IN THE BEGINNING...

IN THE BEGINNING...: At least new Council Chair Jay Furfaro is trying. Problem is that he's extremely trying.

Since he took over after the de-throning of long time Minotaur and champion of opaque governance, Kaipo Asing, Furfaro has managed to continue the policies that make sure that any potentially relevant or revelatory testimony from the public is squelched. His favorite ploy is what we've come to call the "Jeopardy! Exclusion" where he cuts off discussion between members of the public and other councilpersons just when it begins to cut to the chase because the councilperson didn't put their comment in the form of a question.

But whereas Asing was sharply cunning and devious, Furfaro seems to get more and more befuddled every week by his own attempts at control and command.

As our readers know, emerging under the guise of new council rules were two measures designed to reduce that pesky "public participation in the governing process" which, in Furfaro's mind, is apparently a dastardly plan to delay lunch.

The first rule change was filed under "the old switcheroo" when a plan to allow people to testify on any council-related topic at the beginning of a meeting came back out of the rules sub-committee as a rule simply allowing for testimony on any regular agenda items at the start of the day... if and only if the testifier gives up their right to testify later in the day when the matter is taken up.

Then there was the "consent calendar," a rule to allow the council to simply ignore a slew of communications such as bill submittal letters and various reports and such. It dispenses with a public reading of the measures and allows the council to pass them all in one fell swoop, assuring that no one in the viewing public will ever know what the measures were about and stopping attendees from having an extra chance to testify on bills and resolutions being introduced.

But for some reason, after a month or more of these changes, unlike Asing who used to take advantage of new rules without even passing them (don't ask), Furfaro still can't figure out what his own rule changes actually were.

Last Wednesday Furfaro started the day supposedly taking up the new "consent calendar" by announcing that "if you talk now you can't talk when the agenda item comes up later" obviously confusing the two rule changes once again.

After some testimony- not on any items that had been placed on the consent calendar but on the "no drinking, pissing or crapping on the county building grounds" laws- he again asked if anyone wanted to talk on the consent calendar.

You could see it on the faces of the staff that they wanted to figure out a way to say "uh, Jay..." but didn't want to embarrass or confuse the easily-offended and already bemused and bewildered Furfaro any further.

Finally it took council regular Ken Taylor- ever the diplomat- to suggest that perhaps if they put the "time for the public to testify on agenda items" on the agenda itself Furfaro might see it there and finally be able to comprehend that not all the rules passed this year are called "the consent calendar."

But what's a poor Minotaur to do? With the firing (no,he quit- no, he was fired- no, he quit- no, he was fired) of former County Clerk Peter Nakamura, Furfaro's flank is exposed since acting clerk Ricky Watanabe has left it to the staff to follow and read the agenda items and none of them has the nerve to try to correct their boss- as Nakamura used to do- when he gets off into La-La land.

We know it probably doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things if Furfaro learns how to chair his way out of a paper bag. But it sure is fun to watch him try.

STRONG AS THE EARTH FROM WHICH HE'S BORN

STRONG AS THE EARTH FROM WHICH HE'S BORN: The labyrinth was quiet- too quiet. But that's the way the minotaur likes it.

So he was surely overjoyed at the extra layer of opaqueness the Kaua`i County Council added via their final rules changes passed at the last full council meeting (7/6).

What began with a proverbial bang during the knock down drag out battles of the summer of '10, ended with the predictable whimper when, to no one's surprise, the council made it both harder for television viewers follow what they're doing and harder still for those in attendance to speak truth to power in front of the TV viewing public.

But it wasn't even the fact that they approved the use of a "consent calendar" and continued to forbid a suggested short period before each meeting for the public to speak on non-agendaed items, it was the excuses for doing so that were the most irksome part of the discussion before the unanimous vote to approve the new rules.

It's was bad enough before if you were the average citizen who decided to try to watch a meeting or two and figure out what the heck your government is up to. Unless an item needed "approval" they weren't even read aloud but rather all lumped together and referred to by number before being "received for the record" in one fell swoop.

But now, with the institution of the consent calendar, those routine measures "for approval" will also remain unread by the clerk.

That means that, while before no one at home- especially those who might not have access to a computer and therefore the agenda- would know for instance that, according to the agenda of the 7/6 meeting, two "(s)tatement(s) of the Condition of the County Treasury," one "as of February 17, 2011" the other "as of May 16, 2011," were even available for the public to peruse, now they won't even hear about the approval, for instance, of a half a dozen grants for things like the police or prosecutor.

Do we not need to know that the prosecutor just received a "Career Criminal Prosecution Program Grant in the amount of $61,938.00" or a "Crime Victim Assistance Grant in the amount of $191,417.00 for the Kaua'i Victim Of Crime Act (VOCA) Expansion Program?"

Are those important? Who knows? But no one will know if they don't know about them. You can be sure though that if a "victim of crime" knows there is a "Crime Victim Assistance" program they might be more likely to take advantage of it.

The council's excuse for the new process? It's "a waste of time" to let the public know what they are doing.

They tried to excuse the new practice by saying that if a councilmember wants to discuss an item they can "pull" it from the consent agenda and if a member of the public who is in attendance at the meeting wants to speak on the matter they can waive frantically as the consent agenda is being approved and try to get the chair's attention.

Well, they didn't exactly say it like that but that's only because they don't seem to appreciate the little bubble in which they appear to operate to any non-councilmember.

Despite the fact they the are always hyper-aware of the cameras and play to them like a ham in a high school play, councilmembers acted like it never occurred to them that home viewers might actually be watching in order to find out what was going on and repeatedly tried to reassure the public they they weren't trying to pull a fast one or cover up anything.

It's as if they are so enraptured with their own little ego-plays that they think that the public is watching because they enjoy the performance itself rather than watching for the content.

It doesn’t seem to occur to them that the same citizens that they complain never get involved in their government are actually being discouraged from doing so because it's so incredibly frustrating to see a dozen items dispatched without even a "reading" of what's actually being voted upon.

Even worse sometimes when the item is actually read it's totally incomprehensible and receives no explanation whatsoever by anyone... but of course we don't expect miracles.

It's as if those who don't actually show up to the meetings don't matter... maybe because they can't say anything to the cameras that might embarrass councilmembers.

Speaking of which, for those who do show up, the councilmembers had their excuses for why they won't set aside 15 minutes at the beginning of the meeting for people to speak for three minutes on any county government issue they choose. They do that on other islands and, as the OIP has ruled, it's permissible as long as the council refrains from addressing any non-agendaed item.

That last part of course is the key because one thing that the council has learned to do really well over the last few years is to control testimony so that the council gets the final word on any subject.

Of course the council's "final word" may be half-truths or even outright lies but the viewing audience is left with the impression that the final word is the correct word.

But that was essentially what some councilmembers stated was the problem, saying "what if what something someone says isn't true and we can't speak to correct it?"

"Why we can't have anyone speaking truth to power here- this is a public council meeting"... well they might as well have said that.

Nowadays a testifier can't even get through any semi-controversial words without Council Chair Jay Furfaro interrupting them- often with barely controlled anger virtually dripping from his mouth- "correcting" what is often their opinion.

The intimidation factor alone has been enough to discourage all but the most determined citizens from even showing up to a meeting- unless of course they are there to heap praise on Furfaro and his sycophants who, under his tutelage, have begun to engage in similar deterrence of public expression by grilling the testifier until they start losing the argument, at which point Furfaro interrupts saying "this is for questions, not a dialogue."

So sleep well my sweet bull-man knowing that all is well back at the bone mill and rest assured that the dark will remain as dark as dark can be... even darker if the council has its druthers.

MEL RAPOZO'S "REEFER MADNESS"; COMING SOON TO A COUNCIL MEETING NEAR YOU:

Reefer Madness is coming to Wednesday's Kaua`i County Council meeting when long-time pot-foe, Chair Mel Rapozo, will introduce Resolution 2015-37 demanding the state legislature kill bills that would set up "compassion centers" to provide medicinal cannabis patients in Hawai`i with a place to purchase their medicine.


Most other states with medical marijuana programs provide for "stores" where patients can buy their medicine and the programs have generally been a great success. Some states- Colorado and Washington and the District of Columbia- and some local jurisdictions have also approved the recreational use of marijuana and the US congress is considering a bill to remove it from it's ":Schedule 1" classification which falsely states that it has no medicinal value.


Resolution 2015-37 appears to be solely the brain-child of long-time pot-fear-mongerer Rapozo with no other "introducers" listed. The resolution notes that the police departments of Honolulu, Maui and Hawai`i Island and the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney have submitted testimony opposing House Bill 321 with Kaua`i PD and Prosecuting Attorney notable for their absence from the list.


Apparently Rapozo didn't properly research his resolution because the companion bill to HB321 is SB 1029 not Senate Bill 879 (as the resolution says) which is a decriminalization bill that passed the senate and is currently in the house.


The resolution asks that if the legislature doesn't abandon HB321- which appears poised for passage this year after Hawai`i became the first state legislature to okay medical marijuana more than a decade ago- a long list of draconian restrictions be added to the bill including one allowing the "counties to... restrict or (even) prohibit growing or selling" what many patients call "the blessed herb."


The resolution claims that "marijuana trafficking remains a source of violence, crime and social degradation" much as the now-ridiculed 1936 film "Reefer Madness" claimed.


The resolution also asks that "should the legislature choose to adopt the bill(s)" that they:


1) establish a two-year residency requirement, presumably even for those who only have months or even weeks to live or have just found out they need chemotherapy (the latter being one of the qualifying uses cited in current state law);


2) ban "home grown cultivation and production" phasing out the current grow-your-own program;


3) establish a "closed system that ties a specific cardholder and proscribed limitation to a specific grower/retailer;"


4) allow only for a "pilot program" and


5) "explicitly prohibit... reciprocity provisions between Hawai`i and other states and counties."


Long time council observers and medical marijuana advocates anticipate the presence of Rapozo's ally in the tiny, cult-like and assuredly-anachronistic pot-prohibition cabal in Hawai`i, Keith Kamita- the the zealously anti-weed Deputy Director of the Department of Public Safety who has notably traveled the state ranting about the dubious so-called dangers of marijuana use, speaking to any group that will listen... including, in the past at Rapozo's behest, the Kaua`i County Council.


Some even predict the presence of bible-thumping union-boss Tenari Maafala. The President of the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) has long-joined Kamita and Rapozo in their fanaticism and SHOPO opposition is also cited in the resolution. As an example of Maafala's other world-views he once said "you would have to kill me" to get him to enforce a ban on gay marriage because, according to multiple media reports, it would be "contrary to his religious views."


A crowd is anticipated for the meeting that begins at 9 a.m at the Historic County Building by the Royal Palm park on Rice St. But Council Chair Rapozo has been infamous for manipulating the order of disposition of items on the agenda in order to either stultify or enhance the numbers of those giving testimony... often dependent on his own stance on an issue


If taken in order, the resolution itself may not come up until the afternoon. However those who want to testify on the matter at the beginning of the meeting can testify on Communication C2015-113- a technical agenda item asking to have the resolution itself placed on the agenda. It appears on something called the "Consent Calendar" (CC) and that is always voted upon at the very beginning of a meeting. It is listed under "#7" of the CC and you must request it be reassigned from the CC for public testimony. Ask the clerk before the meeting starts or raise your hand when the consent calendar is announced.


Medical Marijuana reform activists are asking for anyone- especially current or prospective patients and/or those who have not been able to obtain their medicine under the current program- to come and testify. If you cannot attend the meeting you can email testimony to counciltestimony@kauai.gov with "Oppose Resolution 2015-37- Support current HB 321" in the subject line.


The meeting will be live streamed.

WE LIKE THE DARK AS DARK AS CAN BE

WE LIKE THE DARK AS DARK AS CAN BE: To call Kaua`i Councilmembers' disingenuous claims to be champions of open meetings "lip service" is to do a disservice to all lips.

Because all the gum-flapping and tongue-wagging in the world can't negate the anti-Sunshine provisions contained in the final version of the new council rules, set for a vote at their June 15 meeting.

It's actually a double slap in the face for the public because not only did the one reform the public has demanded for years fail to be introduced by even one councilperson for inclusion, but a new rule will assure the home viewing public will be befuddled into a new sub-level of darkeness at every meeting.

For many years councilmembers insisted that the state Sunshine Law- HRS 92- forbade the public from speaking utterances that were not on the agenda. But in fact what the law actually says is that councilmembers are the only ones who are banned from discussing items that aren't posted on an agenda six days in advance of the meeting.

That "misconception"- to be generous, since the word implies no ill-intent- was dispelled by the Office of Information Practices (OIP) which, in responding to a question from the Big Island's county clerk and a member of the public, said in 2005 that

a board may permit members of the public to speak at a meeting on matters that are not on the agenda, but is not required to do so. The board members themselves, however, may not discuss, deliberate, or decide matters that are not on the agenda.

Thus, if a board elects to hear public statements regarding matters not on the agenda and the statements relate to “board business,” i.e., matters over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power, the board members must be careful not to respond or discuss the matter.

And in fact since 2005 the Hawai`i County Council has set aside time at the beginning of meetings when members of the public can come forward and testify on any matter within the purview of the council whether it is on the agenda or not.

That means that rather than allow Kaua`i councilmembers to sweep matter brought to their attention by members of the community under the rug, they might now- once it's cable and web-cast- have to acknowledge everything from allegations of mismanagement, corruption and cronyism to questions regarding unfilled potholes or the need for a bus stops.

But although a parade of people testified over the many months that the council's "Subcommittee on Rules" has been sitting, asking the council to emulate the Big Island's practice, not one councilmember even tried to introduce a rule requiring such a session, assuring that they wouldn’t have to face an on-the-record anti-Sunshine vote.

As a matter of fact when testimony was given councilmembers actually told the public that they were still awaiting word from OIP- even though anyone could look up formal opinion 05-02 in about a minute and a half as we did today- despite the fact that people testified that the practice was ongoing in Hawai`i County.

But the council didn't stop there. They actually made it so that people who are currently treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t) will now be made totally blind to anything the council chooses not to discuss, by creating something called a "consent calendar."

Anyone who watches meetings at home has no doubt watched in confoundment as the county clerk rattles off a bunch of numbers and the council votes to "receive" the associated list of communications without revealing what they contain.

Forget the fact that people are watching so that they can find out what the council is doing- "don't worry you pretty little head about that" say councilmembers.

And then there are "communication for approval" which, although they are read aloud and, by law are supposed to contain enough information to let the average person know what they are about, are usually so brief as to confound rather than inform.

Usually these two types of communications pass with absolutely zero discussion. But at least when, for example, the prosecutor requests she be allowed to purchase a $3000 printer or the police department wants to buy 10 new $5,000 computers the home-viewing public gets to say to themselves "hey- how come so expensive... can't they get them cheaper at Wal-Mart?"

Now the council will be able to place all of these items on the new consent calendar and approve them in one fell swoop without even reading them aloud, making sure that any potentiality embarrassing or even interesting information contained therein is kept fully up their sleeves.

And guess what? They will get away with this because in making it harder for the public to understand what they are up to, they know that people will simply give up.

If anyone cares to let the council know how they feel about getting the fungi treatment email them at counciltestimony@kauai.gov.

UP CLOSE AND PERSONNEL

UP CLOSE AND PERSONNEL: If we didn't know better- and since we don't, we do- we'd think that the Kaua`i County Council was avoiding the real issues surrounding the long-delayed move to chuck our Personnel Services Department and institute a Human Resources Department.

An article in today's local newspaper stumbled and bungled around the subject but as our readers know it's not really a simple matter of restructuring.

As we mentioned briefly in July, when the new "consent calendar" system of further obscuring council business hit the floor new Councilmember Kipukai Kaua`i` nearly threw a conniption fit over the appearance of the routine quarterly report from Personnel Director Malcolm Fernandez on the calendar. Although we're not quite sure of why, we certainly hope Kuali`i has an inkling of the past problems with the way jobs are doled out on Kaua`i and the FBI's involvement in late 2008 and early 2009.

In a nutshell, as we described in a September 2008 article, Councilmember Mel Rapozo and then member Shaylene Iseri Carvalho started getting suspicious of why the mayor's cronies seemed to be showing up in civil service positions at an alarming rate.

It all became clear when, as we described at the time,

(D)uring this year’s budget discussions the council finally included in the ordinance a requirement that, when the administration changes a council-funded position to another job, they must at least notify the council.

And the first such transfer was contained in a brief communication (2008-256) requesting a “reallocation” of the position of a “Solid Waste Program Assistant (SWPA)” to a position for a “Senior Account Clerk”.

Solid Waste’s Personnel Director Crystal Fujikawa, flanked by Personnel Director Mel Fernandez, sat before the council and was asked to explain why they were asking for a change a mere three months after they requested the SWPA in the budget that the council approved.

Fujikawa explained that since the SWPA had left the job- although she amazingly couldn’t remember when- this change was a “downward reallocation” to an “entry level” position, raising some eyebrows and objections, especially from the Council Vice Chair, mayoral candidate Mel Rapozo and his ally Shaylene Iseri Carvalho.

“We just budgeted that position” said Iseri. And knowing how badly the Solid Waste Division has been in need of expertise, she wondered aloud why personnel didn’t recruit for and fill the position instead of hiring just a clerk.

What Fujikawa said next revealed the true nature of cronyism in Kaua`i government and showed exactly how powerful the mayor is in terms of patronage even though legally he or she only gets to hire department heads.

According to Fujikawa, when a county position opens up the first thing they do is to try to see if there is a current county employee with the required expertise who wants to fill it. Nothing wrong with that, as all councilmembers agreed.

But then, if there is no county employee with the specific qualifications who wants the job, instead of trying to recruit someone qualified to fill the position from those on the island or, if not, elsewhere- one who might be able to, as Rapozo said, “hit the ground running”- the county simply eliminates the skilled position and downgrades it to fit the qualifications of the employee they want to promote or hire.

And, if necessary they’ll even make it an entry level job to accommodate someone’s auntie or uncle... or campaign supporter.

Well it turned out Rapozo and Iseri weren't the only ones interested in the traditional cronyism and patronage on Kaua`i and, as we exclusively reported that December, the FBI had taken up the cause, according to Iseri who revealed in open council session that they had interviewed dozens of Kaua`i officials and employees on the matter.

Around the same time we reported anecdotally an event that made it clear that then new Mayor Bernard Carvalho was preparing to continue the patronage. We showed up to a county office in mid December and asked "Where's Lou?" (not his real name) who had always handled our business.

The woman sitting there at Lou's desk matter-of-factly explained that Lou had retired and she was being forced to do double duty because, she stated, "with the election and all Bernard hasn't decided who's going to get the job."

Well Rapozo lost the election and had to sit out the 2008-2010 council but now that he's back apparently he's learned to be good little boy, seemingly abandoning what appeared to be a quest to clean up the personnel system, leaving it to Kuali`i- who probably hasn't a clue as to what happened in '08- to try to dig through the paperwork until a light bulb goes on for him.

Just changing the title from Personnel to Human Resources seems to fit the MO of Kaua`i charter changes just as the title of administrative assistant was changed during the last election, with no corresponding change in function.

The deck chairs on the Titanic seem destined for repositioning once again. And as long as we keep electing captains who use the "ship of state" as their own little fiefdom, we can change the charter all we want to no avail.

Anyone got any donuts to wager to our dollars that Fernandez will be the head of the new Human Resources Department? We didn't think so.

LIKE A VIRGIN

LIKE A VIRGIN: Like the butcher who backed into the meat slicer we've been getting a little behind in our work (okay they all can't be gems... or even non eye-rollers) so we were catching up on the March 16 Council Committee of the Whole meeting last night and perusing the discussion of the new council rules that have been proposed by the Rules Subcommittee with Chair Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura going over some of the proposals.

And to no one's surprise, instead of increasing transparency and public participation the proposal goes in quite the opposite direction.

There is no provision for a much discussed period at each meeting for the public to bring non-agenda items to the council's attention- something that other island councils routinely do ever since the practice was okayed by the Office of Information Practices (OIP) with the provision that councilmembers themselves may not talk about any topics the public may introduce.

And of course instead of considering our suggestion that all agenda items be read aloud- including those informational communications usually coming from the administration that are simply "for receipt"- they are hell bent on further opaqueness in creating a "consent calendar" whereby those items are lumped together for one big vote on all of them, leaving the TV and on-line viewing public in the dark and those that do come to the meeting having to wave frantically and beg to speak on those agenda items.

But a strange little item pressed for by non-subcommittee member Councilperson Tim Bynum- who was the one who pushed for rule revisions in the first place- was what caught our ear.

It involves one of the two provisions related to the release of county attorney (CA) opinions which were not okayed by the subcommittee. The first would have set up a process for releasing county attorney opinions on subjects of law by a 2/3 vote, finally providing a process for CA opinion releases after the council has used the excuse of not having any official procedure to refuse to release any county attorney opinions at all.

But the one that left us shaking our head concerned opinions of law that are requested by individual councilmembers before legislation comes before the body and called for them to be automatically released to all other councilmembers when the matter hits the council table.

At first the talk centered around who the "client" was and other seemingly extraneous issues with Councilperson Mel Rapozo saying that if he was the client asking for the opinion why should his confidentiality be automatically violated, adding that he didn't even think it was legal to do so.

But when emerging political climber Councilmember Derek Kawakami spoke the real core of the matter- and the reason why, as a subcommittee member, he had vehemently opposed it- suddenly emerged.

Kawakami is known among his associates as the kind of politician's politician whose first response to an issue is not "how does this effect the public?" but "how does this effect my political career?" And after echoing Rapozo's apprehensions he ended his comment with a rather telling interjection saying "This IS politics."

And suddenly it became crystal clear what Kawakami had against letting other councilmembers in on a county attorney opinion on the law after he had requested it.

If you're asking about the legalities of an upcoming bill or resolution it usually means you are planning how and whether you can do whatever it is you're planning to do. But what if you get an answer that you didn't want- one that would make it difficult or even impossible to get your way on the legislation?

Naturally if you had the interest of the public in mind you'd want to alert the other councilmembers- and the public- to the legal ramification. But if your own political machination were of prime concern you might want to hide that legal opinion and go ahead with your plans for whatever it is you have up your sleeve.

In other words, if other councilmember- or member of the public- aren't smart enough or unable to articulate or even ask, the right legal questions- well, screw 'em.

And that is sooooo Kawakami.... all except for slipping up and saying it out loud.

Imagine that- the legislative scion who can't even hide from the public his covetousness of the now open north shore state representative seat made a sophomore mistake.

Our advice? Brush up on your Machiavelli, Derek- you'll need it some day when you join all the other hacks in Honolulu.