN) -- Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's much ballyhooed P.O.H.A.K.U. program to "divert" minor offenders from jail has blown-up recently as two councilmembers have tried to ask questions about the program while the rest have blocked those queries, even refusing to hold closed door discussions of the program.
A PNN investigation has uncovered what some of those questions may be and found both process and monetary improprieties associated with the program as well as false claims on the part of Iseri and conflicts of interest within the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA).
For those who have not followed the council machinations lately, for weeks now Iseri, her First Deputy Jake Delaplane and her chief ally on the council Mel Rapozo have thwarted Councilmembers JoAnn Yukimura and Tim Bynum from even discussing the P.O.H.A.K.U. program, with the latest dust-up occurring at Friday's budget session for the OPA.
The council has twice defeated requests for an executive session with County Attorney Al Castillo, and when Council Chair Jay Furfaro was at a doctor's appointment Friday morning, Rapozo acted as chair and banned all discussion of P.O.H.A.K.U.
That enraged Bynum and Yukimura with Yukimura forced to withhold a power point presentation she had prepared to expose some of the alleged wrongdoing in the P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
But Rapozo banned discussion despite its direct relevance to the the agenda item: the OPA's budget, because, he claimed, County Attorney Al Castillo had banned the discussion- something Castillo later denied.
For those who want a blow-by-blow of the multi-level, multi-player chess game of the past month or so, including Friday's budget session, we recommend reading Joan Conrow's Kaua`i Eclectic coverage here, here and here
The overriding question no one has answered is why? What is Iseri so apparently trying to hide? No one can honestly watch the meetings without asking themselves that question. Why are she and Delaplane "running out the clock" with repetitive power point presentations and long winded answers to questions no one asked every time they are subjected to council questioning?
So what are Yukimura and Bynum trying to question her about?
The key to answering that is apparently a company that, despite Iseri's claim that the program is fully of her design and implementation, is apparently the entity that is responsible for the nuts and bolts of the P.O.H.A.K.U. program... a company called Strategic Justice Partners (SJP) LLC of Nevada.
Politically, P.O.H.A.K.U., which has been implemented for a few years now, has been a key to Iseri's campaign for re-election and she has promoted it recently in two articles in the local newspaper touting community meetings and the program's alleged successes. Iseri's official P.O.H.A.K.U. website calls it "a new innovative diversion program that was designed by the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) as an alternative to the traditional court process."
But although SJP has never publicly been mentioned by Iseri or her department's personnel, a look at the bottom of the P.O.H.A.K.U. web site says "Content copyright 2011-2012. Strategic Justice Partners. All rights reserved."
And a visit to the SJP web site reveals where the program really came from. The very first thing you see there on the right side is the statement that:
Strategic Justice Partners is a leader in Alternative Sentencing, Diversion and Early Release Programs.
"Our Diversion programs have a 94% completion rate with over 96% of participants rating their experience as "good" or "outstanding".
And under the "What We Do" button it describes a service that sound exactly like the P.O.H.A.K.U. program, saying they provide:
Diversion Programs
Diversion Programs result in lower recidivism than “Stand in line-Pay a fine” justice while dramatically reducing the burden and costs on Prosecutors and Courts. http://www.strategicjusticepartners.com/What_We_Do.html
And the main program exemplary of their work? At the top of the left had side of the home page of the site is a color photo of a smiling, lei-bedecked Iseri alongside a photo of a Kaua`i-style poi pounder (the symbol of P.O.H.A.K.U.) under the title "Kaua'i County Hawai`i; P.O.H.A.K.U. Program." and a blurb that says "We are pleased to introduce P.O.H.A.K.U., an innovative alternative to the traditional court Process."
It doesn't really say who "we" is but the context demands one interpret it as being SJP especially because it's their web site.
Iseri has recently been holding a series of meetings- meetings dutifully reported upon by the local newspaper- apparently as a part of, or at least in conjunction with, her campaign for re-election in the fall. One example of how she has used P.O.H.A.K.U. for political haymaking at every turn is the wording of a communication to the county council for a special council meeting on April 11.
At the time Iseri was asking the "Council approval to apply for and receive Technical Assistance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Vera Institute of Justice's national Cost-Benefit Knowledge Bank for Criminal Justice," although it has since been withdrawn at Iseri's request, apparently because that would have opened the door to questioning about P.O.H.A.K.U.
What would make us say that might be the reason? Well, Iseri had already applied for the "technical assistance" before the item was to have been approved by the council. Not only that but she withdrew the request after all the other delay requests on her part had failed... and she did so in a late night email to the chair, sent the night before the meeting where P.O.H.A.K.U. was to have been discussed.
But it's the rest of the communication that had many laughing at the unique wording that was anything but the usual kind of straightforward "communications for approval." It went on to say that the assistance "will allow the OPA to find innovative programs and develop procedures to ensure that the community is served in the most cost efficient manner and in the best way possible."
Some may say "so what?- it's politics... nothing wrong with that... they all do it." But we bring this up not just to point to the use of the program as a political tool for Iseri but to point out what exactly amounts to wrongdoing here.
It's not clear what precisely SJP's full role is. But what is true is that the association between the OPA and SJP has never come before the council nor has there even been any type of official "procurement process" for SJP's services, as provided by law.
Any "grant" to any department or for that matter any donation of anything, including information or assistance must, by law, come before the county council for approval. It's usually in an official communication for approval to "apply for, accept and indemnify" as the agenda item would normally read. But the words "Strategic Justice Partners" have never been mentioned in even verbal form to the council much less written.
That would be for a grant or donation type of thing. What if the OPA is involved financially with SJP? The fact is that there has never been any official procurement of services from SJP. Nor of course has there ever been a type of contract or "memorandum of agreement" (MOA) which would also have to have been approved by the council.
Finally there have never been any HRS Chapter 91 Administrative Rules promulgated, which according to state law are required to establish procedures for how, say, the OPA would engage with SJP in the P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
But all that is just procedural. Here's what happens if you, as they say, "follow the money."
Because SJP is a Nevada corporation if it wants to do business in Hawai`i it must file with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) and have an "agent" in Hawai`i.
The DCCA filing shows SJP to be a for-profit corporation and the agent in Hawai`i is none other than Iseri's second-in-command, Delaplane.
The filing is simply the initial corporate document and apparently no 2012 report has been submitted. There is nothing to indicate whether Delaplane is being paid for being the sole representative of SJP in Hawai`i. But the fact that he is both their agent and part of the team that is contracting with SJP- the OPA- makes for a blatant conflict of interest.
So who gets what money and where does it come from?
The upcoming OPA's budget for 2013 shows a request for around $20,000 for four different diversion programs although there is no breakdown of how much of that would go to P.O.H.A.K.U. That is one reason why Yukimura and Bynum were asking questions- or want to ask them- in the first place; to find out how much is for each program and in fact what the county funding mechanism(s) for P.O.H.A.K.U. actually are/is. It also "opens the door" so to speak, to discuss the program.
But PNN did learn of one funding source that isn't listed anywhere and certainly has not been communicated to the council.
At Iseri's P.O.H.A.K.U. website those in the program can go to the "Register for Class" page. Under "P.O.H.A.K.U. Class Registration" it says:
You may schedule your P.O.H.A.K.U. class date below.
You must pay your program fees prior to registering.
You may REGISTER with a credit or debit card below or visit any Bank of Hawaii Branch with the deposit slip you were given (emphasis added).
And, PNN has learned, that the "deposit slip" is filled out to deposit $200 to an account bearing the name of, not the County of Kaua`i as one would expect for a program designed and run by Iseri but rather, Strategic Justice Partners.
According to testimony by Delaplane on Friday before the council 49 people have completed the program and so what is clear is that at least that many have paid SJP $200 each for a total of almost $10,000.
What is not clear however is whether the money is refunded if the person doesn't complete the diversion program. The question of how many people failed has, of course, not been discussed because nothing about POHAKU has been able to be discussed, even though both Delaplane and Iseri were permitted to tout it Friday during their "power point" presentation to the council on the budget.
Even- or maybe especially- if the OPA never sees or touches a nickel, improprieties abound with this setup. As we said, P.O.H.A.K.U. itself has never even been approved by the council. Plus, there has never been a procurement of services for SJP nor has there been any MOA, both of which would have to come before the council for approval.
Oh- and one more thing.
The only person listed as a "member" of SJP is one Kirk Barrus. That means he is the sole owner of SJP. Yet a search of SJP's web site does not readily yield Barrus' name- or any other associated with the company.
So who is Barrus? What is his background?
According to David Lazarus' "Consumer Confidential" in the February 20, 2008, Los Angeles Times, Kirk Barrus was the Senior Vice President and spokesperson for a company called American Corrective Counseling Services (ACCS).
In an article in which Lazarus discusses Bush-era court rulings providing full immunity to companies doing business with the government he cites the example of "AT&T and Verizon immunity for their roles in any past and future eavesdropping on the American people."
But ACCS was not granted immunity in the case at hand and Lazarus writes that:
when it comes to public-private canoodling, the most egregious case I've seen recently involved a San Clemente company, American Corrective Counseling Services, that worked with public prosecutors to go after people who bounced checks.
He describes the scam this way:
In contacting consumers, ACCS represented itself as actually being the district attorney's office, even though the cases involved may not have been vetted in advance by an actual prosecutor.
In return for its efforts, ACCS typically would be entitled to a $100 fee and as much as 60% of any fines paid...
Lois Artz, a 72-year-old resident of the Northern California city of Petaluma, received what looked like a very serious letter from the Sonoma County district attorney's office in November 2005.
"The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office has received a CRIME REPORT alleging you have violated Penal Code 476(a) of the California State Statute: Issuing a Worthless Check," the letter warned.
"A conviction under this statute is punishable by up to one (1) year in county jail, or in a state prison, and up to $1,000 in fines," it said.
The letter advised Artz, a former Bank of America branch manager, to enroll in a "bad check restitution program" and to pay $196.62 in fines.
"When I saw that letter, I almost fainted," she told me. "I was beside myself."
Her crime, Artz said, was writing a check for a $26.62 carton of smokes and not having sufficient funds in her bank account to cover it. Artz said she'd been distracted caring for her daughter, who has breast cancer, but she knows that's no excuse.
What troubled her was that her case seemingly was elevated with alarming speed to the level of criminal prosecution without anyone trying to work things out with her.
"I was humiliated and terrified," Artz said. "I felt like any time I turned around, there would be somebody there telling me to come with them."
According to court documents, ACCS went after more than 100,000 Californians in 2001, the latest year for which data are available. And most if not all those people believed they'd been contacted by a government agency, not a private company.
In speaking for ACCS, Barrus
denied that the company acts independently when it chases down suspected check scofflaws.
"We operate under the total control of the district attorney," he said. "We're basically a secretarial service, and therefore should carry the district attorney's immunity.
"They're not letters from a private company," Barrus insisted. "They're letters from a district attorney."
There is another article in The Press Democrat describing the situation in more detail
The fact that the council has questions for Iseri about P.O.H.A.K.U. shouldn't surprise anybody.
We'd certainly like to know a few things.
Did SJP receive other funds such as ACCS did in collecting "as much as 60% of any fines paid" in the California case? Did the OPA either receive or expend any funding directly or indirectly to or from SJP? What exactly is Delaplane's role? What does he do as "agent?" Is he a paid agent? If so, how much? If so, what if anything is Iseri's cut? Doesn't Delaplane or Iseri see an inherent conflict in a operation where someone- so far apparently SJP- is receiving at least $10,000? Why is Iseri so transparently covering up her and the OPA's association with SJP? Is it simply to take credit for a program she didn't really design and implement or is there more?.. perhaps a financial association?
We haven't been able to uncover all the facts or follow all the money. But we sure hope that Rapozo- along with Councilmembers Kipukai Kuali`i, Dickie Chang, and Chair Jay Furfaro- stop blocking at least an executive session but preferably have a full public airing of the issues involved.
Oh by the way- Kuali`i refused to recuse himself from discussions of the OPA's budget despite the fact that the Erin Wilson Victim Witness position cut by Iseri- which is the subject of a complaint by Wilson as we discussed in January - was contracted out to the YWCA where Kuali`i works.
The next thing scheduled for the matter is an executive session set to take place April 30.
WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL WANTS ANSWERED ON PROSECUTOR'S SIGNATURE DIVERSION PROGRAM?
A PNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
(PNN) -- Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's much ballyhooed P.O.H.A.K.U. program to "divert" minor offenders from jail has blown-up recently as two councilmembers have tried to ask questions about the program while the rest have blocked those queries, even refusing to hold closed door discussions of the program.
A PNN investigation has uncovered what some of those questions may be and found both process and monetary improprieties associated with the program as well as false claims on the part of Iseri and conflicts of interest within the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA).
For those who have not followed the council machinations lately, for weeks now Iseri, her First Deputy Jake Delaplane and her chief ally on the council Mel Rapozo have thwarted Councilmembers JoAnn Yukimura and Tim Bynum from even discussing the P.O.H.A.K.U. program, with the latest dust-up occurring at Friday's budget session for the OPA.
The council has twice defeated requests for an executive session with County Attorney Al Castillo, and when Council Chair Jay Furfaro was at a doctor's appointment Friday morning, Rapozo acted as chair and banned all discussion of P.O.H.A.K.U.
That enraged Bynum and Yukimura with Yukimura forced to withhold a power point presentation she had prepared to expose some of the alleged wrongdoing in the P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
But Rapozo banned discussion despite its direct relevance to the the agenda item: the OPA's budget, because, he claimed, County Attorney Al Castillo had banned the discussion- something Castillo later denied.
For those who want a blow-by-blow of the multi-level, multi-player chess game of the past month or so, including Friday's budget session, we recommend reading Joan Conrow's Kaua`i Eclectic coverage here, here and here
The overriding question no one has answered is why? What is Iseri so apparently trying to hide? No one can honestly watch the meetings without asking themselves that question. Why are she and Delaplane "running out the clock" with repetitive power point presentations and long winded answers to questions no one asked every time they are subjected to council questioning?
So what are Yukimura and Bynum trying to question her about?
The key to answering that is apparently a company that, despite Iseri's claim that the program is fully of her design and implementation, is apparently the entity that is responsible for the nuts and bolts of the P.O.H.A.K.U. program... a company called Strategic Justice Partners (SJP) LLC of Nevada.
Politically, P.O.H.A.K.U., which has been implemented for a few years now, has been a key to Iseri's campaign for re-election and she has promoted it recently in two articles in the local newspaper touting community meetings and the program's alleged successes. Iseri's official P.O.H.A.K.U. website calls it "a new innovative diversion program that was designed by the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) as an alternative to the traditional court process."
But although SJP has never publicly been mentioned by Iseri or her department's personnel, a look at the bottom of the P.O.H.A.K.U. web site says "Content copyright 2011-2012. Strategic Justice Partners. All rights reserved."
And a visit to the SJP web site reveals where the program really came from. The very first thing you see there on the right side is the statement that:
Strategic Justice Partners is a leader in Alternative Sentencing, Diversion and Early Release Programs.
"Our Diversion programs have a 94% completion rate with over 96% of participants rating their experience as "good" or "outstanding".
And under the "What We Do" button it describes a service that sound exactly like the P.O.H.A.K.U. program, saying they provide:
Diversion Programs
Diversion Programs result in lower recidivism than “Stand in line-Pay a fine” justice while dramatically reducing the burden and costs on Prosecutors and Courts. http://www.strategicjusticepartners.com/What_We_Do.html
And the main program exemplary of their work? At the top of the left had side of the home page of the site is a color photo of a smiling, lei-bedecked Iseri alongside a photo of a Kaua`i-style poi pounder (the symbol of P.O.H.A.K.U.) under the title "Kaua'i County Hawai`i; P.O.H.A.K.U. Program." and a blurb that says "We are pleased to introduce P.O.H.A.K.U., an innovative alternative to the traditional court Process."
It doesn't really say who "we" is but the context demands one interpret it as being SJP especially because it's their web site.
Iseri has recently been holding a series of meetings- meetings dutifully reported upon by the local newspaper- apparently as a part of, or at least in conjunction with, her campaign for re-election in the fall. One example of how she has used P.O.H.A.K.U. for political haymaking at every turn is the wording of a communication to the county council for a special council meeting on April 11.
At the time Iseri was asking the "Council approval to apply for and receive Technical Assistance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Vera Institute of Justice's national Cost-Benefit Knowledge Bank for Criminal Justice," although it has since been withdrawn at Iseri's request, apparently because that would have opened the door to questioning about P.O.H.A.K.U.
What would make us say that might be the reason? Well, Iseri had already applied for the "technical assistance" before the item was to have been approved by the council. Not only that but she withdrew the request after all the other delay requests on her part had failed... and she did so in a late night email to the chair, sent the night before the meeting where P.O.H.A.K.U. was to have been discussed.
But it's the rest of the communication that had many laughing at the unique wording that was anything but the usual kind of straightforward "communications for approval." It went on to say that the assistance "will allow the OPA to find innovative programs and develop procedures to ensure that the community is served in the most cost efficient manner and in the best way possible."
Some may say "so what?- it's politics... nothing wrong with that... they all do it." But we bring this up not just to point to the use of the program as a political tool for Iseri but to point out what exactly amounts to wrongdoing here.
It's not clear what precisely SJP's full role is. But what is true is that the association between the OPA and SJP has never come before the council nor has there even been any type of official "procurement process" for SJP's services, as provided by law.
Any "grant" to any department or for that matter any donation of anything, including information or assistance must, by law, come before the county council for approval. It's usually in an official communication for approval to "apply for, accept and indemnify" as the agenda item would normally read. But the words "Strategic Justice Partners" have never been mentioned in even verbal form to the council much less written.
That would be for a grant or donation type of thing. What if the OPA is involved financially with SJP? The fact is that there has never been any official procurement of services from SJP. Nor of course has there ever been a type of contract or "memorandum of agreement" (MOA) which would also have to have been approved by the council.
Finally there have never been any HRS Chapter 91 Administrative Rules promulgated, which according to state law are required to establish procedures for how, say, the OPA would engage with SJP in the P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
But all that is just procedural. Here's what happens if you, as they say, "follow the money."
Because SJP is a Nevada corporation if it wants to do business in Hawai`i it must file with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) and have an "agent" in Hawai`i.
The DCCA filing shows SJP to be a for-profit corporation and the agent in Hawai`i is none other than Iseri's second-in-command, Delaplane.
The filing is simply the initial corporate document and apparently no 2012 report has been submitted. There is nothing to indicate whether Delaplane is being paid for being the sole representative of SJP in Hawai`i. But the fact that he is both their agent and part of the team that is contracting with SJP- the OPA- makes for a blatant conflict of interest.
So who gets what money and where does it come from?
The upcoming OPA's budget for 2013 shows a request for around $20,000 for four different diversion programs although there is no breakdown of how much of that would go to P.O.H.A.K.U. That is one reason why Yukimura and Bynum were asking questions- or want to ask them- in the first place; to find out how much is for each program and in fact what the county funding mechanism(s) for P.O.H.A.K.U. actually are/is. It also "opens the door" so to speak, to discuss the program.
But PNN did learn of one funding source that isn't listed anywhere and certainly has not been communicated to the council.
At Iseri's P.O.H.A.K.U. website those in the program can go to the "Register for Class" page. Under "P.O.H.A.K.U. Class Registration" it says:
You may schedule your P.O.H.A.K.U. class date below.
You must pay your program fees prior to registering.
You may REGISTER with a credit or debit card below or visit any Bank of Hawaii Branch with the deposit slip you were given (emphasis added).
And, PNN has learned, that the "deposit slip" is filled out to deposit $200 to an account bearing the name of, not the County of Kaua`i as one would expect for a program designed and run by Iseri but rather, Strategic Justice Partners.
According to testimony by Delaplane on Friday before the council 49 people have completed the program and so what is clear is that at least that many have paid SJP $200 each for a total of almost $10,000.
What is not clear however is whether the money is refunded if the person doesn't complete the diversion program. The question of how many people failed has, of course, not been discussed because nothing about POHAKU has been able to be discussed, even though both Delaplane and Iseri were permitted to tout it Friday during their "power point" presentation to the council on the budget.
Even- or maybe especially- if the OPA never sees or touches a nickel, improprieties abound with this setup. As we said, P.O.H.A.K.U. itself has never even been approved by the council. Plus, there has never been a procurement of services for SJP nor has there been any MOA, both of which would have to come before the council for approval.
Oh- and one more thing.
The only person listed as a "member" of SJP is one Kirk Barrus. That means he is the sole owner of SJP. Yet a search of SJP's web site does not readily yield Barrus' name- or any other associated with the company.
So who is Barrus? What is his background?
According to David Lazarus' "Consumer Confidential" in the February 20, 2008, Los Angeles Times, Kirk Barrus was the Senior Vice President and spokesperson for a company called American Corrective Counseling Services (ACCS).
In an article in which Lazarus discusses Bush-era court rulings providing full immunity to companies doing business with the government he cites the example of "AT&T and Verizon immunity for their roles in any past and future eavesdropping on the American people."
But ACCS was not granted immunity in the case at hand and Lazarus writes that:
when it comes to public-private canoodling, the most egregious case I've seen recently involved a San Clemente company, American Corrective Counseling Services, that worked with public prosecutors to go after people who bounced checks.
He describes the scam this way:
In contacting consumers, ACCS represented itself as actually being the district attorney's office, even though the cases involved may not have been vetted in advance by an actual prosecutor.
In return for its efforts, ACCS typically would be entitled to a $100 fee and as much as 60% of any fines paid...
Lois Artz, a 72-year-old resident of the Northern California city of Petaluma, received what looked like a very serious letter from the Sonoma County district attorney's office in November 2005.
"The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office has received a CRIME REPORT alleging you have violated Penal Code 476(a) of the California State Statute: Issuing a Worthless Check," the letter warned.
"A conviction under this statute is punishable by up to one (1) year in county jail, or in a state prison, and up to $1,000 in fines," it said.
The letter advised Artz, a former Bank of America branch manager, to enroll in a "bad check restitution program" and to pay $196.62 in fines.
"When I saw that letter, I almost fainted," she told me. "I was beside myself."
Her crime, Artz said, was writing a check for a $26.62 carton of smokes and not having sufficient funds in her bank account to cover it. Artz said she'd been distracted caring for her daughter, who has breast cancer, but she knows that's no excuse.
What troubled her was that her case seemingly was elevated with alarming speed to the level of criminal prosecution without anyone trying to work things out with her.
"I was humiliated and terrified," Artz said. "I felt like any time I turned around, there would be somebody there telling me to come with them."
According to court documents, ACCS went after more than 100,000 Californians in 2001, the latest year for which data are available. And most if not all those people believed they'd been contacted by a government agency, not a private company.
In speaking for ACCS, Barrus
denied that the company acts independently when it chases down suspected check scofflaws.
"We operate under the total control of the district attorney," he said. "We're basically a secretarial service, and therefore should carry the district attorney's immunity.
"They're not letters from a private company," Barrus insisted. "They're letters from a district attorney."
There is another article in The Press Democrat describing the situation in more detail
The fact that the council has questions for Iseri about P.O.H.A.K.U. shouldn't surprise anybody.
We'd certainly like to know a few things.
Did SJP receive other funds such as ACCS did in collecting "as much as 60% of any fines paid" in the California case? Did the OPA either receive or expend any funding directly or indirectly to or from SJP? What exactly is Delaplane's role? What does he do as "agent?" Is he a paid agent? If so, how much? If so, what if anything is Iseri's cut? Doesn't Delaplane or Iseri see an inherent conflict in a operation where someone- so far apparently SJP- is receiving at least $10,000? Why is Iseri so transparently covering up her and the OPA's association with SJP? Is it simply to take credit for a program she didn't really design and implement or is there more?.. perhaps a financial association?
We haven't been able to uncover all the facts or follow all the money. But we sure hope that Rapozo- along with Councilmembers Kipukai Kuali`i, Dickie Chang, and Chair Jay Furfaro- stop blocking at least an executive session but preferably have a full public airing of the issues involved.
Oh by the way- Kuali`i refused to recuse himself from discussions of the OPA's budget despite the fact that the Erin Wilson Victim Witness position cut by Iseri- which is the subject of a complaint by Wilson as we discussed in January - was contracted out to the YWCA where Kuali`i works.
The next thing scheduled for the matter is an executive session set to take place April 30.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
DRIVING MR. CRAZY
DRIVING MR. CRAZY: It's been almost a dozen years since the first in a line of Kaua`i county attorneys began a new interpretation regarding just exactly whom they serve.
And it's been almost a dozen years that we've been waiting for a Kaua`i County Charter amendment that would put some kind of "public component" back into the job.
But even though a proposed charter amendment is in the pipeline it appears it's only going to make things worse.
Of course that is predictable considering the source.
Councilperson Mel Rapozo can always be counted upon to make muddy political waters even murkier. This time he's outdone himself with a pair of Resolutions, #'s 2012-22 and 2012-23 (neither of which is apparently available on-line), that, rather than put the Office of the County Attorney (CA) as far outside the reach of politics as is possible in county government, will insure that petty disagreements between future councils and administrations grow to Hatfield and McCoy proportions.
The first, Resolution 2012-22 is not actually directly related to the county attorney. But it is a result of the original event that begat the short-circuiting smoke currently emanating from the ears adjacent to Rapozo's decidedly less-than-legal mind.
The "reso" stems from Mel's head-scratching and seemingly meaningless obsession over last year's "late" salary commission (SC) proposal. It spawned a CA opinion that explained what "shall" meant in the context of the SC section of the charter, saying it was "administrative" rather than "directional" and citing some judicial rulings to that affect.
It basically said "give it a rest Mel."
But them's fightin' words to the Baboozster.
Rapozo decided to go to circuit court for a "ruling" but Judge Randall Valenciano essentially said the same thing as the CA had said. So now Mel has decided to take his obsession to the voters and, in Resolution 2012-22 he proposes to put the matter before the voters.
The rest of the council seems less than enthusiastic and at the second and potentially final reading last Wednesday they deferred the measure "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To Definitions Of 'Shall', 'Must', And 'May.'"
Oh joy... we can hardly wait to see how those terms will be defined in the "Mel Rapozo Legal Dictionary." We wouldn't want to depend on Black's when we can get it straight from the horse's read end.
But Mel wasn't done. After proposing to redefine legal terms with a Rapozian slant, he's decided that it was the dastardly-brilliant legal mind of Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. that concocted well-known Philadelphia Lawyer, CA Al Castillo's opinion on the matter.
As a result of Mel's fixation he came up with "Resolution No. 2012-23 "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To The Establishment Of The Office Of The Council Attorney" which would apparently divide the CA's office in two giving both the administration and the council their own independent county attorneys.
The pertinent parts of the current charter under "Article VIII- County Attorney" say:
Section 8.02. Appointment and Removal. The county attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, with the approval of the council....
Section 8.04. Powers, Duties and Functions. The county attorney shall be the chief legal adviser and legal representative of all agencies, including the council, and of all officers and employees in matters relating to their official powers and duties, and he shall represent the county in all legal proceedings. He shall perform all other services incident to his office as may be required by law.
But perhaps because he operates like them, Rapozo sees a political ghostie and ghoulie behind every door of the county's administrative offices and wants to enshrine his suspicions about Castillo's "opinions" by altering the county's overriding legal document, the charter, in his own image.
To understand how things got to this point- other than by simply saying "Mel got elected"- we need to go back to the history and evolution of the the functioning of the CA's office.
In 2001, then-newly-elected Mayor Bryan Baptiste hired current county "good-old-girl" Lani Nakazawa to her first-of-many positions with the county. She succeeded former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka's CA, Hartwell Blake, who rarely opined on anything other than how comfortable he was spending most of his years in the job sleeping under the air conditioner in the back of the council chambers.
Although the charter section on the CA is silent on anything relating to serving the public, before Nakazawa took office, CA's generally thought of the job as one that, while advising county administrative personnel as well as the council, publicly opined on questions of law regarding the county's charter, ordinances and administrative rules and routinely released those opinions to the public. .
He- yes of course they had all been "he's"- did it as part of what they saw as an implied "public component" of the CA's job.
When the 2006 Charter Review Commission (CRC) had its first confab one appointee was the former CA under then-Mayor JoAnn Yukimura, Michael Belles.
We attended that first meeting of the panel which was comprised of many surprisingly open-to-change appointees. In addition to testifying about our own experiences with shortcomings of the charter, we spoke to Belles during a break.
He asked what the one item was that we would most like see tackled. Our answer was "a total reorganization of all of Article VIII: County Attorney" especially parts regarding the "Appointment and Removal" and "Powers, Duties and Functions," excerpted above.
We explained the problems under Nakazawa which had included the fact that her strict reading of the section meant that she saw no public element to her job serving only county employees and officials- and never releasing any opinions unless her "clients" released them.
We even suggested that the CA become an elected position, thereby solving many of the problems created by conflicts between the mayor and council- or any two county entities for that matter.
Belles was surprised at the turn of events since his time as CA and said that during his tenure he would have "never imagined" that there was no "public component" to the job. As a matter of fact, he told us, he couldn't remember ever not releasing any of his or his offices opinion's of law.
A proposed amendment regarding the Office of the County Attorney's (OCA) never made it on any CRC list- it wasn't exactly a sexy issue and probably way too "inside baseball" for the public and maybe even the CRC. It wasn't even on commission members' radar screens.
They eventually put around a dozen-and-a-half amendments before the voters after narrowing it down from more than 30 original proposals so as to make citizen deliberation and decision-making manageable at election time.
But nothing on the OCA.
Ever since Nakazawa's reign, every county attorney has refused to release to the public opinions regarding interpretation of laws, especially those requested by the council. Add to that a council scheme to avoid releasing them until some convoluted, much debated, "process" for doing so was in place- something which the council under former-Chair Kaipo Asing quite mysteriously (yeah, right) could never figure out how to do- and of course no opinions were ever released.
That set up years of "Star Chamber" activities where not only couldn't they tell the public what the opinions were but the council would go into closed door "executive sessions (ES)" to even discuss what they were going to be discussing.
This year, under new Council Chair Jay Furfaro and after a years-on-end attempt by Councilmember Tim Bynum to just get the matter on the agenda under Asing, not only has a process been set up but opinions have even allegedly been "released."
But that's a big "allegedly."
Because damned if anyone has been able to get copies of the opinion or even find out if they have actually been released because the votes to release them have either been done in ES or, if they have actually been voted upon in open session, it's been done after the TV cameras have ceased to roll.
We still have not been able to get a copy of- or even figure out if it's available- the infamous opinion which, quite apparently, is actually at the heart of the Rapozo's discontent... the one that apparently says the mayor, not the police commission, has the authority to "discipline" or "suspend" the chief of police.
It's a perfect example of the continued dysfunction. The question of the release of that opinion was on the council's ES agenda for weeks on end only to stop appearing in March. Despite having asked numerous people who should be in the know, we still haven't been able to get a straight answer to the question of whether it's now a public document- much less get a copy of it if it is.
Oh sure- everyone including the Sultan of Brunei has referred to what the opinion supposedly says. But just try to get more than that out of anybody.
Today we're stuck with a definition of the appointment and duties of the CA that were written over 40 years ago at and for a time when the size of county government was probably less than a tenth of that of today. And the potential for political machination in- and so politicization of- the Office of the CA has grown exponentially along with that growth.
Throw one Mel Rapozo into the mix and something's gotta give.
Unfortunately the lack of political visionaries sitting around the council table- or at least ones willing to publicly spar with Mel over the matter- has enabled the original squeaky wheel to be poised to get all the grease.
And, as we intimated above, don't expect the CRC to tackle it. Chair Sherman Shiraishi has fully defeated the purpose of the CRC by coming before the council to ask them what they think each and every proposal the CRC is considering, effectively cutting the three ways of getting a charter amendment on the ballot- by citizen petition, by council resolution or by the CRC placing it there- down to two.
It looks like the council and mayor are going to "throw a rod" on the County's Truck-of-State long before anyone even bothers to look under the hood much less tackle a proper engine rebuild with what's best for the public in mind.
There's only one place that vehicle is being driven... and that's nuts.
And it's been almost a dozen years that we've been waiting for a Kaua`i County Charter amendment that would put some kind of "public component" back into the job.
But even though a proposed charter amendment is in the pipeline it appears it's only going to make things worse.
Of course that is predictable considering the source.
Councilperson Mel Rapozo can always be counted upon to make muddy political waters even murkier. This time he's outdone himself with a pair of Resolutions, #'s 2012-22 and 2012-23 (neither of which is apparently available on-line), that, rather than put the Office of the County Attorney (CA) as far outside the reach of politics as is possible in county government, will insure that petty disagreements between future councils and administrations grow to Hatfield and McCoy proportions.
The first, Resolution 2012-22 is not actually directly related to the county attorney. But it is a result of the original event that begat the short-circuiting smoke currently emanating from the ears adjacent to Rapozo's decidedly less-than-legal mind.
The "reso" stems from Mel's head-scratching and seemingly meaningless obsession over last year's "late" salary commission (SC) proposal. It spawned a CA opinion that explained what "shall" meant in the context of the SC section of the charter, saying it was "administrative" rather than "directional" and citing some judicial rulings to that affect.
It basically said "give it a rest Mel."
But them's fightin' words to the Baboozster.
Rapozo decided to go to circuit court for a "ruling" but Judge Randall Valenciano essentially said the same thing as the CA had said. So now Mel has decided to take his obsession to the voters and, in Resolution 2012-22 he proposes to put the matter before the voters.
The rest of the council seems less than enthusiastic and at the second and potentially final reading last Wednesday they deferred the measure "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To Definitions Of 'Shall', 'Must', And 'May.'"
Oh joy... we can hardly wait to see how those terms will be defined in the "Mel Rapozo Legal Dictionary." We wouldn't want to depend on Black's when we can get it straight from the horse's read end.
But Mel wasn't done. After proposing to redefine legal terms with a Rapozian slant, he's decided that it was the dastardly-brilliant legal mind of Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. that concocted well-known Philadelphia Lawyer, CA Al Castillo's opinion on the matter.
As a result of Mel's fixation he came up with "Resolution No. 2012-23 "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To The Establishment Of The Office Of The Council Attorney" which would apparently divide the CA's office in two giving both the administration and the council their own independent county attorneys.
The pertinent parts of the current charter under "Article VIII- County Attorney" say:
Section 8.02. Appointment and Removal. The county attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, with the approval of the council....
Section 8.04. Powers, Duties and Functions. The county attorney shall be the chief legal adviser and legal representative of all agencies, including the council, and of all officers and employees in matters relating to their official powers and duties, and he shall represent the county in all legal proceedings. He shall perform all other services incident to his office as may be required by law.
But perhaps because he operates like them, Rapozo sees a political ghostie and ghoulie behind every door of the county's administrative offices and wants to enshrine his suspicions about Castillo's "opinions" by altering the county's overriding legal document, the charter, in his own image.
To understand how things got to this point- other than by simply saying "Mel got elected"- we need to go back to the history and evolution of the the functioning of the CA's office.
In 2001, then-newly-elected Mayor Bryan Baptiste hired current county "good-old-girl" Lani Nakazawa to her first-of-many positions with the county. She succeeded former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka's CA, Hartwell Blake, who rarely opined on anything other than how comfortable he was spending most of his years in the job sleeping under the air conditioner in the back of the council chambers.
Although the charter section on the CA is silent on anything relating to serving the public, before Nakazawa took office, CA's generally thought of the job as one that, while advising county administrative personnel as well as the council, publicly opined on questions of law regarding the county's charter, ordinances and administrative rules and routinely released those opinions to the public. .
He- yes of course they had all been "he's"- did it as part of what they saw as an implied "public component" of the CA's job.
When the 2006 Charter Review Commission (CRC) had its first confab one appointee was the former CA under then-Mayor JoAnn Yukimura, Michael Belles.
We attended that first meeting of the panel which was comprised of many surprisingly open-to-change appointees. In addition to testifying about our own experiences with shortcomings of the charter, we spoke to Belles during a break.
He asked what the one item was that we would most like see tackled. Our answer was "a total reorganization of all of Article VIII: County Attorney" especially parts regarding the "Appointment and Removal" and "Powers, Duties and Functions," excerpted above.
We explained the problems under Nakazawa which had included the fact that her strict reading of the section meant that she saw no public element to her job serving only county employees and officials- and never releasing any opinions unless her "clients" released them.
We even suggested that the CA become an elected position, thereby solving many of the problems created by conflicts between the mayor and council- or any two county entities for that matter.
Belles was surprised at the turn of events since his time as CA and said that during his tenure he would have "never imagined" that there was no "public component" to the job. As a matter of fact, he told us, he couldn't remember ever not releasing any of his or his offices opinion's of law.
A proposed amendment regarding the Office of the County Attorney's (OCA) never made it on any CRC list- it wasn't exactly a sexy issue and probably way too "inside baseball" for the public and maybe even the CRC. It wasn't even on commission members' radar screens.
They eventually put around a dozen-and-a-half amendments before the voters after narrowing it down from more than 30 original proposals so as to make citizen deliberation and decision-making manageable at election time.
But nothing on the OCA.
Ever since Nakazawa's reign, every county attorney has refused to release to the public opinions regarding interpretation of laws, especially those requested by the council. Add to that a council scheme to avoid releasing them until some convoluted, much debated, "process" for doing so was in place- something which the council under former-Chair Kaipo Asing quite mysteriously (yeah, right) could never figure out how to do- and of course no opinions were ever released.
That set up years of "Star Chamber" activities where not only couldn't they tell the public what the opinions were but the council would go into closed door "executive sessions (ES)" to even discuss what they were going to be discussing.
This year, under new Council Chair Jay Furfaro and after a years-on-end attempt by Councilmember Tim Bynum to just get the matter on the agenda under Asing, not only has a process been set up but opinions have even allegedly been "released."
But that's a big "allegedly."
Because damned if anyone has been able to get copies of the opinion or even find out if they have actually been released because the votes to release them have either been done in ES or, if they have actually been voted upon in open session, it's been done after the TV cameras have ceased to roll.
We still have not been able to get a copy of- or even figure out if it's available- the infamous opinion which, quite apparently, is actually at the heart of the Rapozo's discontent... the one that apparently says the mayor, not the police commission, has the authority to "discipline" or "suspend" the chief of police.
It's a perfect example of the continued dysfunction. The question of the release of that opinion was on the council's ES agenda for weeks on end only to stop appearing in March. Despite having asked numerous people who should be in the know, we still haven't been able to get a straight answer to the question of whether it's now a public document- much less get a copy of it if it is.
Oh sure- everyone including the Sultan of Brunei has referred to what the opinion supposedly says. But just try to get more than that out of anybody.
Today we're stuck with a definition of the appointment and duties of the CA that were written over 40 years ago at and for a time when the size of county government was probably less than a tenth of that of today. And the potential for political machination in- and so politicization of- the Office of the CA has grown exponentially along with that growth.
Throw one Mel Rapozo into the mix and something's gotta give.
Unfortunately the lack of political visionaries sitting around the council table- or at least ones willing to publicly spar with Mel over the matter- has enabled the original squeaky wheel to be poised to get all the grease.
And, as we intimated above, don't expect the CRC to tackle it. Chair Sherman Shiraishi has fully defeated the purpose of the CRC by coming before the council to ask them what they think each and every proposal the CRC is considering, effectively cutting the three ways of getting a charter amendment on the ballot- by citizen petition, by council resolution or by the CRC placing it there- down to two.
It looks like the council and mayor are going to "throw a rod" on the County's Truck-of-State long before anyone even bothers to look under the hood much less tackle a proper engine rebuild with what's best for the public in mind.
There's only one place that vehicle is being driven... and that's nuts.
Monday, April 9, 2012
GIMME THAT OLD TIME CORRUPTION
GIMME THAT OLD TIME CORRUPTION: Over the years many of the political old-timers have bemoaned the lack of "colorful" characters in Kaua`i officialdom these days.
"Where's the next Tony Baptiste or "Smokey" Louie Gonzalves? What about another Billy Fernandez?" they ask.
In all rhetorical honesty we've gotta suggest that there will never be another Tony, Louie or Billy.
In the day, self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement went hand-in-hand, and people expected it from those they elected. Corruption and abuse of power aside, what they say is missing these days is the pure bombast--the chest-thumping, booming oratory along with the routine mangling of language that went way beyond simply the use of pidgin in its curious misuse, mispronunciation and, well, general misappropriation of what used to be called "10 dollah words."
And though many have demonstrated elements of the old-time grandiloquent clap-trap and kleptomaniacal cronyism, none have embraced the whole package. Until recently.
Former Council member and current Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho has at least approached the old standard, and her escapades have been well chronicled in this space. Undisputed queen of the Malaprop, she also has the inability to speak more than a couple of hundred words without throwing in a "looooodicrous" or two, which accompanies a personal-vendetta style of governance right out of a "B" gangster movie.
But this week's chapter of her blood feud with Council member Tim Bynum may have reached the hallowed heights of yesteryear when her "Rice-Cooker-Gate" case against Bynum was ripped from her office-abusing hands as Fifth Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Watanabe got fed up with Shaylene and her First Deputy Jake Deleplane and threw the case to the state attorney general for disposition.
Readers might have gotten a small sense of Iseri's misbehavior if they read the oft-confusing and momentously-lacking-in-detail account in the local newspaper.
Apparently reporter Tom LaVenture was in a parallel courtroom to the one where journalist-reporter Joan Conrow observed the action, as Conrow actually quoted Watanabe, Deleplane and Bynum's attorney Dan Hempey in quickly and clearly getting to the point:
Lucas Burns testified he was working as a deputy prosecutor when Jake asked him to contact Liberty Yokotake, who had been assaulted by another woman while living at Tim's house. He said Jake coached him to use the assault case as a guise for asking questions about the layout of Tim's house and the location of various appliances, which could be evidence of a zoning violation. And all the while, Lucas would be surreptitiously tape recording the conversation.
The plot was foiled when Lucas refused to play along. "I thought it was inappropriate to secretly tape record and try to come up with reasons why these questions were being asked when it was really to investigate Mr. Bynum," he told the court. "I thought doing this with a hidden tape recorder and without the full knowledge of the victim was inappropriate and not something the first deputy should be doing."
What followed was a description of Deleplane's bafflingly incriminating courtroom antics and defense of Iseri and her office followed by Watanabe's excoriation of the two.
We won't try to summarize it all because it has to be read to grasp the full sleaziness of Iseri and Deleplane's apparently lawless activity, the gist of which has also seemingly been forwarded to the attorney general's office.
Those who have followed the case already know how Iseri apparently lied in trying to say that the whole case was initiated by the planning department. In fact, documents show that she was the one behind the apparently illegal searches and trumped-up charges against Bynum as revenge for Bynum's challenges to the paternalistic authority of her ally, former Council Chair Kaipo Asing (who not so oddly was in court for the hearing) during the time when she, Bynum and Asing were on the council together.
Those who have followed the story as told here (look for background by clicking the links above), in Conrow's KauaiEclectic blog, and, to a lesser and more confusing degree, in the local newspaper, have been appalled to this point by the inelegant abuse of power Iseri has exhibited during her reign as Prosecuting Attorney.
Some will be satisfied in knowing that current Deputy County Attorney Justin Kollar is running against her this November.
But if she is allowed to simply do as Smokey Louis and Uncle Billy (Tony Baptiste actually went to jail while he was mayor where he ran the county from his cell) and freely walk away, we'll only be inviting future Iseri's into office.
We urge the state attorney general not just to drop the non-case against Bynum, but to start an investigation of Iseri, if necessary kicking it up to the FBI, which has reportedly been looking into corruption and abuse of office on Kaua`i going back to the Bryan Baptiste administration.
We enjoy the entertainment factor as much the the next guy. But as much as we've enjoyed the laughs, when it comes to Iseri, our sense of humor is wearing thin.
"Where's the next Tony Baptiste or "Smokey" Louie Gonzalves? What about another Billy Fernandez?" they ask.
In all rhetorical honesty we've gotta suggest that there will never be another Tony, Louie or Billy.
In the day, self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement went hand-in-hand, and people expected it from those they elected. Corruption and abuse of power aside, what they say is missing these days is the pure bombast--the chest-thumping, booming oratory along with the routine mangling of language that went way beyond simply the use of pidgin in its curious misuse, mispronunciation and, well, general misappropriation of what used to be called "10 dollah words."
And though many have demonstrated elements of the old-time grandiloquent clap-trap and kleptomaniacal cronyism, none have embraced the whole package. Until recently.
Former Council member and current Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho has at least approached the old standard, and her escapades have been well chronicled in this space. Undisputed queen of the Malaprop, she also has the inability to speak more than a couple of hundred words without throwing in a "looooodicrous" or two, which accompanies a personal-vendetta style of governance right out of a "B" gangster movie.
But this week's chapter of her blood feud with Council member Tim Bynum may have reached the hallowed heights of yesteryear when her "Rice-Cooker-Gate" case against Bynum was ripped from her office-abusing hands as Fifth Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Watanabe got fed up with Shaylene and her First Deputy Jake Deleplane and threw the case to the state attorney general for disposition.
Readers might have gotten a small sense of Iseri's misbehavior if they read the oft-confusing and momentously-lacking-in-detail account in the local newspaper.
Apparently reporter Tom LaVenture was in a parallel courtroom to the one where journalist-reporter Joan Conrow observed the action, as Conrow actually quoted Watanabe, Deleplane and Bynum's attorney Dan Hempey in quickly and clearly getting to the point:
Lucas Burns testified he was working as a deputy prosecutor when Jake asked him to contact Liberty Yokotake, who had been assaulted by another woman while living at Tim's house. He said Jake coached him to use the assault case as a guise for asking questions about the layout of Tim's house and the location of various appliances, which could be evidence of a zoning violation. And all the while, Lucas would be surreptitiously tape recording the conversation.
The plot was foiled when Lucas refused to play along. "I thought it was inappropriate to secretly tape record and try to come up with reasons why these questions were being asked when it was really to investigate Mr. Bynum," he told the court. "I thought doing this with a hidden tape recorder and without the full knowledge of the victim was inappropriate and not something the first deputy should be doing."
What followed was a description of Deleplane's bafflingly incriminating courtroom antics and defense of Iseri and her office followed by Watanabe's excoriation of the two.
We won't try to summarize it all because it has to be read to grasp the full sleaziness of Iseri and Deleplane's apparently lawless activity, the gist of which has also seemingly been forwarded to the attorney general's office.
Those who have followed the case already know how Iseri apparently lied in trying to say that the whole case was initiated by the planning department. In fact, documents show that she was the one behind the apparently illegal searches and trumped-up charges against Bynum as revenge for Bynum's challenges to the paternalistic authority of her ally, former Council Chair Kaipo Asing (who not so oddly was in court for the hearing) during the time when she, Bynum and Asing were on the council together.
Those who have followed the story as told here (look for background by clicking the links above), in Conrow's KauaiEclectic blog, and, to a lesser and more confusing degree, in the local newspaper, have been appalled to this point by the inelegant abuse of power Iseri has exhibited during her reign as Prosecuting Attorney.
Some will be satisfied in knowing that current Deputy County Attorney Justin Kollar is running against her this November.
But if she is allowed to simply do as Smokey Louis and Uncle Billy (Tony Baptiste actually went to jail while he was mayor where he ran the county from his cell) and freely walk away, we'll only be inviting future Iseri's into office.
We urge the state attorney general not just to drop the non-case against Bynum, but to start an investigation of Iseri, if necessary kicking it up to the FBI, which has reportedly been looking into corruption and abuse of office on Kaua`i going back to the Bryan Baptiste administration.
We enjoy the entertainment factor as much the the next guy. But as much as we've enjoyed the laughs, when it comes to Iseri, our sense of humor is wearing thin.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
DETOUR AND DETACH
Way too busy watching the "March Madness" today but we did have time to post this on Facebook
----
I don't believe I've ever seen a County Council agenda item quite like the one I just received for this "special meeting" next Wednesday.
------
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012
8:00 A.M. OR SOON THEREAFTER
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
HISTORIC COUNTY BUILDING
4396 RICE STREET, SUITE 201
Lihu`e, Kaua'i, Hawai`i 96766
A. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL.
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
D. COMMUNICATIONS:
1. C2012-80 Communication (02/23/2012) from Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, requesting Council approval to receive and expend up to $1 million from the County Asset Forfeiture Fund for the purpose of procurement of one (1) set of two (2) testicles, currently belonging and attached to Councilmember Tim Bynum for the purpose of public display to be followed by ritualistic removal and disposal. (Deferred to next election year)
D. ADJOURNMENT.
----
I don't believe I've ever seen a County Council agenda item quite like the one I just received for this "special meeting" next Wednesday.
------
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012
8:00 A.M. OR SOON THEREAFTER
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
HISTORIC COUNTY BUILDING
4396 RICE STREET, SUITE 201
Lihu`e, Kaua'i, Hawai`i 96766
A. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL.
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
D. COMMUNICATIONS:
1. C2012-80 Communication (02/23/2012) from Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, requesting Council approval to receive and expend up to $1 million from the County Asset Forfeiture Fund for the purpose of procurement of one (1) set of two (2) testicles, currently belonging and attached to Councilmember Tim Bynum for the purpose of public display to be followed by ritualistic removal and disposal. (Deferred to next election year)
D. ADJOURNMENT.
Friday, February 3, 2012
HORSESH*T OF A DIFFERENT COLOR
HORSESH*T OF A DIFFERENT COLOR: Stumblebums, troglodytes and mental midgets- oh my.
Those are just some of the words that come to mind over Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s "Goo-goo-ga-joob" response to charges he had no authority to place Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry on leave yesterday- an action reportedly taken after Assistant Chief Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan were the subject of a "creating a hostile work environment" complaint from- guess who- Officer Darla Abbatiello-Higa.
"Creating a hostile work environment" has cost the county millions and these guys are apparently still at it.
"Un-freakin'-believable," as one former Kaua`i official repeatedly yelled into the phone last night.
Perhaps the best line we heard yesterday came from "KPD Blue" author Anthony Sommer who wrote, regarding Carvalho, "maybe he just wants to keep the tradition of 'every Kauai mayor gets to fire one police chief' alive."
But if Asher and Quibilan are Neanderthals, it pales in comparison to Carvalho's "I am the Eggman, They are the Eggmen, I am the Walrus" statement that somehow the county charter gives him the right to place Chief Perry on leave.
Though he cites charter section 7.05, that section has 13 different provisions in it. But assuming the first one is the one to which he refers, it plainly begins with the phrase "unless otherwise provided" which, although Carvalho and real mayor Beth Tokioka disingenuously and conveniently chose not to read this part, means that the operable section, 11.04 supersedes 7.05(A). That's the section that says the police commission is the body empowered to hire and fire the chief and therefore apparently to whom he is responsible.
But not only is Carvalho tone deaf to the limits of his own authority, he apparently hasn't read the sunshine law either.
In his "statement" he explained that he contacted the chair and vice chair of the police commission and apparently discussed the matter with them. Since the mayor sits as a non-voting "ex-officio" member of all boards and commissions, this is a blatant violation of prohibitions on more than two members of a board discussing matters that are before that board, outside of a duly agendaed meeting.
The matter is on the police commission's agenda for a special "executive session" meeting next Tuesday.
Oh- and one last thing. Though the county has been tight-lipped about the type of leave Perry and the two assistant chiefs have been forced to take, one report may indicate it's not just some routine, non-disciplinary type.
Today's pay-walled Honolulu Star Advertiser reports that "(a)ll three were ordered to turn in their equipment."
You don't take away an officer's- or especially a chief's- gun and badge without some serious wrong-doing behind the action.
Another question that comes up is why if, as reported, the complaint against Asher was filed last October 24, it did not show up on the October, November, December or January police commission meeting agendas. It just goes to show how seriously the county continues to take charges like this.
We haven't been directly privy to the information that apparently came from either Abbatiello-Higa or Perry or both but it certainly wouldn’t be being spread by almost every media outlet in the state unless the source was unimpeachably "close to Abbatiello-Higa" or "has direct knowledge of the investigation" as they have characterized their source.
But the real issue is that even after efforts by current Councilmember Tim Bynum and former Councilperson Lani Kawahara to put an end to the sexual harassment that pervades the county offices, it continues.
A letter from the two dated October 13, 2010 states that the county "has repeatedly failed to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment."
Yet the Carvalho administration hasn't done a thing other than have a few "training sessions." Many of the harassers- even some of those that cost the county big bucks- are still on the job in positions that actually ARE under the direct supervision of the mayor. Funny how he's willing to butt in where he's apparently forbidden by law to do so but when it comes to his own hand-picked cronies it's a "hand-off" policy that pervades.
If we didn't know better, we might think there was some kind of corruption going on in the administration.
Those are just some of the words that come to mind over Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s "Goo-goo-ga-joob" response to charges he had no authority to place Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry on leave yesterday- an action reportedly taken after Assistant Chief Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan were the subject of a "creating a hostile work environment" complaint from- guess who- Officer Darla Abbatiello-Higa.
"Creating a hostile work environment" has cost the county millions and these guys are apparently still at it.
"Un-freakin'-believable," as one former Kaua`i official repeatedly yelled into the phone last night.
Perhaps the best line we heard yesterday came from "KPD Blue" author Anthony Sommer who wrote, regarding Carvalho, "maybe he just wants to keep the tradition of 'every Kauai mayor gets to fire one police chief' alive."
But if Asher and Quibilan are Neanderthals, it pales in comparison to Carvalho's "I am the Eggman, They are the Eggmen, I am the Walrus" statement that somehow the county charter gives him the right to place Chief Perry on leave.
Though he cites charter section 7.05, that section has 13 different provisions in it. But assuming the first one is the one to which he refers, it plainly begins with the phrase "unless otherwise provided" which, although Carvalho and real mayor Beth Tokioka disingenuously and conveniently chose not to read this part, means that the operable section, 11.04 supersedes 7.05(A). That's the section that says the police commission is the body empowered to hire and fire the chief and therefore apparently to whom he is responsible.
But not only is Carvalho tone deaf to the limits of his own authority, he apparently hasn't read the sunshine law either.
In his "statement" he explained that he contacted the chair and vice chair of the police commission and apparently discussed the matter with them. Since the mayor sits as a non-voting "ex-officio" member of all boards and commissions, this is a blatant violation of prohibitions on more than two members of a board discussing matters that are before that board, outside of a duly agendaed meeting.
The matter is on the police commission's agenda for a special "executive session" meeting next Tuesday.
Oh- and one last thing. Though the county has been tight-lipped about the type of leave Perry and the two assistant chiefs have been forced to take, one report may indicate it's not just some routine, non-disciplinary type.
Today's pay-walled Honolulu Star Advertiser reports that "(a)ll three were ordered to turn in their equipment."
You don't take away an officer's- or especially a chief's- gun and badge without some serious wrong-doing behind the action.
Another question that comes up is why if, as reported, the complaint against Asher was filed last October 24, it did not show up on the October, November, December or January police commission meeting agendas. It just goes to show how seriously the county continues to take charges like this.
We haven't been directly privy to the information that apparently came from either Abbatiello-Higa or Perry or both but it certainly wouldn’t be being spread by almost every media outlet in the state unless the source was unimpeachably "close to Abbatiello-Higa" or "has direct knowledge of the investigation" as they have characterized their source.
But the real issue is that even after efforts by current Councilmember Tim Bynum and former Councilperson Lani Kawahara to put an end to the sexual harassment that pervades the county offices, it continues.
A letter from the two dated October 13, 2010 states that the county "has repeatedly failed to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment."
Yet the Carvalho administration hasn't done a thing other than have a few "training sessions." Many of the harassers- even some of those that cost the county big bucks- are still on the job in positions that actually ARE under the direct supervision of the mayor. Funny how he's willing to butt in where he's apparently forbidden by law to do so but when it comes to his own hand-picked cronies it's a "hand-off" policy that pervades.
If we didn't know better, we might think there was some kind of corruption going on in the administration.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
POLITICAL THEATER ON RYE... WITH MUSTARD PLEASE
POLITICAL THEATER ON RYE... WITH MUSTARD PLEASE: What with all the fun and games of the Iseri-Bynum circus of the absurd, the status and functionality of the Victim-Witness Program (VWP), the meat of the recent political sandwich, hasn't really received much press.
As we reported two weeks ago (January 12) according to a scathing letter to the Kaua`i County Council by Erin Wilson, a terminated Victim-Witness Counselor at the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA, the program is now dysfunctional due to the requirement that all communications with outside agencies and the world in general be channeled through Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, the lack of communications between those performing VWP services and many other issues such as the 17 new faces at the OPA since Iseri came into office.
According to the agenda for last Thursday's council meeting, Council Vice Chair JoAnn Yukimura asked Iseri to come before the council to discuss "the status of the Victim-Witness Program and OPA." And when Councilmember Tim Bynum recused himself due to Iseri's prosecution of him for alleged zoning violations at his home- as we detailed yesterday- Yukimura took over the questioning that, according to Bynum, had been suspended in 2009 when then Chair Kaipo Asing stopped it.
But not before Iseri, trying to direct the show, dragged up her whole department to blow smoke up everyone's butts after demanding that Wilson be questioned, spurring Chair Jay Furfaro to remind her that he was the one running the show.
Instead Yukimura asked for current VWP employee Dianne Gauspohl-White to come up to tesfy. She pretty much backed up most of Wilson's complaints although saying she could only speak from her perspective.
At first Yukimura's questioning elicited mostly red-faced rage, bluster and misdirection on Iseri's part, complaining how she and her staff had to take valuable time to present information they had supposedly already presented.
But after Iseri's right hand man First Deputy Prosecutor Jake DelaPlane- who continually throughout the session pulled her butt out of the sling she had created through her own belligerence- did a PowerPoint presentation with lots of numbers and statistics but almost nothing on the VWP, the questioning of Iseri by Yukimura began, mostly based on Wilson's allegations.
Things were going along swimmingly (not) with Iseri parrying Yukimura's questions with non-responsive "answers" and continual reminders that she had already presented the requested material, when Yukimura finally asked the right questions and hit a jackpot of an answer.
"The Victim Witness Program no longer exists" Iseri told a stunned council.
Seems that Iseri has instituted a program called "vertical prosecution." Formerly deputy prosecutors were assigned to individual courts, not to individual cases. That meant that many times an attorney got the case for the first time when he showed up to court after a case had, for example, been moved from district to circuit court or from the court of one judge to another.
"Vertical prosecution" (VP) is a system where each case is assigned to one attorney who takes it from beginning to end, usually sorted by subject matter- drugs, violent crime, domestic, white collar crime etc.- supposedly creating attorneys with expertise in a certain area.
It actually sounds like a good and long overdue practice.
Under VP each individual attorney has a "team" assigned to him or her- a law clerk, and now, a Victim-Witness (VW) counselor.
And in Iseri's office that apparently has come to mean that there's no cross communication anymore between the various VW employees.
According to White and Wilson, VW employees are now tasked by the attorney who almost exclusively assigns them tasks like calling specific victims and witnesses to let them know about court dates, changes in case status and those kinds of things.
Apparently the actual "counseling" part has fallen through the cracks and not only that but the only victims and witnesses contacted by the counselors are those the attorney on the team tells them to call- and then only to communicate matters regarding the case status.
It used to be that VW employees met every month, traveled to conferences and did a lot of evaluation of whether and how services were being delivered to VWs. But that is a thing of the past with VP where counselors are now "team members" whose actions are dictated by either the attorneys in charge of the team or Iseri herself.
Whereas vertical integration is growing in popularity in the offices of prosecutors and district attorneys across the country- and, according to Councilmember and Iseri ally Mel Rapozo, is by far the most popular management scheme- robust victim witness counseling can wind up being be sacrificed.
Especially if a megalomaniacal, puerile, petty, vindictive, ego-driven prosecutor is the one running the show.
The rest of Yukimura's questioning revealed that, despite requests from the council that statistics and information be presented in an intelligible manner and one that addresses questions the council has- like how all the monies from the various VW programs from the county state and federal governments are actually spent- they are embedded in spread sheets and long narratives where there's little or no possibility of extracting the pertinent information.
It all ended up with DelaPlane- who had taken over much of the question-answering after Iseri's patented self-righteous, rage-filled and spittle-spewing attacks on the questions and questioner became self-defeating- promising to put the statistics in meaningful formats for the new budget... and, importantly, to provide the evaluation forms that victims and witnesses have filled out for those entities providing the grants, which had never been provided to the council previous to the request.
We can expect a repeat performance during the budget hearings starting in March when the OPA presents its budget. But more importantly we just may get some of the issues aired during this year's election campaign where current Deputy County Attorney for the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD), Justin Kollar, is challenging Iseri for the Prosecutor's job.
Iseri won her first and only term as prosecutor in 2008 running unopposed, leaving her position on the county council after four years there.
Although the community has suffered in all this, personally we can't be too distressed with the Bynum matter, the victim witness program questions and other brewing debacles promise that this summer will be anything but a dull one in this space.
So thank you Shay- you're a columnist's dream. So much so that we're torn between supporting Justin for the sake of the community or you for being the gift that keeps on giving.
As we reported two weeks ago (January 12) according to a scathing letter to the Kaua`i County Council by Erin Wilson, a terminated Victim-Witness Counselor at the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA, the program is now dysfunctional due to the requirement that all communications with outside agencies and the world in general be channeled through Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, the lack of communications between those performing VWP services and many other issues such as the 17 new faces at the OPA since Iseri came into office.
According to the agenda for last Thursday's council meeting, Council Vice Chair JoAnn Yukimura asked Iseri to come before the council to discuss "the status of the Victim-Witness Program and OPA." And when Councilmember Tim Bynum recused himself due to Iseri's prosecution of him for alleged zoning violations at his home- as we detailed yesterday- Yukimura took over the questioning that, according to Bynum, had been suspended in 2009 when then Chair Kaipo Asing stopped it.
But not before Iseri, trying to direct the show, dragged up her whole department to blow smoke up everyone's butts after demanding that Wilson be questioned, spurring Chair Jay Furfaro to remind her that he was the one running the show.
Instead Yukimura asked for current VWP employee Dianne Gauspohl-White to come up to tesfy. She pretty much backed up most of Wilson's complaints although saying she could only speak from her perspective.
At first Yukimura's questioning elicited mostly red-faced rage, bluster and misdirection on Iseri's part, complaining how she and her staff had to take valuable time to present information they had supposedly already presented.
But after Iseri's right hand man First Deputy Prosecutor Jake DelaPlane- who continually throughout the session pulled her butt out of the sling she had created through her own belligerence- did a PowerPoint presentation with lots of numbers and statistics but almost nothing on the VWP, the questioning of Iseri by Yukimura began, mostly based on Wilson's allegations.
Things were going along swimmingly (not) with Iseri parrying Yukimura's questions with non-responsive "answers" and continual reminders that she had already presented the requested material, when Yukimura finally asked the right questions and hit a jackpot of an answer.
"The Victim Witness Program no longer exists" Iseri told a stunned council.
Seems that Iseri has instituted a program called "vertical prosecution." Formerly deputy prosecutors were assigned to individual courts, not to individual cases. That meant that many times an attorney got the case for the first time when he showed up to court after a case had, for example, been moved from district to circuit court or from the court of one judge to another.
"Vertical prosecution" (VP) is a system where each case is assigned to one attorney who takes it from beginning to end, usually sorted by subject matter- drugs, violent crime, domestic, white collar crime etc.- supposedly creating attorneys with expertise in a certain area.
It actually sounds like a good and long overdue practice.
Under VP each individual attorney has a "team" assigned to him or her- a law clerk, and now, a Victim-Witness (VW) counselor.
And in Iseri's office that apparently has come to mean that there's no cross communication anymore between the various VW employees.
According to White and Wilson, VW employees are now tasked by the attorney who almost exclusively assigns them tasks like calling specific victims and witnesses to let them know about court dates, changes in case status and those kinds of things.
Apparently the actual "counseling" part has fallen through the cracks and not only that but the only victims and witnesses contacted by the counselors are those the attorney on the team tells them to call- and then only to communicate matters regarding the case status.
It used to be that VW employees met every month, traveled to conferences and did a lot of evaluation of whether and how services were being delivered to VWs. But that is a thing of the past with VP where counselors are now "team members" whose actions are dictated by either the attorneys in charge of the team or Iseri herself.
Whereas vertical integration is growing in popularity in the offices of prosecutors and district attorneys across the country- and, according to Councilmember and Iseri ally Mel Rapozo, is by far the most popular management scheme- robust victim witness counseling can wind up being be sacrificed.
Especially if a megalomaniacal, puerile, petty, vindictive, ego-driven prosecutor is the one running the show.
The rest of Yukimura's questioning revealed that, despite requests from the council that statistics and information be presented in an intelligible manner and one that addresses questions the council has- like how all the monies from the various VW programs from the county state and federal governments are actually spent- they are embedded in spread sheets and long narratives where there's little or no possibility of extracting the pertinent information.
It all ended up with DelaPlane- who had taken over much of the question-answering after Iseri's patented self-righteous, rage-filled and spittle-spewing attacks on the questions and questioner became self-defeating- promising to put the statistics in meaningful formats for the new budget... and, importantly, to provide the evaluation forms that victims and witnesses have filled out for those entities providing the grants, which had never been provided to the council previous to the request.
We can expect a repeat performance during the budget hearings starting in March when the OPA presents its budget. But more importantly we just may get some of the issues aired during this year's election campaign where current Deputy County Attorney for the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD), Justin Kollar, is challenging Iseri for the Prosecutor's job.
Iseri won her first and only term as prosecutor in 2008 running unopposed, leaving her position on the county council after four years there.
Although the community has suffered in all this, personally we can't be too distressed with the Bynum matter, the victim witness program questions and other brewing debacles promise that this summer will be anything but a dull one in this space.
So thank you Shay- you're a columnist's dream. So much so that we're torn between supporting Justin for the sake of the community or you for being the gift that keeps on giving.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
BUT WAS IT BASMATI OR LOCAL-KINE STICKY?
BUT WAS IT BASMATI OR LOCAL-KINE STICKY?: Only on Kauai could we have a scandal that revolves around whether having a rice-cooker in the wrong room constitutes a zoning violation.
That's because "Rice-cooker-gate" is a direct result of what happens when a dysfunctional planning department and an ego-maniacal prosecutor collude to "bring down" a councilmember.
The matter- into which we've been delving for the past year or so- has finally spilled over into the local newspaper with an article yesterday that scratched the surface of the prosecution of Councilmember Tim Bynum by Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, after the release of various documents and a back and forth between Iseri and Bynum on the matter.
Despite Iseri's denial of any ill-feeling between the two, the feud between her and Bynum goes back to their days together on the council when she and Councilmember Mel Rapozo were allies and sided with then-Chair Kaipo Asing in the infamous days when Bynum and Asing butted heads with all of them over Asing's paternalistic leadership of the council involving issues of process, staffing, introduction of measures and other issues.
Iseri was then elected prosecuting attorney in 2008.
According to a complaint form we've obtained dated 3/26/10 Bynum was alleged to have an "illegal dwelling multi family" unit at his home which is on agriculturally zoned land.
The problem is that, under "Complainer/Requester" the form notes "*wants to remain anonymous!" (the asterisk and exclamation marks are written on the form)
The complaint has two initializations, one for "inspector" and another for "assigned by" but who they actually are is not readily apparent. However what is known is that, according to Bynum's press release that followed an email from Iseri to current Council Chair Jay Furfaro sent just before last Wednesday's council meeting where Iseri appeared on a budgetary matter related to the Victim Witness program:
Apparently, sometime prior to April 2010 a trespasser entered onto my property, looked into my windows and observed a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the family room.
That someone is apparently Planning Inspector Sheilah Miyake who was CCed in a series of memos between Iseri and then Planning Director Ian Costa and has been identified by numerous reliable sources close to the investigation as being the "trespasser."
On April 7, 2010, Iseri wrote to Costa:
We received information to corroborate an anonymous complaint dated March 2.6, 2010 that was sent to the Planning Department and our office, that Councilmember Tim Bynum was renting out his house, or a portion thereof. Can you let me know if renting out a portion of his residence is ill~gal given his land status, and what ordinance/statute would he be violating by doing so? Please advise.
Costa wrote back, CCing Miyake, saying
Sorry for delay Shaylene.
The CZO really doesn't prohibit renting portions of structures. Even the issue of "lock-outs" is not addressed.
The CZO does not dictate where locks are permitted and not permitted (thank goodness!). The issue would be whether the area, in question creates a "multi-family" dwelling. What was permitted is a "single-family" dwelling based on "one kitchen". If a second kitchen (area used for the preparation of food) is present, then a violation would exist for an illegal "multi-family" dwelling unit.
I understand Sheila has been assisting and monitoring .......let me know if we can be of further assistance.
Despite Iseri's previous contention that actions on the complaint was initiated by the planning department alone, her memo indicates that now she says the complaint was sent to both planning and the prosecutor's office. She also seems to say that she and Miyake worked together to get the "rice cooker" information that was arguably obtained illegally via Miyake's trespassing.
In a comment on our November 5, 2010 report on Bynum's denial of allgations, Iseri wrote"
Mr. Parx,
Your statements are completely erroneous. I was never involved in the investigation of Tim Bynum's violations. The entire investigation was conducted by the Planning Department.
The memo seems to indicate that it was Iseri who initiated the action in conjunction with Miyake and without Director Costa's prior involvement. It also shows that Costa essentially confirms what people have been told at planning previous to this incident- that a "second kitchen" is what makes it illegal. And, as everyone is told, it is a stove that constituted what a "kitchen" was.
But Iseri wasn't to be stopped by the prior definition of a kitchen by planning. Apparently when Miyake told her she saw a "rice cooker" on the counter when she sneaked onto Bynum's property without his permission- or even asking- Iseri saw her opening and decided that, despite what planning had said ever since the CZO was established in the early 70's, now any device- presumably even a toaster or coffee maker- is a "kitchen."
The most hilarious part of all this is Iseri's continuing contention that there is no feud or even animosity between her and Bynum. Anyone who ever watched those council sessions where she butted heads with Bynum would have no doubt she despises Bynum.
So as to who made the complaint? Well we can't say for sure but for some reason former Chair Kaipo Asing has taken an unusual interest in Bynum's cases, showing up to Bynum's court dates and last week's council meeting where, if Bynum had not recused himself, sparks between Iseri and Bynum would surely have flown.
Was it Asing? Was it Iseri's ally Mel Rapozo whose animosity toward Bynum is thinly, if at all, disguised? Some seem to think the latter is the case but so far Rapozo's name hasn't come up in any documents.
The answer is apparently another question- does it really matter which of them it was? To think that there was no collusion in the matter would strain credulity.
Another question is what will happen when these people are put under oath. We understand that new Planning Director Mike Dahilig is privy to the whole story and even if the others were thinking of perjuring themselves, his testimony would surely be straightforward, the thinking being that Dahilig, a former deputy county attorney, isn't going to lie under oath for anyone.
A final question is why Iseri's office is even prosecuting the case and why she hasn't recused herself and her office by letting the state attorney general's office take it over. It would seem, given the history between Iseri and Bynum, recusal would be a no brainer.
Also, Iseri's email was stamped with a big "Confidential" across the top and the original did not contain any redactions. But under the Sunshine law she has no apparent right to say an email to the council is confidential. All emails to councilmembers are considered public documents.
We'll leave it there for today. Below are the full texts of Iseri's letter asking for Bynum's recusal last Wednesday and Bynum's "press release" that followed this weekend. It should be noted that there may be misprints in Iseri's email. First of all, names of those involved are redacted and second we had to use optical character recognition software to get it in "text" form. There may be redactions that are not noted so the sentences may seem disjointed. But you'll get the gist of it.
----#---
Iseri's letter to Council Chair Jay Furfaro CCed to all councilmembers except Bynum.
January 19, 2011
TO: Council Chair Jay Furfaro
FR: Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho
RE: Conflict Notice Regarding Councilmember Timothy Bynum
This communication serves as a notice to the Council regarding a conflict of interest between Councilmember Timothy Bynum and the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. This conflict arises from several incidents involving Councilmember Bynum and employees in our office, as well as the pending criminal case filed by our Office against Councilmember Bynum in November 2011.
1. Bynum's Inappropriate Confrontation Of Deputy Prosecuting (redacted)
On September 28, 2011, Councilmember Timothy Bynum attended a court proceeding with his son, David Bynum, at the 5th Judicial Circuit Courthouse in Lihu`e. After the hearing, Mr. Bynum stood outside the courtroom door in the public hallway and confronted Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (redacted) regarding David's case. As (redacted) exited the courtroom, Mr. Bynum stated directly to (redacted) "Do you think justice was done? This was because [expletive] Shaylene doesn't like me and is out to get me." (Redacted) was standing nearby and also witnessed the confrontation.
According to the Kaua`i County Charter section 3.07(D)
The council may, upon an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of its entire membership, suspend without pay for not more than one month any member for disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence. The presiding officer or the council by a majority vote may expel any other person who is guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or improper conduct at any meeting.
While this section deals with disorderly and contemptuous conduct that occurs in the presence of the Council, it is also instructive as to the appropriate conduct expected from Councilmembers in their dealings with county employees as well as the general public.
Additionally, Section 3.18 of the Kaua`i County Charter states:
Except for the purpose of investigative inquiries under Section 3.17, the council or its members, in dealing with county employees, or with county officers who are subjected to the direction and supervision of the mayor, shall deal solely through the mayor. and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such employee or officer either publicly or privately. Any willful violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the council shall be sufficient grounds for an action for his removal from office.
Clearly, Councilmember Bynum did not handle this situation appropriately. If Mr. Bynum had questions or concerns about the case, the appropriate course of action would have been to communicate those to the elected Department Head, which is me, rather than confronting one of our Deputies, who, in fact, was not assigned to handling the case. This confrontation clearly illustrates the undue bias Mr. Bynum harbors toward both me personally, as well as the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. As such, Mr. Bynum must recuse himself from any matter before the Council involving the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.
2. Bynum's inappropriate confrontation of (redacted)
Before coming to work at the OPA (redacted) was employed by (redacted) as (redacted). She applied to the OPA as a (redacted) and was offered the job in (redacted) . After accepting the position (redacted), who had turned in her 2 week notice (redacted) was confronted by Councilmember Bynum in her office. Bynum stated that he was concerned because it was well known that he and Shaylene did not 'get along' and adamantly believed that the only reason Shaylene hired her was to 'get back at him.' These statements and allegations continued for a prolonged period, leaving (redacted) to feel uncomfortable and offended.
Councilmember Bynum's inappropriate confrontation with (redacted) regarding her employment at the OPA demonstrates Mr. Bynum's continued undue bias toward me and my office. This bias and proclivity to engage in inappropriate conduct with OPA employees further establishes the need to have Mr. Bynum precluded from participating in any matters relating to the operations of the OPA.
3. Bynum's Pending Criminal Case
On November 9, 2011, the OPA filed a criminal complaint in the District Court of the Fifth Circuit against Timothy Bynum, alleging 4 counts of violations of the Kaua`i County Code. Each Count is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000.000 fine for each. This means that if convicted, Bynum could face up to 4 total years imprisonment and $8,000.00 in fines. There have already been two motion hearings on the case, in which Mr. Bynum has been represented by a private attorney. At each hearing, First Deputy Prosecutor Jake Delaplane represented the State and made all arguments on behalf of the State. Councilmember Bynum's criminal case clearly establishes a conflict with the OPA. He has a clear financial interest in the operations of the OPA, as he would directly benefit if the OPA's operations were negatively impacted by any action of the Council. By virtue of being a criminal defendant, he has a vested interest in ensuring that the OPA not operate at peak efficiency. In accordance with Article )0( of the Kaua`i County Charter, this financial interest clearly prohibits Bynum from participating in any matter relating to the OPA that comes before the Council. Further, because Councilmember Bynum is represented by an attorney in his criminal case, our office is prohibited from having direct contact with Bynum without his attorney present; as such contact would violate Bynum's 6th Amendment Right to Counsel and could result in dismissal of his case. Bynum's paranoid belief that the actions taken by our office were calculated personal attacks against him is without any merit and is completely baseless. The criminal case against his son was investigated by the Kaua`i Police Department and referred to our office for prosecution. The case initiated against Councilmember Bynum was investigated by the Planning Department and referred to our office for criminal prosecution. The contact with (redacted) was solely initiated by Councilmember Bynum. Her decision to apply to the OPA and our decision to hire her was purely based on (redacted) exceptional experience and qualifications.
For the above stated reasons, Councilmember Bynum has a clear conflict of interest with the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney and should not be allowed to participate in any Council proceedings involving the OPA. It is our hope that the Council will address this situation in a timely and appropriate manner. Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this matter.
SHAYLENE ISERI-CARVALHO
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
---------
Bynum's Press Release
I was elected to legislate for the county and to provide oversight of various government agencies and offices. Among these is the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA).
However, the OPA has recently filed criminal zoning violations against me and I must now defend those in Court. Since I was charged, the County Prosecutor has now cited those same charges as a basis for having me recused from all legislative oversight over her office. Out of an over abundance of caution I agreed to recuse myself from the January 19th meeting.
Likewise, I believe that it would be appropriate for the Kauai Prosecuting Attorney to be recused from prosecuting my case and allow the Attorney General's office to properly evaluate this case. I believe that this would be the best assurance of a fair proceeding and a fair process that is certain to be governed by the rule of law.
The Prosecuting Attorney states in a Jan 19 letter that her criminal prosecution is not personal, and was a routine matter “investigated by the Planning Department and referred to our office for criminal prosecution.” What I have learned is that as early as April 2010, the Prosecuting Attorney asked the Planning Director in an email for a legal basis on which to prosecute me. I am attaching a copy of emails between the Prosecuting Attorney and then-Planning Department Head Ian Costa. These e-mails establish that the Prosecuting Attorney was involved in the matter before Planning even investigated the “anonymous complaint” and that this was not just a routine Planning Department investigation.
In her email, the Prosecutor refers to an "anonymous" complaint. Apparently, sometime prior to April 2010 a trespasser entered onto my property, looked into my windows and observed a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the family room.
I hope that through the court-process I will be able to ascertain the identity of this trespasser and learn how this person was able to anonymously commence a criminal investigation - especially when I have previously been assured by the Planning Department that my house was properly permitted. I also hope to find out who, if anyone in government authorized sending someone to peer into the windows of my family home. I believe that the trespasser should be prosecuted, but thus far his or her identity appears to have been protected. The documents provided to my defense attorney so far only state that he or she "wishes to remain anonymous".
Finally, just minutes prior to the January 19, 2012 Special Council Meeting, the Prosecuting Attorney sent a letter marked confidential demanding my recusal. The letter was sent to all Council Members except for me. I was allowed to read the letter in the presence of the County Attorneys but I was not given a copy.
I am now informed that the Prosecuting Attorney intends to release to the public this letter she stamped “confidential.” The letter misrepresents conversations I had with two individuals I have long respected and have had a cordial professional relationship with for years.
The intended subject matter of the January 19 Council Meeting was a valid examination of concerns raised by a number of citizens regarding the Victim Witness program, the reported backlog of cases, finance issues and the high turnover / vacancies of Deputies. Council member Joann Yukimura instigated the request. Anyone who follows the Council knows that this type of oversight agenda item is common and a legitimate Council responsibility.
Additional information regarding the alleged zoning violation:
In 2005, at times there were 4 generations of my family (7 people total) living in my home (my father, myself and my wife, my son, my daughter, our grandson and his mother). We decided to do an addition to our home. We wanted to create a living space that was integrated. We constructed two bedrooms, a bathroom and family room. The addition also included a ramp because my elderly father was increasingly having difficulty negotiating the steps to the front door much less the stairs to the second story where the existing bedrooms were located.
When the drawings were done I took them to the County Planning department and the Building division for informal review. I was told everything was fine as long as no stove was installed. Subsequently we submitted the plans to the County for formal review and approval. The plans were approved after being circulated to and approved by various departments including the Planning department.
We hired a contractor and built according to the plans. The County sent inspectors during construction including a final inspection after which we were issued a certificate of occupancy. The addition is exactly as it was when “final inspection” occurred; nothing has been added or deleted. No installed cooking facilities have ever existed in the addition. Our home has one kitchen; every person that has ever resided in our home has used the one kitchen.
That's because "Rice-cooker-gate" is a direct result of what happens when a dysfunctional planning department and an ego-maniacal prosecutor collude to "bring down" a councilmember.
The matter- into which we've been delving for the past year or so- has finally spilled over into the local newspaper with an article yesterday that scratched the surface of the prosecution of Councilmember Tim Bynum by Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, after the release of various documents and a back and forth between Iseri and Bynum on the matter.
Despite Iseri's denial of any ill-feeling between the two, the feud between her and Bynum goes back to their days together on the council when she and Councilmember Mel Rapozo were allies and sided with then-Chair Kaipo Asing in the infamous days when Bynum and Asing butted heads with all of them over Asing's paternalistic leadership of the council involving issues of process, staffing, introduction of measures and other issues.
Iseri was then elected prosecuting attorney in 2008.
According to a complaint form we've obtained dated 3/26/10 Bynum was alleged to have an "illegal dwelling multi family" unit at his home which is on agriculturally zoned land.
The problem is that, under "Complainer/Requester" the form notes "*wants to remain anonymous!" (the asterisk and exclamation marks are written on the form)
The complaint has two initializations, one for "inspector" and another for "assigned by" but who they actually are is not readily apparent. However what is known is that, according to Bynum's press release that followed an email from Iseri to current Council Chair Jay Furfaro sent just before last Wednesday's council meeting where Iseri appeared on a budgetary matter related to the Victim Witness program:
Apparently, sometime prior to April 2010 a trespasser entered onto my property, looked into my windows and observed a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the family room.
That someone is apparently Planning Inspector Sheilah Miyake who was CCed in a series of memos between Iseri and then Planning Director Ian Costa and has been identified by numerous reliable sources close to the investigation as being the "trespasser."
On April 7, 2010, Iseri wrote to Costa:
We received information to corroborate an anonymous complaint dated March 2.6, 2010 that was sent to the Planning Department and our office, that Councilmember Tim Bynum was renting out his house, or a portion thereof. Can you let me know if renting out a portion of his residence is ill~gal given his land status, and what ordinance/statute would he be violating by doing so? Please advise.
Costa wrote back, CCing Miyake, saying
Sorry for delay Shaylene.
The CZO really doesn't prohibit renting portions of structures. Even the issue of "lock-outs" is not addressed.
The CZO does not dictate where locks are permitted and not permitted (thank goodness!). The issue would be whether the area, in question creates a "multi-family" dwelling. What was permitted is a "single-family" dwelling based on "one kitchen". If a second kitchen (area used for the preparation of food) is present, then a violation would exist for an illegal "multi-family" dwelling unit.
I understand Sheila has been assisting and monitoring .......let me know if we can be of further assistance.
Despite Iseri's previous contention that actions on the complaint was initiated by the planning department alone, her memo indicates that now she says the complaint was sent to both planning and the prosecutor's office. She also seems to say that she and Miyake worked together to get the "rice cooker" information that was arguably obtained illegally via Miyake's trespassing.
In a comment on our November 5, 2010 report on Bynum's denial of allgations, Iseri wrote"
Mr. Parx,
Your statements are completely erroneous. I was never involved in the investigation of Tim Bynum's violations. The entire investigation was conducted by the Planning Department.
The memo seems to indicate that it was Iseri who initiated the action in conjunction with Miyake and without Director Costa's prior involvement. It also shows that Costa essentially confirms what people have been told at planning previous to this incident- that a "second kitchen" is what makes it illegal. And, as everyone is told, it is a stove that constituted what a "kitchen" was.
But Iseri wasn't to be stopped by the prior definition of a kitchen by planning. Apparently when Miyake told her she saw a "rice cooker" on the counter when she sneaked onto Bynum's property without his permission- or even asking- Iseri saw her opening and decided that, despite what planning had said ever since the CZO was established in the early 70's, now any device- presumably even a toaster or coffee maker- is a "kitchen."
The most hilarious part of all this is Iseri's continuing contention that there is no feud or even animosity between her and Bynum. Anyone who ever watched those council sessions where she butted heads with Bynum would have no doubt she despises Bynum.
So as to who made the complaint? Well we can't say for sure but for some reason former Chair Kaipo Asing has taken an unusual interest in Bynum's cases, showing up to Bynum's court dates and last week's council meeting where, if Bynum had not recused himself, sparks between Iseri and Bynum would surely have flown.
Was it Asing? Was it Iseri's ally Mel Rapozo whose animosity toward Bynum is thinly, if at all, disguised? Some seem to think the latter is the case but so far Rapozo's name hasn't come up in any documents.
The answer is apparently another question- does it really matter which of them it was? To think that there was no collusion in the matter would strain credulity.
Another question is what will happen when these people are put under oath. We understand that new Planning Director Mike Dahilig is privy to the whole story and even if the others were thinking of perjuring themselves, his testimony would surely be straightforward, the thinking being that Dahilig, a former deputy county attorney, isn't going to lie under oath for anyone.
A final question is why Iseri's office is even prosecuting the case and why she hasn't recused herself and her office by letting the state attorney general's office take it over. It would seem, given the history between Iseri and Bynum, recusal would be a no brainer.
Also, Iseri's email was stamped with a big "Confidential" across the top and the original did not contain any redactions. But under the Sunshine law she has no apparent right to say an email to the council is confidential. All emails to councilmembers are considered public documents.
We'll leave it there for today. Below are the full texts of Iseri's letter asking for Bynum's recusal last Wednesday and Bynum's "press release" that followed this weekend. It should be noted that there may be misprints in Iseri's email. First of all, names of those involved are redacted and second we had to use optical character recognition software to get it in "text" form. There may be redactions that are not noted so the sentences may seem disjointed. But you'll get the gist of it.
----#---
Iseri's letter to Council Chair Jay Furfaro CCed to all councilmembers except Bynum.
January 19, 2011
TO: Council Chair Jay Furfaro
FR: Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho
RE: Conflict Notice Regarding Councilmember Timothy Bynum
This communication serves as a notice to the Council regarding a conflict of interest between Councilmember Timothy Bynum and the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. This conflict arises from several incidents involving Councilmember Bynum and employees in our office, as well as the pending criminal case filed by our Office against Councilmember Bynum in November 2011.
1. Bynum's Inappropriate Confrontation Of Deputy Prosecuting (redacted)
On September 28, 2011, Councilmember Timothy Bynum attended a court proceeding with his son, David Bynum, at the 5th Judicial Circuit Courthouse in Lihu`e. After the hearing, Mr. Bynum stood outside the courtroom door in the public hallway and confronted Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (redacted) regarding David's case. As (redacted) exited the courtroom, Mr. Bynum stated directly to (redacted) "Do you think justice was done? This was because [expletive] Shaylene doesn't like me and is out to get me." (Redacted) was standing nearby and also witnessed the confrontation.
According to the Kaua`i County Charter section 3.07(D)
The council may, upon an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of its entire membership, suspend without pay for not more than one month any member for disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence. The presiding officer or the council by a majority vote may expel any other person who is guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or improper conduct at any meeting.
While this section deals with disorderly and contemptuous conduct that occurs in the presence of the Council, it is also instructive as to the appropriate conduct expected from Councilmembers in their dealings with county employees as well as the general public.
Additionally, Section 3.18 of the Kaua`i County Charter states:
Except for the purpose of investigative inquiries under Section 3.17, the council or its members, in dealing with county employees, or with county officers who are subjected to the direction and supervision of the mayor, shall deal solely through the mayor. and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such employee or officer either publicly or privately. Any willful violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the council shall be sufficient grounds for an action for his removal from office.
Clearly, Councilmember Bynum did not handle this situation appropriately. If Mr. Bynum had questions or concerns about the case, the appropriate course of action would have been to communicate those to the elected Department Head, which is me, rather than confronting one of our Deputies, who, in fact, was not assigned to handling the case. This confrontation clearly illustrates the undue bias Mr. Bynum harbors toward both me personally, as well as the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. As such, Mr. Bynum must recuse himself from any matter before the Council involving the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.
2. Bynum's inappropriate confrontation of (redacted)
Before coming to work at the OPA (redacted) was employed by (redacted) as (redacted). She applied to the OPA as a (redacted) and was offered the job in (redacted) . After accepting the position (redacted), who had turned in her 2 week notice (redacted) was confronted by Councilmember Bynum in her office. Bynum stated that he was concerned because it was well known that he and Shaylene did not 'get along' and adamantly believed that the only reason Shaylene hired her was to 'get back at him.' These statements and allegations continued for a prolonged period, leaving (redacted) to feel uncomfortable and offended.
Councilmember Bynum's inappropriate confrontation with (redacted) regarding her employment at the OPA demonstrates Mr. Bynum's continued undue bias toward me and my office. This bias and proclivity to engage in inappropriate conduct with OPA employees further establishes the need to have Mr. Bynum precluded from participating in any matters relating to the operations of the OPA.
3. Bynum's Pending Criminal Case
On November 9, 2011, the OPA filed a criminal complaint in the District Court of the Fifth Circuit against Timothy Bynum, alleging 4 counts of violations of the Kaua`i County Code. Each Count is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000.000 fine for each. This means that if convicted, Bynum could face up to 4 total years imprisonment and $8,000.00 in fines. There have already been two motion hearings on the case, in which Mr. Bynum has been represented by a private attorney. At each hearing, First Deputy Prosecutor Jake Delaplane represented the State and made all arguments on behalf of the State. Councilmember Bynum's criminal case clearly establishes a conflict with the OPA. He has a clear financial interest in the operations of the OPA, as he would directly benefit if the OPA's operations were negatively impacted by any action of the Council. By virtue of being a criminal defendant, he has a vested interest in ensuring that the OPA not operate at peak efficiency. In accordance with Article )0( of the Kaua`i County Charter, this financial interest clearly prohibits Bynum from participating in any matter relating to the OPA that comes before the Council. Further, because Councilmember Bynum is represented by an attorney in his criminal case, our office is prohibited from having direct contact with Bynum without his attorney present; as such contact would violate Bynum's 6th Amendment Right to Counsel and could result in dismissal of his case. Bynum's paranoid belief that the actions taken by our office were calculated personal attacks against him is without any merit and is completely baseless. The criminal case against his son was investigated by the Kaua`i Police Department and referred to our office for prosecution. The case initiated against Councilmember Bynum was investigated by the Planning Department and referred to our office for criminal prosecution. The contact with (redacted) was solely initiated by Councilmember Bynum. Her decision to apply to the OPA and our decision to hire her was purely based on (redacted) exceptional experience and qualifications.
For the above stated reasons, Councilmember Bynum has a clear conflict of interest with the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney and should not be allowed to participate in any Council proceedings involving the OPA. It is our hope that the Council will address this situation in a timely and appropriate manner. Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this matter.
SHAYLENE ISERI-CARVALHO
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
---------
Bynum's Press Release
I was elected to legislate for the county and to provide oversight of various government agencies and offices. Among these is the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA).
However, the OPA has recently filed criminal zoning violations against me and I must now defend those in Court. Since I was charged, the County Prosecutor has now cited those same charges as a basis for having me recused from all legislative oversight over her office. Out of an over abundance of caution I agreed to recuse myself from the January 19th meeting.
Likewise, I believe that it would be appropriate for the Kauai Prosecuting Attorney to be recused from prosecuting my case and allow the Attorney General's office to properly evaluate this case. I believe that this would be the best assurance of a fair proceeding and a fair process that is certain to be governed by the rule of law.
The Prosecuting Attorney states in a Jan 19 letter that her criminal prosecution is not personal, and was a routine matter “investigated by the Planning Department and referred to our office for criminal prosecution.” What I have learned is that as early as April 2010, the Prosecuting Attorney asked the Planning Director in an email for a legal basis on which to prosecute me. I am attaching a copy of emails between the Prosecuting Attorney and then-Planning Department Head Ian Costa. These e-mails establish that the Prosecuting Attorney was involved in the matter before Planning even investigated the “anonymous complaint” and that this was not just a routine Planning Department investigation.
In her email, the Prosecutor refers to an "anonymous" complaint. Apparently, sometime prior to April 2010 a trespasser entered onto my property, looked into my windows and observed a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the family room.
I hope that through the court-process I will be able to ascertain the identity of this trespasser and learn how this person was able to anonymously commence a criminal investigation - especially when I have previously been assured by the Planning Department that my house was properly permitted. I also hope to find out who, if anyone in government authorized sending someone to peer into the windows of my family home. I believe that the trespasser should be prosecuted, but thus far his or her identity appears to have been protected. The documents provided to my defense attorney so far only state that he or she "wishes to remain anonymous".
Finally, just minutes prior to the January 19, 2012 Special Council Meeting, the Prosecuting Attorney sent a letter marked confidential demanding my recusal. The letter was sent to all Council Members except for me. I was allowed to read the letter in the presence of the County Attorneys but I was not given a copy.
I am now informed that the Prosecuting Attorney intends to release to the public this letter she stamped “confidential.” The letter misrepresents conversations I had with two individuals I have long respected and have had a cordial professional relationship with for years.
The intended subject matter of the January 19 Council Meeting was a valid examination of concerns raised by a number of citizens regarding the Victim Witness program, the reported backlog of cases, finance issues and the high turnover / vacancies of Deputies. Council member Joann Yukimura instigated the request. Anyone who follows the Council knows that this type of oversight agenda item is common and a legitimate Council responsibility.
Additional information regarding the alleged zoning violation:
In 2005, at times there were 4 generations of my family (7 people total) living in my home (my father, myself and my wife, my son, my daughter, our grandson and his mother). We decided to do an addition to our home. We wanted to create a living space that was integrated. We constructed two bedrooms, a bathroom and family room. The addition also included a ramp because my elderly father was increasingly having difficulty negotiating the steps to the front door much less the stairs to the second story where the existing bedrooms were located.
When the drawings were done I took them to the County Planning department and the Building division for informal review. I was told everything was fine as long as no stove was installed. Subsequently we submitted the plans to the County for formal review and approval. The plans were approved after being circulated to and approved by various departments including the Planning department.
We hired a contractor and built according to the plans. The County sent inspectors during construction including a final inspection after which we were issued a certificate of occupancy. The addition is exactly as it was when “final inspection” occurred; nothing has been added or deleted. No installed cooking facilities have ever existed in the addition. Our home has one kitchen; every person that has ever resided in our home has used the one kitchen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
