IT'S A BIRD, IT'S A PLANE. IT'S AN EYESORE: Although it's probably been more than a decade, we remember a certain drive though San Francisco quite clearly.
Having lived there in the early 70's, we just assumed that we could find the old freeway entrance. But while cruising from "the Haight" to "downtown" we found ourselves suddenly coming around the block for the third time looking for the ramp that led to one of the elevated freeways that made much of the city center a dark, gloomy, drug and crime-filled morass.
"They did what? They tore it down? They whole thing?" "Yes," we were told, "there are no more raised thoroughfares north of Market Street."
As the years went by we noted the trend continuing across the country with cities not only refusing to build new raised monstrosities but actually tearing the old ones down.
So it was no surprise that when Honolulu's traditional lack of planning combined with its time-honored corrupt procurement process and long-standing adherence to urban design concepts 40 years out of date combined to yield yet another plan for the long-delayed, on-again-off-again mass transit project, they decided it was going to be constructed a hundred feet in the air.
Admittedly we haven't been to Honolulu in a decade or more and plan on avoiding it like the proverbial plague for the foreseeable future. Once one sets foot outside of the tourist mecca of Waikiki- and not very far- the sidewalks crack and crumble and the streets are not just filthy but filled with potholes large enough to rent for $1700 a month.
Why would we go? Just the price of a last minute plane ticket approaches that of a direct flight from Kaua`i to SF- a city of similar population where the areas known as "slums" are aesthetically more pleasing than most of "town" on O`ahu.
In their infinite wisdom, the city fathers decided on a "plan," not to spruce it up and start carefully planning- complete with pubic input (gasp!)- the city's future development but rather, to plunge most of it into darkness so no one can see how truly decrepit it actually is.
And that's just the physical limitations. The political ones are worse.
Not only was the first fully-funded, ready-to-go attempt at simply building a system to move people to and from work every day aborted a couple of decades back after a particularly entertaining dance-of-the-headless-chickens but, according to a poll reported today, support for the current similarly ready-to-commence project is dropping faster than the price of stock in the companies that lost the contract to construct it.
According to the poll in the pay-wall protected Honolulu Star Advertiser, support for the project has dropped from 49% last May to 43% now.
And as if that wasn’t enough of a sign that the denizens of Honolulu are fed up with the way the project has evolved- the way its back-room planning and pay-to-play system put into place the most expensive, ugliest system possible, not to mention one that bucks a 20 year trend in urban design- former Governor and anti-rail candidate Ben Cayetano is leading the race for mayor over the two pro-rail candidates by a wide margin.
For those that forgot or weren't around, by the time he left office, Cayetano had burned so many bridges and offended so many supporters, he's been left for politically dead ever since.
Yet current Mayor Peter Carlisle, like the rest of the tone-deaf, steel-on-steel, elevated rail supporters, still clings to the notion that the only problem is that "we haven't done as good a job as we should have in showing people exactly what all the accurate information is (on rail)."
Ah, the last refuge of a delusional pol- the notion that "if people were just 'educated' they would see it from my warped, power-hungry vantage point."
We probably have no right to even write this column today- we don't live on O`ahu and would rather be homeless on any neighbor island than live in a Waikiki luxury high rise.
Honolulu citizens seem to be saying "we want mass transit, perhaps even rail- we just don't want THIS mass transit and THIS rail." Kaua`i people have similarly spoken this way about a certain bike path, a certain electricity co-op and a dozen other projects that have been forced down our throats by smug, paternalistic officials.
The "City and County" seems to have a penchant for hiring those who graduated at the bottom of their class from the Rube Goldberg School of Urban Design. Then, when the worst of them are forced to leave in disgrace, they seem to find their way into the equally befuddled, clueless and crony-filled Kaua`i County government.
All we can say is thanks but no thanks. We've got our hands full now.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
ME OR YOUR LYIN' EYES
ME OR YOUR LYIN' EYES: We've made no secret regarding our take on any purported health issues with so called "smart meters." As we wrote on December 1, 2011, when it comes to the science behind claims of cumulative health problems caused by "non-ionizing 'radiation'"- "radiation" being a sort of misnomer since it is not in any way, shape or form the same as the "ionizing" radiation in radioactive substances- there really is no "there there."
Despite almost a century and a half of man-made RF beginning with the telegraph, although it can burn the crap out of you if the waves are long enough and it's placed right next to human tissue, studies have failed to find any accumulation of these waves that are generated by everything from cell and cordless phones to remote controls to radio and television broadcasts.
And, even if somehow it could be shown that there was a "cumulative effect," the amount and proximity to people of the signals in smart meters pales in comparison to placing a cell or cordless phone next to your brain.
It is certainly not "a hundred times worse" as the self-proclaimed "biggest smart meter activist in the state" told the county council on Wednesday.
So why then are so many otherwise rational people on Kaua`i going nuts over the Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op (KIUC) purchase and imminent installation of these new wireless meters which should be welcomed as a way to increase the amount of "intermittent" energy generation (such as wind and photovoltaic) we can reliably accommodate?
Opponents have been successful by basically telling others that any information on health effects or other issues such as "privacy" are all generated by "the industry" and "the government"- even though that is patently false- asking "how can you trust the 'electric companies'" or the "'big brother' of government" to tell you the truth.
Of course that is what's called an "ad hominem" attack which, according to Wikipedia, "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy."
But the fallaciousness of an ad hominem argument is dependent on how much the source is worthy of trust. If the track record of an individual or organization for truthfulness, honesty and open, transparent dealings with controversies is that they have never been truthful, open, honest or transparent in the past, people tend to take the old "how do you know if KIUC is lying?- because their lips are moving" joke as gospel.
Well we're pretty sure you can see this one coming up Rice St. because when it comes to a track record for deceit and opaque decision-making, KIUC is very model of modern major mismanagement.
We don't really have to go through the liturgy do we? Whether the bungling of the roll-out of proposed hydroelectric power projects by imposing the potential for federal meddling in local state environmental protections or the lack of any membership consultation- supposedly the hallmark of cooperatives- in the decision-making that preceded the underhanded manipulation of the petition-driven ballot effort to overturn the board's decision, KIUC has been exemplary in how not to gain the trust of the people of Kaua`i.
Even KIUC's inception was fraught with controversy with a group of hand-picked members of the "good old boys and girls" political elite offering an absurdly high- and later to be rejected by the PUC- original bid and eventually paying former owners Citizen's Electric of Connecticut what many say was up to twice what was shown to be the "book value," of Kaua`i Electric... as our "highest in the nation" electricity rates can attest.
Is it any wonder that, no matter how silly, no matter how unscientifically-based, no matter how self-defeating the rush to ban smart meters is, it has gained the support of so many otherwise rational people?
The reason is clear. It's because KIUC is a cooperative in name only when it comes to governance.
KIUC is what's called a "Consumers' Cooperative" in which, according again to Wikipedia, "(m)embers vote on major decisions and elect the board of directors from amongst their own number."
A normal cooperative board simply oversees the day-to-day operations but any major decision- such as strategic planning or even the decision to sign a power purchase agreement with a news solar or wind farm- is supposed to be made by the members.
How hard is that concept to understand? Apparently it's like reading hieroglyphics for the majority of the board of directors which has yet to consult the membership on any decision much less ones of great magnitude, in direct violation of the precepts of a co-op.
According to the same article:
Cooperatives are based on the cooperative values of "self-help, self-responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity" and the seven cooperative principles:
-Voluntary and Open Membership
-Democratic Member Control
-Member Economic Participation
-Autonomy and Independence
-Education, Training and Information
-Cooperation among Cooperatives
-Concern for Community
Does that sound like KIUC? Just ask yourself if there is true "Democratic Member Control" or is the nature of board decision-making that it's done behind closed doors often citing "proprietary" information- a concept directly in opposition to the basics of co-op decision-making principles.
Education, Training and Information? Information is anything but free-flowing at KIUC and, as a matter of fact, the flow of information from individual board members is tightly controlled through a gag rule preventing them from speaking publicly unless the content is approved by the board's chair or- get this- the CEO, meaning that the employees are telling the employers what they can and can't say.
Voluntary and Open Membership? People are automatically members as soon as they sign up for electric service and, although there is a way to "opt out," users are told they will pay more if they do so because they will not receive the "patronage capital"- a sort of rebate that represents the "profit" that would be there if it was an investor owned company. And there certainly isn't an "open membership." The majority of electricity consumers are not members because membership is reserved for those who pay the electric bill. Assuming the average household is between two and three people that means that most people cannot become members.
Concern for Community? The concern seems to be for the company rather than the community with the community being kept in the dark about major decisions and even routine matters through the gag rule and a general attitude of paternalism left over from the plantation days that is at the very root of the origins of KIUC.
Is it any wonder that when KIUC says "white" people assume "black?" When they say "up" can't we say with some certainty that the likelihood is that the real answer is "down?"
And when KIUC tells us "smart meters are safe," even if they are, it's no wonder more and more people are willing to believe that they are not.
Despite almost a century and a half of man-made RF beginning with the telegraph, although it can burn the crap out of you if the waves are long enough and it's placed right next to human tissue, studies have failed to find any accumulation of these waves that are generated by everything from cell and cordless phones to remote controls to radio and television broadcasts.
And, even if somehow it could be shown that there was a "cumulative effect," the amount and proximity to people of the signals in smart meters pales in comparison to placing a cell or cordless phone next to your brain.
It is certainly not "a hundred times worse" as the self-proclaimed "biggest smart meter activist in the state" told the county council on Wednesday.
So why then are so many otherwise rational people on Kaua`i going nuts over the Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op (KIUC) purchase and imminent installation of these new wireless meters which should be welcomed as a way to increase the amount of "intermittent" energy generation (such as wind and photovoltaic) we can reliably accommodate?
Opponents have been successful by basically telling others that any information on health effects or other issues such as "privacy" are all generated by "the industry" and "the government"- even though that is patently false- asking "how can you trust the 'electric companies'" or the "'big brother' of government" to tell you the truth.
Of course that is what's called an "ad hominem" attack which, according to Wikipedia, "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy."
But the fallaciousness of an ad hominem argument is dependent on how much the source is worthy of trust. If the track record of an individual or organization for truthfulness, honesty and open, transparent dealings with controversies is that they have never been truthful, open, honest or transparent in the past, people tend to take the old "how do you know if KIUC is lying?- because their lips are moving" joke as gospel.
Well we're pretty sure you can see this one coming up Rice St. because when it comes to a track record for deceit and opaque decision-making, KIUC is very model of modern major mismanagement.
We don't really have to go through the liturgy do we? Whether the bungling of the roll-out of proposed hydroelectric power projects by imposing the potential for federal meddling in local state environmental protections or the lack of any membership consultation- supposedly the hallmark of cooperatives- in the decision-making that preceded the underhanded manipulation of the petition-driven ballot effort to overturn the board's decision, KIUC has been exemplary in how not to gain the trust of the people of Kaua`i.
Even KIUC's inception was fraught with controversy with a group of hand-picked members of the "good old boys and girls" political elite offering an absurdly high- and later to be rejected by the PUC- original bid and eventually paying former owners Citizen's Electric of Connecticut what many say was up to twice what was shown to be the "book value," of Kaua`i Electric... as our "highest in the nation" electricity rates can attest.
Is it any wonder that, no matter how silly, no matter how unscientifically-based, no matter how self-defeating the rush to ban smart meters is, it has gained the support of so many otherwise rational people?
The reason is clear. It's because KIUC is a cooperative in name only when it comes to governance.
KIUC is what's called a "Consumers' Cooperative" in which, according again to Wikipedia, "(m)embers vote on major decisions and elect the board of directors from amongst their own number."
A normal cooperative board simply oversees the day-to-day operations but any major decision- such as strategic planning or even the decision to sign a power purchase agreement with a news solar or wind farm- is supposed to be made by the members.
How hard is that concept to understand? Apparently it's like reading hieroglyphics for the majority of the board of directors which has yet to consult the membership on any decision much less ones of great magnitude, in direct violation of the precepts of a co-op.
According to the same article:
Cooperatives are based on the cooperative values of "self-help, self-responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity" and the seven cooperative principles:
-Voluntary and Open Membership
-Democratic Member Control
-Member Economic Participation
-Autonomy and Independence
-Education, Training and Information
-Cooperation among Cooperatives
-Concern for Community
Does that sound like KIUC? Just ask yourself if there is true "Democratic Member Control" or is the nature of board decision-making that it's done behind closed doors often citing "proprietary" information- a concept directly in opposition to the basics of co-op decision-making principles.
Education, Training and Information? Information is anything but free-flowing at KIUC and, as a matter of fact, the flow of information from individual board members is tightly controlled through a gag rule preventing them from speaking publicly unless the content is approved by the board's chair or- get this- the CEO, meaning that the employees are telling the employers what they can and can't say.
Voluntary and Open Membership? People are automatically members as soon as they sign up for electric service and, although there is a way to "opt out," users are told they will pay more if they do so because they will not receive the "patronage capital"- a sort of rebate that represents the "profit" that would be there if it was an investor owned company. And there certainly isn't an "open membership." The majority of electricity consumers are not members because membership is reserved for those who pay the electric bill. Assuming the average household is between two and three people that means that most people cannot become members.
Concern for Community? The concern seems to be for the company rather than the community with the community being kept in the dark about major decisions and even routine matters through the gag rule and a general attitude of paternalism left over from the plantation days that is at the very root of the origins of KIUC.
Is it any wonder that when KIUC says "white" people assume "black?" When they say "up" can't we say with some certainty that the likelihood is that the real answer is "down?"
And when KIUC tells us "smart meters are safe," even if they are, it's no wonder more and more people are willing to believe that they are not.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
PRESUMPTUOUS ASSUMPTIONS
PRESUMPTUOUS ASSUMPTIONS: The outrage is palpable over the actions of Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. in placing ever popular Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Parry on leave pending investigation of a reported "hostile workplace" complaint by Officer Darla Abbatiello-Higa against Perry's two assistant Chiefs- Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan.
It fits the narrative- one we admit to perpetuating- of a pompous, politically-motivated. power-hungry mayor, yet again overstepping his authority and perhaps, as many have speculated, going after a potential 2014 political opponent with Perry's name being bandies about by many as the only person who could successfully challenge Carvalho for his job in two years.
But what if the narrative is wrong? What if there was misconduct on Perry's part in handling Abbatiello's complaint- actions that violated the county's own policies on how to handle a complaint?
One thing we can report is that, although Perry's first and only statement to the press- or at least on-the-record comment- stressed that he had "the utmost trust in the... decision-making" of Asher and Quibilan and that "they’re beyond reproach,” literally dozens of people will tell you that it is in fact Abbatiello that has a sterling reputation for being a "straight shooter" and beyond reproach.
And another dozen will tell you that they have no difficulty at all in believing that either Asher or Quibilan were the types who would think they are so "beyond reproach" that they could get away with harassing Abbatiello even after she had successfully sued the county for just such actions by other KPD officers and brass in the past.
It is certainly strange then that Perry's first reaction was to tell the local press he apparently fully supported his two assistants despite what had to be an extremely credible complaint from "Officer Darla" as she is affectionately known.
Remember that a hostile workplace complaint was filed internally by Abbatiello, reportedly against Asher, in October. That complaint seems to have been all but ignored and was apparently mishandled with, at minimum, no "separation" of Asher and Abbatiello as county policy calls for.
The county's 2010 edition of their "Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment" says that “(p)ending investigation, the investigator(s) shall take immediate and reasonable action to limit the work contact between employees where there has been a complaint of discrimination or harassment.”
Seemingly the fact that going up the chain of command in October- a chain that ends with Perry- met with no success led to Abbatiello's January 31 complaint, reportedly against Quibilan, being sent to both the police commission and the mayor.
While we're not privy to the contents of the complaint, the scenario that makes the most sense is that, after finding out about the complaint- and presumably its contents- Perry tried to stop the bleeding by placing Asher and Quibilan on leave. But he felt compelled to side with them against Abbatiello in a comment to the press even after being warned, according to the same article, not to comment on the matter.
So put yourself in Carvalho's place. Assuming the complaint included the fact that Perry had filed to act properly in the October complaint, the "beyond reproach" comment was too much for the politically-oriented Carvalho. But more importantly consider that the comment exacerbated the situation intimating that Officer Darla was a liar. Having the department head take sides against the complainant would be yet another violation of the sexual harassment guidelines.
And we're pretty sure Carvalho was reminded of all this by County Attorney Al Castillo who has also been under fire for allowing these sexual harassment suits to be mishandled and even ignored.
The fact that the complaint was addressed to the mayor left him in a place where, if he failed to act by putting Perry on leave- and not just allowing him to "work from home" as Perry claimed he had demanded- he would be doing what the county has done in similar sexual harassment complaints- at best just ignore them and worse put pressure on the complainant to drop the charges by allowing Perry's statement to stand as the county's only reaction to the complaint.
While we've gone back and forth on the subject of whether Carvalho had the authority to discipline the chief, it's a subject that has even received scrutiny in Honolulu with an exchange between blogger Ian Lind- who asserted Carvalho did not have the authority- and, in comments on the post, former local Kaua`i newspaper reporter and current "Civil Beat" correspondent Mike Levine.
Levine essentially said "not so fast" in pointing out that, while the authority might seem to be with the police commission which hires and fires the chief, it's a leap to say they are the only ones who can discipline the chief since there is no clear written authority to do so anywhere in the Kaua`i County Charter.
The most popular narrative on Perry in the community is that, after a recently reported 61 official grievances having been filed during the brief tenure of his predecessor KC Lum- who was essentially "quitted" for allowing "low morale" to spread through the department- Perry has been able to cut those grievances to a negligible level. But among those who thought Lum got a raw deal, the narrative is that the reason why there were so many grievances under Lum is that he was actually processing them by the book, encouraging an atmosphere where employees felt their complaints would actually be heard, causing the number to snowball not because of morale but because there was so much misconduct.
They say that the reason why the grievances have slowed to a trickle under Perry is that he has sought to "smooth things over" and either ignore the complaints until they went away or intervening and using his authority to intimidate complainants into withdrawing their complaints so as not to "make waves" and "rock the boat."
That, some say, has allowed some "bad apples" to remain in place and created a "don't bother to complain" atmosphere under Perry's permissive reign.
Is that the situation here? While we can speculate and even state that Perry's public handling of Abbatiello's latest complaint was in violation of the county's workplace policy- making them a violation of the law since the law requires employers to have a policy and stick to it- we have no direct evidence other than the public statements to believe one way or the other.
But if others, as they have in almost unanimity, want to speculate that Hizzonah is once again on the wrong end of an issue of process, they would be wise to consider that there is another narrative that, while it doesn't fit the observable past, may just have the quality of the proverbial broken clock- one that right at least twice a day.
It fits the narrative- one we admit to perpetuating- of a pompous, politically-motivated. power-hungry mayor, yet again overstepping his authority and perhaps, as many have speculated, going after a potential 2014 political opponent with Perry's name being bandies about by many as the only person who could successfully challenge Carvalho for his job in two years.
But what if the narrative is wrong? What if there was misconduct on Perry's part in handling Abbatiello's complaint- actions that violated the county's own policies on how to handle a complaint?
One thing we can report is that, although Perry's first and only statement to the press- or at least on-the-record comment- stressed that he had "the utmost trust in the... decision-making" of Asher and Quibilan and that "they’re beyond reproach,” literally dozens of people will tell you that it is in fact Abbatiello that has a sterling reputation for being a "straight shooter" and beyond reproach.
And another dozen will tell you that they have no difficulty at all in believing that either Asher or Quibilan were the types who would think they are so "beyond reproach" that they could get away with harassing Abbatiello even after she had successfully sued the county for just such actions by other KPD officers and brass in the past.
It is certainly strange then that Perry's first reaction was to tell the local press he apparently fully supported his two assistants despite what had to be an extremely credible complaint from "Officer Darla" as she is affectionately known.
Remember that a hostile workplace complaint was filed internally by Abbatiello, reportedly against Asher, in October. That complaint seems to have been all but ignored and was apparently mishandled with, at minimum, no "separation" of Asher and Abbatiello as county policy calls for.
The county's 2010 edition of their "Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment" says that “(p)ending investigation, the investigator(s) shall take immediate and reasonable action to limit the work contact between employees where there has been a complaint of discrimination or harassment.”
Seemingly the fact that going up the chain of command in October- a chain that ends with Perry- met with no success led to Abbatiello's January 31 complaint, reportedly against Quibilan, being sent to both the police commission and the mayor.
While we're not privy to the contents of the complaint, the scenario that makes the most sense is that, after finding out about the complaint- and presumably its contents- Perry tried to stop the bleeding by placing Asher and Quibilan on leave. But he felt compelled to side with them against Abbatiello in a comment to the press even after being warned, according to the same article, not to comment on the matter.
So put yourself in Carvalho's place. Assuming the complaint included the fact that Perry had filed to act properly in the October complaint, the "beyond reproach" comment was too much for the politically-oriented Carvalho. But more importantly consider that the comment exacerbated the situation intimating that Officer Darla was a liar. Having the department head take sides against the complainant would be yet another violation of the sexual harassment guidelines.
And we're pretty sure Carvalho was reminded of all this by County Attorney Al Castillo who has also been under fire for allowing these sexual harassment suits to be mishandled and even ignored.
The fact that the complaint was addressed to the mayor left him in a place where, if he failed to act by putting Perry on leave- and not just allowing him to "work from home" as Perry claimed he had demanded- he would be doing what the county has done in similar sexual harassment complaints- at best just ignore them and worse put pressure on the complainant to drop the charges by allowing Perry's statement to stand as the county's only reaction to the complaint.
While we've gone back and forth on the subject of whether Carvalho had the authority to discipline the chief, it's a subject that has even received scrutiny in Honolulu with an exchange between blogger Ian Lind- who asserted Carvalho did not have the authority- and, in comments on the post, former local Kaua`i newspaper reporter and current "Civil Beat" correspondent Mike Levine.
Levine essentially said "not so fast" in pointing out that, while the authority might seem to be with the police commission which hires and fires the chief, it's a leap to say they are the only ones who can discipline the chief since there is no clear written authority to do so anywhere in the Kaua`i County Charter.
The most popular narrative on Perry in the community is that, after a recently reported 61 official grievances having been filed during the brief tenure of his predecessor KC Lum- who was essentially "quitted" for allowing "low morale" to spread through the department- Perry has been able to cut those grievances to a negligible level. But among those who thought Lum got a raw deal, the narrative is that the reason why there were so many grievances under Lum is that he was actually processing them by the book, encouraging an atmosphere where employees felt their complaints would actually be heard, causing the number to snowball not because of morale but because there was so much misconduct.
They say that the reason why the grievances have slowed to a trickle under Perry is that he has sought to "smooth things over" and either ignore the complaints until they went away or intervening and using his authority to intimidate complainants into withdrawing their complaints so as not to "make waves" and "rock the boat."
That, some say, has allowed some "bad apples" to remain in place and created a "don't bother to complain" atmosphere under Perry's permissive reign.
Is that the situation here? While we can speculate and even state that Perry's public handling of Abbatiello's latest complaint was in violation of the county's workplace policy- making them a violation of the law since the law requires employers to have a policy and stick to it- we have no direct evidence other than the public statements to believe one way or the other.
But if others, as they have in almost unanimity, want to speculate that Hizzonah is once again on the wrong end of an issue of process, they would be wise to consider that there is another narrative that, while it doesn't fit the observable past, may just have the quality of the proverbial broken clock- one that right at least twice a day.
Monday, February 6, 2012
WHY, WHY, WHY, DELILAH
WHY, WHY, WHY, DELILAH: One of the oddest things about the current Kaua`i Police Department complaints against Assistant Chief Roy Asher and is why the reported October complaint against Asher by Officer Darla Abbatiello-Higa seems to have fallen into a black hole while the January complaint against Quibilan spurred a full-fledged inquiry by Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr.
The reason may be the way the two complaints were filed.
According to an administration source the October complaint never reached the mayor's office in the first place but rather was filed internally and handled within KPD where an investigation was apparently launched. Whether that investigation is still active is unknown.
All we can say is that in January when the complaint was reportedly filed against Quibilan it was sent to both the Kaua`i Police Commission (KPC) and Carvalho.
The matter is on tomorrow's KPC agenda, scheduled for no less than three executive sessions. So why then did Carvalho feel the need to launch his own investigation and suspend Chief Darryl Perry, especially since there is nothing in the county charter that specifically gives the mayor the power to deal with the internal affairs of the department? In fact, the commission is designated as the entity that hires and fires and so, presumably, disciplines the chief although the "discipline" part is not specifically spelled out in the charter.
Apparently Carvalho found himself in an untenable position, especially given the likelihood that there will be yet another lawsuit involving, if not sexual harassment then certainly, "creating a hostile work environment" as has been reported is the subject of both complaints.
If he were to ignore the fact that the complaint was sent to him and wait for the commission to act, when the complaint was revealed and his name was on it he surely would have been accused of inaction in the face of this type of complaint. That's something of which the county has been accused over and over during the last decade plus, as multiple sexual harassment and hostile work environment cases have shown not only guilt but distinct attempts by the county to stonewall and even cover up the events by failing to launch timely investigations... or launch them at all.
Whether or not Carvalho's actions will be found to have been in violation of the ambiguous provisions in the charter, perhaps worse for him politically would have been to have it be known that the complaint was addressed to him and he failed to act post haste.
That being said all this criticism- such as a scathing editorial in Saturday's Honolulu Star Advertiser condemning Carvalho's attitude toward informing the public of some of the details that would not have violated anyone's privacy- could have been avoided by being a bit more open as to why he took the action he did.
The pay-wall protected editorial said, in part
Kauai residents have been left in the dark after Mayor Bernard Carvalho placed on leave the island's police chief and two assistant chiefs due to what he calls an "employee-generated complaint," which can mean just about anything. The mayor should provide more information about the allegations surrounding the three highest public officials entrusted with safeguarding the island's public safety...
The mayor added in a prepared statement, "It is standard procedure to keep all information relative to the complaint confidential while the investigation is in process. This is essential to safeguard the fairness of the process and the rights and privacy of all involved."
Of course, that depends on what the public already knows or soon will learn. When police chiefs were put on leave recently in other parts of the country, the mayors in each of those cases acknowledged the issues that already had been public knowledge: In Oklahoma, the chief's arrest on drug charges; in Texas, misuse of public funds; in Connecticut, sexual harassment; and at the University of California at Davis, pepper spraying students.
But in a small town in New Hampshire, residents are still left wondering why the police chief resigned Thursday, more than four months after he was put on paid leave that totaled $36,000.
Clearly, there is compelling reason for the public to know the circumstances under which their paid public officials are placed on leave. Kauai's situation is no different...
Mayor Carvalho read the statement to reporters that the "content of the complaint" will be kept secret "while the investigation is ongoing," but he would not say whether it would be made public afterward.
"This is not the first time an employee has been placed on leave pending the outcome of an investigation," he read, "and it should not be construed to be disciplinary in nature."
However, the police chief is more than your garden-variety county employee. Residents deserve to be advised about the nature of the allegations being made against the man who has been in charge of the county's law enforcement and his two top assistants.
But perhaps the most telling part of the editorial described what happened after Carvalho's press conference on Thursday where he read a prepare statement that revealed just about nothing.
Carvalho refused to answer questions by reporters on Thursday, directing them to his communications team. When asked whether that team would answer questions that day, he responded flippantly, "Welcome to Kauai." The county attorney has advised all county employees to remain silent, and Kauai police officers are telling reporters that they are under orders not to talk.
This just underlines not just Carvalho's inability to think and speak coherently on his own without displaying foot-in-mouth disease, but the amateurish nature of Carvalho's "communications team" which is headed by Beth Tokioka- the so-called "brains" behind the last three administrations.
Tokioka has no experience as a journalist and has gotten away with Carvalho's "Welcome to Kaua`i" attitude because the local newspaper has been, with rare periods of coherency, an administration lap dog.
All this does is to confirm the widely held view that Kaua`i is "a separate kingdom" where neither the ABCs of good public relations nor the rule of law apply.
It takes a shakeup of the proportions of the current debacle to get the attention of the outside press. The only problem is that when this story fades, so will the attention to the finger that Kaua`i mayors have been giving to the rest of the world for generations.
The reason may be the way the two complaints were filed.
According to an administration source the October complaint never reached the mayor's office in the first place but rather was filed internally and handled within KPD where an investigation was apparently launched. Whether that investigation is still active is unknown.
All we can say is that in January when the complaint was reportedly filed against Quibilan it was sent to both the Kaua`i Police Commission (KPC) and Carvalho.
The matter is on tomorrow's KPC agenda, scheduled for no less than three executive sessions. So why then did Carvalho feel the need to launch his own investigation and suspend Chief Darryl Perry, especially since there is nothing in the county charter that specifically gives the mayor the power to deal with the internal affairs of the department? In fact, the commission is designated as the entity that hires and fires and so, presumably, disciplines the chief although the "discipline" part is not specifically spelled out in the charter.
Apparently Carvalho found himself in an untenable position, especially given the likelihood that there will be yet another lawsuit involving, if not sexual harassment then certainly, "creating a hostile work environment" as has been reported is the subject of both complaints.
If he were to ignore the fact that the complaint was sent to him and wait for the commission to act, when the complaint was revealed and his name was on it he surely would have been accused of inaction in the face of this type of complaint. That's something of which the county has been accused over and over during the last decade plus, as multiple sexual harassment and hostile work environment cases have shown not only guilt but distinct attempts by the county to stonewall and even cover up the events by failing to launch timely investigations... or launch them at all.
Whether or not Carvalho's actions will be found to have been in violation of the ambiguous provisions in the charter, perhaps worse for him politically would have been to have it be known that the complaint was addressed to him and he failed to act post haste.
That being said all this criticism- such as a scathing editorial in Saturday's Honolulu Star Advertiser condemning Carvalho's attitude toward informing the public of some of the details that would not have violated anyone's privacy- could have been avoided by being a bit more open as to why he took the action he did.
The pay-wall protected editorial said, in part
Kauai residents have been left in the dark after Mayor Bernard Carvalho placed on leave the island's police chief and two assistant chiefs due to what he calls an "employee-generated complaint," which can mean just about anything. The mayor should provide more information about the allegations surrounding the three highest public officials entrusted with safeguarding the island's public safety...
The mayor added in a prepared statement, "It is standard procedure to keep all information relative to the complaint confidential while the investigation is in process. This is essential to safeguard the fairness of the process and the rights and privacy of all involved."
Of course, that depends on what the public already knows or soon will learn. When police chiefs were put on leave recently in other parts of the country, the mayors in each of those cases acknowledged the issues that already had been public knowledge: In Oklahoma, the chief's arrest on drug charges; in Texas, misuse of public funds; in Connecticut, sexual harassment; and at the University of California at Davis, pepper spraying students.
But in a small town in New Hampshire, residents are still left wondering why the police chief resigned Thursday, more than four months after he was put on paid leave that totaled $36,000.
Clearly, there is compelling reason for the public to know the circumstances under which their paid public officials are placed on leave. Kauai's situation is no different...
Mayor Carvalho read the statement to reporters that the "content of the complaint" will be kept secret "while the investigation is ongoing," but he would not say whether it would be made public afterward.
"This is not the first time an employee has been placed on leave pending the outcome of an investigation," he read, "and it should not be construed to be disciplinary in nature."
However, the police chief is more than your garden-variety county employee. Residents deserve to be advised about the nature of the allegations being made against the man who has been in charge of the county's law enforcement and his two top assistants.
But perhaps the most telling part of the editorial described what happened after Carvalho's press conference on Thursday where he read a prepare statement that revealed just about nothing.
Carvalho refused to answer questions by reporters on Thursday, directing them to his communications team. When asked whether that team would answer questions that day, he responded flippantly, "Welcome to Kauai." The county attorney has advised all county employees to remain silent, and Kauai police officers are telling reporters that they are under orders not to talk.
This just underlines not just Carvalho's inability to think and speak coherently on his own without displaying foot-in-mouth disease, but the amateurish nature of Carvalho's "communications team" which is headed by Beth Tokioka- the so-called "brains" behind the last three administrations.
Tokioka has no experience as a journalist and has gotten away with Carvalho's "Welcome to Kaua`i" attitude because the local newspaper has been, with rare periods of coherency, an administration lap dog.
All this does is to confirm the widely held view that Kaua`i is "a separate kingdom" where neither the ABCs of good public relations nor the rule of law apply.
It takes a shakeup of the proportions of the current debacle to get the attention of the outside press. The only problem is that when this story fades, so will the attention to the finger that Kaua`i mayors have been giving to the rest of the world for generations.
Friday, February 3, 2012
HORSESH*T OF A DIFFERENT COLOR
HORSESH*T OF A DIFFERENT COLOR: Stumblebums, troglodytes and mental midgets- oh my.
Those are just some of the words that come to mind over Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s "Goo-goo-ga-joob" response to charges he had no authority to place Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry on leave yesterday- an action reportedly taken after Assistant Chief Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan were the subject of a "creating a hostile work environment" complaint from- guess who- Officer Darla Abbatiello-Higa.
"Creating a hostile work environment" has cost the county millions and these guys are apparently still at it.
"Un-freakin'-believable," as one former Kaua`i official repeatedly yelled into the phone last night.
Perhaps the best line we heard yesterday came from "KPD Blue" author Anthony Sommer who wrote, regarding Carvalho, "maybe he just wants to keep the tradition of 'every Kauai mayor gets to fire one police chief' alive."
But if Asher and Quibilan are Neanderthals, it pales in comparison to Carvalho's "I am the Eggman, They are the Eggmen, I am the Walrus" statement that somehow the county charter gives him the right to place Chief Perry on leave.
Though he cites charter section 7.05, that section has 13 different provisions in it. But assuming the first one is the one to which he refers, it plainly begins with the phrase "unless otherwise provided" which, although Carvalho and real mayor Beth Tokioka disingenuously and conveniently chose not to read this part, means that the operable section, 11.04 supersedes 7.05(A). That's the section that says the police commission is the body empowered to hire and fire the chief and therefore apparently to whom he is responsible.
But not only is Carvalho tone deaf to the limits of his own authority, he apparently hasn't read the sunshine law either.
In his "statement" he explained that he contacted the chair and vice chair of the police commission and apparently discussed the matter with them. Since the mayor sits as a non-voting "ex-officio" member of all boards and commissions, this is a blatant violation of prohibitions on more than two members of a board discussing matters that are before that board, outside of a duly agendaed meeting.
The matter is on the police commission's agenda for a special "executive session" meeting next Tuesday.
Oh- and one last thing. Though the county has been tight-lipped about the type of leave Perry and the two assistant chiefs have been forced to take, one report may indicate it's not just some routine, non-disciplinary type.
Today's pay-walled Honolulu Star Advertiser reports that "(a)ll three were ordered to turn in their equipment."
You don't take away an officer's- or especially a chief's- gun and badge without some serious wrong-doing behind the action.
Another question that comes up is why if, as reported, the complaint against Asher was filed last October 24, it did not show up on the October, November, December or January police commission meeting agendas. It just goes to show how seriously the county continues to take charges like this.
We haven't been directly privy to the information that apparently came from either Abbatiello-Higa or Perry or both but it certainly wouldn’t be being spread by almost every media outlet in the state unless the source was unimpeachably "close to Abbatiello-Higa" or "has direct knowledge of the investigation" as they have characterized their source.
But the real issue is that even after efforts by current Councilmember Tim Bynum and former Councilperson Lani Kawahara to put an end to the sexual harassment that pervades the county offices, it continues.
A letter from the two dated October 13, 2010 states that the county "has repeatedly failed to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment."
Yet the Carvalho administration hasn't done a thing other than have a few "training sessions." Many of the harassers- even some of those that cost the county big bucks- are still on the job in positions that actually ARE under the direct supervision of the mayor. Funny how he's willing to butt in where he's apparently forbidden by law to do so but when it comes to his own hand-picked cronies it's a "hand-off" policy that pervades.
If we didn't know better, we might think there was some kind of corruption going on in the administration.
Those are just some of the words that come to mind over Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s "Goo-goo-ga-joob" response to charges he had no authority to place Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry on leave yesterday- an action reportedly taken after Assistant Chief Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan were the subject of a "creating a hostile work environment" complaint from- guess who- Officer Darla Abbatiello-Higa.
"Creating a hostile work environment" has cost the county millions and these guys are apparently still at it.
"Un-freakin'-believable," as one former Kaua`i official repeatedly yelled into the phone last night.
Perhaps the best line we heard yesterday came from "KPD Blue" author Anthony Sommer who wrote, regarding Carvalho, "maybe he just wants to keep the tradition of 'every Kauai mayor gets to fire one police chief' alive."
But if Asher and Quibilan are Neanderthals, it pales in comparison to Carvalho's "I am the Eggman, They are the Eggmen, I am the Walrus" statement that somehow the county charter gives him the right to place Chief Perry on leave.
Though he cites charter section 7.05, that section has 13 different provisions in it. But assuming the first one is the one to which he refers, it plainly begins with the phrase "unless otherwise provided" which, although Carvalho and real mayor Beth Tokioka disingenuously and conveniently chose not to read this part, means that the operable section, 11.04 supersedes 7.05(A). That's the section that says the police commission is the body empowered to hire and fire the chief and therefore apparently to whom he is responsible.
But not only is Carvalho tone deaf to the limits of his own authority, he apparently hasn't read the sunshine law either.
In his "statement" he explained that he contacted the chair and vice chair of the police commission and apparently discussed the matter with them. Since the mayor sits as a non-voting "ex-officio" member of all boards and commissions, this is a blatant violation of prohibitions on more than two members of a board discussing matters that are before that board, outside of a duly agendaed meeting.
The matter is on the police commission's agenda for a special "executive session" meeting next Tuesday.
Oh- and one last thing. Though the county has been tight-lipped about the type of leave Perry and the two assistant chiefs have been forced to take, one report may indicate it's not just some routine, non-disciplinary type.
Today's pay-walled Honolulu Star Advertiser reports that "(a)ll three were ordered to turn in their equipment."
You don't take away an officer's- or especially a chief's- gun and badge without some serious wrong-doing behind the action.
Another question that comes up is why if, as reported, the complaint against Asher was filed last October 24, it did not show up on the October, November, December or January police commission meeting agendas. It just goes to show how seriously the county continues to take charges like this.
We haven't been directly privy to the information that apparently came from either Abbatiello-Higa or Perry or both but it certainly wouldn’t be being spread by almost every media outlet in the state unless the source was unimpeachably "close to Abbatiello-Higa" or "has direct knowledge of the investigation" as they have characterized their source.
But the real issue is that even after efforts by current Councilmember Tim Bynum and former Councilperson Lani Kawahara to put an end to the sexual harassment that pervades the county offices, it continues.
A letter from the two dated October 13, 2010 states that the county "has repeatedly failed to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment."
Yet the Carvalho administration hasn't done a thing other than have a few "training sessions." Many of the harassers- even some of those that cost the county big bucks- are still on the job in positions that actually ARE under the direct supervision of the mayor. Funny how he's willing to butt in where he's apparently forbidden by law to do so but when it comes to his own hand-picked cronies it's a "hand-off" policy that pervades.
If we didn't know better, we might think there was some kind of corruption going on in the administration.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
WELL I WONDER, WONDER, WONDER, WONDER WHO
WELL I WONDER, WONDER, WONDER, WONDER WHO: The "fact" that Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry "is on leave" seems to be the only thing that is clear after chapter two of the latest departmental saga hit the streets.
Chapter one was the leave that was apparently forced on two assistant chiefs by Perry on Tuesday. But as to how Perry wound up on leave there seems to be about as much confusion in the press as there is silence on the part of the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.
The first report of Perry's "situation" came from a county press release last night and simply said:
As of this morning, Police Chief Darryl Perry is on leave and Deputy Police Chief Michael Contrades will serve as Acting Police Chief until further notice.
The local Kaua`i newspaper claims to have reached Perry who told them that indeed it was hizzonah who did the deed saying:
While the county offered no explanation in terse statements that were released Tuesday and Wednesday, Perry said late Wednesday that“the truth will come out,” and that the actions were brought about by the mayor’s office.
The pay-walled Honolulu Star Advertiser, while detailing some of the ways past chiefs have departed on less than friendly terms with the county apparently reached county KPD spokesperson Sarah Blane who told them "she was not told who placed Perry on leave."
Although the county claims it cannot say anything because it is a "personnel matter" the sunshine law says that, if appropriate in the specific case, the public's interest in the information can trump privacy concerns. That, however, would be a matter for the toothless Office of Information Practices (OIP) to determine and, even if they had fangs, they seem to work at glacial speeds.
So who dunnit?
Well if it was the mayor all we can say is "here we go again."
According to Section 11-4 of the Kaua`i County Charter
The chief of police shall be appointed by the police commission. He may be removed by the police commission only after being given a written statement of the charges against him and a hearing before the commission.
And while the power to place the chief on leave is not directly addressed, Police Commissions statewide are, according to state law, supposed to be autonomous in their dealings with the police chiefs.
But while it's not within Carvalho's powers to remove- or even place on leave- the chief, it's not for lack of wishing on his part. He has been engaged in a campaign to have the state law changed so that the chiefs of the police departments across the state would be hired and fired by the mayors, making the police commissions little more than advisory boards.
It may be of note that both Perry and the commission have gone on the record opposing Carvalho's would-be new law.
A perusal of the police commission's most recent agenda produces no recent "emergency" meeting where any executive session placing Perry on leave might have taken place and to do so would have violated the state sunshine law anyway which requires six days notice before a meeting can be held.
However this morning at 8:15 an agenda for a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday February 7- the first day one could be legally held- calls for no less than three "executive sessions."
The first, ES 5 reads in part
Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes, §92-4, 92-5(a) (2) and (4), the purpose of this Executive Session is for Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho Jr. to provide the Commission with a briefing regarding personnel and/or disciplinary actions related to notarized complaint filed with the Police Commission on 01/31/12, and for the Commission to further consider and discuss said personnel and/or disciplinary actions.
While it's not clear what "disciplinary action" Carvalho has taken it seems pretty clear it refers to placing Perry on leave because the next item, ES 6 reads
Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes, §92-4 and 92-5 (a) (4), the purpose of this Executive Session is for the Commission to consult with its attorney as to its powers, duties, privileges, immunities and liabilities as they relate to Section 11.04 of the County of Kaua'i Charter
Charter section 11-4 of course is the one cited above about the hiring and firing of the chief being the sole kuleana of the police commission.
The third item on the 2/7 agenda reads:
Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes, §92-4 and 92-5 (a) (4), the purpose of this Executive Session is for the Commission to consult with its attorney as to its powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities as they relate to Rule 6-1.f of the Rules of the Kaua'i County Police Commission.
But if you thought that would clarify what was going on you'll be sorely disappointed because Rule 6 is entitled "Control, Management And Direction Of The Department" and 6-1 is an incredibly long and list of the "Powers, Duties and Responsibilities of the Police Commission."
Although 6-1-3 does deal with "Investigation of Charge (sic)" it does not directly address what happens if the target of the investigation is the chief.
So what does it matter who put Perry on leave?
Well if past is prologue the county might just be in for another big settlement should Perry decide to sue for denying his rights under the charter.
To make a long story short, back when George Freitas was the chief and Maryanne Kusaka was the mayor- this during the time when Kusaka was allegedly covering up for her buddies with grubbing and grading violations by allegedly telling a Department of Public Works engineer to butt out when it came to Jimmy Pflueger and the Ka Loko Dam area that later burst during a storm killing seven people- Kusaka "removed" Freitas from his office.
She apparently got the long time secretary for Freitas and past chiefs to take his gun and badge from his desk and give it to her. There was a long list of serious charges made but when it was all over the only one the police commission upheld was that Freitas had given a ride to his girlfriend in his police car.
And in the end Freitas settled for a reported half-million dollar golden parachute and "retiring" from the force.
Hard to say what will happen tomorrow- or next Tuesday for that matter because the usual open session for decision making after executive sessions on complaint against KPD personnel is decidedly missing from the 2/7 agenda.
But one thing is clear- in his notorious quest for power Carvalho is certainly putting the county in jeopardy by usurping the commission's oversight.
Chapter one was the leave that was apparently forced on two assistant chiefs by Perry on Tuesday. But as to how Perry wound up on leave there seems to be about as much confusion in the press as there is silence on the part of the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.
The first report of Perry's "situation" came from a county press release last night and simply said:
As of this morning, Police Chief Darryl Perry is on leave and Deputy Police Chief Michael Contrades will serve as Acting Police Chief until further notice.
The local Kaua`i newspaper claims to have reached Perry who told them that indeed it was hizzonah who did the deed saying:
While the county offered no explanation in terse statements that were released Tuesday and Wednesday, Perry said late Wednesday that“the truth will come out,” and that the actions were brought about by the mayor’s office.
The pay-walled Honolulu Star Advertiser, while detailing some of the ways past chiefs have departed on less than friendly terms with the county apparently reached county KPD spokesperson Sarah Blane who told them "she was not told who placed Perry on leave."
Although the county claims it cannot say anything because it is a "personnel matter" the sunshine law says that, if appropriate in the specific case, the public's interest in the information can trump privacy concerns. That, however, would be a matter for the toothless Office of Information Practices (OIP) to determine and, even if they had fangs, they seem to work at glacial speeds.
So who dunnit?
Well if it was the mayor all we can say is "here we go again."
According to Section 11-4 of the Kaua`i County Charter
The chief of police shall be appointed by the police commission. He may be removed by the police commission only after being given a written statement of the charges against him and a hearing before the commission.
And while the power to place the chief on leave is not directly addressed, Police Commissions statewide are, according to state law, supposed to be autonomous in their dealings with the police chiefs.
But while it's not within Carvalho's powers to remove- or even place on leave- the chief, it's not for lack of wishing on his part. He has been engaged in a campaign to have the state law changed so that the chiefs of the police departments across the state would be hired and fired by the mayors, making the police commissions little more than advisory boards.
It may be of note that both Perry and the commission have gone on the record opposing Carvalho's would-be new law.
A perusal of the police commission's most recent agenda produces no recent "emergency" meeting where any executive session placing Perry on leave might have taken place and to do so would have violated the state sunshine law anyway which requires six days notice before a meeting can be held.
However this morning at 8:15 an agenda for a meeting scheduled for next Tuesday February 7- the first day one could be legally held- calls for no less than three "executive sessions."
The first, ES 5 reads in part
Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes, §92-4, 92-5(a) (2) and (4), the purpose of this Executive Session is for Mayor Bernard P. Carvalho Jr. to provide the Commission with a briefing regarding personnel and/or disciplinary actions related to notarized complaint filed with the Police Commission on 01/31/12, and for the Commission to further consider and discuss said personnel and/or disciplinary actions.
While it's not clear what "disciplinary action" Carvalho has taken it seems pretty clear it refers to placing Perry on leave because the next item, ES 6 reads
Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes, §92-4 and 92-5 (a) (4), the purpose of this Executive Session is for the Commission to consult with its attorney as to its powers, duties, privileges, immunities and liabilities as they relate to Section 11.04 of the County of Kaua'i Charter
Charter section 11-4 of course is the one cited above about the hiring and firing of the chief being the sole kuleana of the police commission.
The third item on the 2/7 agenda reads:
Pursuant to Hawai`i Revised Statutes, §92-4 and 92-5 (a) (4), the purpose of this Executive Session is for the Commission to consult with its attorney as to its powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities as they relate to Rule 6-1.f of the Rules of the Kaua'i County Police Commission.
But if you thought that would clarify what was going on you'll be sorely disappointed because Rule 6 is entitled "Control, Management And Direction Of The Department" and 6-1 is an incredibly long and list of the "Powers, Duties and Responsibilities of the Police Commission."
Although 6-1-3 does deal with "Investigation of Charge (sic)" it does not directly address what happens if the target of the investigation is the chief.
So what does it matter who put Perry on leave?
Well if past is prologue the county might just be in for another big settlement should Perry decide to sue for denying his rights under the charter.
To make a long story short, back when George Freitas was the chief and Maryanne Kusaka was the mayor- this during the time when Kusaka was allegedly covering up for her buddies with grubbing and grading violations by allegedly telling a Department of Public Works engineer to butt out when it came to Jimmy Pflueger and the Ka Loko Dam area that later burst during a storm killing seven people- Kusaka "removed" Freitas from his office.
She apparently got the long time secretary for Freitas and past chiefs to take his gun and badge from his desk and give it to her. There was a long list of serious charges made but when it was all over the only one the police commission upheld was that Freitas had given a ride to his girlfriend in his police car.
And in the end Freitas settled for a reported half-million dollar golden parachute and "retiring" from the force.
Hard to say what will happen tomorrow- or next Tuesday for that matter because the usual open session for decision making after executive sessions on complaint against KPD personnel is decidedly missing from the 2/7 agenda.
But one thing is clear- in his notorious quest for power Carvalho is certainly putting the county in jeopardy by usurping the commission's oversight.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
FEELING KINDA SEASICK
FEELING KINDA SEASICK: We admit it- we have a hard time keeping up with the voluminous viewing of council meetings.
First of all, even if we do watch them "gavel to gavel" figuring out what the bleep is going on is often a fool's mission because the actual communications, reports, memos, bills, resolutions and the rest of the accompanying paperwork is still not available on line after years of promises from two different council chairs and even a budgetary appropriation for another staff member dedicated solely to this supposedly daunting task
So again it's time to ask how hard it is to take the packet of hard copies, already sorted and ready for replication and distribution to the public at the counter of Council Services, and scan and post them at the council's web site? Apparently it's beyond the capabilities of anyone who works there, although we suspect that it is, rather, a reluctance to actually let people know any more than they want us to know.
But it's not all due to the speed bumps and blind spots strategically placed on the information highway. We do get overwhelmed on occasion as it was earlier this year when the outside, independent auditors came in for their "report" to the council.
Yes, we missed the audit report. Somehow it quite literally put us to sleep as we remember it. Imagine that.
And so it was that later, last Wednesday well after the miller had told his tale, that we were taken aback when Director of Finance Wall Rezentes Jr.- or "Little Wally" as he is known around county government- took the hot seat to answer some 13 questions the council had for him regarding the findings in the charter-mandated audit.
Apparently, according to Councilmember Mel Rapozo, the audit showed that the "ending balance for vacation and sick leave were not matching the beginning balance for the next year." And, 90% of them were in the Personnel Department of Malcolm Fernandez.
"It's more than an anomaly" said Rapozo, "it's a trend.
"Obviously it's human error... we know that," he told Little Wally and the assembled, saying that there were "too many occurrences for it to be just a mistake.
"I want to make sure there's no evidence of fraud- that nobody's getting extra vacation and sick leave hours," Rapozo said.
But Rezentes couldn't say that was so, only that the amounts had been reconciled and that "Fernandez is taking corrective action." He admitted no one had really checked for wrongdoing or what really happened other than ascertaining, in response to a final question from Rapozo, that "somebody" did reconcile the numbers.
Rapozo seemed to indicate that there were 20 instances of "irreconciled" sick and vacation filings in the Personnel Department alone and let slip that that was "90%" of the total and, apparently there were "one or two" in- drum roll please- the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD).
That was last Wednesday. And, although "we ain't sayin', we're just saying" as they say, yesterday it was reported in the local newspaper that KPD Chief Darryl Perry has placed his two assistant chiefs, Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan, on leave "due to a 'personnel matter.'"
Oh, and of course neither the audit, nor the 13 questions- nor for that matter the written answers to the 13 questions that were apparently provided to the council by Rezentes- is posted on the county's web site.
First of all, even if we do watch them "gavel to gavel" figuring out what the bleep is going on is often a fool's mission because the actual communications, reports, memos, bills, resolutions and the rest of the accompanying paperwork is still not available on line after years of promises from two different council chairs and even a budgetary appropriation for another staff member dedicated solely to this supposedly daunting task
So again it's time to ask how hard it is to take the packet of hard copies, already sorted and ready for replication and distribution to the public at the counter of Council Services, and scan and post them at the council's web site? Apparently it's beyond the capabilities of anyone who works there, although we suspect that it is, rather, a reluctance to actually let people know any more than they want us to know.
But it's not all due to the speed bumps and blind spots strategically placed on the information highway. We do get overwhelmed on occasion as it was earlier this year when the outside, independent auditors came in for their "report" to the council.
Yes, we missed the audit report. Somehow it quite literally put us to sleep as we remember it. Imagine that.
And so it was that later, last Wednesday well after the miller had told his tale, that we were taken aback when Director of Finance Wall Rezentes Jr.- or "Little Wally" as he is known around county government- took the hot seat to answer some 13 questions the council had for him regarding the findings in the charter-mandated audit.
Apparently, according to Councilmember Mel Rapozo, the audit showed that the "ending balance for vacation and sick leave were not matching the beginning balance for the next year." And, 90% of them were in the Personnel Department of Malcolm Fernandez.
"It's more than an anomaly" said Rapozo, "it's a trend.
"Obviously it's human error... we know that," he told Little Wally and the assembled, saying that there were "too many occurrences for it to be just a mistake.
"I want to make sure there's no evidence of fraud- that nobody's getting extra vacation and sick leave hours," Rapozo said.
But Rezentes couldn't say that was so, only that the amounts had been reconciled and that "Fernandez is taking corrective action." He admitted no one had really checked for wrongdoing or what really happened other than ascertaining, in response to a final question from Rapozo, that "somebody" did reconcile the numbers.
Rapozo seemed to indicate that there were 20 instances of "irreconciled" sick and vacation filings in the Personnel Department alone and let slip that that was "90%" of the total and, apparently there were "one or two" in- drum roll please- the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD).
That was last Wednesday. And, although "we ain't sayin', we're just saying" as they say, yesterday it was reported in the local newspaper that KPD Chief Darryl Perry has placed his two assistant chiefs, Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan, on leave "due to a 'personnel matter.'"
Oh, and of course neither the audit, nor the 13 questions- nor for that matter the written answers to the 13 questions that were apparently provided to the council by Rezentes- is posted on the county's web site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
