SAIL AWAY: We couldn’t help but be amused by an article in the Maui News describing the Superferry supporters picking over the bones at the auction of the venture’s paraphernalia
Reporter Chris Hamilton described the paltry pickin’s and said
All who were interviewed said they were Superferry proponents. Although excited by an auction atmosphere, most still called it a glum day. Many people, though, expected Superferry to return in a couple years after the legal wrangling has run its course.
It’s hard to imagine upon what the wishin’ and hopin’ crowd are basing their expectations these days but Monday Dave Shapiro’s post-mortem tried to stare down reality by rehashing one of the original argument for the ferry- that car and passenger transport ferries are successful businesses on islands across the world and so we should have one here too.
In trying to make the case he quoted a couple of US professors, Dick Miller and Betty Sugarman, as saying the state should be establishing an interisland ferry just like they do on the mainland as part of their highway systems
They concluded by saying
"To serve these needs the closest equivalent to a highway system would be inexpensive, reliable, and regular ferry service. It is the state’s job to fulfill this responsibility, just as all states assume responsibility for highways."
Politics, state misdeeds and military madness issues aside, none but the Pollyannas can deny the venture was a dismal failure in a business sense. Even with far-below-cost fares they couldn’t attract enough passengers in the two years they operated to have made money even if they had been charging full fare.
Yet the quotes in Hamilton’s article and comments on Shapiro’s post indicate that people apparently ignore all that and continue to look country and world-wide and say “if it works there it will work here”.
But one fact has seemingly been overlooked since the days almost 10 years ago when this false truism reared it’s ugly head.
Every single successful ferry system in the world connects islands with a continental “mainland” of some sort. All of them have a point of connection or terminus that allows the customer base that includes “the rest of the world”.
And because that’s not possible in Hawai`i without a 2,000 mile ferry link there simply is not a sufficient customer base to make a ferry successful in a financial sense.
That is the fatal flaw in the Superferry’s business plan, one that ultimately brought down the venture and should put a nail in the coffin of any future attempts at reviving the concept of an “H-4”.
Successful ferries in places from the islands around the Seattle, Washington area to Scandinavia all connect to vast continents and customers from perhaps thousands of miles around have access to them if they desire to go to the island destinations.
The number of cars and people that can patronize those ferries in is the tens if not hundreds of millions whereas, even assuming service between all of the main Hawaiian islands, the number of vehicles and adult passengers here tops out at about a million or so.
And don’t forget- in order to forge a dependable convenient “highway” type system, ferries in most places run many times a day making “early morning in, late evening out” a possibility for passengers.
Many factors came up over the years that led to the demise of the Superferry. But those who refuse to learn from the experience would do well to look at those aspects as merely small contributory factors to a venture doomed to failure from the start due to the forced economy of scale that a handful of tiny islands thousands of miles from a land mass presents.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
HOWLER
HOWLER: Though we rarely had anything good to say about the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste he did have at least one redeeming quality- though he was a hot-head who exploded when criticized he knew enough to take the word of his yes-men and women with a grain of a salt, giving him a good ear for the political ramifications of his actions so he could maintain his public persona of “Mr. Aloha”.
And therefore he never tried to sing.
But his hand picked successor Bernard Carvalho seems to be tone deaf in more ways than one.
At first this was a local secret shared by those who chanced upon his weekly tax-payer supported cable TV extravaganza and were subjected to his ukulele accompanied off-key and almost-whispered rendition of his apparently self-penned theme song, “Together We Can”, which echoes the campaign slogan he blatantly plagiarized from the presidential ’08 race.
But we on the Garden Isle need no longer cringe in obscurity after Kaua`i-raised Keahi Tucker and his crew at KGMB-Ch. 9 news took a serio-comic stab at Carvalho’s stlylings obviously after reviewing the B-roll they received from this weekend's charity walk.
Though the piece is suspiciously not at their web site, last night at 5,6 and 10 p.m. their self-created feature story was promoed as “The Other Singing Mayor” and led with Keahi saying something along the lines of, we all know that Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann envisions himself a wanna-be vocalist and has even dropped a CD. But there’s another singing Mayor in the islands.
Cue tape of a stiff-as-a-board Carvalho flanked by a couple of saluting Boy Scouts crooning a passage of the National Anthem in a booming yet sour basso-profundo.
It might have been a case of pity if had been some pol who knew his voice was jaw-droppingly bad but reluctantly got caught in front of the open mike while others off-mike similarly warbled the song in unison.
But Carvalho appeared so chest-puffed proud of his voice that any understanding and compassion was buried in tear-inducingly hilarious shadenfreude.
But after the laughter the message was clear- poor Bernard, not the sharpest tack in the box, obviously a bit loopy from being hit in the head by defensive linemen for many years, is receiving the instant karma of surrounding himself with cronies and sycophants who are all apparently afraid to tell the emperor he has inadequate talent for intonation.
Knowing Kaua`i voters this circus will only further endear him to them but for the rest of us under the local big top this circus is worth the price of admission.
And therefore he never tried to sing.
But his hand picked successor Bernard Carvalho seems to be tone deaf in more ways than one.
At first this was a local secret shared by those who chanced upon his weekly tax-payer supported cable TV extravaganza and were subjected to his ukulele accompanied off-key and almost-whispered rendition of his apparently self-penned theme song, “Together We Can”, which echoes the campaign slogan he blatantly plagiarized from the presidential ’08 race.
But we on the Garden Isle need no longer cringe in obscurity after Kaua`i-raised Keahi Tucker and his crew at KGMB-Ch. 9 news took a serio-comic stab at Carvalho’s stlylings obviously after reviewing the B-roll they received from this weekend's charity walk.
Though the piece is suspiciously not at their web site, last night at 5,6 and 10 p.m. their self-created feature story was promoed as “The Other Singing Mayor” and led with Keahi saying something along the lines of, we all know that Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann envisions himself a wanna-be vocalist and has even dropped a CD. But there’s another singing Mayor in the islands.
Cue tape of a stiff-as-a-board Carvalho flanked by a couple of saluting Boy Scouts crooning a passage of the National Anthem in a booming yet sour basso-profundo.
It might have been a case of pity if had been some pol who knew his voice was jaw-droppingly bad but reluctantly got caught in front of the open mike while others off-mike similarly warbled the song in unison.
But Carvalho appeared so chest-puffed proud of his voice that any understanding and compassion was buried in tear-inducingly hilarious shadenfreude.
But after the laughter the message was clear- poor Bernard, not the sharpest tack in the box, obviously a bit loopy from being hit in the head by defensive linemen for many years, is receiving the instant karma of surrounding himself with cronies and sycophants who are all apparently afraid to tell the emperor he has inadequate talent for intonation.
Knowing Kaua`i voters this circus will only further endear him to them but for the rest of us under the local big top this circus is worth the price of admission.
Monday, May 18, 2009
A LITTLE LIGHT DOG WAGGING
A LITTLE LIGHT DOG WAGGING: Last Thursday the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) finally and unexpectedly released the county attorney opinion that had apparently caused them to ignore the plain reading of the ethics section of the county charter in favor of the subordinate county code provisions on ethics
It confirms the suspicions we expressed in our three part series on the “Unethical Culture” (see left rail) of the BOE- that somehow, despite a strict ban in the charter on county officials- including board and commission (B&Cs) members- appearing on behalf of private interests before other B&Cs, the opinion lets the tail wag the dog by giving legitimacy to provisions of subservient law that seek to contradict the charter.
And indeed in the second paragraph of the opinion it says
Section 20.02(D) of the Charter reads: "No officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency." On its face, this language appears to be a complete prohibition, preventing any officer or employee from acting for the benefit of any private interest before a county agency, board or commission.
But the next sentence is key to the disconnect, penned by former Deputy CA Margaret Sueoka who, perhaps not so coincidentally, was recently fired by Castillo and has filed a discrimination complaint against the county over the firing.
She wrote:
The language of the Code elaborates upon the Charter provision, and identifies more specifically those types of conduct which would constitute conflicts of interest
And there lies one of the “fatal flaws” apparently cited by BOE member Paul Weil, according to Michael Levine’s article on the meeting in the local paper.
The language of the “code” or ordinance, does not “elaborate” on the charter- which is what an ordinance is supposed to do- but rather, at best is silent on the charter provision and if applied, would contradict the charter.
As we discussed on our three part series Section 3-1.7 of the county code details many specific conflict of interest situations that are strictly prohibited. But the code specifically says these are based on Charter Section 20.01 which bans acts to confer special benefits on one’s self or others among other things.
In fact the code does not even mention 20.02(D) specifically anywhere, leaving unaddressed the matters brought up by what Sueoka admitted is a strict prohibition,.
The opinion seeks to use the state constitution and out-of-state court rulings to say that the charter and code must be read together and while that is true it’s the relevant sections of each that must be read together.
It would sort of be like reading a strict charter prohibition on robbing banks and saying because it isn’t addressed in the dog leash ordinance, bank robbery is ok.
But, even of there were a confluence of the specific conflicts in the code and the strict prohibitions of the charter, just because there are specifically described “conflict of interest” prohibitions in the code does not make the code a complete list of actions banned in the charter and in fact that contention is never made in the code.
Also on Thursday the BOE called on Castillo to look at the opinion with an eye toward “withdrawing it, affirming it, or modifying it” according to Levine’s article. But it appears our hopes for an honest legal look at the provisions from Castillo might have been dashed if comments from Castillo are indicative of his intentions.
Instead of addressing the legal ramification of the plain reading of 20.02(D) and the existing CA opinion Castillo seems infatuated with the political ramifications.
He’s quoted by Levine as saying
“What does this legal mumbo jumbo mean?” Castillo said when discussing the issue less than an hour before the board released the opinion. “To me, what this means is, to read Section 20.02 by itself would give an unwarranted chilling effect to contributing members of our society who desire to volunteer their time and their expertise to help this county become a better place.”
In the interview, (BOE Member and Food Bank ED Judith)Lenthall said it was not fair that she be expected to give up the rights of a private citizen, including the right, for example, to challenge a property tax assessment.
That “right” as we said before is not being challenged by anyone. What is being challenged in a complaint filed by fellow BOE member Rolf Bieber is the privilege of sitting on a county board that may in fact sit in judgment of a county councilperson while she is also asking the council for money for the Food Bank.
“That’s where I drew the line regarding the absurdity of just sticking to 20.02,” Castillo said. “That’s why we’re saying that the County Charter and the County Code should be read in conjunction because to do otherwise would create absurd results.”
It appears that Castillo is buying into the tail “wagging the dog” interpretations by saying that because the law has results that are perhaps politically uncomfortable, it is up to him to issue a quasi-judicial “opinion” to correct that “absurdity” rather than doing it legislatively- by ordinance if possible or by changing the charter.
The reason for this attempt to hijack the political process may be that last fall the citizens were asked to exempt board and commission members from the onus of 20.02(D) but that measure was soundly defeated.
After the citing of the legal need to read the code and charter together the opinion goes on to make one of its more absurd arguments regarding “intent”.
It cites the charters of Maui and Hawai`i counties saying
as we can see from the Charters of Maui and the Big Island, the effect of reading our Charter and Code provisions together is to achieve the same basic scope as those of the Charters of these other Counties.
This is a another “fatal flaw”, coming from a 1976 letter from then CA Michael Belles as the council debated and later passed Sect. 3 of the county code.
The flaw becomes immediately apparent because it then quotes the charters of those others counties which are substantially different from ours on Kaua`i. Theirs start out with the same type of prohibitions as 20.02(D) but go on to say
An officer serving the county without compensation, however, may appear for compensation in behalf of private interests before county agencies other than the one on which the officer serves and other than those agencies that have the power to review the actions of the agency on which the officer serves or to act on the same subject matter as the agency on which the officer serves.
If the intent in the Kaua`i Charter was to do that they obviously would have done it- and could easily have done it as the other counties did. The fact that they didn’t include the language shows if anything a desire for a higher ethical standard than the other counties.
Perhaps by wrongly reading some intent that wasn’t there the council that passed the code on Kaua`i sought to make believe that provision was in the charter. But wishing doesn’t make them suddenly appear in the charter- only an illusionist can do that.
An email that arrived today from BOE watchdog Horace Stoessel states it clearly and unambiguously
He states:
Like the charters of Maui and Big Island , the Kaua’i County Charter prohibits members of government from appearing in behalf of private interests before County agencies. But whereas the other charters exempt members of boards and commissions from having to comply with the prohibition, our Charter Section 20.02D does not exempt them.
Last year the Charter Commission proposed exempting board/commission members from having to comply with 20.02D. The voters rejected the proposed charter amendment.
No matter how much Castillo- and apparently last year’s Charter Commission- wishes that the Kaua`i Charter read differently the strict prohibition remains in place today and will for at least the next year and a half.
The code addresses only specific concrete conflicts of interest that are specifically banned and then, as it states, based only on the “special favors” provisions in 20.01 of the charter. Nowhere does it say it is an exclusive list and nowhere does it address the prohibitions of 20.02(D) which are included to ensure Kaua`i officials conduct business with the highest possible level of ethics.
20.02(D) is signed to avoid even the appearance of the type of impropriety that could result in a tit-for-tat approval by a member of one B&C, of a request from a member of another B&C- who would then presumably be tempted to turn around and approve the request of a member of the first B&C.
The Kaua`i provision is specifically to remove those temptations.
County attorney options have as close to the effective weight of an actual judicial ruling as one can get. All county entities are expected to abide by them as if they were case law and indeed can lose protections against lawsuits if they don’t.
They become the de facto “law of the land” and can only be challenged by going to an actual judge or having them reversed by, most likely, a subsequent CA.
It is the responsibility of the county attorney to opine only on the law and to separate out the political considerations and notify the political entities that the have two choices- to either change or abide by the law as it stands.
It is not the bailiwick of the County Attorney to make those political decisions for elected officials by attempting to read into the law what should be or what they would like to see in the law.
That right is reserved for the political apparatus of the county- the council and mayor.
Castillo would do well to remember the fact that 99% of the residents of Kaua`i would never have the types of conflicts that people like the Bieber-complaints-cited Lenthall, Mark Hubbard and Lorna Nishimitsu because 99% of Kaua`i residents never appear “on behalf of” others before county entities and only occasionally if at all, appear as themselves.
The availability of that 99% for county service is the blind spot in Castillo’s claim that the law, as it stands, yields “absurd results”. Indeed it is the opposite of absurd- it denotes the highest of ethical standards are expected of those that serve the county.
Castillo’s “absurdity” claim is valid only if one is intent on supplanting government by the people and- more importantly OF the people- with a handful of revolving-door, paternalistic oligarchs.
It confirms the suspicions we expressed in our three part series on the “Unethical Culture” (see left rail) of the BOE- that somehow, despite a strict ban in the charter on county officials- including board and commission (B&Cs) members- appearing on behalf of private interests before other B&Cs, the opinion lets the tail wag the dog by giving legitimacy to provisions of subservient law that seek to contradict the charter.
And indeed in the second paragraph of the opinion it says
Section 20.02(D) of the Charter reads: "No officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency." On its face, this language appears to be a complete prohibition, preventing any officer or employee from acting for the benefit of any private interest before a county agency, board or commission.
But the next sentence is key to the disconnect, penned by former Deputy CA Margaret Sueoka who, perhaps not so coincidentally, was recently fired by Castillo and has filed a discrimination complaint against the county over the firing.
She wrote:
The language of the Code elaborates upon the Charter provision, and identifies more specifically those types of conduct which would constitute conflicts of interest
And there lies one of the “fatal flaws” apparently cited by BOE member Paul Weil, according to Michael Levine’s article on the meeting in the local paper.
The language of the “code” or ordinance, does not “elaborate” on the charter- which is what an ordinance is supposed to do- but rather, at best is silent on the charter provision and if applied, would contradict the charter.
As we discussed on our three part series Section 3-1.7 of the county code details many specific conflict of interest situations that are strictly prohibited. But the code specifically says these are based on Charter Section 20.01 which bans acts to confer special benefits on one’s self or others among other things.
In fact the code does not even mention 20.02(D) specifically anywhere, leaving unaddressed the matters brought up by what Sueoka admitted is a strict prohibition,.
The opinion seeks to use the state constitution and out-of-state court rulings to say that the charter and code must be read together and while that is true it’s the relevant sections of each that must be read together.
It would sort of be like reading a strict charter prohibition on robbing banks and saying because it isn’t addressed in the dog leash ordinance, bank robbery is ok.
But, even of there were a confluence of the specific conflicts in the code and the strict prohibitions of the charter, just because there are specifically described “conflict of interest” prohibitions in the code does not make the code a complete list of actions banned in the charter and in fact that contention is never made in the code.
Also on Thursday the BOE called on Castillo to look at the opinion with an eye toward “withdrawing it, affirming it, or modifying it” according to Levine’s article. But it appears our hopes for an honest legal look at the provisions from Castillo might have been dashed if comments from Castillo are indicative of his intentions.
Instead of addressing the legal ramification of the plain reading of 20.02(D) and the existing CA opinion Castillo seems infatuated with the political ramifications.
He’s quoted by Levine as saying
“What does this legal mumbo jumbo mean?” Castillo said when discussing the issue less than an hour before the board released the opinion. “To me, what this means is, to read Section 20.02 by itself would give an unwarranted chilling effect to contributing members of our society who desire to volunteer their time and their expertise to help this county become a better place.”
In the interview, (BOE Member and Food Bank ED Judith)Lenthall said it was not fair that she be expected to give up the rights of a private citizen, including the right, for example, to challenge a property tax assessment.
That “right” as we said before is not being challenged by anyone. What is being challenged in a complaint filed by fellow BOE member Rolf Bieber is the privilege of sitting on a county board that may in fact sit in judgment of a county councilperson while she is also asking the council for money for the Food Bank.
“That’s where I drew the line regarding the absurdity of just sticking to 20.02,” Castillo said. “That’s why we’re saying that the County Charter and the County Code should be read in conjunction because to do otherwise would create absurd results.”
It appears that Castillo is buying into the tail “wagging the dog” interpretations by saying that because the law has results that are perhaps politically uncomfortable, it is up to him to issue a quasi-judicial “opinion” to correct that “absurdity” rather than doing it legislatively- by ordinance if possible or by changing the charter.
The reason for this attempt to hijack the political process may be that last fall the citizens were asked to exempt board and commission members from the onus of 20.02(D) but that measure was soundly defeated.
After the citing of the legal need to read the code and charter together the opinion goes on to make one of its more absurd arguments regarding “intent”.
It cites the charters of Maui and Hawai`i counties saying
as we can see from the Charters of Maui and the Big Island, the effect of reading our Charter and Code provisions together is to achieve the same basic scope as those of the Charters of these other Counties.
This is a another “fatal flaw”, coming from a 1976 letter from then CA Michael Belles as the council debated and later passed Sect. 3 of the county code.
The flaw becomes immediately apparent because it then quotes the charters of those others counties which are substantially different from ours on Kaua`i. Theirs start out with the same type of prohibitions as 20.02(D) but go on to say
An officer serving the county without compensation, however, may appear for compensation in behalf of private interests before county agencies other than the one on which the officer serves and other than those agencies that have the power to review the actions of the agency on which the officer serves or to act on the same subject matter as the agency on which the officer serves.
If the intent in the Kaua`i Charter was to do that they obviously would have done it- and could easily have done it as the other counties did. The fact that they didn’t include the language shows if anything a desire for a higher ethical standard than the other counties.
Perhaps by wrongly reading some intent that wasn’t there the council that passed the code on Kaua`i sought to make believe that provision was in the charter. But wishing doesn’t make them suddenly appear in the charter- only an illusionist can do that.
An email that arrived today from BOE watchdog Horace Stoessel states it clearly and unambiguously
He states:
Like the charters of Maui and Big Island , the Kaua’i County Charter prohibits members of government from appearing in behalf of private interests before County agencies. But whereas the other charters exempt members of boards and commissions from having to comply with the prohibition, our Charter Section 20.02D does not exempt them.
Last year the Charter Commission proposed exempting board/commission members from having to comply with 20.02D. The voters rejected the proposed charter amendment.
No matter how much Castillo- and apparently last year’s Charter Commission- wishes that the Kaua`i Charter read differently the strict prohibition remains in place today and will for at least the next year and a half.
The code addresses only specific concrete conflicts of interest that are specifically banned and then, as it states, based only on the “special favors” provisions in 20.01 of the charter. Nowhere does it say it is an exclusive list and nowhere does it address the prohibitions of 20.02(D) which are included to ensure Kaua`i officials conduct business with the highest possible level of ethics.
20.02(D) is signed to avoid even the appearance of the type of impropriety that could result in a tit-for-tat approval by a member of one B&C, of a request from a member of another B&C- who would then presumably be tempted to turn around and approve the request of a member of the first B&C.
The Kaua`i provision is specifically to remove those temptations.
County attorney options have as close to the effective weight of an actual judicial ruling as one can get. All county entities are expected to abide by them as if they were case law and indeed can lose protections against lawsuits if they don’t.
They become the de facto “law of the land” and can only be challenged by going to an actual judge or having them reversed by, most likely, a subsequent CA.
It is the responsibility of the county attorney to opine only on the law and to separate out the political considerations and notify the political entities that the have two choices- to either change or abide by the law as it stands.
It is not the bailiwick of the County Attorney to make those political decisions for elected officials by attempting to read into the law what should be or what they would like to see in the law.
That right is reserved for the political apparatus of the county- the council and mayor.
Castillo would do well to remember the fact that 99% of the residents of Kaua`i would never have the types of conflicts that people like the Bieber-complaints-cited Lenthall, Mark Hubbard and Lorna Nishimitsu because 99% of Kaua`i residents never appear “on behalf of” others before county entities and only occasionally if at all, appear as themselves.
The availability of that 99% for county service is the blind spot in Castillo’s claim that the law, as it stands, yields “absurd results”. Indeed it is the opposite of absurd- it denotes the highest of ethical standards are expected of those that serve the county.
Castillo’s “absurdity” claim is valid only if one is intent on supplanting government by the people and- more importantly OF the people- with a handful of revolving-door, paternalistic oligarchs.
Friday, May 15, 2009
BREWER CONTEMPLATED REPAIR TO DEFUNCT MOLOA`A DITCH IN ’86
(PNN) BREWER CONTEMPLATED REPAIR TO DEFUNCT MOLOA`A DITCH IN ’86
MEMO SAYS DITCH HAD NO WATER FLOW BUT COULD “DURING PERIOD OF HIGH RAINFALL”
(PNN) A 1986 internal C. Brewer memo indicates that repairs to the Moloa`a Ditch were contemplated when the Ka Loko Ditch was repaired to provide water to the first “diversified agriculture” project in Kilauea after sugar cane operations in the area ceased in the early 1970’s .
The memo indicates that there was a cost “estimate” for re-establishing the Moloa`a Ditch prepared and is one of a series of memos (contained in one of the appendices of the state’s “Godby Report”) that indicate that it was written after extensive repairs to Ka Loko Ditch were completed in order to provide water for Brewer and it’s subsidiary Hawaiiana Investment Co to establish a prawn farm in Kilauea.
The prawn operation failed reportedly because the area was too wet and Brewer subsequently used the water to supply a guava farm in Kilauea that only recently went defunct.
Though the repairs to Moloa`a Ditch were apparently contemplated there is no indication in the memos- the last of which described more repairs to Ka Loko Ditch after a 1991 flood that killed three people in Anahola- that Brewer or anyone worked on the Moloa`a Ditch prior to the work that seemed to have been done in the late 90’s apparently by Jimmy Pflueger.
PNN reported a week ago Wednesday that a recent county study found that Moloa`a Ditch had been re-established about 10 years ago and now feeds a series of underground pipes above Ka Loko Reservoir in the area where Pflueger had been fined for land moving violations in 2001. Though the report did not speculate about the purpose of the ditch, PNN also reported that it was probably re-built to provide more water for a Pflueger-planned “water resort” that, according to sources close to Pflueger, was to center around Ka Loko Reservoir and use other “lakes” he had established in the area for water and jet-skiing.
That would explain the sudden drop in water flow in Moloa`a stream that, according to area residents and farmers, occurred 10 years ago- the same time the report estimated the work re-establishing Moloa`a Ditch was done.
As PNN reported last Friday an undated anonymous letter to the EPA indicates that Pflueger may have not only re-established the Moloa`a Ditch but may have reversed it’s flow direction to put water into the Ka Loko system rather than take it out as, the letter alleges, the ditch originally did when it was built in the late 19th and early 20th century for sugar cane operation in the area.
The May 20, 1986 memo that mentions Moloa`a Ditch is on C. brewer letterhead and addressed to R.L. Herberg, part-owner of Hawaiiana Investment and is from Brewer’s Gordon C. Wentworth.
It reads:
In preparing my May 18, 1986 memo to you on the Ka Loko Repairs I inadvertently failed to include the attached estimate for repair to the Moloa`a Ditch Flume which I had set aside while preparing a submission to DLNR.
In addition to the repair to the flume the Moloa`a Ditch needs clearing of the trail and ditch although the magnitude of the job is much smaller than was encountered in a similar length of Ka Loko Ditch.
Although the Moloa`a Ditch does not carry flow of water under normal conditions it can provide a contribution to the system during period of high rainfall. (emphasis added)
Though the memo presumes the flow was into the Ka Loko system there is no indication whether that supposition was based upon observation during a high rainfall incident or is based upon speculation or presumption.
The rest of the memos detail extensive restoration of the Ka Loko Ditch, which is the primary ditch feeding Ka Loko Reservoir which failed during a 2006 storm killing seven people and leading to manslaughter charges against Pflueger as well as numerous civil suits.
The work on Ka Loko Ditch was done by hydrologist John Weirheim and had been completed sometime between February 12, 1981- when the first memo indicates they had received DLNR permits for the work on Ka Loko Ditch- and November 15, 1985 when the second in the series of memos described the amount water flow in Ka Loko saying “(n)ow that the KaLoko Ditch repair is completed, and water is again flowing in the system...”
None of the memos describe any work to the Ka Loko Reservoir itself, nor do they refer to any actual Brewer work done on Moloa`a Ditch, only to an estimate of cost to re-establish it. It does however confirm that it was not carrying any water in 1986.
The memos do refer a spillway in Ka Loko Ditch which was designed to relieve the flow into Ka Loko reservoir but does not indicate where that spillway emptied nor if it was in the vicinity of the Moloa`a Ditch.
It has been publicly alleged by the state and plaintiffs in the civil suits that Pflueger covered the spillway of the Ka Loko Reservoir itself apparently leading to the dam break, but the contribution of any flow from Moloa`a Ditch has not been established nor mentioned publicly by the state or any of the plaintiffs.
MEMO SAYS DITCH HAD NO WATER FLOW BUT COULD “DURING PERIOD OF HIGH RAINFALL”
(PNN) A 1986 internal C. Brewer memo indicates that repairs to the Moloa`a Ditch were contemplated when the Ka Loko Ditch was repaired to provide water to the first “diversified agriculture” project in Kilauea after sugar cane operations in the area ceased in the early 1970’s .
The memo indicates that there was a cost “estimate” for re-establishing the Moloa`a Ditch prepared and is one of a series of memos (contained in one of the appendices of the state’s “Godby Report”) that indicate that it was written after extensive repairs to Ka Loko Ditch were completed in order to provide water for Brewer and it’s subsidiary Hawaiiana Investment Co to establish a prawn farm in Kilauea.
The prawn operation failed reportedly because the area was too wet and Brewer subsequently used the water to supply a guava farm in Kilauea that only recently went defunct.
Though the repairs to Moloa`a Ditch were apparently contemplated there is no indication in the memos- the last of which described more repairs to Ka Loko Ditch after a 1991 flood that killed three people in Anahola- that Brewer or anyone worked on the Moloa`a Ditch prior to the work that seemed to have been done in the late 90’s apparently by Jimmy Pflueger.
PNN reported a week ago Wednesday that a recent county study found that Moloa`a Ditch had been re-established about 10 years ago and now feeds a series of underground pipes above Ka Loko Reservoir in the area where Pflueger had been fined for land moving violations in 2001. Though the report did not speculate about the purpose of the ditch, PNN also reported that it was probably re-built to provide more water for a Pflueger-planned “water resort” that, according to sources close to Pflueger, was to center around Ka Loko Reservoir and use other “lakes” he had established in the area for water and jet-skiing.
That would explain the sudden drop in water flow in Moloa`a stream that, according to area residents and farmers, occurred 10 years ago- the same time the report estimated the work re-establishing Moloa`a Ditch was done.
As PNN reported last Friday an undated anonymous letter to the EPA indicates that Pflueger may have not only re-established the Moloa`a Ditch but may have reversed it’s flow direction to put water into the Ka Loko system rather than take it out as, the letter alleges, the ditch originally did when it was built in the late 19th and early 20th century for sugar cane operation in the area.
The May 20, 1986 memo that mentions Moloa`a Ditch is on C. brewer letterhead and addressed to R.L. Herberg, part-owner of Hawaiiana Investment and is from Brewer’s Gordon C. Wentworth.
It reads:
In preparing my May 18, 1986 memo to you on the Ka Loko Repairs I inadvertently failed to include the attached estimate for repair to the Moloa`a Ditch Flume which I had set aside while preparing a submission to DLNR.
In addition to the repair to the flume the Moloa`a Ditch needs clearing of the trail and ditch although the magnitude of the job is much smaller than was encountered in a similar length of Ka Loko Ditch.
Although the Moloa`a Ditch does not carry flow of water under normal conditions it can provide a contribution to the system during period of high rainfall. (emphasis added)
Though the memo presumes the flow was into the Ka Loko system there is no indication whether that supposition was based upon observation during a high rainfall incident or is based upon speculation or presumption.
The rest of the memos detail extensive restoration of the Ka Loko Ditch, which is the primary ditch feeding Ka Loko Reservoir which failed during a 2006 storm killing seven people and leading to manslaughter charges against Pflueger as well as numerous civil suits.
The work on Ka Loko Ditch was done by hydrologist John Weirheim and had been completed sometime between February 12, 1981- when the first memo indicates they had received DLNR permits for the work on Ka Loko Ditch- and November 15, 1985 when the second in the series of memos described the amount water flow in Ka Loko saying “(n)ow that the KaLoko Ditch repair is completed, and water is again flowing in the system...”
None of the memos describe any work to the Ka Loko Reservoir itself, nor do they refer to any actual Brewer work done on Moloa`a Ditch, only to an estimate of cost to re-establish it. It does however confirm that it was not carrying any water in 1986.
The memos do refer a spillway in Ka Loko Ditch which was designed to relieve the flow into Ka Loko reservoir but does not indicate where that spillway emptied nor if it was in the vicinity of the Moloa`a Ditch.
It has been publicly alleged by the state and plaintiffs in the civil suits that Pflueger covered the spillway of the Ka Loko Reservoir itself apparently leading to the dam break, but the contribution of any flow from Moloa`a Ditch has not been established nor mentioned publicly by the state or any of the plaintiffs.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
DIGGIN’ DEEPER:
DIGGIN’ DEEPER: We’re back to looking at some of the bills that are either relevant to Kaua`i or that we’ve mentioned during the legislative sessions that were passed by the legislature and await the governor’s signature or veto by July 15.
One that sounds good to some but may be one of the worst bills in the lot due to both intended and unintended results is, HB589 HD1 SD2 CD1 “Relating To Renewable Energy Facilities”. It “(e)xempts leases and easements for renewable energy projects from subdivision requirements; defines ‘subdivision requirements’”.
While “fast tracking” renewable energy projects may sound appealing what this does is give projects a pass on many county permitting restrictions. That means that large scale projects may come under some limited scrutiny but approval is guaranteed- and it automatically happens if 90 days pass without county action on an application.
Although it provides for the counties passing administrative rules regarding these “renewable energy projects” none are currently in place meaning that if someone applies the day after the bill is signed it would be impossible for the county to scrutinize it at all since it takes many months to pass those administrative rules in accordance with HRS Chapter 91.
In addition it doesn’t define “renewable energy”. That means that things like dirty technologies will be springing up everywhere and anywhere- things such as garbage to energy incinerators, bio-diesel plants and even hydro-electric projects all without any county say so.
Farmers who produce renewable energy would be able to get “preferential rates” from their electric company when they sell it under HB591 HD1 SD2 which “(a)uthorizes preferential rates for the purchase of renewable energy produced in conjunction with agricultural activities.”. It will encourage farmers to set up renewable energy projects on their farms since they can get a fair price for their excess power and even serve to sustain some farms.
For that past decade or so charities in Hawai`i have been free of state regulation. But after an excellent series on charity abuses by the Honolulu Advertiser’s Rob Perez, all that will change if HB618 SD2 CD1 is signed .
It establishes “The Uniform Prudent Management Of Institutional Funds Act”. The particulars are many and varied but essentially it would bring about long needed transparency to non-profit organizations in the state. They used to answer only to the IRS but if it’s signed they would now have to meet the kind of standards that most other states require.
Kaua`i has a plethora of “private” roads and right now when there’s an abandoned car on one the county won’t haul it away. If HB1422 HD1 SD1 CD1 makes the cut the county will be able to do so.
Another bill to help legitimate farmers is one to allow "agricultural education programs" to supplement farming operations. That’s defined as “activities or events designed to promote knowledge and understanding of agricultural activities and practices conducted on a farming operation”. They have to be “accessorily or secondary” to the farming operations (as defined by in HRS 165-2) and still must meet county permitting requirements. It does not mention overnight accommodations.
It’s been a nightmare getting timely records from the Bureau of Conveyances. Sometimes it has taken forever and a day to get up-to-date records of who owns what land.
SB521 SD2 HD1 “(r)equires the registrar of the bureau of conveyances to provide, within 10 days after each week and free of charge, an image and index of all documents and instruments that have been recorded in the registrar's office that week relating to regular system land in all the counties, to the county designated in a memorandum of understanding agreed upon by the counties to act as a central clearinghouse”.
Why Hawai`i needs SB1005 SD2 HD2 CD1 is not apparent since it seems that federal copyright laws should suffice but nonetheless it would (e)stablish... property rights in the commercial use of a person's name, voice, signature, or likeness”. It’s long, rambling and very specific and knowing the legislature’s penchant for shoddy rush job legislation we’ll bet dollars to donuts it does something completely unintended.
Finally, even though many thought it became law last year, a bill to allow everyone to hang their clothes on a clothes line was for some idiotic reason vetoed by the governor and for some equally insane reason the veto was not overturned. SB1338 SD2 HD2 CD1 will serve to try again to “(a)llow... the use of clotheslines on any privately owned single‑family residential dwelling or townhouse.
If you didn’t find your bill here check the full list.
One that sounds good to some but may be one of the worst bills in the lot due to both intended and unintended results is, HB589 HD1 SD2 CD1 “Relating To Renewable Energy Facilities”. It “(e)xempts leases and easements for renewable energy projects from subdivision requirements; defines ‘subdivision requirements’”.
While “fast tracking” renewable energy projects may sound appealing what this does is give projects a pass on many county permitting restrictions. That means that large scale projects may come under some limited scrutiny but approval is guaranteed- and it automatically happens if 90 days pass without county action on an application.
Although it provides for the counties passing administrative rules regarding these “renewable energy projects” none are currently in place meaning that if someone applies the day after the bill is signed it would be impossible for the county to scrutinize it at all since it takes many months to pass those administrative rules in accordance with HRS Chapter 91.
In addition it doesn’t define “renewable energy”. That means that things like dirty technologies will be springing up everywhere and anywhere- things such as garbage to energy incinerators, bio-diesel plants and even hydro-electric projects all without any county say so.
Farmers who produce renewable energy would be able to get “preferential rates” from their electric company when they sell it under HB591 HD1 SD2 which “(a)uthorizes preferential rates for the purchase of renewable energy produced in conjunction with agricultural activities.”. It will encourage farmers to set up renewable energy projects on their farms since they can get a fair price for their excess power and even serve to sustain some farms.
For that past decade or so charities in Hawai`i have been free of state regulation. But after an excellent series on charity abuses by the Honolulu Advertiser’s Rob Perez, all that will change if HB618 SD2 CD1 is signed .
It establishes “The Uniform Prudent Management Of Institutional Funds Act”. The particulars are many and varied but essentially it would bring about long needed transparency to non-profit organizations in the state. They used to answer only to the IRS but if it’s signed they would now have to meet the kind of standards that most other states require.
Kaua`i has a plethora of “private” roads and right now when there’s an abandoned car on one the county won’t haul it away. If HB1422 HD1 SD1 CD1 makes the cut the county will be able to do so.
Another bill to help legitimate farmers is one to allow "agricultural education programs" to supplement farming operations. That’s defined as “activities or events designed to promote knowledge and understanding of agricultural activities and practices conducted on a farming operation”. They have to be “accessorily or secondary” to the farming operations (as defined by in HRS 165-2) and still must meet county permitting requirements. It does not mention overnight accommodations.
It’s been a nightmare getting timely records from the Bureau of Conveyances. Sometimes it has taken forever and a day to get up-to-date records of who owns what land.
SB521 SD2 HD1 “(r)equires the registrar of the bureau of conveyances to provide, within 10 days after each week and free of charge, an image and index of all documents and instruments that have been recorded in the registrar's office that week relating to regular system land in all the counties, to the county designated in a memorandum of understanding agreed upon by the counties to act as a central clearinghouse”.
Why Hawai`i needs SB1005 SD2 HD2 CD1 is not apparent since it seems that federal copyright laws should suffice but nonetheless it would (e)stablish... property rights in the commercial use of a person's name, voice, signature, or likeness”. It’s long, rambling and very specific and knowing the legislature’s penchant for shoddy rush job legislation we’ll bet dollars to donuts it does something completely unintended.
Finally, even though many thought it became law last year, a bill to allow everyone to hang their clothes on a clothes line was for some idiotic reason vetoed by the governor and for some equally insane reason the veto was not overturned. SB1338 SD2 HD2 CD1 will serve to try again to “(a)llow... the use of clotheslines on any privately owned single‑family residential dwelling or townhouse.
If you didn’t find your bill here check the full list.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
(PNN) EPA DOC SAYS PFLUEGER MOLOA`A DITCH RECONSTRUCTION REVERSED FLOW TO FEED KA LOKO
EPA DOC SAYS PFLUEGER MOLOA`A DITCH RECONSTRUCTION REVERSED FLOW TO FEED KA LOKO
(PNN) The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was apparently informed about the Moloa`a stream diversion in an anonymous, undated, detailed letter appended to the state’s Godby Report on the Ka Loko Dam break. It alleges that the work apparently done to restore the Moloa`a ditch actually reversed the direction of the flow which originally took water away from Ka Loko and into Moloa`a Stream.
Though the letter was also sent to the Honolulu Advertiser, the Garden Island newspaper and David Henkin of Earth Justice neither they, Godby nor the EPA apparently noted or acted upon the letter that appears in an appendix of EPA documents.
According to the letter, the long-in-disrepair Moloa`a ditch that currently feeds Ka Loko reservoir was originally designed to dump excess water before it reached the reservoir, which is constructed in a cinder cone and fed by a series of ditches rather than sitting in the path of a regular stream as most reservoirs do.
The letter alleges that Jimmy Pflueger fully reconstructed the ditch about 10 years ago and reversed the flow in order to feed an “irrigation system”, with the overflow dumping into Ka Loko reservoir.
It confirms many of the allegations made by Malama Moloa`a and Hope Kallai, as PNN reported last week, that work apparently done by Pflueger- as described in detail in a recent county report on the future use of the Ka Loko irrigation system for Kilauea farmers- recently re-constructed and established the ditch and adds the allegation that it reversed the flow of the ditch which, it says, was originally designed to take excess water from the Ka Loko system and dump it into Moloa`a stream by diverting it through a series of three tunnels.
Though the letter was contained in the state’s Godby report’s appendix of EPA documents apparently the EPA did not investigate the ditch when they investigated and fined Pflueger’s for activities in the area about five years prior to the dam break that killed seven people in March 2006.
The letter does not refer to the dam break and apparently was written well before the event although it is undated and unsigned.
It also contains maps and photos although it says they the writers did not physically investigate the whole ditch system which it says is fairly inaccessible due to topography. They do describe the “source”-which used to be the end- as being on state land in the Moloa`a Forest Reserve and in a manner similar to the way the county report does, noting a dam, the Moloa`a stream diversion and an almost dry river bed below it.
The county report contains a description of the whole path of the ditch but does not conclude that the recent construction it noted actually reversed the flow.
Moloa`a residents noticed a severe decline in water flow occurred suddenly 10 years ago, about the time that the ditch was apparently repaired and made functional. They say the lack of water has made agricultural land in Moloa`a valley un-farmable due to lack of water.
PNN has previously reported that the 80-year old ditch master who claims to have tended the Ka Loko system said at a meeting last Wed. that the ditch fell into disuse decades ago, perhaps as long ago as the 1920’s.
Many of the suppositions about the physical set up of the ditch and the re-construction allegedly done by Pflueger that are contained in the letter were confirmed by the county survey.
The additional water that presumably flowed into Ka Loko dam has never publicly been cited as a contributory factor in the 2006 tragedy.
Pflueger is currently set to stand trial for manslaughter and is also embroiled in multiple party civil suits both of which are scheduled for trial late this summer.
Although the state and county are defendants in the civil suits, the EPA is not as yet a party to the suit despite the apparent negligence in not following up on the letter.
The letter is contained in pages 7-12 of the appendix and is followed by photos and maps which are explained in the letter.
The pdf file of the appendix is not directly convertible to text and PNN is in the process of obtaining a text copy and will update this story at a later date.
(PNN) The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was apparently informed about the Moloa`a stream diversion in an anonymous, undated, detailed letter appended to the state’s Godby Report on the Ka Loko Dam break. It alleges that the work apparently done to restore the Moloa`a ditch actually reversed the direction of the flow which originally took water away from Ka Loko and into Moloa`a Stream.
Though the letter was also sent to the Honolulu Advertiser, the Garden Island newspaper and David Henkin of Earth Justice neither they, Godby nor the EPA apparently noted or acted upon the letter that appears in an appendix of EPA documents.
According to the letter, the long-in-disrepair Moloa`a ditch that currently feeds Ka Loko reservoir was originally designed to dump excess water before it reached the reservoir, which is constructed in a cinder cone and fed by a series of ditches rather than sitting in the path of a regular stream as most reservoirs do.
The letter alleges that Jimmy Pflueger fully reconstructed the ditch about 10 years ago and reversed the flow in order to feed an “irrigation system”, with the overflow dumping into Ka Loko reservoir.
It confirms many of the allegations made by Malama Moloa`a and Hope Kallai, as PNN reported last week, that work apparently done by Pflueger- as described in detail in a recent county report on the future use of the Ka Loko irrigation system for Kilauea farmers- recently re-constructed and established the ditch and adds the allegation that it reversed the flow of the ditch which, it says, was originally designed to take excess water from the Ka Loko system and dump it into Moloa`a stream by diverting it through a series of three tunnels.
Though the letter was contained in the state’s Godby report’s appendix of EPA documents apparently the EPA did not investigate the ditch when they investigated and fined Pflueger’s for activities in the area about five years prior to the dam break that killed seven people in March 2006.
The letter does not refer to the dam break and apparently was written well before the event although it is undated and unsigned.
It also contains maps and photos although it says they the writers did not physically investigate the whole ditch system which it says is fairly inaccessible due to topography. They do describe the “source”-which used to be the end- as being on state land in the Moloa`a Forest Reserve and in a manner similar to the way the county report does, noting a dam, the Moloa`a stream diversion and an almost dry river bed below it.
The county report contains a description of the whole path of the ditch but does not conclude that the recent construction it noted actually reversed the flow.
Moloa`a residents noticed a severe decline in water flow occurred suddenly 10 years ago, about the time that the ditch was apparently repaired and made functional. They say the lack of water has made agricultural land in Moloa`a valley un-farmable due to lack of water.
PNN has previously reported that the 80-year old ditch master who claims to have tended the Ka Loko system said at a meeting last Wed. that the ditch fell into disuse decades ago, perhaps as long ago as the 1920’s.
Many of the suppositions about the physical set up of the ditch and the re-construction allegedly done by Pflueger that are contained in the letter were confirmed by the county survey.
The additional water that presumably flowed into Ka Loko dam has never publicly been cited as a contributory factor in the 2006 tragedy.
Pflueger is currently set to stand trial for manslaughter and is also embroiled in multiple party civil suits both of which are scheduled for trial late this summer.
Although the state and county are defendants in the civil suits, the EPA is not as yet a party to the suit despite the apparent negligence in not following up on the letter.
The letter is contained in pages 7-12 of the appendix and is followed by photos and maps which are explained in the letter.
The pdf file of the appendix is not directly convertible to text and PNN is in the process of obtaining a text copy and will update this story at a later date.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
AND SO THE POOR DOG HAD NONE
AND SO THE POOR DOG HAD NONE: Our three part series on the Unethical Culture of some members of the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) detailed the cases of three members of that board who have and continue to violate the plain reading of the county charter’s Code of Ethics which prohibits members of boards and commissions from appearing on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions, including the county council.
As we concluded. what was missing was that, in order to get the ball rolling to force them to either remove themselves from office or quit representing private interests was an actual complaint filed with the BOE.
So over the weekend, Rolf Bieber felt responsible as a BOE member to take matters into his own hands and file three complaints- two against his fellow BOE members Mark Hubbard and Judy Lenthall and one against attorney Lorna Nishimitsu who sits on the Cost Control Commission.
Bieber, who ran for mayor last fall, told us it wasn’t anything personal and that he respects the three immensely but that the board needed to move forward on the matter because, as it stands there was no enforcement whatsoever of the provision based on BOE decisions in other cases last and earlier this year.
His notarized complaints include the transcripts from the three county council meetings where the three represented private interests- Hubbard for the Kaua`i Action and Planning Alliance, Lenthall for the Kaua`i Food Bank and Nishimitsu for Kikia`ola Land Corporation.
Although none of them would comment for our series, that wasn’t the case when reporter for the local newspaper Michael Levine contacted them for comment on his story today regarding Bieber’s complaints.
And if anyone thought that perhaps Hubbard- the former Chair and now Vice Chair of the BOE- was in need of professional mental health after reading his ramblings in our article his comments to Levine certainly approximate the classic response of a paranoid schizophrenic.
There are apparently at least two Mark Hubbard’s existing nowhere but in Hubbard’s own mind depending on what covers the head that contains the various Hubbard’s.
In classic gibberish Hubbard told Levine:
“The way I read it (Section 20.02(D)) is very simple. When I was sitting there in front of the County Council, the hat I wore was Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance. I made no representation, I was not considered, not looked upon as vice chair of Ethics. It had nothing to do with Ethics even though I am on that board.
“I didn’t appear as the Ethics person, I appeared as the treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance,” Hubbard said. “The Board of Ethics person wasn’t around. The treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance was around. Yes, it happens to be the same person.”
Hats? What awesome powers do bonnets bestow? They apparently give the wearer the ability to change identity like some kind of incognito emissary in a spy movie attempting to bamboozle his enemies.
Perhaps Hubbard has a secret collection of headwear that allows him to change personas whenever he chooses, much like Superman’s glasses can convince Lois Lane he’s actually mild mannered reporter Clark Kent.
One possible explanation is that it’s the good Mark Hubbard that selflessly appears on behalf of KPPA and his evil twin that sits on the BOE.
But we can only hope Hubbard guards his chapeau collection well lest they fall into the hands of those who do us harm. Imagine the problems it would pose for the courts if the criminal element could avoid prosecution by simply making the right choice at the haberdashers.
Good thing we can trust Hubbard not to abuse his Superhero status...uh he does belong to the Legion of Justice doesn’t he?... or does he simply have a hat for that.
He must have had Tom Terrific’s magic thinking cap to come up with what Levine reported he said next
Asked about the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest if council members were to one day have to answer to the Board of Ethics, Hubbard said “there’s no such thing.”
“When people talk about the appearance of conflict of interest, to me, that has nothing to do with the Board of Ethics,” he said. “Is there a conflict of interest or isn’t there? There’s no such thing as appearance."
No such thing? Good thing the news hasn’t reached Kaua`i Mark because there 943,000 results for “appearance of a conflict of interest” at Google including the one at Wikipedia which starts off it’s “conflict of interest” entry by saying
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization... has an interest that might compromise their reliability.
A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization.
Ask yourself what you would do if appointed for a body that oversees ethics and deals with conflicts of interest. Would you not review what an appearance of conflict of interest actually is before you said it doesn’t exist?
Not our pal Mark- get this final gobbledy-gook
“There is no conflict because I went and asked the council for something. Their choice is to say yes or no. ... I could feel good about that, or bad about that, and I could act. I have some authority, I have a vote on the Board of Ethics. ... (but) I didn’t have a financial interest (in KPAA). That’s the charter and the county regs — it has to be financial.”
No financial interest? KPPA is one of the Kaua`i government’s favorite recipients of their largess, to be distributed to others for various planning projects at PPPA’s pleasure... quite the powerful position.
As a matter of fact, Levine’s article reports, Hubbard’s appearance was quite successful since an extra $14,500 appears in the supplemental budget that came after his “appearance on behalf of” KPPA.
The article also notes that Executive Director Lenthall got $20,000 more in the supplemental budget after her appearance on behalf of the Food Bank.
Lenthall for her part still clings to the inability to distinguish between a personal and private interest telling Levine:
Lenthall said it was unfair to her as an unpaid volunteer that she be expected to give up rights guaranteed to private citizens, citing as an example her right to appeal a property tax assessment, and said the language as currently written could discourage volunteers from helping the county, something she does “out of the goodness of my heart.”
What Lenthall fails to recognize is that it has nothing to do with the “goodness of her heart” and whether she wants to “help the county”. 99.9% of the residents of Kaua`i have and will never come before a board or commission asking for money or tangible considerations. The fact that a small handful of those who do populate these boards and commissions reflect the inherent moral bankruptcy and corrupt mindset of those who feed at the government trough is no coincident born of necessity.
The insinuation that Hubbard is not Hubbard at certain times or that there are multiple Hubbard’s stretches credulity to the breaking point, especially with the quasi-judicial nature of the BOE.
In any other judicial proceeding just the fact that a judge or juror even knows the defendant is cause for them to be excused from the proceedings.
The fact that Hubbard has ruled on the ethics complaints filed against member of the county council in the past makes his claim that he should be permitted to solicit funds from them the construction of an unethical if not criminal mind and one certainly not suited to sit on any county body much less the ethics board.
What are we- a bunch of freakin' idiots? You can certainly check off a big fat “yes” when it comes to what Hubbard and Lenthall think.
As we concluded. what was missing was that, in order to get the ball rolling to force them to either remove themselves from office or quit representing private interests was an actual complaint filed with the BOE.
So over the weekend, Rolf Bieber felt responsible as a BOE member to take matters into his own hands and file three complaints- two against his fellow BOE members Mark Hubbard and Judy Lenthall and one against attorney Lorna Nishimitsu who sits on the Cost Control Commission.
Bieber, who ran for mayor last fall, told us it wasn’t anything personal and that he respects the three immensely but that the board needed to move forward on the matter because, as it stands there was no enforcement whatsoever of the provision based on BOE decisions in other cases last and earlier this year.
His notarized complaints include the transcripts from the three county council meetings where the three represented private interests- Hubbard for the Kaua`i Action and Planning Alliance, Lenthall for the Kaua`i Food Bank and Nishimitsu for Kikia`ola Land Corporation.
Although none of them would comment for our series, that wasn’t the case when reporter for the local newspaper Michael Levine contacted them for comment on his story today regarding Bieber’s complaints.
And if anyone thought that perhaps Hubbard- the former Chair and now Vice Chair of the BOE- was in need of professional mental health after reading his ramblings in our article his comments to Levine certainly approximate the classic response of a paranoid schizophrenic.
There are apparently at least two Mark Hubbard’s existing nowhere but in Hubbard’s own mind depending on what covers the head that contains the various Hubbard’s.
In classic gibberish Hubbard told Levine:
“The way I read it (Section 20.02(D)) is very simple. When I was sitting there in front of the County Council, the hat I wore was Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance. I made no representation, I was not considered, not looked upon as vice chair of Ethics. It had nothing to do with Ethics even though I am on that board.
“I didn’t appear as the Ethics person, I appeared as the treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance,” Hubbard said. “The Board of Ethics person wasn’t around. The treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance was around. Yes, it happens to be the same person.”
Hats? What awesome powers do bonnets bestow? They apparently give the wearer the ability to change identity like some kind of incognito emissary in a spy movie attempting to bamboozle his enemies.
Perhaps Hubbard has a secret collection of headwear that allows him to change personas whenever he chooses, much like Superman’s glasses can convince Lois Lane he’s actually mild mannered reporter Clark Kent.
One possible explanation is that it’s the good Mark Hubbard that selflessly appears on behalf of KPPA and his evil twin that sits on the BOE.
But we can only hope Hubbard guards his chapeau collection well lest they fall into the hands of those who do us harm. Imagine the problems it would pose for the courts if the criminal element could avoid prosecution by simply making the right choice at the haberdashers.
Good thing we can trust Hubbard not to abuse his Superhero status...uh he does belong to the Legion of Justice doesn’t he?... or does he simply have a hat for that.
He must have had Tom Terrific’s magic thinking cap to come up with what Levine reported he said next
Asked about the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest if council members were to one day have to answer to the Board of Ethics, Hubbard said “there’s no such thing.”
“When people talk about the appearance of conflict of interest, to me, that has nothing to do with the Board of Ethics,” he said. “Is there a conflict of interest or isn’t there? There’s no such thing as appearance."
No such thing? Good thing the news hasn’t reached Kaua`i Mark because there 943,000 results for “appearance of a conflict of interest” at Google including the one at Wikipedia which starts off it’s “conflict of interest” entry by saying
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization... has an interest that might compromise their reliability.
A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization.
Ask yourself what you would do if appointed for a body that oversees ethics and deals with conflicts of interest. Would you not review what an appearance of conflict of interest actually is before you said it doesn’t exist?
Not our pal Mark- get this final gobbledy-gook
“There is no conflict because I went and asked the council for something. Their choice is to say yes or no. ... I could feel good about that, or bad about that, and I could act. I have some authority, I have a vote on the Board of Ethics. ... (but) I didn’t have a financial interest (in KPAA). That’s the charter and the county regs — it has to be financial.”
No financial interest? KPPA is one of the Kaua`i government’s favorite recipients of their largess, to be distributed to others for various planning projects at PPPA’s pleasure... quite the powerful position.
As a matter of fact, Levine’s article reports, Hubbard’s appearance was quite successful since an extra $14,500 appears in the supplemental budget that came after his “appearance on behalf of” KPPA.
The article also notes that Executive Director Lenthall got $20,000 more in the supplemental budget after her appearance on behalf of the Food Bank.
Lenthall for her part still clings to the inability to distinguish between a personal and private interest telling Levine:
Lenthall said it was unfair to her as an unpaid volunteer that she be expected to give up rights guaranteed to private citizens, citing as an example her right to appeal a property tax assessment, and said the language as currently written could discourage volunteers from helping the county, something she does “out of the goodness of my heart.”
What Lenthall fails to recognize is that it has nothing to do with the “goodness of her heart” and whether she wants to “help the county”. 99.9% of the residents of Kaua`i have and will never come before a board or commission asking for money or tangible considerations. The fact that a small handful of those who do populate these boards and commissions reflect the inherent moral bankruptcy and corrupt mindset of those who feed at the government trough is no coincident born of necessity.
The insinuation that Hubbard is not Hubbard at certain times or that there are multiple Hubbard’s stretches credulity to the breaking point, especially with the quasi-judicial nature of the BOE.
In any other judicial proceeding just the fact that a judge or juror even knows the defendant is cause for them to be excused from the proceedings.
The fact that Hubbard has ruled on the ethics complaints filed against member of the county council in the past makes his claim that he should be permitted to solicit funds from them the construction of an unethical if not criminal mind and one certainly not suited to sit on any county body much less the ethics board.
What are we- a bunch of freakin' idiots? You can certainly check off a big fat “yes” when it comes to what Hubbard and Lenthall think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
