COUNCIL TO TRY TO GUT CHARTER'S ETHICS PROVISION WITH BALLOT MEASURE

It's a little know fact: Kaua`i does, in fact, have a "Code of Ethics." But it's not for lack of trying that county officials have failed to undermine it.


And after many attempts to make a joke of our County Charter provision that simply doesn't allow an "officer or employee of the county" to "(a)ppear on behalf of private interests before any county

board, commission, or agency," Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura wants to try to gut the provision at tomorrow’s (6/10) County Council meeting.

The provision in 20.02(D) of the charter means that, for instance, the chair of the Board of Ethics (BOE) which rules on ethical issues, cannot come to the council and ask for money for the non-profit he chairs and then turn around and give a councilmember a pass on a questions about their own ethics that may come before the BOE for a ruling.

And that's not a hypothetical- it actually happened when BOE Chair Mark Hubbard came to the council for money for the Kaua`i Action and Planning Alliance. And when BOE member Judy Lenthall got cash for the Kaua`i Food Bank of which she was the executive director- and when, possibly the worst of all, when attorney Lorna Nishimitsu came to the council representing the Kikia`ola Land Corporation, developers of the humongous Kukui`ula development in Po`ipu.

Later Councilmember Mel Rapozo got a pass from the BOE on contracting with the county even though the amount of those contracts was over the legally permitted amount. And of course the BOE found nothing wrong with theie own actions.

The proposed change would eliminate all that and make the provision apply only to someone appearing before their own board or commission- or, in the case of an employee, their own "agency"- by adding "on which the officer or employee sits or is employed" to the end of the prohibition.


This means that the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your" prohibition will be dead except in the narrowest of situations.


Right now if a member of the salary commission is a lawyer for a developer, he or she could represent their client asking to rezone 1000's acres of ag land to build a resort and then turn around and give all the councilmember raises. Or a member of the Civil Service Commission could ask for $100,000 for a pet project their non-profit is pursuing and then make sure the swing vote on the council's uncle got a nice cushy county job. Or a member of the Board of Review could do the same and then rule for a councilmember's- or for that matter her family, friend or business associate- appeal of the assessment value of their home.


We could go on but you get the picture as to why this standard provision is an important part of our charter's code of ethics.


But when the resolution to put the measure on the ballot came before the council two weeks ago many councilmembers sat there nodding their heads as Yukimura decried how her mucky-muck friends were having ethical problems simply because they had a blatant conflict of interest- as if the highest an mightiest of the Kaua`i Good Old Boys and Girls were the only ones who could possibly serve on these boards and commissions.


Apparently Yukimura, the former champion of the little guy has been hanging out with the ruling elite long enough that she sees them as irreplaceable, as they flit from board to commission and back again, round and round the revolving door, while at the same time coming for a handout that they could conceivably repay with their vote the next time they need to rule on something a councilmember might want.


This goes for all the board and commission members like the planning commissioner or police commission and, conversely goes for the member's families and even friends.


Oh no" they say "these people would never abuse their positions. Why we resent the implication."


But that isn't the issue. It's the appearance of a conflict of interest that is to be avoided if government is ever to have the confidence of the electorate. It's one reason you don't see much of a turnout at the polls.


You don't need a "quid pro quo" - giving something to get something- to have an apparent or potential conflicts of interest. It's that simple.


If the council approves the resolution tomorrow it would go on the November ballot. You can send testimony to the council at counciltestimony@kauai.gov


For more read PNN's three part series
on the Board of Ethics debacle, Unethical culture- Government service with a personal “touch”


For more on the Board of Ethics click here


For more specifically on Charter Article 20.02(D) click here

BUT WHAT'LL WE DO FOR EGGS?

BUT WHAT'LL WE DO FOR EGGS?: There's jokes and then there's jokes. Our sometimes feeble, often offensive, attempts at humor are at least fairly innocuous in the grand scheme of things.

But, as happens all too often in Hawai`i, when those who police the ethics of politicians become the foxes guarding the hen house, the political joke is on us.

Recently though, a whirling dervish of accountability has taken up residence as the Executive Director (ED) of the State Ethics Commission (EC), and those who thought state ethics laws had been suspended under former director Dan Mollway are having conniption fits.

Some of our readers may remember Les Kondo as the head of the Office of Information Practices (OIP) who fought the good fight to bad results in the infamous ES-177 case that eventually surgically removed the incisors that the legislature had apparently given the OIP.

And now, as the new ED of the EC, Kondo has upset the cushy apple cart of one of the most repulsive of unethical practices- one that calls lobbyists "stakeholders" and appoints them to these "task forces" to essentially write legislation regarding the same subject upon which they lobby.

We've written extensively about our Kaua`i County Charter provision 20.02(D) which prevents anyone from "(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency" if they sit on a board or commission- or presumably a "task force"- regardless of the subject matter.

The state law does the same if there is a nexus between the job of the lobbyist and the board or commission's kuleana.

But although the law is supposed to cover all bodies appointed by the governor or legislature, whereas Mollway looked the other way, Kondo has now included these "task forces" in the same category as any state appointed body- which of course they are.

And guess what? Shockingly, politicians don't like it.

According to Derrick Depledge's Political Radar blog

State Senate President Shan Tsutsui and House Speaker Calvin Say have asked state Attorney General David Louie whether the state Ethics Commission is correct in defining members of task forces as state employees subject to the ethics code.

In their letter the two wrote:

If individuals from the private sector who participate in these panels are now to be considered “employees” of the State for the purposes of the Ethics Code, we are concerned with the chilling effect on both the Legislature’s ability to gather information and on the constitutional right of these individuals (and their actual employers) to petition government.

This stupid argument has been going on for a week or so in the press and the blogs but no one can come up with the obvious and simple solution to the quandary.

On Kaua`i we had some board and commission members- as a matter of fact some members of the ethics board itself- lobbying the county council for money for their non profits while others were representing developers seeking zoning and zoning permits before the council and planning commission respectively.

And then they'd turn around and rule on the ethics of activities of those granting them their requests.

And just like with the state, they argued that their "rights" to petition the government were being violated. But that ignores the elephant in the room- that sitting on a board commission or task force is not a "right" but a privilege and you can simply step down from your position and let someone who does not lobby other government bodies take your place.

But nooooo. For some reason these pustules on the butt of democracy have been permitted to shed their crocodile tears without anyone telling them to get their asses out of government if they are coming to the government, hat in hand... especially if the subject matter of their appointment is the same as their lobbying, as is true in the case of the state ethics law.

Do we really need to give the guy who is being paid to lobby an extra boost in his efforts by allowing him to skew the actual report upon which the legislature will depend to write legislation?

What- massive campaign contributions aren't enough? Is your bundling finger broken? Did the manapua store close and now legislative staffers are stuck with crummy donuts?

It's simply amazing in this state how politicians, who've been getting away with murder for years, react when a new sheriff that is apparently not on the take actually tries to enforce the law. Why you should have seen them (if you missed it) when Kondo told them they couldn't keep accepting expensive tickets to events if the event didn't have a nexus to their legislative jobs. You'd have thought he was ripping the lollypops out of their lyin' pie holes.

It's bad enough when, as is the case, corporate America has placed its greedy boot heel on the throat of the democratic process. We don't have to have to actually open wide- or bend over- and allow them to place the whole boot where they can do their damage from the inside out.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN

REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN: We haven’t heard much about our crony-addled, bored of ethics, Board of Ethics (BOE) since local newspaper reporter Mike Levine left for a real job in journalism.

Levine’s coverage during the infamous “20.02(D)” debacle (see right rail for our three-part report) would have been nothing extraordinary in the rest of country but around here- especially lately- merely attending meetings and reporting accurately IS extraordinary by any measure.

Nowadays if it weren’t for a few dedicated “nitpicking” community watchdogs that darkest of black holes for ethical violations might go it’s merry ethically-challenged way.

Some might think that the BOE’s inability to read and apply simple ethics laws could indicate a distinct lack of literacy. For those Pollyannas, well, we have a few select scenic lookouts for sale.

The reality is that after Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s unceremonious dumping of BOE member (and current county council candidate) Rolf Bieber it became quite obvious that if you’re going to wear the king’s uniform you’d better carry the king’s sword.

So when members of the planning department decided it was okay for them to seek outside employment preparing permit applications for their fellow department employees’ to approve, instead of trying to stop the plainly unethical practice that the law forbids, Planning Director Ian Costa knew he could turn to the BOE for a some kind of tortured process whereby his underlings could continue their corrupt practices.

Horace Stoessel has been doing the job the local newspaper abandoned after Levine’s departure and today, without further comment, we present his latest report.

-------

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

I have attended meetings of the Board of Ethics for the better part of three years. I offer these comments for the information of those interested in a matter currently before the Board.

In May Planning Director Ian Costa requested an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics regarding the outside employment of four departmental employees engaged variously in drafting, site inspection, architectural drawings, design and consultation.

Since then, in an end run around the Charter requirement that a request for advisory opinion must be answered within 30 days, the request has been withdrawn twice by mutual agreement between the Board and the Department, in each case to be resubmitted at a later date. The main reason given for the five-months-and-counting process was to allow Director Costa a chance to consult the County Attorney ’s office.

So far the County Attorney ’s office has participated in the Board’s process as follows:

In May Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark, who is regularly assigned to the Board, advised the Board that County Code Section 3-1.7(d) expresses an absolute prohibition against the activities referenced in the request for advisory opinion and told the Board that aside from enforcing the section its only option is to ask the Council to change the language of 3-1.7. The Board took no action based on her advice, arranging instead with Director Costa to withdraw the request and resubmit it later.

In July Attorney Clark volunteered to provide the Board with a (written) opinion if the Board requested it. The Board did not request it.

In August Director Costa’s request reappeared on the agenda, leading some of us in the public to believe that the way was clear for the Board to act on the request. However, County Attorney Al Castillo appeared long enough to tell the Board that Attorney Clark was in court and to apologize for his being unprepared to address the agenda item.

In July Board member Paul Weil had moved that the Board request the County Attorney to provide the Board with the same information provided to Mr. Costa. The motion was seconded by Warren Perry and unanimously adopted. That request also went unanswered in August.

In August it was agreed that Mr. Costa would resubmit the department’s request at the September 17 meeting.

WILL IT GO ROUND IN CIRCLES

WILL IT GO ROUND IN CIRCLES: It wouldn’t be the first time the state took a cue from one of the more outrageous abuses of process originating on Kaua`i- and it certainly won’t be the last.

But let’s back up a bit.

An article in last Thursday’s Honolulu Star-Advertiser announced

Changes proposed to state land rules
The first revisions in 16 years involve shoreline boundaries and permits

It reports that:

The first update of conservation land use rules in 16 years would change the shoreline setback, eliminate required permits for activities like weeding and increase fees.

The proposed changes, outlined in a 71-page document by the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, are being reviewed through public meetings. Today's will be in Honolulu.

The revisions have some environmental organizations concerned.

Among the more significant changes would specify shoreline setback, a line past which no structures or coastal alterations are allowed. Numerous lawsuits have been filed over designations of public and private access along the shorelines.

Some of the changes will include those required by the Supreme Court of Hawai`i (SCOHI) decision in the case brought by Kaua`i North Shore resident Caren Diamond that redefined the shoreline determination process.

But a side bar to the article lists some of the changes the new rules will try to bring about including one that goes unmentioned in the piece:

Rules would specify that only people with property interest, residency on the land or anyone directly affected by a permit can appeal. Rules now state that "any person" can appeal to the department.

Now maybe they missed it but that rule would apparently fly in the face of a more recent SCOHI case, County of Hawaii v. Ala Loop Homeowners, which essentially held that any land use effects the environment and that triggers Article XI, Section 9 of the Hawai`i State Construction which reads:

Each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources. Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations and regulation as provided by law

That would seem to preempt any restriction on who can sue when it comes to “land use rules” of the DLNR.

So what does this have to do with Kaua`i?

The use of administrative rules to try to define-out-of-existence provisions of the county charter- the county’s equivalent of a constitution- was the central issue of the two year Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) brouhaha when county attorneys used both a county ordinance and the BOE’s rules to narrow the plain reading of Section 20.02(D) of the charter which bans county employees and board and commission members from “appear(ing) on behalf of private interests” before other boards and commission.

Apparently the DLNR may be paying attention to our local shenanigans and are attempting to slip through a rule that could at least temporarily bog down what land use attorneys across the state have called a “newly created right”- that of private citizens to sue over land use decisions.

It’s enough to make a local good old boy’s chest swell with pride to think little Kaua`i could come up with a process corrupt enough to be used by the masters at DLNR.

STILL ON PATROL

STILL ON PATROL: The recent decision by the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) to enforce the conflict-of-interest prohibitions as expressed in the county charter’s section 20.02(D) was an important first step in reforming what has evolved into a traditionally ethically-challenged political tool of administrations and councils.

And apparently members of the public aren’t going to rest on their laurels if Horace Stoessel’s communication asking the BOE to “schedule three reviews that I believe will serve the public interest as well as the board’s interest, with a brief rationale for each” is any indication.

Although Stoessel’s requests are matters that the BOE needs to examine until they come under a less political and more independent template and appointment system - similar to that of the State Ethics commission- any reforms may be merely akin to shifting deck chairs on the Titanic until the charter review commission decides (or a group of citizens petitions) to deal with the really problematic charter sections like the one governing the BOE’s structure.

That said, here’s Horace’s request:

----------

TO: Chairperson Sally Motta and members of the Board of Ethics
FROM: Horace Stoessel
SUBJECT: Request for Reviews
DATE: March 30, 2010

The purpose of this communication is to ask the Board of Ethics to schedule three reviews that I believe will serve the public interest as well as the board’s interest, with a brief rationale for each.

1. A review of the board’s Guide to Ethical Issues (2004), with a view to making appropriate revisions. Aside from routine corrections such as recognizing the creation of the Office of Boards and Commissions Administrator, potentially confusing references to the Code of Ethics need correcting. In the last paragraph of page one, for example, the Code is referred to as “these ordinances,” while the examples listed on pages 4-8 routinely cite the County Code ahead of the Charter—a practice that should be reversed.

2. A review of Chapter 3 Article 1 of the County Code in light of Charter Section 20.04D, with a view to recommending changes per 20.05D(5). In 1971 the Council enacted Section 25, entitled “ETHICS,” consisting of slightly more than two double-spaced pages. In 1976 the section was replaced with approximately six single-spaced pages entitled “CODE OF ETHICS.” It is reasonable to assume that the new title and expanded contents made it easy for people to assume that Chapter 3 Article 1, rather than Charter Article XX, contains the code of ethics. The title of 3.1 should be changed to something like “Supplements to the Code of Ethics,” and the contents should be reviewed in light of the requirement that ordinances should be necessary supplements to the code. For example, is mere repetition of sections from Article XX justified by 20.04D?

3. A review of the relationship between the Board of Ethics and the administration in light of the board’s authority and responsibility per Article XX, the job description of the Boards and Commissions Administrator (Charter Section 7.06 adopted in 2006), and the County Attorney’s role (Charter Section 8.04). The board is not a part of the administration, but the fact that the Boards and Commissions Administrator and the County Attorney are appointed by the Mayor and serve the board can lead to the perception that the board is just another part of the administration. One key issue is whether the board has the right to seek outside counsel when it deems such counsel is needed.

I request that this communication be placed on the board’s April 9 agenda.

JAWS OF DEFEAT/SAY IT AIN’T SO

JAWS OF DEFEAT: About a week or so back we got a thus-far-unpublished letter to the editor from Horace Stoessel, the father of the 20.02(D) controversy- the man who first had the temerity to ask the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) to enforce the charter.

In it he surprisingly said he would compromise and support the “carve out” exemption for charitable organizations when county officials appear on behalf of private interests before county boards, commissions and agencies in order to get the rest of the provision enforced.

So today’s news that the Ethics Board has (had a) change of heart and voted to uphold the law after all the silliness of the past couple of years came as something of a shock.

Even Mark Hubbard who fought the hardest to make a mockery of the law voted for it although, according to reporter Mike Levine he still has remnant schizophrenic, double-talking tendencies in refusing to admit the past rulings clearing Hubbard and others were a mistake.

And of course, as the people’s champion former BOE member Rolf Bieber told Levine the proof will be in the pudding since, as we’ve seen, just because a clear statue exists it doesn’t mean people with conflicts will do what Hubbard suggested in saying exactly what we’ve written dozens of times:

(W)ith this interpretive rule, it’s now different than we’ve voted in the past, and I would have been in error in going before the County Council. I should not do that again, or I should quit my position on the Board of Ethics. I have a choice.”

It’s certainly a black eye for the gang of administration stooges at County Attorney Alfred “E. what me worry” Castillo’s office who didn’t even bother to do enough research to turn up the state ethics commission letter that convinced the BOE that they didn’t have any cover to continue to carve out exemptions or create “absurd result” excuses for their illegal activities.

Throughout the whole debacle people have asked basically “what the heck is the difference?.. it’s not as if this will magically clean up the corrupt, old boy network of the board and commission system”.

No it won’t. They will still try to make sure that if you wear the kings uniform you carry the kings sword. We’ve spoken to four people currently serving as a mayoral appointees who confirm that board and commission chief John Isobe made sure that they “support the mayor” before getting an appointment.

But it will shake out the most conflicted- those with an obvious reason to play the “one hand washes the other”, revolving-door game.

It also gives heart to those who still believe that a small, dedicated, persistent group- in this case Bieber, Stoessel, Rob Abrew and Glenn Mickens who did what most or can’t do... show up- can effect change even if it is incremental. Their success couldn’t have come about without Levine’s detailed news coverage and others like Charley Foster and Joan Conrow whose blog posts helped keep the issue before the public.

If they’re anything like us, these people do battle with the entrenched cronies not for the rare victory like this but for the fight itself because they have trouble living with themselves if they don’t.

As the Happy Camper might say, “hats off”, “kudos” and “three cheers” for them the real service-oriented citizens of Kaua`i.

----------

SAY IT AIN’T SO: Speaking of Levine it looks like the inevitable is about to come to pass. According to John Temple, the editor of “Peer News”, the nascent online Hawai`i news venture (thanks to Ian Lind for the heads up):

I’m happy to report that we’ve now hired the editorial team that will launch our new news service for Honolulu and Hawaii...

(T)he reporter hosts at Peer News will include:

Mike Levine, currently a reporter and assistant news editor at The Garden Island newspaper on Kauai. Mike has worked as a journalist on Kauai for a couple of years, after picking lettuce and acting as a tour guide there. He also worked for Fodor’s to update the Kauai section of the 2010 Hawaii Guidebook and Kauai Guidebook 3rd Edition. Mike worked as a news desk editor and writer at NBA.com before moving to Kauai. He’s a graduate of Lehigh University and the rare reporter to have majored in journalism and minored in material science and engineering.

We’re not sure if this means Mike will be leaving the local newspaper and apparently he will still be covering Kaua`i even if he does. But a statewide news services is unlikely to cover the detail of local Kaua`i news that his reporting has provided.

---------

We’ve off for the weekend tracking how soon we’re eliminated from the basketball pool. We’ll be back with a tear-stained entry Monday.

CANIS CANTANKEROUS

CANIS CANTANKEROUS: Having spent two years (and four days) at this daily, frothy-foamy hydrophobic-hysteria we’ve come to appreciate that people are entitled to their own opinions but they’re not entitled to their own facts.

That’s been pounded into our brain over and over as we’ve observed “the Kaua`i way of doing things” inexpertly performed by our various and sundry county entities- ones who are intent on not just reinventing the wheel but doing so to produce a square one derived through the limited self-interest of the individuals involved in the decision-making

The archetype of this warped behavior has been a Board of Ethics (BOE) made up of the ethically-challenged, carving out exemptions to conflict-of-interest laws for their own conflicts-of-interest with logic only the truly mentally-challenged could appreciated.

We’ve written extensively on the Kaua`i County Charter- section 20.02(d)- while a stream of dedicated citizens bang their heads against the wall and still the board continues to try to “carve out exceptions”, the latest for (run-to-the-dictionary) “eleemosynary” (it means charitable) activities.

But while we have felt like we were screaming in outer space someone in higher places was seemingly listening and today, in covering the latest machinations of the BOE, local newspaper reporter Mike Levine presented sections of a State Ethics Commission letter sent to him by State Senator Les Ihara that makes you wonder what these BOE dolts and their amateurish lawyers have been doing for the last year.

It states plainly what we’ve been writing in literally dozens of articles over the past two years- there is a purpose in the law that forbids county officials from appearing on behalf of private interests before county boards, commissions and agencies and it doesn’t matter what kind of cockamamie excuse you have for doing so... even if you are “doing good work”.

Levine writes:

In March 2003, the Hawai`i State Ethics Commission told Sen. Les Ihara (D-Kapahulu, Kaimuki, Palolo) that serving even as an uncompensated director of a non-profit corporation does create a “financial interest” because the Hawai`i Revised Statutes define that term to include directorship in a “business,” and define business to include a corporation, whether operated for profit or not.

“The term ‘financial interest’ pertains, of course, to having an actual monetary interest in a business, and so forth, but also includes situations where one is not receiving actual compensation or monetary gain, but the ‘interest’ in the matter is so strong as to reasonably have a possible effect upon one’s decision-making as a state official,” states the letter, provided unsolicited by Ihara to The Garden Island. It also identifies fiduciary responsibilities and the potential for a lawsuit as financial interests not generally considered by the general public.

“While such service may appear to be merely the providing of volunteer services as a good citizen, in reality, under the law, there are substantial and real financial interests that a member of the board of directors of a non-profit corporation has, whether the individual is compensated or not,” the letter concludes.

Though the state Ethics Commission is not really a controlling authority in that they rule on the activities of state officials, you’d think as a political subdivision of the state the county would take a hint- or at least check with the grownups on how they do it

The fact is that 20.02(d) is a direct challenge to the crony-crammed board and commission system that is populated by a politically connected cadre of corrupt colleagues, carefully chosen by Carvalho’s contemptuous cabal, concentrating on conniving and circumventing conventional codes of conduct.

The fact is that this “interpretive” rule is only needed for those who want to interpret the rule out of existence- it presupposes that they’re entitled to allow their opinions to drive the facts.

And when it comes to county governance that IS the Kaua`i way.

UNFAIR TO MIDDLING

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

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

Bieber writes that his taking of the

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

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

Bieber writes that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One more note- Bieber writes:

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

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

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

CHASING THE WHITE RABBIT

CHASING THE WHITE RABBIT: It’s anyone’s guess what participants will show up at the January meeting of the Board of Ethics (BOE). Certainly Rolf Bieber won’t be sitting on the inside of the rail but more importantly, the results of the meeting may depend on which deputy county attorney shows up- Mona Clarke who showed some signs of honest lawyering in her last appearance or Mauna Kea Trask who has proved adept at wielded the kings sword of evasion and deceit.

But the one person we know will be there is Horace Stoessel whose pen-knife wielding on the subject of charter section 20.02(d) is zeroing in on a death by a thousand cuts through his bulldog tenacity at stabbing away at Trask’s and his mentor County Attorney Al Castillo’s rapiers of jabberwocky.

Here’s Sir Stoessel’s latest parry in anticipation of January’s joust. Meet ya on the other side.

THE PRIMACY OF THE CHARTER OVER THE COUNTY CODE

TO: Kaua`i County Board of Ethics
FROM: Horace Stoessel
SUBJECT: The Primacy of the Charter Over the County Code
DATE: 12/28/09

I ask that this communication be placed on the January agenda of the Board of Ethics.

I believe it is essential for the Board of Ethics to ensure that its members are in agreement about the primacy of the Charter over the County Code , and specifically the primacy of 20.02D over 3-1.7, lest the confusion and conflict of the last two years be repeated in the future.

The confusion and conflict are rooted in two unsupportable assumptions.
First, the assumption that 20.02D is applicable only to the extent allowed by the three subsections of 3-1.7. Second, the broader assumption that the County Code is equal, or even superior, in authority to the Charter and can be used to limit or disregard charter provisions.

Both assumptions contradict the basic principles that ordinances are subordinate to charter provisions and that ordinances may only supplement charter provisions, not limit or preempt them.

It will be useful to review the point at which the two assumptions came into play. Upon receiving a request for an advisory opinion from Charter Commissioner Jonathan Chun in February 2008 as to whether he could appear as a private attorney before other County agencies on behalf of his clients, the board asked the county attorney for an opinion regarding the scope of 20.02D and 3-1.7(c), (d) and (e).

Instead of answering the board’s question directly, the legal opinion first misinterpreted the question to mean “whether these provisions of the Code have the effect of modifying the language” of 20.02D (emphasis added). It then offered the following inconclusive advice: “In conclusion, it is this office’s opinion that provisions in Section 3-1.7 of the Code serve to articulate and elaborate on the intent of the Code of Ethics, and they must be read in conjunction with the Charter provisions. In other words, Section 20.02D may not be read in a vacuum.”

Since the County Code is subordinate to the Charter it would have been more accurate to conclude that 3-1.7 cannot be read in a vacuum.


To determine the scope of these provisions means to delineate their applicability. The board already knew that Chun’s actions were not prohibited by the three subsections of 3-1.7 because it had issued an advisory opinion based solely on 3-1.7 just two months earlier in a comparable case, so it was looking for an answer about the applicability of 20.02D.

The short answer to the board’s question is that the three subsections of 3-1.7 differ in scope from each other, that all of them contain limitations on their applicability, and that all are narrower in scope than 20.02D, which expresses no limitations on its applicability. Therefore, reading the provisions in conjunction with each other leads to the conclusion that 3-1.7 was inapplicable in the Chun case and that 20.02D prohibited his appearing in behalf of his clients before county agencies.

The board overlooked the fact that the county attorney had not answered its question. It obviously accepted the attorney’s unfounded claim that 3-1.7 can modify the language of 20.02D. It then made a leap from the attorney’s conclusion that it must read the provisions in conjunction with each other to its own conclusion that Chun could continue representing his clients before other agencies. The net effect was that the board reached its conclusion by reading 3-1.7 in a vacuum.

Although the County Code links 3-1.7 to Charter 20.01, not to 20.02D, there is no harm in treating the three subsections of 3-1.7 as complementary to 20.02D. Harm comes when the subsections are utilized to restrict the applicability of 20.02D, and that is what happened in the Chun case.

The cure for two years of confusion and conflict is for the board to keep clearly in mind the primacy of the Charter over the County Code .



ADDENDUM: The second opinion received by the board begins and ends with language similar to the language of the first opinion. However, it differs in arguing that a “strict construction” reading of 20.02D would lead to absurd results. It does not claim or try to prove that basing a response to Jonathan Chun’s request for an advisory opinion on 20.02D would be an absurd result.

As we reported previously, case law in no uncertain terms states that if an interpretation of a provision yields “absurd results” it is the interpretation, not the statute, that must be discarded. But nothing goes as given at the BOE where the red queen has declared “execution first, trial later” and men on the chessboard are constantly getting up and telling you where to go.

---------

And in case you didn’t notice, another piece of the November chessboard is in place with Mel Rapozo’s announcement that, with open offices galore and ego-addled councilmembers eager to play musical chairs in no short supply, he will be taking the politically safe road this fall by running for county council, ending speculation that his notorious reach-exceeding grasp would cause him to seek higher office again.

We are ecstatic that, in fact, we will have Mel to kick around again but even happier that, for all his foibles, we may see someone on the council willing to occasionally mention the naked emperor and we can’t wait to see him move the personnel department and bike path scandals back on the council’s front burner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LUCKY DOG

LUCKY DOG: One advantage attorneys have over we poor mortals when looking at the “I can’t believe they just said that” Kaua`i county government machinations is that they spend most of their time with noses stuck in the archaic minutia of prior court decisions.

Through such tedium Kaua`i attorney Charley Foster has apparently found a Hawai`i Supreme Court precedent- Fasi v. City Council of City and County of Honolulu- that makes the county attorney’s opinion on charter section 20.02(D) the “lousy lawyering” asserted by Board of Ethics member Paul Weil in the letter to County Attorney Al Castillo we posted Monday.

In his post yesterday at his Planet Kaua`i blog Foster first provides an excellent brief synopsis of the "absurdities” of the “absurdity theory” in the opinion as well as the apparent rejection of the hierarchy of law doctrine saying:

Recall the recent county attorney opinion that asserted that the provision leads to results just too absurd to comply with, and must therefore be read in conjunction with more lenient county ordinances so that officers, employees, etc can in fact appear on behalf of private interests.

Leaving aside the point that an honest reading of the provision simply does not lead to absurd results, and that the ordinance in question doesn't actually apply to the controversial section, what troubles me about the County Attorney's assertion is that it appears to rest on a fundamental misapprehension of the hierarchy of law represented by charters and ordinances. It is axiomatic that a county charter is the fundamental law and that ordinances that fail to conform to charters are what in the federal context would be called "unconstitutional."

Then he drops the bombshell that should end any controversy.

However, it's one thing to assert a legal proposition, and another to back it up with legal authority. As luck would have it, the other day I ran across the case of Fasi v. City Council of City and County of Honolulu, 72 Haw. 513, 823 P.2d 742 (Haw. 1992), in which the Hawaii Supreme Court stated unequivocally that "[a] basic tenet of municipal corporation law is that an ordinance which conflicts with an express provision in a charter is invalid."

The proposition is self-evident that an ordinance must conform to, be subordinate to, not conflict with and not exceed the charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify or supersede a provision of the constitution of the state. Ordinances must not only conform with the express terms of the charter, but they must not conflict in any degree with its object or with the purposes for which the local corporation is organized.

this applies whether or not a charter provision led to "absurd results." The only remedy in such a case would be to amend the charter. It is certainly not permissible to alter a charter's clear requirements by resort to a contrary ordinance.

But one irony that Foster might have missed is that the attorney who argued and won the case for the Fasi administration was none other than then Deputy Corp. Council for Honolulu Jonathan Chun whose request for a BOE ruling on the applicability of 20.02(D) to his job of appearing on behalf of clients before the county council and whether it conflicted with his role on the charter commission, started the ball rolling on the series of events regarding the provision.

It would seem that the tight-lipped Chun should have been very familiar with this decisions but remained silent on the matter

It’s one thing to be accused of lousy lawyering. But matters of lazy lawyering are if anything worse and many times lead to incompetence and even misconduct complaints to the bar.

If Castillo and his deputy Mauna Kea Trask want to avoid such talk it might behoove them to reconsider their ill- or under-considered “opinion” as to whether any “officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency” as stated in charter section 20.02(D).

-----------
We’ll be back Monday but in the meantime check out Kaua`i activist Ann Punohu’s new blog, lengthily titled “Punohu's Politics, Environment and Culture Blog - A blog to keep interested readers up on what Anne Punohu is doing in political, environmental and cultural issues and activities. Updated frequently. If you like Hawaiian culture, political or environmental issues you will love this blog”.

PREROGATIVE BY PAVLOV

PREROGATIVE BY PAVLOV: The Hawai`i Supreme Court’s recent refusal to overturn 5th Circuit Judge Kathleen Watenabe’s “irretrievably intertwined” ruling specifically dealing with the Kaua`i County Council’s Executive Session (ES) 177 was, though disappointing for both open governance advocates and the Office of Information Practices (OIP), not surprising given the deference given to lower court decisions.

But after reading a letter to the editor from former 5th circuit Judge Alfred “let ’em go” Laureta, it’s more apparent then ever that Kaua`i judges give the same or greater deference to the machinations of local administrative and legislative operatives, no matter how bizarre or even corrupt.

Laureta’s un-blanching support of the council- even to the point of misrepresenting the suit’s derivation- isn’t that different from the actual ruling in it’s use of overgeneralization and even misrepresentation.

He writes:

The council had been criticized for its perceived lack of complete transparency by some members of the council and criticized as well by members of the public for expending taxpayer funds to legally defend its position on the issue...

Disclosure of the minutes as demanded would be equivalent to the elimination of the need for executive sessions. All council deliberations will be open to the public. Discussions involving the legal rights of the county — to sue or not to sue, to settle or not to settle, how much to pay or not to pay, legal strategies, etc. With the public being privy to all this, expediency of council action will be highly questionable.
But of course the reality is that there’s no one who doesn’t recognize the need to executive sessions for matters under litigation, settlement conferences and other similar circumstances.

What people object to is the use of one specific exemption under HRS 95-5(a)4 that is used and abused to discuss and “deliberate toward a decision” on public policy matters and pending legislation under the guise of “consult(ing) with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities”.

But while Laureta- whose middle moniker came from his penchant for releasing dangerous criminals due to local family connections- and his deference to allowing “any kine” from his cronies in local government rose from the close knit plantation connections prevalent in government in his day, in some ways little has changed... especially when it comes to appointing local judges.

It has become more and more apparent that going to current 5th Circuit Judges Watenabe and Randall Valenciano for enforcement of the constitutional and state legislative restrictions on government is an exercise in futility most likely because that’s the arena in which they were engaged prior to appointment to the bench.

Watenabe, a former county attorney and career-long government lawyer and Valenciano, a former councilperson, naturally have a bias toward the case presented by their former colleagues unlike in other jurisdiction where appointments are often made from among those with either a private criminal and/or civil background or the prosecutorial realm.

Anyone who thinks that the courts have progressed since Laureta’s days and perhaps they will enforce the charter’s ethics provisions in sections 20.02(D) plain language prohibition on “(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency” ought to look long and hard at whether they can get a fair and unbiased hearing before either of the Kaua`i circuit court judges.

(PNN) BOE’S WEIL CALLS CA’S 20.02(D) OPINION “LOUSY LAWYERING”

BOE’S WEIL CALLS CA’S 20.02(D) OPINION “LOUSY LAWYERING”: (PNN) -- In a stunningly blunt couple of letters written in mid September, Board of Ethics member, attorney Paul Weil, scathingly attacked and belittled both a county attorney opinion regarding the conflict of interest provisions of the controversial county charter section 20.02(D) and County Attorney Al Castillo’s behavior and professional abilities.

In the document- released to the public and posted at the local newspaper’s web site by reporter Michael Levine-.Weir calls the latest opinion “lousy lawyering” and states that “(n)either you nor the Board should twist the law to accommodate or solve such "problems"

Weil had previously called the opinion “fatally flawed.” The letters apparently followed a meeting between Castillo and Weil at Weil’s home.

Weil wrote to Castillo that after the meeting he expected Castillo to come to the next BOE meeting but instead Castillo sent his deputy Mauna Kea Trask.

He wrote:

I really expected that, as I had suggested, you might withdraw the (opinion) letter and make proper revisions along the lines of our discussion.

Boy, was I wrong! The same old game became apparent when your Deputy started by denying that he had spoken with you; then later stating that he had only a "brief general discussion" with you, and then proceeded to demonstrate that he was familiar with at least the major points of our extended discussion and was prepared to try to rebut! They also neglected to state that you had briefed them on how to handle the Board!

As for your statement that you were only able to "brief them on how we should handle the day with Ethics", I believe that they did a very good job of following your instructions. That is, if your instructions were to stonewall; to obfuscate; to continue a program of less than subtle attacks maligning, patronizing and insulting those who had contrary views; avoiding questions and discussion; providing specious and erroneous explanations to try to justify some of the statements in the Opinion letter; playing to friendly or seemingly sympathetic members of the Board (some of whom, I believe, want only that their prior actions in the Chun matter be vindicated and the entire mess forgotten); and, by Mr. Trask, following your own example of getting out of there at the first opportunity, departing before the end of the meeting claiming that other duties prevented him from remaining to respond to further discussion or questions and dumping it on Mona!

The first letter from Weir to Castillo lays out his disappointment that Trask seemed unaware of their meeting and goes on to detail the specific problems with the opinion as well as Weir’s disappointment in Castillo’s absence from the BOE meeting.

But rather than address Weir’s specific questions regarding the opinion, Castillo’s reply merely explained why he wasn’t there and put the onus on Weir to “tweak” the opinion. That was followed up by Weir’s second more detailed and more apparently exasperated reply.

Rather than excerpt and/or try to characterize the exchange further, since we have no space constraints we will reprint all three letters “(e)ntered into the record by Board of Ethics Member Paul Weil at the 10/15/09 Board of Ethics Meeting” here.

For background information click on the appropriate link to PNN coverage of county charter provision 20.02(D) and the BOE including our three part series linked on the left rail.

--------------

From: Paul Weil
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:41 AM
To: Alfred Castillo Jr.
Cc: Leila Fuller
Subject: Opinion Letter
Good morning, Al:

I was disappointed that Mr. Trask was not familiar with, and stated, in effect, that he was barely aware of our meeting and extended conversation. Regrettably, I believe that the waters are only further muddied.

I realize that you, some of the Administration, and some members of the BOE would simply like to get this matter behind them. But it wont simply go away unless and until you properly close the serious gap in the Opinion.

Chairwoman Fuller expressed to me that she was pleased with the opinion because it said in writing what your predecessor had told the Board in leading to their opinion in the Chun matter. I still cannot reach that suggested conclusion.

Assuming, arguendo, that you are correct in concluding that the Charter provision and the Code Section must be read together, I am simply unable to find legal support for the conclusion recited in Mr. Trask's opinion, which you endorsed.

As I told you, I have read and re-read the provisions and simply cannot make that leap. It is incumbent upon you or your office to provide definitive information and guidelines.

Simply put, why, if at all, does 20.02D not apply to an Attorney who is a member of a Board or Commission, representing a private client or interest before another Board or agency? How, if at all, does 3-1.7 or any other section of the Code provide an exception? If you can properly answer those questions and bridge the flaw and gap, you may be able to convince me and the properly restless public. I would hate to think that, once again, you (and some members of the BOE) start with a desired conclusion and then work to justify the result.

I ask again that you explicitly and with specificity explain how you make that leap. Whether or not a fee is fixed or contingent, there is an obvious Conflict of Interest in such representation. Dancing around the issue wont make it go away. I'm sure that you would hate to see some citizen or group test the issue in Court.

I’ll be happy to discuss.

PAUL

----------

Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 3:59 PM
To: Paul Well
Subject: RE: Opinion Letter
Paul,
Thank you for your hospitality. Well, after I visited with you I had to rush back to Lihu`e to meet with the Mayor. The meeting with the Mayor took more than 2 hours. I got home about 6:45 p.m. I was exhausted and did not want to pack. I woke up at 4:30 a.m. because I had to be at the Lihu`e Airport at 5:15 a.m. I had a meeting with my deputy in Honolulu at 7:30 p.m. The HGEA arbitration hearing started at 9:00 a.m. I called Mauna Kea and Mona to brief them on how we should handle the day with Ethics. I also mentioned to both of them that I sat down with you the day before.

There may be a few areas in which we may tweak. I do not know whether or not we will be able to meet your expectations and the standards that you require. I'm curious? How would you bridge the gap?

al

--------
From: Paul Weil
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 12 29 PM
To: 'Alfred Castillo Jr '
Subject: RE Opinion
Aloha, Al.
I'm glad that I deferred responding to your email. One should never respond when disappointed, frustrated, or angry. I was all three.

Sorry that you had a bad day Thursday, but mine was, in many ways, worse. Particularly when compared to Wednesday when I felt that we had enjoyed a candid and productive meeting, sharing ideas as we continued to strive for the welfare and benefit of the people of Kauai. I had been especially heartened by your expressions of agreement in many areas as I reviewed with you the latest iteration of an Opinion letter from your office and pointed out the shortcomings and errors in the document. I stated to you and I said publicly that this letter is a far superior product to that produced by your predecessor and/or by your office in the past. But, as we discussed at length, and as I publicly stated, it still falls far short.

Nor do I understand why the letter, which was prepared in late June, was not delivered until early September! Ripening did not make it any better.

There are those who have publicly stated that you had previously tried to "co-opt" me. I now believe that they may have been right. But, following the old adage of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me", it won’t happen again. Nor can I be bullied, intimidated or coerced. You see, I am not seeking any separate personal benefit from my volunteer service. I am not and will not be a candidate for any office or appointment. I will respond appropriately the next time anyone from your office again insults me or patronizes me, publicly or otherwise, as Mr. Trask again did at the BOE meeting.

I appreciate that you apologized to me for your statements and actions at the prior Board meeting. I urge you to attend the next BOE meeting and apologize to the entire Board. I really expected that, as I had suggested, you might withdraw the letter and make proper revisions along the lines of our discussion.

Boy, was I wrong! The same old game became apparent when your Deputy started by denying that he had spoken with you; then later stating that he had only a "brief general discussion" with you, and then proceeded to demonstrate that he was familiar with at least the major points of our extended discussion and was prepared to try to rebut! They also neglected to state that you had briefed them on how to handle the Board!

As for your statement that you were only able to "brief them on how we should handle the day with Ethics", I believe that they did a very good job of following your instructions. That is, if your instructions were to stonewall; to obfuscate; to continue a program of less than subtle attacks maligning, patronizing and insulting those who had contrary views; avoiding questions and discussion; providing specious and erroneous explanations to try to justify some of the statements in the Opinion letter; playing to friendly or seemingly sympathetic members of the Board (some of whom, I believe, want only that their prior actions in the Chun matter be vindicated and the entire mess forgotten); and, by Mr. Trask, following your own example of getting out of there at the first opportunity, departing before the end of the meeting claiming that other duties prevented him from remaining to respond to further discussion or questions and dumping it on Mona!

• Unfortunately, you did not instruct them to provide what I was led by you to believe was the open candor that I felt you tried to show during our meeting at my home. None was shown at the Board meeting. It may be good politics, but it's lousy lawyering. The Board and the County are entitled to better.

I realize that you feel some pressure. As you told me, the mayor and John Isobe are concerned because four Board or Commission members have resigned, allegedly because of actions by the BOE. I can only respond, so be it. Neither you nor the Board should twist the law to accommodate or solve such "problems".

You go on to state that "/ do riot know whether or not we will be able to meet your expectations and the standards that you require". Let's be clear; these are not MY expectations and standards. They are the proper expectations and standards imposed upon you as County Attorney. They are, quite properly, the expectations and standards of the citizens of Kauai.

You then state that "there may be a few areas in which we may tweak," Did you laugh as you wrote that one, Al knowing full well that "tweaking a few areas" falls far short of really correcting the admitted distortions and omissions in the document?

I hope that your "tweaking" will include removing the suggested illustrations of absurdities which, themselves, are simply even more absurd, since they ignore the fact that a meeting with a water dept. clerk or a police officer, both of whose duties are ministerial to be performed within the scope of rules and regulations promulgated by the governing agency, is not an "appearance" before that governing agency. The clerk or police officer has no discretionary or policymaking authority, is performing a purely ministerial function, and there cannot be a conflict of interest under such circumstances. Trying to stretch that far simply discredits and makes suspect other assertions in the Opinion. It may be correctable by proper further "tweaking" of the definitions. Leaving them in as illustrations would likely mislead the Board, the Council and others in the future. As we discussed and as you had agreed, they are, simply, wrong.

Further, The Opinion fails to specifically address the three questions submitted by the Board at its August meeting and previously set forth in my July 24 m email to Mr. Trask with a cc to you.

(a)whether a charitable non-profit organization providing eleemosynary* services to our community is a "private interest" within the meaning of the Code (this does not include unions, political organization, PACS, or other non-profits which are not based upon charitable purposes);

(THIS ONE IS PARTIALLY, THOUGH NOT DIRECTLY OR COMPLETELY, ANSWERED IN THE LATEST OPINION LETTER).

(b) whether the County Council can adopt legislation clarifying the issues in the Chun case for others who might be similarly situated in the future or if this would be an improper attempt to amend the Charter;

(WE DISCUSSED THIS POSSIBLE APPROACH BUT THE BOE NEEDS THE REQUESTED SPECIFIC OPINION FROM YOU ON WHETHER AND HOW THIS CAN BE DONE. I ALSO REALIZE THAT THE COUNCIL MAY NOT BE WILLING TO HANDLE WHAT COULD BE A CONTROVERSIAL MATTER.)

(c) the affect, if any, of the voters' rejection of the Charter Commission's proposed Amendment at the last election. I have restrained from going public with these thoughts and concerns other than those expressed at the Board meeting and in my email exchanges and discussion with you. I fear that the same may not be said about your office. However, this exchange of emails is not subject to any Privilege since it is all addressed to me individually. I waive any such privilege, if one actually exists, since it would belong to me and not to you or the BOE. I therefore invite you to provide copies to the Mayor, to Mr. Isobe and to others as may be appropriate. Just let me know so that I can be sure that my remarks are unexpurgated and unedited.

Lastly, you use the old ploy of trying to dump the problem on my side of the field by asking how I would bridge the gap! I think that you must be aware that the chasm created by your predecessor and perpetuated by your office is too deep and too wide to be bridged by trying to cover it with sand, as your predecessor tried and as you have been doing. The simple answer is, it cannot be done without either changing the Charter (which was defeated by the voters) or by adopting clarifying legislation if, in fact, that can legally be done in a fashion which can withstand judicial scrutiny, all as discussed above.

Your attempts to follow your predecessor's lead and blow it away with a ruling that concludes that the Charter provision and the existing purported codification in Sections 3-1 et seq. just doesn't get you there. Neither you nor Mr. Trask have undertaken to show us how reading any of those sections with the Charter provision brings the result you so fondly desire. Instead, your office again provides broad generalities and unsupportable declaratory conclusions without regard to proper cogent legal standards. Rather, you leave it in the dictatorial or parental mode of "I said it, so it must be right"!

Once again, I'll be happy to discuss and to try to further assist in any way reasonably possible. It's up to you. None of this will simply go away.
PAUL

*eleemosynary [adj] generous in assistance to the poor; "a benevolent contributor"; "eleemosynary relief"; "philanthropic contributions"

POLITICAL WON’T

POLITICAL WON’T: Our post Wednesday on the flakey “opinion” given to the charter commission regarding the county manager issue drew a couple of comments that deserve exposition, on an issue we kind of glossed over because it seemed to be self-apparent to us- but obviously not to everybody.

Doug White, who’s left a huge hole in the blogosphere since June when he last posted to his Poinography blog, asked

...under a manager system, who or what would lead the Executive Branch? If that leader is chosen by the Legislative Branch, then in effect there would be no autonomous Executive Branch, and thus no separation of powers. That's how I interpret the CA opinion.

Attorney blogger Charley Foster was of course more to the legal point saying

I think a better way for the county attorney to have argued it would have been to point out that plain text of HRS §46-1.5(1) requires counties to "establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization," and that the proposed manager system would establish only an "administrative and legislative structure" in violation of the plain language of the statute. As Doug points out, a "mayor" who is chosen by and serves at the pleasure of the council is not really an "executive." It is true that separation of powers is at the heart of the issue and of the three-branches requirement. But it's possible to argue that the plain meaning of the statute requires an independent executive department without having to invoke that other doctrine.

So let’s look at the words in the relevant constitution and statue passages.

In Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask opinion he cites the fact that:

Art. VIII, section 2, Hawaii State Constitution states: Each political subdivision shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government within such limits and under such procedures as may be provided by general law. Such procedures, however, shall not require the approval of a charter by a legislative body.

Charter provisions with respect to a political subdivision's executive, legislative and administrative structure and organization shall be superior to statutory provisions, subject to the authority of the legislature to enact general laws allocating and reallocating powers and functions...

HRS section 46-1.5(1) states: Each county shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government, which shall establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization, including but not limited to, the method of appointment or election of officials, their duties, responsibilities, and compensation, and the terms of their office.

Nothing there mentions any “autonomous” executive or an executive “branch”, certainly nothing about “separation of powers.” and as a matter of fact the law allows for the “county... to frame and adopt a charter” and determine “the method of appointment OR election of officials” (emphasis added).

Clearly the county may do whatever it pleases as far as not just the method of selecting or electing it’s executive officer but need not make any of them autonomous or adhere to any separation of powers doctrine. As a matter of fact, currently the executive and the administrative entities are indeed part of the same organizational structure with the mayor appointing and overseeing the department heads without any autonomy or separation of powers.

As matter of fact. unless you use an adjective to describe the word “executive”- one that isn’t in the law- no one can argue a county manager (CM) would not be an executive

All a county manager system would do is switch the executive to legislative oversight and make that position appointed rather than elected.

And, it would seem that by saying “appointment or election” the statue leaves room for a county manager type system. Any argument against an unelected executive is clearly a political rather than a legal one.

It should also be pointed out that currently the charter provides for an administrative assistant (AA) whose duties are very close to what a county manager’s would be. That position- who serves solely at the pleasure of the mayor- is one that has routinely overseen department heads on a day to day basis leaving the mayor free to look at the “big picture”, concentrate on “the vision thing” by delegating the nuts and bolts to the AA.

We also mentioned Wednesday that Trask included a section that makes it clear that no more than what is stated in the constitution and statute should be read into it- despite the fact that after saying that he proceeds to read into it separation of powers, checks and balances, autonomy and the lack of an election of the executive.

Trask writes:

According to the law, "The fundamental principle in construing a constitutional provision is to give effect to the intention of the framers and the people adopting it. This intent is to be found in the instrument itself. When the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the court, in construing it, is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument." State ex rel. Anzai v. City & County of Honolulu, 99 Haw. 508, 519, 57 P.3d 433, 444 (2002).

Moreover, a constitutional provision must be construed in connection with other provisions of the instrument, and also in the light of the circumstances under which it was adopted and the history preceding it." Blair v. Harris, 98 Haw. 179, 45 P.3d 798, 801 (2002).

So let’s look at Trask’s arguments one by one:

The phrase included in both Art. VIII, section 2 and HRS section 46-1.5(1) requiring that each county "shall establish the county executive, administrative, and legislative structure and organization", is interpreted by the County Attorney's office to require each county within the state to have specific separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, which the proposed council-county manager form would not have.

Given that the words “separation of powers” aren’t in the law and the fact that there is currently no separation of powers between the executive and administrative entitles- note also the lack of the word “branches” in law- this argument is clearly erroneous especially since “intent is to be found in the instrument itself” and that one “is not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument”.

Trask continues:

Furthermore, so as to not render either the, "legislative, executive, or administrative structure and organization," of the county superfluous, void or insignificant said branches need to be substantive and not merely formal.

We’re not quite sure what that means and whether it is a differentiation without a difference but assuming it isn’t, well, the current attachment of the administration to the executive belies irrelevance.

He then seeks to establish what may be called a four prong test.

The proposed amendment would be contrary to both the text and the intent of the State Constitution and the general laws of Hawaii, and therefore illegal, for the following reasons:

1. The State Constitution and the general laws on the subject clearly and unambiguously call for the counties to establish a legislative, executive, and administrative structure and organization of government.

True- and clearly that “structure and organization” is up to the county to determine as long as all three exist- which they would as we established under a county manager executive, certainly to the extent that they exist now.

2. Passage of the proposed amendment would deprive the public of their constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive.

It’s hard to say where he found a “constitutional and statutory right to a democratically elected executive” since the words “democratically elected” not only do not appear but the statute specifically allows for an appointed executive.

And as to any national constitutional or statutory prohibition, how many hundreds of county manager systems exist and have presumably passed legal muster around the country?

3. The proposed council-county manager form of government would deprive the public of a democratic governmental structure that employs checks and balances that would ensure that no particular branch would get too powerful and abuse the representative system of democracy. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that the proposed amendment seeks to delete section 4.03 of the charter thus extinguishing the executive veto power.

We’re not quite sure what the relevance of this is but again the words “checks and balances” do not appear anywhere. Clearly this is a political argument and not a legal one.

4. Under the proposed amendment the council chair would be given
the title of "mayor” but would not exercise any executive authority. Such a titular mayor would not satisfy the mandate of either the constitution or the general laws on the subject.

Ceremonial mayors are common under county manager systems, where the executive is the county manager not the mayor if we’re looking for the “substantive” executive. As a matter of fact some mayors are even appointed by the legislative entity, some on a rotating basis from among the legislative members.

Trask implies that only a title of mayor bestows executive status- clearly an erroneous and presumptuous assertion.

The preconceived notions, the use of the straw man of the specific Lewis proposal to condemn all CM systems- illogically generalizing from the specific argument- and the outright interpretation based on additional language not found in law- especially when the law bans that- and causes Trask’s analysis to fall on it’s fallacious face.

-------

Also on Wednesday, we cited the inability of the council to compel administrative testimony without a formal investigation under the current charter as one of the good arguments for a CM system.

Doug also asked

... has the Council ever actually went the official investigation and subpoena route? If not, then they are fools for not at least trying to exhaust their existing powers before seeking a Charter change, aren't they?

That’s somewhat of a complicated question.- one that has roots in the political, statutory and fiscal realms.

Calling for and authorizing an investigation to obtain subpoena power every time an administrative person doesn’t show up when requested is pretty cumbersome and impractical.

For the last 10 years the council has at times sought to launch investigations. The first obstacle was the lack of any set method of doing so. After dickering around for a year or so they finally passed a resolution that defined a process. But then it became a political football as to which department to investigate first.

Originally it was to be the massive Department of Public Works but the word “massive” was the operative obstacle. Which division to investigate became a problem because so many of them were problematic. Finally a half a million dollars was appropriated to investigate one division but no one could decide which one to investigate.

But then a new council took office and with the departure of a majority of members- including the three main proponents, now-State Senator Gary Hooser, now 5th Circuit Judge Randall Valenciano and then-Chair Ron Kouchi, the newbies decided to investigate the police department instead- a subject well covered in KPD Blue.

The next decision was to, instead of spending lots of money to look at a tree amidst the forest, appropriate salaries for a county auditor position and staff to be able to essentially conduct investigations without having to deal with the cost and limitations of each investigation.

But again after procrastinating over the hiring, the County Attorney stepped in and said this would violate the prohibition of council interference with the administration.

Finally last November the voters passed a charter amendment establishing a county auditor under council services that was specifically exempt from the prohibitions on interference. A month or so back one was appointed by the council.

But really this has been an exercise in lack of political will all along with a majority of the council member eyeing the mayor’s job and not wanting to tie his or her own hands once they took office.

Clear as mud?

--------

With the holiday and resultant “so much basketball, so little time” next week we’ll be a little lite in posting- here’s a little lite reading regarding the whole Board of Ethics 20.02D business which we’ll try to address during half times and between games.