AFTER MATH

AFTER MATH: There were few if any surprises in the results of the first round Kaua`i County Council election although actually seeing an “8th” next to Chair Kaipo Asing’s name in black and white was, though not unexpected, mind-numbing, as was his statement- once again- that “this campaign will be his last”.

If only....

But looking down the rankings we couldn’t help but get a sense of deja vu. Now let’s see- where did we see that list in that order recently?

How about last Monday when we reported the list- in almost the same order- of campaign contributions.

Top seven in cash?

1) Nadine Nakamura $50,218.56
2) Derek Kawakami $46,393.71
3) JoAnn Yukimura $45,925.00
4) Jay Furfaro $21,040.00
5) Mel Rapozo $19,394.20
6) Dickie Chang $17,870.00
7) Tim Bynum $16,477.99

Top seven in votes?

1) Kawakami, Derek S.K. 10,088 8.6%
2) Nakamura, Nadine K. 9,266 7.9%
3) Yukimura, Joann A. 8,719 7.4%
4) Furfaro, Jay 8,432 7.2%
5) Bynum, Tim 7,620 6.5%
6) Rapozo, Mel 7,383 6.3%
7) Chang, Dickie (Walaau) 6,430 5.5%

If you flip numbers one and two and push Tim Bynum to number 5 it’s the same order.

And, look at the order of the only other candidates who raised money:

8) Kipukai Kualii $16,361.92
9) Ted Daligdig $3,700.0010)
10) Ed Justus $1,760.0011)
(11) Dennis Fowler $100.00

you’ll find them in the same order they appear in the polls:

9) Kualii, Kipukai Les P. 4,877 4.1%
10) Daligdig, Ted III 4,427 3.8%
11) Justus, Ed 3,010 2.6%
14) Fowler, Dennis M. 1,118 0.9%

We like to think that the “same old faces” keep getting re-elected because people vote based on name recognition or who’s whose auntie or who’s a nice guy/gal or any of a dozen reasons that denigrate other voters’ motives. But in reality all we do is just keep electing those who raise the most money while complaining about all the money in politics.

---------

Kaua`i has always had it’s “perennial” candidates. This year we really miss Bob Carriffe who used to campaign for council on the “getting rid of the mosquitoes” platform while picking up trash by the side of the road, saying he was really running so his wife would take him back.

Many used to vote for him just to say to other more prominent candidates “see? I’d rather vote for Bob Carriffe than you.”

One of our favorites was John Phillip Sousa (he claimed to be a direct descendant) who ran for mayor as a Republican, election after election, throughout the 70’s and 80’s.

Long after the election had been decided in the Democratic primary, Sousa could be found prowling shopping centers asking you to “pull a recipe” out of his shirt pocket “because they won’t let me hand them out”.

In the late 90’s and early ‘00’s, after we changed to non-partisan council election, there was Deborah “JoB’ Spence who championed aliens and UFOs among other issues.

We bring her up because, after moving to the Big Island, she turned up this year on the “Free Energy” party ticket, running for lt. governor.

We also being it up because the “Free Energy Party” provided one of the biggest head-scratcher of Saturday’s primary.

They only ran two candidate- Daniel H. Cunningham for Governor and JoB.

But the results were that, of those who chose Free Energy ballot, 54 people in Cunningham’s case and 76 in Spence’s case left their votes blank.

Who are these people who shunned the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green primaries to vote in the Free Energy primary but then didn’t vote for one of their unopposed candidates?

There must be some explanation. But then again when it comes to people’s voting habits it’s better not to question anything if you ever want a good night’s sleep again.

(PNN) NAKAMURA TOPS $50,000 IN CONTRIBUTIONS WITH KAWAKAMI AND YUKIMURA CLOSE BEHIND

NAKAMURA TOPS $50,000 IN CONTRIBUTIONS WITH KAWAKAMI AND YUKIMURA CLOSE BEHIND

(PNN) -- The money race for council candidates split into four distinct groups going into the preliminary election this Saturday with three approaching $50, 000, five between 16 and $21, 000, two between 1 and $4,000 and the rest not filing and/or not collecting at least $1000.

But with two exceptions they are all currently in debt after spending- and owing- more than they collected.

One of those with cash on hand is newcomer Nadine Nakamura who maintained her lead- but just barely- with $50,218.56. Two others came in right on her heels with freshman Derek Kawakami totaling $46,393.71 and former Mayor and Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura collecting $45,925.00 overall this election cycle.

Mayor Bernard Carvalho continued to build his war chest even though his opponent, Diana LeBedz, has vowed not to collect any cash. He has collected $37,537.02 this period to total $228,691.42, with $124,697.32 cash on hand.

In the middle of the pack are current Vice Chair Jay Furfaro who has brought in $21,040.00, former councilmember Mel Rapozo- who is also debt free- with $19,394.20, TV host Dickie Chang with $17,870.00, council veteran Tim Bynum at $16,477.99 and second time candidate Kipukai Kualii with $16,361.92.

Brining up the rear are former Planning Commission Chair Ted Daligdig at $3,700.00 overall and businessman Ed Justus at $1,760.00.

For more detailed info- including individual contributors- go to the Campaign Spending Commission’s Candidate Filing System

The following is a list of candidates taking in more than $1000 and as such are required to file. The information includes contributions to date which is for the whole election cycle, contributions this period which includes amounts collected from July through September 3, amounts spent overall and this period, outstanding debts which include both money owed and loans (those that are loans only are noted with “loan”) and the total surplus or deficit.

-------

Bernard Carvalho (Mayor)
Contributions to date $228,691.42
Contributions this period $37,537.02
Spent this period $35,482.81
Spent overall $165,618.34
Outstanding Debt $303.59
Surplus $124,697.32

Kaipo Asing
Outstanding Debt (loan) $1,350.00
Deficit $1,350.00

Tim Bynum
Contributions to date $16,477.99
Contributions this period $8,702.99
Spent this period $11,394.30
Spent overall $24,617.65
Outstanding Debt (Loan) $3,725.00
Deficit $3,768.19

Dickie Chang
Contributions to date $17,870.00
Contributions this period $4,450.00
Spent this period $13,929.59
Spent overall $42,912.43
Outstanding Debt $2,100.00
Deficit $30,479.77

Ted Daligdig
Contributions to date $3,700.00
Contributions this period $3,700.00
Spent this period $1,200.14
Spent overall $1,200.14
Outstanding Debt (loan) $3,000.00
Deficit $500.14

Dennis Fowler
Contributions to date $100.00
Contributions this period $0
Surplus $100.00

Jay Furfaro
Contributions to date $21,040.00
Contributions this period $13,740.00
Spent this period $8,717.96
Spent overall $16,229.32
Outstanding Debt $25,557.29
Deficit $20,027.62


Ed Justus
Contributions to date $1,760.00
Contributions this period $1,470.00
Spent this period $1,082.19
Spent overall $1,082.19
Outstanding Debt $1,211.49
Deficit $483.68

Derek Kawakami
Contributions to date $46,393.71
Contributions this period $24,258.27
Spent this period $11,694.37
Spent overall $33,829.81
Outstanding Debt $17,718.56
Deficit $5,154.66

Kipukai Kualii
Contributions to date $16,361.92
Contributions this period $6,040.78
Spent this period $1,233.06
Spent overall $11,554.20
Outstanding Debt (loan) $6,247.37
Deficit $1,439.65

Nadine Nakamura
Contributions to date $50,218.56
Contributions this period $14,713.00
Spent this period $15,507.40
Spent overall $29,038.30
Outstanding Debt $0
Surplus $21,180.26

Mel Rapozo
Contributions to date $19,394.20
Contributions this period $5,105.00
Spent this period $3,121.96
Spent overall $14,962.34
Outstanding Debt (Loan) $5,000.00
Surplus $2,367.82

Ken Taylor
Contributions to date $0
Contributions this period $0
Spent this period $147.04
Spent overall $147.04
Outstanding Debt $2,820.03
Deficit $2,967.07

JoAnn Yukimura
Contributions to date $45,925.00
Contributions this period $16,174.00
Spent this period $16,643.15
Spent overall $48,707.33
Outstanding Debt (loan) $26,000.00
Deficit $23,871.94

A BLESSING ON YOUR HEAD, MAZEL TOV, MAZEL TOV

A BLESSING ON YOUR HEAD, MAZEL TOV, MAZEL TOV: No one ever said Councilperson Derrick Kawakami was an idiot.

As a scion of the two-headed Kawakami political family no one ever said he lacked political acumen to read the political winds.

And as a scion of the Kawakami “Big Save” family no one ever said he couldn’t take care of business when he had to

But who knew he was an thespian?

Not that he had to be a Brando to deliver his “I had a Dream speech” at last Wednesday’s council meeting given that his target audience was all too willing to believe any performance that led to the result they were looking for.

But this one had to be a humdinger.

With November just around the corner Kawakami looked into the abyss and saw what could be a difficult row to hoe in the coming months. And anything less than a top-two or three result just wouldn’t do for his plans for a life as a professional politician.

A loss would be a disaster. With two former councilmembers and an up and comer already in the race and none of the other six running for anything else, the math looked iffy- especially based on the demographics that put him into office in ’08.

Back then Kawakami didn’t just cash in on the local cache of the Kawakami name but took advantage of a dearth of progressive candidate endorsements to garner a large chunk of the slow-growth “Keep Kaua`i Kaua`i” crowd that was willing to “give him a chance”.

But his vehement defense of Chair Kaipo Asing and attacks on progressive darlings Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum had put him in a position where cries of “well I won’t make that mistake again” were making it almost impossible to garner a wide swath of that portion of the electorate again.

Beginning in the spring the pandering began in earnest with his early and unwavering support for the “I own a dog and I vote” crowd. But although that politically wise move assured the votes of some single-issue voters there was a blow back brewing. Not being an idiot, he could see that there were many out there who, though comparatively silent, saw the naked political ploy as another indication of pandering “hack-dom”.

He needed something meaty- a real issue that was uniting many leaders of the “sustainability” wing of the island’s progressives. But as luck would have it he had tried the same “get out front early” strategy that worked on the “dog path” but it was boomeranging on the farm worker’s housing bill.

When the bill first came before the council it appeared that the issue of abuse of ag land and the resulting sprawl- especially on the north shore- was causing widespread opposition to the bill. There were just too many ways to take advantage of the added density and, based on past abuses of well-meaning ag land measures, the smart growth/sustainability crowd and even most akamai farmers were lining up to oppose the measure.

Kawakami’s attempt to get out front looked like a good political move and also kept him in lock step with the Asing majority- seemingly a win-win for him when and if the issue became a winner for the majority faction.

That fell apart when the farmers and the three minority faction councilmembers in favor of the bill- minority leader Jay Furfaro (who did most of the negotiating), Bynum and Kawahara- spent almost a year negotiating a laundry list of restrictions which, although they made the bill useless to 99% of the island’s farmers, assuaged the concerns of those lining up to oppose the original bill.

All of a sudden Kawakami found himself not just not making headway with some of his ’08 constituency but actually being seen as the main reason why the now reasonable compromise would be defeated.

No doubt this did cause “sleepless nights” as Kawakami said. And there was just one way out- reverse his formerly staunch opposition to the bill which was approaching a final vote last Wednesday.

But what kind of cockamamie story could he come up with as to why he was flip-flopping at the last minute?

The reality is that Derrick is for one thing and one thing only... Derrick. And actually admitting he was changing his mind to win in November wasn’t something a smart politician would do.

Not only did the story have to be minimally convincing for those whose votes he was seeking- at least enough to just have them enjoy the victory and assure they wouldn’t ask (or care) why he changed his mind- but he would have to have a bone to throw to his base whose support came from his support of Asing and the good old boys network and whose votes he had worked so hard to put in his pocket.

Could he pull it off? He had to try.

He knew that all he had to do was convince the all-too-willing-to-believe crowd in the council chambers to take his story all at face value and that if they did he could expect another hook line and sinker job- this time swallowing the rod and reel too- by the wide mouth bass on the government beat at the local newspaper.

Spinning a phony-baloney tall tale of a beloved deceased relative coming to one in a dream in order to explain a change of one’s mind and get someone to now agree with the new position, goes at least back to author Shalom Aleichem, as immortalized in the Tevye’s Dream sequence in the Broadway play “Fiddler on the Roof”.

But mixing in the tales of old plantation days for the old boys along with support for ag on Kaua`i was pure Kawakami.

CHASING ANOTHER TALE

CHASING ANOTHER TALE: This week’s Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) meeting promises to be more of the same- a few hours of attempts to act unethically, cover-up past lapses of ethics by board members and hide everything else they do from the public, along with yet another attempt to strip the county charter’s ethics provisions of it’s conflict-of-interest section.

Testimony by designated BOE watchdog and “nitpicker” Horace Stoessel arrived in our inbox this morning and it’s too important to let it wait for later this week, if only so that perhaps it will motivate some to clear their calendar for this Thursday morning and show up, preferably with pitchforks and torches.

The first thing Stoessel addresses is a little item at the end of the agenda- an “executive session” closed to the public which is listed on the agenda as

ES-3: CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY
Discussion and consultation with the County Attorney regarding the process for releasing County Attorney opinions and is there a need for consistency throughout the County.

Horace wrote:

The primary fact confronting the public for months, now stretching into years, is that county agencies are not releasing opinions even though the authority and responsibility for releasing them resides with client agencies. Indeed, focusing on process and the need for uniformity has served as a prime excuse for not releasing opinions and not holding open discussions.

“Months” is an understatement since the refusal to acknowledge any public function to the office of the county attorney (CA) goes back to the beginning of Mayor Bryan Baptiste’s administration when he appointed Lani Nakazawa to the post and she redefined the job to eliminate any public component and only serve her “clients”- defined as county government officials and personnel.

At first that meant that any release of official written “opinions” had to be through the entity that asked for and got the opinion.

And that was, at first, routinely done.

But with the election of now former Councilmembers Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri Carvalho things changed in most part due to two related matters- an “investigation” of the Kaua`i Police Department the two cooked up and the council approved (but never officially executed after the council used the BOE to purge Police Chief KC Lum) and a matter known as the infamous “ES-177” where Rapozo. a former scandal-plagued KPD officer apparently said way too much behind closed doors about police matters and the then-upcoming investigation.

This led to a full clamp down on public release of all correspondence- even formal opinions on matters of law- from the CA’s office to the council.

Whereas before opinions were either released by the CA or by a councilmember if he or she originally sought it, an informal policy was used to release the opinions only after a “council approval”, where a majority vote was used at least once.

When Councilmember Tim Bynum came on board and tried to get the council to vote on the release of some of these opinions- as most councilmembers publicly promised to do- Chair Kaipo Asing and then member, now Vice Chair, Jay Furfaro claimed that before the vote there had to be a written formal policy for how the vote would be conducted and what percentage the affirmative vote had to be- just a majority, two-thirds or even unanimous.

This little ploy has now become the “de rigor” delaying tactic, not just for the council but for all boards and commissions on the island, This has especially benefited the BOE which has not just withheld opinions but constantly flouted the sunshine and open records laws, even codifying illegal activity in their administrative rules.

But that wasn’t enough of a delaying scheme to stand up forever and now, after a couple of years of playing Alphonse and Gaston the BOE came under pressure to simply enact a policy for the release of CA opinions.

Enter John Isobe, director of boards and commissions, a post created by a charter amendment in 2006 supposedly to oversee and assist commissioners and board members in fulfilling their duties.

Isobe- a long time entrenched member of the revolving-door old boys and girls network- has used his position to make sure that those citizen members did things the way they’ve always done things and not rock the boat.

In service of continuing the delay, Isobe has suggested that an individual board or commission should wait on creating a policy for CA releases until, as the agenda for ES-3 says, the question “is there a need for consistency throughout the County?” is answered.

The agenda promises to rehash an even more absurd but related matter- the attempt by the BOE to gut the county charter of the conflict of interest provisions in Section 20.02(D) of the county charter that prohibits board and commission members from representing private interest before the county, including of course boards and commissions... including the county council.

Seems some of the BOE members are still in blatant conflict of that pesky little provision.

Apparently is wasn’t enough of a rebuke to both the BOE and the charter commission when voters overwhelmingly rejected dropping the charter provision in 2008, because on the agenda this week is this item:

Letter of March 25, 2009 from Charter Review Commission requesting input from the Board of Ethics as to whether Section 20.05 D (2) of the Kaua`i County Charter should be amended and, if yes, suggestions on how it should be amended.

For years the 20.02(D) conflict provisions were just ignored by the well connected who routinely went before the council and county boards and commissions seeking, for example, things like zoning or even grants of money from the council or development projects’ approval permits from the planning commission, while serving on other boards of commissions.

But in 2007-8 a member of the charter commission, former state senator and attorney Jonathan Chun, was routinely appearing before the council representing the Board of Realtors on the vacation rental bill before the council at the time.

Chun then made a fatal error of judgment when he actually asked the BOE for a ruling on whether he was in violation of 20.02(D)

Stoessel’s testimony tells the story from there in what he calls “The Case Of 20.02D”

The issue of the County Attorney opinion related to Jonathan Chun’s request for an advisory opinion has been outstanding for more than a year. It may represent the only time the Board of Ethics has sought a legal opinion before issuing an advisory opinion. It is also interesting that the Board issued an advisory opinion involving similar circumstances just three months previously in which the Board felt no need to ask for a legal opinion or to meet in executive session.

Once the Board emerged from executive session in March, 2008 a motion was made and approved to allow Mr. Chun to continue the activities referenced in his request for an advisory opinion. The motion as approved failed to meet even the minimum test for public disclosure because it cited no statutory basis for the decision, instead making a vague and misleading reference to information in the Code of Ethics and the Charter.

The Board also refused to release the legal opinion it purportedly used to justify its decision. When I asked the Board to justify keeping the opinion secret, the chairman replied, “I do not intend to answer that, Horace. It could be that I don’t know; it could be that I just don’t wish to answer that question.”

But the BOE’s utter refusal to enforce the law- or state why- was only the beginning.

Chun wasn’t the only one engaged in this practice.

In fact then BOE Chair, now Vice Chair Mark “Mother” Hubbard was a vice president at land baron Grove Farm and he and his brethren- many also serving on boards and commissions- routinely made requests from the county council and administrative boards and commissions on behalf of themselves and/or clients.

BOE member Judy Lenthall is the Executive Director of the Kaua`i Food Bank which just received another grant from the county council this year after she appeared before them hat in hand.

Oh and by the way, the BOE has also cleared Furfaro, Asing, Rapozo and other council members from potential conflicts in the past.

So in appreciation for the clean bill of health for Chun’s apparently “dead on arrival” clearance, Chun turned around and, as a member of the charter commission, put a measure on the ballot to just eliminate that pesky 20.02(D) from the charter.

Stoessel’s testimony takes it up from the Chun decision:

In succeeding months the Board encouraged the Charter Commission to offer a charter amendment exempting all county personnel from having to comply with 20.02D rather than exempting only board/commission members. However, the commission restricted the scope of its proposed amendment to board/commission members and the amendment was then rejected by the voters in November, 2008. Their rejection revived questions about the Board’s handling of 20.02D and the March, 2008 legal opinion.

For my part as a responsible member of the public, I am still waiting for the Board to respond directly to the formal argument I offered in February, 2008 in support of basing a response to Jonathan Chun on 20.02D and to additional information I have since cited in support of that argument. The public has been prevented from further commenting directly on the Board’s actions by the Board’s failure to cite a statutory basis for its decision in the Chun case and its refusal to release the legal opinion.

The Board postponed discussion of 20.02D at the March meeting, and seemed to me to indicate that both 20.02D and the March, 2008 opinion would appear on the agenda for April. Did I miss something, or was I justified in being surprised that neither appears on the April agenda?

If it is within the scope of ES-3 (or the last item under BUSINESS), I would like to see the Board vote to release the March, 2008 legal opinion now. Failing that, I ask the Board to place on the May agenda a vote on releasing the opinion and a discussion of 20.02D. In view of the fact that the Board’s last formal statement regarding 20.02D was an expressed desire to exempt all county personnel from having to comply with it, I would like to hear what effect the November vote has had on the thinking of the Board.

So would we. If you’d like to know too go on down there and ask them.

The BOE meeting is at 9:00 A.M. this Thursday, April 9, 2009 in the Liquor Conference Room on the first floor of the Mo`ikeha Building in Lihu`e (the complex where the planning commission meets and where you get your car registered and drivers’ license renewed).

WE’RE READY FOR OUR CLOSE-UP, MRS. DEVILLE

WE’RE READY FOR OUR CLOSE-UP, MRS. DEVILLE: Although the Honolulu Advertiser’s headline blares Election officials ready for 100% turnout it seems that the turnout today won’t effect the election on Kaua`i as much as that of those who voted early.

A whopping 11, 032 people had already voted before the polls opened today, a figure that could be 50% of the votes.

The last comparable November mayoral election on Kaua`i would have to be the 2002 election where the total vote in the mayor’s race was only about 23,000. That year the number of registered voters was only about a thousand less than this year.

That could mean that, unlike in the past when catch-ups and fall-outs were common between the first “printout”- comprised of the early voters and sometimes those who voted before noon- and the final tally, the first release tonight might not be changing much.

The eighth place council candidate after the first tally in the past has “made up” as many as 500 votes when the results were final. But expect anything more than a 200 vote margin for seventh place contender to be insurmountable

It’s anyone’s guess whether the latest of the dozens of screw-up by “King” Kevin Cronin and his state Elections Office will invalidate a stack of the mail-in ballots.

Honolulu Advertiser correspondent and blogger Derrick DePledge tells us today that

Staff at the state Office of Elections believe they have found the reason for the unusually high number of over votes on absentee mail ballots during the September primary in the (Honolulu) mayor’s race.

The Office of Elections rejected 1,599 absentee mail ballots because of overvotes — 3.1 percent of the total — by far the highest for any race.

Kevin Cronin, the state’s chief elections officer, said staff believe that most of the overvotes were caused by the way the ballots were folded. Cronin said the folds — made either when ballots were mailed out or when they were returned by voters — left creases that optical-scan voting machines read as votes for minor candidates Paul Manner and George Nitta.

The creases also created a high number of overvotes in the District 3 state Board of Education race.

“We are approximately 95 percent certain that this is what created the overvotes in the absentee mail ballots,” Cronin said this afternoon.

Although there were no apparent anomalies on Kaua`i in the primaries in terms of overvotes it might be something to look for tonight when the results are released.

It’s just another nail in the coffin for Cronin’s all-the-bells-and-whistles $41 million contract with HartIntercivic that was voided and will have to be re-bid next year.

The question of who is going to bid against them might be a factor when the next system is procured because we’ve learned that their chief competitor ES&S is reportedly closing their office in Honolulu.

And in another one from the “bet you’re gonna vote this time, hippie” file, in following-up on our thoughts yesterday on the voter suppression, vote flipping and the rest of the ubiquitous fraud we realized that it’s all actually doing wonders for the “get out the vote” efforts for Obama.

Normally there’s a self limiting factor in landslides- if people listen to polls and think the vote is a foregone conclusion many don’t bother to vote.

But since people have heard about all the fraud- including a dozen people who pointed out to us yesterday’s Democracy Now! revelations, as summarized well at KauaiEclectic today- the question on voters’ minds is, will the fraud be overwhelmed by a wide enough margin for Obama to win?

A friend in Germany sent us a Spiegel article this morning about a team of German observers in Florida and apparently the Germans are even more outraged about all this than we are.

He translated and paraphrased it this way

European election observers (in Fr. Lauderdale, Fla.) are surprised and complain about that they only allowed to visit one polling place. That this particular polling place was pre-selected by Government Officials. ... this is unacceptable..... to tell election observers which polling place they have to visit and which polling places are not / off limits .... specially in Florida (as we all remember) had in 2000 some irregularities.... we (the election observers) have had expected more sensibility... said Rep. Meinhardt (Member of House of Rep. in Germany)...

And, if you’ve been living in a cave and woke up today trying to find out who was running in the special mayor’s race to replace Bryan Baptiste, you’d know there was an election but wouldn’t know who was running by reading today’s edition of our local Kaua`i rag.

Though it’s chocked full of numbers and the names of everyone else running for office on Kaua`i the article fails to mention the names Bernard Carvalho and JoAnn Yukimura.

Well it could be worse- yesterday there wasn’t an article about the election at all.

Nor has there been a mention much less coverage in the alleged newspaper about the fraudulent nature of the six Charter Amendment amendments on the ballot on Kaua`i.

First off. they were unnumbered on the ballot causing communication between voters regarding the virtues of any particular amendment almost impossible.

Then the inclusion of the entire amendment for the citizen’s General Plan proposal was a sure fire voter suppression measure.

And two of the questions were intentionally worded to give the impression the measure would do the exact opposite of what was described in the question.

Yet as dismal as the actions of the newspaper, the county clerk, the county attorney and the charter commission was the lack of action by the citizens of Kaua`i who declined to file suit before the election... insuring that the fraudulent results will no doubt stand.

All in all it’s been a disappointing election year with few worthy candidates and even fewer seemingly informed voters... par for the course these days in what is billed on CNN as “election result courtesy of Exxon-Mobile.”

We’ll be gagging down and digesting the local results with Lani Kawahara tonight at HawaiiLink, right behind Hamura’s. Join us and celebrate the one bright spot in the Kaua`i election.

RUNNIN’ WITH THE PACK

RUNNIN’ WITH THE PACK: Buffoonery hit the heights and even took on new context at last nights televised mayoral debate between Bernard Carvalho and JoAnn Yukimura as Carvalho continued his vapid content-free quest to set his ample butt in the mayor’s chair.

It was a stumble-bum performance from the start as Bernard read an opening statement he certainly didn’t write, bungling his two minute address like he was reading a technical manual instead of the actual meaningless blather it was.

His insistence that he would “do the critical work that needs to be done” was, as usual devoid of any specifics with claims he “will be a good leader” because he knows “how to lead” and other such mindless drivel.

At the heart of Carvalho’s campaign is a penchant for saying nothing. He says he will lead by leading, do by doing, think by thinking, plan by planning and of course solve problems by solving problems.

But believe it or not it was actually more revealing than anyone thought possible when Bernard was allowed to ramble-on, impromptu.

“It’s all about relationships” says Carvalho over and over claiming he knows all the people who dug and filled the Kaua`i cesspool of governance and how he will rely on them to keep doing it.

Here’s how one Honolulu paper described Carvalho’s “position”

Carvalho touted his relationships with state officials, such as state Transportation Director Brennon Morioka and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Director Micah Kane, as the way he would solve traffic problems.

"It's my duty and my responsibility to bring people together," he said.

"This election is not so much about what we have done in the past," Carvalho said in his closing remarks. "It's whether or not your mayor can lead you into new and uncharted territory with courage and confidence.

"You need to know that you have a seat at the table and your voice will be heard. You need to know your mayor embraces and values your opinion," Carvalho said.

This is apparently Carvalho’s theme – he’s been there and knows all the people who got us into this mess... and he intends to rely on them to keep things that way.

He says it loud and clear- I AM the entrenched old-boy network. Vote for me for more of the same corruption and incompetence you’ve come to abhor because since I haven’t got a mind of my own I’ll just let these bungling bozos and thieving thugs keep doing what they’re doing and actually help them do it..

It’s rare that a politician actually not just admits to being part of “the machine” but actually touts it as the only thing to recommend his candidacy.

But then no one ever accused Bernard of being a “deep thinker” as many satirically described his predecessor Bryan Baptiste after one of his aides portrayed him that way seriously.

But amidst the hilariously-unprepared, empty statements- we think he actually said “the future is ahead” at one point- Bernard defined himself as the anti vision, anti planning anti past-as-prologue candidate.

Carvalho criticized Yukimura for having a forethought for the future saying that "just looking to the issues of the past will not solve the problems of the future.".

Damn that planning- we just need to continue the absurd growth curve we’re on now until the traffic stops moving entirely.

Yes we’ll just stumble our way to the solution to all our problems- and we’ll burn the rest.

Burn? Well, the one actual “plan” he said he does support is one for the worst of all the ways to deal with out solid waste – a plan to build an incinerator, which is the major stumbling block in the current R.W. Beck solid waste plan before the council, as we described a couple of times earlier this year.

“We have a plan” he said urging everyone to just blindly follow it even though, as Yukimura pointed out, it has yet to become an approved plan.

While it’s been impossible to site a landfill, it will of course be even more impossible to site a soot and pollution spewing trash incinerator. But, as always, Bernard mindlessly thinks that he will simply talk to people and somehow magically they will all be happy to have one in their back yard.

“In order to do that, we need leaders with courage, leaders who can deliver results," Carvalho said "I know that I am that kind of leader." as the paper quote him as saying.

As we mentioned the other day this is seemingly the schizophrenic basis for his campaign. He will lead by asking people what they want and when they tell him he will do it.

Perhaps the concepts of “lead” and “follow “ aren’t well defined in Bernard’s mind- maybe he missed that day in kindergarten.

His self view is reminiscent of one of the leaders of the French Revolution who, upon learning that the revolution had begun, asked his aides to locate the massive crowds and find out where they were going and what they planned to do so he could go there and lead them.

Or maybe Carvalho’s candidacy brings to mind that scene in “Modern Times” where Charlie Chaplin gets a red stained rag stuck to his walking stick and, in waving it around over his head trying to get it off, stumbles his way to the head of a street parade of communists where they anoint him their leader as he leads them down the street waiving the banner of the Reds

Bernard has bumbled and stumbled into a position where, his total lack of acumen or even intellectual curiosity as to the specifics of the issues has combined with his one and only talent- spending a half hour to say nothing- have him poised for administration... the Kaua`i answer to the “everyman” candidate.

Bernard is just like the electorate- the typical uninformed, apathetic voter who has no idea how we got here, no idea or where to go but always has an opinion at the ready on “what they oughtta do”.. except for, in Bernard’s case, the part having an idea of what we oughtta do.

As a political commentator and attempted humorist we might just have a problem if JoAnn is elected. We might have to actually do a lot more research and investigation before critiquing her actions which, if not always well intentioned are at least well thought out and based on some understanding of the planning and other established processes.

The silver lining here at got windmills? is that if Bernard is elected our column might just write itself. His actions, like those of his predecessor, are bound to be so absurdly comical on their face that all we’ll have to do is pick the debacle of the day and describe it.

We’ll leave you with an appropriate theme song for Bernard



I want to grow up to be a politician

by Roger McGuinn and Jacques Levy

I want to grow up to be a politician
And take over this beautiful land

I want to grow up to be a politician
And be the old U.S. of A.'s number one man
I'll always be tough but I'll never be scary
I want to shoot guns or butter my bread
I'll work in the towns or conservate the prairies
And you can believe the future's ahead

I'll give the young the right to vote as soon as they mature
But spare the rod and spoil the child to help them feel secure
And if I win election day I might give you a job
I'll sign a bill to help the poor to show I'm not a snob

I'll open my door I'm charging no admission
And you can be sure I'll give you my hand
I want to grow up to be a politician
And take over this beautiful land I'll make you glad you got me in with everything I do
And I'll defend until the end the old red white and blue

I want to grow up to be a politician
And take over this beautiful land
And take over this beautiful land
And take over this beautiful land

A CALL FOR CHANGE AT THE KENNEL

A CALL FOR CHANGE AT THE KENNEL: “What’s so bad about Bernard Carvalho”, asked a caller the other day, “He seems like a nice enough guy.”

It’s a question a lot of people are asking and it just shows to go ya how little people know or care about how corrupt or incompetent leaders on Kaua`i are.

The same people who are the first to complain about their government for 729 days in a row- even many of those who can tell you exactly what’s wrong and needs to change- suddenly take idiot pills on the first Tuesday of every other November and vote for the guy they most want sitting next to them on a barstool.

Our backhanded endorsement of JoAnn Yukimura last September was based not on her potential actions as a Mayor but the dangers of a Carvalho administration.

And not much has changed since then.

It’s sometimes hard to fathom why the self-same people who are disgusted with the Bryan Baptiste administration are willing to continue the regime for the next two years with someone who is even less competent than Baptiste was (if that’s possible) and was actually personally responsible for most of his biggest blunders.

Carvalho is a walking talking contradiction. Just look at the meaningless drivel of his sloganeering. It’s truly baffling how he can first shill his own “leadership” skills by saying “I know what to do and how to make decisions” and then, when asked specifically about how he would solve a specific problem tells you “I’ll ask the people and let them decide”..

Hey we got news for ya Bernard- that’s why we’re electing you- to make the decisions. That’s why as mayor, you get the big bucks

And so let’s look at what Bernard has actually done- yes he does have a record- when he has to actually figure out what to do about an intractable obstruction.

Any examination shows exactly how his disastrous management skills over the past six years have caused most of the worst blunders his boss has been tagged with creating.

Whenever Baptiste faced an unsolvable problem his first action was to set up one of his infamous “task forces”. And the first one appointed to most of them was Carvalho.

These task forces were usually made up strictly of Baptiste’s county-employed sycophants like Carvalho along with so called “stakeholders”- which never seemed be concerned, knowledgeable citizens but rather assorted cronies, hacks and executives from business interests in the projects they were tasked with overseeing.

And the results were predictable- they were all, without exception, unmitigated disasters, leaving things worse than when they started. .

Barnard’s job as head of the Community Assistance- a hodge podge of administrative agencies- was based on letting Bernard take charge of the really screwed up stuff because, well, how much harm could he do?- it couldn’t get much worse.

One of Bernard’s first debacles was the new Lydgate camping areas. After Bernard and his task force took charge, rather than bother finding out what the actual laws concerning the requirements for the camp grounds were, Bernard decided that he’d just build them first and ask questions later.

According to his own testimony before a disbelieving head-shaking county council, he built them without required permits and so forgot to make them compliant with half a dozen regulations including the US Americans with Disabilities Act- causing them to have to be torn out and redone at county expense.

Another associated task force was the one dealing with the “bike path” where Bernard took the already problem-plagued project and drove it into another half-dozen disasters like the illegal Kealia pavilions and of course the dog path controversy, which were all Bernard’s doings.

Carvalho is the one who unilaterally and illegally declared the bike path to be a “lateral park” causing months of hilarious entertainment in the council chambers as the council spent their time refereeing disputes between “dog nuts” and “dog haters”, as the sides characterized each other.

He also made the decision to push forward with the portion of the path that will now have to torn out because, despite warnings from the real experts and council members, the dunderheads on his task force built it anyway, right next to the dilapidated illegal Pono Kai seawall where it sits poised to be eaten by the ocean any day now.

And wait- there’s more... now, if elected he will be proceeding with plans to run the “coastal path” across the highway and through the Safeway and Foodland parking lots, right through the place with the worst traffic on the island.

Carvalho, as ultimate de facto head of the Housing Agency also led the “affordable housing” task force that has done nothing but keep track of what housing developers have built.

Despite “affordable housing” being the top issue in the last two county elections, under Carvalho the Baptiste administration did not create one new housing unit- they just “claimed” as their accomplishment any that were in the pipeline or demanded by the council as part of a development.

He even blew the chance- and continues to blow it- to turn state lands into affordable housing. Although most of the land that the state proposed be used was Hawaiian lands, Carvalho took what was a difficult task-that of negotiating with DHHL and OHA- and made it into an impossible one.

After years of personally attempting to negotiate use of the lands the project is now apparently dead and, because of his bungling, the state agencies are no longer interested in signing a memorandum of agreement, with the sides being farther apart than ever according to council testimony.

Drugs? Remember when the ice epidemic was going to be the number one focus for Baptiste? Well all he had to do was bring in Bernard and assemble another task force for the problem to get worse today.

Their biggest move was to secretly pick the old dog pound as a place appropriate to house and treat troubled teens with drug problems.

Bernard’s penchant for “forgetting” to ask anybody- either in the community or among the agencies whose sign-offs would be needed for construction- led to the loss of more cash from the county coffers when the Hanapepe community found out about it after it was a “done deal” and complained.

Seems that when Bernard finally got around to asking them the answer was “no”. Then the various agencies found out and reported how much it would cost for proper waste water treatment and stopping any runoff that would destroy the nearby ancient and sacred Hawaiian salt making pans causing the council to finally pull the plug.

Carvalho was actually there as the administration representative that was supposed to be the one who said “wait- shouldn’t we check with all the state and county agencies and the people who live there?”.

But of course Bernard is a prime purveyor of what’s been ridiculed by the council as the Baptiste administrations “fire, ready, aim” method of governance.

Also on his watch the Agency for Elderly Affairs- one of those “Community Assistance” agencies he was in charge of- was found to have been trying to extort money out of our kupuna for the free “meals on wheel’s” program.

Rather than ask for voluntary contributions and only if the recipients could afford it, seniors were duped into thinking they had to pay for the meals according to testimony before the council.

The words “recommended donation” were never used as a matter of policy and were replaced by the word “cost”. And even the destitute were told to pay up.

And, as council testimony also showed, rather than do what a good administrator would do- find the private and government grants and programs to fund the program- Carvalho let the program become an underfunding crisis causing cuts in the service.

This caused the county taxpayers to have to pick up much of the tab while the outside private and government funding was left on the table for lack of someone who could find grants and fill out proposals- essentially what he and his staff were supposed to be doing..

“Deck chair shuffling on the Titanic” was apparently the only accomplishment in the Transportation Agency under Barnard’s tutelage. Bus service remains a spotty “rob Peter to pay Paul” operation with no new original grants or programs for expansion under Carvalho, just a lot of “rerouting” which many claim served areas where Baptiste’s voting constituents were more numerous

Not enough? Well, if you ask any tourist what the worst aspect of their visit was they will overwhelmingly tell you it is the condition of our county parks, especially the trash and the conditions of the bathrooms.

Yet for two years officially and another four unofficially under Carvalho the situation hasn’t improved and if anything it’s even worse.

The fact is that not only are there no accomplishments but Carvalho has bungled- and most time bungled badly- every single task he has undertaken over the past six years costing the county millions.

If you like the way Kaua`i has been governed for the last six years, if you like government waste, incompetence, laziness and corruption- if you want more of the same- Bernard is your guy.

If he is elected you can be assured that come December 1 all the departments will be headed up by the same incompetent and corrupt heads... like Planning Director Ian Costa,, County Attorney Matthew Pyun, Director of Finance Wally Rezentes Jr., Office of Economic Development head Beth Tokioka, (although as his campaign manager many think she will move up to administrative assistant) and the rest of the cretins you’ve come to know and disrespect.

Vote for Bernard and they will remain just where they are, shoveling piles of cash to their revolving door cronies and doing favors for the Mayor’s campaign contributors.

Yes. Bernard is a nice guy. So for that matter are the department heads and all the rest of the cast and characters in the criminal conspiracy to defraud the Kaua`i taxpayers who have stealing us blind since 1994.

Now maybe you’re disgusted by the fact that Joann Yukimura has been like infected tonsils that have not just stopped protecting you from disease but are actually causing it now.

We ask you to consider the alternative.

Two different people have written about the “fear of change” tactics of the Carvalho campaign recently quoting local people as saying “if Bernard’s elected, get jobs, if JoAnn’s elected, no more jobs”.

But those county jobs aren’t going anywhere. We suspect what they mean by that is that is that if Bernard is elected all the crooks at the Round Building who are running incompetence clinics and work evasion training for their aunties and cousins will be replaced with competent, experienced, bright people- as happened in 1988... which is the real reason so many people don’t like Yukimura.

But if we want any shot at sustainable energy, Max 3R zero waste programs, adequate public transportation and competent people in our county offices when you need service, vote for Yukimura and stop cutting off your nose to spite your face

FROM THE DOG’S MOUTH/ AIN’T THAT DOG DEAD YET?

FROM THE DOG’S MOUTH: “Everybody knows me as ‘Mr. Wala`au’”.

That’s what county council candidate Dickie Chang told PNN in an exclusive interview this morning in discussing why his name appears on the November ballot with the “trademarked” name of his business listed as a nickname.

The television host of the Wala`au television program said “it’s just like ‘Kaipo’ Asing“

“He’s Bill ‘Kaipo’ Asing. I’m Dickie ‘Wala`au’ Chang. All the kids call me Wala`au” he said in defending why he included it on the ballot.

Chang said “it wasn’t my idea- I wasn’t the one who said how to put my name on the ballot”, although he declined to say who did.

“I just filled out all the papers they told me to” at the elections office, he said.

Administrative Rules (HAR) §2-52-4 say that:

If a candidate seeks to have a name other than the candidate's legal name, its commonly recognized equivalent, or maiden name, appear on the ballot, the candidate, at the time of filing nomination papers shall also file a notarized affidavit in which the candidate attests to the fact that the name to appear on the ballot is the name by which the candidate is most commonly known throughout the district from which the candidate seeks election.

Slogans shall not be printed on the ballot.

And when told of the rule Chang asserted that is exactly what his listing does- list the nickname by which he is most commonly known on the island.

“I never thought it was wrong” Chang said via telephone saying he “can’t remember” being told of the specifics of the law.

“I signed and notarized whatever they told me to” he said.

As to what exactly he signed and notarized we still, as we reported yesterday, cannot get an answer out of County Clerk Peter Nakamura who again was “not in his office” whenever we called again today.

We did leave a detailed message with Nakamura’s council services staff requesting inspection and/or a copy of any sworn notarized affidavit Chang filed pertaining to the listing of his name on the ballot.

The head of Kaua`i elections, Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion who would normally handle such requests, has referred PNN and others who have inquired to his boss Nakamura.

Chang says wherever he goes people call him “Wala`au” so he never thought twice about it being not just the name of his business but his nickname as well, adding that he commonly refers to himself as “Mr. Wala`au” on his long-running, popular, local television program.

PNN has received inquires from more than a dozen people over the past two months as to the ballot listing, of whom three told us they had made inquires with the county but had been either ignored or rebuffed with unreturned phone calls.

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

AIN’T THAT DOG DEAD YET?: And since that horse “no stay make already yet” we were again astonished that after yesterday’s excoriation of Juan Wilson’s “no critical reading necessary” bungling of his endorsement of a charter amendment to ease conflict of interest recusal rules in county government, he has not just refused to read it correctly but found another way to mis-read it.
.
In a posting yesterday at his Island Breath web site he writes

COUNTY PROPOSAL NO. 4
RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Shall an elected or appointed officer or employee, or member of a board or commission not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them where the member or any member of his immediate family has a personal financial interest?

Island Breath recommendation-- Vote YES

This is a simple conflict of interest issue that has been deceptively worded to require a YES vote to be against conflicts of interest.

As we tried to tell Wilson, the law as it appears now- and as is listed in the “material to be deleted” at the county’s web site– already requires subject individuals to “not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them”

The underlining of “not” was Wilson’s emphasis, not the county’s but apparently indicates that he thinks this is a trick wording, making it some kind of double negative.

But in fact the “trick” is that the description contained in the question is one that perfectly depicts the current law.

As we detailed in a column last Wed.- where you can read both the portions of the charter to be deleted and added as well as our complete analysis- during the 2006 election the charter was changed to require that a conflict of interest would required conflicted individuals to recuse themselves from discussing and voting upon the matter in question.

The current proposal keeps the recusal provisions but seeks to water that down by circumscribing a limited set of what constitutes a conflict- proposing to change the definition that has been in the Charter since it’s inception.

The definitions never bothered councilpersons in the past since all they had to do was “declare” a conflict of interest and then do nothing about it. Not only that but the de facto method of doing that was to simply send a “communication” to the council “informing” them of the conflict..

But those were not “communications for approval” but to “inform” the council. This meant that when the communication regarding the potential conflict came up for discussion at the council meetings the communications were “received for the record” along with a weekly laundry list of “communications for receipt” and rarely if ever read aloud for the TV viewing public.

But once the new law required non-participation, all of a sudden it was “too severe” as councilpersons discussed and agreed upon unanimously this past summer.

Though the new law keeps the recusal provisions it restricts conflicts to those who are certain officers of a company or organization and restricts subject family members to only certain ones and not others.

This means that under current law, for instance, a councilperson’s sister-in-law who works as a manager at Grove Farm would not cause a conflict under the proposed law if Grove Farm were applying for some resort zoning or some other slurp at the county trough. Her positions in both the family and the business would exclude her from causing a potential conflict of interest under the proposed charter amendment.

And for the record although, as we said yesterday, Walter Lewis’ column on this charter amendment said it “seem(s) to offer (a) reasonable reform” he also said “I do not have any firm recommendations as to the proposal... relating to disclosure of interests” which we did not report. We regret any confusion this might have caused.

CHECK THEIR PERIGEES/DOGGEDLY DETERMINED

CHECK THEIR PERIGEES: Kaua`i has a distinct lack of government watchdogs.

While there are hundreds of- if not a thousand- community activists and advocates the number who follow the minutia of the machinations of our mayor and county council can be counted on our fingers with maybe a toe or two on an occasional basis.

Many rely on us to pull the curtain back and reveal the great and powerful wizard’s smoke and mirrors so when they err it can misinform a community.

But, as erring is human, all it takes is a “my bad” and a correction to send Dorothy back to Kansas safe and sound. No shame... unless the mistake remains uncorrected.

On Wednesday as part of our week long series of articles on this year’s proposed Kaua`i charter amendments, we detailed how a proposal that deceptively claims to institute stronger conflict of interest laws and require recusals- something the charter already does- actually waters them down and severely restricts the circumstances under which they would apply.

But two usually astute scrutinizers of Kaua`i government are apparently determined to remain pre-enlightenment scarecrows and are compounding their lack of critical information processing by refusing to re-read the amendment and let people know of their errors.

This week both Walter Lewis’ in his column this Saturday in the local newspaper and Juan Wilson of Island Breath in his recommendations made Oct. 12 appear to have been duped into endorsing the Charter Amendment that loosens conflicts of interest

The worst, if only for it’s visibility, is Walter Lewis’ “yes” recommendation. Though his analysis of the other four proposed amendments set for a vote on November 4 is spot on it’s obvious he gave this one short shrift

After reviewing the rest, almost as an afterthought Lewis wrote

“The two proposals offered by the County Council to require disclosure of conflicts and to establish an office for an auditor to review county operations, although inadequately described by the ballot questions, seem to offer reasonable reforms.”

Seem to offer “reasonable reforms”? The charter already requires “disclosure of conflicts”.

Lewis’ wording and conclusion make it apparent that he- an astute attorney who has led the fight for property tax caps and to enforce the county’s open meetings provisions in the infamous “3.07(e)”- never read the actual changes being proposed. Rather he took the word of the county clerk, even though, as he noted in his article, the clerk had misled people in the same manner in trying to repeal 3.07(e).

And Wilson too, although less prominently at his informative web site, asked for a “yes” vote after similarly analyzing the other proposals.

Apparently, with the same lack of critical reading of the actual changes in the conflict of interest proposal as Lewis exhibits, his “yes” recommendation indicates a quick insufficient perusal of the matter of, as he calls it, “no financial interests”

He wrote simply

Island Breath recommendation--
Vote YESThis looks like a simple conflict of interest issue.

Looks like? Looks like Wilson’s is exactly the kind of quick reading the council hoped for. We’re sure the lack of analysis is appreciated

This weekend we fully notified both Lewis and, more than once, Wilson and his co-Editor Jonathan Jay as to our reading from last Wed. and both have refused to respond and really read the deceptive way the proposal is presented to the public.

We need more people who keep an eye on the county, not less. But anyone who has watched the county council meetings this summer and fall knew about this “little turd”, as we called it and should have been on the lookout for it.

But even more important, government watchdogs must remain vigilant against the dirty tricks Kaua`i is famous for,. especially this council.

And perhaps most important of all, if you don’t know or didn’t do your homework at least don’t share your lack of acumen with others.

And if you do and you find out you made a mistake, when someone tells you about it correct it before people start voting, not after.

No telling how many saw these two recommendations and will trust the sources enough to vote for them. No telling how many would even see a retraction and correction.

But every day that goes by without rectification is a voting day for absentees. If the council gets away with this, we’ll know who’s in part responsible.

.----------

DOGGEDLY DETERMINED We’ve been on the phone all day trying to get a copy of county council candidate Dickie Chang’s affidavit that was required by law (as we reported Friday) in order to use anything but his legal name on the ballot which lists the name of his business, Wala`au, in parentheses after his name.

But not only have we not gotten a copy, we could not even get verification from elections chief and Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion that indeed an affidavit was filed.

Pasion, who has in the past found affidavits of election filing over the phone for us, refused to deny or confirm the existence of an affidavit.

He referred us to County Clerk Peter Nakamura who, though were told he was “in the building” has not returned multiple persistent phone calls as of press time.

A SPANIEL ON THE JERKS

A SPANIEL ON THE JERKS: When John Lennon named his second book “A Spaniard in the Works” in the 60’s the joke was lost on many across the pond until the Money Wretch Gang was published a decade later.

It advocates the “use of sabotage to protest environmentally damaging activities” by using a spanner or monkey wrench against the fully corrupt organizational machinery of oppression genocide and fascism in general.

And it’s not a bad strategy for fighting those entrenched in government or even an organization when the people involved are so corrupted that reform is impossible.

And so we are proud to reverse our “no” position on the Citizens’ Charter Amendment to restrict growth to what is permitted by law.

As a matter of fact, we love it.

The Planning Department in the person of Ian Costa has refused to enforce the law called the General Plan so the people have devised a clever way to force them to do it through the same kind of intimidation and bullying that they have used to put a hotel on every shore and a vacation rental in every garage.

Under this proposed charter amendment, if the council doesn’t limit growth to the amount determined to be optimal under the General Plan, they would be required to basically create a whole new planning department under the authority of the council

Under the amendment any time someone wants a “zoning, use, subdivision or variance permit for more than one accommodation unit”- something the planning commission does now- the power to do so “shall be vested in and exercisable exclusively by (a 2/3 vote of) the council”..

This means that, after the council has already passed a law providing the zoning, they would have to also do all the minutia needed for issuing a “zoning permit”.

And they would need to do it separately from the planning department which does all the work now making sure the applicant meets the numerous and sometimes contentious “conditions” in the permit

According to the Charter the “administrative” branch of the county government under the mayor is fully independent from the legislative branch so the planning department doesn’t work for and isn’t answerable to the council.

But wait- the amendment provides a way out of this absurd dilemma that could cripple the county and cost many millions of dollars.

All they have to do is pass a law to require the planning department and commission to abide by a

“rate of growth ordinance that limits the rate of increase in the number of transient accommodation units in the county to no greater than one-and-one-half percent (1.5%) per annum on a multi-year average basis, or such growth rate that is within the planning growth range of a future general plan”.

We used to object to the fact that this should be done though an “initiative”- a citizen petition to change the law at the ballot box- not by amending the Charter which is a constitution-like document for the county, informing and broadly proscribing the actual laws the council considers.

And if the council doesn’t “cooperate” and “take the easy way out” it would be a crisis of epic proporions.

“Ya got a nice county here councilor- lotsa boids, twees, watahfalls ...families. It’d be a shame to see anythin' happen to ‘em. And all ya gotta do is pass this law that youz and ya people says ya wants anyway”.

It’s simple extortion. And as much as we try to advance good governance and support good systems when bad people take them over- so as not to throw out the pot with the bongwater- sometimes the monkey wrench philosophy is more than appropriate- it’s crucial, vital and indispensable..

Though a law would have been much more appropriate if the goal was ultimately to pass a law- even in a Rube Goldberg way- perhaps it’s appropriate that we do it this way, especially since we’d have to wait two years toget the law on the ballot.

Stick it to the man. Vote yes on the people’s charter amendment.

And keep you spanner handy. With all but one of the current crop of council and mayoral probables it may come in handy to at least twist their, ah, ear lobes for the next two years.

A SWIFT KICK IN THE CANINES

A SWIFT KICK IN THE CANINES: There’s another little turd of trickery for Kaua`i to swallow on this November’s ballot, this one courtesy of the ethically challenged county council and designed to blow a gaping hole in our conflict-of-interest laws.

Kaua`i always had a toothless tiger of a conflict law in our charter in Section 20.04.. Though it required “(a)ny elected official, appointed officer, employee, or any member of a board or commission” to declare conflicts of interest, once they declared them, the member of a board could deliberate and vote on the matter.

This led to beaucoup scandals- some going back to the pre-statehood days involving literally hundreds of self-serving votes. The charter allowed the crook involved to claim “I did noting wrong- I broke no laws” when they approved their own legislation to benefit themselves, their families, their businesses or organizations.

Two years ago the people gave the law, not just dentures but tooth implants by forcing the conflicted members to recuse themselves from deliberating and voting upon those matters.

The council though has been in a tizzy since then in trying to not to meet the terms after years of personal and professional enrichment, even getting one of those secret county attorney opinions on how to avoid complying with the new law.

And now after finding out they couldn’t get around it- and knew they couldn’t reverse the new dentition in an open and forthright way- they’re trying to restrict the actual definition of a conflict out of existence

The council has decided the rules are too strict and seeks to weaken them but, as was done with the executive session proposal we discussed Monday, they have made it appear they are actually strengthening the law.

The question you’ll see on the ballot says:
.
Shall an elected or appointed officer or employee or member of a board or commission not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them where the member or any member of his immediate family has a personal financial interest or an organization in which they occupy a leadership position has a direct financial interest?

That actually is a pretty good description of what the current law does. But what is actually being changed- and is hidden from the voting pubic- is the definitions of “immediate family” and “leadership”.

The current Charter provisions says

Any elected or appointed officer or employee who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority shall make a full disclosure to his appointing authority, to the council, in the case of a member of the council, or to the board or commission on which he serves at any time such conflict becomes apparent.

Any member of the council or any board or commission who knows he or any member of his immediate family has direct financial interest, or that he or any member of his immediate family occupies a position of leadership in an organization which has a direct or no financial interest in any proposal pending before the body of which he is a member shall disclose such interest to such body.

But the proposed wording deletes that and substitutes this:

Any elected official, appointed officer, employee, or any member of a board or commission who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority, or who is an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization, or whose member of his immediate family, which includes parents, siblings, spouse or children, is an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.

The current law is broad so as to cover all circumstances of conflict and already includes members of the subject’s “immediate family”

But the new law would limit the definition of “immediate family” to “parents, siblings, spouse or children” only- no grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles or even in-laws or those who are hanai (raised by but not necessarily legally adopted), who are many times defined as part of immediate families, especially on Kaua`i and in Hawai`i

And the words “leadership of an organization” are actually in the current law as to the applicability of what relationships and connection constitute a conflict.

The new law restricts that to “an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization”. only.

Glaringly missing is the word “employee”

This actually means that if you work for someone about to get money from the council you can still vote and now you don’t even have to declare a conflict of interest, even if the grant directly pays your salary.

And the same apparently goes for the conflicts of your in-laws and your beloved tutu. And, if you’re not legally married it apparently excludes your “significant other”

This sneaky little diminution of applicability may be directly as a result of a scandal, reported here earlier this year, where Councilman Mel Rapozo’s business was awarded a county contract to serve outstanding warrants..

Rapozo actually voted to appropriate the money for the contract. It was a “bid” contract and since he was the only bidder, everyone was “shocked, shocked” he got the gig.

But although the fact that he bid on the contract was certainly a disincentive for anyone to bid against him, the ethically challenged Kaua`i Ethics Board, some of whose shenanigans we recapped on Monday, cleared him of charges of a conflict of interest.

This proposal would allow them to not just give money to their businesses but their pet organizations if they avoid the owner/director designation. If the amendment passes, a person who raises money for, let’s say, the Chamber of Commerce or a trade organization who is not one of the forbidden could appropriate money or designate grants to themselves.

And if the organization designates their top paid managerial post as a “general manager” or some other label like “chief cook and bottle washer”- in fact any title that is not “executive director”- they aren’t apparently included either.

It also does not include past officers/directors, allowing a councilperson to step down from their conflicted interest for a month or so while a bill winds it way through the council only to return to the organization when the bill passes.

And again the wording of the question is deceptive- just like the amendment that would actually allow the council to have more secret meetings while trying to make it seem like they will “conform with” the state Sunshine Law.

Instead of specifying the new looser restriction it actually depicts the current law in a deceptive and in fact fraudulent attempt to trick people into voting for it.

Anyone reading this conflict-of interest amendment on the ballot- or even some trying to read the convoluted MEGO (my eyes glaze over) explanation and pros and cons that were drawn up by the council and their employee, the County Clerk, would think a yes vote would mean strengthening the conflict of interest provisions, not watering them down as it actually does.

It took many citizens many years- and it took a “people’s” Charter Commission in ’06 as opposed to the current crony-stacked crop- to finally put the teeth into the county’s conflict of interest law.

Don’t let this sucker punch by the council knock most of them out. Vote no. As a famous fool said, “fool me twice, well you don’t get fooled again.”.

HOW MUCH IS THAT CRONY IN THE WINDOW?- REDUX

HOW MUCH IS THAT CRONY IN THE WINDOW?- REDUX : After yesterday’s analysis of the ridiculous attempt to trick voters into allowing the county council to change the law and exclude the public from public meetings you would think nothing could top that for Minotaur, “do what’s wrong as long as he can”, depravity.

But if so, you wouldn’t have read another doozy- one that would remove standard ethics restrictions for those serving on local boards and commissions.

At least the question on this one is pretty straight forward it asks

Should the Kauai County Charter be amended to expressly permit county board and commission members to appear on behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency except the board or commission on which they serve?

We detailed the story at least one two three four five six times going back to February about how the Ethics Board and its Chair Mark Hubbard refused to enforce the county charter provision that says “no officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency.”

But since Hubbard does this all the time as a vice president of the huge, land-rich Grove Farm Corporation he decided that the law was “absurd” and refused to enforce it against attorney Jonathan Chun.

The Ethics Board cleared Chun of charges that he quite obviously violated the ethics provision by appearing before the county council representing the Board of Realtors during the recent approval of an ordinance regarding vacation rental while at the time serving as chair of a county commission.

And what commission would that be? Why the Charter Commission who put this piece of garbage on the ballot.

So let’s get this straight- Hubbard’s Ethics Board clears Chun for some ungodly reason and then Chun turns around and tries to get the voters to remove the ethics law and allow himself, Hubbard and others to lobby the people who appointed them..

You can read some of Hubbard’s convoluted reasoning in refusing to enforce the ethics laws in some our past articles and by following the links there to some local newspaper accounts, especially How much is that crony in the window? and On the gravy train:

They also describe why this kind of ubiquitous ethics provision is standard stuff everywhere else but here on ethically-challenged Kaua`i.

And while you’re at it you can follow some of Hubbard’s and his cronies’ corruption-laced connections in Ah, The Smell Of Plantation Lunas in The Morning

And then vote no and send a message that these corporate crooks can’t use their revolving door positions to screw us considerably more than they can now.

----------

The next Charter amendment we’ll look at today is an interesting one..

It asks

Should the Kauai County Charter be amended to require that the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election for the office of the mayor and prosecuting attorney, regardless of whether a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast at the primary election, run in the general election?

On the surface the “50% plus 1 run-off” system Kaua`i has now seems to be a fair and democratic enough way to determine the winner if we are going to use a “two separate run-off elections” system to begin with

Actually the best of all systems is “Instant Runoff Voting” where you vote only once, rank all the opponents and the lowest vote getters are eliminated round by round and their second, third, fourth (and so on).choice is counted until someone gets 50%. It’s used all over the country and is gaining popularity all the time.

But pols locally are generally living in the mid-20th century when it comes to elections so we have to settle for a 50 some-odd year old “innovation”- the non-partisan, two-round runoff with the two top vote getting candidates in September’s “primary” going on to November.

Under the current law if a candidate gets “50% plus one” votes in the primary the election is complete, as happened by two votes when Bryan Baptiste won the mayor’s race in September of 2006.

The problem is that statistics show that voter turnout in these primaries is dismally lower than- often not even half- the turnout in November . Here in Hawai`i the top of the ticket in November is always either a presidential or gubernatorial election- along with legislative races- which draw many more people to the polls.

This change would make it so that no matter how many votes they get in the primaries the “top two” would go on to the November election.

Although theoretically it shouldn’t matter, in realty it does. And the argument that having only one election would “save money” doesn’t hold water since it doesn’t eliminate an entire election it just eliminates one race from a ballot that is being printed anyway, containing partisan state and national races

If you agree that the elections gain legitimacy when more people are voting, this one is a no-brainer “yes” and “top two” is a change for the better.

CHASING A DUCK/OUR BOWL RUNNETH OVER

CHASING A DUCK: Following-up on yesterday’s article about Bernard Carvalho’s ducking of the scheduled and now cancelled local-newspaper-sponsored debate tonight, we were able to learn today that Carvalho has a meeting scheduled tonight at his campaign headquarters according to a reliable source who saw it in his open date book.

When we asked we were able to confirm with Carvalho’s campaign manager Leonard Rapozo that there is an “executive committee” meeting scheduled for tonight- and every Thursday night- at campaign HQ.

Rapozo continued to stonewall us by refusing to answer whether in fact Carvalho will even be at the meeting tonight or whether that was the “event” that had been “previously scheduled”, causing his refusal to debate his opponent in the mayor’s race, Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura.

He did say that Carvalho will be attending “another event” but refused to say what and where that event was..

Rapozo also refused to confirm or deny the Honolulu location of Carvalho’s “event” tonight that was reported in the newspaper.

Rapozo did say that they received the invitation to the canceled debate on September 17, eight days before the day the debate was scheduled but would not answer further questions about the cancellation or provide any details regarding the nature or location of tonight’s “previously scheduled event”.

When asked if Carvalho would debate Yukimura at all, Rapozo said that they would be participating in a Chamber of Commerce event on October 23 although the format for that event is unclear at this time.

This morning’s Lihu`e Business Association “public forum” in Lihu`e at Duke's Kalapaki was not scheduled to be a debate or even a conversation between the two candidate and, as we reported yesterday, was not even going to have both candidates in the same room.

Carvalho’s opponent Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura did not respond to an email request for comment by press time although according to sources within the campaign but not authorized to speak on the campaign’s behalf she would welcome a chance to debate on the issues and is disappointed in the debate’s cancellation..

TGI newspaper did not respond to an email this morning asking for the date they sent the invitations or whether they will attempt to reschedule the only purportedly impartial forum/debate scheduled before the Nov. 4 mayoral election.

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

OUR BOWL RUNNETH OVER: We and a slew of others have severely criticized the way the Office of Elections and specifically it’s Chief Kevin Cronin conducted business this year- many times, on many matters.

But today the Honolulu Advertiser’s government reporter Derrick DePledge reported an absolutely stunning decrease in the reported number of ballots spoiled due to multi-party votes in Saturday’s primaries.

He reports:

Despite fears of voter confusion over a new ballot design, the number of ballots spoiled in Saturday's primary because voters chose candidates from more than one political party was a record low.

The state Office of Elections reported that just 257 ballots — 89 at the precinct level and 168 absentee ballots — were spoiled because of multiparty voting, out of 246,220 ballots cast. The number was minuscule considering that 5,231 ballots were invalidated by multiparty voting in the 2006 primary and 9,561 ballots were ruined in the 2004 primary

Wow. We went and checked the numbers because they seemed way too low to be true and sure enough, that’s what the official results reveal.

The changes to this year’s ballots were under fire when they were printed before anyone saw them, especially the candidates and political parties, as required by law.

In the past voters merely were instructed to vote for only one party’s candidates in the partisan elections for state offices. But this year, in an attempt to reduce the number of voters who voted in more than one party’s primary, they had to check a box indicating their party preference.

One change to explain the difference was buried deep in the article and was pretty much unexplained but DePledge reported that

The Office of Elections also assigned two teams to sort through an estimated 1,000 absentee ballots in which voters failed to select a party. Cronin said staff examined the individual absentee ballots and counted the ones where it was apparent the voter favored one party.

Whether that was done in prior elections was not mentioned in the article but that kind of activity has never been reported in past elections

But even so that would still to explain the difference.

One difference could be the training of those who stand by the tabulating machines for the paper ballots. In the past the old machine did reject ballots that had votes for more than one party and the people were told they could either go get a new ballot or just let it go as is.

Whether there was increased vigilance and/or more prodding of people whose ballots were rejected by the machine to re-vote this year isn’t known at this time but is a possibility.

The reason for this lack of information as to the rules is because there aren’t any rules delineating procedures, which is the subject of a Maui lawsuit on which we reported earlier this election season.

But this certainly calls for further investigation by the Elections Bureau and poll-watchers because as anyone who studies numbers knows anomalies like this can be indicative of serious problems even if the numbers are a supposedly “positive” development.

Any cashier will tell you it doesn’t matter if you have too much or too little in the register, it’s wrong either way.

We smell some other explanation here but for now will just have to accept the numbers and look for other information. We welcome anyone’s observations or theories.

DO YOU SMELL THAT?:

DO YOU SMELL THAT?: We’re just back from voting and it was every bit the appalling experience we thought it would be- and then some.

First off, early voting this year on Kaua`i is being conducted in a construction zone having moved from the Historic County Building– where people were told to come- to the “Annex” next door where the newly and apparently hastily readied basement room reeked of fresh paint- not just an OSHA violation for the workers but a nauseating experience for all involved.

But what the heck- you have to be dizzy in the first place to vote for most of those on the ballot this year- what’s a little huffing on the way into the voting booth?

Then we were handed a paper ballot shunning the electronic machine, as if it really matters. We and others were not told of the new procedure of having to check the little box picking a party instead of just voting in one party’s primary.

The new check box is there for no particular reason other than our new idiotic State Elections Chief Kevin "King" Cronin decreed it- without checking with anyone as was required by law.

And, in another bit of stupidity that could have been solved if he had bothered to follow the law and let someone check his new ballot, although the instructions still say to fill in the oval completely, there are no ovals or even circles next to each name but rectangles, insuring not just more confusion but using twice as much effort and ink to mark the ballot this year.

Cheesehead Cronin obviously decide that too many people had finally figured out the color-coded method over the last 10 years it’s been in use so he’d change it to insure another 10 years of confusion and ruined and invalid ballots.

Then- surprise number 17 gazillion this year- instead of, as has been the practice in the past, leaving off the names of those unchallenged in their party's partisan primaries for those running for state or federal office, they were included this time for no particular reason... probably because that’s the way they do it in Wisconsin.

Studies show that the worst years for mistakes in balloting occur when the balloting methods change- whether changing from things like punch cards to optical scans to using new instructions and ways to mark the ballots.

And so you’d think any schmuck who runs elections knows the best way to insure people understand the ballot is to not change the methodology from election to election unless you really have to..

But Cronin obviously isn’t just any ordinary schmuck- he got a unique, arrogant schmuck-osity about him as we’ve detailed over the past few months.

The worst part is that we aren’t alone in thinking that no matter what we did, there was a good chance that our vote will not be counted because no one is checking the infamous “paper trail” that is supposed to reassure everyone that the result will reflect the vote.

Everyone assumes that some kind of paper record- such as the printer contained in the electronic machines or the ones that we mark in ink and feed into the optical scan counting machine- are an assurance of lack of fraud because they can be counted later after the machines are done doing their “magic”.

But,. as we reported yesterday- and as is listed as a bone of contention in the lawsuit filed by Maui voting observer Bob Babson- the “paper trail” is rarely if ever seen again once the voter leaves the booth.

Because, as Babson’s attorney Lance Collins told us,. trying to see them again is an exercise in futility.

We were surprised to find out yesterday that electronic transmission to Honolulu of the vote with no one on-site verifying the totals had been the case for years and was not, as widely reported by the mainstream media and so by us, a new arbitrary invention of Cronin’s..

But when we asked Collins about it he added the following

I don't know how its been done on Kauai but tabulation has occurred previously on Maui then sent to Honolulu (without telling anyone on Maui what the results are) and then the results are sent back from Honolulu. This is what made Bob Babson initially suspicious in 2006.

Because the Maui final count was not made available before the tabulator was hooked up to the internet/telephone, there would be no way to verify that tampering had not occurred unless you manually recounted all the ballots (except the absentee ballots are never audited-recounted in the first place). However, there are no recounts unless a candidate or 30 voters have concrete evidence that there was fraud or error and that the fraud/error changed the result.

A very high standard for very low election security.

In other words the only way the “paper” is ever seen again - or even a first time- is if 30 people can prove there was something wrong with the totals. And that, if that’s true it would have changed the winner

Many people think it’s futile to vote because good people don’t become candidates- almost by definition- and many can’t even get on the ballot in many states.

And if they do manage to run, only those with lots of money from dubious sources – as well as those who don’t just represent but actually ARE the special interests- can get the media recognition to tell people they are “viable” or “ electable”.

But the with the privatized elections systems used in every state these days- which results in the proprietary nature of the counting software- and other ridiculously convoluted rules for ever actually checking the results, the supposed confidence-building “paper trails” do nothing to negate, and in fact facilitate, the opportunities for election fraud. .

So, that said, don’t forget to vote Saturday kiddies... It’s apparently a sucker’s game but it’s probably the only “right” you have left.