ASKIN’ FOR IT: It hasn’t just been a kick we’re on lately- that of examining laughably lame and confusingly contentions, slanted statements from bumbling bureaucrats designed to amply appeal to our guileless gullibility.
But it certainly isn’t just here on little Kaua`i where a post plantation populous is too busy beachcombing and bathing to understand unctuous utterances from corrupt capos and cronies.
Behold the corporate actions in the case of the runaway Toyotas whose corporate overlords have apparently set up their own demise by just replacing the gas pedals.
We’ve spent the past few days asking our more mechanically inclined acquaintances, car mavens and repair people who have been following the story and not one- not a single one- believes that fixing the gas pedal alone will stop these cars from having a mind of their own.
One and all believe it has to be the electronic “brain” that they put in cars these days so that any repair at all starts at $1000 and can only be done at the dealership.
In that sense it was inevitable that those chickens would come home to roost and they would become so complicated that even they can’t figure out what’s wrong with their own Frankencoupés.
If you’ve been following this debacle you’ll know that Toyota has spent months- actually years now- trying to figure out why on occasion their cars accelerate but then won’t stop doing so.
First they said it was the floor mats, then it was something with the gas pedal. Meanwhile most who independently looked at it concluded that it had to be something in the computer electronics that control acceleration.
But when the feds told them to fix it NOW, in a “that’s our story and we’re sticking with it” manner they’ve settled on putting in new gas pedals in millions of cars and denying that it’s anything more in a move seemingly destined to destroy any future for the company when it continues to happen.
The hastily concocted explanation for what’s supposedly wrong with the pedal mechanism doesn’t even make sense. It basically says that due to “wear and tear” the mechanism sticks where two pieces come together, But if something “wears” it wears down not up and its not going to stick, rather it’s going to become looser, according what a couple of engineers told us last night after the “explanation” was given by Toyota.
So why should we care if corporate malfeasance brings down a car company other than the gazillion of manufacturing jobs?
It’s simply the other side of the corporate personhood that’s on many people’s minds after the US Supreme court humanized them for purposes pumping more money into elections.
Because while this personhood extends to elections it doesn’t extend to corporate wrongdoing and responsibility. Don’t forget, it’s people who are making the decision to do this without regard to the fact that it will almost assuredly blow up in their faces in a year or so once the crashes continue and we figure out that the “fix” fixes nothing.
But don’t expect anyone to be punished for that. If anything happens to Toyota it will be because no one will buy one, not because the company is arrested and tried for murder.
But by the time anyone figures it out the same executives that made the decision to do this will no doubt have passed the hot potato to another ambitious young executive, received their golden parachute and gone on to bigger and better corporate criminal capers.
If you live on Kaua`i and own a newish Toyota and are headed down to the dealership for your “fix” and are then planning on driving off as if nothing is wrong you’re probably the same person who believed that the new alignment of the bike path isn’t going to be on Wailua Beach and that the $7.5 million the county paid in the Ka Loko Dam tragedy settlement wasn’t due to culpability.
So we’ve just gotta ask you – what are you, a freakin’ idiot?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
BELIEVE IT OR ELSE
BELIEVE IT OR ELSE: How dumb are we? You don’t wanna know... no, really, seriously, apparently you actually don’t want to know.
Or at least the county once again is relying on that premise.
Because everywhere we went this weekend all we heard was the gurgling sound of people swallowing the hook, line and sinker of Al “The Mad Hat Police” Castillo’s improbable spin on the county’s whopping close to 1/3 of the responsibility in the Ka Loko Dam break tragedy.
Instead of admitting to the scandalous behavior of Mayor Maryanne Kusaka and her Department of Public Works henchmen Cesar Portugal, Wally Kudo and Ian Costa (among others) in intentionally allowing accused murderer Jimmy Pflueger to do whatever the hell he wanted with his “lakes”, Castillo wants us to believe that that “the difference between the state’s portion of the settlement and the county’s had little to do with culpability, and instead reflected financial realities and state law regarding immunity” according to a county press release.
Ah- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am The Great and Powerful Al...
The fact is there is no immunity law that distinguishes between the gross incompetence of the state and the malfeasance of the county.
Government employees usually receive a broad immunity in performing their duties. The general rule is that as long as they aren’t unbelievably and grossly incompetent- and usually forewarned of the potential results of their incompetence- they and/or their government can’t be held financially responsible.
But even more lacking of that kind of protection is something like what occurred on Kaua`i- a criminal conspiracy among government officials to lie, cover-up and generally block enforcement of the law.
You don’t have to go far to find the damning evidence of that- just review the year and a half of public exposition of their malfeasance through testimony contained in the verbatim minutes of council meetings in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.
Some we’ve spoken to have an inking that we’re being sold a bill of goods here but can’t really put their finger on it. That may be because preceding the paragraph containing the “culpability” BS was this little ditty:
“While the County believed it had viable defenses, joint and several liability applied in this case. Had the County lost at trial with the other defendants, we could have ended up having to pay almost everything, not just the percentage the jury assigned to us,” said County Attorney Alfred Castillo. “Since this case had potentially huge damages, well in excess of our insurance limits, the County and its insurance carriers believed that settling was in the best interest of the County.”
Joan Conrow smelled a rat , in her Saturday column, but understandably took the mis-directional bait in assuming the razzle-dazzle of that paragraph had anything to do with the culpability paragraph saying:
Something’s not right here. Doesn’t the state have insurance, too? And does this talk about “financial realities” mean that the county now has deeper pockets than the state?
What about former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka, who told the county inspector to lay off in his investigations of Pflueger’s illegal grading at the dam? Will she be charged for the $250,000 that the insurance doesn’t cover? Will she ever be held accountable for her deeds? Is the desire to spare her one reason why the county decided to settle out of court?
The state in fact is self insured while the county holds a policy- one for which premiums are bound to be going up by a hefty amount... something Castillo fails to mention in assessing the cost to the county.
But the fact is this has nothing to do with the state’s liability law because no law can protect government officials when they are grossly negligent or even in fact engaged in malfeasance.
Of course the “deep pockets” excuse is total bullsh-t- the state’s would even be bigger with its deeper pockets if that had any relevance whatsoever- unless of course the county was far more to blame.
But since the depositions are sealed- which we would argue in the case of state and county culpability they shouldn’t be under the sunshine and open records laws- we’ll never see the evidence... a fact Castillo is relying upon.
One question should show what a load of shibai Castillo is trying to get the press and the people to believe- apparently successfully until now.
If Castillo’s claim were to be taken seriously, apparently that there has to be some kind of state law giving the state some kind of total immunity to their own incompetence and malfeasance under all circumstances- one that doesn’t so protect the counties. If that were true- which is isn’t- how did the state come to be held responsible for any amount at all, much less the reported $1.5 million for which they settled?
Answer- of course there can’t be. It’s simply based on the responsibility of each entity- in the state’s case, regular inspection of the dams but in the county’s case, enforcement of grubbing and grading laws.
The fact is that the $7.5 million the county was assessed shows nothing if not culpability and means the actions- or inactions as the case may be- of the Kusaka Administration were more than four times worse than the state’s.
As the years have gone by most observers- especially those in Honolulu but also notably the handful of supporters and family members of Pflueger’s have filled the comment pages of the newspapers- and in the case of the latter, our email inbox- contending that the lack of state inspections means that the state should be held partially responsible- or fully in the case of Jimmyphiles.
It’s the old “oh the cops didn’t stop me from robbing that bank so they’re responsible” defense.
We don’t expect anything to satisfy those who think Pflueger can do no wrong but it makes it understandable why they never brought up the county’s part in this because that would mean that, since Pflueger himself was both involved in and the beneficiary of the local corruption he can’t claim it should relieve him of any and all liability.
But it should also give the rest of the state $1.5 million reasons to stop ignoring and laughing at local Kaua`i corruption and joking about “a separate kingdom”.
And those of you who think it’s ok because we on Kaua`i won’t have to actually pay anything but $250,000 ought to be asking about what we are paying for our insurance policy- or will be in the near future... assuming that at this point we’re even insurable.
And don’t think the bond rating people for the county’s bond float- currently being negotiated- haven’t noticed the same thing.
Or at least the county once again is relying on that premise.
Because everywhere we went this weekend all we heard was the gurgling sound of people swallowing the hook, line and sinker of Al “The Mad Hat Police” Castillo’s improbable spin on the county’s whopping close to 1/3 of the responsibility in the Ka Loko Dam break tragedy.
Instead of admitting to the scandalous behavior of Mayor Maryanne Kusaka and her Department of Public Works henchmen Cesar Portugal, Wally Kudo and Ian Costa (among others) in intentionally allowing accused murderer Jimmy Pflueger to do whatever the hell he wanted with his “lakes”, Castillo wants us to believe that that “the difference between the state’s portion of the settlement and the county’s had little to do with culpability, and instead reflected financial realities and state law regarding immunity” according to a county press release.
Ah- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am The Great and Powerful Al...
The fact is there is no immunity law that distinguishes between the gross incompetence of the state and the malfeasance of the county.
Government employees usually receive a broad immunity in performing their duties. The general rule is that as long as they aren’t unbelievably and grossly incompetent- and usually forewarned of the potential results of their incompetence- they and/or their government can’t be held financially responsible.
But even more lacking of that kind of protection is something like what occurred on Kaua`i- a criminal conspiracy among government officials to lie, cover-up and generally block enforcement of the law.
You don’t have to go far to find the damning evidence of that- just review the year and a half of public exposition of their malfeasance through testimony contained in the verbatim minutes of council meetings in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.
Some we’ve spoken to have an inking that we’re being sold a bill of goods here but can’t really put their finger on it. That may be because preceding the paragraph containing the “culpability” BS was this little ditty:
“While the County believed it had viable defenses, joint and several liability applied in this case. Had the County lost at trial with the other defendants, we could have ended up having to pay almost everything, not just the percentage the jury assigned to us,” said County Attorney Alfred Castillo. “Since this case had potentially huge damages, well in excess of our insurance limits, the County and its insurance carriers believed that settling was in the best interest of the County.”
Joan Conrow smelled a rat , in her Saturday column, but understandably took the mis-directional bait in assuming the razzle-dazzle of that paragraph had anything to do with the culpability paragraph saying:
Something’s not right here. Doesn’t the state have insurance, too? And does this talk about “financial realities” mean that the county now has deeper pockets than the state?
What about former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka, who told the county inspector to lay off in his investigations of Pflueger’s illegal grading at the dam? Will she be charged for the $250,000 that the insurance doesn’t cover? Will she ever be held accountable for her deeds? Is the desire to spare her one reason why the county decided to settle out of court?
The state in fact is self insured while the county holds a policy- one for which premiums are bound to be going up by a hefty amount... something Castillo fails to mention in assessing the cost to the county.
But the fact is this has nothing to do with the state’s liability law because no law can protect government officials when they are grossly negligent or even in fact engaged in malfeasance.
Of course the “deep pockets” excuse is total bullsh-t- the state’s would even be bigger with its deeper pockets if that had any relevance whatsoever- unless of course the county was far more to blame.
But since the depositions are sealed- which we would argue in the case of state and county culpability they shouldn’t be under the sunshine and open records laws- we’ll never see the evidence... a fact Castillo is relying upon.
One question should show what a load of shibai Castillo is trying to get the press and the people to believe- apparently successfully until now.
If Castillo’s claim were to be taken seriously, apparently that there has to be some kind of state law giving the state some kind of total immunity to their own incompetence and malfeasance under all circumstances- one that doesn’t so protect the counties. If that were true- which is isn’t- how did the state come to be held responsible for any amount at all, much less the reported $1.5 million for which they settled?
Answer- of course there can’t be. It’s simply based on the responsibility of each entity- in the state’s case, regular inspection of the dams but in the county’s case, enforcement of grubbing and grading laws.
The fact is that the $7.5 million the county was assessed shows nothing if not culpability and means the actions- or inactions as the case may be- of the Kusaka Administration were more than four times worse than the state’s.
As the years have gone by most observers- especially those in Honolulu but also notably the handful of supporters and family members of Pflueger’s have filled the comment pages of the newspapers- and in the case of the latter, our email inbox- contending that the lack of state inspections means that the state should be held partially responsible- or fully in the case of Jimmyphiles.
It’s the old “oh the cops didn’t stop me from robbing that bank so they’re responsible” defense.
We don’t expect anything to satisfy those who think Pflueger can do no wrong but it makes it understandable why they never brought up the county’s part in this because that would mean that, since Pflueger himself was both involved in and the beneficiary of the local corruption he can’t claim it should relieve him of any and all liability.
But it should also give the rest of the state $1.5 million reasons to stop ignoring and laughing at local Kaua`i corruption and joking about “a separate kingdom”.
And those of you who think it’s ok because we on Kaua`i won’t have to actually pay anything but $250,000 ought to be asking about what we are paying for our insurance policy- or will be in the near future... assuming that at this point we’re even insurable.
And don’t think the bond rating people for the county’s bond float- currently being negotiated- haven’t noticed the same thing.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
MIA
MIA: In two days it’ll be two weeks since Mayor Bernard Carvalho pulled his little Friday afternoon press release scam to flim-flam those opposed to putting the bike path on Wailua Beach before he conveniently slipped town all to avoid answering questions about the bogus, mealy-mouth lie that the new plan will put the path on the highway and take it off the beach.
That was exacerbated the next day by the gross negligence by the local newspaper in presenting a patently false headline and a misleading article – one still not corrected or clarified- repeating the misleading words of the mayor’s press release without digging deeper to get to the truth of the matter.
It’s understandable that that ace reporter Michael Levine may have been confused at first but its inexcusable that there’s been no update to inform an ill-informed public, especially since the arbitrary “comment deadline” of Feb. 25, set by the administration, has come and gone.
Other than the “he said, she said” style quote from Judy Dalton late in the original article claiming it’s still on the beach there’s been no inkling in the paper of the fact that the path will still be on the beach, leading many of not most on the island to believe that the mayor has now miraculously given in and realigned the path to keep it off the beach.
While the on-line community has been on the story with our Steaming pile on bike path the following Monday, Joan Conrow’s visual depiction Tuesday and a widely distributed letter from Dalton on Wednesday it’s been nothing but silence from the primary news source and “newspaper of record” on the island except for a letter to the editor- one that seems unsure of itself- from Wendy Raebeck of Wailua yesterday.
But while the newspaper certainly should take some of the blame for perpetuating a lie it’s even more baffling as to what happened to the dozens of activists who brought the issue of burials to light and the hundreds if not thousands who were outraged enough to get the mayor to put out his bogus realignment announcement.
Were they similarly bamboozled? Have they just given up?
The officials in this county have shown that they will stonewall, obfuscate and even outright lie in order to get people to just go away so that they keep their corrupt little party going. And when we give up- as many apparently have in this instance- we become just another guard at the gates of the minotaur’s labyrinth.
--------
We’ll be taking a long weekend again unless something really sets our hair on fire- see ya Monday.
That was exacerbated the next day by the gross negligence by the local newspaper in presenting a patently false headline and a misleading article – one still not corrected or clarified- repeating the misleading words of the mayor’s press release without digging deeper to get to the truth of the matter.
It’s understandable that that ace reporter Michael Levine may have been confused at first but its inexcusable that there’s been no update to inform an ill-informed public, especially since the arbitrary “comment deadline” of Feb. 25, set by the administration, has come and gone.
Other than the “he said, she said” style quote from Judy Dalton late in the original article claiming it’s still on the beach there’s been no inkling in the paper of the fact that the path will still be on the beach, leading many of not most on the island to believe that the mayor has now miraculously given in and realigned the path to keep it off the beach.
While the on-line community has been on the story with our Steaming pile on bike path the following Monday, Joan Conrow’s visual depiction Tuesday and a widely distributed letter from Dalton on Wednesday it’s been nothing but silence from the primary news source and “newspaper of record” on the island except for a letter to the editor- one that seems unsure of itself- from Wendy Raebeck of Wailua yesterday.
But while the newspaper certainly should take some of the blame for perpetuating a lie it’s even more baffling as to what happened to the dozens of activists who brought the issue of burials to light and the hundreds if not thousands who were outraged enough to get the mayor to put out his bogus realignment announcement.
Were they similarly bamboozled? Have they just given up?
The officials in this county have shown that they will stonewall, obfuscate and even outright lie in order to get people to just go away so that they keep their corrupt little party going. And when we give up- as many apparently have in this instance- we become just another guard at the gates of the minotaur’s labyrinth.
--------
We’ll be taking a long weekend again unless something really sets our hair on fire- see ya Monday.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
REAL OPTIONS
REAL OPTIONS: As our readers- and anyone who’s seen a council meeting lately- know, one of the more power-drunk county officials is often demented County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo who last week thought it was within his purview to order someone testifying before the council to remove his hat.
Castillo is the latest in line of CA’s that have acted as political hacks and stooges for the council and mayor, following in the “law is what we say it is” footsteps of Hartwell Blake, Matthew Pyun and Lani Nakazawa who is currently serving Mayor Bernard Carvalho as his own private attorney and political “advisor”.
We’ve called for a charter amendment to elect the county attorney since the current 10-year-long charter review commission (CRC) first met in 2004 but it has escaped their radar screen due partially to the fact that the post-2006 members don’t seem capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time except for regurgitating an old seven-time rejected amendment for four-year council terms and other assorted Titanic seating-chart tinkering.
Today we received an advance copy of a letter from CRC watchdog Horace Stoessel making the case for an elected CA with a particularly pithy set of choices.
Here it is.
OPTIONS
The county charter provides for the county attorney to be appointed by the mayor, with council approval, and to serve as the county’s chief legal adviser and legal representative.
The charter also mandates that the Charter Commission “study and review the operation of the county government under this charter” and propose amendments to the charter that it deems necessary or desirable.
Based on my observations of government operations and study of the charter, if the commission honors its mandate it has two options for proposing amendments regarding the county attorney’s office.
If the commission wants to bring the operations of the office into line with the charter, it should propose that the county attorney, like the prosecuting attorney, be elected for a four-year term, thereby freeing the office from having to serve not one but two political masters who are sometimes at odds with each other.
However, if the commission deems that the proper course is to bring the charter into line with current practice, it should propose adding a phrase to make the charter read, “chief legal adviser, legal representative, and political enforcer.”
For reasons too obvious to require spelling out, I favor a proposal for a four-year elected term.
Horace Stoessel
Castillo is the latest in line of CA’s that have acted as political hacks and stooges for the council and mayor, following in the “law is what we say it is” footsteps of Hartwell Blake, Matthew Pyun and Lani Nakazawa who is currently serving Mayor Bernard Carvalho as his own private attorney and political “advisor”.
We’ve called for a charter amendment to elect the county attorney since the current 10-year-long charter review commission (CRC) first met in 2004 but it has escaped their radar screen due partially to the fact that the post-2006 members don’t seem capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time except for regurgitating an old seven-time rejected amendment for four-year council terms and other assorted Titanic seating-chart tinkering.
Today we received an advance copy of a letter from CRC watchdog Horace Stoessel making the case for an elected CA with a particularly pithy set of choices.
Here it is.
OPTIONS
The county charter provides for the county attorney to be appointed by the mayor, with council approval, and to serve as the county’s chief legal adviser and legal representative.
The charter also mandates that the Charter Commission “study and review the operation of the county government under this charter” and propose amendments to the charter that it deems necessary or desirable.
Based on my observations of government operations and study of the charter, if the commission honors its mandate it has two options for proposing amendments regarding the county attorney’s office.
If the commission wants to bring the operations of the office into line with the charter, it should propose that the county attorney, like the prosecuting attorney, be elected for a four-year term, thereby freeing the office from having to serve not one but two political masters who are sometimes at odds with each other.
However, if the commission deems that the proper course is to bring the charter into line with current practice, it should propose adding a phrase to make the charter read, “chief legal adviser, legal representative, and political enforcer.”
For reasons too obvious to require spelling out, I favor a proposal for a four-year elected term.
Horace Stoessel
Monday, January 25, 2010
(PNN) COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST
COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST
(PNN)The county council continued to flout county charter provisions and state open meeting and records laws last Wednesday in approving two more board and commission (B&C) members despite a request for deferral by Councilperson Lani Kawahara.
Kawahara said that the Office of Board and Commissions (OBC) is currently working on a process for releasing properly redacted applications of prospective B&C members awaiting confirmation but Chair Kaipo Asing refused to allow her to make a motion to defer approval until they can be made available to the public before confirmation as the Office of Information Practices (OIP) has required.
Despite detailed testimony to the contrary from Rob Abrew who has been championing the issue for the past month County Attorney Al Castillo told the council there was no problem with the process and they could go ahead and vote on the confirmations, saying the OIP “are not necessarily right all the time” citing recent court cases won by the county against the OIP.
The OIP is charged by the state with oversight of the state’s open meeting (HRS 92 Section I) and records (HRS 92F) laws.
Kawahara asked Castillo “do you believe we’ve done due diligence in providing the public the information that’s supposed to be made public within a reasonable amount of time... so the public can comment (on nominees)?”
In response Castillo continually referenced “these fine people” awaiting confirmation saying to Kawahara that no violation of law has occurred and that “nothing should give you pause to question the process”.
Agreeing that all the applicants are all “fine people” Kawahara said that wasn’t the point of questioning the process for confirming the almost two dozen applicants that have been recently processed.
“I don’t have any confidence that the public was able to get information they would have needed to make comments on those nominees” she said.
Kawahara did however leave some hope that when the final two nominees come up for confirmation in two weeks the information might be forthcoming saying “I’ve worked with the offices involved (to assure) that this procedure is much clearer in the future.
“I was requesting that we would honor what will be going on in the future” she noted adding “Give and take between the (council and the) public is how we make decisions, not in a vacuum”
Councilmember Tim Bynum said he appreciated Abrew’s work on the matter and Kawahara’s follow-up saying that “good questions were raised” and noted that B&C administrator John Isobe “has already responded” and that “going forward we will have a clarified process” for redacting phone numbers and addresses and releasing the rest of the applications to the public when the agenda is published- as OIP told the council to do back in January 2005.
That opinion led the council to move interviews with prospective B&C members out of executive session and into the public purview although they still refuse to televise those interviews.
Abrew had requested the information contained in the applications - including employment, experience and potential conflicts of interest- in writing on Jan. 12 but had not received a written response as of this morning, well exceeding the 10 day window for response to a record request under the state law.
The matter was brought to light by Abrew after noting that county charter provisions require that no B&C have more than a “bare majority” of members of any particular political party.
It is still unknown if the new process will include that information and how those memberships- or lack thereof- will be confirmed with the parties.
For more background information see previous PNN reports:
Monday, January 11, 2010(PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGINGFriday, January 8, 2010(PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS
(PNN)The county council continued to flout county charter provisions and state open meeting and records laws last Wednesday in approving two more board and commission (B&C) members despite a request for deferral by Councilperson Lani Kawahara.
Kawahara said that the Office of Board and Commissions (OBC) is currently working on a process for releasing properly redacted applications of prospective B&C members awaiting confirmation but Chair Kaipo Asing refused to allow her to make a motion to defer approval until they can be made available to the public before confirmation as the Office of Information Practices (OIP) has required.
Despite detailed testimony to the contrary from Rob Abrew who has been championing the issue for the past month County Attorney Al Castillo told the council there was no problem with the process and they could go ahead and vote on the confirmations, saying the OIP “are not necessarily right all the time” citing recent court cases won by the county against the OIP.
The OIP is charged by the state with oversight of the state’s open meeting (HRS 92 Section I) and records (HRS 92F) laws.
Kawahara asked Castillo “do you believe we’ve done due diligence in providing the public the information that’s supposed to be made public within a reasonable amount of time... so the public can comment (on nominees)?”
In response Castillo continually referenced “these fine people” awaiting confirmation saying to Kawahara that no violation of law has occurred and that “nothing should give you pause to question the process”.
Agreeing that all the applicants are all “fine people” Kawahara said that wasn’t the point of questioning the process for confirming the almost two dozen applicants that have been recently processed.
“I don’t have any confidence that the public was able to get information they would have needed to make comments on those nominees” she said.
Kawahara did however leave some hope that when the final two nominees come up for confirmation in two weeks the information might be forthcoming saying “I’ve worked with the offices involved (to assure) that this procedure is much clearer in the future.
“I was requesting that we would honor what will be going on in the future” she noted adding “Give and take between the (council and the) public is how we make decisions, not in a vacuum”
Councilmember Tim Bynum said he appreciated Abrew’s work on the matter and Kawahara’s follow-up saying that “good questions were raised” and noted that B&C administrator John Isobe “has already responded” and that “going forward we will have a clarified process” for redacting phone numbers and addresses and releasing the rest of the applications to the public when the agenda is published- as OIP told the council to do back in January 2005.
That opinion led the council to move interviews with prospective B&C members out of executive session and into the public purview although they still refuse to televise those interviews.
Abrew had requested the information contained in the applications - including employment, experience and potential conflicts of interest- in writing on Jan. 12 but had not received a written response as of this morning, well exceeding the 10 day window for response to a record request under the state law.
The matter was brought to light by Abrew after noting that county charter provisions require that no B&C have more than a “bare majority” of members of any particular political party.
It is still unknown if the new process will include that information and how those memberships- or lack thereof- will be confirmed with the parties.
For more background information see previous PNN reports:
Monday, January 11, 2010(PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGINGFriday, January 8, 2010(PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS
Friday, January 22, 2010
LAPPIN’ IT RIGHT UP
LAPPIN’ IT RIGHT UP: Intellectuals and philosophy mavens can spend hours in sophomoric sophistry asking each other the question “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?”.
Let us clue you in- of course it freakin’ does... what are you a freakin’ moron?” (it seems to be that kind of week).
The ease with which people are bamboozled and bewildered comes to mind because what nobody seems to want to admit in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations to flood elections with cash is that if Americans weren’t too-stupid-to-live and as easily swayed as the mythical soundless trees they wouldn’t be influenced by all the bogus, distracting advertising bought by company capital.
So which is it? Are “American voters are smart enough to see though all the nonsense” as some suck-up pols suggest? Or is it that “you can never underestimate the intelligence of the American voter.”
Only the silent tree toppling proponents could pick the former.
But what can you expect from a country that can’t tell that a “person” is a flesh and blood human being and not a piece of paper with the words “corporate charter” written on it?
Corporate personhood goes back to an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and this absurd notion is behind yesterday’s Orwellian “free speech for those who can’t speak” piece of true fascist flack.
Many in the progressive movement are busy today promoting a narrow constitutional amendment dealing with banning corporate cash in elections but a small cadre including Howard Zinn, Bill Moyer, Tom Hayden, Jim Hightower, Medea Benjamin and dozens of others have put together a “Move To Amend” web site and petition to “firmly establish... that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights”.
But then again to think that a constitutional amendment under what passes for democracy in the USA Inc. is in the realm of reality probably means joining that confederacy of dunces who debates noiseless arboreal thickets.
Let us clue you in- of course it freakin’ does... what are you a freakin’ moron?” (it seems to be that kind of week).
The ease with which people are bamboozled and bewildered comes to mind because what nobody seems to want to admit in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations to flood elections with cash is that if Americans weren’t too-stupid-to-live and as easily swayed as the mythical soundless trees they wouldn’t be influenced by all the bogus, distracting advertising bought by company capital.
So which is it? Are “American voters are smart enough to see though all the nonsense” as some suck-up pols suggest? Or is it that “you can never underestimate the intelligence of the American voter.”
Only the silent tree toppling proponents could pick the former.
But what can you expect from a country that can’t tell that a “person” is a flesh and blood human being and not a piece of paper with the words “corporate charter” written on it?
Corporate personhood goes back to an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and this absurd notion is behind yesterday’s Orwellian “free speech for those who can’t speak” piece of true fascist flack.
Many in the progressive movement are busy today promoting a narrow constitutional amendment dealing with banning corporate cash in elections but a small cadre including Howard Zinn, Bill Moyer, Tom Hayden, Jim Hightower, Medea Benjamin and dozens of others have put together a “Move To Amend” web site and petition to “firmly establish... that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights”.
But then again to think that a constitutional amendment under what passes for democracy in the USA Inc. is in the realm of reality probably means joining that confederacy of dunces who debates noiseless arboreal thickets.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
COMING HOME TO ROOST
COMING HOME TO ROOST: It never fails to amaze us how the level of satisfaction of a “we told you so” moment is inversely proportional to the time elapsed.
Nevertheless it’s another somewhat empty cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face victory today as "Earthjustice" is finally going to sue KIUC for it’s diligent lack of action in protecting endangered Hawaiian petrel and Newell’s shearwater, according to an article in today’s local newspaper.
As the article reports, according to a press release:
(Earthjustice attorney David) Henkin said a “series of recommendations” — such as lowering power lines, attaching lines to bridges, switching from a vertical array of wires to a “traditional” T configuration and planting trees which shield lines — provided to Kaua`i Electric in 1995 have yet to be taken up by KIUC.
And surprise-surprise- KIUC’s response has been to file for permits to continue to kill birds rather than acting on the recommendations.
But whether through the cost of complying with the law or the “$50,000... that each violation of seabird take is subject to” it’s going to cost co-op members a pretty penny.
The irksome part is that we shouldn’t have to be paying for it.
It all harkens back to the original purchase from Kaua`i Electric and the price paid which, even after it was lowered once was still quite obviously as much as twice what it was worth.
And one of the liabilities that the “nitpickers” predicted would come back to bite us in the ass was that very 1995 list of unfollowed recommendations.
As a matter of fact it was at that point that the people fighting for a reduced price were first called “nitpickers” by then Mayor Maryanne Kusaka who had been busy flip-flopping her Republican butt on the purchase because the original board was comprised of Democratic machine honchos and whatever they wanted she didn’t.
The original purchasing board and their slick-talking honcho Gregg Gardiner and his stooge Walt Barnes simply ignored the all research, facts and figures presented by the about a dozen members of the public including the “birds liability” and the facts about members’ potential liability for the cleanup of the toxic waste dump underneath the `Ele`ele power plant, as PNN reported in 2002.
Stay tuned- there are plenty of other little surprises-on-the-rug to come as KIUC continues the be the gift that keeps on taking. As some said at the time of the pig-in-a-poke, “elephant?- what elephant?” purchase, they should have paid us to take KE off their hands.
Nevertheless it’s another somewhat empty cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face victory today as "Earthjustice" is finally going to sue KIUC for it’s diligent lack of action in protecting endangered Hawaiian petrel and Newell’s shearwater, according to an article in today’s local newspaper.
As the article reports, according to a press release:
(Earthjustice attorney David) Henkin said a “series of recommendations” — such as lowering power lines, attaching lines to bridges, switching from a vertical array of wires to a “traditional” T configuration and planting trees which shield lines — provided to Kaua`i Electric in 1995 have yet to be taken up by KIUC.
And surprise-surprise- KIUC’s response has been to file for permits to continue to kill birds rather than acting on the recommendations.
But whether through the cost of complying with the law or the “$50,000... that each violation of seabird take is subject to” it’s going to cost co-op members a pretty penny.
The irksome part is that we shouldn’t have to be paying for it.
It all harkens back to the original purchase from Kaua`i Electric and the price paid which, even after it was lowered once was still quite obviously as much as twice what it was worth.
And one of the liabilities that the “nitpickers” predicted would come back to bite us in the ass was that very 1995 list of unfollowed recommendations.
As a matter of fact it was at that point that the people fighting for a reduced price were first called “nitpickers” by then Mayor Maryanne Kusaka who had been busy flip-flopping her Republican butt on the purchase because the original board was comprised of Democratic machine honchos and whatever they wanted she didn’t.
The original purchasing board and their slick-talking honcho Gregg Gardiner and his stooge Walt Barnes simply ignored the all research, facts and figures presented by the about a dozen members of the public including the “birds liability” and the facts about members’ potential liability for the cleanup of the toxic waste dump underneath the `Ele`ele power plant, as PNN reported in 2002.
Stay tuned- there are plenty of other little surprises-on-the-rug to come as KIUC continues the be the gift that keeps on taking. As some said at the time of the pig-in-a-poke, “elephant?- what elephant?” purchase, they should have paid us to take KE off their hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
