RAPOZO RESPONDS; HOOSER ANSWERS RESPONSE

(PNN) Kaua`i County Council Chair-elect Mel Rapozo has written a response to the yesterday's PNN news article yesterday on his changes to the proposed Kaua`i County Council rules and Councilmember Gary Hooser has answered his response basically supporting the veracity of our news story (posted below).


PNN stands by everything in the article. It is absolutely factual, unlike many of the prevarications and fabrications from Mr Rapozo below . Mr Rapozo, in fact makes many misstatements and uses half truths to disguise his apparent motives.


In answer to part of Mr Rapozo's response (posted below a summery of Rapozo's response and Hooser's answers), starting off the new term with rule revisions that consolidate the power of the chair by making participation by the public and in fact other councilmembers discretionary on the chair's part in the name of "efficiency" would not seem to be the way to create "an environment that fosters fairness"or "a positive start to the new Council term." But Mr Rapozo has a long history of disingenuity so why should his first day as chair be any different.


--------


Here is Rapozo's "answers" and Hooser's response to them:


Mel says:


Reducing public testimony from 6 minutes to 3 minutes. Simply not true. Here is the new rule:
Rule 11(c)(6) Oral testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. The Chair shall have the prerogative to set the order of speakers, speaking for or against any proposition, and may notify the speaker of the expiration of speaking time 30 seconds before such expiration. The Chair may allow an additional three (3) minutes to provide further testimony after all persons have had an opportunity to speak.


This rule simply allows for a 2nd opportunity to speak after everyone has spoken. Currently, the public has 6 minutes up front, forcing people to have to wait to speak. If 10 people are signed up to speak, the 10th speaker has to wait 54 minutes (or longer depending on questions from councilmembers) to speak. With the new rule, the wait time will be much shorter. This rule is for the benefit of the public, not the Chair or councilmembers.


NOT TRUE: The old (existing) rule states:12E, 4F&G says: F) Person has 3 minutes to speak G) Person has a second time to speak for an additional 3 minutes, plus at the Chairs discretion an additional 4 minutes.


Summary of Rule differences
****Existing old rules- A total of 6 minutes is guaranteed plus a possible 4 more at Chair discretion ****Proposed new rules - A total of 3 minutes is guaranteed plus a possible 3 more at the Chairs discretion


**************************************************************************************************************************************************


Mel says: Rule 9(c) Placement on Agenda. All bills and resolutions must be initialed by the Council Chair or, in the Chair’s absence, the Vice Chair (or other designated chair as stated in Rule No. 3) in order to be placed on the agenda.


The existing rule was introduced by Chair Furfaro and changed the practice of the Council after many years. The current rule requires placement of all bills and resolutions, regardless of its legality, on the agenda within 120 days. This is not practical as all bills and resolutions require legal review. If a bill or resolution is deemed illegal, it should not be placed on the agenda. This rule change is not intended to "scuttle" proposed legislation, but rather to ensure that all bills and resolutions are legally sufficient. This is a standard process for all legislative branches.


THE TRUTH: This Rule means the Council Chair can "scuttle" ANY proposal whatsoever both legal and illegal. If legality were the issue the Rule could be amended so that it is no more than 120 days and must have gone through a legal review. CM's can vote anything down on first reading if they suspect the item is legally insufficient but at least there is a public discussion. Often times "legal sufficiency" is a matter of degree and interpretation. This Rule leaves 100% of the interpretation up to the Chair.


****************************************************************************************************************************************************************


Mel says: The removal of the section that allows the public to testify for 3 minutes on any item on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.


What Mr. Parx fails to mention is that the current rule only allocates 18 minutes for this portion of the meeting. This creates an issue of unfairness because only 6 members of the public are entitled to this right. The Council, by a vote of 5 members, can suspend the rules to address special circumstances as they arise.


THE TRUTH: The old/existing Rule provides a positive way for people to testify early in the process without having to wait all day long for a specific agenda item to come up. If needed then this rule could be expanded to allow as much time as is needed so it remains fair.


**************************************************************************************************************************************
What also is not addressed is:


The new Rules require Committee Chairs to have approval of the Chair prior to holding a "Workshop" (primarily educational in nature), plus the new Rule says workshops can only be held on items that are on the agenda (also controlled by the Chair).
The old existing Rules include no such restrictions and past practice is that Committee Chairs may schedule workshops on any topic within their subject matter jurisdiction without needed the Council Chairs approval.


Gary Hooser
------
Here, in full, is Mr Rapozo's response as sent to many people via email today:


Thank you for your email. I appreciate your input but feel that I have to clarify some of the misstatements made by Andy Parx. I don't know the motive but his actions clearly do not encourage a positive start to the new Council term. I have broken down each of Andy's concerns below.


Reducing public testimony from 6 minutes to 3 minutes. Simply not true. Here is the new rule: Rule 11(c)(6) Oral testimony shall be limited to three (3) minutes per person. The Chair shall have the prerogative to set the order of speakers, speaking for or against any proposition, and may notify the speaker of the expiration of speaking time 30 seconds before such expiration. The Chair may allow an additional three (3) minutes to provide further testimony after all persons have had an opportunity to speak.


This rule simply allows for a 2nd opportunity to speak after everyone has spoken. Currently, the public has 6 minutes up front, forcing people to have to wait to speak. If 10 people are signed up to speak, the 10th speaker has to wait 54 minutes (or longer depending on questions from councilmembers) to speak. With the new rule, the wait time will be much shorter. This rule is for the benefit of the public, not the Chair or councilmembers.


Removal of the 120 day provision as it relates to the posting of bills and resolutions on the agenda. Here is the new rule:


Rule 9(c) Placement on Agenda. All bills and resolutions must be initialed by the Council Chair or, in the Chair’s absence, the Vice Chair (or other designated chair as stated in Rule No. 3) in order to be placed on the agenda.


The existing rule was introduced by Chair Furfaro and changed the practice of the Council after many years. The current rule requires placement of all bills and resolutions, regardless of its legality, on the agenda within 120 days. This is not practical as all bills and resolutions require legal review. If a bill or resolution is deemed illegal, it should not be placed on the agenda. This rule change is not intended to "scuttle" proposed legislation, but rather to ensure that all bills and resolutions are legally sufficient. This is a standard process for all legislative branches.


A new section "Public Testimony" was created to give the Chair the authority to restrict testimony by the public. Here is the new rule:


Rule 11(c)(9) The Chair may restrict or terminate a speaker’s right to the floor for intemperate or abusive behavior or language.


This is not a new rule. Currently, rules for public testimony are housed in Rule 12, Public Hearings. This is a housekeeping measure as we are now placing the rules for public testimony in a new section, Rule 11, Testimony. Rules for public testimony should apply to all testimony, not just limited to public hearings. Again, this is a housekeeping measure. The new Rule 11(c)(9) is the former Rule 12(e)(4)(J). Intemperate or abusive behavior or language has no place at any Council or Committee meeting. I'm not sure why Mr. Parx would have a problem with this.


The removal of the section that allows the public to testify for 3 minutes on any item on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.


What Mr. Parx fails to mention is that the current rule only allocates 18 minutes for this portion of the meeting. This creates an issue of unfairness because only 6 members of the public are entitled to this
right. The Council, by a vote of 5 members, can suspend the rules to address special circumstances as they arise. If the Council, not the Chair, determines that the rules need to be suspended to address specific and unforeseen circumstances, I have no problem with that. The public will be given every opportunity to participate in the process. That is my commitment.


I hope that I have clarified the misstatements by Andy Parx, which sets out to create unnecessary controversy and divisiveness to the Council and the community. My goal as the Chair is to bring efficiency to the Council. To create an environment that fosters fairness and consistency to the public and councilmembers. I have served for 10 years on the Council, and believe that these rules will best serve everyone. There is no attempt to reduce public participation, in fact quite the opposite. I hope to restore order and decorum to our meetings which will result in better legislation and a much more efficient office. Also, these rules will require a majority vote of the new Council. This is a proposal, and each member will be able to offer amendments at tomorrow's meeting. I see that Councilmember Hooser has chosen to share Mr. Parx's post on Facebook, creating a perception of unfairness on my part. That is his choice. I am troubled by this as I had hoped to start the new term with a true sense of teamwork. At the end of the day, the Council sets the direction for the organization. Not the Chair. And I am committed to moving forward as a team in the hopes that we can serve the people in their best interest.


Again, thank you for your email. I am always available to discuss your
concerns and can be reached via email or by cell phone at 645-0243. Have
a great day.


Mel Rapozo
Council Member
Kauai County Council

MAJOR COUNCIL RULE CHANGES WOULD CUT PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN HALF; DENY COUNCILMEMBERS RIGHT TO INTRODUCE BILLS.

----------------
(Note corrected time and location 12 noon at the War Memorial Convention Hall)
Action Alert- Please write to the council at counciltestimony@kauai.gov and ask that the new rules be deferred to the next regular council meeting for full public testimony and council consideration. You may also come Monday 12/1/14 at 12 noon at the War Memorial Convention Hall  to ask for a deferral.
----------------


(PNN) A major rewrite of the Kaua`i County Council rules which would cut mandatory time for public testimony on agenda items from six minutes to three and give broad new powers to to limit testimony to new chair Mel Rapozo is scheduled to be adopted at Monday's mostly "ceremonial" Inaugural Meeting.


The rules, submitted by Rapozo, would also remove a section that requires the chair to put bills, resolutions and communications from councilmembers on the agenda within 120 days of submission, thus allowing the chair to scuttle proposed legislation. Legislation like Bill 2491 (Ordinance 960) related to disclosure of pesticides and GMOs might never have made it onto the agenda under the new rules, especially with Rapozo, a critic of the bill, as chair.


An entirely newly-created lengthy section on "Public Testimony" also give the chair the power to "restrict or terminate a speaker’s right to the floor for intemperate or abusive behavior or language" giving the chair potentially arbitrary and capricious powers to stop someone from speaking, as well as placing many other new restrictions on public testimony.


The new rules also eliminate a recently added section that allows the public to testify for three minutes on any agenda item that day, at the beginning of any meeting rather than having to wait until the item comes up for consideration- many times hours and hours into a meeting, even stretching into the night on occasion.


Monday's meeting is traditionally mostly ceremonial in nature and, according to the agenda, all testimony will be restricted three minutes to be given at the beginning of the meeting, thus violating current council rules and thereby, according to the Office of Information Practices (OIP), the state Sunshine Law which requites rules for public testimony to be of a standing nature and established well ahead of being applied.


In a bit of slight of hand the proposed rule changes as published at the Council's Webcast page, are not in the "Ramseyer" format that is traditionally used to show changes to documents so that what is "new" and what is being removed cannot be determined, making cross-checking for changes tedious if not impossible.


PNN has also learned that the way leadership of the "new" council was determined was also done on the sly in an "informal" meeting that was not even announced much less agendaed. Although an OIP opinion exists saying these organizational meetings may fall under a "loophole" in the Sunshine Law, that determination was based on a year when there was a majority of new council members. There are five returning members this year.


According to OIP Opinion 02-11 11/14/02 on "Meetings of Councilmembers Who Have Not Yet Officially Taken Office to Discuss Selection of Officers" although the "short answer" to the question of "(w)hether members of county councils are subject to part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes ("Sunshine Law"), prior to officially taking office when they meet to discuss selection of officers" was "No." the full opinion says that "(t)he OIP is of the opinion that it is not illegal for a quorum of newly elected members of a council to meet privately to discuss selection of officers prior to commencement of their terms of office. The OIP also believes, however, that a loophole in the Sunshine Law allows such an assemblage, which would be prohibited after councilmembers officially take office. Therefore, for the reasons set forth below, the OIP STRONGLY RECOMMENDS (emphasis in bold in original) that a quorum of members-elect of a board not assemble privately prior to officially taking office to discuss selection of board officers, in keeping with the spirit of the Sunshine Law_ The OIP also notes that this issue can be brought before the Legislature for clarification."


The council has always announced and agendaed these meeting even since the opinion was issued in 2002.

ASKING FOR IT

If you missed the original Rolling Stone article on the pervasiveness of rape at the University of Virginia- and many other campuses across the country if the Title IX investigation is any measure- you'd get little sense of the substance of the piece from official and media reaction


We're hearing a lot of "shocked-shocked" reactions from the school- and Virginia politicians- as if this was the first they heard of it, despite the university's awareness of, if not complicity in dealing with it.


There's a lot of "we need to stop these rapes from happening" (duh) but for the most part the essence of the article is ignored. Because while there's a lot of condemnation of fraternities- where the incident cited in the article took place- and they have been shut down temporarily at U Va, no one is talking about the culture that has allowed the attitudes toward women behind the actions to still be pervasive among our young adults, even after generations of efforts to reverse them.


The article is not really about not the specific case of gang rape of freshman "Jackie"- wrongly described as a "graphic depiction" by the press- but the fact that we are still plagued by a misogynistic generation of men who think nothing of sexual violence and who are not just enabled by university officials but whose actions are indeed protected by other students, including many if not most women on campus.


Although there have been media citations regarding pressure to avoid hurting the reputation of U Va, the article goes into depth as to how the real pressure was apparently from other women who warned "Jackie" that she would be shunned and black-balled from the alcohol-fueled "party scene" at the "#1-ranked party school" should she speak out or "make a big deal about it."


That was the most distressing part of the article. The focus on the "gang rape that happened that night" at "that fraternity" ignores the fact that we are still producing children who accept rape and even encourage it with a 20th century mindset that blames the woman or takes a "boys will be boys" attitude.


It's hard for those of us who have been involved in the feminist movement for decades and thought we have made progress to find out that, despite all attempts and claims of success in, at a minimum raising awareness, our children are no different than their grandparents.


But if the media coverage continues to see this as a plague of individual events at U Va or even at schools across the country rather than a problem of a culture that still raises children who haven't learned to respect women, we may never make any progress.

HELP: GENIUS WANTED

I need someone a lot smarter than I am to help me with some simple research.


I have been thinking lately about how the "median income" - a dollar amount representing a point at which the number of people earning above that amount equals the number of people earning below it- may not really be as representative of levels of wealth and poverty as would be the "average" income- the amount that is reached by adding up all the incomes and dividing the result by the number of people "earning" that income.


So I started by Googleing "average income in Hawai`i" and the results, only showed "median income." At first I thought of Googleing "no you idiot, I said AVERAGE" until I came across an article that reminded me that the "average" anything is also called the "mean."


Fair enough- I'm the idiot. So I Googled "mean income in Hawai`i" and without exception, I got a page of listings for "median" income.


Now I did get an occasional reference to "per capita income." But that isn't the mean income. Per capita would denote the total of all income made divided by the total number of all residents, including people like children, the unemployed or others with zero income.


The problem with "median income," which, according to Wikipedia, was $68,020 in 2013 in Hawai`i, is that the dollar amounts above the median could conceivably, for argument sake, "average," $300,000 per year while the mean for those below it could average only $25,000 a year.


Meaning that the rich are a lot richer and the poor are a lot poorer than the $68,020 median- which seems pretty high to begin with- would seem to indicate to statistically-challenged idiots like me.


Based on nothing but noting the poverty of the regular working people I know who make $8-12 an hour and the relative apparent opulence of those who live in million dollar homes or half-million dollar Honolulu high rise condos I get the feeling that - surprise surprise- "median income" statistics are either lies or damnable lies.


Even at the $12 an hour rate, for a 40 hour work week that comes out to just a smidgeon under $25,000 a year. At $10/hr it's just under $21,000.


Is there a research/data/ statistical genius out there who can figure out the "mean" income for those above and below the median income. I have gone to the US Census and they don't even have "mean" just "per capita" and "median."


I started a math major in college but I never claimed to be any good at arithmetic. I remain your humble numerical idiot.