WHERE’S DOROTHY LAMOURE WHEN YOU NEED HER: One thing you’ve got to give the guardians at the gates of county council information: they don’t need Bing and Bob to guide us down the Road to Ignorance.
When it comes to using underhanded and unscrupulous methodologies that are rarely deciphered in time to do anything about it, they take a back seat to none.
But the clues are there for any forensic document reader if you know what to look for and are ready to do a little work to find out what the heck is going on.
So last Thursday when we received and examined the agenda for today’s council meeting this stood out as an executive session (ES) item begging for explanation and exposition.
The meat of it reads:
The Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to discuss legal issues pertaining to the implementation of Ordinance 885.
Of course no one knows what ordinance 885 is.
When a bill becomes an ordinance it is given a number. But since the Kaua`i County Code essentially remains a secret document- with no on-line version and the only way to see it being to request it by number even though finding out the number is nearly impossible- with the topic, for the uninitiated, remaining meaningless.
They also cleverly post the agenda late on Thursdays, often after official office hours, so with “furlough Fridays” the earliest one can call and find out anything is Mondays, a mere 48 hours before the meeting. That makes notifying others- so as to gather a crowd to testify- a Herculean effort.
But apparently one of those that worked tirelessly to see the bill that became Ordinance 885 pass also actually reads each week’s agenda and wondered, with us, what 885 was all about.
We’ll let Pat Gegan’s letter to the mayor and the council (edited for spelling) speak for itself since we could not say it better.
Subject: Kauai's Bag Bill Under Attack???? HELP!
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:48:52 -0400
Dear Zerowasters, Apollo Kauai Members, County Council Members and Honorable Mayor:
After pulling up the Council agenda last night and a quick call to Council Services this AM for clarification (since Kauai County doesn't want to make it too easy for citizens to get info by putting OUR information on the internet....) I began to get worried.........
I am confused and concerned by tomorrow's Council Agenda, specifically the Executive Session item #2. The item in question is Ordinance #885 which is the Plastic Bag Ban that is scheduled to be in place starting this January when Maui is also doing the same.
Why is an executive session needed to discuss the Plastic Bag Ban??? As I recall the issue was deferred multiple times as the county attorney and the council were trying to find the "correct" language for the definition of what constitutes a "plastic bag". Now - Only 3 months before implementation - the attorney and council want to meet behind closed doors to discuss this issue. What could be the "...powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the council as they relate to this agenda item."? It has been over a year since the bill passed and the ordinance was signed.
What could the issue be??? The ordinance allows no single use plastic bags with petroleum products to be given away in retail establishments . This was meeting the needs of what we wanted, 1) Less rubbish for the landfill that lasts for a long time w/o breaking down, 2) less opala flying around our garden Island and harming our wildlife, 3) No new feed for the floating Pacific plastic patch, and 4) less use of petroleum based products. Section 1 of the Ordinance below states it better than I can:
"The Council of the County of Kauai finds and declares that to preserve health, safety, welfare and the scenic beauty of Kauai, the distribution of plastic bags should be regulated and prohibited."
Seems very clear to me - I would like to believe that when the council and the mayor propose and sign a bill into an ordinance that the legislation has some meaning. Why hasn't Kauai county government taken an active role in the implementation of this legislation like Maui appears to (look at the Maui county website dealing with implementation of their bag ban - http://www.co.maui.hi.us/index.aspx?NID=1688 )?
Going forward:
-I will be at the council meeting tomorrow to address my concerns,
-I humbly would ask for others to let your council members know how you feel about the bag ban as it was signed - if you have time (see email addresses above),
-I personally vow to vote against any council member who tries to change the Ordinance or the implementation date as it stands (and I will actively try to influence others similarly) .
I would appreciate feedback. I am concerned especially since it is in executive session and can only hope my concerns are unfounded.
Humbly,
Pat Gegen
According to a source who spoke to a councilperson, County Attorney Al Castillo has now decided that his own language- which he insisted on during the council sessions on the bill- regarding the "no petroleum content" requirement is now somehow problematic.
Of course it’s too late for you to go down there and insist on a public airing of the issues involved or demand they leave the bill alone- by the time we post this the meeting will be over.
Why it’s almost as if they planned it that way.
---------
For those interested in more information on Waldorf “Wally” Wilson whereabouts and related issues, please read Joan Conrow’s interview today with KPD Chief Darryl Perry.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
LOOK OUT KID, THEY KEEP IT ALL HID
LOOK OUT KID, THEY KEEP IT ALL HID: Trying to decipher the few Kaua`i county documents that are available at the web site is kind of like doing a Sudoku puzzle. They somehow add up to something but it takes a lot of work to figure out exactly what the sum is.
But since we committed yesterday to filling in the blanks through the use of the clues the county left, we’ve gotten a hold a text copy of what appears to be the thus-far “secret” proposed county charter amendments (see pp 12-18) we’ll all be voting on on November 2.
Apparently, although there’s no indication that they were ever approved by the Charter Review Commissions, a September 3 letter from County Clerk Peter Nakamura to state Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago transmitted seven questions, in time for them to be included on the actual ballot.
While they appear to be “official” we’ll have to wait and see when and if they were approved, not that the county won’t go ahead with them illegally anyway if they weren’t.
We’ll go over them briefly here with deeper analysis to come.
The first is the same old question that’s been asked and answered- in the negative- innumerable times but for some reason it’s on the ballot again. The ballot question reads
"Shall the term of office for councilmembers be extended from two to four years with a limit of two consecutive four year terms?"
When will these people accept that we like being able to recall our council every two years. They’re unaccountable enough already without only having to worry about the what the electorate thinks every four years.
We want to see an amendment saying that you can’t propose the same amendment more than once every 10 years.
The second is a response to the call for a county manager and eliminates the position of administrative assistant and creates a position of “Managing Director”.
The question on the ballot will be:
"Shall the Mayor's Administrative Assistant, whose title shall be changed to Managing Director, be required to have appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties?"
Here’s the exact language to be added to the charter, describing those “job qualifications” and “duties”
The mayor shall appoint and may remove a managing director. The managing director shall be a citizen of the United States not less than thirty (30) years of age and a resident elector of the county at least three years immediately prior to his appointment. The managing director shall have at least five years experience in an administrative or managerial position with at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in public administration, business or a related field.
A. Powers, Duties and Functions. Except as otherwise provided and under the supervision of the Mayor, the managing director shall:
(1) Serve as the mayor's principal administrative aide.
(2) Oversee the administrative functioning of all administrative departments.
(3) Prescribe standards of administrative practice to be followed and evaluate the management and performance of all administrative departments under the director's oversight.
(4) Attend meetings of the council and its committees upon request and provide information and reports as they may require.
(5) Perform all other duties as required by the charter or assigned by the mayor.
B. The salary for the managing director shall be set pursuant to Article
XXIX of this Charter.
Better than nothing.
The third is a new one on us and we’ll have to take a good look at it to figure it out. The question on the ballot asks:
"Shall the Charter provisions relating to centralized purchasing and disposition of surplus property be changed to conform with State law?"
The wording contains many additions and deletions and can be viewed on p 15 of the pdf linked above.
Number four is pretty self explanatory and the ballot question will read:
"Shall the dollar limit without competitive bidding for contracts with County officers, employees or firms in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest, be increased from $500 to $1,000?"
On first blush unless someone can make a pretty good case for it anything that makes corruption easier- as this would by allowing people to get paid twice as much by the county without triggering a competitive bid- $1000 rather than the current $500. If anything what's been called “the $500 loophole”- with the law having been avoided through serial $500 contracts- should be being plugged.
Number five is pretty self explanatory and reads:
"Shall the County extend from six months to one year the timeframe prohibiting the County from entering into a contract with a former County employee or a firm that is represented by a former County employee, for those contracts where the former County employee participated in the subject matter while employed with the County?"
This sounds like an improvement although we’d like to see two years or more to stop the “revolving door” which is one of the most corrupt of practices in the county and elsewhere.
Sixth is an amendment that apparently plugs a loophole on disclosures and asks
"Shall any employee delegated to act on behalf of the Director or Deputy Director of Finance be required to file a disclosure statement with the County Board of Ethics?"
We’re not sure what the problem is but apparently some in the finance department can act for the director and don’t have to disclose their potential conflicts of interest. It sounds good but we’ll have to take a good look at it in total.
Finally number seven is one we’ve been expecting and we’re ready to fight tooth and nail. It asks:
"Shall the time in which the County Board of Ethics has to render advisory opinions be extended from 30 days to 45 days, which opinions shall be binding on the Board, unless changed or revoked by the Board?"
The incompetence and even malfeasance of the Board of Ethics (BOE) has been well documented in this space (see left bar for our special report or click the link above for all our coverage of the BOE).
Why can't they make their decisions in a timely manner? To increase the time allotment just gives them more time to fumble and futz around trying to misread the plain reading of the charter and law. If they need to call special meetings, so be it. If they don’t have enough people for a quorum, get people who can show up.
An extra 15 days won’t really help these people. Thirty days has been plenty for over 40 years and it’s only the appointees under this and the last administration that seem to have a problem getting these advisory opinions done promptly instead of throwing the person- and sometimes the county- into a crisis because they can't decide what the law says... or more often just don’t want to deliver the bad news or are in the same conflict themselves.
Well that’s the seven- read ‘em and weep. Maybe sometime before the election we’ll get the official word.
But since we committed yesterday to filling in the blanks through the use of the clues the county left, we’ve gotten a hold a text copy of what appears to be the thus-far “secret” proposed county charter amendments (see pp 12-18) we’ll all be voting on on November 2.
Apparently, although there’s no indication that they were ever approved by the Charter Review Commissions, a September 3 letter from County Clerk Peter Nakamura to state Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago transmitted seven questions, in time for them to be included on the actual ballot.
While they appear to be “official” we’ll have to wait and see when and if they were approved, not that the county won’t go ahead with them illegally anyway if they weren’t.
We’ll go over them briefly here with deeper analysis to come.
The first is the same old question that’s been asked and answered- in the negative- innumerable times but for some reason it’s on the ballot again. The ballot question reads
"Shall the term of office for councilmembers be extended from two to four years with a limit of two consecutive four year terms?"
When will these people accept that we like being able to recall our council every two years. They’re unaccountable enough already without only having to worry about the what the electorate thinks every four years.
We want to see an amendment saying that you can’t propose the same amendment more than once every 10 years.
The second is a response to the call for a county manager and eliminates the position of administrative assistant and creates a position of “Managing Director”.
The question on the ballot will be:
"Shall the Mayor's Administrative Assistant, whose title shall be changed to Managing Director, be required to have appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties?"
Here’s the exact language to be added to the charter, describing those “job qualifications” and “duties”
The mayor shall appoint and may remove a managing director. The managing director shall be a citizen of the United States not less than thirty (30) years of age and a resident elector of the county at least three years immediately prior to his appointment. The managing director shall have at least five years experience in an administrative or managerial position with at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in public administration, business or a related field.
A. Powers, Duties and Functions. Except as otherwise provided and under the supervision of the Mayor, the managing director shall:
(1) Serve as the mayor's principal administrative aide.
(2) Oversee the administrative functioning of all administrative departments.
(3) Prescribe standards of administrative practice to be followed and evaluate the management and performance of all administrative departments under the director's oversight.
(4) Attend meetings of the council and its committees upon request and provide information and reports as they may require.
(5) Perform all other duties as required by the charter or assigned by the mayor.
B. The salary for the managing director shall be set pursuant to Article
XXIX of this Charter.
Better than nothing.
The third is a new one on us and we’ll have to take a good look at it to figure it out. The question on the ballot asks:
"Shall the Charter provisions relating to centralized purchasing and disposition of surplus property be changed to conform with State law?"
The wording contains many additions and deletions and can be viewed on p 15 of the pdf linked above.
Number four is pretty self explanatory and the ballot question will read:
"Shall the dollar limit without competitive bidding for contracts with County officers, employees or firms in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest, be increased from $500 to $1,000?"
On first blush unless someone can make a pretty good case for it anything that makes corruption easier- as this would by allowing people to get paid twice as much by the county without triggering a competitive bid- $1000 rather than the current $500. If anything what's been called “the $500 loophole”- with the law having been avoided through serial $500 contracts- should be being plugged.
Number five is pretty self explanatory and reads:
"Shall the County extend from six months to one year the timeframe prohibiting the County from entering into a contract with a former County employee or a firm that is represented by a former County employee, for those contracts where the former County employee participated in the subject matter while employed with the County?"
This sounds like an improvement although we’d like to see two years or more to stop the “revolving door” which is one of the most corrupt of practices in the county and elsewhere.
Sixth is an amendment that apparently plugs a loophole on disclosures and asks
"Shall any employee delegated to act on behalf of the Director or Deputy Director of Finance be required to file a disclosure statement with the County Board of Ethics?"
We’re not sure what the problem is but apparently some in the finance department can act for the director and don’t have to disclose their potential conflicts of interest. It sounds good but we’ll have to take a good look at it in total.
Finally number seven is one we’ve been expecting and we’re ready to fight tooth and nail. It asks:
"Shall the time in which the County Board of Ethics has to render advisory opinions be extended from 30 days to 45 days, which opinions shall be binding on the Board, unless changed or revoked by the Board?"
The incompetence and even malfeasance of the Board of Ethics (BOE) has been well documented in this space (see left bar for our special report or click the link above for all our coverage of the BOE).
Why can't they make their decisions in a timely manner? To increase the time allotment just gives them more time to fumble and futz around trying to misread the plain reading of the charter and law. If they need to call special meetings, so be it. If they don’t have enough people for a quorum, get people who can show up.
An extra 15 days won’t really help these people. Thirty days has been plenty for over 40 years and it’s only the appointees under this and the last administration that seem to have a problem getting these advisory opinions done promptly instead of throwing the person- and sometimes the county- into a crisis because they can't decide what the law says... or more often just don’t want to deliver the bad news or are in the same conflict themselves.
Well that’s the seven- read ‘em and weep. Maybe sometime before the election we’ll get the official word.
Monday, September 27, 2010
WAAAIT FOR IT.....
WAAAIT FOR IT.....: The Hawai`i Government Employee’s Association (HGEA) endorsements are out (thanks to Ian Lind for posting them) and they say more about Kaua`i in who and what doesn’t appear in them than what does.
Glaringly absent is any endorsement in the 15th House district where incumbent “Democrat” Jimmy Tokioka is facing off against Republican Larry Fillhart, the quotes around Democrat possibly explaining the endorsement.
Tokioka was a Republican before switching when he ran for Ezra Kanoho’s old seat and voted like one during his days on the Kaua`i County Council.
While Dee Morikawa in the 16th and Mina Morita in the 14th got the nods apparently Tokioka didn’t even get the “just because you’re a Democrat now” pick.
In the council race only four of the five incumbents running were deemed acceptable with buffoonish business shill Dickie Chang failing to make the grade for obvious reasons.
Less obvious was why former Mayor and Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura didn’t make the list while everybody’s darling- including the usual big-bucks special-interests- newcomer Nadine Nakamura along with former Councilperson Mel Rapozo getting a checkmark.
Is it a long standing grudge from her mayoral days when she tried to shake the county workers out of their slumbers or her more recent attempts to make everybody happy and so pleasing no one?
But the one thing missing from the Kaua`i endorsements- something that’s listed for all the other islands- is their recommendations for county charter amendments.
The reasons apparently is, incredibly enough, in an election that is five weeks from tomorrow the county has not finalize and announced the changes proposed by the Charter Review Commission.
A check of the CRC’s web page finds nothing, as does a check of the county’s elections page. To find the proposed amendments that will have apparently gotten final approval at today’s CRC meeting, one has to look at the agenda for the meeting since the last meeting minutes posted are those of July 26th.
It’s usually confusing enough to figure out what the charter amendments say and mean, as evidenced by last election’s trick question that removed the county’s “stricter than the state’s” sunshine guidelines under the guise of “conforming to the state sunshine law” (wmphasis added).
If this year’s questions don’t appear soon in the “newspaper of record” soon we’ll be doing their job for them again later this week- notwithstanding the way they hilariously and inappropriately editorialized this weekend about how they:
continue to utilize our resources to the best of our ability in our ongoing effort to hold our elected officials and other powerful players accountable (and) recognize the wide-ranging role the local newspaper plays in the community and we consider this responsibility of utmost importance.
Between the county and the local newspaper it’s apparently a race to the bottom to see who can best keep us un and ill-informed.
Glaringly absent is any endorsement in the 15th House district where incumbent “Democrat” Jimmy Tokioka is facing off against Republican Larry Fillhart, the quotes around Democrat possibly explaining the endorsement.
Tokioka was a Republican before switching when he ran for Ezra Kanoho’s old seat and voted like one during his days on the Kaua`i County Council.
While Dee Morikawa in the 16th and Mina Morita in the 14th got the nods apparently Tokioka didn’t even get the “just because you’re a Democrat now” pick.
In the council race only four of the five incumbents running were deemed acceptable with buffoonish business shill Dickie Chang failing to make the grade for obvious reasons.
Less obvious was why former Mayor and Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura didn’t make the list while everybody’s darling- including the usual big-bucks special-interests- newcomer Nadine Nakamura along with former Councilperson Mel Rapozo getting a checkmark.
Is it a long standing grudge from her mayoral days when she tried to shake the county workers out of their slumbers or her more recent attempts to make everybody happy and so pleasing no one?
But the one thing missing from the Kaua`i endorsements- something that’s listed for all the other islands- is their recommendations for county charter amendments.
The reasons apparently is, incredibly enough, in an election that is five weeks from tomorrow the county has not finalize and announced the changes proposed by the Charter Review Commission.
A check of the CRC’s web page finds nothing, as does a check of the county’s elections page. To find the proposed amendments that will have apparently gotten final approval at today’s CRC meeting, one has to look at the agenda for the meeting since the last meeting minutes posted are those of July 26th.
It’s usually confusing enough to figure out what the charter amendments say and mean, as evidenced by last election’s trick question that removed the county’s “stricter than the state’s” sunshine guidelines under the guise of “conforming to the state sunshine law” (wmphasis added).
If this year’s questions don’t appear soon in the “newspaper of record” soon we’ll be doing their job for them again later this week- notwithstanding the way they hilariously and inappropriately editorialized this weekend about how they:
continue to utilize our resources to the best of our ability in our ongoing effort to hold our elected officials and other powerful players accountable (and) recognize the wide-ranging role the local newspaper plays in the community and we consider this responsibility of utmost importance.
Between the county and the local newspaper it’s apparently a race to the bottom to see who can best keep us un and ill-informed.
Friday, September 24, 2010
CHECKING FOR LEAKS
CHECKING FOR LEAKS: You know it’s a slow news day when Starvertiser political reporter Derrick DePledge’s blog has nothing better to talk about than the latest phony web site scam site from GOP wacko Eric Ryan.
But, although you have to look for it, the first article from new local newspaper reporter Vanessa Van Voorhis (wasn’t that a character in Archie comics?) has a few revelations.
The first is that she has obviously got the message as to why the last business “reporter” (note the position has been downgraded from “editor”) Coco Zickos was fired so, as her first entry she scrambled her butt down to the Lihu`e Business Association’s monthly meeting, the type of thing Zickos admitted she neglected to do enough of during her stint, saying it was reason #1 for her exit.
But then there’s the end of the article in which Van Voorhis is listed as business AND environmental editor, the latter of which, according to Zickos, was added to her job description at her request- a position which she was told she spent too much time on at the expense of the former.
But the big news, if true, is buried in the 10th paragraph and 325 words into the piece covering a talk by Department of Water (DOW) Manager and Chief Engineer David Craddick.
After talking about projects and pipes and other mundane stuff we hear a statistic that can’t possibly be right- but then again might be.
Quoting Craddick, Van Voorhis writes:
DOW is Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative’s No. 1 customer, using approximately 40 percent of all KIUC’s generation.
Forty percent?.. of all the electricity used on the island? That raises way too many mind-boggling questions.
Something has got to be haywire, especially since for years we’ve been told by the water department that gravity-fed, natural springs are the primary source of our water and that, other than the new surface water in Lihu`e, it’s the way the rest of the island gets its water.
But it appears it might be so because she also writes
When asked about the option of solar-driven energy for pumps, Craddick said it would “require acres and acres of solar panels to power just one pump,” and is therefore not a feasible option.
Now we don’t have an engineering degree but what kind of pump needs “acres and acres of solar panels”- or 3/5th of the islands electricity output- to run?
Then, as if it were almost a joke, the penultimate paragraph in the article reads:
(Craddick) added that customers should anticipate about a 25-percent increase in water bills over the next three years. “We’re doing a rate study right now,” he said, “and we should have the results November or December. Then we’ll know what we need to do.”
Psst... we’ve got a suggestion- start with finding some more efficient pumps. Or at least tell us whose brother-in-law is supplying them.
---------
Update: According to two people the article by Vanessa Van Voorhis in yesterday’s local newspaper quoting Department of Water Chief Engineer David Craddick as saying that “40 percent of all KIUC’s generation” is factually incorrect, as we suspected.
Dr. Carl Berg who attended the meeting wrote to say that actually:
My notes from that meeting say (the) County is biggest single consumer of electricity, using 10% of what is produced and 40% of County's use is by Water Dept. That is a lot different.(Craddick) did say it would take a lot of solar panels to drive a pump and that solar is no good at night. He did mention net-metering. Also talked about hydroelectric from surface water source. But he concluded that DOW is really dependent on KIUC.
And Ken Taylor confirmed that statistic and added other information writing that:
The county overall, is KIUC biggest or #1 customer at about 10% of the total production. Of that, DOW uses about 40-50%, sewers use about 20%. I talked to Walt Barnes who is an electrical engineer about how much solar would be needed to run a 75 hp pump motor. His calculations showed only about 1 acre of solar would be needed. This happened after David had made this same comment at another meeting last fall. I questioned David's numbers because I have read where water districts in Cal. have been installing more and more solar. I think the problem come in getting the pump started, which can be done by using KIUC to start them, then automatically change over. I'm checking with some others on this. I asked the question that started this conversation at yesterdays meeting.
But, although you have to look for it, the first article from new local newspaper reporter Vanessa Van Voorhis (wasn’t that a character in Archie comics?) has a few revelations.
The first is that she has obviously got the message as to why the last business “reporter” (note the position has been downgraded from “editor”) Coco Zickos was fired so, as her first entry she scrambled her butt down to the Lihu`e Business Association’s monthly meeting, the type of thing Zickos admitted she neglected to do enough of during her stint, saying it was reason #1 for her exit.
But then there’s the end of the article in which Van Voorhis is listed as business AND environmental editor, the latter of which, according to Zickos, was added to her job description at her request- a position which she was told she spent too much time on at the expense of the former.
But the big news, if true, is buried in the 10th paragraph and 325 words into the piece covering a talk by Department of Water (DOW) Manager and Chief Engineer David Craddick.
After talking about projects and pipes and other mundane stuff we hear a statistic that can’t possibly be right- but then again might be.
Quoting Craddick, Van Voorhis writes:
DOW is Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative’s No. 1 customer, using approximately 40 percent of all KIUC’s generation.
Forty percent?.. of all the electricity used on the island? That raises way too many mind-boggling questions.
Something has got to be haywire, especially since for years we’ve been told by the water department that gravity-fed, natural springs are the primary source of our water and that, other than the new surface water in Lihu`e, it’s the way the rest of the island gets its water.
But it appears it might be so because she also writes
When asked about the option of solar-driven energy for pumps, Craddick said it would “require acres and acres of solar panels to power just one pump,” and is therefore not a feasible option.
Now we don’t have an engineering degree but what kind of pump needs “acres and acres of solar panels”- or 3/5th of the islands electricity output- to run?
Then, as if it were almost a joke, the penultimate paragraph in the article reads:
(Craddick) added that customers should anticipate about a 25-percent increase in water bills over the next three years. “We’re doing a rate study right now,” he said, “and we should have the results November or December. Then we’ll know what we need to do.”
Psst... we’ve got a suggestion- start with finding some more efficient pumps. Or at least tell us whose brother-in-law is supplying them.
---------
Update: According to two people the article by Vanessa Van Voorhis in yesterday’s local newspaper quoting Department of Water Chief Engineer David Craddick as saying that “40 percent of all KIUC’s generation” is factually incorrect, as we suspected.
Dr. Carl Berg who attended the meeting wrote to say that actually:
My notes from that meeting say (the) County is biggest single consumer of electricity, using 10% of what is produced and 40% of County's use is by Water Dept. That is a lot different.(Craddick) did say it would take a lot of solar panels to drive a pump and that solar is no good at night. He did mention net-metering. Also talked about hydroelectric from surface water source. But he concluded that DOW is really dependent on KIUC.
And Ken Taylor confirmed that statistic and added other information writing that:
The county overall, is KIUC biggest or #1 customer at about 10% of the total production. Of that, DOW uses about 40-50%, sewers use about 20%. I talked to Walt Barnes who is an electrical engineer about how much solar would be needed to run a 75 hp pump motor. His calculations showed only about 1 acre of solar would be needed. This happened after David had made this same comment at another meeting last fall. I questioned David's numbers because I have read where water districts in Cal. have been installing more and more solar. I think the problem come in getting the pump started, which can be done by using KIUC to start them, then automatically change over. I'm checking with some others on this. I asked the question that started this conversation at yesterdays meeting.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
NEW BLOOD ON THE TRACKS
NEW BLOOD ON THE TRACKS: Today’s announcement that two- count ‘em two- actual college graduates with journalism degrees have been employed by the local newspaper comes as a shocking yet pleasant surprise... sort of.
While it’s nice to see real journalists hired- Vanessa Van Voorhis covering “business” and Andrea Frainier, “lifestyle”- it doesn’t change the fact that the more newsy government and police reporters are a little- or maybe a lot- less professional, although the government reporter Leo Azambuja has shown some improvement.
Though unfortunately that hasn’t led him to obtain the kind of expertise possessed his predecessor Mike Levine- no shame there- we still sometimes wonder whether he’s even trying.
In all fairness his editor Nathan Eagle could have made sure coverage of the ethically-challenged and oft incompetent Board Of Ethics (BOE) continued when Levine left for big city climes. But apparently neither Eagle nor Azambuja seem interested in covering BOE meetings and more importantly continuing Levine’s quest for BOE documents beyond replacing Levine’s name with Azambuja’s at their document-containing “Sunshine” web page.
But lucky live Kaua`i and not Bell California where the lack of citizen oversight led to obscene salaries for county officials.
Next time you see the trolls start criticizing our “nitpickers” remember that the only news we’ve been getting about the BOE lately has come from Horace Stoessel whose latest report on the BOE’s September 17 meeting- in the form of an as yet unpublished letter to the editor- describes the latest round of fear and loathing.
Here’s Horace’s report- see ya on the other side.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
In May Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark advised the Board of Ethics that County Code Section 3-1.7(d) absolutely prohibits the kinds of outside employment referenced in requests for advisory opinions involving four members of the Planning Department.
At its meeting on September 17 the Board reviewed a written opinion from Attorney Clark repeating and expanding the advice she gave in May and concluding: “It is the County Attorney’s opinion that an employee cannot create a work product for a private employer which the employee would reasonably expect the employer to submit to the Planning Department without a violation of K.C.C. 3-1.7 occurring.”
The Board acted accordingly and continued to set an example for other agencies by releasing the privileged opinion, which is available from the Office of Boards and Commissions.
I wish I could say that the quality of the May-to-September process leading to the Board’s decision matched the quality of the decision itself and the principled advice it was based on. However, the process left a trail of unanswered questions.
In light of the Charter requirement that a request for advisory opinion must be answered within thirty days, I think the most obvious question is, why did it take so long for the Board to answer this request, especially when its answer was based on the same advice it received on day one?
A short letter like this cannot do justice to the question. Suffice to say that it leads to numerous other questions pertaining to policies (and lack of policies), procedures and communication (or lack of communication) involving the Mayor’s office and Planning, Personnel, and County Attorney offices as well as the Board of Ethics.
I do not question the motives or integrity of county employees. I do say that there is plenty of room for improving governmental processes. One way to improve the processes is for agencies and citizens to extend mutual respect to and expect mutual accountability from each other.
What Horace doesn’t mention here is that rather than doing their job in a timely manner the BOE’s notorious inability to read plain English has caused them to request that the charter commission- another body whose meetings have been unattended by local newspaper reporters since Levine left- submit a charter amendment to voters to give the BOE more time to futz around.
The announcement of this year’s charter amendments will be forthcoming presently but if this change, and one to allow the mayor to consolidate power by taking away the police, fire and planning commissions’ ability to hire and fire their respective department heads, are typical of their work this year an across the board “no” vote from the electorate would seem to be a no-brainer.
Whether the news that will allow people to make informed decisions on proposed charter changes will reach them through their “newspaper of record” is anyone’s guess.
But at least they’ll have timely and accurate information about who opened a new scissors and scotch tape store and whose baby lu`ua served the best malasadas in Waimea.
While it’s nice to see real journalists hired- Vanessa Van Voorhis covering “business” and Andrea Frainier, “lifestyle”- it doesn’t change the fact that the more newsy government and police reporters are a little- or maybe a lot- less professional, although the government reporter Leo Azambuja has shown some improvement.
Though unfortunately that hasn’t led him to obtain the kind of expertise possessed his predecessor Mike Levine- no shame there- we still sometimes wonder whether he’s even trying.
In all fairness his editor Nathan Eagle could have made sure coverage of the ethically-challenged and oft incompetent Board Of Ethics (BOE) continued when Levine left for big city climes. But apparently neither Eagle nor Azambuja seem interested in covering BOE meetings and more importantly continuing Levine’s quest for BOE documents beyond replacing Levine’s name with Azambuja’s at their document-containing “Sunshine” web page.
But lucky live Kaua`i and not Bell California where the lack of citizen oversight led to obscene salaries for county officials.
Next time you see the trolls start criticizing our “nitpickers” remember that the only news we’ve been getting about the BOE lately has come from Horace Stoessel whose latest report on the BOE’s September 17 meeting- in the form of an as yet unpublished letter to the editor- describes the latest round of fear and loathing.
Here’s Horace’s report- see ya on the other side.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
In May Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark advised the Board of Ethics that County Code Section 3-1.7(d) absolutely prohibits the kinds of outside employment referenced in requests for advisory opinions involving four members of the Planning Department.
At its meeting on September 17 the Board reviewed a written opinion from Attorney Clark repeating and expanding the advice she gave in May and concluding: “It is the County Attorney’s opinion that an employee cannot create a work product for a private employer which the employee would reasonably expect the employer to submit to the Planning Department without a violation of K.C.C. 3-1.7 occurring.”
The Board acted accordingly and continued to set an example for other agencies by releasing the privileged opinion, which is available from the Office of Boards and Commissions.
I wish I could say that the quality of the May-to-September process leading to the Board’s decision matched the quality of the decision itself and the principled advice it was based on. However, the process left a trail of unanswered questions.
In light of the Charter requirement that a request for advisory opinion must be answered within thirty days, I think the most obvious question is, why did it take so long for the Board to answer this request, especially when its answer was based on the same advice it received on day one?
A short letter like this cannot do justice to the question. Suffice to say that it leads to numerous other questions pertaining to policies (and lack of policies), procedures and communication (or lack of communication) involving the Mayor’s office and Planning, Personnel, and County Attorney offices as well as the Board of Ethics.
I do not question the motives or integrity of county employees. I do say that there is plenty of room for improving governmental processes. One way to improve the processes is for agencies and citizens to extend mutual respect to and expect mutual accountability from each other.
What Horace doesn’t mention here is that rather than doing their job in a timely manner the BOE’s notorious inability to read plain English has caused them to request that the charter commission- another body whose meetings have been unattended by local newspaper reporters since Levine left- submit a charter amendment to voters to give the BOE more time to futz around.
The announcement of this year’s charter amendments will be forthcoming presently but if this change, and one to allow the mayor to consolidate power by taking away the police, fire and planning commissions’ ability to hire and fire their respective department heads, are typical of their work this year an across the board “no” vote from the electorate would seem to be a no-brainer.
Whether the news that will allow people to make informed decisions on proposed charter changes will reach them through their “newspaper of record” is anyone’s guess.
But at least they’ll have timely and accurate information about who opened a new scissors and scotch tape store and whose baby lu`ua served the best malasadas in Waimea.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
GREAT EXPECTORATIONS:
GREAT EXPECTORATIONS: By Sunday morning it had become “conventional wisdom” that Mufi Hannemann’s negative campaigning blew up in his face, some of the later praises of Democratic gubernatorial primary winner Neil Abercrombie’s campaign style notwithstanding.
Those who followed the campaign- and even those who didn’t- couldn’t help but hear about Mufi’s fiascos starting with the “Atomic Money” parody cartoon web site pegged to Hannemann aide and campaign volunteer Keith Rollman which attempted to ridicule Abercrombie... the key word being attempted.
Then Mufi’s widely reported “I look like you” speech- a thinly veiled reference to Mufi’s and Neil’s comparative skin colors- led right into the “Compare and Decide” flyer which compounded the “local vs. haole” storyline.
That was followed by Hannemann’s “Island Values” flyer which was an Atomic Monkey redux later found to be the work of another Hannemann campaign member Ken Wong whose name magically disappeared from Mufi’s web site after he was linked to the flyer.
Though much the information first appeared in blogs like Ian Lind’s and Dave Shapiro’s it didn’t stay there for long with TV news and newspaper stories focusing on Mufi’s “dirty campaigning”.
So if most pundits agree that “going negative” works, why didn’t it work for Hannemann?
The story was written even before Abercrombie resigned his congressional seat to come “home” to run. The media, almost as a group, were publicly asking the question as to when, not if, Hannemann would be going negative.
And for good reason. His political history was one of pulling victory from the jaws of defeat through last minute, usually “underground”, stink-talk and rumor campaigns run, it was later found, by the Hannemann campaign’s “dirty tricks” division.
But each time the revelations of these dirty tricks came only after the election or at best a day or two before the election when it was too late to do anything to lessen their effects.
It’s not as if this run for governor was unexpected- all but the malahini knew six years ago that this was coming.
And that gave people like Rollman and Wong and the rest of the “Mufiosi” as they’ve been called during the campaign, to come up with enough negative stuff to get an early jump and plan them to spread throughout the campaign.
So what was different in 2010? The expectations. And the influence of the on-line media.
Everyone in the mainstream media was champing at the bit, ready, willing and able to spread the word of Mufi’s latest negative campaigning and dirty tricks. So when the blogs began to question and investigate each move from the Hannemann camp what was the underground nature of these tactics in past campaigns was plastered all over the front page of the paper and on the 6 and 10 o’clock news programs.
Whereas in the past there was little above board comprehension of the Hannemann campaign “rumor and ridicule” machine, this time, as each new revelation was exposed, they began to snowball with the media directing the storyline of the campaign which became a ‘there he goes again“... a fulfillment of their- and so the public’s- earlier expectations.
Recently Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has created a running joke comparing to the media- specifically Fox News- to the talking dog in the movie “Up” who carries on intelligent conversations until he suddenly looks around and screams “Squirrel” and takes off after it.
So when the previously imprinted “squirrel” of negative campaigning surfaced it was impossible for them to curtail the instinct to dash off after it.
Many criticize the media for “following the horse race” instead of the issues in political campaigns. But of course in reality they couldn’t do that unless they had already set up the gates and packed the racetrack and of course “handicapped” the favorites.
In this case despite the fact that it was obvious to all that Hannemann was being set up like a bowling pin by the media, he and his campaign braintrust was so enthralled by past successes and had planned their underhanded tactics for so long that avoiding becoming their own bowling ball was the one trick they apparently couldn’t perform.
Those who followed the campaign- and even those who didn’t- couldn’t help but hear about Mufi’s fiascos starting with the “Atomic Money” parody cartoon web site pegged to Hannemann aide and campaign volunteer Keith Rollman which attempted to ridicule Abercrombie... the key word being attempted.
Then Mufi’s widely reported “I look like you” speech- a thinly veiled reference to Mufi’s and Neil’s comparative skin colors- led right into the “Compare and Decide” flyer which compounded the “local vs. haole” storyline.
That was followed by Hannemann’s “Island Values” flyer which was an Atomic Monkey redux later found to be the work of another Hannemann campaign member Ken Wong whose name magically disappeared from Mufi’s web site after he was linked to the flyer.
Though much the information first appeared in blogs like Ian Lind’s and Dave Shapiro’s it didn’t stay there for long with TV news and newspaper stories focusing on Mufi’s “dirty campaigning”.
So if most pundits agree that “going negative” works, why didn’t it work for Hannemann?
The story was written even before Abercrombie resigned his congressional seat to come “home” to run. The media, almost as a group, were publicly asking the question as to when, not if, Hannemann would be going negative.
And for good reason. His political history was one of pulling victory from the jaws of defeat through last minute, usually “underground”, stink-talk and rumor campaigns run, it was later found, by the Hannemann campaign’s “dirty tricks” division.
But each time the revelations of these dirty tricks came only after the election or at best a day or two before the election when it was too late to do anything to lessen their effects.
It’s not as if this run for governor was unexpected- all but the malahini knew six years ago that this was coming.
And that gave people like Rollman and Wong and the rest of the “Mufiosi” as they’ve been called during the campaign, to come up with enough negative stuff to get an early jump and plan them to spread throughout the campaign.
So what was different in 2010? The expectations. And the influence of the on-line media.
Everyone in the mainstream media was champing at the bit, ready, willing and able to spread the word of Mufi’s latest negative campaigning and dirty tricks. So when the blogs began to question and investigate each move from the Hannemann camp what was the underground nature of these tactics in past campaigns was plastered all over the front page of the paper and on the 6 and 10 o’clock news programs.
Whereas in the past there was little above board comprehension of the Hannemann campaign “rumor and ridicule” machine, this time, as each new revelation was exposed, they began to snowball with the media directing the storyline of the campaign which became a ‘there he goes again“... a fulfillment of their- and so the public’s- earlier expectations.
Recently Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has created a running joke comparing to the media- specifically Fox News- to the talking dog in the movie “Up” who carries on intelligent conversations until he suddenly looks around and screams “Squirrel” and takes off after it.
So when the previously imprinted “squirrel” of negative campaigning surfaced it was impossible for them to curtail the instinct to dash off after it.
Many criticize the media for “following the horse race” instead of the issues in political campaigns. But of course in reality they couldn’t do that unless they had already set up the gates and packed the racetrack and of course “handicapped” the favorites.
In this case despite the fact that it was obvious to all that Hannemann was being set up like a bowling pin by the media, he and his campaign braintrust was so enthralled by past successes and had planned their underhanded tactics for so long that avoiding becoming their own bowling ball was the one trick they apparently couldn’t perform.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
GOING FOR THE GUSTO
GOING FOR THE GUSTO: To hear the talk from the churchies last May there was fire and brimstone a’comin’ at the polls for those legislators who voted to make gays and lesbians first class citizens– albeit with a “civil union” asterisk- when it comes to the rights bestowed in marriage.
But a look at the results of Saturday’s elections shows that not only was the bigot community’s empty threat to “remember those who voted yes to Bill 444 in election day” given way too much credence by the media, but also by the legislators themselves- most of whom, if you’ll remember, had conniption fits to keep from voting on the record until being forced to do so on the last day of the session.
But a few key races show that not only were some who voted “aye” not punished but those who voted “no” were.
Of course on Kaua`i one of those “no” votes, Roland Sagum, was not just ousted by an unknown, Dee Morikawa, but lost in a landslide. Morikawa won with 55.2% of the vote to Sagum’s 37.8% and another 7.0% left their vote blank, always an indication of dissatisfaction with the incumbent.
The funny thing there is that, in talking to westsiders over the past few days, we haven’t really been able to find any other reasons for Sagum’s dismissal other than that he just “did do anything”- that and, to some extent and for those who even knew about it, his recent representation of an unpopular projects by a North Shore developer before the planning commission.
Even though Sagum’s 16th district of the south and west sides of Kaua`i is known to be more conservative than the north and east sides the talk last May of the vote on 444 being a key to proponents’ votes was apparently indicative of the result.
Perhaps THE key race was between the openly gay introducer of HB 444, Representative Blake Oshiro and the leader of the religious homophobes, former Honolulu Councilpersons Gary Okino who specifically ran against Oshiro over the civil unions bill.
Oshiro similarly trounced Okino 53.3% to 42.0% with 10 0.2% blank.
Both statewide races also went the way of HB 444 proponents.
Former Congressperson Neil Abercrombie, who said he’s sign it in a minute, crushed Mufi Hannemann who, although he hemmed and hawed, was seen as opposing civil unions. The last minute push- or punch as it turned out- to get Republicans to crossover to the more “righteous” Mufi coming from the head of the Hawai`i Republican Party, nutso bible thumper and Kaua`i boy, Jonah Ka`auwai, is seen by many as cinching Hannemann’s rout.
Finally there was the lieutenant governor’s race where Brian Schatz, a civil rights proponent who said unequivocally that he supported 444, trounced the two biggest anti-civil rights members of the state senate, former Senators Bobby Bunda- who successfully blocked the bill in committee only to see it “ripped” to the floor- and Norman Sakamoto who made opposition to civil rights his signature issue.
Not only did Schatz win in what can be considered a landslide in a plurality vote with 34.8% of the vote to Bunda’s 19.2% and Sakamoto’s 18.5% but former Senator Gary Hooser- who made his support of the bill his top issue in ads- led the pack of also-rans pulling in 9.5% of the vote.
With the other candidates for lt. governor also supportive of civil unions, the anti civil rights voters accounted for only 37 .7% of the vote.
But let’s not forget that while “civil unions” was adopted by the progressive community as the fight du jour at last year’s legislative session it is still just another way to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. And it may well be a moot issue as the “Prop 8” case recently decided in federal district court wends it’s way to the 9th Circuit appellate court where a decision upholding full same gender marriage would be binding on Hawai`i.
If we learned one thing this year it’s that these religion-addled bigots will see that any attempt to secure people’s right to love anyone they want is turned into some idiotic “sanctity of marriage” argument. Despite common wisdom of the past decade there are apparently few, if any, that are for civil unions but against same gender marriage.
The court’s decision may or may not come before next May but it’s time to decide whether to fight for full civil rights in this year’s legislature based on the results last Saturday and presumably in November where a landslide Abercrombie victory over religious nutcase Duke Aiona is likely.
That decision is, well, way above our paygrade. But those who are planning strategy for the ’11 legislative session would do well to take the legislative and election results to heart, stop pushing an incremental, fear-based agenda and reach for the brass ring.
But a look at the results of Saturday’s elections shows that not only was the bigot community’s empty threat to “remember those who voted yes to Bill 444 in election day” given way too much credence by the media, but also by the legislators themselves- most of whom, if you’ll remember, had conniption fits to keep from voting on the record until being forced to do so on the last day of the session.
But a few key races show that not only were some who voted “aye” not punished but those who voted “no” were.
Of course on Kaua`i one of those “no” votes, Roland Sagum, was not just ousted by an unknown, Dee Morikawa, but lost in a landslide. Morikawa won with 55.2% of the vote to Sagum’s 37.8% and another 7.0% left their vote blank, always an indication of dissatisfaction with the incumbent.
The funny thing there is that, in talking to westsiders over the past few days, we haven’t really been able to find any other reasons for Sagum’s dismissal other than that he just “did do anything”- that and, to some extent and for those who even knew about it, his recent representation of an unpopular projects by a North Shore developer before the planning commission.
Even though Sagum’s 16th district of the south and west sides of Kaua`i is known to be more conservative than the north and east sides the talk last May of the vote on 444 being a key to proponents’ votes was apparently indicative of the result.
Perhaps THE key race was between the openly gay introducer of HB 444, Representative Blake Oshiro and the leader of the religious homophobes, former Honolulu Councilpersons Gary Okino who specifically ran against Oshiro over the civil unions bill.
Oshiro similarly trounced Okino 53.3% to 42.0% with 10 0.2% blank.
Both statewide races also went the way of HB 444 proponents.
Former Congressperson Neil Abercrombie, who said he’s sign it in a minute, crushed Mufi Hannemann who, although he hemmed and hawed, was seen as opposing civil unions. The last minute push- or punch as it turned out- to get Republicans to crossover to the more “righteous” Mufi coming from the head of the Hawai`i Republican Party, nutso bible thumper and Kaua`i boy, Jonah Ka`auwai, is seen by many as cinching Hannemann’s rout.
Finally there was the lieutenant governor’s race where Brian Schatz, a civil rights proponent who said unequivocally that he supported 444, trounced the two biggest anti-civil rights members of the state senate, former Senators Bobby Bunda- who successfully blocked the bill in committee only to see it “ripped” to the floor- and Norman Sakamoto who made opposition to civil rights his signature issue.
Not only did Schatz win in what can be considered a landslide in a plurality vote with 34.8% of the vote to Bunda’s 19.2% and Sakamoto’s 18.5% but former Senator Gary Hooser- who made his support of the bill his top issue in ads- led the pack of also-rans pulling in 9.5% of the vote.
With the other candidates for lt. governor also supportive of civil unions, the anti civil rights voters accounted for only 37 .7% of the vote.
But let’s not forget that while “civil unions” was adopted by the progressive community as the fight du jour at last year’s legislative session it is still just another way to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. And it may well be a moot issue as the “Prop 8” case recently decided in federal district court wends it’s way to the 9th Circuit appellate court where a decision upholding full same gender marriage would be binding on Hawai`i.
If we learned one thing this year it’s that these religion-addled bigots will see that any attempt to secure people’s right to love anyone they want is turned into some idiotic “sanctity of marriage” argument. Despite common wisdom of the past decade there are apparently few, if any, that are for civil unions but against same gender marriage.
The court’s decision may or may not come before next May but it’s time to decide whether to fight for full civil rights in this year’s legislature based on the results last Saturday and presumably in November where a landslide Abercrombie victory over religious nutcase Duke Aiona is likely.
That decision is, well, way above our paygrade. But those who are planning strategy for the ’11 legislative session would do well to take the legislative and election results to heart, stop pushing an incremental, fear-based agenda and reach for the brass ring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
