ONE WORD BEN: PLASTICS: Back before late ’08 when the bottom fell out of the free-for-all, credit-spawned, consumerism bubble it was common to hear people bemoan the gobble, gobble, gobble of your typical over fed, too-much-stuff turkey-American.
But in spite of the hope of many that perhaps the crash presaged a new era of right-sized consumption, we’ve gone right back to our old, traditional, grab-it-while-you-can rituals, like Coneheads demanding the restoration of our right to “consume mass quantities”.
And as if to underline the way that, when challenged to do the very least we can do- and we mean the very least- we act like whiny, weaned infants demanding the restoration of our endless supply of teat.
So it shouldn’t be any surprise that, backed by a wave of sniveling, self-centered assholes, Councilperson Mel Rapozo is trying to make sure the baby has his bottle by reversing the ban on plastic grocery bags that went into effect last month.
And make no mistake about it. This would be a reversal.
According to Joan Conrow’s post yesterday the bill would exempt “Food Service Establishment(s)” and defines them as
any building, vehicle, place, or structure, or any room or division in a building, vehicle, place, or structure where food is prepared, served, or sold for immediate consumption on or in the vicinity of the premises; called for or taken out by customers; or prepared prior to being delivered to another location for consumption. This term includes, but not limited to restaurants; coffee shops; cafeterias; short-order cafes; luncheonettes; taverns; lunchrooms; places which manufacture wholesale or retail sandwiches or salads; institutions, both public and private; food carts; itinerant restaurants; industrial cafeterias; and catering establishments.
That of course means that every supermarket with a “deli” on the island is exempt, as is any place that “prepares food” even if all you do is serve coffee.
This is supposedly about “health issues” and maintaining “sanitary conditions” but it’s anything but.
What kind of slobs are these people that they can’t make sure their takeout doesn’t spill all over the place without rewrapping it in a plastic grocery bag? Don’t forget that those plastic bags that people use to wrap fruits an veges and meats are already exempt.
But that’s not enough for your fat, pre-diabetic ass? You obviously need all that greasy, fat-laden gravy on your nutritionless white rice but are you such freakin’ pigs that you can’t get your slop from the store into your pie hole without spilling it all over your morbidly obese lap?
All that plastic that the deli wraps your food in isn’t enough for ya, eh? You need another bag to put it all in, in anticipation of the fact that you’re in such a rush to cram more garbage down your gullet that can’t get out of the store without spilling it on you $500 designer jeans.
Health? If you cared about health you wouldn’t be eating all that processed pre-prepared crap and go home and cook a real meal.
Sanitation? You mean after you’re careless enough to let your stuff spill out into the bag you’re so intent on getting every last drop into that gaping maw of yours that you’ve gotta lick the bag?
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this bellyaching gripe session that’s been going on since the ban is that it comes from people who claim to be nature lovers and even environmental activists.
If you love your plastic grocery bags so much why don’t you go live in the Texas-sized plastic bag gyre out in the middle of the Pacific? Perhaps you should go on a diet of the shearwaters, dolphins and turtles the bags kill.
If you can’t live without your nasty plastic grocery bags maybe we should make ones big enough to wrap you in when we bury you in the ground... we wouldn’t want to spill you and make a mess on the way to the cemetery.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
A SPLENDID TIME IS GUARANTEED FOR ALL
A SPLENDID TIME IS GUARANTEED FOR ALL: We’ve got to admit severe ambivalence when it comes to Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s administration’s attempts to control its message, especially with the recent ramp-up of command and control.
While we’d like to say we admire the effort purely for it’s Machiavellian efficiency it’s often done with such bumblingly transparent obfuscation and manipulation that it’s bound to infuriate the public to a level in precise one-to-one ratio with the effort to maintain secrecy.
Yesterday’s press release announcing a Thursday “meeting to discuss the county's plans for an adolescent drug treatment center on Kaua`i” quotes Carvalho’s Anti-Drug Coordinator Theresa Koki as saying that:
“After a long search and consideration of many factors, we have narrowed the location of the adolescent drug treatment center down to two proposed sites in central Kaua`i (and w)e invite the community to come to the meeting on Thursday and be a part of this important discussion.”
And where exactly would those two locations be? The release pointedly leaves out that information.
Well if you wanted to make sure that the people who live next door to the proposed center won’t show up to make humbug the best way is to not tell them their neighborhood is targeted.
The problem is that then you’re assured to get them so pissed off at having to read in the paper Friday that they missed the meeting when it was announced it would be in their neighborhood, that they will fight tooth and nail against it
Let’s not forget that the last attempt to site the treatment center at the old dog pound was exacerbated by the fact that many in the Hanapepe community found out about the location only after it was a “done deal.” Adding that factor to the obvious one of putting our kids in a place that was no longer fit for dogs to occupy, put rejection of the plan over the top when residents rose up against former Mayor Bryan Baptiste for his lack of consultation with residents in the area.
And make no mistake- the lack of any indication of the locations was no oversight.
As if to make sure that it’s clear to everyone what the issues are and how they are being intentionally kept in the dark the release says:
“A recent series of meetings focusing on the critical need to provide these services for our youth has made us hopeful that the so-called “NIMBY” issues are behind us and that our community is ready to move forward on behalf of our kids,” said the mayor.
So just to assure that if there is any good will for the project they destroy it by manipulating the process.
Just to make sure though we asked Koki in an email this morning, “Can you tell me where the two adolescent treatment center alternatives are? Or are you refusing to release that information before the meeting?”
Her answer confirmed the flim-flam saying, “You are correct that the two alternatives will be discussed the night of the meeting.”
Apparently Koki couldn’t do more to make sure that this latest effort at siting the facility is a complete and utter failure if she tried.
First of all selecting two sites insures that the two communities will be pitted against each other throughout the process. Just look at the process of siting of the new landfill which, when it went through an “open process” that turned out to be anything but, was a complete bust. But when the administration announced that they had decided to pick a site, give the reasons and be done with it, we’ve heard little to no protest, especially about the way it was selected.
That’s what we elect a leader to do- make decisions. They may not always be popular ones but most people will give the leader credit for making one, especially when a problem like the landfill- or the drug treatment facility- siting has lingered for literally decades.
Just be honest and open about it.
But to hold a meeting where the ultimate “stakeholders” are not even told they have been selected insures a sour taste in their mouths when they learn that they have been picked- and that they missed the meeting where it was discussed.
That’s the way to ensure that this whole process gets off on the wrong foot and that there will be lingering animosity throughout the process.
It would all be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Can’t anyone here play this game?
----
Note: Our copy editor will be off island for the next two week. Now you’ll know how sloppy we really are. We apologize in advance for any typos or errors.
While we’d like to say we admire the effort purely for it’s Machiavellian efficiency it’s often done with such bumblingly transparent obfuscation and manipulation that it’s bound to infuriate the public to a level in precise one-to-one ratio with the effort to maintain secrecy.
Yesterday’s press release announcing a Thursday “meeting to discuss the county's plans for an adolescent drug treatment center on Kaua`i” quotes Carvalho’s Anti-Drug Coordinator Theresa Koki as saying that:
“After a long search and consideration of many factors, we have narrowed the location of the adolescent drug treatment center down to two proposed sites in central Kaua`i (and w)e invite the community to come to the meeting on Thursday and be a part of this important discussion.”
And where exactly would those two locations be? The release pointedly leaves out that information.
Well if you wanted to make sure that the people who live next door to the proposed center won’t show up to make humbug the best way is to not tell them their neighborhood is targeted.
The problem is that then you’re assured to get them so pissed off at having to read in the paper Friday that they missed the meeting when it was announced it would be in their neighborhood, that they will fight tooth and nail against it
Let’s not forget that the last attempt to site the treatment center at the old dog pound was exacerbated by the fact that many in the Hanapepe community found out about the location only after it was a “done deal.” Adding that factor to the obvious one of putting our kids in a place that was no longer fit for dogs to occupy, put rejection of the plan over the top when residents rose up against former Mayor Bryan Baptiste for his lack of consultation with residents in the area.
And make no mistake- the lack of any indication of the locations was no oversight.
As if to make sure that it’s clear to everyone what the issues are and how they are being intentionally kept in the dark the release says:
“A recent series of meetings focusing on the critical need to provide these services for our youth has made us hopeful that the so-called “NIMBY” issues are behind us and that our community is ready to move forward on behalf of our kids,” said the mayor.
So just to assure that if there is any good will for the project they destroy it by manipulating the process.
Just to make sure though we asked Koki in an email this morning, “Can you tell me where the two adolescent treatment center alternatives are? Or are you refusing to release that information before the meeting?”
Her answer confirmed the flim-flam saying, “You are correct that the two alternatives will be discussed the night of the meeting.”
Apparently Koki couldn’t do more to make sure that this latest effort at siting the facility is a complete and utter failure if she tried.
First of all selecting two sites insures that the two communities will be pitted against each other throughout the process. Just look at the process of siting of the new landfill which, when it went through an “open process” that turned out to be anything but, was a complete bust. But when the administration announced that they had decided to pick a site, give the reasons and be done with it, we’ve heard little to no protest, especially about the way it was selected.
That’s what we elect a leader to do- make decisions. They may not always be popular ones but most people will give the leader credit for making one, especially when a problem like the landfill- or the drug treatment facility- siting has lingered for literally decades.
Just be honest and open about it.
But to hold a meeting where the ultimate “stakeholders” are not even told they have been selected insures a sour taste in their mouths when they learn that they have been picked- and that they missed the meeting where it was discussed.
That’s the way to ensure that this whole process gets off on the wrong foot and that there will be lingering animosity throughout the process.
It would all be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Can’t anyone here play this game?
----
Note: Our copy editor will be off island for the next two week. Now you’ll know how sloppy we really are. We apologize in advance for any typos or errors.
Monday, January 31, 2011
SOMEONE UP THERE IS LISTENING
SOMEONE UP THERE IS LISTENING: The mockery of ethics that is the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE- just click the link for our coverage of their many foibles) has been a source of laughs-o-plenty for those like us who have a perverse sense of humor.
But that could end- or at least be curtained- if a bill in the state legislature, set for a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday, 2/1/11) at 2 p.m., passes this year.
County ethics board members are selected, not for their sense of ethical stridency but, often for being so personally conflicted that their decisions have to apply to themselves, necessitating twisted logic in clearing county officials and employees even when a child could see the ethical violations.
And of course they are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council- the very people upon whom they could potentially sit in judgment.
That would change if House Bill HB468 becomes law.
In proposing the law the bill explains that”
Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii provides in pertinent part: "Ethics commissioners shall be selected in a manner which assures their independence and impartiality." Each member of the state ethics commission is appointed by the governor from a list of two persons nominated by the judicial council. The Hawaii supreme court appoints members of the judicial council, which does not include legislators. In contrast, members of the Honolulu ethics commission are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Honolulu city council, both of which are subject to oversight by the county ethics commission.
The legislature further finds that, in order to effectuate article XIV of the Hawaii State Constitution, the process for selecting members of county ethics commissions should not involve persons who are subject to regulation by ethics commissions.
The purpose of this Act is to provide standards for the selection of county ethics commissioners to ensure their impartiality and independence.
The bill “provides standards for the selection of county ethics commission members to ensure their impartiality and independence” by creating an independent body to select BOE nominees.
It proposes amending Chapter 46 of Hawaii Revised Statutes to say
(a) Each county shall cause to be adopted a charter amendment for the creation of an independent body that shall select members of the county ethics commission. Members of the independent body shall not be subject to confirmation by the county legislative body and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the ethics commission of their county. To ensure minimal involvement in the process by persons over which the commission has oversight, members of each county ethics commission shall be appointed:
(1) From a list of nominees selected by the independent body; or
(2) In accordance with comparable alternative selection methods as provided by county ordinance.
(b) Each county shall have a selection process in place that meets the criteria for any appointment made after the effective date of this part.
It also includes criteria for the independent body to use in their selections:
Character of county ethics commissioners. A county ethics commissioner shall be selected on the basis of integrity, impartiality, and independence, as reflected by, among other things, the background and experiences of the person and the absence of potential conflicts of interest; provided that county ordinance may provide for additional criteria.
While it won’t change who ultimately selects the board members- it’s kind of hard or even impossible to have appointment processes that fully omit elected officials- it will make the list of prospective nominees subject to public scrutiny and independent selection.
We are kind of concerned about the line that provides for a “comparable alternative selection methods as provided by county ordinance” and would like to see it, if not deleted, at least clarified so as to make it clear what “comparable” means.
Please take the time to send testimony even if it’s just one line saying “I support this bill.” Though you may not think so, they really do listen sometimes. And they certainly won’t if no one sends in any testimony.
Time is of the essence. Testimony should be emailed to JUDtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov
Use the subject line: Testimony on HB 468, 2/1/11, 2 p.m., JUD Committee hearing
As with all House testimony make sure you include:
The testifier's name with position/title and organization;
The committee the comments are directed to;
The date and time of the hearing;
The measure number.
Few have forgotten the BOE and the KC Lum fiasco where a complaint by the chair of the council was used to railroad a police commissioner resulting in Lum’s departure.
And many remember what happened to Rolf Bieber who was refused re-appointment after trying to bring some ethical standards to the BOE.
Although this bill won’t solve all the problems with the BOE it would strengthen the independence of the board members and provide for public input on the selection as well as set standards for the independent body to use in their picks.
The companion Senate Bill SB214, has not yet scheduled for a hearing.
Also on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting are two other bills of note that we whole-heartedly support.
HB 638 (Status) Relating To Elections:
Provides for instant runoff voting for all elections in which no primary election is held; authorizes the chief election officer or the county clerk to use the instant runoff voting method in special elections that would normally require a separate runoff election if no candidate received a majority of votes.
And one more, near and dear to our heart.
HB 640 (Status) Relating To Public Agency Meetings
Requires any action taken in an executive meeting be reported when the board reconvenes at the open meeting.
Testimony on these two can go to the same address, substituting the bill number in the subject line.
But that could end- or at least be curtained- if a bill in the state legislature, set for a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday, 2/1/11) at 2 p.m., passes this year.
County ethics board members are selected, not for their sense of ethical stridency but, often for being so personally conflicted that their decisions have to apply to themselves, necessitating twisted logic in clearing county officials and employees even when a child could see the ethical violations.
And of course they are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council- the very people upon whom they could potentially sit in judgment.
That would change if House Bill HB468 becomes law.
In proposing the law the bill explains that”
Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii provides in pertinent part: "Ethics commissioners shall be selected in a manner which assures their independence and impartiality." Each member of the state ethics commission is appointed by the governor from a list of two persons nominated by the judicial council. The Hawaii supreme court appoints members of the judicial council, which does not include legislators. In contrast, members of the Honolulu ethics commission are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Honolulu city council, both of which are subject to oversight by the county ethics commission.
The legislature further finds that, in order to effectuate article XIV of the Hawaii State Constitution, the process for selecting members of county ethics commissions should not involve persons who are subject to regulation by ethics commissions.
The purpose of this Act is to provide standards for the selection of county ethics commissioners to ensure their impartiality and independence.
The bill “provides standards for the selection of county ethics commission members to ensure their impartiality and independence” by creating an independent body to select BOE nominees.
It proposes amending Chapter 46 of Hawaii Revised Statutes to say
(a) Each county shall cause to be adopted a charter amendment for the creation of an independent body that shall select members of the county ethics commission. Members of the independent body shall not be subject to confirmation by the county legislative body and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the ethics commission of their county. To ensure minimal involvement in the process by persons over which the commission has oversight, members of each county ethics commission shall be appointed:
(1) From a list of nominees selected by the independent body; or
(2) In accordance with comparable alternative selection methods as provided by county ordinance.
(b) Each county shall have a selection process in place that meets the criteria for any appointment made after the effective date of this part.
It also includes criteria for the independent body to use in their selections:
Character of county ethics commissioners. A county ethics commissioner shall be selected on the basis of integrity, impartiality, and independence, as reflected by, among other things, the background and experiences of the person and the absence of potential conflicts of interest; provided that county ordinance may provide for additional criteria.
While it won’t change who ultimately selects the board members- it’s kind of hard or even impossible to have appointment processes that fully omit elected officials- it will make the list of prospective nominees subject to public scrutiny and independent selection.
We are kind of concerned about the line that provides for a “comparable alternative selection methods as provided by county ordinance” and would like to see it, if not deleted, at least clarified so as to make it clear what “comparable” means.
Please take the time to send testimony even if it’s just one line saying “I support this bill.” Though you may not think so, they really do listen sometimes. And they certainly won’t if no one sends in any testimony.
Time is of the essence. Testimony should be emailed to JUDtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov
Use the subject line: Testimony on HB 468, 2/1/11, 2 p.m., JUD Committee hearing
As with all House testimony make sure you include:
The testifier's name with position/title and organization;
The committee the comments are directed to;
The date and time of the hearing;
The measure number.
Few have forgotten the BOE and the KC Lum fiasco where a complaint by the chair of the council was used to railroad a police commissioner resulting in Lum’s departure.
And many remember what happened to Rolf Bieber who was refused re-appointment after trying to bring some ethical standards to the BOE.
Although this bill won’t solve all the problems with the BOE it would strengthen the independence of the board members and provide for public input on the selection as well as set standards for the independent body to use in their picks.
The companion Senate Bill SB214, has not yet scheduled for a hearing.
Also on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting are two other bills of note that we whole-heartedly support.
HB 638 (Status) Relating To Elections:
Provides for instant runoff voting for all elections in which no primary election is held; authorizes the chief election officer or the county clerk to use the instant runoff voting method in special elections that would normally require a separate runoff election if no candidate received a majority of votes.
And one more, near and dear to our heart.
HB 640 (Status) Relating To Public Agency Meetings
Requires any action taken in an executive meeting be reported when the board reconvenes at the open meeting.
Testimony on these two can go to the same address, substituting the bill number in the subject line.
Friday, January 28, 2011
STRIKING DEEP
STRIKING DEEP: Kaua`i has been called “The Garden Island”, “The Separate Kingdom” and a lot of other things but with the strict controls brought on by Mayor Bernard Carvalho and his insular “team” after last November’s election the name “The Paranoiac Secrecy Island” has become the more appropriate moniker.
Carvalho’s county employees- the same ones who be abused with politcally motivated unnecessary furloughs- are now under a gag edict that forbids them from speaking to the media or anyone likely to repeat what they say in a public way, according to numerous county employees.
But while Carvalho and his PR mastermind Beth Tokioka have the ability to control employees under threat of losing their jobs- despite their civil service employment- there’s a whole other set of county functionaries that have less to lose by acting on their own and actually doing their job competently rather than whatever way the administration directs them to act.
The scores of board and commission (B&C) members are usually a pretty compliant lot having been selected more often for their cronyism than their expertise. But there’s always a few, eh?...
Since their meetings are open to the public and their minutes are either available on-line now or will be very soon, what they say may not be what the administration wants the public to hear.
So it shouldn’t be any surprise that B&C Administrator John Isobe has come up with a plan to make sure that those “few” will receive the proper indoctrination to ensure that any and all things said or done are subject to the proper PR filter.
That’s why Isobe is seeking to procure- albeit in as secretive manner as possible- a “person to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai” at an estimated Cost of $15,000.00 - $ 30,000.00 a year with the ability to extend the contract.
First of all we have to ask the question, “isn’t that Isobe’s job?” And where exactly is the money coming from? Isn’t it a line item in the county budget?
Those will have to be asked rhetorically for now. The bigger concern is how the PR person will be selected- and controlled.
As the document we obtained this week says in it’s “Description of proposed procurement”:
The Office of Boards and Commissions anticipates the need to select a person or firm qualified to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai. The objectives of this effort are to:
• Provide general public relations support and assistance to County Boards and Commissions;
• Assist and facilitate public educational efforts as any be required related to specific issues or topics under consideration by the various Boards and Commissions;
• Directly advise board and staff members with tips and talking points needed to enhance communication and relationship skills to factually, diplomatically and courteously address public concerns and issues that are brought before a Board or Commission;
• Develop and implement a public relations program that will improve awareness. Knowledge and perception about the service and value that Boards and Commissions provide to the County;
Interested person or firms should have at least five (5) years of combined experience in public relations on the island of Kaua`i that demonstrate knowledge about the pros & cons of current government and community issues. Desirable qualifications also include previous work experience directly related to the State of County government.
But even with the restrictive way the qualifications are written there are dozens of PR firms out there and if the contract was indeed subject to normal procurement it would have to be widely advertised and the person selected based on the best qualifications and price quote.
Obviously that won’t do- they need someone who will teach them to shut up, not to actually speak to the public and press.
So Isobe has received a waiver from the procurement process because, as Isobe writes in his “Explanation describing how procurement by competitive means is either not practical or not advantageous to the County”:
Public Relations is more an "art" than a "science". The creativity, resourcefulness, background experience, and work ethic/style of an individual or the firm are important in ensuring a good working foundation and relationship.
A negotiated process provides the venue for Q&A to properly evaluate and select the most appropriate and qualified person/firm to meet the objectives and scope for an effective public relations program effort.
But even without proper procurement processes how can Isobe make sure the person selected is a true crony who will do as he or she is told?
In the “Details of the process or procedures to be followed in determining or developing at a list of eligible persons/entities, and in selecting the vendor to ensure maximum fair and open competition” it says:
A solicitation requesting resumes from qualified persons or firms interested in undertaking this work will be advertised in a local newspaper(s) of general circulation and posted on the website (htto://www.spo.hawaii.gov).
Resumes will then be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation committee consisting of three (3) members. Immediately thereafter, a three (3) member committee will negotiate the terms and conditions for a contract with the top ranked respondent.
And who might the three people be?
Why of course Isobe and two other mayoral appointees who work directly out of the office of the mayor and can be fired on the spot by the mayor: ADA Coordinator, Christina Pilkington and Anti-Drug Coordinator, Theresa Koki.
As the wall between the public and Carvalho’s minions gets higher and higher we can expect that this is just the beginning of an era of darkness and obfuscation that few could have imagined could have gotten much more opaque before last November.
For those seeking information from the county it’s going to be a long four years.
Carvalho’s county employees- the same ones who be abused with politcally motivated unnecessary furloughs- are now under a gag edict that forbids them from speaking to the media or anyone likely to repeat what they say in a public way, according to numerous county employees.
But while Carvalho and his PR mastermind Beth Tokioka have the ability to control employees under threat of losing their jobs- despite their civil service employment- there’s a whole other set of county functionaries that have less to lose by acting on their own and actually doing their job competently rather than whatever way the administration directs them to act.
The scores of board and commission (B&C) members are usually a pretty compliant lot having been selected more often for their cronyism than their expertise. But there’s always a few, eh?...
Since their meetings are open to the public and their minutes are either available on-line now or will be very soon, what they say may not be what the administration wants the public to hear.
So it shouldn’t be any surprise that B&C Administrator John Isobe has come up with a plan to make sure that those “few” will receive the proper indoctrination to ensure that any and all things said or done are subject to the proper PR filter.
That’s why Isobe is seeking to procure- albeit in as secretive manner as possible- a “person to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai” at an estimated Cost of $15,000.00 - $ 30,000.00 a year with the ability to extend the contract.
First of all we have to ask the question, “isn’t that Isobe’s job?” And where exactly is the money coming from? Isn’t it a line item in the county budget?
Those will have to be asked rhetorically for now. The bigger concern is how the PR person will be selected- and controlled.
As the document we obtained this week says in it’s “Description of proposed procurement”:
The Office of Boards and Commissions anticipates the need to select a person or firm qualified to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai. The objectives of this effort are to:
• Provide general public relations support and assistance to County Boards and Commissions;
• Assist and facilitate public educational efforts as any be required related to specific issues or topics under consideration by the various Boards and Commissions;
• Directly advise board and staff members with tips and talking points needed to enhance communication and relationship skills to factually, diplomatically and courteously address public concerns and issues that are brought before a Board or Commission;
• Develop and implement a public relations program that will improve awareness. Knowledge and perception about the service and value that Boards and Commissions provide to the County;
Interested person or firms should have at least five (5) years of combined experience in public relations on the island of Kaua`i that demonstrate knowledge about the pros & cons of current government and community issues. Desirable qualifications also include previous work experience directly related to the State of County government.
But even with the restrictive way the qualifications are written there are dozens of PR firms out there and if the contract was indeed subject to normal procurement it would have to be widely advertised and the person selected based on the best qualifications and price quote.
Obviously that won’t do- they need someone who will teach them to shut up, not to actually speak to the public and press.
So Isobe has received a waiver from the procurement process because, as Isobe writes in his “Explanation describing how procurement by competitive means is either not practical or not advantageous to the County”:
Public Relations is more an "art" than a "science". The creativity, resourcefulness, background experience, and work ethic/style of an individual or the firm are important in ensuring a good working foundation and relationship.
A negotiated process provides the venue for Q&A to properly evaluate and select the most appropriate and qualified person/firm to meet the objectives and scope for an effective public relations program effort.
But even without proper procurement processes how can Isobe make sure the person selected is a true crony who will do as he or she is told?
In the “Details of the process or procedures to be followed in determining or developing at a list of eligible persons/entities, and in selecting the vendor to ensure maximum fair and open competition” it says:
A solicitation requesting resumes from qualified persons or firms interested in undertaking this work will be advertised in a local newspaper(s) of general circulation and posted on the website (htto://www.spo.hawaii.gov).
Resumes will then be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation committee consisting of three (3) members. Immediately thereafter, a three (3) member committee will negotiate the terms and conditions for a contract with the top ranked respondent.
And who might the three people be?
Why of course Isobe and two other mayoral appointees who work directly out of the office of the mayor and can be fired on the spot by the mayor: ADA Coordinator, Christina Pilkington and Anti-Drug Coordinator, Theresa Koki.
As the wall between the public and Carvalho’s minions gets higher and higher we can expect that this is just the beginning of an era of darkness and obfuscation that few could have imagined could have gotten much more opaque before last November.
For those seeking information from the county it’s going to be a long four years.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
STICKIN’ IT TO YA
STICKIN’ IT TO YA: The cover-up of the mishandling of medical waste in Honolulu that was exposed by the flood that released all sorts of solid waste into the ocean from the Waimanalo Gulch Landfill is only getting worse, according to Adrienne LaFrance’s latest article in Civil Beat today.
Though officials continue to claim that all procedures were properly followed for making the waste harmless LaFrance has been getting the runaround from them when she asks them to show that it’s true.
Today she writes:
"Just trying to ascertain whatever facts we can collate together," (Director of the Health Department's, Safe Drinking Water Branch Steve) Yamada said. "There's a pretty firm idea what kinds of violations did occur, but obviously to make a case, you have to have all the information. The landfill was required to perform (water quality) tests, and a lot of those test results have yet to be submitted."
Officials still can't say exactly what was in the trash-filled stormwater that flooded from the landfill into the Pacific Ocean.
"At this point, that's the main crux of the tests we're waiting for," Yamada said.
Residents know well that some of the garbage was medical waste because they helped remove it from their neighborhood beaches and saw it on TV news. Officials were quick to explain that the waste was non-infectious because only treated medical waste is allowed in the landfill. Department of Health officials said they had documents from the landfill proving the waste had been sanitized.
But although LaFrance details the lack of documents and information from the state, the landfill operator Waste Management or the companies that sanitize the waste, it’s obvious from visual inspection that at least two violations of federal standards for handling of medical waste occurred.
As we wrote Tuesday pictures of the collected waste include intact vials of blood and urine which, according to previous statements had only been autoclaved when proper procedure involved either chemical sterilization or incineration.
But even worse is what nurses addressing a Honolulu City Council meeting described- something that indicates that the problem with medical waste in Honolulu may go well beyond just the post generation handling of infectious materials.
Many of the pictures inexplicably show syringes with the needles still attached to them. As any medical professional- as a matter of fact as anyone who works in a medical facility, including housekeeping and even trash collection personnel- knows, needles are required to be cut off syringes immediately after use.
Wherever needles are used special boxes are required to be provided with cutting devices that remove the needles from syringes or intravenous tubing and deposit them in a closed box.
What exactly does this say for the medical procedures followed in some O`ahu medical facilities that this most basic handling of needles isn’t followed?
The big question for officials is whether they are independently investigating the trail of waste back to, not just the waste companies but to the facilities that generated it themselves.
The release of waste into the ocean is bad enough. The release of apparently mishandled medical waste is worse.
The incident should lead minimally to a review of the system of recordkeeping which LaFrance's piece indicates is severely lacking.
Though the Department of Health claims it’s administrative rules assure medical waste is handled “in accordance with U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommendations, Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and the nonprofit Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's waste management guidelines” that quite obviously is not the case, not just “post production” but at the very source.
Though officials continue to claim that all procedures were properly followed for making the waste harmless LaFrance has been getting the runaround from them when she asks them to show that it’s true.
Today she writes:
"Just trying to ascertain whatever facts we can collate together," (Director of the Health Department's, Safe Drinking Water Branch Steve) Yamada said. "There's a pretty firm idea what kinds of violations did occur, but obviously to make a case, you have to have all the information. The landfill was required to perform (water quality) tests, and a lot of those test results have yet to be submitted."
Officials still can't say exactly what was in the trash-filled stormwater that flooded from the landfill into the Pacific Ocean.
"At this point, that's the main crux of the tests we're waiting for," Yamada said.
Residents know well that some of the garbage was medical waste because they helped remove it from their neighborhood beaches and saw it on TV news. Officials were quick to explain that the waste was non-infectious because only treated medical waste is allowed in the landfill. Department of Health officials said they had documents from the landfill proving the waste had been sanitized.
But although LaFrance details the lack of documents and information from the state, the landfill operator Waste Management or the companies that sanitize the waste, it’s obvious from visual inspection that at least two violations of federal standards for handling of medical waste occurred.
As we wrote Tuesday pictures of the collected waste include intact vials of blood and urine which, according to previous statements had only been autoclaved when proper procedure involved either chemical sterilization or incineration.
But even worse is what nurses addressing a Honolulu City Council meeting described- something that indicates that the problem with medical waste in Honolulu may go well beyond just the post generation handling of infectious materials.
Many of the pictures inexplicably show syringes with the needles still attached to them. As any medical professional- as a matter of fact as anyone who works in a medical facility, including housekeeping and even trash collection personnel- knows, needles are required to be cut off syringes immediately after use.
Wherever needles are used special boxes are required to be provided with cutting devices that remove the needles from syringes or intravenous tubing and deposit them in a closed box.
What exactly does this say for the medical procedures followed in some O`ahu medical facilities that this most basic handling of needles isn’t followed?
The big question for officials is whether they are independently investigating the trail of waste back to, not just the waste companies but to the facilities that generated it themselves.
The release of waste into the ocean is bad enough. The release of apparently mishandled medical waste is worse.
The incident should lead minimally to a review of the system of recordkeeping which LaFrance's piece indicates is severely lacking.
Though the Department of Health claims it’s administrative rules assure medical waste is handled “in accordance with U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommendations, Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and the nonprofit Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's waste management guidelines” that quite obviously is not the case, not just “post production” but at the very source.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
GAG ME WITH A RULE
GAG ME WITH A RULE: A week ago we ended our piece on Kaua`i Island Utilities Coop (KIUC) and their ill-conceived and even more ill-advised hydro-electric projects on the Hanalei, Makaweli and Wailua Rivers by criticizing three board members who, though promising to bring some transparency and openness to the Board of Directors, have apparently capitulated to the board “gag rule” on speaking publicly on KIUC’s board’s policy and decisions.
We wrote:
For some reason it doesn’t seem to matter who we elect to KIUC’s board of directors. So far three directors who seemed to “get it” before their election- Carol Bain, Ben Sullivan and recently Jan TenBruggencate- have remained silent and apparently gone along with the majority, supposedly, we hear, because they don’t have the majority they need to overturn some “stifle rule” that forbids them from speaking on their own.
Assuming their thoughts on this and other KIUC actions are in dissent of the majority it’s time for them to rise to the to challenge by speaking out publicly, at least as individual co-op members- and letting the chips fall where they may.
And with an upcoming election it’s vital we get commitments from candidates to toss this policy.
But not only is the board steeped in secrecy but the rule itself has never been given any exposure- until now.
Anyone looking for it would have to go to KIUC’s “Board Information and Meeting” page and then search through 27- yes 27- Board of Directors Policies and Procedures until you get to the last one- the 27th, Director Communications- to find it.
We understand from someone who had seen the previous policy that this version- apparently passed in May 25th 2010- is even somehow an improvement over the last one although we can’t imagine anything more much restrictive.
The policy starts off fairly innocuously with a “Purpose of Policy” statement that says:
To Define for present and future KIUC Directors guidelines for communicating about KIUC Matters with KIUC's members and the public at large, and to foster communication with KIUC's members so that they may actively participate in setting KIUC's policies and making KIUC decisions consistent with cooperative principle number two.
But then it goes on to restrict that communication to accomplishing anything but “active participation.”
The “Policy Content” starts off innocuously enough by saying:
A. Directors must not reveal any of KIUC’s privileged, confidential or proprietary information to anyone outside the Board and/or KIUC executives, in any format.
But the next section fully restricts board members from saying anything that doesn’t reflect the full boards position on any item, saying
B. Where a position has been taken by KIUC and/or its Board, Directors should make every effort to ensure that any communications with KIUC members/customers (whatever the form of the communication) are accurate and represent the official position of KIUC and/or the Board, (emphasis added) or, if no position has been taken, that the communications accurately reflect only information revealed in open sessions of KIUC Board meetings and/or in public documents.
It gets worse. The next one forces board members to clear any and all public statements through the board’s chair.
C. Any communication clearly likely to receive wide dissemination (blog, social networking site, letter to editor, news release, white paper, etc.) is to be submitted for review to the Chairperson of the Board or, in the absence of the Chair. KIUC's President and CEO, prior to dissemination. The contents of such communications must comply with paragraphs A and B above. Such review is intended to be a check for accuracy and appropriateness, because even a minor misstatement could lead to significant difficulties for KIUC. The results of the review of such communications shall be provided to the Director requesting review no later than 3 working days after receipt by the reviewing authority, and will include a statement of approval, or if not, the reasons for disapproval and/or recommended changes. If the requesting Director is not satisfied that reason given by the reviewing authority for non-approval is appropriate, the requesting Director is entitled to resubmit the communications with changes or bring the matter to the attention of the entire Board at a properly noticed meeting, and the decision of the Board thereupon shall be final.
So, in other words, if you are of a different opinion you are entitled to... change your opinion. Gee thanks dad.
And you can bet that if a board member doesn’t agree with, lets say, the hydroelectric projects or the recently announced “power partners” agreement for a photovoltaic solar farm that will lock rate payers into prices that are tagged to oil at $90 a barrel, they will not get approval until they agree with the rest of the board.
But wait- it gets worse still. Board members are actually banned from even discussing their dissenting thoughts with coop members because the next section says:
D. Directors should not publicly debate or advocate issues that are under active consideration by the Board or that have been previously decided—such discussions should be reserved for Board meetings. However, it is entirely appropriate for Directors to discuss with their constituents (in appropriate venues) issues that are before the Board, with the intent of gathering input to be brought to Board discussions, assuming that such communications comply with paragraphs A and B above.
That goes even presumably if they are running for re-election and are challenged over board actions during their tenure.
There are six candidates so far in this year’s election- David Iha, Patrick S. Gegen, F. Kenneth Stokes, Teofilo Phil Tacbian and Peter Yukimura- for three position, although there may be more who petition to get on the ballot.
You can be sure that the three incumbents seeking reelection, Iha, Tacbian and Yukimura- all charter members of the good old boys club- will never vote to remove this policy. And presumably- and conveniently- in a wonderful “catch-22” the policy restricts them from stating whether they disagree with, and will vote to overturn, the rule
The only pertinent question for the rest this year is “will you vote to remove Board Policy #27, the gag rule?”
We wrote:
For some reason it doesn’t seem to matter who we elect to KIUC’s board of directors. So far three directors who seemed to “get it” before their election- Carol Bain, Ben Sullivan and recently Jan TenBruggencate- have remained silent and apparently gone along with the majority, supposedly, we hear, because they don’t have the majority they need to overturn some “stifle rule” that forbids them from speaking on their own.
Assuming their thoughts on this and other KIUC actions are in dissent of the majority it’s time for them to rise to the to challenge by speaking out publicly, at least as individual co-op members- and letting the chips fall where they may.
And with an upcoming election it’s vital we get commitments from candidates to toss this policy.
But not only is the board steeped in secrecy but the rule itself has never been given any exposure- until now.
Anyone looking for it would have to go to KIUC’s “Board Information and Meeting” page and then search through 27- yes 27- Board of Directors Policies and Procedures until you get to the last one- the 27th, Director Communications- to find it.
We understand from someone who had seen the previous policy that this version- apparently passed in May 25th 2010- is even somehow an improvement over the last one although we can’t imagine anything more much restrictive.
The policy starts off fairly innocuously with a “Purpose of Policy” statement that says:
To Define for present and future KIUC Directors guidelines for communicating about KIUC Matters with KIUC's members and the public at large, and to foster communication with KIUC's members so that they may actively participate in setting KIUC's policies and making KIUC decisions consistent with cooperative principle number two.
But then it goes on to restrict that communication to accomplishing anything but “active participation.”
The “Policy Content” starts off innocuously enough by saying:
A. Directors must not reveal any of KIUC’s privileged, confidential or proprietary information to anyone outside the Board and/or KIUC executives, in any format.
But the next section fully restricts board members from saying anything that doesn’t reflect the full boards position on any item, saying
B. Where a position has been taken by KIUC and/or its Board, Directors should make every effort to ensure that any communications with KIUC members/customers (whatever the form of the communication) are accurate and represent the official position of KIUC and/or the Board, (emphasis added) or, if no position has been taken, that the communications accurately reflect only information revealed in open sessions of KIUC Board meetings and/or in public documents.
It gets worse. The next one forces board members to clear any and all public statements through the board’s chair.
C. Any communication clearly likely to receive wide dissemination (blog, social networking site, letter to editor, news release, white paper, etc.) is to be submitted for review to the Chairperson of the Board or, in the absence of the Chair. KIUC's President and CEO, prior to dissemination. The contents of such communications must comply with paragraphs A and B above. Such review is intended to be a check for accuracy and appropriateness, because even a minor misstatement could lead to significant difficulties for KIUC. The results of the review of such communications shall be provided to the Director requesting review no later than 3 working days after receipt by the reviewing authority, and will include a statement of approval, or if not, the reasons for disapproval and/or recommended changes. If the requesting Director is not satisfied that reason given by the reviewing authority for non-approval is appropriate, the requesting Director is entitled to resubmit the communications with changes or bring the matter to the attention of the entire Board at a properly noticed meeting, and the decision of the Board thereupon shall be final.
So, in other words, if you are of a different opinion you are entitled to... change your opinion. Gee thanks dad.
And you can bet that if a board member doesn’t agree with, lets say, the hydroelectric projects or the recently announced “power partners” agreement for a photovoltaic solar farm that will lock rate payers into prices that are tagged to oil at $90 a barrel, they will not get approval until they agree with the rest of the board.
But wait- it gets worse still. Board members are actually banned from even discussing their dissenting thoughts with coop members because the next section says:
D. Directors should not publicly debate or advocate issues that are under active consideration by the Board or that have been previously decided—such discussions should be reserved for Board meetings. However, it is entirely appropriate for Directors to discuss with their constituents (in appropriate venues) issues that are before the Board, with the intent of gathering input to be brought to Board discussions, assuming that such communications comply with paragraphs A and B above.
That goes even presumably if they are running for re-election and are challenged over board actions during their tenure.
There are six candidates so far in this year’s election- David Iha, Patrick S. Gegen, F. Kenneth Stokes, Teofilo Phil Tacbian and Peter Yukimura- for three position, although there may be more who petition to get on the ballot.
You can be sure that the three incumbents seeking reelection, Iha, Tacbian and Yukimura- all charter members of the good old boys club- will never vote to remove this policy. And presumably- and conveniently- in a wonderful “catch-22” the policy restricts them from stating whether they disagree with, and will vote to overturn, the rule
The only pertinent question for the rest this year is “will you vote to remove Board Policy #27, the gag rule?”
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
A TERRIBLE THING TO MIND
A TERRIBLE THING TO MIND: The so-called “landfill crisis” that has persisted for literally decades on Kaua`i has nothing on Honolulu’s where the waste problem has literally overflowed at their landfill at Waimanalo Gulch, specifically the medical waste that flowed freely into the ocean during the storms last week.
The questions over whether, as the city and county claims, that medical waste has been made harmless was first broached by Civil Beat’s Michael Levine and Adrienne LaFrance last week when they first questioned the safety of the syringes with attached needles and intact vials of blood and urine saying:
Health officials said the medical waste that ended up in the ocean didn't pose any serious health threat. Yet one of the strange aspects of this story is that no single agency can claim responsibility for oversight of medical waste. In fact, three local entities each point to the other as responsible.
But after the Honolulu City Council held hearings yesterday, while the Honolulu Advertiser ran articles more or less dismissive of the testimony of medical professionals maintaining that, as one headline blared, “Proper procedure followed in disposing of medical waste,” today in LaFrance’s follow-up she wrote that:
Department of Health officials said they received documents that prove the medical waste was non-infectious, but Civil Beat's requests — to the Health Department, city officials and the landfill operator — to view those documents have not been returned. Since last week, Waste Management operator Joe Whelan has refused repeated requests for comment...
"No one can say with 100 percent certainty that the medical waste that went into the ocean has all been sanitized," (City Council member Tulsi Gabbard) Tamayo said. "I still don't have a clear sense of where the oversight is. We are putting many different types of medical waste and special waste into the landfill and there doesn't seem to be a clear line of oversight as far as how often to inspect the facilities, who is responsible for it, or a clear chain of responsibility."
But, as we wrote to Levine when the first article appeared, a simple examination of the process that officials claim to use to “sterilize” the materials and a basic understanding of simple microbiology shows that the waste that spilled onto the beach and into the ocean would necessarily have remained as contaminated and infections as it was when taken from the patient.
It all comes down to the use of what’s called an autoclave to sterilize closed vials of blood and urine, something that most medical professionals know doesn’t cut it.
While officials have claimed that the use of an autoclave to sterilize the waste made it sterile, autoclaves work not just by steam heat but, by using pressure- and no amount of pressure on a closed, sealed vial- as some photos have shown was collected- will guarantee sterilization.
According to Wikipedia an autoclave works by “subjecting (materials) to high pressure saturated steam at 121 °C or more, typically for 15–20 minutes depending on the size of the load and the contents.”
But that’s for items directly exposed to the steam heat under pressure. And a closed glass vial- one, as a matter of fact, designed to be impervious to outside elements so as to make sure the contents are not contaminated before testing- will maintain the contents with any pathogens intact.
According to the Advertiser article linked above:
(t)he state Department of Health’s “administrative rules require that before disposal, infectious wastes may be incinerated, sterilized or chemically disinfected on site in accordance with U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommendations, Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and the nonprofit Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's waste management guidelines.
So far no one has really challenged the specifics of whether the waste was properly sterilized (using chemical or incineration are the other two methods of sterilizing waste) and officials seem to think if they stonewall enough it will go away.
Because while this problem is on a “big city “scale, the actions of officials in Honolulu seem to be based on the way “3D” Kaua`i usually addresses problems like this- delay, deflect and deny- and soon people will move on to your next bit of incompetence.
The questions over whether, as the city and county claims, that medical waste has been made harmless was first broached by Civil Beat’s Michael Levine and Adrienne LaFrance last week when they first questioned the safety of the syringes with attached needles and intact vials of blood and urine saying:
Health officials said the medical waste that ended up in the ocean didn't pose any serious health threat. Yet one of the strange aspects of this story is that no single agency can claim responsibility for oversight of medical waste. In fact, three local entities each point to the other as responsible.
But after the Honolulu City Council held hearings yesterday, while the Honolulu Advertiser ran articles more or less dismissive of the testimony of medical professionals maintaining that, as one headline blared, “Proper procedure followed in disposing of medical waste,” today in LaFrance’s follow-up she wrote that:
Department of Health officials said they received documents that prove the medical waste was non-infectious, but Civil Beat's requests — to the Health Department, city officials and the landfill operator — to view those documents have not been returned. Since last week, Waste Management operator Joe Whelan has refused repeated requests for comment...
"No one can say with 100 percent certainty that the medical waste that went into the ocean has all been sanitized," (City Council member Tulsi Gabbard) Tamayo said. "I still don't have a clear sense of where the oversight is. We are putting many different types of medical waste and special waste into the landfill and there doesn't seem to be a clear line of oversight as far as how often to inspect the facilities, who is responsible for it, or a clear chain of responsibility."
But, as we wrote to Levine when the first article appeared, a simple examination of the process that officials claim to use to “sterilize” the materials and a basic understanding of simple microbiology shows that the waste that spilled onto the beach and into the ocean would necessarily have remained as contaminated and infections as it was when taken from the patient.
It all comes down to the use of what’s called an autoclave to sterilize closed vials of blood and urine, something that most medical professionals know doesn’t cut it.
While officials have claimed that the use of an autoclave to sterilize the waste made it sterile, autoclaves work not just by steam heat but, by using pressure- and no amount of pressure on a closed, sealed vial- as some photos have shown was collected- will guarantee sterilization.
According to Wikipedia an autoclave works by “subjecting (materials) to high pressure saturated steam at 121 °C or more, typically for 15–20 minutes depending on the size of the load and the contents.”
But that’s for items directly exposed to the steam heat under pressure. And a closed glass vial- one, as a matter of fact, designed to be impervious to outside elements so as to make sure the contents are not contaminated before testing- will maintain the contents with any pathogens intact.
According to the Advertiser article linked above:
(t)he state Department of Health’s “administrative rules require that before disposal, infectious wastes may be incinerated, sterilized or chemically disinfected on site in accordance with U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommendations, Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and the nonprofit Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute's waste management guidelines.
So far no one has really challenged the specifics of whether the waste was properly sterilized (using chemical or incineration are the other two methods of sterilizing waste) and officials seem to think if they stonewall enough it will go away.
Because while this problem is on a “big city “scale, the actions of officials in Honolulu seem to be based on the way “3D” Kaua`i usually addresses problems like this- delay, deflect and deny- and soon people will move on to your next bit of incompetence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
