DELIGHTFULLY DELUSIONAL

DELIGHTFULLY DELUSIONAL: It's pretty rare to be pleasantly surprised by anything the Kaua`i County Council does but it's hard not to be after our only endorsement in the November 2010 election, Kipukai Kuali`i, was selected to replace the bad rubbish to which we've bid good riddance, former Councilmember Derek "Going Places" Kawakami.

Even though we assigned the usual evil motives to the remaining council in our analysis last Tuesday and intentionally left Kualii's name out of our discussion, we now have to admit to missing the fact that there was a bigger picture in the alliance angle we pursued.

Although the list was apparently illegally withheld from public purview we can assume that the names fell into one of two categories: blasts from the past like "fourth generation plantation daughter" Maxine Correa- one of the truly abominable councilmembers in the 80's and early 90's- who actually attended the meeting, or absurdist and delusional self-promoters like Kimo Rosen.

One thing that all probably had in common was that they imagined themselves as someone who would "hit the ground running" whether they had a clue or sought to purchase one. That left the "humble" Kipukai as the only one that would be a complete follower- one who would be depending on the remaining councilmembers to "teach him the ropes."

We're not sure from the description of how the meeting was conducted since of course the article in the local newspaper was "written" by the observationally challenged Leo Azumbuja but we suspect that Mel Rapozo, who is increasingly becoming a minority of one, was left dangling in the wind in his hope for an ally.

Once current Chair Jay Furfaro- who has increasingly seen his bread as being buttered by the progressive wing of Yukimura and Bynum- fell into line, his lap dog Dickie Chang quickly heeled.

That left newbie Nadine Nakamura- who has, after the vote to sustain the plastic bag ban last week apparently declared her allegiance to the Yukimura/Bynum progressive alliance- to continue to drift even closer to them. Although she will no doubt not be able to help herself in trying to find compromises with Rapozo, the fact is that the council could just be gelling into a 5-1 (and now with Kuali`i 6-1) progressive bloc with Nakamura a solid third vote for a majority...one away from the promised land.

Really? Well, maybe.

Look at it this way. Kawakami had not only provided a vote opposing the majority but his apparent popularity had also made Furfaro- and so also Chang- a double swing vote making for a shifting majority depending on whether Furfaro feared Kawakami's sway more than he saw voting with Yukimura and Bynum on the progressive side as beneficial to his hold on the chair- which of course, in the final analysis, is all that his vote depends on.

Removing Kawakami removes that dynamic freeing Furfaro and so Chang.

Of course Chang is not really a solid sixth vote. His allegiance to Furfaro may sway depending on how much pressure the Chamber of Commerce/Kaua`i Visitors' Bureau crowd exerts on him and how far the progressive bloc tries to go.

And, as we said Nakamura's penchant for compromise will be strengthened if there are actually two opposing votes, especially if Chang provides a "second" for any Rapozo's lone-wolf proposals.

We hate to get ahead of ourselves in predicting this kind of amazing and even stunning shift to an overwhelming progressive majority but depending on how things play out, after all the recriminations and resignations to another two year of watching paint dry, this just could be the council we've waited for for decades.

You can bet your Prozac and Lithium on it.

ALOOOOO-HA

ALOOOOO-HA: A week ago yesterday few knew what or who "Preserve Kauai's Rural Character (PKRC)"‏ was. And apparently no one knows or will say today.

Last Sunday was the day we received an innocent enough yet slick professional email- produced by marketer VerticalResponse- reviving the anti-Kilauea Amphitheater movement in the wake of news of a takeover of the Kalihiwai Ridge Community Association (KRCA) in Kilauea by proponents of the project, causing KRCA to drop it's contested case for the required Special Use Permit before the planning commission.

The mass mailing- replete with one of those "click here to unsubscribe buttons" and a personalized "Dear Andy" salutation- tried to reframe the argument from one of "stay loud already" vs the "nahting for do around hea" mantra to appeal to we professional land use rabblerousers by putting the fear of commercialization of ag land in our green little hearts.

Despite numerous requests this week the originator of these emails remains unknown but not his, her or their intentions.

It didn't take but a few hours for the now ubiquitous developer-Bill-Porter-as-Hitler video to surface, again anonymously. And it didn't take us but a few seconds to identify the style of the short film to be that of a certain local filmmaker who has done a few "who did that" videos.

Not only was the mailing slick- not to mention costly, especially complete with a mailing list- but the PR effort and the knowledge of what pushes the sustainability crowds solar-generated buttons was almost impeccable.

Almost, except that some of the so-called "facts" weren't.

So it was until mid-week when KRCA busted out the big bucks and published a full page ad in the local newspaper and another email announcing it.

The ad proclaimed that approval of a special use permit would be a first-ever for commercial use "on land zoned as 'Agricultural' by the State"- a meaningless phrase that belied the author's lack of sophistication in the ways of land use in the islands.

As we find ourselves explaining way too often the state, under direction of the Land Use Commission, does "districting" while the county does "zoning." It's an important distinction and one that has caused no dearth of legal wangling over the years.

The next move, apparently from the developer, was an email going over and attempting to refute, point by point, the contentions of the ad, although most were semantic arguments as to whether the ad's depiction of an "amusement park" was appropriate, but also attempting to debunk the ad's debunking of the "Six Myths About the Kilauea Pavilion."

And yesterday, once again, the antis were at it again with a debunking of the debunking of the debunking in point by point by point, tri-color regalia.

The real issue here is the same one that's plagued this and the surrounding parcels for generations- what to do with the "light industrial" land- a remnant of the sugar cane mill days- that sits in the middle of agriculturally and districted and zoned land just north and mauka of Kilauea. It's gone through all sorts of designations over the years, reverting back and forth, as plans either fell through or the Kilauea community rose up against the plans.

While we don't have any way of verifying the "first ever commercial use permit for ag land" claim made by KRCA we seriously doubt it although that may have more to do with Preserve Kauai's Rural Character's confusion between county zoning and state districting and what the two different "agricultural" designation actually mean. And rather than stating and quoting any specific section of HRS 205, which lists the allowable- and more importantly the not allowable- uses of ag lands, KRCA just listed a hodge-podge of provisions and a contention... the point being that unless uses are specifically banned they are generally allowed with a special use permit.

What is pretty obvious is that the handful of Kalihiwai Ridge residents- who themselves live on ag subdivisions and "condos"- that were ousted from their community association posts for their opposition to the project are trying to reframe the argument to suck in- and we might say quite successfully noting the many "re-sendings" of their emails- the land use/sustainability crowd even after a buy-in to the project by the apparent majority of both Kilauea and Kalihiwai Ridge (KR) residents.

Will it set a precedent that will forever change the way special use permits are issued for commercialization of ag lands as PKRC claims? Unlikely considering the way the developer went to the community and asked what they'd like to see on the land which is the one thing that the majority of local people require as an act of "aloha."

It doesn't help that the KR folks are seen as a bunch of rich haoles whose use of ag land as "gentleman estates" is seen as far more objectionable- not to mention destructive of agriculture by cutting up and skyrocketing the price of ag land- even by those whom they are enlisting in the fight to stop the project.

Perhaps that's why the PKRC people refuse to identify themselves and answer questions from the press and have rather tried a last ditch effort to rally the usual suspects by casting the issue as a battle for the future of agriculture on Kaua`i.

Aloha has less to do with smiling as you clean toilets for the tourists as the visitor's bureau wants people to think and more to do with respect- you don't just walk up and take the fruit on someone's lawn, you ask first. Same goes with a notoriously hard to develop parcel of land slated for development.

And no matter what Bill Porter is doing, he not only asked but actually listened.

And while we have apprehensions at the commercialization of the already commercialized area, it's the North Shore residents who will have to live with what they bought into.

Tomorrow the sh*t hits the fan at the planning commission meeting where the permit has been recommended for approval by the planning department staff and director. But, depending on what side you're on, fortunately or unfortunately, the genuine of ingenuous efforts of PKRC will likely have been in vain.

AND WE WERE GOING TO TAKE THE DAY OFF

AND WE WERE GOING TO TAKE THE DAY OFF: When is news not news? When it's in our local newspaper in an article penned by journalism’s worst enemy, Leo Azumbuja.

Yes we're tired of criticizing his "work" (note the quotes)- it's too easy.

But today’s article proclaiming that the SuperFerry bill that has been hanging around the legislature is still alive is so disturbingly inaccurate that it constitutes journalistic malpractice.

If you're going to cover the legislature the first rule is to know something about the process and then look at the legislative calendar.

Because despite Azumbuja's lede proclamation that "(t)he economic crisis that refuses to leave the Hawaiian Islands has not been sufficient to sink the idea of a state-run interisland ferry system" the fact is that today is what is known as "Second Decking Deadline" when as "Civil Beat" put it today

The House and Senate must get their respective bills in final form today in order for the measures to be voted on next week and make second crossover April 14.

The deadline to get bills to the House Clerk is 10 p.m., but the Senate Clerk had not announced its deadline as of late yesterday.

Next up: conference committee, which will pretty much consume the last two weeks of the month.

If Azumbuja had bothered to look at the status he'd have noticed that on March 23 it was referred to the Senate Ways and Means (WAM) Committee where it died after failing to be scheduled for a hearing. And since hearings must be noticed 48 hours in advance the bill will not receive an okay from WAM.

He would have also noticed had HE had read the bill, as he accused 16th District Representative Dee Morikawa of failing to do- he'd have noticed that the current bill was amended by the house with a "defective date" of July 1, 2030.

Of course like any bill it can be pulled by the full body for a vote. But that virtually never happens, with last year's civil unions bill being an exception that had even long time legislative correspondents scrambling to find the last time it had happened.

Of course most anyone who really cared about the SuperFerry Bill had, most likely, received a notice from anti-SuperFerry Activist supreme Dick Meyer of Maui last week that the bill was apparently dead after not showing up on the final WAM hearing notice. But for those who rely on the Kaua`i "newspaper of record" to record the actual record it's the same sad story written by a man seemingly incapable of telling one accurately.

UNSUFFOCATINGABLE

UNSUFFOCATINGABLE:Babooze-In-Chief Mel Rapozo's attempt to reverse the so-called "plastic bag ban" has gone down to its inevitable defeat but after sitting through hours- nay months- of yammering it was both refreshing and, at the same time, distressing to have seen those who weren't going to vote for a change in the first place just sit there and say nothing as disinformation flowed like a beer keg at a toga party.

Not once was the fact that we don't really have any "ban" on Kaua`i mentioned in debate.

As we wrote in February when the bill was first introduced

(Rapozo's) bill strikes the definition of a plastic checkout grocery bag that, in Ordinance 885 made for a “de facto” ban by requiring, not just that they are compostable or biodegradable but that they not contain any fossil fuel polymers, since no such bag currently exists. Unlike the outright ban on Maui our bill allows the bags if and when a bag that meets this requirement becomes available.

So the bill simply changes the definition removing the “fossil fuel polymers” part.

And, as we wrote the day before after an nation-wide investigation by our friend Brad Parsons- later confirmed by the Department of Public Works (DPW)- although material exist that would meet the standard no one is making bags out of it.

It was like sitting through one of those horror movies and wanting to scream "look out" as the knife wielding villain sneaks up on the protagonist from behind, as the plastic bag industry lobbyist- who failed to declare that fact in each of his appearances despite council rules requiring that disclosure- told the council that the only problem with the bill was that silly inconsequential "no fossil fuel polymers" provision, which he asked to be removed so his "new science" plastic could be sold.

Of course this had nothing to do with "food safety" as Rapozo claimed was the sole purpose of the bill. As a matter of fact the words "food safety" barely left anyone’s lips after the first couple of times the bill was on the council's agenda.

Also unmentioned was the fact that any allowance for establishments that purveyed hot food would have allowed any supermarket with a deli- which includes almost every one on the island- to again provide plastic bags.

The expected attempt from "the compromiser," rookie Councilperson Nadine Nakamura to amend the bill also reflected facts missing from the week upon week long gab-fest.

Although we're reluctant to accept as fact anything written by Leo Azumbuja in the local newspaper he wrote

Nakamura introduced an amendment Wednesday in an attempt to offer a compromise between an “outright ban on biodegradable bags” and Rapozo’s proposal.

She said her amendment, which tightened the broad definition of “biodegradable bags” in Rapozo’s amendment, would have required ready-to-eat food establishments to use compostable bags that meet specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics D6400.
“Progressive cities like San Francisco and Santa Monica use this standard in defining biodegradable bags,” she said.

The problem is that these bags don't really biodegrade like organic materials but rather break into itsy-bitsy little pieces which still litter the roads, are swallowed by birds and turtles and generally don’t break down into their component chemicals for a bazillion years.

Unbelievably, rather than spend all that time asking those we identified in February as having materials that are made without fossil fuel polymers to produce plastic bags that fulfill our unique ordinance, councilmembers all sat there like bumps on a log and allowed Rapozo to hijack the staff, the viewing public and the public access camera time for a self-aggrandizing appeal to idiocy filling the room and everyone's ears with utter bullsh*t.

And when one did do some "research" she came up with a totally unacceptable change.

Yes Rapozo is a boob. But to allow him to spout his drivel without any corrections for almost three months doesn't speak well of the others who had already decided how they would vote the day the bill hit the table.

TIME KEEPS ON SLIPPIN', SLIPPIN'...

TIME KEEPS ON SLIPPIN', SLIPPIN'...: We've been glued to the RaptorCam where a live streaming camera has it's sights set on a couple of eagles who recently hatched a duo of chicks and are currently sitting on them and another egg- which is supposed to be ready for it's close up Mr. DeMille today or tomorrow- feeding them from the bloated corpse of what appears to be a rodent of some sort, dropping strips of flesh into the babes' upraised, open yaws.

Kind of reminds of of the budget machinations not only in Washington and Honolulu but potentially, next week here on Kaua`i with the leaders in the role of the raptors supplying we ravenous chicks the putrefied scraps of their choosing.

Here the budget may well inform the selection of our newest county council members and if past is prologue we well might see the Big Bird upchuck a a rotted piece of carrion named Darryl Kaneshiro.

It all depends of what Council Chair Jay Furfaro thinks will help solidify his long fought for power as chair.

Apparently he tried to make sure that Derek Kawakami remained on the council so as to avoid this potential appointment because word has been the the Minotaur himself- former Chair Kaipo Asing- might have the votes in a split council to make his triumphant reappearance, pushing poor Jay back to the shadows again.

If the story we've been hearing is true it's no wonder Jay tried to assure Derek would remain on the council during the legislative replacement process conducted by the Democratic Party we detailed yesterday. As it was repeated on Joan Conrow's comment board:

Jay manipulated the whole thing. He was on the nominating committee, did not speak up about the Ducker ethics thing, got Neil to throw his hat in the ring, and tried to rattle Joel with his follow up questions in the 10 minute interview. All to stick it to Mina and try to keep Derek from leaving the Council. He succeeded on sticking it to Mina, but failed on stopping the change in makeup of the Council. But, he's not done trying. Watch this Council selection process. Jay will still try to control it... Specifically, watch for Furfaro to push for Kaneshiro who headed the budget committee last year to keep Asing from going from also-ran to Chair.

Look for Mel Rapozo and Dickie Chang to put Asing forward with, as has become the norm, Nadine Nakamura as the swing vote. If her loyalty is to her brother-in-law, Asing sycophant County Clerk Peter Nakamura, it might just produce a 3-3 tie and dump the whole matter into the lap of Mayor Bernard Carvalho who would no doubt pick a crony out of left field who could be assured to do his bidding on the newly restructured council.

But that presumes that the rumor- and though it is just a rumor, we're going to repeat it in case anyone who has definitive evidence it's true might produce it for us- that Kawakami does not indeed live in the home he claims as his residence- a house in the 14th district which, it has been alleged, is owned by his wife while they actually reside in another district.

Though state law requires members of the legislature to live in their district it is unclear who makes the ultimate decision in these kinds of cases although certainly the courts would be the final arbiter.

The last time there was an opening on the council Kaneshiro slipped right in there due to his supposed "experience." But he replaced the man that is, most likely, his chief rival- Asing, who had moved into the round building upon the demise of Mayor Bryan Baptiste, giving Furfaro his first taste of the power of the gavel.

There's talk of the 8th place finisher in the last election, Kipukai Kuali`i, getting the nod but unless there's a huge outpouring of support from the public he stands about as much chance as Bob Carriffe.

The decision on the council replacement will, no doubt, come down to alliances from both the past and the present. But we may well have to wait for the egg to hatch to know for sure who be feeding us carrion for the next two years.

MORE MONKEYS, LESS WEASELS

MORE MONKEYS, LESS WEASELS: As we first reported last Monday the magical "Recusalgate" transformation of one Foster Ducker from selector to candidate for the vacated 14th District State House Seat vacated by Mina Morita, finally got the Leo Azumbuja treatment Sunday in the local newspaper, providing a series of the usual half-assed factoids (Factoid: Did you know that a factoid is not really a fact?), unresearched pronouncements and irrelevant quotes and citations.

But one quote did catch our eye describing the prestidigitation involved in Ducker's metamorphosis:

“It came a little bit out of the left field for me,” he said. “I was sitting in the selection committee and all of a sudden I was sitting in front of the selection committee.”

Yup, he was just sitting there minding his own business and, as if in a dream, "all of a sudden" he replaced Morita's choice for replacement, Joel Guy who has been the presumed replacement.

That of course made room for the golden boy Derek Kawakami to follow his ancestral destiny. Gee, why would anyone claim that the the whole process has the smell of a backroom deal?

The problem is that when it comes to conflicts of interest it becomes hard to see the forest for your own personal tree.

For the Democratic Party it looked like a matter of their rules for recusals, according to Azumbuja's mish-mosh which quoted our friend District 14 Democratic Party Chair, Susan Wilson, as saying:

“Do you know what the rule is on the council?” she said. “The rule on the council is you just say, ‘Gosh I have a conflict of interest,’ and then you’re allowed to vote on it.”

Of course Wilson- and Azumbuja- obviously missed the 2008 County Charter amendment which modified the Code of Ethics' Section 20.04D, Disclosure, to say, in relevant part

Any elected official, appointed officer, employee, or any member of a board or commission who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority... shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.

So, we decided to drop Wilson an email setting the record straight.

But Wilson was more interested in setting the record straight on the reason why Ducker was permitted to run and vote despite the conflict of interest, since, as is the usual complaint about Azumbuja, she was haphazardly quoted.

We agreed to let Wilson have her say so here's what she wrote- in full- about the situation. See ya on the other side.

State of Hawaii Democratic Party Constitution does not require recusal, but I think at its next state convention the issue could be worth discussion again. Right away, in mid February, I posed the recusal question to the Democratic Party Central committee. An answer came back from a central committee member. In essence it was, with so few registered democratic voters coming forward to hold precinct offices all over the state it was advised precedent has been inclusion rather than the opposite. In the specifics of District 14, I welcomed that answer as I needed full district council member participation on all levels of what I hoped would be a serious process. For example there is only one precinct officer in one of district 14's biggest precincts. If he would have decided to be a candidate and recusal was required about 400 or so registered democrats in his precinct would have had no vote at the table. Likewise, at one point two district council members were considering throwing their names in the pot. Again, I looked to the Party's core value and was comfortable with precedent. All council members were in accordance, and we are a council of eight. I then took it a step further and set up a very fair leveling voting procedure. What came out of this process was a standard of civic involvement worthy of emulation. And, yes, Foster Ducker participated in the voting. And, yes, he did become one of the three names forwarded on to the governor as one of District14 Council choices for the governor to consider for appointment. Our council did not have the power of appointment. And, yes, one candidate who seemingly had considerable headwind coming in was not chosen to move forward. I have no idea who voted for who. It was a secret ballot. Three clear winners were chosen on the first ballot. And, yes, a candidate who supposedly was favored by our former Representative to take over her unfilled position, even before the process had started, did not move forward. I'd say what happened was anything but politics as usual. It was democracy in action. And, finally, grace in defeat, is a sign of maturity and leadership.

It's not like Wilson would be the first to miss what the problematic part is in your typical "conflict of interest." Certainly some of the recent appointments of Governor Neil Abercrombie have raised eyebrows when big contributors and campaign leaders received nods for various positions. And when it comes to the champion of cronyism, our own warbling Warrior, Mayor Bernard Carvalho, few can hold a candle to his penchant for promoting his pals.

What they all seem to miss is that any conflict of interest is anathema to good governance way before it ever leads to corruption.

It's the very potential for that "tit for tat" and "quid pro quo" that raises the hackles of voters leaving the perception of the opportunity for wrongdoing to appear to be the reality of illicit dealings.

The potential conflict of interest is an actual conflict of interest. Appointees should not come prepackaged with baggage that causes people to roll their eyes and shake their heads back and forth. Rather they should be like Caesar's wife... beyond reproach.

The message from the good governance community is that if your laws- or rules- allow conflicts of interest to be, not just the exception but, the norm perhaps it's time to change that rule.

ANOTHER PRICK AND THEIR WALL

ANOTHER PRICK AND THEIR WALL: As a news junkie- in recovery or at least reducing consumption to a more reasonable ration of late-the hammer came down for us on Monday when the NY Times started charging for on-line access.

Not that we really have time to read the Times much but they do host the Associated Press wire which we peruse as time permits. In the past three years since we've started concentrating on more local news, a quick glance down the AP wire- which is nearly impossible to find at the main Times page- has given us the basics of national and international news so that if we ever get to more "alternative" news providers we have the background to get past the "explanatory" paragraphs and gnaw on and digest the meat.

So, caught unawares, we got to our 20th article of the day on Monday rather quickly and were told we'd have to pay almost a buck a pop to read any further articles.

We say this not to whine too much but to point out that we found the solution to the problem rather quickly because blaringly and glaringly we couldn't help but notice a bunch of beckoning headlines every time we logged into our Yahoo! mail account.

And, of course, one click away were all those self-same articles "aggregated"- along with some Reuters- for free.

Now being a journalist we have sympathy for our brethren who are victims of the mammoth downsizing of the newsgathering business and the "everything you ever wanted for free" nature of the internet. The question of who pays for all that first hand newsgathering in that age is a perennial stumper and has led the Times to decide to erect their pay wall.

But geez guys- what the heck are you thinking?

The only thing that the Times is accomplishing is to drive the eyeballs that they had, to other sources, And although the amount that on-line advertising brings in is miniscule compared with the ad revenues that newspapers have traditionally reaped, they're doing nothing but directing those eyeballs to the aggregator sites like Yahoo!, Google and the like.

People searching for a workable business model to support newsgathering need to think about the only workable solution- to form a consortium of all news providers and charge a small monthly amount- maybe five or ten bucks or whatever happy medium price point wont discourage readers/customers- for access to all on-line "newspapers"... national, state or local.

The model is similar to one that's existed since the first days of radio. The ASCAP/BMI model provided music artists a small amount per play for many years and, although the profits are less now- and their tactics in achieving it have pissed off many a customer- it has remained, if not as successful in an on-line world, at least as viable with subscription services and on-line radio beginning to thrive.

The Times has picked the easy and thoughtless was to protect their intellectual property. You'd think people that smart would be smart enough to see that it's an experiment bound for failure.