THE TITANIC DECK CHAIRS NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD

THE TITANIC DECK CHAIRS NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD: The swirling cesspool of sexual harassment that is the government of County of Kaua`i has made filing lawsuits into a cottage industry. The state Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) probably has it's own little Kaua`i County corner office that's been kept busy for years.

But one little turd has resurfaced once again after many though it had permanently sunk to the bottom years ago.

There it is on this week's council agenda- a request for $15,000 to fight the case of Kathleen M. Ah Quin vs. County of Kaua’i, Department of Transportation, et al., (Civil No. CVO8-00507 JMS BMK, U.S. District Court).

What seemed at the time to be just another sexual harassment suit has turned into a case of protecting one of the most infamous of the "protected" cronies in Kaua`i government- former Transportation Agency head and current human resources honcho, Janine Rapozo.

For those who missed our still-for-some-reason exclusive December 2008 report on the details of Ah Quin's suit, Rapozo was accused of maintaining a pervasive hostile atmosphere in the agency toward female bus drivers.

In the interim, of course Rapozo was- and still is as far as the county auditor's report is concerned- at the center of the alleged gas theft scandal, having been arrested late last October by now disgraced and departed Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, who herself has cost the county a pretty penny in settlements of EEOC charges of racial and sexual harassment along with other hostile workplace violations.

Although the real culprit in the gas theft case seems to have been Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. according to the auditors report, Rapozo was selected for indictment but was released from the pokey after it became apparent the number of grand jury votes to indict her were somehow miscounted.

How could that have happened?

In going back over our 2008 piece on Ah Quin's suit against Rapozo, what caught out eye before the details were presented was what happened when the council was asked for $50,000 that November to fight the suit. At the time, Iseri had just completed a couple of terms on the council and was Prosecutor-elect, having won the election after running unopposed.

On December 8 2008 we wrote:

Bus driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin is suing the Kaua`i Department of Transpiration- specifically Executive on Transportation Janine Rapozo- for what appears to be a pervasive hostile atmosphere in the agency toward women.

Just as appalling as the actual discrimination is the fact the lawsuit was filed only because a year went by after Ah Quin’s filing of Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints without any attempt by the county to respond or even attempt to investigate the charges.

At a special council meeting called at the end of November the County Attorney at the time Matthew Pyun asked the council for $50,000 to hire an outside attorney to respond to the suit.

And outgoing councilpersons Shaylene Iseri Carvalho and Mel Rapozo (no relation) were livid.

“You’ve got to read this” shrieked Iseri waving a copy of the suit over her head. “The County Attorney’s office has not engaged in any investigation (for a year) and now wants to hire an investigator” when there’s only 20 days to respond.

She told the council that she would not use taxpayer money without a commitment to investigate complaints when they are filed, saying she was “disgusted” and how the situation was “typical of the wasteful spending” of the administration and specifically the county attorney’s office.

She also questioned why it would cost $50,000 to respond since the first 20 day response is really a pro-forma type of thing that should rightfully be done “in-house” before hiring an outside attorney if it becomes necessary to defend the suit.

Councilmember Rapozo- who with Iseri voted against the approval of the funds even after the request was amended to $20,000- described how no one with the county ever spoke to any of the employees names in the suit or investigated any of the incidents.

Apparently Iseri- predictably?- wasn’t particularly concerned about the content of the suit itself. But silly us, we thought the public ought to know what was being alleged against Janine Rapozo- who by the way is the wife of Mayor Carvalho's current Parks and Recreation Department Director Lenny Rapozo. L. Rapozo stepped into his job with no experience at all after his stint as Carvalho's campaign manager.

The actual content of the suit, which the county is apparently still contesting despite rumors it had been dismissed, was pretty disgusting when we presented them in 2008. But the fact that Janine Rapozo was not only not fired or even reprimanded but rather promoted to her current Personnel Department post- or actually "Human Resources" Department after the name was changed recently without any apparent change in the way the department is run- in unfathomably repugnant... except of course in the Minotaur’s labyrinth of Kaua`i County government where it's just standard operating procedure.

Add to that what the auditor alleges was her part in the gas "theft" and it's a case study of corruption in Kaua`i County government.

Back to our 2008 piece for the full story. As Ah Quin tells it:

The complaint itself depicts a transportation agency where females were routinely passed over for full time jobs because, as Ah Quin was told by another named female employee, Janine Rapozo “doesn’t like females” after Rapozo had ordered the employee to “keep her door closed” when she was working as a dispatcher because male drivers would stop by to talk to her.

That employee wasn’t the only one to warn Ah Quin. According to the suit another named female bus driver also told her to watch out for Rapozo because “likes her males, she does not like females”.

There are only three female employees in the agency and 17 males according to the suit.

Despite 11 years of experience and her more than adequate licensing it seems Ah Quin couldn’t get promoted to a full time position while men were given the jobs when they opened up.

The suit describes many incidents where despite the fact that her qualification surpassed theirs, Rapozo hired or promoted men to full time positions passing up Ah Quin and other women.

It also tells how on occasion drivers were brought in from outside the department and even county government itself to fill the full time positions in violation of standard county personnel department policy.

Ah Quin goes on to list eight males who were promoted over her as well as other incidents and examples of Rapozo’s gender bias.

When Ah Quin began to question why, despite a gleaming job performance evaluation she was passed up for promotion Rapozo started to engage in a program of retaliation, according to the suit by cutting Ah Quin’s hours.

Incidents described include one where passenger complaints was treated differently when filed against male drivers and another of a reprimand of Ah Quin for wearing her uniform shirt from another part time driving job while male employees similarly attired went unchallenged.

Ah Quin says she finally asked Rapozo “why don’t you like me. You never did like me. You keep ignoring me. You ignore me in the office. I keep asking myself what did I do to you? I know you don’t like me”.

Rapozo allegedly replied “because I have had problems with every female driver that has been hired.”

The suit also lists incidents where other named female drivers were harassed in a similar manner as well as misrepresentations by Rapozo as the fact that there was "no money in the budget” for expanding hours – a statement followed immediately by ads in the newspaper soliciting new drivers.

In another, Rapozo scolded Ah Quin for not picking up a person who was sitting in a wheelchair in front of the gift shop at Wilcox hospital which was not a designated bus stop, telling her she should have stopped the bus, gotten out and asked the person if they wanted to board the bus.

Ah Quin responded that there are persons in wheel chairs all over the place all the time around the hospital and that she was never told to stop, get out and ask each one if they needed the bus.

Rapozo has been a long-time, loyal, appointed crony in the past two administrations and has been shifted around various jobs before landing in the transportation agency overseeing the Kaua`i Bus.

To no one’s surprise she was retained in her position by Mayor Bernard Carvalho when he took office this month without any investigation of the complaints or lawsuit.

The council has scheduled an executive session Thursday to discuss the matter and they are required by law to reveal whether they okayed the expenditure in open session.

SNIFFING IT OUT

SNIFFING IT OUT: The publication of Anthony Sommer’s book KPD Blue has lifted the veil on racial bias if not systemic racism in Kaua`i county government.

But arguments over the role that race has in hiring and the daily provision of services in not just the police department but all county departments has almost overshadowed also pervasive gender bias.

A recently filed lawsuit has refocused attention in what appears to be not just a blatant case of gender bias but the lackadaisical response by the county to the complaints which led to the lawsuit being filed.

Bus driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin is suing the Kaua`i Department of Transpiration- specifically Executive on Transportation Janine Rapozo- for what appears to be a pervasive hostile atmosphere in the agency toward women.

Just as appalling as the actual discrimination is the fact the lawsuit was filed only because a year went by after Ah Quin’s filing of Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints without any attempt by the county to respond or even attempt to investigate the charges.

At a special council meeting called at the end of November the County Attorney at the time Matthew Pyun asked the council for $50,000 to hire an outside attorney to respond to the suit.

And outgoing councilpersons Shaylene Iseri Carvalho and Mel Rapozo (no relation) were livid.

“You’ve got to read this” shrieked Iseri waving a copy of the suit over her head. “The County Attorney’s office has not engaged in any investigation (for a year) and now wants to hire an investigator” when there’s only 20 days to respond.

She told the council that she would not use taxpayer money without a commitment to investigate complaints when they are filed, saying she was “disgusted” and how the situation was “typical of the wasteful spending” of the administration and specifically the county attorney’s office.

She also questioned why it would cost $50,000 to respond since the first 20 day response is really a pro-forma type of thing that should rightfully be done “in-house” before hiring an outside attorney if it becomes necessary to defend the suit.

Councilmember Rapozo- who with Iseri voted against the approval of the funds even after the request was amended to $20,000- described how no one with the county ever spoke to any of the employees names in the suit or investigated any of the incidents.

The complaint itself depicts a transportation agency where females were routinely passed over for full time jobs because, as Ah Quin was told by another named female employee, Janine Rapozo “doesn’t like females” after Rapozo had ordered the employee to “keep her door closed” when she was working as a dispatcher because male drivers would stop by to talk to her.

That employee wasn’t the only one to warn Ah Quin. According to the suit another named female bus driver also told her to watch out for Rapozo because “likes her males, she does not like females”.

There are only three female employees in the agency and 17 males according to the suit.

Despite 11 years of experience and her more than adequate licensing it seems Ah Quin couldn’t get promoted to a full time position while men were given the jobs when they opened up.

The suit describes many incidents where despite the fact that her qualification surpassed theirs, Rapozo hired or promoted men to full time positions passing up Ah Quin and other women.

It also tells how on occasion drivers were brought in from outside the department and even county government itself to fill the full time positions in violation of standard county personnel department policy.

Ah Quin goes on to list eight males who were promoted over her as well as other incidents and examples of Rapozo’s gender bias.

When Ah Quin began to question why, despite a gleaming job performance evaluation she was passed up for promotion Rapozo started to engage in a program of retaliation, according to the suit by cutting Ah Quin’s hours.

Incidents described include one where passenger complaints was treated differently when filed against male drivers and another of a reprimand of Ah Quin for wearing her uniform shirt from another part time driving job while male employees similarly attired went unchallenged.

Ah Quin says she finally asked Rapozo “why don’t you like me. You never did like me. You keep ignoring me. You ignore me in the office. I keep asking myself what did I do to you? I know you don’t like me”.

Rapozo allegedly replied “because I have had problems with every female driver that has been hired.”

The suit also lists incidents where other named female drivers were harassed in a similar manner as well as misrepresentations by Rapozo as the fact that there was "no money in the budget” for expanding hours – a statement followed immediately by ads in the newspaper soliciting new drivers.

In another, Rapozo scolded Ah Quin for not picking up a person who was sitting in a wheelchair in front of the gift shop at Wilcox hospital which was not a designated bus stop, telling her she should have stopped the bus, gotten out and asked the person if they wanted to board the bus.

Ah Quin responded that there are persons in wheel chairs all over the place all the time around the hospital and that she was never told to stop, get out and ask each one if they needed the bus.

Rapozo has been a long-time, loyal, appointed crony in the past two administrations and has been shifted around various jobs before landing in the transportation agency overseeing the Kaua`i Bus.

To no one’s surprise she was retained in her position by Mayor Bernard Carvalho when he took office this month without any investigation of the complaints or lawsuit.

The lawsuit- Kathleen M. Ah Quin vs. County of Kaua`i Department of Transportation et. al.- was filed November 10 in Federal District Court, Civil # C V 080057 and demands a jury trial.

(PNN) COUNTY SECRETLY SETTLES HIRAKAWA SEX DISCRIMINATION SUIT FOR $450,000

COUNTY SECRETLY SETTLES HIRAKAWA SEX DISCRIMINATION SUIT FOR $450,000

(PNN) -- PNN has learned that the County of Kaua`i has settled the sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Kristan C. Hirakawa and has paid her $450,000.

According to a reliable source who asked not to be identified, the check has been cut yet there has been no announcement and there is no record of the settlement which was apparently approved by the county council in an executive session at their July 27 meeting.

Hirakawa sued the county for a second time after winning her first suit against the Kaua`i Police Department and being reassigned to the liquor department where she was once again a victim of gender discrimination resulting in the current settlement, as PNN has exclusively reported.

Although settlements are public records according to the Office of Information Practices (OIP) the “recap memo” for the July 27 council meeting shows no settlement vote was taken in open session.

The agenda item, Executive Session (ES) 458, says it was held “for the purposes of deliberating, deciding, and authorizing a proposed settlement in the case of Kristan C. Hirakawa v. County of Kaua`i”.

According to OIP Opinion 89-10 regarding settlement agreements “(o)nce the litigation is concluded...all the settlement agreements must be publicly available.”

However OIP Opinion 03-07 regarding voting in executive meetings says that

Votes taken in executive meetings need not be disclosed to the public because the Sunshine Law allows minutes of executive meetings to be withheld so long as their publication would defeat the lawful purpose of the executive meeting, but no longer. Once disclosure of votes taken in executive meetings does not defeat the lawful purpose of holding an executive meeting, the votes should be disclosed.

A request for clarification was sent yesterday to OIP asking whether a lawsuit settlement vote must be taken in open session with the terms disclosed and, if not, how the public is supposed to know about the settlement. No answer was received by press time.

Also on the July 27 agenda was ES 256 which was held “for the purposes of deliberating, deciding, and authorizing a proposed settlement in the case of Jane Doe v. County of Kaua`i, EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) Charge No. 37-B-2009-00620 and FEPA NO. K-15516”.

There is no record of any settlement of this case although as PNN reported there are multiple EEOC complaints against the county including one by former deputy county attorney Margaret Hanson Sueoka was mistakenly revealed by the county in June of 2009.

EEOC complaints are confidential according to federal law which supersedes the state sunshine law.

Although a source close to council services has told PNN that the Sueoka case has been settled there is no record of the settlement.

According to law, the EEOC must give the go-ahead in order for an employment discrimination suit to be brought in circuit court.

Also outstanding is the case of Kathleen Ah Quin against the county transportation agency which the council apparently voted to fight with an appropriation of money for outside council on June 9.

Follow the links above for details of these lawsuits and complaints.

GIMME THAT OLD TIME CORRUPTION

GIMME THAT OLD TIME CORRUPTION: Over the years many of the political old-timers have bemoaned the lack of "colorful" characters in Kaua`i officialdom these days.

"Where's the next Tony Baptiste or "Smokey" Louie Gonzalves? What about another Billy Fernandez?" they ask.

In all rhetorical honesty we've gotta suggest that there will never be another Tony, Louie or Billy.

In the day, self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement went hand-in-hand, and people expected it from those they elected. Corruption and abuse of power aside, what they say is missing these days is the pure bombast--the chest-thumping, booming oratory along with the routine mangling of language that went way beyond simply the use of pidgin in its curious misuse, mispronunciation and, well, general misappropriation of what used to be called "10 dollah words."

And though many have demonstrated elements of the old-time grandiloquent clap-trap and kleptomaniacal cronyism, none have embraced the whole package. Until recently.

Former Council member and current Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho has at least approached the old standard, and her escapades have been well chronicled in this space. Undisputed queen of the Malaprop, she also has the inability to speak more than a couple of hundred words without throwing in a "looooodicrous" or two, which accompanies a personal-vendetta style of governance right out of a "B" gangster movie.

But this week's chapter of her blood feud with Council member Tim Bynum may have reached the hallowed heights of yesteryear when her "Rice-Cooker-Gate" case against Bynum was ripped from her office-abusing hands as Fifth Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Watanabe got fed up with Shaylene and her First Deputy Jake Deleplane and threw the case to the state attorney general for disposition.

Readers might have gotten a small sense of Iseri's misbehavior if they read the oft-confusing and momentously-lacking-in-detail account in the local newspaper.

Apparently reporter Tom LaVenture was in a parallel courtroom to the one where journalist-reporter Joan Conrow observed the action, as Conrow actually quoted Watanabe, Deleplane and Bynum's attorney Dan Hempey in quickly and clearly getting to the point:

Lucas Burns testified he was working as a deputy prosecutor when Jake asked him to contact Liberty Yokotake, who had been assaulted by another woman while living at Tim's house. He said Jake coached him to use the assault case as a guise for asking questions about the layout of Tim's house and the location of various appliances, which could be evidence of a zoning violation. And all the while, Lucas would be surreptitiously tape recording the conversation.

The plot was foiled when Lucas refused to play along. "I thought it was inappropriate to secretly tape record and try to come up with reasons why these questions were being asked when it was really to investigate Mr. Bynum," he told the court. "I thought doing this with a hidden tape recorder and without the full knowledge of the victim was inappropriate and not something the first deputy should be doing."

What followed was a description of Deleplane's bafflingly incriminating courtroom antics and defense of Iseri and her office followed by Watanabe's excoriation of the two.

We won't try to summarize it all because it has to be read to grasp the full sleaziness of Iseri and Deleplane's apparently lawless activity, the gist of which has also seemingly been forwarded to the attorney general's office.

Those who have followed the case already know how Iseri apparently lied in trying to say that the whole case was initiated by the planning department. In fact, documents show that she was the one behind the apparently illegal searches and trumped-up charges against Bynum as revenge for Bynum's challenges to the paternalistic authority of her ally, former Council Chair Kaipo Asing (who not so oddly was in court for the hearing) during the time when she, Bynum and Asing were on the council together.

Those who have followed the story as told here (look for background by clicking the links above), in Conrow's KauaiEclectic blog, and, to a lesser and more confusing degree, in the local newspaper, have been appalled to this point by the inelegant abuse of power Iseri has exhibited during her reign as Prosecuting Attorney.

Some will be satisfied in knowing that current Deputy County Attorney Justin Kollar is running against her this November.

But if she is allowed to simply do as Smokey Louis and Uncle Billy (Tony Baptiste actually went to jail while he was mayor where he ran the county from his cell) and freely walk away, we'll only be inviting future Iseri's into office.

We urge the state attorney general not just to drop the non-case against Bynum, but to start an investigation of Iseri, if necessary kicking it up to the FBI, which has reportedly been looking into corruption and abuse of office on Kaua`i going back to the Bryan Baptiste administration.

We enjoy the entertainment factor as much the the next guy. But as much as we've enjoyed the laughs, when it comes to Iseri, our sense of humor is wearing thin.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: The “old boys club” on Kaua`i is certainly not the province of a single gender anymore. The phrase is merely an anachronistic remnant of he days when only boys would and could be boys.

Today, regardless of gender, any jerkwad who has the self-initiative to step forward and “wrestle with the pigs” for a few years- developing a reputation for being willing to do and say just about anything to defend the privilege of the higher-ups by deflecting and absorbing the not-so-outrageous slings and arrows of public outrage at their future cronies' corruption- can live the dream of a becoming a “made man”- or woman... a mid-level “untouchable” as activist Ray Chuan used to call them.

But that doesn’t mean that they or their benefactors don’t still live in the dark ages when it comes to the on-the-job treatment of women- especially those that don’t respect the system that protects the protected and spits out dissidence.

A year ago this week we reported on the lawsuit of “Kaua`i Bus” driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin who has sued the Kaua`i Transpiration Agency- specifically, Executive on Transportation Janine Rapozo- for what appears to be a pervasive hostile atmosphere toward women at the agency.

As we wrote at the time:

Just as appalling as the actual discrimination is the fact the lawsuit was filed only because a year went by after Ah Quin’s filing of Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints without any attempt by the county to respond or even attempt to investigate the charges.

Then in April we reported on the case of former long time Deputy County Attorney Margaret (Hanson) Sueoka who has filed an EEOC complaint that has so far has resulted in the county attorney’s securing of $50,000 from the council to defend the charge. Her case remains under seal with the county apparently having responded to the EEOC case, unlike when Ah Quin’s case was ignored.

But the county still apparently hasn’t learned to respond to EEOC cases before they become lawsuits- where the specific details are publicly made available- and they apparently still haven’t learned much about responding to on-the-job sexual harassment claims or doing anything to stop them before they begin... much less disciplining the harassers.

These cases and others over the years however pale in comparison to the case of Kristan C. Hirakawa who, in a lawsuit filed in US District Court, alleges that even though she had won her 2001 EEOC case against the county while working for, surprise-surprise the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD), when the county, as required by the settlement, “reassigned” her to the Liquor Commission, she was further harassed at her new job.

The original filing had apparently never seen the light of reporting because EEOC complaints are considered confidential under federal law and are therefore exempt from the state’s sunshine and open records laws. The EEOC does however issue “Right to Sue” letters giving “permission” for a suit to arise from the complaint if the defendant doesn’t “settle” during the EEOC phase as it appears happened in Hirakawa’s current case.

According to the lawsuit filed through her attorneys, former state Attorney General Margery S. Bronster and local attorney Daniel G. Hempey:

(p)reviously, in approximately 2001, Plaintiff was employed as a dispatcher for the Kauai Police Department when she was sexually harassed by a co-worker. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). As a result of the previous case, Plaintiff suffered serious physiological injury due to the sexual harassment, improper response to her legitimate complaint and loss of privacy that was inflicted on her while working in the Kauai Police Department. The matter settled without admitting fault.

Defendant County of Kauai agreed to identify and assist Plaintiff with obtaining another County job as a result of settlement negotiations in the previous case. Ultimately, Plaintiff obtained employment at the Kauai County Liquor Commission.

But that didn’t stop her new supervisor, Dexter Shimatsu, from continuing the typical cycle of sexual harassment followed by retaliation for whistle-blowing or the county’s, not just indifference but, apparently active aiding and abetting of Shimatsu’s actions

According to the suit,

(Hirakawa’s) situation within the Kauai County Liquor Commission remained relentless as the discrimination and harassment increased to the point of disabling her with severe emotional distress. Per doctor's orders, she has stopped working as a result, and remains unable to work in her County job due to the Defendant's failure and/or refusal to properly address the discrimination, harassment and retaliation she has suffered in the workplace.

We could characterize or pick and edit only the highlights of the sordid details but, with no space limitation and the fact that the allegations in the suit paint such a good portrait of Shimatsu and the county’s specific alleged actions- including the county attorney’s office’s alleged failure to investigate the EEOC claim and their decisions to rather fight it without any inquiry- we will print the pertinent section of the “Predicate Facts” contained in the suit.

--------

Predicate Facts 9-36

The County of Kauai, obviously aware of Plaintiffs previous case and emotional condition, placed her in a workplace with a known sexual harasser as a co-worker and a supervisor with no prior training in sexual harassment law. On information and belief, the County of Kauai has consistently failed to meet its legal obligations to identify and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

Upon relocation to the Kauai County Liquor Commission, Plaintiff was immediately subject to offensive conduct on the basis of her sex. Her supervisor, Dexter Shimatsu, made sarcastic comments about sexual harassment to Plaintiff, often alluding to her history of having made a sexual harassment complaint. Shimatsu complained to Plaintiff that he had to order all of the posters [of scantily clad women] removed from the workplace because the "County made me hire you."'

During the course of her employment Plaintiff was often the subject of ridicule, sexual innuendo, sexual emails and insults from her supervisor. Shimatsu called her holistic medical practitioner a "witch doctor", and wrote an email to her saying: Use your common sense...I think you'll stay healthy...Oh yeah, and sleep with your clothes on. You could catch a cold, the flu and get pregnant without your clothes on...all bad ailments.

Shimatsu's demeaning conduct continued. After Plaintiff entered her baby into a contest (which she did not win), Shimatsu left a newspaper clipping of the winning baby in her mail bin where all her co-workers could see it. Above the picture of the winning mother and baby Shimatsu wrote a note saying: I really think the baby won because the mother was cute. With that in mind, you really need to do something about yourself...so your baby can win. Your baby did her part by being cute... it's now up to you.

In May 2007, Shimatsu called Plaintiff into his office to tell her he heard from someone that her boyfriend was getting deployed to the Middle East. He stated, "You should buy your boyfriend a lot of condoms because there are a lot of prostitutes where he'll be stationed." He followed up in an email saying he doesn't think there are really prostitutes there.

At work the sexual harassment was incessant. Shimatsu continued degrading Plaintiff calling her such names as "tonta," meaning slow, dumb or stupid, and "shibai." Shimatsu made insolent comments about Plaintiff when she made a mistake but did not treat her co-workers rudely.

When she requested vacation time to care for her four month-old baby, Shimatsu responded in a memo stating: Your request for Vac/ Ct...was approved after much discussion...Lady, you give me a headache... always asking for special treatment as a female. I kind of feel its sexual harassment and should look into it. I think that's the only way I'm going to get rid of this nasty headache...what you think?

Plaintiff noted that other employees were not subject to insolent comments when asking for time off.

On another occasion, Shimatsu emailed to Plaintiff a photo of an attractive female dressed only in a tiny, diamond studded bikini. Shimatsu typed "You Wish" on the email before sending the email to Plaintiff from his work computer.

Plaintiff was unable to be in such a virulent environment where working meant being in constant dialogue with the perpetrator. She took leave on a disability claim. She sought medical help and counseling because of the harassment and discrimination at the Kauai County Liquor Commission. Under direction of Plaintiffs medical providers, she was not allowed to resume working while the harasser remained there or until the situation had been corrected.

In June of 2007, Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment to the County and sought disability leave from work.

The County did not pay on Plaintiffs disabilities claim and did not separate her from Shimatsu.

The County has failed to properly respond to or address the alleged sexual harassment complaint raised by Plaintiff.

The County broke its own County policy on sexual harassment as promised to Plaintiff and other County employees in a number of respects. First, the County promises that complaints of sexual harassment will be investigated within two weeks time. No timely investigation was done in Plaintiff's case. Secondly, County policy promises that the findings and results of an investigation into a complaint of sexual harassment will be made available to the complainant. The results of any investigation into sexual harassment have still not been made available to Plaintiff. And thirdly, County policy promises that corrective action will be taken when a County employee suffers from sexual harassment. On information and belief, no such corrective action has been taken.

Upon information and belief, the County's policy on sexual harassment in the workplace was intended to comply with applicable law.

Furthermore, the County ignored State and Federal law regarding the matter being pursued. The County instead protected the accused, her supervisor Shimatsu, offering no remedial action to Plaintiff and failing to conduct even a basic investigation for several months.

In many cases, County policy directs employees to report allegations of sexual harassment to the Office of the County Attorney to ensure, among other things, that the County acts in compliance with State and Federal law. However, in this case, the Office of the County Attorney chose to arbitrarily dispute Plaintiff's claim without adequate investigation and contrary to State and Federal law.

Upon information and belief, the County used a woman with no prior training or experience in sexual harassment investigations to perform the investigation of Plaintiffs complaint of sexual harassment.

A few months later, Plaintiff, through counsel, asked the Office of the County Attorney if she could have the results of its investigation(s) in Plaintiff's report of sexual harassment. The request was made pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 92F et seq. (The Hawaii Public Records Act), but the Office of the County Attorney failed and/or refused to provide the results of the investigation to Plaintiff's attorney.

In August 2007, the County contacted Plaintiff and informed her that an interview was forthcoming, but it wasn't until September 14, 2007 when Ann Wooten, the chosen investigator, interviewed Plaintiff.

On information and belief, the County never asked Shimatsu if the Plaintiffs allegations against him were true.

The investigation was only performed after Plaintiff's disability pay had expired. The County left Plaintiff, a single mother of two, in a precarious financial position because of the delay in investigating her complaint and the lack of corrective action taken.

Plaintiff remains unable to resume working in direct contact with the same supervisor. Her accumulated losses approximate $50,000.00 even after mitigating wages lost by securing lower-paying employment. Her new position pays significantly less than her employment with the County.

The aforesaid events have changed the course of Plaintiff's life and career.

Plaintiff has complied with the administrative procedural requirements for maintaining a civil action for discrimination on the basis of sex and for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions, and the EEOC has made a determination of cause to believe that the alleged sexual harassment occurred.

On November 13, 2008 the EEOC found that "The Commission's investigation determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party was subjected to sexual harassment because of her sex, female."

Thereafter the EEOC issued a "Right to Sue" letter and Plaintiff, and timely filed this action with 90 days of issuance of her Right to Sue letter, issued on March 3, 2009.

At all relevant times herein, the acts of the County were undertaken within the course and scope of Plaintiff's employment.

HARDENED BONEHEADS

HARDENED BONEHEADS: It’s nani-nani-boo-boo time for us today as the Naue cemetery desecration case came to fruition in court yesterday.

As we reported first by delineating a letter from OHA on July 10, the shenanigans of developer Joe Brescia and his henchwoman Nancy “Igor” McMahon violated various provisions of rules and laws.

As Joan Conrow said this morning in referring to the property rights nutsos who have been defending and singing the praises of Brescia and McMahon::

“OK, get out your chili pepper water, your A-1 sauce or your other favorite condiment. Because it’s time to eat some crow — and not the Alala kine, since it’s almost extinct.

Although the ruling was vintage, archetypical Judge Kathleen Wantanabe in it’s equivocations in favor of bureaucratic deference, the ruling confirmed that the desecration of the cemetery at Naue was never legal even according to the administrative procedures much less the state law and constitution.

Because she was a typical gutless government attorney throughout her career, by predilection it seems it never occurred to Judge Wantanabe that she could strike down the “ad rules” that she instead said should be changed legislatively in part because they violate the laws and constitutional provisions.

The ruling is well reported by others today so we won’t detail it here but we can’t wait for the spectacle of next Kaua`i Burial Council meeting, which if they’re smart they’ll hold at the convention hall or stadium.

And of course we anticipate quite the crowd at the planning commission whose discussion of the legitimacy of the construction permits has been on hold pending the ruling that invalidates an essential component- a valid burial plan..

And we’re pretty sure there are prohibitive odds against State Archeologist Nancy McMahon coming in anywhere but last in this Saturday’s council election after the full blame for the mess was deposited at her doorstep.

The only question left is whether her negligence and malfeasance rose to a level that she doesn’t have any immunity against a lawsuit by all sides.

Perhaps we’ll see a civil case with plaintiffs Jeff Chandler and Joe Brescia vs. respondent Nancy McMahon in the near future. Only a complete twit like McMahon could bring those two together on something.

But even though the desecration and destruction is essentially halted for now- though in a typical Wantanabe-istic non-ruling ruling- what strikes us through all of this is the antiseptic way the press, even our friend Joan (although just quoting Wantanabe), has fallen into a pattern of describing the actual desecratory construction last month.

Here’s some snippets from Joan’s post.

Wantanbe also said that doesn’t mean he was authorized to start pouring his foundation, effectively capping some seven iwi in concrete so he could erect pilings for his house...

“While the burials were preserved, they were not authorized according to law and it could be argued that construction of jackets constitutes alteration,” Watanabe said...

The Council could take any number of steps, she said, such as having the jackets taken off the iwi and removing the seven burials that are now under the house and reinterring them elsewhere.

Blogger Charley Foster, who despite his protestations has decidedly sided with the developer, used the words “after jackets and footings were already poured” in a comment although that can be expected.

But here’s a description from the article in the local paper today:

...a Burial Treatment Plan featuring vertical buffers for the house and protective concrete jackets for the iwi.

“Capping some seven iwi in concrete”? “Construction of jackets”? “Having the jackets taken off the iwi”? “Vertical buffers for the house and protective concrete jackets for the iwi”.?

What is with these antiseptic descriptions?. What Brescia apparently did was dig a freakin’ hole and pour concrete all over the bones- “coincidentally” right where they were pouring the concrete for the concrete foundation poles.

They all make it sound like anything but what it is.

There are no stupid “jackets”. Nothing was “capped”. And there were no “preservation measures”.

If we were to suggest the Arizona Memorial be “preserved” by slathering it in concrete we’d be strung up by the short and curlies.

At least malahini Advertiser reporter Diana Leong put the words "concrete jackets" and "buffer" in quotes in her piece this morning.

The news stories made clear that there was no order to stop but the proviso was that construction could continue only as long as there’s “no irreparable damage to the burials”

No one is pointing out the obvious- there was already irreparable harm because the way it’s described with “caps” and “jackets” and “buffers” and “pilings” it doesn’t let people know that they just poured cement over the bones.

This is a certainly a new idea in physical anthropology. Why we could “preserve” all artifacts forever by throwing them in a pit and sealing them in cement. Mayan ruins? Dinosaur bones? George Washington’s wooden teeth? Seal ‘um all in concrete. .

Since McMahon is going to be out of a job we may well be looking forward to the new Joe Brescia Memorial School of Wacko Anthropology... built of concrete.

And as for Brescia, well no one can say he hasn’t cemented relations between north shore developers and Kanaka community.

BEST PAW FORWARD

BEST PAW FORWARD: Well, one council meeting down and if last Wednesday’s is any indication the next 101 for this council will provide plenty of nap time.

Because for all the talk of change there wasn’t a peep of challenge of anything by anyone.

The biggest controversy was who gushed the most in lavishing undeserved praise of another one of those vapid content-free PowerPoint presentations, this time from new Director of Parks and Recreation Leonard “Lenny” Rapozo,

Rapozo was rewarded with the job despite no expertise or experience in the area, taking over for now-Mayor Bernard Carvalho after qualifying by running Carvalho’s campaign.

The meeting started out with promise when the monthly-minister- whose name we didn’t catch- slyly told a story about the time he ran a red light.

When confronted by his son in his lawlessness, instead of stressing how important a person he was and making excuses like “I had to get to church to deliver my sermon”, he told the boy he’d (pardon the interruption) “try to do better next time”.

If any of the re-elected councilmembers caught the significance or applicability of his parable they didn’t let on.

That was followed by the first indication that this is going to be yet another “go along to get along council” when an executive session was yanked from the end of the agenda and inserted into a mid-morning slot, leaving those who came to speak on other items out in the hall waiting.

Despite pleas from the nitpickers to explain 1) why the council allowed a trick question on the ballot to remove our own Kaua`i Sunshine Law from the county charter, 2) why, if it was removed from the charter, it was still on the agenda and 3) when they could see the now-moot county attorney’s opinion on the matter as proscribed by the state sunshine law- they were, as usual dismissed summarily by Chair Kaipo Asing.

But surprisingly enough the county’s “outside” attorney- only identified as “David” despite the fact he is working for the council, got up and actually lied in trying to “explain to the new council members” how the infamous 3.07(e) provision was rejected by a judge.

The fact is that the charter provision had nothing to do with the infamous ES-177 case.

David- Minkins, we believe his last name is- tried to use a judges ruling specific to ES-177 to give the impression that the judge ruled that the council could do anything they damn well please in secret meetings as long as they cloak it in “attorney client privilege”.

First he attempted to try to mash-up and mix-up the case with a request by Walter Lewis and Ray Chuan to see a slew of past executive sessions minutes after the need for secrecy was no longer valid- something provided for in the Sunshine Law.- a case that had nothing to do with ES-177 in which the county sued the Office of Information Practices (OIP) which oversees the Sunshine Law.

The case of ES-177 involved newly elected at the time Councilmember Mel Rapozo when, acceding to OIP, he apparently ranted and raged over a bunch of police department matters that had nothing to do with the agendaed subject matter.

Judge Kathleen Wantanabe’s ruling however was actually very specific to that particular ES transcript saying that any “attorney-client privilege” at the meeting was “inexorably intertwined” with the portions that normally would not be covered- something that Minkins of course did not mention at all.

And the councilmembers- all seven – sat there like bumps on a log and okayed the current request for an ES on a current unrelated lawsuit against the county.

Later the questionable use of asset forfeiture funds we discussed last week- and specifically sent to the council as testimony- wasn’t even mentioned by any of the seven

The uses of the fund for a boat, new badges and a fax machine was approved unanimously without discussion of whether they were “supplemental” in nature as the law for the funds’ use requires.

But this was all a prelude for “the show” when Rapozo, with his deputy Kylan Dela Cruz by his side, whipped out a stack of apparently expensive, spiral-bound booklets, with plastic covers, printed on high quality, almost poster-board like, paper and distributed them to councilmembers before proceeding with their “presentation”.

“Lenny” was introduced with no last name and when Councilmember Tim Bynum asked him to identify himself Rapozo claimed he already had.

Rapozo actually started off trying to get away without doing his PowerPoint presentation and had to be forced to use the glorified overhead projector..

Then believe it or not he started off by saying “On the first page we identified the dog path task force members”.

But this was no mere slip of the tongue like the one that an embarrassed Kaipo Asing used a few months ago to be met with derisive laughter.

He followed it up by describing the next item- “meeting dates... to help us with the enforcement part of the dog path”.

“PowerPoint” presentations for the council have been the coin of the realm for department heads in recent times under the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste, especially Carvalho who used them in order to feign competence, as we discussed a while back.

They obviously figure that the councilmembers are too dumb- or too incompetent themselves- to notice that the content is usually just a bare-bones outline of stuff that would fit on one sheet of paper with no exposition of the specifics of each “point”,

This one though went further, presenting pages of two-per sheet giant color photos of the various signs and other “features” that anyone could see if they visited the path.... none of which explained any specifics.

The first page appeared to have maybe 25 word tops with such outline subjects as “Maintenance” and lines under it saying “trash cans”, “landscape”, “informational signs”, and “dispensers and refills”

That was followed by the only other thing on the page the heading “Enforcement” which was followed by “2 bicycles (stored at Kapa`a Neighborhood center), “3 vehicles” and “hand held radios.”

Actually this brought the only questioning because apparently they took three old police vehicles to use on the non-motorized traffic bike path.

Asing was incredulous because, as anyone in county government knows and he explained, there is a strict policy against using old “retired” police vehicles because they are “high powered” and notorious gas-hogs.

After some other superfluous info with a distinct lack of detail and the “how I spent my summer vacation” picture-show came the most important thing the council had demanded they come up with more than a month ago but never got because Carvalho was too busy running for Mayor- the actual forms for the bureaucratic functioning of the experimental “dog path”- those for writing tickets, signing up volunteers etc.

Problem was that, although they were in that Cadillac of Booklets they weren’t on the actual slide show- er, PowerPoint..

Well with all the gushing from all- and we mean all- the councilmembers you would have thought these geniuses had expanded string theory what with all the oooo’s and ahhhh’s over the presentation.

We’re distinctly disappointed in the new council for starting off on the wrong foot.

The fact is that it becomes increasingly more difficult to stop unethical, even illegal practices once you allow them to happen by not raising your hand to question them.

No one’s asking the newbies to be confrontational but at least ask the questions required of an oversight body when you’re made aware of them.

That’s been the major complaint about the council- even when members of the public legitimately question practices, do research to back it up and testify or submit it to them they’re greeted with “thanks for sharing- all in favor?- next item please”.

In the case of the police requests, the chief was even in the room. And in the case of the prosecutor’s fax machine if she wasn’t there, why not? Certainly when she was a councilperson the new prosecutor, Shaylene Iseri Carvalho would have demanded someone requesting money from the council be there to answer questions.

And accepting shoddy work without asking pertinent - not impertinent- questions is bad enough. But heaping praise instead of deserved criticism can only be seen as a political ploy possibly to secure a place at the corruption table.

Worse is actually voting for the measure that should have gotten more scrutiny without asking the questions the voters expect will be asked.

Once you have complemented people who are doing shoddy work on one matter how do you confront them later?

Some may say “hey- give them a chance- that was just their first meeting”. But that misses the point- that first meeting will set the tone for other 101 over the next two years.

If past is prologue it could be “same old, same old” as the new members especially if instead of sharpening elbows they just use them to make room for themselves in the “look the other way” old boys and girls club.

We’ll see how it goes in January but if last Wednesday was any indication we’re not too hopeful for any change.

DOGGIN’ IT

DOGGIN’ IT: The sentencing of the three vice-squad cops who ditched marijuana eradication schools in Maui a couple of years back is in the news and it was not only a slap on the wrists but a slap in the face of accountability for the Kauai` Police Department, (KPD) the laughing stock of the state and the only unaccredited department in Hawai`i.

Not only did the three receive five years probation for the felony conviction, their attorney’s “(Michael) Green and (George) Burke said the two lawyers “would pay all the restitution and court fees for their clients....(s)ince they have had difficulty finding work”, according to the Honolulu Star- Bulletin article today.

In the understatement of the year Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe said to the three "(y)our actions contributed to the broken trust the community has in the Kauai Police Department."

Well don’t worry. The Kaua`i branch of the State’s DOCARE - the secret, private, unaccountable Department of Land and Natural Resources police force- is famous for taking disgraced Kaua`i cops so they can do their unaccountable law “conservation and resource enforcement” activities unencumbered by any civilian review.

Although Green reportedly said “the damage alone from losing their careers and their reputations was punishment enough for their crimes” the case may be emblematic of the very attitude that has been prevalent among a few “good old boys” in the KPD for decades – that the officers can do anything they want as long as they don’t get caught.

And if recent stories are true, despite the reigning in of that kind of cop during the administration of the last two chiefs, it may be back today.

According to a mostly un-sourced and unattributed account by Island Breath’s Juan Wilson and another by Koohan “Camera” Paik, Dayne Aipoalani of the Kingdom of Atooi and his family were harassed and Aipoalani was arrested on an outstanding warrant and then mistreated after being tailed by police following their presence at a Westside community meeting on the evening of April 30.

Some of the events were previously reported by Joan Conrow at Kaua`i Eclectic.

Some accounts said that there were many cop cars and officers- more than would usually be on duty or available- and although the Island Breath accounts were apparently conflicting it is apparent something out of the ordinary might have happened and there’s no doubt that some degree of harassment was involved- whether or not the arrest was actually a valid one.

Wilson and Paik say that Aipoalani was arrested on an outstanding warrant for failing to appear on charges stemming from an incident at the Superferry’s attempted landing last August when Aipoalani allegedly presented a fake police badge to police.

The Island Breath column say that Aipoalani had a doctor’s note for his failure to appear and that the court was aware of it although we have been unable to confirm the circumstances.

PNN has requested comment from County Administration Public Information Officer regarding the incident but because they are “in the final stages of preparing (the) supplementary budget (they) have not been able to get a comment”... but apparently we will have one soon so we can all get some facts.

This all come on the heals of a slew of letters and emails circulating recently condemning what many in the community see as the recent direction new Chief Darryl Perry has been taking- away from the “community policing” established by the past two chiefs and toward purchases of riot gear and tasers.

We know many officers personally and most are, despite the nature of the job, great people who do their job with as much compassion and care as is humanly possible, especially given what is essentially an impossible job.

But when cops like Channing Tada, Wesley Perreira and Lawrence Stem think that it’s ok to do what “everybody does” and fill out false reports and going holoholo instead of dong their job, what must we assume about the honesty of the way they do their job day to day?

According to the newspaper article “Christopher Young, deputy attorney general, said the state had to bring the case because their decision to lie and cover up their mistakes damaged the reputation of the Kauai Police Department and the trust of the community.
‘This is not about the $800’ each for salary, flights and the hotel room, Young added. ‘This case is about integrity and honesty.’”

PNN can now report that according an extremely reliable source, around the time just before these three were put on paid leave from the vice squad because of the charges, at least one Kaua`i attorney was telling people that he/she was seeing more than the usual number of defendants coming in for drug charges saying that the drugs were planted by the vice squad.

But the strange part was that in addition many were all saying that yes, they had a small amount of drugs but that when they got to the station house there were massive quantities or that vice squad members apparently threw bags into their cars and “discovered” drugs that weren’t theirs.

This was at a time when the Mayor was up in arms over the methamhetamine epidemic and appointed a Kaua`i “drug czar”, vowing to crack down and put pressure on the vice squad to not just bust users to “go after the dealers”.

This comes on the heals of reported and confirmed drug-dealer protection by KPD officers-if not internal drug dealing- in the Curnan and other cases of the late 90’s and early ’00’s.

Meanwhile we wish Rich Hoeppner, who reportedly suffered a heart attack after trying to help Appliooni through the ordeal, a speedy recovery from the triple bypass he will be undergoing the day after tomorrow (Thursday).

LET'S GO OUT TO THE LOBBY AND GET OURSELVES A WRIT

LET'S GO OUT TO THE LOBBY AND GET OURSELVES A WRIT: The news that the Kaua`i Police Commission has filed suit against Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. to have a court determine whether hizzonah had the power to suspend Police Chief Darryl Perry in February is no surprise.

On March 23 we noted that:

The agenda for next Wednesday's council meeting contains the following item:

C 2012-98 Request (03/13/2012) from the Police Commission for authorization to expend funds up to $10,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a complaint with the Fifth Circuit Court and asking for a declaratory judgment as to who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.

In noting the appropriation we said that:

People are always claiming "I hate to tell you 'I told you so,' but..."

Yet who are we kidding?- we love to do it.

So today we'll set up what will most assuredly be a little "see?" moment, sometime in the near future.

So call this Act 2 of this would-be three-act melodrama that, as we noted, will no doubt finish with a somewhat existential ending where, when it’s all over, the characters wind up right were they started.

Because we're willing to bet the farm that neither of the two 5th Circuit Count judges, Randall Valenciano and Kathleen Watanabe, are going to rule on what is essentially a political matter- a matter that the council could, according to the county charter, decide by themselves if they had once iota of election year political will.

Yeah- that'll happen... about the time Kapa`a traffic is a quaint anachronism.

Both judges have shown a propensity for "punting" whenever they possibly can. As we previously pointed out:

Watenabe has a history of punting these kinds of things. For example, in her decisions regarding various cases of disturbances of `iwi kupuna- the bones of native Hawaiians- by developers, she adamantly refused to rule, saying that the laws and regulations regarding the individual island burial councils and the State Historical Preservation Department (SHPD) that oversees the process, are unclear and that the legislature needs to clear thing up.

Our description is an oversimplification. But what is clear is that Watanabe did indicate that the solution was a political decision, not a judicial one.

As to Valenciano he was recently asked by Council members Mel Rapozo and Kipukai Kuali`i to clear up the use of the word "shall" in a matter regarding the Kaua`i Salary Commission's March 15 deadline for submission of their yearly "recommendations." County Attorney Al Castillo had written an opinion that, in this case, ""shall" was used "administratively" and therefor has to be read as "should."

But when the two council members went before Valenciano's court, he also said that it was a political matter and not only didn't the two have standing but that they should look to changing the law to make things clear rather than asking him to essentially split a baby.

Does anyone think that in this case either of the judges are going to get involved? Both come from a government background and perspective, Watanabe having served as county attorney and in other government jobs and Valenciano having been a long-time council member, even running for mayor one time. Both have a healthy respect for letting the government wheels turn as freely as possible and apparently do not want to get involved in inter-agency squabbles like the one over who should discipline the chief.

The ball here is clearly and fully in the council's court...

Section 7.05 of the Kaua`i County Charter details the "Powers, Duties and Functions" of the mayor.
There are 13 "Powers, Duties and Functions" The very last one reads:

"M. Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter or by ordinance. (emphasis added)."

This means that the council can actually pass an ordinance regardless of whether the charter defines a specific power of the mayor or not. This is somewhat unusual in that powers not designated in a controlling document cannot normally just be taken in an inferior document (such as the charter and an ordinance respectively)... unless, as it is in this case, it is specifically granted.

The council also has the power to put a charter amendment before the electorate via a resolution.

But either way the problem here is that it exists in the political realm. It is doubly political in that the council must make a political decision as to which entity they want to give that power to- whether they do so via an ordinance or a charter amendment.

Should they give it to the mayor or to the police commission? They will no doubt face criticism for doing either. If they passed an ordinance, first they would have to decide themselves which way to go. If they proposed a charter amendment, they could only propose one or the other for the electorate to vote for- there's no provision for having a referendum type of charter amendment- so they face the same dilemma.

In either scenario, if the council decides to spent the $10,000, the money is completely wasted.

And we're pretty confident that if they do approve the expenditure, we'll wind up with a nice "we told you so" to tack up on the wall with all the others.

At the time we had no illusion that the council would do anything the "easy" way. Then, as now, the seven councilmembers were and are all too aware that public opinion's on the side of the police commission. But not by as wide a margin as many may think.

Despite the brouhaha, Carvalho still has plenty of loyal political adherents who wouldn't take kindly to a charter amendment that would give the disiplining power to the commission.

Make no mistake- everyone in town has an opinion as to whether Carvalho was right or wrong and they're pretty adamant on each side... enough to make it a voting-decision issue.

As a matter of fact just proposing a charter amendment that would give one side or the other the power to discipline or suspend the chief would be a political hazard for councilmember... no matter which way they voted on whichever side the measure would give the power to.

No one on the council can afford to throw away a single "one vote" they're always asking voters to "save" for them. And with the popular former state Senator Gary Hooser in the race there is, with little doubt, going to be one eighth-place-finisher among the incumbents... a vote for one "side" or the other could be the determining factor as to who that "one" is.

The Charter Review Commission (CRC) is still, as far as we know, dithering as to whether to put a measure on the ballot- probably one giving the commission, not the mayor, the power. CRC Chair Sherman Shiraishi actually tried to ask the council what the commission should do earlier this year with no real response forthcoming.

So now that the suit has been filed, as the local newspaper noted this morning, it's conveniently out of the council's hands because supposedly no one is permitted to comment on the matter since it's a "legal" proceeding now.

The paper quoted one of the attorneys filing the suit as saying this.

(Corlis J) Chang said the case is not a complicated one, and they seek to have a 5th Circuit judge decide on who has the authority to discipline the chief of police. The mayor has one view and the police commission has a different view, she said.

“It’s a really simple issue and its one where there are two different viewpoints, and our goal is to get a resolution from the court,” Chang said. “This is straight forward and there are no other agendas here.”

But apparently it is about- well no actually, exactly- 10G's worth of complicated.

This though may just be the key quote in the article:

Chang said it’s very early in the case and once the mayor has responded to the summons they will submit their motions and wait to be assigned a judge and a hearing date. Then she said it would be a matter of presenting legal issues based on documentation and legal precedents.

Apparently getting a ruling that tells the council and police commission to stop wasting the court’s time with what is essentially a political decisions should take until... let's see, subtract the campaign contribution... carry the sign waver... divide by the stack of council certificates and awards... oh we'd say... about... Wednesday, November 7- the day after the election.

VIDEO: WATENABE COOKS ISERI'S RICE

VIDEO: WATENABE COOKS ISERI'S RICE: Even if you heard the story of how Fifth Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Watenabe unceremoniously removed Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho and her office from pursuing the prosecution of Tim Bynum in the "Rice Cooker Gate" case, it can't hold a candle to actually seeing her chide Deputy PA Jake Delaplane. Here the priceless clip of her doing just that.

(PNN) HIGH COURT DENIES OIP APPEAL OF “ES-177” CASE

HIGH COURT DENIES OIP APPEAL OF “ES-177” CASE:

(PNN) -- In a stunning rebuke to the authority and power of the Office Of Information Practices (OIP) the Hawai`i State Supreme Court, without comment, upheld the intermediate court of appeals denial of OIP’s ordered release of the infamous minutes of the “ES-177” Kauai County Council meeting held in January of 2006.

The Monday decision upholds the original ruling of fifth circuit court Judge Kathleen Watanabe that the attorney-client protected material in the minutes is “irretrievably intertwined” with the material that the OIP ordered released to the public.

More importantly it also sets a precedent upholding the notion that individual agencies may now sue in circuit court to overturn OIP rulings despite apparent legislative intent and construction that allowed OIP to have “final say” on matters involving the state sunshine (open meetings- HRS 92-section 1) and Uniform Information Practices Act or UIPA (open records- HRS 92F) laws

The executive session was called to purportedly allow the council to discuss a council investigation of the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) but the minutes were believed to contain a wide ranging discussion of specific charges against KPD personnel by former police officer and then council member Mel Rapozo according to OIP letters to the county attorney that were released to the public at the time.

For a detailed analysis of and links to the OIP brief see our July 1 post or click here to listen to the entire audio recording of the audio arguments or here to read the background at the state judiciary web site.

The following is the full text of Monday’s ruling:

ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ., and Circuit Judge Hare, in place of Recktenwald, J., recused)

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Office of Information Practices filed a timely application for a writ of certiorari from the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) dated February 19, 2009, entered pursuant to the publishedopinion dated January 30, 2009 in County of Kauai v. Office of Information Practices, 120 Hawaii 34, 200 P.3d 403 (App. 2009) which affirmed the February 11, 2008 judgment of the circuit court of the fifth Circuit. This court accepted certiorari on June 23, 2009, and subsequently ordered oral argument.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, and also having heard and carefully considered the parties' respective arguments at oral argument held on August 10, 2009,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA's February 19, 2009 judgment on appeal is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, October 26, 2009.

(Sent to attorneys) Paul T. Tsukiyama, Cathy L. Takase, and Jennifer Z. Brooks, (of Office of Information Practices) , and Gail Y. Cosgrove and Kunio Kuwabe (of Hisaka Yoshida & Cosgrove) for petitioners/defendants/­appellants

Alfred B. Castillo (of Office of the County Attorney, County of Kauai) David J. Minkin and Becky T. Chestnut (of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP) for respondents/plaintiffs ­appellees.

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LIHU`E

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LIHU`E: The Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) has been scathingly criticized for being notoriously tight lipped regarding serious crimes.

And it’s been no different when it comes to the investigation of the murder of Aureo Arick Moore in Anahola last Friday.

But, especially now that the name of one of the two suspects has been released, the lack of background information in the local newspaper seems unforgivable considering that last October 25 the paper ran an extensive article describing how the suspect named today in the murder, Vicente “Vinnie” Hilario, was one of three men arrested for shooting at Moore during a robbery of prescription narcotics in the middle of the crowded Kaua`i Village Shopping Center parking lot.

In addition, according to the police blotter in the newspaper Moore was arrested a month later on November 22 for two counts of second-degree and one of third-degree promotion of a detrimental drug.

Yet today’s article naming Hilario was only six paragraphs long and contained no information regarding the status of that case or how he was able to be on the streets after firing shots near the Kapa`a Safeway in a brazen midday robbery attempt.

One thing that both KPD and the local paper can take the blame for in all this is the fear that that, although two men, Kyle Akau, 24, of Anahola and Akoni Davis, 21, of Hanama`ulu, were arrested with Hilario in the Waipouli shooting, only one is currently in custody causing those who can do easy math much consternation at a the potential for an accomplice to the shooting being “on the street”.

After all, although “witnesses” said they saw two men at the shooting scene, it was reported that it was from a distance and through a lot of brush.

The real explanation- one that would calm those community fears- was contained in that October article on the shooting and robbery. It says

(Akau Davis and Hilario) were arrested Aug. 24 and Aug. 25 for the Aug. 22 incident, according to officials.

During a particularly long three-day preliminary hearing before 5th District Judge Trudy Senda, enough evidence was presented to send Akau’s case up to 5th Circuit Court where it has been assigned to Judge Randal Valenciano.

Robbery charges were dismissed without prejudice — meaning they could be brought again later — against Davis and Hilario, who were picked up by Kaua`i police officers after allegedly fleeing the scene of the armed robbery. The charges were dropped after the preliminary trial, said Michael Soong, attorney for Davis.

Bound over in the case was Akau, who allegedly fired at least one shot from a .22-caliber handgun during the Aug. 22 robbery.

Aureo Moore was allegedly robbed of around $900 in cash, over 150 tablets of oxycodone and over 50 tablets of morphine, Akau’s case file indicates.

Akau’s remaining charges are first-degree robbery, second-degree reckless endangering, third-degree promotion of a detrimental drug, third-degree promotion of a dangerous drug, and four firearms and ammunition violations, state-court records indicate.

The charges are a mixture of felonies and misdemeanors. Akau has 12 felony arrests, including nine pending.

And also contained in the article is a paragraph that might just explain why the shooting occurred.

Through attorney Craig De Costa, Akau pleaded not guilty to the charges before Valenciano. He requested a jury trial, which Valenciano tentatively scheduled for Dec. 27 before 5th Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe, state-court records show.

So just short of two weeks before the trial of Akau was scheduled to take place, at least one of his alleged accomplices allegedly shot the only witness- one who, despite his arrest on serious drug charges was on the street too, indicating he just might be the prosecutions “star” witness if he cut a deal to testify... which, of course, his freedom would indicate is a good possibility.

We wouldn’t expect KPD to be doing the newspaper’s work for them. But neither would we expect to be doing the paper’s job on a crime story when we could and should be busy skewering our political establishment.

DON’T WORRY YOUR PRETTY LITTLE HEAD

DON’T WORRY YOUR PRETTY LITTLE HEAD: Will wonders never cease?

The local newspaper’s police beat reporter Paul Curtis actually dared to name Dexter Shimatsu as the harasser of Kristan (Hirakawa) Suniga- a case we detailed last December and have written about many times this year- in today’s paper.

But- and didn’t you know there’d be a but?- instead of finally detailing all the horrors of the case, Curtis spent the bulk of the article concentrating on a minor aspect - the fact that one of the incidents detailed in Hirakawa’s suit happened via email- and trying to therefore crusade for getting the county to stick Shimatsu with the $450,000 settlement (which we first reported earlier this month) due to some on-line county policy Shimatsu signed.

But of course Curtis and his newspaper of record still haven’t reported on harassment suit by “Kaua`i Bus” driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin to go with the short shrift given the Hirakawa suit.

Gee let’s take a guess at why. Could it be because the alleged harasser in that case- which apparently remains unsettled- happens to be Executive on Transportation Janine Rapozo, wife of Lenny Rapozo, head of Department of Parks and Recreation and former campaign manager for Mayor Bernard Carvalho, and whom, we’ve heard over and over from county employees, “runs” the county politically?

That may also explain why the case remains unsettled. It also might explain what we reported in December of 2008.

Just as appalling as the actual discrimination is the fact (Ah Quin’s) lawsuit was filed only because a year went by after Ah Quin’s filing of Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission (HCRC) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints without any attempt by the county to respond or even attempt to investigate the charges.

At a special council meeting called at the end of November the County Attorney at the time Matthew Pyun asked the council for $50,000 to hire an outside attorney to respond to the suit.

And outgoing councilpersons Shaylene Iseri Carvalho and Mel Rapozo (no relation) were livid.

“You’ve got to read this” shrieked Iseri waving a copy of the suit over her head. “The County Attorney’s office has not engaged in any investigation (for a year) and now wants to hire an investigator” when there’s only 20 days to respond.

She told the council that she would not use taxpayer money without a commitment to investigate complaints when they are filed, saying she was “disgusted” and how the situation was “typical of the wasteful spending” of the administration and specifically the county attorney’s office.

She also questioned why it would cost $50,000 to respond since the first 20 day response is really a pro-forma type of thing that should rightfully be done “in-house” before hiring an outside attorney if it becomes necessary to defend the suit.

Councilmember Rapozo- who with Iseri voted against the approval of the funds even after the request was amended to $20,000- described how no one with the county ever spoke to any of the employees names in the suit or investigated any of the incidents.

You’ve got to read all the disgusting details of Ah Quin’s harassment to get the flavor of J. Rapozo’s county-protected treatment of women on the job on which she remains.

But getting back to the Hirakawa suit. For those who have forgotten or never read the facts surrounding the suit, the local paper fails to mention a previous settlement received by Hirakawa when she was working for Cutis’ beloved, can-do-no-wrong Kaua`i Police Department.

As Hirakawa’s suit stated

(p)reviously, in approximately 2001, Plaintiff was employed as a dispatcher for the Kauai Police Department when she was sexually harassed by a co-worker. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). As a result of the previous case, Plaintiff suffered serious physiological injury due to the sexual harassment, improper response to her legitimate complaint and loss of privacy that was inflicted on her while working in the Kauai Police Department. The matter settled without admitting fault.

Defendant County of Kauai agreed to identify and assist Plaintiff with obtaining another County job as a result of settlement negotiations in the previous case. Ultimately, Plaintiff obtained employment at the Kauai County Liquor Commission.

We’ll end by re-running the full story- the predicate facts as they call them- of Shimatsu’s harassment of Hirakawa according to her suit.

The County of Kauai, obviously aware of Plaintiffs previous case and emotional condition, placed her in a workplace with a known sexual harasser as a co-worker and a supervisor with no prior training in sexual harassment law. On information and belief, the County of Kauai has consistently failed to meet its legal obligations to identify and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

Upon relocation to the Kauai County Liquor Commission, Plaintiff was immediately subject to offensive conduct on the basis of her sex. Her supervisor, Dexter Shimatsu, made sarcastic comments about sexual harassment to Plaintiff, often alluding to her history of having made a sexual harassment complaint. Shimatsu complained to Plaintiff that he had to order all of the posters [of scantily clad women] removed from the workplace because the "County made me hire you."'

During the course of her employment Plaintiff was often the subject of ridicule, sexual innuendo, sexual emails and insults from her supervisor. Shimatsu called her holistic medical practitioner a "witch doctor", and wrote an email to her saying: Use your common sense...I think you'll stay healthy...Oh yeah, and sleep with your clothes on. You could catch a cold, the flu and get pregnant without your clothes on...all bad ailments.

Shimatsu's demeaning conduct continued. After Plaintiff entered her baby into a contest (which she did not win), Shimatsu left a newspaper clipping of the winning baby in her mail bin where all her co-workers could see it. Above the picture of the winning mother and baby Shimatsu wrote a note saying: I really think the baby won because the mother was cute. With that in mind, you really need to do something about yourself...so your baby can win. Your baby did her part by being cute... it's now up to you.

In May 2007, Shimatsu called Plaintiff into his office to tell her he heard from someone that her boyfriend was getting deployed to the Middle East. He stated, "You should buy your boyfriend a lot of condoms because there are a lot of prostitutes where he'll be stationed." He followed up in an email saying he doesn't think there are really prostitutes there.

At work the sexual harassment was incessant. Shimatsu continued degrading Plaintiff calling her such names as "tonta," meaning slow, dumb or stupid, and "shibai." Shimatsu made insolent comments about Plaintiff when she made a mistake but did not treat her co-workers rudely.

When she requested vacation time to care for her four month-old baby, Shimatsu responded in a memo stating: Your request for Vac/ Ct...was approved after much discussion...Lady, you give me a headache... always asking for special treatment as a female. I kind of feel its sexual harassment and should look into it. I think that's the only way I'm going to get rid of this nasty headache...what you think?

Plaintiff noted that other employees were not subject to insolent comments when asking for time off.

On another occasion, Shimatsu emailed to Plaintiff a photo of an attractive female dressed only in a tiny, diamond studded bikini. Shimatsu typed "You Wish" on the email before sending the email to Plaintiff from his work computer.

Plaintiff was unable to be in such a virulent environment where working meant being in constant dialogue with the perpetrator. She took leave on a disability claim. She sought medical help and counseling because of the harassment and discrimination at the Kauai County Liquor Commission. Under direction of Plaintiffs medical providers, she was not allowed to resume working while the harasser remained there or until the situation had been corrected.

In June of 2007, Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment to the County and sought disability leave from work.

The County did not pay on Plaintiffs disabilities claim and did not separate her from Shimatsu.

The County has failed to properly respond to or address the alleged sexual harassment complaint raised by Plaintiff.

The County broke its own County policy on sexual harassment as promised to Plaintiff and other County employees in a number of respects. First, the County promises that complaints of sexual harassment will be investigated within two weeks time. No timely investigation was done in Plaintiff's case. Secondly, County policy promises that the findings and results of an investigation into a complaint of sexual harassment will be made available to the complainant. The results of any investigation into sexual harassment have still not been made available to Plaintiff. And thirdly, County policy promises that corrective action will be taken when a County employee suffers from sexual harassment. On information and belief, no such corrective action has been taken.

Upon information and belief, the County's policy on sexual harassment in the workplace was intended to comply with applicable law.

Furthermore, the County ignored State and Federal law regarding the matter being pursued. The County instead protected the accused, her supervisor Shimatsu, offering no remedial action to Plaintiff and failing to conduct even a basic investigation for several months.

In many cases, County policy directs employees to report allegations of sexual harassment to the Office of the County Attorney to ensure, among other things, that the County acts in compliance with State and Federal law. However, in this case, the Office of the County Attorney chose to arbitrarily dispute Plaintiff's claim without adequate investigation and contrary to State and Federal law.

Upon information and belief, the County used a woman with no prior training or experience in sexual harassment investigations to perform the investigation of Plaintiffs complaint of sexual harassment.

A few months later, Plaintiff, through counsel, asked the Office of the County Attorney if she could have the results of its investigation(s) in Plaintiff's report of sexual harassment. The request was made pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 92F et seq. (The Hawaii Public Records Act), but the Office of the County Attorney failed and/or refused to provide the results of the investigation to Plaintiff's attorney.

In August 2007, the County contacted Plaintiff and informed her that an interview was forthcoming, but it wasn't until September 14, 2007 when Ann Wooten, the chosen investigator, interviewed Plaintiff.

On information and belief, the County never asked Shimatsu if the Plaintiffs allegations against him were true.

The investigation was only performed after Plaintiff's disability pay had expired. The County left Plaintiff, a single mother of two, in a precarious financial position because of the delay in investigating her complaint and the lack of corrective action taken.

Plaintiff remains unable to resume working in direct contact with the same supervisor. Her accumulated losses approximate $50,000.00 even after mitigating wages lost by securing lower-paying employment. Her new position pays significantly less than her employment with the County.

The aforesaid events have changed the course of Plaintiff's life and career.

Plaintiff has complied with the administrative procedural requirements for maintaining a civil action for discrimination on the basis of sex and for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions, and the EEOC has made a determination of cause to believe that the alleged sexual harassment occurred.

On November 13, 2008 the EEOC found that "The Commission's investigation determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party was subjected to sexual harassment because of her sex, female."

Thereafter the EEOC issued a "Right to Sue" letter and Plaintiff, and timely filed this action with 90 days of issuance of her Right to Sue letter, issued on March 3, 2009.

At all relevant times herein, the acts of the County were undertaken within the course and scope of Plaintiff's employment.

Wow- you made it this far without vomiting on your keyboard.

-------------

We’ll be taking a long weekend. See ya Monday.