WHERE’S DOROTHY LAMOURE WHEN YOU NEED HER

WHERE’S DOROTHY LAMOURE WHEN YOU NEED HER: One thing you’ve got to give the guardians at the gates of county council information: they don’t need Bing and Bob to guide us down the Road to Ignorance.

When it comes to using underhanded and unscrupulous methodologies that are rarely deciphered in time to do anything about it, they take a back seat to none.

But the clues are there for any forensic document reader if you know what to look for and are ready to do a little work to find out what the heck is going on.

So last Thursday when we received and examined the agenda for today’s council meeting this stood out as an executive session (ES) item begging for explanation and exposition.

The meat of it reads:

The Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to discuss legal issues pertaining to the implementation of Ordinance 885.

Of course no one knows what ordinance 885 is.

When a bill becomes an ordinance it is given a number. But since the Kaua`i County Code essentially remains a secret document- with no on-line version and the only way to see it being to request it by number even though finding out the number is nearly impossible- with the topic, for the uninitiated, remaining meaningless.

They also cleverly post the agenda late on Thursdays, often after official office hours, so with “furlough Fridays” the earliest one can call and find out anything is Mondays, a mere 48 hours before the meeting. That makes notifying others- so as to gather a crowd to testify- a Herculean effort.

But apparently one of those that worked tirelessly to see the bill that became Ordinance 885 pass also actually reads each week’s agenda and wondered, with us, what 885 was all about.

We’ll let Pat Gegan’s letter to the mayor and the council (edited for spelling) speak for itself since we could not say it better.

Subject: Kauai's Bag Bill Under Attack???? HELP!

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:48:52 -0400

Dear Zerowasters, Apollo Kauai Members, County Council Members and Honorable Mayor:

After pulling up the Council agenda last night and a quick call to Council Services this AM for clarification (since Kauai County doesn't want to make it too easy for citizens to get info by putting OUR information on the internet....) I began to get worried.........

I am confused and concerned by tomorrow's Council Agenda, specifically the Executive Session item #2. The item in question is Ordinance #885 which is the Plastic Bag Ban that is scheduled to be in place starting this January when Maui is also doing the same.

Why is an executive session needed to discuss the Plastic Bag Ban??? As I recall the issue was deferred multiple times as the county attorney and the council were trying to find the "correct" language for the definition of what constitutes a "plastic bag". Now - Only 3 months before implementation - the attorney and council want to meet behind closed doors to discuss this issue. What could be the "...powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the council as they relate to this agenda item."? It has been over a year since the bill passed and the ordinance was signed.

What could the issue be??? The ordinance allows no single use plastic bags with petroleum products to be given away in retail establishments . This was meeting the needs of what we wanted, 1) Less rubbish for the landfill that lasts for a long time w/o breaking down, 2) less opala flying around our garden Island and harming our wildlife, 3) No new feed for the floating Pacific plastic patch, and 4) less use of petroleum based products. Section 1 of the Ordinance below states it better than I can:

"The Council of the County of Kauai finds and declares that to preserve health, safety, welfare and the scenic beauty of Kauai, the distribution of plastic bags should be regulated and prohibited."

Seems very clear to me - I would like to believe that when the council and the mayor propose and sign a bill into an ordinance that the legislation has some meaning. Why hasn't Kauai county government taken an active role in the implementation of this legislation like Maui appears to (look at the Maui county website dealing with implementation of their bag ban - http://www.co.maui.hi.us/index.aspx?NID=1688 )?

Going forward:

-I will be at the council meeting tomorrow to address my concerns,

-I humbly would ask for others to let your council members know how you feel about the bag ban as it was signed - if you have time (see email addresses above),

-I personally vow to vote against any council member who tries to change the Ordinance or the implementation date as it stands (and I will actively try to influence others similarly) .

I would appreciate feedback. I am concerned especially since it is in executive session and can only hope my concerns are unfounded.

Humbly,
Pat Gegen

According to a source who spoke to a councilperson, County Attorney Al Castillo has now decided that his own language- which he insisted on during the council sessions on the bill- regarding the "no petroleum content" requirement is now somehow problematic.

Of course it’s too late for you to go down there and insist on a public airing of the issues involved or demand they leave the bill alone- by the time we post this the meeting will be over.

Why it’s almost as if they planned it that way.

---------

For those interested in more information on Waldorf “Wally” Wilson whereabouts and related issues, please read Joan Conrow’s interview today with KPD Chief Darryl Perry.

SUFFOCATED

SUFFOCATED: One thing we might not have made clear in our three prior posts on apparent efforts to undermine Kaua`i Ordinance 885 restricting the use of plastic grocery bags is that there is a two prong test for acceptable “plastic” bags.

The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”

The second is important too because any bags that merchants use must be certified to meet both standards.

As we said Monday researcher Brad Parsons has been diligently doing the job the Department of Public Works should be doing and will present the following testimony today. Keep the two prong test in mind as you read what he found out. See ya on the other side.

--------

Aloha Councilmembers:

Over the past week, since the last Council meeting regarding Ordinance 885, I have spent probably 50 hours researching the plastic bag issue. I may not get a chance to say or write everything I found, but here are a few notes, and I will try to write up everything I found after today and submit it to you.

First, after almost literally scouring the planet, I did NOT definitively find a poly bag for sale on the market that meets both of Ordinance 885's requirements, those being that it have no fossil fuel polymers (equivalent to ASTM D 6866 industry standard) and that it be compostable at a natural rate as with paper, leaves, and food waste (equivalent to ASTM D 6400 industry standard). I also heavily research the two industry standards, NOT national standards referenced in the prior sentence. The compostable standard ASTM D 6400 is what is used only in San Francisco, California state law, and Minnesota state law for poly bags. It is used in those two states only regarding poly bags. There are many bags on the market that meet the compostable standard ASTM D 6400. The limiting industry standard of the two is ASTM D 6866 the renewable content standard. Of the 19 other jurisdictions in the U.S. with some form of a poly bag ban, I did not find one other jurisdiction that specifically mentions a legal standard of allowing poly bags with no fossil fuel content.

What I did find is at least two bioresins out there that are 100% biobased (that is the term under D 6866 for a polymer that has no fossil fuel content) made by 1) The company Braskem out of Brazil made 100% from sugarcane called green polyethylene. Braskem is in a JV with Proctor & Gamble to distribute products from this, and 2) the company NatureWorks LLC out of Minnesota who's Ingeo biopolymer is 100% biobased from corn. NatureWorks did refer me to two bag makers that they supply. Of those two, there is the possibility that one of them, Indaco of Canada makes a bag called "Bag to Nature" (about 11 cents per bag) that MIGHT be compostable AND 100% biobased. Indaco starts with a bioresin from NatureWorks LLC that is 100% biobased, but if they add their own polymers that have fossil fuel content, then even their "Bag to Nature" would not be 100% biobased and not meet Ordinance 885's unique requirements. I did also come across one other interesting poly bag maker in Minnesota, in Northern Technologies Natur-Tec "Natur-Bag". The "Natur-Bag" is compostable but not 100% biobased, but I did have a chance to have a long conversation with a Rick Lombardo of Northern Tech this morning that was very helpful and will pass on his contact information in my full written testimony to you in the next few days. Lastly, I did come across 2 Chinese companies who's claims are not tested, but which may have a bioresin approaching 100% biobased by Wuhan Huali in a corn-based resin, and Tianan Biologic Material Co. in a bioresin apparently derived from bacteria.

In the course of this search I did also make contact with the only Biodegradable Products Institute approved ASTM D 6400 testing lab on the West Coast, Soil Control Lab, and exchanged a number of useful emails with their lab director Mike Galloway and also made contact and exchanged email and phone conversations with the only lab in the U.S., Beta Analytic, based out of Florida and Europe, that does systematic testing for ASTM D 6866. The useful feedback and documentation they have provided to me, I will include in my next writeup on this.

There are a number of other details that I will try to mention in my testimony or include in my follow-up writing.

----

Today’s council meeting should be a real doozie as the DPW will be forced to explain why they spent a few days short of a full year futzing around and coming up with nothing while Brad spent a few days doing their job for them.

But one thing we will probably not find out today is exactly who approached County Attorney Al Castillo to try to go behind closed doors apparently to sabotage the ordinance’s implementation.

Castillo has refused to say who it was but we sure would like to ask if might have been a certain councilmember who has recused himself due to a conflict of interest due to his employment with Big Save Markets,.

A number of readers have suggested and even alleged this is true but none could provide definitive evidence as to whether Mr. Kawakami used his position as a councilperson to influence the county attorney to put a monkey wrench in the works- which might be seen as a use his position to further a private interest in violation of the county’s code of ethics.

We’re certainly not saying we have any knowledge that it was Kawakami who brought the matter to Castillo’s attention but we’d love to have the both of them answer the question as to whether they have discussed implementation of the bill, especially given Kawakami’s recusal on the matter.

PANTS ON FIRE

PANTS ON FIRE: In the wake of County Attorney Al Castillo’s performance in requesting the council go into executive session to discuss the ordinance banning plastic bags last Wednesday things have became curiouser and curiouser over the weekend.

As we noted last week on Wednesday and Friday Castillo told the council that, despite the fact that the ordinance had been passed about a year ago, the Department of Public Works (DPW) had not even begun to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules (ad rules) because they- and he- were confused about the “intent” of the ordinance.

He also told them apparently after doing their due diligence the DPW found there were no bags in existence that fit the requirements that “no fossil fuel polymers” be used in manufacturing them.

But late Friday, an email showed up in the inbox of one of those most active in the passage of the bill with a brand new informational county web page containing a draft of those very rules which were supposedly nonexistent.

Brad Parson, who worked diligently with others to pass the bill last year, said he had run into Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s assistant Beth Tokioka after the council meeting and asked about the rules and apparently, in response, she sent him a link to the brand new country web page containing a copy of the ordinance, the ad rules and the public hearing notice for the bill.

The rules were either done in one night by Menehunes or more likely existed despite Castillo’s assurance they didn’t exist.

The rules do contain a “list” of acceptable plastic bags under which is printed the word “none”. They also have a section describing a process for submission by merchants of bags for testing to see if they comply.

But the contention that there are no bags being made today that do not contain fossil fuel polymers and in fact that they had checked, seemed a little too pat an answer for Parsons who got busy over the weekend to see if it was true.

It didn’t take him long to find at least one called the “Naturtech Nature Bag” from Northern Technologies Industrial Corp (NTIC) out of Minnesota that thus far appears meets the standard in addition to others that may.

Parsons, a meticulous researcher, is still on the case today to verify the claims made by NTIC as well as others.

But one thing was becoming apparent to Parsons as he did his inquiry- that no one else had asked questions of these manufacturers that he found on-line.

As anyone who has done any research knows- especially in the on-line age- when you start nosing around you will find the fingerprints of anyone who did the same research before you. But Parsons says that so far he seems to be asking questions of the various manufacturers that haven’t been asked before, possibly due to the unique nature of the Kaua`i ordinance.

Another problem with the administration’s whole approach to the implementation is that the notice of public hearing for the rules is being held the very day Ordinance 885 goes into effect, January 11, 2011. That apparently “builds in” a delay in implementation between when the old bags become illegal and when stores can know what bags to use, if any- or even worse, submit one for testing and wait until the results come back- and then order and receive them.

And, in typical “fire ready aim” county manner, they have scheduled a series of three “public information meetings” on October 25 and November 4 and 8, however they are all being held from 10:00 am to 11:00 am for some reason.

The answer to the question as to what “information” is to be disseminated if the rules have yet to be finalized through a public hearing isn’t apparent... unless of course the public hearing is actually superfluous and it doesn’t really matter to them what the public says.

The whole thing is up for discussion this Wednesday at the meeting of the council’s Public Works and Energy Committee where Chair Tim Bynum is “requesting the Administration's presence to discuss Ordinance No. 885, relating to Plastic Bag Reduction.”

In addition there is another request on the agenda from Castillo to go behind closed doors to discuss some kind of “liability” with the council.

Whatever the outcome, one extremely troublesome issue with Castillo’s approach is in his contention that without knowing the council’s “intent” it is impossible to know what to put into the ad rules.

This isn’t the first time that Kaua`i CAs have decided that they need to “interpret” ordinances rather than relying on the plain reading of the law. The same has happened in the Board of Ethics brouhaha over the plain reading of the charter and how it conflicts with the rules of the BOE because someone decided to “interpret” the plain meaning of the charter... interpreting the plain reading out of existence, as it were.

The ordinance is plain- if a bag that meets the criteria exists, it is permissible, If not it isn’t and people must use paper or preferable reusable canvas bags, as is stated in the “purpose” section of the bill that became Ordinance 885.

The reality is that there are only 18 jurisdictions that have any plastic bag bills and the one on Kaua`i is unique in allowing only those that contain no petroleum products. In doing so we are leading the way in providing the industry with the impetus to manufacture them so that other jurisdictions will be able follow in our steps.

But apparently there are bags that meet out standards if the DPW gets off their butts and looks for them.

ONE OF THESE DAYS...

ONE OF THESE DAYS...: The motto of the true babooze is “don’t confuse me with the facts.”

For our purposes it doesn’t really matter whether he’s merely too lazy to look at Ordinance 885 and read the record or hell bent on misrepresenting his effort to gut the plastic bag ban.

Either way Councilmember Mel Rapozo’s efforts are an affront to rationality.

After yesterday’s first reading the bill now heads to a public hearing where Rapozo’s “amendment”- which doesn’t seem to be posted at the county’s web site- will no doubt be further ridiculed.

And sensing he’s fighting a losing battle, it’s apparent that Rapozo is going to try to use lies and obfuscation to essentially end the ban.

In a comment on the article in the newspaper Rapozo wrote:

This article failed to mention the most important component of the amendment. Food service establishments will be required to use biodegradable/compostable plastic bags. These bags will help to protect the environment while addressing the issue of food safety.

Bullsh*t Mel.

First of all, if he had bothered to read the ordinance and the record he’d have found out that we don’t really ban plastic bags. But we have a stricter standard than simply “biodegradable” which is a nebulous terms that has allowed bags that are not really “biodegradable” to be used in other jurisdictions where bans on non-biodegradable bags are in effect.

Our ordinance requires two things of any plastic grocery bags. As we wrote last October as part of our extensive coverage of the development and passage of the ordinance:

The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; (emphasis added) and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”

And, as we detailed, that type of bag is not yet being produced anywhere in the world, according to both researcher Brad Parsons- who spent a week on the phone ascertaining this fact and also the Department of Public Works (DPW) which therefore currently has zero acceptable bags on their “list.”

This leaves a “de facto” ban unless and until someone begins selling non-fossil-fuel-containing bags- which is possible since, as Parsons found, there are materials out there that could serve the purpose only no one is currently manufacturing them into bags.

So either one of two things are true.

Either the amendment doesn’t do anything at all and keeps the current definition of ‘biodegradable bag” and, in essence continues the effective ban or, more than likely (as we said the bill isn’t posted anywhere) it changes the definition of biodegradable to mean those bags that actually aren’t.

What passes for biodegradable bags these days are bags made with fossil fuels that simply break up into little pieces. They still don’t truly “biodegrade” for thousands of years. The only difference is that they are broken into tiny specks of plastic which many say is even worse for sea life which is now more likely to wind up with a clump in their belly with bite-size pieces floating around.

So either Rapozo is actually trying to change the definition, which would effectively lift the “ban,” or he’s not changing anything and the ban will continue- the latter of which is unlikely.

We'll have more after viewing the meeting but either way this whole thing is a waste of time and energy and the product of a regressive mind where Rapozo thinks he is not just entitled to his own opinion but his own facts.

ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTIONS

ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTIONS: We fully expected the brief, clueless presentation by the Department of Public Works (DPW) at last Wednesday’s council Public Works and Energy Committee meeting on the plastic bag ban ordinance 885 which we predicted over the past two weeks.

But the council’s equally befuddled response to both the lack of due diligence by the DPW and the incompetence of County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo in maintaining his quest to hold the legally required public hearing on the administrative rules after the ban takes effect, was both predictable and incomprehensibly blind to irregularities and outright chicanery.

The always incompetent DPW Solid Waste Division Director Troy Tanegawa’s “Power Point” presentation contained exactly one sentence in claiming that in fact there were no bags that meet the standards for use but offered no evidence that he had even checked with anyone, nor did he present any report on the subject.

The fact is that according to researcher Brad Parsons- who as we said last week spent a few days looking into the subject- although no one is presently making bags that are both “compostable” and “contain no fossil fuel polymers” there are companies that make material that could be used to manufacture them if there was a demand for them.

That of course means that if Tanigawa and his division had bothered to look into it as the official government representative of a jurisdiction that wanted bags to fit our unique ordinance - and do so when the ordinance was passed last October- they might have them available by now.

But we would have been shocked to actually find him doing his job at this point in time- he hasn’t shown any ability or initiative in the past 15 years so why would he start now?

And the fact that the council just sat there and bought his brief claim to have looked and found nothing isn’t much of a surprise either- why would they start actually doing their oversight job now?

But the real outrage was this absurdity- courtesy of CA Castillo- of holding the official public hearing on January 11, 2011 the date the ban goes into effect- and, even worse, the way the council went along with it.

Castillo first went into his “say no more-I can say no more” routine regarding the reason claiming it had something to do with a provision in the Hawai`i Revised Statues Chapter 91 which governs administrative (ad) rules, apparently trying to say that he couldn’t have the hearing until the law want into effect but not citing any provision.... perhaps because there isn’t one.

This of course despite the fact that the Maui plastic bag ban law’s ad rules have already gone through their public hearing in August for an ordinance with an effective date of, not so coincidentally, January 11, 2011.

But the real debacle was the fact that the “informational meetings” that the county has announced they will hold on Oct 25 and Nov. 5th & 8th from 10-11 a.m. are apparently being offered in lieu of the legally required official public hearings.

And of course no one on the council had any problem with that.

So why should you?

Maybe its because there’s nothing required of “informational meetings”- where Tanigawa assured the council they would “take testimony”- while there are 1767 words in §91-3 alone regarding “Procedure for adoption, amendment, or repeal of rules”.

Whereas nothing has to occur at an “informational meeting”- and no information obtained must be considered- under an official Chapter 91 public hearing on ad rules.

(2) Afford all interested persons opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing. The agency shall fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule. The agency may make its decision at the public hearing or announce then the date when it intends to make its decision. Upon adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule, the agency, if requested to do so by an interested person, shall issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its determination.(emphasis added).

Not only that but while the county can just plop a “notice” of an unofficial informational meeting on their web site in order to give the notice for a public hearing the agency promulgating the rules must

(1) Give at least thirty days' notice for a public hearing. The notice shall include:

(A) A statement of the topic of the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal or a general description of the subjects involved; and

(B) A statement that a copy of the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed will be mailed to any interested person who requests a copy, pays the required fees for the copy and the postage, if any, together with a description of where and how the requests may be made;

(C) A statement of when, where, and during what times the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed may be reviewed in person; and

(D The date, time, and place where the public hearing will be held and where interested persons may be heard on the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal.

But here’s the kicker:

The notice shall be mailed to all persons who have made a timely written request of the agency for advance notice of its rulemaking proceedings, given at least once statewide for state agencies and in the county for county agencies. Proposed state agency rules shall also be posted on the Internet as provided in section 91-2.6

The whole purpose of this process is to allow the greatest public input and scrutiny possible to these “rules” which, after all, have the effect of law. What’s supposed to happen is that since they are required to “fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule”- and of course demonstrate that they have- once that input is given, if it is substantive they are supposed to go back and rewrite the rules.

If that happens, according to the case note 50 H. 156, 434 P.2d 516 on §91-3:

Changes may be made in a rule between the original proposed and presented at a public hearing and as finally adopted. Substantial change in a rule after a public hearing may require another public hearing.

But leave it to a befuddled DPW, a twit of a CA, an Ainokea council and an administration that is so addicted to secrecy and dedicated to keeping incompetent appointees that they would rather ignore the laws in favor of minimizing public participation in public processes, to think their little mid-morning hour-long schmooze session can suffice for official state procedures, as expressed in law.

This whole business is of course a result of the way the council went about “banning” plastic bags in the first place.

Rather than just ban them outright as Maui and other jurisdictions have done, they decided to kiss the butts of the stores that insist on packing our landfill and polluting our roads and waters with these poison products by trying to carve out an “allowable” plastic bag... and then depend on the administration to actually do it’s due diligence in creating a set of rules for the two prong test they set out.

Because there are so few places with bans, in the first to set a reasonable standard that assures petroleum-free biodegradability, the Kaua`i standard would be able to be used by other jurisdictions when manufacturers actually produced them because there was now a market for them.

But our lazy DPW dunderheads had a year to work with manufacturers to use available materials to actually produce the type of bag that local merchants would buy- or at least attempt to do so- and instead sat on their collective `okole protecting their clicking and dialing fingers to they could show us all the middle one.

Then, to make this an archetypical tale of Kaua`i-style incompetence and illegalities, they have decided to supplant the rule making process with a secretive process designed to make sure the public has the least input into the rules possible.

The one mistake the council made was thinking Kaua`i could ever do anything innovative or even new.

And that might have caused Castillo’s, Tanegawa’s and Mayor Carvalho’s heads to explode.... not that that would make any difference...

UNSUFFOCATINGABLE

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

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

As we wrote in February when the bill was first introduced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HARD TO SWALLOW

HARD TO SWALLOW: Another characteristic of the true babooze is that he thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room but in reality everyone sees through the ploy he’s trying to foist on everyone.

So it should come as no surprise to anyone that, after seeing the tape of Wednesday’s council meeting and receiving a copy of the text of Mel Rapozo’s so-called amendment to the plastic bag ban bill, we’ve confirmed that we were right yesterday in asserting that the move is a thinly disguised attempt to allow their ubiquitous use once again.

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

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

The amendment now defines a plastic bag by saying:

“Biodegradable bag" means a bag that is made of a degradable plastic in which the degradation is caused by naturally occurring microorganisms such as bacteria fungi and algae.

But if anyone had any doubt about Rapozo’s intent they need only have watched the meeting where, although lip service was given to things like “food safety” and “sanitation,” no one who spoke could really say how exactly plastic bags would specifically keep food safe.

Rather, each person - including Rapozo himself- couldn’t help themselves in quickly descending into whining and sniveling about the inconvenience and how paper bags break and are more costly and we reuse the plastic bags and all the other blah, blah, blah arguments made by people who can’t be bothered ending even one little disgustingly polluting habit or putting a small kink in their consumerist lifestyle.

Two fascinating exchanges put an end to any argument of food safety and its relationship with plastic bags. Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura tried to follow the chain of events that would actually lead to food poisoning with and without plastic bags.

Whether or not a cloth bag contains pathogenic – disease causing- germs those germs must somehow get from the bag into someone’s mouth. So the link- admitted by both the “expert” Kaua`i Community College instructor and "chef" and the restaurant owner eventually admitted was that- shock of shock, news of news- people need to wash their hands before they eat, especially if they have had them in a dirty smelly bag that they had previously spilled pathogen-containing materials.

Didn’t these people have mothers?

No one of course ever suggested just using clean, reusable bags when putting their food in them.

The Chef wasn’t even really clear on where germs live, maintaining that metal, wood and plastic contain “no” germs. Actually studies have shown that the most germ-laden things in a typical room are the metal door knobs and the plastic telephone receiver.

The restaurateur- Mark Oyama of “Mark’s Place”- came with a bunch of his employees in tow to oppose the bill. He went so far as to say that no one ever washes their hands before they eat their plate lunch.

And, as we said, they all gave initial lip service to food safety before launching into descriptions of broken paper bags, public inconvenience and the way plate lunches spill on the car seat or get crushed if you stack them.

At one point the seriousness of it all- the inconvenience not the food safety- was described at the behest of Councilperson Dickie Chang who urged one of Oyama’s employees to tell a story that she had told him earlier.

Seems that a stack of plate lunches had been ordered and the one at the bottom had become crushed and spilled- although it was not really obvious how it even had anything to do with the use or non-use of plastic bags.

And whose lunch was that asked Chang?

Seemly on the verge of tears the employee blurted out “Th-th-the mayor’s lunch.” Fortunately there was an extra lunch so the 300-plus pound behemoth didn’t have to skip a meal (god forbid). But it was a disaster nonetheless because they mayor didn’t get the lunch he actually wanted, she explained.

And on and on it went with a bit of initial mumbling about this mythical food safety issue followed by tales of horror, supposedly- but actually tenuously- involving the lack of plastic bags.

One of our favorite non-sequitors was that out of one side of their mouths people wanted to use the plastic bags for when the plate lunch- the ones dripping with extra gravy and sauces, ably described by Chang- spill inside the bag.

But almost all of the Mark’s place staff- and Rapozo himself at one point- just had to state that everyone uses the plastic bags for trash can lines, dog poop picker-uppers, wet bathing suits and the like.

So you’re reusing the ones dripping with gravy? Or is there really a whole other agenda at work here?

Those who care about keeping the plastic bag law the way it is you might want to consider calling Oyama at 245-2522 and telling him that if he keeps it up you’re not going to be patronizing his establishments anymore.

The worst part is that no one at the meeting pointed out either the scam contained in the wording of the bill or called all these people on their obvious real motive in trying to get back their precious free plastic bags back. Some even complained that they would now need to buy huge 13 gallon trash bags even though the small wastebasket size ones are also available everywhere.

Finally we just have to respond to Rapozo’s charge that we “left out” an important part of a Consumer Reports story about the University of Arizona study- funded by the plastic bag industry- calling the health issues “just baloney”.

Nitpicker Glenn Mickens had quoted the report saying he read about it in Andy Parx’s blog. Rapozo responded that we had left out the “important part” which he read aloud.

It stated that:

It’s easy to spread bacteria from meat, fish, or poultry to other foods... So we do think it’s wise to carry those items in disposable bags. Reusable bags are fine for most everything else, but it’s a good idea to wash them occasionally.

There are two problems here. First we did in fact post the paragraph he read. Second, as we said, the reference is to use of disposable (note the use of disposable not plastic) for RAW meats which is of course a use that our ordinance exempts anyway.

After that the whole thing degenerated into a discussion of Andy Parx’s blog eventually ending with a ruling from the county attorney that anything Andy Parx says is not on the agenda and so any discussion of what Andy Parx says must stop immediately.

One more thing- we just love this argument- made by Rapozo in bullying and badgering activist Ken Taylor- that somehow because we’re not banning all sorts of bad things like Styrofoam and other plastics pollutants we shouldn’t be banning plastic bags.

Rapozo seized on the phrase used by Taylor and others that they “support the bill as it is” and absurdly twisted that into trying to say that meant that people didn’t want to ban anything else like plastic water bottles or Styrofoam.

Finally, veins bulging in his forehead Rapozo prosecutorially shouted at Taylor requring him to “answer yes or no” as to whether the environment was more important that human food safety.

Taylor kept his cool saying that it wasn’t a yes or no question and turning the tables on Rapozo asking why he wasn’t amending the bill to ban all sort of plastics. That shut Rapozo up but the attempt at imtimidation was classic Rapozo- a tactic he’d learned at the feet of the master, former Chair Kaipo Asing.

The public hearing on the bill is March 2 at 1:30 p.m. Don’t miss it. Let Rapozo know you won’t stand for this kind of crap.

And bring a plate lunch- with extra gravy. Maybe even two... just in case the mayor is there.