SNIFFIN’ IT OUT: For the neophyte, reading the county charter is a MEGO (my eyes glaze over) experience. But once the committed nitpicker reads it and then attends or even just watches council and/or board and commission meetings for a while it can be cause for a lightbulb-going-on flashback.
So it was that our friend Rob Abrew- who has exposed quite a few irregularities recently- came across a passage that may be applicable, especially of late.
Here’s his testimony to the council regarding the slew of board and commission nominees they have been asked to confirm lately.
Aloha Council Members
Today we are here to review the Mayors selected applicants to become members of various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai. Many of the applicants before you, you all ready know as friends, business associates and fine citizens of the County of Kauai. This process is not about judging these fine citizens as members of the community, but do these recommend appointments follow the process as stated in The County of Kauai Charter as approved by the citizens.
Section 23.02 Boards and Commissions
This section of the Charter lets us know how the Mayor appoints the applicants and how the Council approves this appointment.
In my opinion only two items would be need to reviewed by the Council in order for the applicant to be approved.
These two requirements would be :
23.02 D Each commissioner shall be, at the time of his appointment, a duly qualified resident elector of the county.
It is my understanding that the applicant tells us this on the form submitted to you for review
23.02 E No more than a bare majority of the members of any board or commission shall belong to the same political party.
It is also my understanding that the application asks the applicant if they are a member of a political party.
In C2009-393 received in the County Clerk's office on 12/04/2009 from the Mayor via John Isobe,
Executive Assistant, asks for the Council's favorable consideration and conformation of the following appointments to various Boards and Commissions. At the end of the communication Mr. Isobe states that the application forms are attached.
I believe the application would give the Council some of the information needed to assure that the applicant meets the requirements that the Charter asks for but, the communication does not give the Council the information as need in 23.02 E ….the political make up of the various Board or Commission.
If the applicant in their application tells the Council they are a member of a political party, how would the Council know, if they approve the applicant they would not violate section 23.02 E of the charter.?
I have looked for a public document that shows the public the political make up of the various Boards and Commissions. I have not found any document here today that would give the Council and the public the information needed to approve an applicant that tells us they are a member of a political party. Please request all the information needed to move the applicants forward in a timely matter.
Many discussions in the public lately has been about the way our county government functions and how separation of powers are necessary. The issue before you today is a perfect example of how a check and balance form of government works.
Mahalo for you time
Rob Abrew
Abrew was instrumental in instigating the recent compliance with the law by Isobe and the Board of Ethics in releasing the public disclosure statements filed by prospective B&C members. The release of them was actuated through a filing by reporter Mike Levine who has posted them as they are received at the web site of the local newspaper.
As some may know, membership in a political party in Hawai`i is strictly the province of the party itself and very few people actually join parties by “signing a card”. So not only was the information hard or impossible to obtain in the past but the chances that “a bare majority” of a board or commission would come from one party was probably slim or none.
But last year when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were battling it out for the Democratic nomination for president the Democratic Party signed up tens of thousands of new members statewide, with membership being a prerequisite for voting in their “primary”- which was actually just a poorly conducted internal party function not affiliated with the state elections.
We don’t have the information yet but it should be interesting to see whether any of the boards and commissions have more than a bare majority that are members of the newly expanded Democratic party.
One of the problems might be verifying with the party whether they are or are not actually members. There’s no law that we know of that they must disclose their list. But since supplying false information on the application is a criminal offense we would expect- even if we wouldn’t assume- the applicants to be truthful.
We’ll keep you up on Abrew’s latest quest. But knowing the administration’s response to these kinds of things- we can only imagine what kind of naked dodge the county attorney might come up with in defining “bare majority”- we expect it to be anything but a walk in the park.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
STRAW MAN STRONG MAN
STRAW MAN STRONG MAN: The great talking-past-each-other debate on the “proposed” county manager (CM) system between retired former Judge Al “let ‘em go” Laureta and county watchdog Glenn “hope springs eternal” Mickens continued in the letters to the editor column of the local newspaper today with “Yogi” Mickens “it’s better because it’s better” response to Alfred E. Laureta’s “what, me worry?” demand to know “what’s broken” in Kaua`i county government.
As we’ve said before while we aren’t exactly on the CM conga line we certainly can articulate what the some of the problems are and have done so especially in the past month or so albeit in a cursory manner.
We hope to try to get into some more detail as to what doesn’t work and what kind of specific changes to the charter would be appropriate to address those impediments to good governance over the next few weeks.
But another letter today, this one from Democratic party leader Linda Estes, brings up an issue that has been bandied about although, from Estes letter, it apparently is largely misunderstood.
Everyone we’ve heard speak on the matter contends that Kaua`i has a “strong mayor” system. But Estes makes an argument that in fact:
Kaua`i has a weak mayor form of government because the mayor cannot appoint several of the department heads. Civil Service, Police, Fire, Water, Planning and Liquor are critical departments in county government and the mayor, at this time, cannot appoint the people to head those departments. If he cannot appoint them, how can he hold them responsible for the operation of their departments?
The proposal to put those departments under the direct authority of the mayor should be on the 2010 ballot. Then, if it passes, the people of Kaua`i can decide at a later date if they prefer a county manager or a strong mayor form of government.
First of all the term “strong mayor” derives from what the mayor’s powers are as opposed to those of the county council’s- the traditional balance of power between legislative and administrative branches of government.
The strongest parts of the mayor’s powers on Kaua`i stem from the total ban on any interference by the council in administrative matters enshrined in our charter.
The only way the council can compel the mayor or his/her appointees to appear and answer questions is under one provision that requires the council to launch an official investigation to do so. Otherwise, as we detailed recently, the administration can refuse to even explain how it plans to spend- or in fact did spend- the money the council appropriated or acted upon a piece of legislation passed by the council.
That’s why you see the words “requests the presence of the administration to discuss...” on council agendas.
Another strength of our administrative branch is the power to appoint almost every single member of the administration- except for the county attorney and those that, as Estes points out, are appointed by a board or commission - without confirmation by the council.
Here too the mayor, as most all administrators do, naturally has more power than the council since he selected the members of those boards and commissions (B&Cs) for the most part and the council can only disapprove them. As a matter of fact the council cannot even remove them without the mayor asking that they be removed.
There are some B&Cs where the mayor and council each appoint three members each and those members select one more. But, illustratively, it should be remembered that the original charter did not have this provision and it only arose because of the strength of the mayor... it’s an example of how the original charter was designed to provide for an extremely strong mayor.
There are other provisions that strengthen the mayor’s power as opposed to those of the council but essentially the mayor has a thumb on the balance of power everywhere except for appropriating money or passing ordinances.
Even there there is diminished accountability and, as we’ve seen, administrative rules promulgated by the administration sometimes carve out loopholes in ordinances that are less than specific- some that actually conflict with the law- leaving the council the option of liking it or lumping it... or suing the administration in court, as happened in the “constitutional” budget crisis during the Yukimura administration
The six departments that Estes cites are the exceptions and were set up that way because those specific departments it was thought would be the most subject to political interference and members of the public should be entrusted to make the hiring and firing decisions- with the “check” on their power being that they are appointed and confirmed by elected officials.
But few can argue that that system has worked well. What has happened in practice is that because the department heads have no set terms after which they must face re-approval or renewal of their contracts it becomes almost impossible for a board to remove them.
As a matter of fact there is no procedure for removal of the appointee in the administrative rules any of board with appointment power.
With the staggered three year terms and a two term limits for B&C members after a while few of any of those who appointed the department heads are on the current board and the employee becomes the boss and in fact mentors the members and advises them when they meet.
As a matter of fact, some members have no idea that they are empowered to remove the department head if they want to. And most wouldn’t know how to do it if they did.
Estes suggests that putting them under the mayoral appointment system would solve that problem. But then we’re right back where we started with politics playing a large part in the hire, no council approval and of course a lack of continuity when administrations change- which, when these appointing B&Cs were originally set up, could have been every two years.
But rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater a few fixes might be in order.
The first is a set term for board-appointed department heads. A charter provision calling for a standard contract length- say three years although it could be otherwise- along with a template for a required re-evaluation and re-hire protocol would go a long way to re-imbue the members with a sense that they are indeed in charge.
A charter provision could be somewhat detailed or leave the fleshing out to an ordnance and administrative rules. But right now there is no standard and these department heads become entrenched serving for decades without so much as an opportunity for their appointing authority to really look at their job performance without appearing to be “making waves” or “rocking the boat”- something that, on Kaua`i almost insures they will not be serving on B&C’s very long as the recent Rolf Bieber episode so clearly demonstrates.
Other than the police department we can’t think of a B&C that ever removed a sitting department head... or even attempted to do so. And technically the police commission didn’t do that either, causing the political free for all surrounding Chief KC Lum’s “removal” (he actually retired).
But the contention that Kaua`i has a weak mayor system and that strengthening it is the answer is to cherry pick one “exception that proves the rule” and use it to define the whole system rather than taking a broad perspective when examining the charter and how it plays out in reality.
A charter amendment calling for all mayoral appointments to be confirmed by the council would go a long way toward equalizing the balance of power along with a modification of the strict no-interference clause. Many jurisdictions allow for subpoena power for the legislative branch without launching a formal investigation- and in fact legislative approval of all department heads is the norm across the country.
As we’ve said before, with a requirement for a certain educational and experiential standard and council approval the current charter provision for the Administrative Assistant (AA) could become the very “county manager” that proponents seek. Perhaps the addition of an independent panel that would submit of list of possible hires would be a wise addition to the process of selection of the AA.
We’ll try to get into more specific problems with the charter and possible fixes over the next month or so but suffice to say that the same ends that the CM proponents seek could be accomplished through narrower targeted amendments to the structure expressed in the charter without scaring the b’jeezus out of a citizenry that may be adverse to a “rewrite” of the charter” and/or “eliminating the mayor”- both things that amount to “experiments” and rightly make voters apprehensive.
-------
We’ll be playing with our new chew toys and a bit intermittent over the next two week. If we’re not here, we’re there- so there, hear?
As we’ve said before while we aren’t exactly on the CM conga line we certainly can articulate what the some of the problems are and have done so especially in the past month or so albeit in a cursory manner.
We hope to try to get into some more detail as to what doesn’t work and what kind of specific changes to the charter would be appropriate to address those impediments to good governance over the next few weeks.
But another letter today, this one from Democratic party leader Linda Estes, brings up an issue that has been bandied about although, from Estes letter, it apparently is largely misunderstood.
Everyone we’ve heard speak on the matter contends that Kaua`i has a “strong mayor” system. But Estes makes an argument that in fact:
Kaua`i has a weak mayor form of government because the mayor cannot appoint several of the department heads. Civil Service, Police, Fire, Water, Planning and Liquor are critical departments in county government and the mayor, at this time, cannot appoint the people to head those departments. If he cannot appoint them, how can he hold them responsible for the operation of their departments?
The proposal to put those departments under the direct authority of the mayor should be on the 2010 ballot. Then, if it passes, the people of Kaua`i can decide at a later date if they prefer a county manager or a strong mayor form of government.
First of all the term “strong mayor” derives from what the mayor’s powers are as opposed to those of the county council’s- the traditional balance of power between legislative and administrative branches of government.
The strongest parts of the mayor’s powers on Kaua`i stem from the total ban on any interference by the council in administrative matters enshrined in our charter.
The only way the council can compel the mayor or his/her appointees to appear and answer questions is under one provision that requires the council to launch an official investigation to do so. Otherwise, as we detailed recently, the administration can refuse to even explain how it plans to spend- or in fact did spend- the money the council appropriated or acted upon a piece of legislation passed by the council.
That’s why you see the words “requests the presence of the administration to discuss...” on council agendas.
Another strength of our administrative branch is the power to appoint almost every single member of the administration- except for the county attorney and those that, as Estes points out, are appointed by a board or commission - without confirmation by the council.
Here too the mayor, as most all administrators do, naturally has more power than the council since he selected the members of those boards and commissions (B&Cs) for the most part and the council can only disapprove them. As a matter of fact the council cannot even remove them without the mayor asking that they be removed.
There are some B&Cs where the mayor and council each appoint three members each and those members select one more. But, illustratively, it should be remembered that the original charter did not have this provision and it only arose because of the strength of the mayor... it’s an example of how the original charter was designed to provide for an extremely strong mayor.
There are other provisions that strengthen the mayor’s power as opposed to those of the council but essentially the mayor has a thumb on the balance of power everywhere except for appropriating money or passing ordinances.
Even there there is diminished accountability and, as we’ve seen, administrative rules promulgated by the administration sometimes carve out loopholes in ordinances that are less than specific- some that actually conflict with the law- leaving the council the option of liking it or lumping it... or suing the administration in court, as happened in the “constitutional” budget crisis during the Yukimura administration
The six departments that Estes cites are the exceptions and were set up that way because those specific departments it was thought would be the most subject to political interference and members of the public should be entrusted to make the hiring and firing decisions- with the “check” on their power being that they are appointed and confirmed by elected officials.
But few can argue that that system has worked well. What has happened in practice is that because the department heads have no set terms after which they must face re-approval or renewal of their contracts it becomes almost impossible for a board to remove them.
As a matter of fact there is no procedure for removal of the appointee in the administrative rules any of board with appointment power.
With the staggered three year terms and a two term limits for B&C members after a while few of any of those who appointed the department heads are on the current board and the employee becomes the boss and in fact mentors the members and advises them when they meet.
As a matter of fact, some members have no idea that they are empowered to remove the department head if they want to. And most wouldn’t know how to do it if they did.
Estes suggests that putting them under the mayoral appointment system would solve that problem. But then we’re right back where we started with politics playing a large part in the hire, no council approval and of course a lack of continuity when administrations change- which, when these appointing B&Cs were originally set up, could have been every two years.
But rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater a few fixes might be in order.
The first is a set term for board-appointed department heads. A charter provision calling for a standard contract length- say three years although it could be otherwise- along with a template for a required re-evaluation and re-hire protocol would go a long way to re-imbue the members with a sense that they are indeed in charge.
A charter provision could be somewhat detailed or leave the fleshing out to an ordnance and administrative rules. But right now there is no standard and these department heads become entrenched serving for decades without so much as an opportunity for their appointing authority to really look at their job performance without appearing to be “making waves” or “rocking the boat”- something that, on Kaua`i almost insures they will not be serving on B&C’s very long as the recent Rolf Bieber episode so clearly demonstrates.
Other than the police department we can’t think of a B&C that ever removed a sitting department head... or even attempted to do so. And technically the police commission didn’t do that either, causing the political free for all surrounding Chief KC Lum’s “removal” (he actually retired).
But the contention that Kaua`i has a weak mayor system and that strengthening it is the answer is to cherry pick one “exception that proves the rule” and use it to define the whole system rather than taking a broad perspective when examining the charter and how it plays out in reality.
A charter amendment calling for all mayoral appointments to be confirmed by the council would go a long way toward equalizing the balance of power along with a modification of the strict no-interference clause. Many jurisdictions allow for subpoena power for the legislative branch without launching a formal investigation- and in fact legislative approval of all department heads is the norm across the country.
As we’ve said before, with a requirement for a certain educational and experiential standard and council approval the current charter provision for the Administrative Assistant (AA) could become the very “county manager” that proponents seek. Perhaps the addition of an independent panel that would submit of list of possible hires would be a wise addition to the process of selection of the AA.
We’ll try to get into more specific problems with the charter and possible fixes over the next month or so but suffice to say that the same ends that the CM proponents seek could be accomplished through narrower targeted amendments to the structure expressed in the charter without scaring the b’jeezus out of a citizenry that may be adverse to a “rewrite” of the charter” and/or “eliminating the mayor”- both things that amount to “experiments” and rightly make voters apprehensive.
-------
We’ll be playing with our new chew toys and a bit intermittent over the next two week. If we’re not here, we’re there- so there, hear?
Monday, December 21, 2009
INDECISIVE DREAMIN’
INDECISIVE DREAMIN’: We’re not skilled in dream interpretation but you don’t have to be to figure out the one we had last night right after watching the administration and their consultants’ presentation to the council on the “proposed” new dump location in the middle of the island’s most productive ag land in Kalaheo.
In it, we were having coffee with Mayor Bernard Carvalho and, as he blathered on about what a great mayor he was and how, as he said in his last campaign, “it’s all about leadership”, we stopped hearing him speak and suddenly focused on his moving mouth.
And slowly beyond the gums, over the teeth and through the tonsils and adenoids there it was- the slowly emerging image of Beth Tokioka spinning a silk purse out of a sows ear.
OK not really... but it coulda happened.
For those who haven’t watched the meeting yet, what stood out was the amazing backtracking and finally actual denial- done through the mouth of County Engineer Donald Fujimoto- that the “Umi” site had actually been “selected” by the mayor.
This bit of convoluted 180 could only have come from Tokioka in a desperate attempt to quell the outrage that’s built since Carvalho put his stamp of approval on his task force’s site selection, even touting how he had “done it” where other mayors had failed.
Now that the shibai has hit the fan everyone is running for cover, including Bernard who apparently just “supported the recommendation of his task force” but wasn’t really “selecting” anything... in fact. all the other potential sites are still in play.
That came after, upon council questioning, the consultant admitted that
1) They didn’t really know what was going to be effected or usurped at each potential site due to existing uses- all they did was check the tax maps and zoning.
2) No one even asked the land owners what the availability of their property was and
3) The fact that coffee was growing on the Kalaheo site was not part of the information considered in the “scoring” of each site in their supposed “double-blind” site selection process, one purportedly used to avoid any “NIMBY”- “not in my backyard”- conclusions.
But that “double blind” methodology was a complete joke according to one of the participants we spoke to who said that the members would have had to be total idiots to not know what they were scoring and in fact all of them scored the site(s) in the areas they represented the lowest.
In addition of course, as we could have predicted, their report began with the “fact” that no matter how much reuse, recycling and “transshipment” we will need a new landfill.
But as usual the “why” was conveniently skipped.
So, to get out the old baseball bat and deceased equine, they now have moved from totally ignoring the option of shipping out all the crap we ship in, to acknowledging the possibility but claiming they’ve invented some new kind of opala that can’t be “transshipped” to one of those readily available mainland dumps that are just begging for our discards.
In doing so they’ve moved from “why” we can’t ship it out- especially now that “cost” is not a good answer since Honolulu is doing it for less than it’s costing us per ton now- to “what” exactly is that substance that can’t be shipped out?
Watching the session one can’t help but do what councilmembers did- see a string of those little dollar signs with wings flying away as they listed all the hidden costs of just siting a new landfill, much less opening, running and closing one.
Yet for all the council’s concerns, none of them questioned the consultant’s brief “because I said so” premise for why we need a new dump at all, essentially saying that even with a good zero waste, Max-3R program the shipment of the last few drops to the mainland is impossible for some unstated reason and we still need to dig a hole somewhere and bury all the crap we bring in.
If you buy that, well, we have a bike path to sell ya.
In it, we were having coffee with Mayor Bernard Carvalho and, as he blathered on about what a great mayor he was and how, as he said in his last campaign, “it’s all about leadership”, we stopped hearing him speak and suddenly focused on his moving mouth.
And slowly beyond the gums, over the teeth and through the tonsils and adenoids there it was- the slowly emerging image of Beth Tokioka spinning a silk purse out of a sows ear.
OK not really... but it coulda happened.
For those who haven’t watched the meeting yet, what stood out was the amazing backtracking and finally actual denial- done through the mouth of County Engineer Donald Fujimoto- that the “Umi” site had actually been “selected” by the mayor.
This bit of convoluted 180 could only have come from Tokioka in a desperate attempt to quell the outrage that’s built since Carvalho put his stamp of approval on his task force’s site selection, even touting how he had “done it” where other mayors had failed.
Now that the shibai has hit the fan everyone is running for cover, including Bernard who apparently just “supported the recommendation of his task force” but wasn’t really “selecting” anything... in fact. all the other potential sites are still in play.
That came after, upon council questioning, the consultant admitted that
1) They didn’t really know what was going to be effected or usurped at each potential site due to existing uses- all they did was check the tax maps and zoning.
2) No one even asked the land owners what the availability of their property was and
3) The fact that coffee was growing on the Kalaheo site was not part of the information considered in the “scoring” of each site in their supposed “double-blind” site selection process, one purportedly used to avoid any “NIMBY”- “not in my backyard”- conclusions.
But that “double blind” methodology was a complete joke according to one of the participants we spoke to who said that the members would have had to be total idiots to not know what they were scoring and in fact all of them scored the site(s) in the areas they represented the lowest.
In addition of course, as we could have predicted, their report began with the “fact” that no matter how much reuse, recycling and “transshipment” we will need a new landfill.
But as usual the “why” was conveniently skipped.
So, to get out the old baseball bat and deceased equine, they now have moved from totally ignoring the option of shipping out all the crap we ship in, to acknowledging the possibility but claiming they’ve invented some new kind of opala that can’t be “transshipped” to one of those readily available mainland dumps that are just begging for our discards.
In doing so they’ve moved from “why” we can’t ship it out- especially now that “cost” is not a good answer since Honolulu is doing it for less than it’s costing us per ton now- to “what” exactly is that substance that can’t be shipped out?
Watching the session one can’t help but do what councilmembers did- see a string of those little dollar signs with wings flying away as they listed all the hidden costs of just siting a new landfill, much less opening, running and closing one.
Yet for all the council’s concerns, none of them questioned the consultant’s brief “because I said so” premise for why we need a new dump at all, essentially saying that even with a good zero waste, Max-3R program the shipment of the last few drops to the mainland is impossible for some unstated reason and we still need to dig a hole somewhere and bury all the crap we bring in.
If you buy that, well, we have a bike path to sell ya.
Friday, December 18, 2009
(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.”
(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.”
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A LEG UP ON THE BONEHEADS
A LEG UP ON THE BONEHEADS: Joan Conrow’s blog has been the go to place for all things bike-path boardwalk-on-Wailua-Beach lately. But one click away from her most recent thoughtful reporting and opinion is a shit-storm of racism, white privilege and outright genocidal blather from a group of trolls we pretty much banished last year.
Joan’s whip and chair approach has tolerated a group of anonymous “I think that” commenters- hilarious in it’s not-so-oxy moronic content- that have gravitated to her site and caused most sane readers who want to stay that way to avoid clicking that comment button lest they boil their own blood.
But not Ann Punohu who has recently started up her Punohu’s Politics, Environment and Culture Blog and made the mistake of visiting Joan’s repository of wretched rhetoric.
Never one to back away from a good fight over cultural slights, Ann has posted a series of responses to some of the worst examples of why the word “haole” is often preceded by a certain adjective and awarded her Racist Residents Of The Year Award for 2009 to a couple of malahini morons.
“Al and Judy” actually said:
We certainly haven't come to Hawaii for the "culture". We hate Hawaiian music, food, cultural (pagan) practices, etc.
We love the ocean, air, tropical environment.
We've come here for years and now own property on a couple of islands. I'll make a bleedin' fortune in the next development boom with one of them.
Wouldn't mind if it looked like Malibu Beach, though.
Ann’s hilarious response was:
OK, It is official. Racists have landed on Kaua`i. And I don't mean the garden variety racist, I mean the full blown I am so proud of myself white supremacist racist
These people own property, and like the path on the beach. And they HATE Hawaiian history, or so they say.
Joan has a slight uku infestation on her blog. A group of "anonymous" posters who just like to yank everyone's chain.
Some of the posts were so ludicrous I really did think they were jokes.
Apparently though, these people are serious. And serious racists. They certainly tried to cook me over an open fire. Didn't work though. I give em right back...
Apparently Romper Room was in session over there, and the kids were throwing spitballs at the teacher, me.
I was just trying to stuff a little knowledge into their apparently racist heads, but they were so full of hot air there was no more room between their ears.
The question that must be asked in light of the divisiveness of the issue is a political one- why on earth would Mayor Bernard Carvalho risk his all-but-given reelection next year with two “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” recent decisions, guaranteed to not just make people think twice before voting for him but to actually lose votes without any apparent political gain.
The decision to put the new landfill on arguably the most profitable in-use ag land on the island was bad enough but at least there it’s a matter of fulfilling a campaign promise and could even be seen by some to be a courageous decision that has been avoided by mayors and councils since Uncle Tony Kunimura’s days.
So why the boardwalk on the beach?
First of all we have to remember a key fact- one that the “multi use path” proponents would like to forget. In order to fulfill the requirements for initial $40 million in federal funds the path has to be primarily “for transportation, not recreation”.
It’s apparent by now that there is only one factor that matters in that determination and it seemingly has nothing to do with what anyone in government says about the path in selling it to the citizenry.
To be for transportation the path has to go from point “A”, just north of Kealia, to point “B” in Nawiliwili in a contiguous manner with no “breaks” .
People say “well why not go mauka as the path already does by going through the Safeway/Foodland parking lot and extend that “canal route” portion all the way past Coco Palms and simply re-cross the highway at the Wailua Homesteads traffic light rather than the Wailua Houselots light”?
Seemingly that wouldn’t be a problem and a decision by Carvalho to do so would be a politically wise one considering this is one of those “I’ll never vote for him again because of this” issues.
So what’s the catch? Well once the ins and outs as the path winds and wends it’s way through Kapa`a are settled there’s the matter of what happens to it at it’s current terminus at the Kamalani Bridge at the end of Lydgate Park when it currently loops back on itself.
Few were apparently paying attention to the future plans when the administration first made it’s proposal for a boardwalk on the beach, not on Wailua Beach but to get past the Wailua Golf Course.
It seemed that the alternatives were all bad ones when the administration went before the council a few years back to present the initial alternatives for the golf course section.
For anyone who hasn’t been down there the golf course goes right up to the beach where the greenery and grass ends and there’s a drop off onto the thin section of beach.
One proposal was to run the path along the edge of the grass. But that would be a lawsuit waiting to happen as soon as an errant golf ball hit one of those on the path. One solution proposed was to put up a 10 foot high fence but of course one of the most attractive things about the course that at one time won national honors is that you can see the ocean as you play and lose your ball in the ocean if you’re not careful.
That’s when the words “boardwalk on the beach” were first mentioned although the idea appeared ludicrous due to the continuous natural erosion of that strip of beach and land and the coming raise in sea levels that threaten coastlines all over the world.
Nonetheless that was when the “temporary” boardwalk, one that can be removed when a storm is threatening or if erosion catches up with the construction became the favored solutions despite concerns raised before the council by experts on coastal erosion about after more permanent sections were already completed, along with predictions of maybe a 10 year span of life before they become inundated.
The “it can be removed” part of the boardwalk concept is actually part of the EA no matter how apparently silly it sounds.
People opposing the boardwalk have missed a valuable argument in the fact that the “stakes” that are dug over the ‘iwi will not just be dug once and left there but could conceivably be taken up and put back on a semi-regular basis, especially if the waves themselves remove them
So the Wailua boardwalk is actually a test- one on a much wider section of beach- that, once it has been approved and laid will serve as a precedent when it comes to getting the path past the golf course.... and on down the coast where the topography is much the same and where the cost and difficulty of obtaining the land won’t be the impediment it appears to be now.
(By the way- does anyone know the status of a Conservation District Use Permit and/or DLNR approval?)
People are so focused on the cultural desecration involved that no one is even questioning the absurd engineering and environmental concept of putting a boardwalk on a beach that’s regularly inundated by the ocean..
Seems Bernard is apparently willing to take his lumps on this so he doesn’t have to answer for not completing the path.
Joan’s whip and chair approach has tolerated a group of anonymous “I think that” commenters- hilarious in it’s not-so-oxy moronic content- that have gravitated to her site and caused most sane readers who want to stay that way to avoid clicking that comment button lest they boil their own blood.
But not Ann Punohu who has recently started up her Punohu’s Politics, Environment and Culture Blog and made the mistake of visiting Joan’s repository of wretched rhetoric.
Never one to back away from a good fight over cultural slights, Ann has posted a series of responses to some of the worst examples of why the word “haole” is often preceded by a certain adjective and awarded her Racist Residents Of The Year Award for 2009 to a couple of malahini morons.
“Al and Judy” actually said:
We certainly haven't come to Hawaii for the "culture". We hate Hawaiian music, food, cultural (pagan) practices, etc.
We love the ocean, air, tropical environment.
We've come here for years and now own property on a couple of islands. I'll make a bleedin' fortune in the next development boom with one of them.
Wouldn't mind if it looked like Malibu Beach, though.
Ann’s hilarious response was:
OK, It is official. Racists have landed on Kaua`i. And I don't mean the garden variety racist, I mean the full blown I am so proud of myself white supremacist racist
These people own property, and like the path on the beach. And they HATE Hawaiian history, or so they say.
Joan has a slight uku infestation on her blog. A group of "anonymous" posters who just like to yank everyone's chain.
Some of the posts were so ludicrous I really did think they were jokes.
Apparently though, these people are serious. And serious racists. They certainly tried to cook me over an open fire. Didn't work though. I give em right back...
Apparently Romper Room was in session over there, and the kids were throwing spitballs at the teacher, me.
I was just trying to stuff a little knowledge into their apparently racist heads, but they were so full of hot air there was no more room between their ears.
The question that must be asked in light of the divisiveness of the issue is a political one- why on earth would Mayor Bernard Carvalho risk his all-but-given reelection next year with two “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” recent decisions, guaranteed to not just make people think twice before voting for him but to actually lose votes without any apparent political gain.
The decision to put the new landfill on arguably the most profitable in-use ag land on the island was bad enough but at least there it’s a matter of fulfilling a campaign promise and could even be seen by some to be a courageous decision that has been avoided by mayors and councils since Uncle Tony Kunimura’s days.
So why the boardwalk on the beach?
First of all we have to remember a key fact- one that the “multi use path” proponents would like to forget. In order to fulfill the requirements for initial $40 million in federal funds the path has to be primarily “for transportation, not recreation”.
It’s apparent by now that there is only one factor that matters in that determination and it seemingly has nothing to do with what anyone in government says about the path in selling it to the citizenry.
To be for transportation the path has to go from point “A”, just north of Kealia, to point “B” in Nawiliwili in a contiguous manner with no “breaks” .
People say “well why not go mauka as the path already does by going through the Safeway/Foodland parking lot and extend that “canal route” portion all the way past Coco Palms and simply re-cross the highway at the Wailua Homesteads traffic light rather than the Wailua Houselots light”?
Seemingly that wouldn’t be a problem and a decision by Carvalho to do so would be a politically wise one considering this is one of those “I’ll never vote for him again because of this” issues.
So what’s the catch? Well once the ins and outs as the path winds and wends it’s way through Kapa`a are settled there’s the matter of what happens to it at it’s current terminus at the Kamalani Bridge at the end of Lydgate Park when it currently loops back on itself.
Few were apparently paying attention to the future plans when the administration first made it’s proposal for a boardwalk on the beach, not on Wailua Beach but to get past the Wailua Golf Course.
It seemed that the alternatives were all bad ones when the administration went before the council a few years back to present the initial alternatives for the golf course section.
For anyone who hasn’t been down there the golf course goes right up to the beach where the greenery and grass ends and there’s a drop off onto the thin section of beach.
One proposal was to run the path along the edge of the grass. But that would be a lawsuit waiting to happen as soon as an errant golf ball hit one of those on the path. One solution proposed was to put up a 10 foot high fence but of course one of the most attractive things about the course that at one time won national honors is that you can see the ocean as you play and lose your ball in the ocean if you’re not careful.
That’s when the words “boardwalk on the beach” were first mentioned although the idea appeared ludicrous due to the continuous natural erosion of that strip of beach and land and the coming raise in sea levels that threaten coastlines all over the world.
Nonetheless that was when the “temporary” boardwalk, one that can be removed when a storm is threatening or if erosion catches up with the construction became the favored solutions despite concerns raised before the council by experts on coastal erosion about after more permanent sections were already completed, along with predictions of maybe a 10 year span of life before they become inundated.
The “it can be removed” part of the boardwalk concept is actually part of the EA no matter how apparently silly it sounds.
People opposing the boardwalk have missed a valuable argument in the fact that the “stakes” that are dug over the ‘iwi will not just be dug once and left there but could conceivably be taken up and put back on a semi-regular basis, especially if the waves themselves remove them
So the Wailua boardwalk is actually a test- one on a much wider section of beach- that, once it has been approved and laid will serve as a precedent when it comes to getting the path past the golf course.... and on down the coast where the topography is much the same and where the cost and difficulty of obtaining the land won’t be the impediment it appears to be now.
(By the way- does anyone know the status of a Conservation District Use Permit and/or DLNR approval?)
People are so focused on the cultural desecration involved that no one is even questioning the absurd engineering and environmental concept of putting a boardwalk on a beach that’s regularly inundated by the ocean..
Seems Bernard is apparently willing to take his lumps on this so he doesn’t have to answer for not completing the path.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
LICKING WHERE ONLY THEY CAN:
LICKING WHERE ONLY THEY CAN: There aren’t a lot of legislators looking forward to next year, especially those who prepare an annual budget. Even those who fund administrative programs on a biennial basis are going to be rehashing the already hashed now that projected plummeting revenues have plunged beyond the predictions.
But here on Kaua`i when it comes to what the home viewer will and will not see it’s probably going to be another year in the dark when comes to the budget machinations the council will perform next spring.
Although last year for the first time the local newspaper’s Mike Levine attended and reported upon the highlights of the budget sessions, the cable-casting of these meetings- where the rubber meets the road and councilmembers must show their hands as to their funding priorities- has not itself been a budget priority.
As far as we can tell this year will be no different and you can bet that the excuse will be “the budget crunch” in terms of both the televising of this year’s sessions and the funding of those in 2011.
How convenient. The most contentious and telling council function- the one where they will inevitably disappoint many who expect funding and outrage others by funding questionable line times- will be done if not behind closed doors at least before draped cameras.
Funny how there’s no money for televising the budget sessions but there’s plenty for those self promotional, vote-grabbing, grin and grip, who’s your daddy and mommy, “council certificates”.
You see it every meeting- all of a sudden business stops and a gaggle of people fill the chambers while the council fawns over them, laughing and questioning them as to their accomplishments.
And when the tiddlywinks team wins third place in Honolulu it’s really a circus with each kid coming up listing not just their parents and siblings but their cousins and their uncles and their aunties.
And not only are these “awards” televised but their are fully captioned- at a cost of more than $200 an hour last time we were able to verify the amount.
At an average of about an hour per council meeting- sometimes, like last week, it’s over an hour, sometimes less- and 50 meetings a year that comes out to at least 50 hours- just enough to televise all the budget sessions.
Now no one is saying that the council should suspend giving out their certificates- even though sometimes it pushes the meeting over eight hours causing massive overtime for staff... a fact that the council uses to justify the recent shift in the scheduling of their meetings to 9 a.m. from the former 1:30 p.m. time slot, insuring people will be less likely to attend and testify.
But using taxpayer money to televise them and then using the lack of funds as an excuse to nix televising the budget sessions is a crass and ludicrous abuse of discretion that serves councilmembers at the expense of the public’s right to know what the council is doing with their money.
The purpose of televising the meetings is to allow the public to see the council at work, not an incumbency protection program designed to garner publicity and the votes of friends and families as well as the participants themselves.
So next time you see one of those certificates being presented just remember- there’s your budget sessions. And remember when, as expected, due to declining assessments the council resorts to raising the property tax rate to pay for all the stuff they stuffed into the budget, instead of watching them do it we were forced to watch the council make kissy-face with Mr. Pupule’s third-grade Christmas pageant participants.
But here on Kaua`i when it comes to what the home viewer will and will not see it’s probably going to be another year in the dark when comes to the budget machinations the council will perform next spring.
Although last year for the first time the local newspaper’s Mike Levine attended and reported upon the highlights of the budget sessions, the cable-casting of these meetings- where the rubber meets the road and councilmembers must show their hands as to their funding priorities- has not itself been a budget priority.
As far as we can tell this year will be no different and you can bet that the excuse will be “the budget crunch” in terms of both the televising of this year’s sessions and the funding of those in 2011.
How convenient. The most contentious and telling council function- the one where they will inevitably disappoint many who expect funding and outrage others by funding questionable line times- will be done if not behind closed doors at least before draped cameras.
Funny how there’s no money for televising the budget sessions but there’s plenty for those self promotional, vote-grabbing, grin and grip, who’s your daddy and mommy, “council certificates”.
You see it every meeting- all of a sudden business stops and a gaggle of people fill the chambers while the council fawns over them, laughing and questioning them as to their accomplishments.
And when the tiddlywinks team wins third place in Honolulu it’s really a circus with each kid coming up listing not just their parents and siblings but their cousins and their uncles and their aunties.
And not only are these “awards” televised but their are fully captioned- at a cost of more than $200 an hour last time we were able to verify the amount.
At an average of about an hour per council meeting- sometimes, like last week, it’s over an hour, sometimes less- and 50 meetings a year that comes out to at least 50 hours- just enough to televise all the budget sessions.
Now no one is saying that the council should suspend giving out their certificates- even though sometimes it pushes the meeting over eight hours causing massive overtime for staff... a fact that the council uses to justify the recent shift in the scheduling of their meetings to 9 a.m. from the former 1:30 p.m. time slot, insuring people will be less likely to attend and testify.
But using taxpayer money to televise them and then using the lack of funds as an excuse to nix televising the budget sessions is a crass and ludicrous abuse of discretion that serves councilmembers at the expense of the public’s right to know what the council is doing with their money.
The purpose of televising the meetings is to allow the public to see the council at work, not an incumbency protection program designed to garner publicity and the votes of friends and families as well as the participants themselves.
So next time you see one of those certificates being presented just remember- there’s your budget sessions. And remember when, as expected, due to declining assessments the council resorts to raising the property tax rate to pay for all the stuff they stuffed into the budget, instead of watching them do it we were forced to watch the council make kissy-face with Mr. Pupule’s third-grade Christmas pageant participants.
Monday, December 14, 2009
TIME FLIES
TIME FLIES: We’ve been perhaps hyper-critical of Police Chief Darryl Perry’s administration and haven’t had many kind words for the local newspaper’s KPD-beat reporter Paul Curtis who’s served more like a stenographer for Perry’s PR efforts than a reporter.
But Curtis’ Sunday’s entry is almost as baffling as the amazing revelation regarding what most thought were the ongoing, concerted efforts focusing on one of Perry’s stated “top priorities” upon taking office.
After “burying the lede” with six paragraphs and 157 words evoking an image of the entire department scurrying for no-place-in-particular if “a terrorist attack, gas leak or act of nature” were to hit the new KPD headquarters, Curtis talks about the status of Perry’s accreditation efforts.
At the top of the list (of goals) is departmental accreditation, something Perry has been talking about since he became the county’s seventh police chief in October 2007.
Oh, good- let’s see where we are.
“It’s going to take years,” he said of the process. He is advocating appointment of a full-time accreditation manager to guide the department down the rigorous road to accreditation with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
That manager would also be responsible for attaining periodical re-accreditation, he said. KPD is the state’s only county police department lacking CALEA accreditation.
Well, we knew it was a long process. Apparently we are already at the stage where we need a manager for completing the process.
The appointing of the manager will need to happen as phase one of the department’s accreditation process begins, as he or she will liaison with CALEA, he said.
Huh? Phase 1? Begins? Yes folks, “as phase 1... begins”. Two years later we find out there have been approximately zero efforts toward accreditation and the chief is just now proposing to fund a full time position.
As Curtis then reports, now 11 paragraphs into his piece and five on the subject of accreditation:
Phase one includes contacting CALEA, assessing KPD, establishing a timeline for accreditation completion, and determining roadblocks and obstacles to successful accreditation, according to the single-page 2010 KPD goals list.
You’ve gotta be freakin’ kidding. Contacting them?
Let us be of assistance.
According to CALEA’s “Getting Started and Enrollment” section- which at least Curtis, if not Perry has apparently visited:
Agencies can obtain information, view/print fee schedules and required documents, or purchase any CALEA Publication, including the CALEA Accreditation Compliance Express (CACE) software, directly from the CALEA website or by contacting CALEA (800-368-3757).
We presume they have computers and telephones. Now they have the web site and number to call. And there’s a handy-dandy list of “suggestions... for agencies interested in finding out more about the Law Enforcement Accreditation Program”... two years late being better than never.
Purchase a copy of the Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies and carefully review and compare the CALEA Standards to your existing written directives. By doing this you should be able to determine: 1. what additions or changes will need to be made to policies and procedures; 2. how long this might take; and 3. what additional costs will be involved to include in budget.
Download the CALEA Accreditation Compliance Express (CACE) Help File. The CACE Program provides an agency with a powerful tool in completing the steps necessary to achieve accredited status and serves as a valuable assistant in the overall management of the accreditation process. Click here to begin the download process.
And maybe instead of sending commissioners to attending those mainland pep talks about how to fight against sick people receiving their medical marijuana they might just spend some money to send someone to:
Attend a CALEA Conference. Who should attend? Key council members; managers; mayor; law enforcement entity CEO; command staff; or designated accreditation manager. You will receive the training needed to begin the process and to successfully complete your accreditation goals; network with other public safety personnel and gain insight into the program; and consult with other CALEA Agencies for “flagship examples.”
Or they could just
Arrange to visit with a nearby CALEA Accredited Agency to view accreditation files and written directives.
Attend and/or join the local PAC (Police Accreditation Coalition), if available to you. This is another resource for information and accreditation process training. Click here to check on a PAC in your area.
Among the goals of accreditation, according to the web site and Curtis’ article are to “establish fair and nondiscriminatory personnel practices”. Given the millions paid in attorney fees and awards in discrimination lawsuits over the years it seems incredible that we’re only now getting started on accreditation.
And given the state of community relations after the publication of “KPD Blue” perhaps another stated purpose of “increas(ing) community and staff confidence in the agency” accreditation might be demand a little more immediacy.
One of the first things a student learns in journalism school is “how to write a lead”- or lede in the written lingo. It’s supposed to be the most important “news” in your “story” in 25 words or less.
A real reporter might have written story with a lede that evoked a headline of “Chief’s says accreditation process still not begun”. The fact that Perry could depend on Curtis to cryptically bury the bad news- and try to portray it as “good news” in the middle of an otherwise ho-hum article- speaks volumes.
What Curtis is doing at a newspaper that has moved so far is so short a time with two real newspeople- Mike Levine and Nathan Eagle- in charge, combined with the news that the accreditation process hasn’t begun after two more years has us once again asking “can’t anyone here play this game?”
But Curtis’ Sunday’s entry is almost as baffling as the amazing revelation regarding what most thought were the ongoing, concerted efforts focusing on one of Perry’s stated “top priorities” upon taking office.
After “burying the lede” with six paragraphs and 157 words evoking an image of the entire department scurrying for no-place-in-particular if “a terrorist attack, gas leak or act of nature” were to hit the new KPD headquarters, Curtis talks about the status of Perry’s accreditation efforts.
At the top of the list (of goals) is departmental accreditation, something Perry has been talking about since he became the county’s seventh police chief in October 2007.
Oh, good- let’s see where we are.
“It’s going to take years,” he said of the process. He is advocating appointment of a full-time accreditation manager to guide the department down the rigorous road to accreditation with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
That manager would also be responsible for attaining periodical re-accreditation, he said. KPD is the state’s only county police department lacking CALEA accreditation.
Well, we knew it was a long process. Apparently we are already at the stage where we need a manager for completing the process.
The appointing of the manager will need to happen as phase one of the department’s accreditation process begins, as he or she will liaison with CALEA, he said.
Huh? Phase 1? Begins? Yes folks, “as phase 1... begins”. Two years later we find out there have been approximately zero efforts toward accreditation and the chief is just now proposing to fund a full time position.
As Curtis then reports, now 11 paragraphs into his piece and five on the subject of accreditation:
Phase one includes contacting CALEA, assessing KPD, establishing a timeline for accreditation completion, and determining roadblocks and obstacles to successful accreditation, according to the single-page 2010 KPD goals list.
You’ve gotta be freakin’ kidding. Contacting them?
Let us be of assistance.
According to CALEA’s “Getting Started and Enrollment” section- which at least Curtis, if not Perry has apparently visited:
Agencies can obtain information, view/print fee schedules and required documents, or purchase any CALEA Publication, including the CALEA Accreditation Compliance Express (CACE) software, directly from the CALEA website or by contacting CALEA (800-368-3757).
We presume they have computers and telephones. Now they have the web site and number to call. And there’s a handy-dandy list of “suggestions... for agencies interested in finding out more about the Law Enforcement Accreditation Program”... two years late being better than never.
Purchase a copy of the Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies and carefully review and compare the CALEA Standards to your existing written directives. By doing this you should be able to determine: 1. what additions or changes will need to be made to policies and procedures; 2. how long this might take; and 3. what additional costs will be involved to include in budget.
Download the CALEA Accreditation Compliance Express (CACE) Help File. The CACE Program provides an agency with a powerful tool in completing the steps necessary to achieve accredited status and serves as a valuable assistant in the overall management of the accreditation process. Click here to begin the download process.
And maybe instead of sending commissioners to attending those mainland pep talks about how to fight against sick people receiving their medical marijuana they might just spend some money to send someone to:
Attend a CALEA Conference. Who should attend? Key council members; managers; mayor; law enforcement entity CEO; command staff; or designated accreditation manager. You will receive the training needed to begin the process and to successfully complete your accreditation goals; network with other public safety personnel and gain insight into the program; and consult with other CALEA Agencies for “flagship examples.”
Or they could just
Arrange to visit with a nearby CALEA Accredited Agency to view accreditation files and written directives.
Attend and/or join the local PAC (Police Accreditation Coalition), if available to you. This is another resource for information and accreditation process training. Click here to check on a PAC in your area.
Among the goals of accreditation, according to the web site and Curtis’ article are to “establish fair and nondiscriminatory personnel practices”. Given the millions paid in attorney fees and awards in discrimination lawsuits over the years it seems incredible that we’re only now getting started on accreditation.
And given the state of community relations after the publication of “KPD Blue” perhaps another stated purpose of “increas(ing) community and staff confidence in the agency” accreditation might be demand a little more immediacy.
One of the first things a student learns in journalism school is “how to write a lead”- or lede in the written lingo. It’s supposed to be the most important “news” in your “story” in 25 words or less.
A real reporter might have written story with a lede that evoked a headline of “Chief’s says accreditation process still not begun”. The fact that Perry could depend on Curtis to cryptically bury the bad news- and try to portray it as “good news” in the middle of an otherwise ho-hum article- speaks volumes.
What Curtis is doing at a newspaper that has moved so far is so short a time with two real newspeople- Mike Levine and Nathan Eagle- in charge, combined with the news that the accreditation process hasn’t begun after two more years has us once again asking “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
