AN UNSAVORY MORSEL: We couldn’t have been more than two or three years old when we somehow became aware- we suspect it was via our fount of all knowledge in those days, Bug Bunny- that we had been missing out on a culinary treat called mock turtle soup.
Of course we immediately made the obvious inference- they were made from mock turtles.
We’d heard of and seen lots of kinds of turtles. Over the years we assumed that, as the case is many times, it was like places called “Bear Creek” that had no bears- it was “just the name of the turtle.”
Over the years Lewis Carroll did nothing to dissuade us from our presumptuous assumption and so a decade later a trip to a fancy restaurant and a bowl of weak broth with some soggy crackers made a, well, mockery of our postulation.
We had gotten what we had long craved only to find out it wasn’t at all what we really expected and wanted.
So it was a bit of deja vu for us today after tracking down the answer to a question that people have been asking us for a couple of months now- who the heck if Sarah Blane?
The answer- Blane is our very own mock turtle.
At first we feared the worst- that references to Blane as “Kaua`i county spokesperson” meant that our old friend Public Information Officer (PIO) Mary Daubert might be on the outs. But Daubert’s name continued to be preceded by the same title.
Observation yielded another of those assumptions- Blane’s name seemed to be attached to county press release emanating from the Kaua`i Police and Fire Departments.
Could it really be true? After years of complaints from the public and KPD chiefs that they needed their own embedded PIO in order to speak directly to the public- rather than having to filter everything through the mayor’s office and his or her PIO- KPD had their very own spokesperson?
After all, KPD is set up by charter to be an independent department with a police commission, not the mayor, doing the oversight. They don’t need to have the contents of each and every communication with the public filtered through the political whims of the mayor.
So, after a month or so of seeing Blane’s name attached to police and fire statements today we asked Mary “whassup?”
And, as if we couldn’t have predicted it, she wrote:
Sarah Blane is the newest member of Kaua`i County’s communications team. The other members of the team are Beth Tokioka, director of communications, and myself, public information officer. Sarah joined the Mayor’s office staff on Dec. 1 at the start of Mayor Carvalho’s first full term. Her title is public information assistant. She is responsible primarily for media communications for KPD and KFD, the county’s Facebook page, and assisting with community outreach efforts.
In an administration where even the smallest bit of PR minutia is carefully controlled we’d have to be as naive as a two year old searching for a delectable misnomer to think that any KPD spokesperson would be situated in KPD and answer to the chief.
We can only imagine how Chief Darryl Perry really feels about this after having had his, er, legs cut off while he was off island during the anti-marijuana rally fiasco with a deceptive press release going out on KPD letterhead under his name- a release that only hours later proved to be a lie in order to cover-up the fact that the rally was cancelled due to an ACLU compliant, not the weather.
So pity poor Sarah the county’s mock turtle. She aspires to be real meat but ends up nothing more than a mouthful of watery mush.
-----
We're taking a long weekend. Be back next week.
Showing posts with label Administration Secrecy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Administration Secrecy. Show all posts
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
A SPLENDID TIME IS GUARANTEED FOR ALL
A SPLENDID TIME IS GUARANTEED FOR ALL: We’ve got to admit severe ambivalence when it comes to Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s administration’s attempts to control its message, especially with the recent ramp-up of command and control.
While we’d like to say we admire the effort purely for it’s Machiavellian efficiency it’s often done with such bumblingly transparent obfuscation and manipulation that it’s bound to infuriate the public to a level in precise one-to-one ratio with the effort to maintain secrecy.
Yesterday’s press release announcing a Thursday “meeting to discuss the county's plans for an adolescent drug treatment center on Kaua`i” quotes Carvalho’s Anti-Drug Coordinator Theresa Koki as saying that:
“After a long search and consideration of many factors, we have narrowed the location of the adolescent drug treatment center down to two proposed sites in central Kaua`i (and w)e invite the community to come to the meeting on Thursday and be a part of this important discussion.”
And where exactly would those two locations be? The release pointedly leaves out that information.
Well if you wanted to make sure that the people who live next door to the proposed center won’t show up to make humbug the best way is to not tell them their neighborhood is targeted.
The problem is that then you’re assured to get them so pissed off at having to read in the paper Friday that they missed the meeting when it was announced it would be in their neighborhood, that they will fight tooth and nail against it
Let’s not forget that the last attempt to site the treatment center at the old dog pound was exacerbated by the fact that many in the Hanapepe community found out about the location only after it was a “done deal.” Adding that factor to the obvious one of putting our kids in a place that was no longer fit for dogs to occupy, put rejection of the plan over the top when residents rose up against former Mayor Bryan Baptiste for his lack of consultation with residents in the area.
And make no mistake- the lack of any indication of the locations was no oversight.
As if to make sure that it’s clear to everyone what the issues are and how they are being intentionally kept in the dark the release says:
“A recent series of meetings focusing on the critical need to provide these services for our youth has made us hopeful that the so-called “NIMBY” issues are behind us and that our community is ready to move forward on behalf of our kids,” said the mayor.
So just to assure that if there is any good will for the project they destroy it by manipulating the process.
Just to make sure though we asked Koki in an email this morning, “Can you tell me where the two adolescent treatment center alternatives are? Or are you refusing to release that information before the meeting?”
Her answer confirmed the flim-flam saying, “You are correct that the two alternatives will be discussed the night of the meeting.”
Apparently Koki couldn’t do more to make sure that this latest effort at siting the facility is a complete and utter failure if she tried.
First of all selecting two sites insures that the two communities will be pitted against each other throughout the process. Just look at the process of siting of the new landfill which, when it went through an “open process” that turned out to be anything but, was a complete bust. But when the administration announced that they had decided to pick a site, give the reasons and be done with it, we’ve heard little to no protest, especially about the way it was selected.
That’s what we elect a leader to do- make decisions. They may not always be popular ones but most people will give the leader credit for making one, especially when a problem like the landfill- or the drug treatment facility- siting has lingered for literally decades.
Just be honest and open about it.
But to hold a meeting where the ultimate “stakeholders” are not even told they have been selected insures a sour taste in their mouths when they learn that they have been picked- and that they missed the meeting where it was discussed.
That’s the way to ensure that this whole process gets off on the wrong foot and that there will be lingering animosity throughout the process.
It would all be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Can’t anyone here play this game?
----
Note: Our copy editor will be off island for the next two week. Now you’ll know how sloppy we really are. We apologize in advance for any typos or errors.
While we’d like to say we admire the effort purely for it’s Machiavellian efficiency it’s often done with such bumblingly transparent obfuscation and manipulation that it’s bound to infuriate the public to a level in precise one-to-one ratio with the effort to maintain secrecy.
Yesterday’s press release announcing a Thursday “meeting to discuss the county's plans for an adolescent drug treatment center on Kaua`i” quotes Carvalho’s Anti-Drug Coordinator Theresa Koki as saying that:
“After a long search and consideration of many factors, we have narrowed the location of the adolescent drug treatment center down to two proposed sites in central Kaua`i (and w)e invite the community to come to the meeting on Thursday and be a part of this important discussion.”
And where exactly would those two locations be? The release pointedly leaves out that information.
Well if you wanted to make sure that the people who live next door to the proposed center won’t show up to make humbug the best way is to not tell them their neighborhood is targeted.
The problem is that then you’re assured to get them so pissed off at having to read in the paper Friday that they missed the meeting when it was announced it would be in their neighborhood, that they will fight tooth and nail against it
Let’s not forget that the last attempt to site the treatment center at the old dog pound was exacerbated by the fact that many in the Hanapepe community found out about the location only after it was a “done deal.” Adding that factor to the obvious one of putting our kids in a place that was no longer fit for dogs to occupy, put rejection of the plan over the top when residents rose up against former Mayor Bryan Baptiste for his lack of consultation with residents in the area.
And make no mistake- the lack of any indication of the locations was no oversight.
As if to make sure that it’s clear to everyone what the issues are and how they are being intentionally kept in the dark the release says:
“A recent series of meetings focusing on the critical need to provide these services for our youth has made us hopeful that the so-called “NIMBY” issues are behind us and that our community is ready to move forward on behalf of our kids,” said the mayor.
So just to assure that if there is any good will for the project they destroy it by manipulating the process.
Just to make sure though we asked Koki in an email this morning, “Can you tell me where the two adolescent treatment center alternatives are? Or are you refusing to release that information before the meeting?”
Her answer confirmed the flim-flam saying, “You are correct that the two alternatives will be discussed the night of the meeting.”
Apparently Koki couldn’t do more to make sure that this latest effort at siting the facility is a complete and utter failure if she tried.
First of all selecting two sites insures that the two communities will be pitted against each other throughout the process. Just look at the process of siting of the new landfill which, when it went through an “open process” that turned out to be anything but, was a complete bust. But when the administration announced that they had decided to pick a site, give the reasons and be done with it, we’ve heard little to no protest, especially about the way it was selected.
That’s what we elect a leader to do- make decisions. They may not always be popular ones but most people will give the leader credit for making one, especially when a problem like the landfill- or the drug treatment facility- siting has lingered for literally decades.
Just be honest and open about it.
But to hold a meeting where the ultimate “stakeholders” are not even told they have been selected insures a sour taste in their mouths when they learn that they have been picked- and that they missed the meeting where it was discussed.
That’s the way to ensure that this whole process gets off on the wrong foot and that there will be lingering animosity throughout the process.
It would all be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Can’t anyone here play this game?
----
Note: Our copy editor will be off island for the next two week. Now you’ll know how sloppy we really are. We apologize in advance for any typos or errors.
Friday, January 28, 2011
STRIKING DEEP
STRIKING DEEP: Kaua`i has been called “The Garden Island”, “The Separate Kingdom” and a lot of other things but with the strict controls brought on by Mayor Bernard Carvalho and his insular “team” after last November’s election the name “The Paranoiac Secrecy Island” has become the more appropriate moniker.
Carvalho’s county employees- the same ones who be abused with politcally motivated unnecessary furloughs- are now under a gag edict that forbids them from speaking to the media or anyone likely to repeat what they say in a public way, according to numerous county employees.
But while Carvalho and his PR mastermind Beth Tokioka have the ability to control employees under threat of losing their jobs- despite their civil service employment- there’s a whole other set of county functionaries that have less to lose by acting on their own and actually doing their job competently rather than whatever way the administration directs them to act.
The scores of board and commission (B&C) members are usually a pretty compliant lot having been selected more often for their cronyism than their expertise. But there’s always a few, eh?...
Since their meetings are open to the public and their minutes are either available on-line now or will be very soon, what they say may not be what the administration wants the public to hear.
So it shouldn’t be any surprise that B&C Administrator John Isobe has come up with a plan to make sure that those “few” will receive the proper indoctrination to ensure that any and all things said or done are subject to the proper PR filter.
That’s why Isobe is seeking to procure- albeit in as secretive manner as possible- a “person to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai” at an estimated Cost of $15,000.00 - $ 30,000.00 a year with the ability to extend the contract.
First of all we have to ask the question, “isn’t that Isobe’s job?” And where exactly is the money coming from? Isn’t it a line item in the county budget?
Those will have to be asked rhetorically for now. The bigger concern is how the PR person will be selected- and controlled.
As the document we obtained this week says in it’s “Description of proposed procurement”:
The Office of Boards and Commissions anticipates the need to select a person or firm qualified to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai. The objectives of this effort are to:
• Provide general public relations support and assistance to County Boards and Commissions;
• Assist and facilitate public educational efforts as any be required related to specific issues or topics under consideration by the various Boards and Commissions;
• Directly advise board and staff members with tips and talking points needed to enhance communication and relationship skills to factually, diplomatically and courteously address public concerns and issues that are brought before a Board or Commission;
• Develop and implement a public relations program that will improve awareness. Knowledge and perception about the service and value that Boards and Commissions provide to the County;
Interested person or firms should have at least five (5) years of combined experience in public relations on the island of Kaua`i that demonstrate knowledge about the pros & cons of current government and community issues. Desirable qualifications also include previous work experience directly related to the State of County government.
But even with the restrictive way the qualifications are written there are dozens of PR firms out there and if the contract was indeed subject to normal procurement it would have to be widely advertised and the person selected based on the best qualifications and price quote.
Obviously that won’t do- they need someone who will teach them to shut up, not to actually speak to the public and press.
So Isobe has received a waiver from the procurement process because, as Isobe writes in his “Explanation describing how procurement by competitive means is either not practical or not advantageous to the County”:
Public Relations is more an "art" than a "science". The creativity, resourcefulness, background experience, and work ethic/style of an individual or the firm are important in ensuring a good working foundation and relationship.
A negotiated process provides the venue for Q&A to properly evaluate and select the most appropriate and qualified person/firm to meet the objectives and scope for an effective public relations program effort.
But even without proper procurement processes how can Isobe make sure the person selected is a true crony who will do as he or she is told?
In the “Details of the process or procedures to be followed in determining or developing at a list of eligible persons/entities, and in selecting the vendor to ensure maximum fair and open competition” it says:
A solicitation requesting resumes from qualified persons or firms interested in undertaking this work will be advertised in a local newspaper(s) of general circulation and posted on the website (htto://www.spo.hawaii.gov).
Resumes will then be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation committee consisting of three (3) members. Immediately thereafter, a three (3) member committee will negotiate the terms and conditions for a contract with the top ranked respondent.
And who might the three people be?
Why of course Isobe and two other mayoral appointees who work directly out of the office of the mayor and can be fired on the spot by the mayor: ADA Coordinator, Christina Pilkington and Anti-Drug Coordinator, Theresa Koki.
As the wall between the public and Carvalho’s minions gets higher and higher we can expect that this is just the beginning of an era of darkness and obfuscation that few could have imagined could have gotten much more opaque before last November.
For those seeking information from the county it’s going to be a long four years.
Carvalho’s county employees- the same ones who be abused with politcally motivated unnecessary furloughs- are now under a gag edict that forbids them from speaking to the media or anyone likely to repeat what they say in a public way, according to numerous county employees.
But while Carvalho and his PR mastermind Beth Tokioka have the ability to control employees under threat of losing their jobs- despite their civil service employment- there’s a whole other set of county functionaries that have less to lose by acting on their own and actually doing their job competently rather than whatever way the administration directs them to act.
The scores of board and commission (B&C) members are usually a pretty compliant lot having been selected more often for their cronyism than their expertise. But there’s always a few, eh?...
Since their meetings are open to the public and their minutes are either available on-line now or will be very soon, what they say may not be what the administration wants the public to hear.
So it shouldn’t be any surprise that B&C Administrator John Isobe has come up with a plan to make sure that those “few” will receive the proper indoctrination to ensure that any and all things said or done are subject to the proper PR filter.
That’s why Isobe is seeking to procure- albeit in as secretive manner as possible- a “person to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai” at an estimated Cost of $15,000.00 - $ 30,000.00 a year with the ability to extend the contract.
First of all we have to ask the question, “isn’t that Isobe’s job?” And where exactly is the money coming from? Isn’t it a line item in the county budget?
Those will have to be asked rhetorically for now. The bigger concern is how the PR person will be selected- and controlled.
As the document we obtained this week says in it’s “Description of proposed procurement”:
The Office of Boards and Commissions anticipates the need to select a person or firm qualified to provide Public Relations advice and services to the various Boards and Commissions of the County of Kauai. The objectives of this effort are to:
• Provide general public relations support and assistance to County Boards and Commissions;
• Assist and facilitate public educational efforts as any be required related to specific issues or topics under consideration by the various Boards and Commissions;
• Directly advise board and staff members with tips and talking points needed to enhance communication and relationship skills to factually, diplomatically and courteously address public concerns and issues that are brought before a Board or Commission;
• Develop and implement a public relations program that will improve awareness. Knowledge and perception about the service and value that Boards and Commissions provide to the County;
Interested person or firms should have at least five (5) years of combined experience in public relations on the island of Kaua`i that demonstrate knowledge about the pros & cons of current government and community issues. Desirable qualifications also include previous work experience directly related to the State of County government.
But even with the restrictive way the qualifications are written there are dozens of PR firms out there and if the contract was indeed subject to normal procurement it would have to be widely advertised and the person selected based on the best qualifications and price quote.
Obviously that won’t do- they need someone who will teach them to shut up, not to actually speak to the public and press.
So Isobe has received a waiver from the procurement process because, as Isobe writes in his “Explanation describing how procurement by competitive means is either not practical or not advantageous to the County”:
Public Relations is more an "art" than a "science". The creativity, resourcefulness, background experience, and work ethic/style of an individual or the firm are important in ensuring a good working foundation and relationship.
A negotiated process provides the venue for Q&A to properly evaluate and select the most appropriate and qualified person/firm to meet the objectives and scope for an effective public relations program effort.
But even without proper procurement processes how can Isobe make sure the person selected is a true crony who will do as he or she is told?
In the “Details of the process or procedures to be followed in determining or developing at a list of eligible persons/entities, and in selecting the vendor to ensure maximum fair and open competition” it says:
A solicitation requesting resumes from qualified persons or firms interested in undertaking this work will be advertised in a local newspaper(s) of general circulation and posted on the website (htto://www.spo.hawaii.gov).
Resumes will then be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation committee consisting of three (3) members. Immediately thereafter, a three (3) member committee will negotiate the terms and conditions for a contract with the top ranked respondent.
And who might the three people be?
Why of course Isobe and two other mayoral appointees who work directly out of the office of the mayor and can be fired on the spot by the mayor: ADA Coordinator, Christina Pilkington and Anti-Drug Coordinator, Theresa Koki.
As the wall between the public and Carvalho’s minions gets higher and higher we can expect that this is just the beginning of an era of darkness and obfuscation that few could have imagined could have gotten much more opaque before last November.
For those seeking information from the county it’s going to be a long four years.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
OPAQUE- AND PROUD OF IT
OPAQUE- AND PROUD OF IT: We don’t know what we’d do for source material if it wasn’t for the local newspaper’s now ubiquitous Leo Azambuja whose reports today added more confusion to that caused by his recent muddled coverage.
Today was a two-fer with the primary article on the preliminary hearing in the Anahola murder case that he apparently attended, missing facts and even quotes that somehow the Honolulu Advertiser “staff” bylined article- apparently written from their offices- contain regarding future witnesses yet to testify in the continued hearing.
And when the secondary article, based on an interview with the victim’s father, gets to the meat of the article- a description of what allegedly actually occurred- it’s completely unattributed. Though many may assume it was part of the narrative from the father assumptions can always get you in trouble.
But although it’s easy to blame the newspaper and the Azambuja’s amateurism for the community’s “what the heck is going on here?” attitude toward the Anahola murder and other cases, people's ire should really be directed toward Mayor Bernard Carvalho.
We are in possession of an email from hizonnah to a constituent who, like the local newspaper and many others in the community (us included), has been focused on trying to get Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) its own public information officer (PIO) like any normal police department.
Although he has been tight lipped on the subject until now, in the email Carvalho out and out rejects the idea in favor of the current practice of controlling every bit if information that comes out of the administration through his “Communications Team”.
The email, in full, reads:
I appreciate your continued concern and support for the Kaua`i Police Department. I can assure you that the present arrangement provides the Kaua`i Police Department 24/7 access to our Communications Team, including support at the scene of an incident if that is requested by KPD. I would challenge anyone to come up with an instance where a call from KPD to one of our Communications Team members was not immediately picked up or returned within minutes of the call. This happens in the evening, on weekends, holidays and furlough days.
Information received from KPD is turned around by members of our communications team quickly in the form of a draft for review by KPD personnel. There is never a release, quote or other information relating to KPD that is not first scrutinized and approved by KPD senior personnel before being released to the media – including the quote that you reference in your email.
Again, I appreciate your concern and can only assure you that KPD is well-served by three competent, experienced, and well-trained individuals who are fully committed to serving the needs of our police department as well as satisfy the public’s need to know to the greatest extent possible.
Mahalo,
Mayor Carvalho
As most know, Carvalho’s “team” is headed by political operative Beth Tokioka who has tightly controlled the messages from the last three administrations.
It’s not about the timeliness of what is released. It’s about the amount and type and general lack of information the public receives about crimes committed on the island.
Carvalho’s rampant paranoia has not only resulted in the lack of information that normally would be released by a police department to calm the citizenry but it flouts the intent of having a police force that is supposed to be out of the normal political control of the administration- as evidenced by the fact that the Kaua`i Police Commission is solely responsible for oversight of KPD.
It’s all part of his petty-vindictive, politically-motivated, commend-and-control style of management that has become the most insulated and corrupt Kaua`i administration in memory- and that’s saying a lot.
The local newspaper can take their share of the blame for less than coherent reporting. But unless and until KPD has its own professional PIO within its ranks Kaua`i will continue to get the mushroom treatment by being kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t.
-------
Clarification: Although we can’t see how, a few people somehow got the impression yesterday that we are a part of the new “For Kaua`i” newspaper. We have not been asked and so far, are not. Sorry if we some how caused any confusion.
And the link we provided didn’t work- the correct one is here.
Today was a two-fer with the primary article on the preliminary hearing in the Anahola murder case that he apparently attended, missing facts and even quotes that somehow the Honolulu Advertiser “staff” bylined article- apparently written from their offices- contain regarding future witnesses yet to testify in the continued hearing.
And when the secondary article, based on an interview with the victim’s father, gets to the meat of the article- a description of what allegedly actually occurred- it’s completely unattributed. Though many may assume it was part of the narrative from the father assumptions can always get you in trouble.
But although it’s easy to blame the newspaper and the Azambuja’s amateurism for the community’s “what the heck is going on here?” attitude toward the Anahola murder and other cases, people's ire should really be directed toward Mayor Bernard Carvalho.
We are in possession of an email from hizonnah to a constituent who, like the local newspaper and many others in the community (us included), has been focused on trying to get Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) its own public information officer (PIO) like any normal police department.
Although he has been tight lipped on the subject until now, in the email Carvalho out and out rejects the idea in favor of the current practice of controlling every bit if information that comes out of the administration through his “Communications Team”.
The email, in full, reads:
I appreciate your continued concern and support for the Kaua`i Police Department. I can assure you that the present arrangement provides the Kaua`i Police Department 24/7 access to our Communications Team, including support at the scene of an incident if that is requested by KPD. I would challenge anyone to come up with an instance where a call from KPD to one of our Communications Team members was not immediately picked up or returned within minutes of the call. This happens in the evening, on weekends, holidays and furlough days.
Information received from KPD is turned around by members of our communications team quickly in the form of a draft for review by KPD personnel. There is never a release, quote or other information relating to KPD that is not first scrutinized and approved by KPD senior personnel before being released to the media – including the quote that you reference in your email.
Again, I appreciate your concern and can only assure you that KPD is well-served by three competent, experienced, and well-trained individuals who are fully committed to serving the needs of our police department as well as satisfy the public’s need to know to the greatest extent possible.
Mahalo,
Mayor Carvalho
As most know, Carvalho’s “team” is headed by political operative Beth Tokioka who has tightly controlled the messages from the last three administrations.
It’s not about the timeliness of what is released. It’s about the amount and type and general lack of information the public receives about crimes committed on the island.
Carvalho’s rampant paranoia has not only resulted in the lack of information that normally would be released by a police department to calm the citizenry but it flouts the intent of having a police force that is supposed to be out of the normal political control of the administration- as evidenced by the fact that the Kaua`i Police Commission is solely responsible for oversight of KPD.
It’s all part of his petty-vindictive, politically-motivated, commend-and-control style of management that has become the most insulated and corrupt Kaua`i administration in memory- and that’s saying a lot.
The local newspaper can take their share of the blame for less than coherent reporting. But unless and until KPD has its own professional PIO within its ranks Kaua`i will continue to get the mushroom treatment by being kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t.
-------
Clarification: Although we can’t see how, a few people somehow got the impression yesterday that we are a part of the new “For Kaua`i” newspaper. We have not been asked and so far, are not. Sorry if we some how caused any confusion.
And the link we provided didn’t work- the correct one is here.
Monday, October 4, 2010
PANTS ON FIRE
PANTS ON FIRE: In the wake of County Attorney Al Castillo’s performance in requesting the council go into executive session to discuss the ordinance banning plastic bags last Wednesday things have became curiouser and curiouser over the weekend.
As we noted last week on Wednesday and Friday Castillo told the council that, despite the fact that the ordinance had been passed about a year ago, the Department of Public Works (DPW) had not even begun to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules (ad rules) because they- and he- were confused about the “intent” of the ordinance.
He also told them apparently after doing their due diligence the DPW found there were no bags in existence that fit the requirements that “no fossil fuel polymers” be used in manufacturing them.
But late Friday, an email showed up in the inbox of one of those most active in the passage of the bill with a brand new informational county web page containing a draft of those very rules which were supposedly nonexistent.
Brad Parson, who worked diligently with others to pass the bill last year, said he had run into Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s assistant Beth Tokioka after the council meeting and asked about the rules and apparently, in response, she sent him a link to the brand new country web page containing a copy of the ordinance, the ad rules and the public hearing notice for the bill.
The rules were either done in one night by Menehunes or more likely existed despite Castillo’s assurance they didn’t exist.
The rules do contain a “list” of acceptable plastic bags under which is printed the word “none”. They also have a section describing a process for submission by merchants of bags for testing to see if they comply.
But the contention that there are no bags being made today that do not contain fossil fuel polymers and in fact that they had checked, seemed a little too pat an answer for Parsons who got busy over the weekend to see if it was true.
It didn’t take him long to find at least one called the “Naturtech Nature Bag” from Northern Technologies Industrial Corp (NTIC) out of Minnesota that thus far appears meets the standard in addition to others that may.
Parsons, a meticulous researcher, is still on the case today to verify the claims made by NTIC as well as others.
But one thing was becoming apparent to Parsons as he did his inquiry- that no one else had asked questions of these manufacturers that he found on-line.
As anyone who has done any research knows- especially in the on-line age- when you start nosing around you will find the fingerprints of anyone who did the same research before you. But Parsons says that so far he seems to be asking questions of the various manufacturers that haven’t been asked before, possibly due to the unique nature of the Kaua`i ordinance.
Another problem with the administration’s whole approach to the implementation is that the notice of public hearing for the rules is being held the very day Ordinance 885 goes into effect, January 11, 2011. That apparently “builds in” a delay in implementation between when the old bags become illegal and when stores can know what bags to use, if any- or even worse, submit one for testing and wait until the results come back- and then order and receive them.
And, in typical “fire ready aim” county manner, they have scheduled a series of three “public information meetings” on October 25 and November 4 and 8, however they are all being held from 10:00 am to 11:00 am for some reason.
The answer to the question as to what “information” is to be disseminated if the rules have yet to be finalized through a public hearing isn’t apparent... unless of course the public hearing is actually superfluous and it doesn’t really matter to them what the public says.
The whole thing is up for discussion this Wednesday at the meeting of the council’s Public Works and Energy Committee where Chair Tim Bynum is “requesting the Administration's presence to discuss Ordinance No. 885, relating to Plastic Bag Reduction.”
In addition there is another request on the agenda from Castillo to go behind closed doors to discuss some kind of “liability” with the council.
Whatever the outcome, one extremely troublesome issue with Castillo’s approach is in his contention that without knowing the council’s “intent” it is impossible to know what to put into the ad rules.
This isn’t the first time that Kaua`i CAs have decided that they need to “interpret” ordinances rather than relying on the plain reading of the law. The same has happened in the Board of Ethics brouhaha over the plain reading of the charter and how it conflicts with the rules of the BOE because someone decided to “interpret” the plain meaning of the charter... interpreting the plain reading out of existence, as it were.
The ordinance is plain- if a bag that meets the criteria exists, it is permissible, If not it isn’t and people must use paper or preferable reusable canvas bags, as is stated in the “purpose” section of the bill that became Ordinance 885.
The reality is that there are only 18 jurisdictions that have any plastic bag bills and the one on Kaua`i is unique in allowing only those that contain no petroleum products. In doing so we are leading the way in providing the industry with the impetus to manufacture them so that other jurisdictions will be able follow in our steps.
But apparently there are bags that meet out standards if the DPW gets off their butts and looks for them.
As we noted last week on Wednesday and Friday Castillo told the council that, despite the fact that the ordinance had been passed about a year ago, the Department of Public Works (DPW) had not even begun to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules (ad rules) because they- and he- were confused about the “intent” of the ordinance.
He also told them apparently after doing their due diligence the DPW found there were no bags in existence that fit the requirements that “no fossil fuel polymers” be used in manufacturing them.
But late Friday, an email showed up in the inbox of one of those most active in the passage of the bill with a brand new informational county web page containing a draft of those very rules which were supposedly nonexistent.
Brad Parson, who worked diligently with others to pass the bill last year, said he had run into Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s assistant Beth Tokioka after the council meeting and asked about the rules and apparently, in response, she sent him a link to the brand new country web page containing a copy of the ordinance, the ad rules and the public hearing notice for the bill.
The rules were either done in one night by Menehunes or more likely existed despite Castillo’s assurance they didn’t exist.
The rules do contain a “list” of acceptable plastic bags under which is printed the word “none”. They also have a section describing a process for submission by merchants of bags for testing to see if they comply.
But the contention that there are no bags being made today that do not contain fossil fuel polymers and in fact that they had checked, seemed a little too pat an answer for Parsons who got busy over the weekend to see if it was true.
It didn’t take him long to find at least one called the “Naturtech Nature Bag” from Northern Technologies Industrial Corp (NTIC) out of Minnesota that thus far appears meets the standard in addition to others that may.
Parsons, a meticulous researcher, is still on the case today to verify the claims made by NTIC as well as others.
But one thing was becoming apparent to Parsons as he did his inquiry- that no one else had asked questions of these manufacturers that he found on-line.
As anyone who has done any research knows- especially in the on-line age- when you start nosing around you will find the fingerprints of anyone who did the same research before you. But Parsons says that so far he seems to be asking questions of the various manufacturers that haven’t been asked before, possibly due to the unique nature of the Kaua`i ordinance.
Another problem with the administration’s whole approach to the implementation is that the notice of public hearing for the rules is being held the very day Ordinance 885 goes into effect, January 11, 2011. That apparently “builds in” a delay in implementation between when the old bags become illegal and when stores can know what bags to use, if any- or even worse, submit one for testing and wait until the results come back- and then order and receive them.
And, in typical “fire ready aim” county manner, they have scheduled a series of three “public information meetings” on October 25 and November 4 and 8, however they are all being held from 10:00 am to 11:00 am for some reason.
The answer to the question as to what “information” is to be disseminated if the rules have yet to be finalized through a public hearing isn’t apparent... unless of course the public hearing is actually superfluous and it doesn’t really matter to them what the public says.
The whole thing is up for discussion this Wednesday at the meeting of the council’s Public Works and Energy Committee where Chair Tim Bynum is “requesting the Administration's presence to discuss Ordinance No. 885, relating to Plastic Bag Reduction.”
In addition there is another request on the agenda from Castillo to go behind closed doors to discuss some kind of “liability” with the council.
Whatever the outcome, one extremely troublesome issue with Castillo’s approach is in his contention that without knowing the council’s “intent” it is impossible to know what to put into the ad rules.
This isn’t the first time that Kaua`i CAs have decided that they need to “interpret” ordinances rather than relying on the plain reading of the law. The same has happened in the Board of Ethics brouhaha over the plain reading of the charter and how it conflicts with the rules of the BOE because someone decided to “interpret” the plain meaning of the charter... interpreting the plain reading out of existence, as it were.
The ordinance is plain- if a bag that meets the criteria exists, it is permissible, If not it isn’t and people must use paper or preferable reusable canvas bags, as is stated in the “purpose” section of the bill that became Ordinance 885.
The reality is that there are only 18 jurisdictions that have any plastic bag bills and the one on Kaua`i is unique in allowing only those that contain no petroleum products. In doing so we are leading the way in providing the industry with the impetus to manufacture them so that other jurisdictions will be able follow in our steps.
But apparently there are bags that meet out standards if the DPW gets off their butts and looks for them.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
SHHHH
SHHHH: Another day another Hawai`i governmental travesty of justice, this time the red-queen-style “execution first, trial later” firing of Hawaii State Ethics Commission Executive Director Dan Mollway after 24 years on the job.
While we’ve criticized Mollway for his lack of aggression and tendency to seek slaps on the wrist in many cases, the way he was fired typifies the shady way many boards and commissions hire and fire their executives behind closed doors.
In response to the news today Disappeared News’ Larry Geller is questioning the firing and:
has faxed a request to the Chair of the Commission requesting copies of the minutes of its executive sessions that included discussion of the termination of Mr. Mollway.
The request is based on the strong public interest in the process by which the Ethics Commission carried out its action, a process that has been criticized in public testimony presented to the Commission. The Commission has declined to post the testimony on its website, but under Hawaii’s public records law it must provide copies to anyone who requests it.
But while Geller is rightfully asking the commission to provide the “secret sauce” there’s really only one person to blame for the surreptitious nature of the whole process- Mollway himself.
Under law, investigatory and/or disciplinary proceedings regarding “personnel matters” are to be closed to the pubic with one exception- the target may request that the matter is dealt with entirely in public.
But Mollway, like almost every other employee in his position, chose to keep the investigation and surrounding documents secret- a traditionally losing strategy.
That’s because the elephant in the room that no one is really mentioning is that these things are usually political in nature, in this case involving a board that has, over eight years, been stacked with appointees of Republican Linda Lingle and as the clock is running out, they’re going after someone that has been a target of partisan snipes for many years.
So why did Mollway choose to keep the investigation under wraps? It’s anyone’s guess but it was probably something he didn’t give much thought to, possibly related to the fact that a medical problem- identified for the first time today as a problem with “migraines”- was at the heart of the matter.
It’s hard to think of many examples of people who decided to make their matter public. But when they do they seem to be successful in turning the tables on the investigatory body because, as anyone whose dealt with governmental secrecy knows, it’s usually the body doing the investigation that has more to hide.
This was shown in archetype during the political persecution of two Kaua`i police commission members who were charged with unethical activities involved in the hiring of former Police Chief KC Lum.
Both Chair Michael Ching and Commissioners Carl Furtado were targets of a Kaua`i Board of Ethics investigation based on allegations contained in a complaint filed by Council Chair Kaipo Asing, at first on official stationary but later, after that was found to be improper and itself a violation of the ethics code, as a private citizen.
But the two chose divergent tactics in fighting the charges with Ching preferring to go the closed door route and Furtado demanding an open review.
The results? While the retired Maui judge appointed to hear Ching’s case didn’t really find a true violation and stated so in his report the ethics board revealed only sections of his report to make it seem like he did and presented those pages to the council to show guilt.
Despite the fact that the whole report surfaced - including the exculpatory portions- when a citizen claimed “ a little bird dropped it through my window”, when he tried to submit it as testimony before the council, they refused to accept it and the actual pages were physically thrown back at him during an open council session.
When he tried to go to the local newspaper with the full report he was equally thwarted by a reporter and editor of questionable intelligence and/or integrity who either couldn’t or didn’t want to figure out what the truth was.
Furtado on the other hand was cleared of charges because under the light of day it was apparent there was no real evidence of unethical activity- or, more importantly, no evidence that the county attorney’s office was willing to state in public and submit to cross-examination.
If Mollway had chosen the open session route it seems that the lack of evidence his attorney has alleged as well as the illegal nature of the firing (apparently based on a medical condition) might well have cause the charges to be dropped rather than expose the commission’s actions to the scrutiny of the press in the high profile case.
If nothing else it should serve as a precautionary tale for those who have the opportunity to open charges against them to public review, turning the intimidation tables on those who would use their office for political vendettas.
While we’ve criticized Mollway for his lack of aggression and tendency to seek slaps on the wrist in many cases, the way he was fired typifies the shady way many boards and commissions hire and fire their executives behind closed doors.
In response to the news today Disappeared News’ Larry Geller is questioning the firing and:
has faxed a request to the Chair of the Commission requesting copies of the minutes of its executive sessions that included discussion of the termination of Mr. Mollway.
The request is based on the strong public interest in the process by which the Ethics Commission carried out its action, a process that has been criticized in public testimony presented to the Commission. The Commission has declined to post the testimony on its website, but under Hawaii’s public records law it must provide copies to anyone who requests it.
But while Geller is rightfully asking the commission to provide the “secret sauce” there’s really only one person to blame for the surreptitious nature of the whole process- Mollway himself.
Under law, investigatory and/or disciplinary proceedings regarding “personnel matters” are to be closed to the pubic with one exception- the target may request that the matter is dealt with entirely in public.
But Mollway, like almost every other employee in his position, chose to keep the investigation and surrounding documents secret- a traditionally losing strategy.
That’s because the elephant in the room that no one is really mentioning is that these things are usually political in nature, in this case involving a board that has, over eight years, been stacked with appointees of Republican Linda Lingle and as the clock is running out, they’re going after someone that has been a target of partisan snipes for many years.
So why did Mollway choose to keep the investigation under wraps? It’s anyone’s guess but it was probably something he didn’t give much thought to, possibly related to the fact that a medical problem- identified for the first time today as a problem with “migraines”- was at the heart of the matter.
It’s hard to think of many examples of people who decided to make their matter public. But when they do they seem to be successful in turning the tables on the investigatory body because, as anyone whose dealt with governmental secrecy knows, it’s usually the body doing the investigation that has more to hide.
This was shown in archetype during the political persecution of two Kaua`i police commission members who were charged with unethical activities involved in the hiring of former Police Chief KC Lum.
Both Chair Michael Ching and Commissioners Carl Furtado were targets of a Kaua`i Board of Ethics investigation based on allegations contained in a complaint filed by Council Chair Kaipo Asing, at first on official stationary but later, after that was found to be improper and itself a violation of the ethics code, as a private citizen.
But the two chose divergent tactics in fighting the charges with Ching preferring to go the closed door route and Furtado demanding an open review.
The results? While the retired Maui judge appointed to hear Ching’s case didn’t really find a true violation and stated so in his report the ethics board revealed only sections of his report to make it seem like he did and presented those pages to the council to show guilt.
Despite the fact that the whole report surfaced - including the exculpatory portions- when a citizen claimed “ a little bird dropped it through my window”, when he tried to submit it as testimony before the council, they refused to accept it and the actual pages were physically thrown back at him during an open council session.
When he tried to go to the local newspaper with the full report he was equally thwarted by a reporter and editor of questionable intelligence and/or integrity who either couldn’t or didn’t want to figure out what the truth was.
Furtado on the other hand was cleared of charges because under the light of day it was apparent there was no real evidence of unethical activity- or, more importantly, no evidence that the county attorney’s office was willing to state in public and submit to cross-examination.
If Mollway had chosen the open session route it seems that the lack of evidence his attorney has alleged as well as the illegal nature of the firing (apparently based on a medical condition) might well have cause the charges to be dropped rather than expose the commission’s actions to the scrutiny of the press in the high profile case.
If nothing else it should serve as a precautionary tale for those who have the opportunity to open charges against them to public review, turning the intimidation tables on those who would use their office for political vendettas.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
DISBELIEVING IS SEEING
DISBELIEVING IS SEEING: We actually enjoy ridiculing the all too easy to mock Kaua`i administration and council for their ability to keep us guessing whether they are just totally incompetent or simply so addicted to secrecy that it just seems that way.
Once again the ability to play the game of public policy and related public relation has taken a pie in the face with the county’s press release announcing “County Charter now available online”
Actually it’s always been there but as anyone who has gone to the now defunct- without a redirect- on-line version of the charter knows it’s been woefully out of date with recent charter amendments not just missing from the charter but unavailable anywhere at the county’s web site.
So it was with hope we that we read:
In response to numerous requests, the codified version of the County Charter is now available online.
To access the charter, please go to www.kauai.gov/CountyCharter.
Originally adopted by voters in 1969, there have been many amendments to the County Charter over the years.
Codified? Sounds good. Sounds like it might just be the actual words passed by the voters- all of them up through those passed in 2008.
So will the real charter final please stand up? Will we be able to cease having to do a search of our own files in order to find the language of, oh say, the seemingly forgotten, still unenforced, citizen-petitioned, general plan enforcement amendment and others passed recently?
Yeah, right- just read the penultimate line for a clue:
The official document remains in the County Clerk’s office.
And it was worse when we went to the new and improved posting where it says
Disclaimer: This is the Unofficial Charter of the County of Kaua`i, and as such MAY NOT represent the law in its current form (no warranties are made regarding its accuracy or completeness). It is being provided as a courtesy while the official edition is being finalized.
Please Note: This information is being provided as a public service. Users should confirm the accuracy of the information with the handcopy available at the Office of the County Clerk. While the County of Kaua`i will strive to keep this material accurate and up-to-date, those people needing an official, accurate, and up-to-date edition of the Charter will be able to obtain hard copies of those documents and other pertinent information from the Office of the County Clerk.
So the first result of the change is that no one who previously bookmarked the charter and never saw the release or the newspaper regurgitation story will be able to find it without jumping through who knows how many hoops.
But if you do find it what you’ll find is the long missing index (inaccurate when used with the pdf pages) but just the same tired old lack of amendments- with the exception of the addition of the “County Auditor” amendment but without any of the other 2008 changes and sans some earlier ones- notable the general plan amendment.
It’d be nice if it was even one step forward two steps backward with these dolts now and again but instead we have three steps sideways with a moonwalk thrown in to boot.
No wonder we ask so often “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Once again the ability to play the game of public policy and related public relation has taken a pie in the face with the county’s press release announcing “County Charter now available online”
Actually it’s always been there but as anyone who has gone to the now defunct- without a redirect- on-line version of the charter knows it’s been woefully out of date with recent charter amendments not just missing from the charter but unavailable anywhere at the county’s web site.
So it was with hope we that we read:
In response to numerous requests, the codified version of the County Charter is now available online.
To access the charter, please go to www.kauai.gov/CountyCharter.
Originally adopted by voters in 1969, there have been many amendments to the County Charter over the years.
Codified? Sounds good. Sounds like it might just be the actual words passed by the voters- all of them up through those passed in 2008.
So will the real charter final please stand up? Will we be able to cease having to do a search of our own files in order to find the language of, oh say, the seemingly forgotten, still unenforced, citizen-petitioned, general plan enforcement amendment and others passed recently?
Yeah, right- just read the penultimate line for a clue:
The official document remains in the County Clerk’s office.
And it was worse when we went to the new and improved posting where it says
Disclaimer: This is the Unofficial Charter of the County of Kaua`i, and as such MAY NOT represent the law in its current form (no warranties are made regarding its accuracy or completeness). It is being provided as a courtesy while the official edition is being finalized.
Please Note: This information is being provided as a public service. Users should confirm the accuracy of the information with the handcopy available at the Office of the County Clerk. While the County of Kaua`i will strive to keep this material accurate and up-to-date, those people needing an official, accurate, and up-to-date edition of the Charter will be able to obtain hard copies of those documents and other pertinent information from the Office of the County Clerk.
So the first result of the change is that no one who previously bookmarked the charter and never saw the release or the newspaper regurgitation story will be able to find it without jumping through who knows how many hoops.
But if you do find it what you’ll find is the long missing index (inaccurate when used with the pdf pages) but just the same tired old lack of amendments- with the exception of the addition of the “County Auditor” amendment but without any of the other 2008 changes and sans some earlier ones- notable the general plan amendment.
It’d be nice if it was even one step forward two steps backward with these dolts now and again but instead we have three steps sideways with a moonwalk thrown in to boot.
No wonder we ask so often “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
EVEN MORE ‘WANTED'
EVEN MORE ‘WANTED’: When it comes to playing kissy face in covering the police and courts beat for the local newspaper “reporter” Paul Curtis is a champ with his ceaseless publication of the “Kaua`i “Most Wanted” list and write-ups for every award and commendation given at the monthly police commission (PC) meetings.
But when it comes to covering controversies that come up at the meetings Curtis’ coverage is, shall we say, strangely absent.
You’d never know it if you read the local newspaper but if you watch the government channel you know that during February’s PC meeting Mayor Carvalho’s power grab- formerly covered in January by Curtis in his usual sycophantic style- caused conniption fits on the part of at least two commissioners.
To be fair the quest to allow counties to change their charters to allow the mayors of each island to appoint their respective police chief and others department heads currently hired by boards and commissions has been requested not just by Kaua`i Mayor Bernard Carvalho but by the Hawai`i Council of Mayors- a four person group that includes all the counties’ chief executives.
Right now a state law HRS 52D requires police chiefs be appointed by citizen police commissions. But, using the seemingly phony excuse of “home rule”, Administrative Assistant Gary Heu and Board and Commission Administrator John Isobe have been pushing Senate Bill SB2177 and it’s companion House Bill HB 2016 which would allow the counties to change their charters with a vote of the people.
But when Commissioner Leon Gonsalves- the controversial commissioner who authored the “Hop Sing” email that began the political purge of former Chief KC Lum and was attending his last meeting due to term limits- got wind of it he apparently authored a scathing letter criticizing the plan and defending his now former fiefdom.
He placed the letter on the PC agenda for discussion and vetting by fellow commissioners and that brought Heu and Isobe to the meeting to defend the plan.
But it was another controversial commissioner, homophobic, former marine “Pastor Tom” Iannucci, who started off the critique accusing the administration of “entering scary territory”.
“I support my mayor” Iannucci told the assembled and TV audience in a theme he repeated at every criticism of the plan. “I just worry about what comes after him”.
Saying the police commission “should be a buffer for the people to keep politics out of pubic safety” he wondered what would happen “if we get an ‘old boy’, corrupt mayor” in the future as, he said, has happened in the past although he mentioned no names.
Failing to see the irony of his praise of Carvalho’s administration while addressing to two of the mayor’s chief ‘old boy’ operatives, Heu and Isobe, he told of how when he joined the commission he found out about how procedures called for a list of prospective KPD employees- including officers- to go to the mayor for approval. a violation of civil service law.
Iannucci began his stint on the commission during the Baptiste Administration and seemed unaware that the practice continues today according to many county employees.
“That’s the way it used to be” he said complaining how it wasn’t just the idea of the change he objected to but the way the administration was trying to flim flam the commission into “approval” of it by claiming all they wanted to do was change the state law “for now” when everyone knew and the administration admitted that this was done in order to ultimately take the hiring and firing of the chief out of the hands of the police commission.
Gonsalves, whose letter wasn’t available on the county web site, said he completely agrees with Iannucci who had cited Gonsalves letter in his rant.
“Leave it alone- don’t play with it” said Gonsalves chiding Heu and Isobe by saying they “should have approached the commissions first” and discussed it before the legislative push to change the state law, not after.
“There’s a reason it’s set up that way” he said noting that the set-up goes “back to the 40’s”.
Chief Darryl Perry agreed saying “my fear down the line (is that) things may change for the worse” adding that “ we do investigations from parking citations to the top of government.
“This process may be compromised if one person has the power over this department.”
Nowhere was a discussion of how civilian control over our paramilitary police should be the norm and that taking the politics out of police departments is the norm across the country, not the other way around.
They also failed to mention the incidents during Mayor Maryanne Kusaka’s administration when she tried to personally fire Chief George Freitas for not protecting her “people” until she was informed that only the police commission could do that. Eventually Freitas sued and got a hefty “retirement package” in exchange for dropping his suit.
Strangely enough after discussion of the “good governance” item was over- without approval or disapproval or any vote on disposition- the commission discussed whether and how they could stop the televising of police commission meetings with Iannucci saying "commissioners (are) making statements that shouldn’t go out” to the public and seemingly unaware of the sunshine law which requires open meetings.
Iannucci used the excuse of how money was tight to call for an end to televised commission meetings right before the commission went on to the subject of how many commissioners they could send to the next junket to attend a state police commissioners’ meeting on the Big Island.
We just thought that if you don’t watch the meetings on TV you might want to know about this stuff since we don’t expect Curtis will be publishing anything controversial regarding the commission or department- or the administration for that matter- any time soon.
But when it comes to covering controversies that come up at the meetings Curtis’ coverage is, shall we say, strangely absent.
You’d never know it if you read the local newspaper but if you watch the government channel you know that during February’s PC meeting Mayor Carvalho’s power grab- formerly covered in January by Curtis in his usual sycophantic style- caused conniption fits on the part of at least two commissioners.
To be fair the quest to allow counties to change their charters to allow the mayors of each island to appoint their respective police chief and others department heads currently hired by boards and commissions has been requested not just by Kaua`i Mayor Bernard Carvalho but by the Hawai`i Council of Mayors- a four person group that includes all the counties’ chief executives.
Right now a state law HRS 52D requires police chiefs be appointed by citizen police commissions. But, using the seemingly phony excuse of “home rule”, Administrative Assistant Gary Heu and Board and Commission Administrator John Isobe have been pushing Senate Bill SB2177 and it’s companion House Bill HB 2016 which would allow the counties to change their charters with a vote of the people.
But when Commissioner Leon Gonsalves- the controversial commissioner who authored the “Hop Sing” email that began the political purge of former Chief KC Lum and was attending his last meeting due to term limits- got wind of it he apparently authored a scathing letter criticizing the plan and defending his now former fiefdom.
He placed the letter on the PC agenda for discussion and vetting by fellow commissioners and that brought Heu and Isobe to the meeting to defend the plan.
But it was another controversial commissioner, homophobic, former marine “Pastor Tom” Iannucci, who started off the critique accusing the administration of “entering scary territory”.
“I support my mayor” Iannucci told the assembled and TV audience in a theme he repeated at every criticism of the plan. “I just worry about what comes after him”.
Saying the police commission “should be a buffer for the people to keep politics out of pubic safety” he wondered what would happen “if we get an ‘old boy’, corrupt mayor” in the future as, he said, has happened in the past although he mentioned no names.
Failing to see the irony of his praise of Carvalho’s administration while addressing to two of the mayor’s chief ‘old boy’ operatives, Heu and Isobe, he told of how when he joined the commission he found out about how procedures called for a list of prospective KPD employees- including officers- to go to the mayor for approval. a violation of civil service law.
Iannucci began his stint on the commission during the Baptiste Administration and seemed unaware that the practice continues today according to many county employees.
“That’s the way it used to be” he said complaining how it wasn’t just the idea of the change he objected to but the way the administration was trying to flim flam the commission into “approval” of it by claiming all they wanted to do was change the state law “for now” when everyone knew and the administration admitted that this was done in order to ultimately take the hiring and firing of the chief out of the hands of the police commission.
Gonsalves, whose letter wasn’t available on the county web site, said he completely agrees with Iannucci who had cited Gonsalves letter in his rant.
“Leave it alone- don’t play with it” said Gonsalves chiding Heu and Isobe by saying they “should have approached the commissions first” and discussed it before the legislative push to change the state law, not after.
“There’s a reason it’s set up that way” he said noting that the set-up goes “back to the 40’s”.
Chief Darryl Perry agreed saying “my fear down the line (is that) things may change for the worse” adding that “ we do investigations from parking citations to the top of government.
“This process may be compromised if one person has the power over this department.”
Nowhere was a discussion of how civilian control over our paramilitary police should be the norm and that taking the politics out of police departments is the norm across the country, not the other way around.
They also failed to mention the incidents during Mayor Maryanne Kusaka’s administration when she tried to personally fire Chief George Freitas for not protecting her “people” until she was informed that only the police commission could do that. Eventually Freitas sued and got a hefty “retirement package” in exchange for dropping his suit.
Strangely enough after discussion of the “good governance” item was over- without approval or disapproval or any vote on disposition- the commission discussed whether and how they could stop the televising of police commission meetings with Iannucci saying "commissioners (are) making statements that shouldn’t go out” to the public and seemingly unaware of the sunshine law which requires open meetings.
Iannucci used the excuse of how money was tight to call for an end to televised commission meetings right before the commission went on to the subject of how many commissioners they could send to the next junket to attend a state police commissioners’ meeting on the Big Island.
We just thought that if you don’t watch the meetings on TV you might want to know about this stuff since we don’t expect Curtis will be publishing anything controversial regarding the commission or department- or the administration for that matter- any time soon.
Monday, March 1, 2010
IS THIS THE PARTY TO WHOM I AM NOT SPEAKING?:
IS THIS THE PARTY TO WHOM I AM NOT SPEAKING?: Saturday’s Tsunami scare has the county administration on Kaua`i patting themselves on the back and since nothing really happened they can get away with it, although you’ve gotta wonder what they were going to do with all those people- especially tourists- lined up at the road blocks waiting to get back to town if one really hit.
But one of the biggest complaints zipping along the coconut wireless has been the 5:30 a.m. phone call from the county apparently waking up even those who didn’t sign up for the calls as they were urged to do when the system was set up last year.
We know we specifically decided not to sign up figuring the sirens were going to be going off anyway and we’d find out what was going on then if we needed to. In this case we knew before retiring for the night what the siren was for and had even known the ETA of 11-12 o’clock.
So what’s the deal, many are asking? Why the heck were we “notified” when we didn’t “sign up”?
We decided to double check the county web site’s “One Step Notification
Sign Up Now” button- now moved to the top of their home page- only to find that suddenly today the system has apparently been changed from an “opt in” system to one where you are now signed up whether you want to be or not.
That’s right, after most likely receiving many complaints from those in non-inundation zones who would have liked another couple of hours or so of sleep on a Saturday- although the 6 a.m. sirens took care of that, as did the 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. blast including for those in non-inundation areas who got up, checked the news and tried to go back to bed- today (March 1) in order to cover their asses, they posted the following, replacing the “sign up” system with one that signs up all listed phone numbers on the island
In an effort to improve emergency communications, county officials announced today plans to implement Connect-CTY, a mass notification service from Blackboard Connect Inc....
Publicly available primary residential and business phones on Kaua`i will automatically be included in the system. However, residents can opt in to provide their complete information, up to three phone numbers and two email addresses, and indicate if they have a TTY/TDD device.
A community-wide test call will be conducted on Friday, May 1, at 11:45 am to ensure that residents are aware of the Connect-CTY service and can provide their correct phone numbers and email addresses should they not receive the text message.
And under the Frequently Asked Questions it says:
Is my telephone number included in the notification database?
It is our intention and hope that every residence in our community be included in the notification database. To provide contact information, please click on the 'Sign Up Now' button or click here.
Problem is that it wasn’t done “today” it was obviously done sometime before Saturday without telling anyone and only “announced” today, once they had received complaints.
It’s hard to say whether automatically signing up everyone is the right or wrong thing to do. But that isn’t the point.
Even when trying to do something simple- and arguably advantageous- like move from the widely publicized sign-up system to this one, Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s gang that can’t shoot straight bungles the move pissing people off and then attempting to cover it up by posting an “after the fact” announcement.
But one of the biggest complaints zipping along the coconut wireless has been the 5:30 a.m. phone call from the county apparently waking up even those who didn’t sign up for the calls as they were urged to do when the system was set up last year.
We know we specifically decided not to sign up figuring the sirens were going to be going off anyway and we’d find out what was going on then if we needed to. In this case we knew before retiring for the night what the siren was for and had even known the ETA of 11-12 o’clock.
So what’s the deal, many are asking? Why the heck were we “notified” when we didn’t “sign up”?
We decided to double check the county web site’s “One Step Notification
Sign Up Now” button- now moved to the top of their home page- only to find that suddenly today the system has apparently been changed from an “opt in” system to one where you are now signed up whether you want to be or not.
That’s right, after most likely receiving many complaints from those in non-inundation zones who would have liked another couple of hours or so of sleep on a Saturday- although the 6 a.m. sirens took care of that, as did the 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. blast including for those in non-inundation areas who got up, checked the news and tried to go back to bed- today (March 1) in order to cover their asses, they posted the following, replacing the “sign up” system with one that signs up all listed phone numbers on the island
In an effort to improve emergency communications, county officials announced today plans to implement Connect-CTY, a mass notification service from Blackboard Connect Inc....
Publicly available primary residential and business phones on Kaua`i will automatically be included in the system. However, residents can opt in to provide their complete information, up to three phone numbers and two email addresses, and indicate if they have a TTY/TDD device.
A community-wide test call will be conducted on Friday, May 1, at 11:45 am to ensure that residents are aware of the Connect-CTY service and can provide their correct phone numbers and email addresses should they not receive the text message.
And under the Frequently Asked Questions it says:
Is my telephone number included in the notification database?
It is our intention and hope that every residence in our community be included in the notification database. To provide contact information, please click on the 'Sign Up Now' button or click here.
Problem is that it wasn’t done “today” it was obviously done sometime before Saturday without telling anyone and only “announced” today, once they had received complaints.
It’s hard to say whether automatically signing up everyone is the right or wrong thing to do. But that isn’t the point.
Even when trying to do something simple- and arguably advantageous- like move from the widely publicized sign-up system to this one, Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s gang that can’t shoot straight bungles the move pissing people off and then attempting to cover it up by posting an “after the fact” announcement.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
NOW YOU SEE IT...
NOW YOU SEE IT...: It’s always worth a chuckle whenever malihini- even ones who’s been around for a few years- try to navigate the Minotaur’s labyrinth.
So it was this morning as attorney-blogger Charley Foster wrote
Copies of ordinances are available at the County Clerk's Office for purchase by the public. For further information, please call"
That's what one finds under the "County Ordinances" tab on the County web site. 'If you want to know what the law says, you can purchase it from us.' Does that strike anyone else as potentially unconstitutional? I think I feel another non-billable research project coming on.
Charley doesn’t say what he thinks is worse, the fact that the “county code”- the place where ordinances are compiled- isn’t available on-line like it is in just about every other local jurisdiction in the country and all in the states - or the fact that you have to pay for it and then get it piecemeal, ordinance by ordinance... and travel downtown to get it to boot.
But while that’s an old story you’d expect that once we’re assured that information and documents will be posted on-line- especially after a brouhaha- it would be there.
But a trip to the “Council Documents” page at the county’s web site shows the last time the minutes and the recap memos were posted was early January.
As many will remember, after Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara tried to bring some sanity to the way county government operates and especially the way they make (or more accurately don’t make) documents available, they were assured by the chair and administration that from then on the council’s minutes and "recap memos"- a document which lists the actions taken at each council meeting that’s very existence was thentofore a secret- would be posted on the council’s web site.
So it was this morning as attorney-blogger Charley Foster wrote
Copies of ordinances are available at the County Clerk's Office for purchase by the public. For further information, please call"
That's what one finds under the "County Ordinances" tab on the County web site. 'If you want to know what the law says, you can purchase it from us.' Does that strike anyone else as potentially unconstitutional? I think I feel another non-billable research project coming on.
Charley doesn’t say what he thinks is worse, the fact that the “county code”- the place where ordinances are compiled- isn’t available on-line like it is in just about every other local jurisdiction in the country and all in the states - or the fact that you have to pay for it and then get it piecemeal, ordinance by ordinance... and travel downtown to get it to boot.
But while that’s an old story you’d expect that once we’re assured that information and documents will be posted on-line- especially after a brouhaha- it would be there.
But a trip to the “Council Documents” page at the county’s web site shows the last time the minutes and the recap memos were posted was early January.
As many will remember, after Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara tried to bring some sanity to the way county government operates and especially the way they make (or more accurately don’t make) documents available, they were assured by the chair and administration that from then on the council’s minutes and "recap memos"- a document which lists the actions taken at each council meeting that’s very existence was thentofore a secret- would be posted on the council’s web site.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
CHOKIN’ ON THOSE BONES:
CHOKIN’ ON THOSE BONES: Today’s follow-up on a for-the-most-part erroneous January 15 article in the local newspaper that has left the community- with the exception of our and Joan Conrow’s readers- thinking that Mayor Bernard Carvalho had acquiesced and removed the bike path from Wailua Beach does one thing.
It answers affirmatively the question of whether Carvalho and his administration has heard the old joke about ascertaining that their lips are moving in order to tell if they are lying.
They seemingly live by the motto “if you don’t speak no one can accuse you of deceit”.
Though the matter has gone from clear as mud to clear as muddy water it’s not as though it wasn’t a valiant effort on the part of ace reporter Mike Levine who seemingly couldn’t get anyone to give him a straight answer and couldn’t even get the protesters to admit they were duped by hizzonah.
Once again the headline is somewhat unclear in saying New path route to straddle shoulder, sand because, as we wrote the Monday following the original article, the definition of the “shoulder” is in question- it the shoulder the paved part or is there a shoulder” that’s on the sand? And what does straddle mean in that context? And what exactly does “straddle” mean in this context?
The lead seems to make it clear at least that:
A concrete multi-use path will still sit on the sand dunes in Wailua even after last month’s compromise moved the proposed route from the county park to the state highway right-of-way, officials recently confirmed.
But the next paragraph is again somewhat baffling:
“Based upon the preliminary plans for the path, the maximum distance from the edge of the current pavement out to the outer edge of the new path will be between four and five feet,” state Department of Transportation spokeswoman Tammy Mori said via e-mail after consulting with Kaua`i District Engineer Ray McCormick.
It would seem to say that part of the path is going to be where the paved shoulder currently sits and go to up to five feet onto the beach. But what the rest of the article says indicates is that no one but Mori would talk to Levine and she might not be too sure of her facts.
That’s followed by a roundabout quote from Building Division Chief Doug Haigh- one that had to be obtained through an email from the county’s public information officer Mary Daubert rather than through a conversation with Haigh himself.
And no wonder- it’s so confused and uninformative, it begs a few follow-up questions, ones which Haigh was of course unavailable to answer.
First he says:
“Along the middle of Wailua Beach, the path will essentially straddle the location of the existing rock wall (to be removed),”
The “middle” of Wailua Beach? The middle of what? And it does not say whether it will be fully on the beach since the rock wall is on the beach, not the paved shoulder.
Another key of the original deception was the use of the word “shoulder” without referring to the paved part so that when they said it was on the shoulder it was actually on the beach sands. When combined with the term “right of way” it seemed to indicate the paved shoulder.
But Haigh’s next statement confirms our suspicion that the use of the term “right of way” was being used by Carvalho and his mouthpiece Beth Tokioka to confuse people.
“The Kuhio Highway right-of-way is approximately four to five feet makai of the rock wall. Some vegetation may be removed and some earth shoulder may need grading.”
That confirms that the right of way extends onto the beach so that statement itself can’t be right either since the “right of way” includes all of the highway. To say the “right-of-way IS approximately four to five feet makai of the rock wall” can’t be true- only that it “extends” to that point.
We pick this apart to show the obvious attempt by county officials to try to cover for Carvalho’s and Tokioka’s attempted bamboozle by using confusing terms and seemingly contradictory statements.
Also note that Mori made her statement “via email after consulting with Kaua`i District Engineer Ray McCormick”. That means McCormick- who when cornered was quoted by participants at the mayors meeting with dissidents on Thursday Jan. 14 as saying the bike path would start where the pavement ends- also apparently wouldn’t take calls or answer Levine’s questions, pushing the question “upstairs” to Mori
What exactly did he tell Mori? And why was it different than what he told people at the meeting? Did Mori get it right? Did she even ask the question Levine wanted answered?
Who knows- we’ve danced this reporter’s dance before and can recognize it when it gets into print. Obviously Levine was stymied at every turn in attempting to get to the truth, as evidenced by the fact that it took him almost a month to get this much.
The mere fact that neither Haigh or McCormick- nor apparently Carvalho- would speak to him directly tells you that all is not as it appears and someone is fudging something.
And to make the whole thing even more confusing there was another paragraph with more of Mori’s statement.
(T)he state Department of Transportation is still planning to widen the road to four lanes. The widening project will add one 11-foot-wide lane to the Lihu`e-bound side of the road and a turn lane for Kuamo`o Road, and all the widening will take place on the mauka side, Mori said. The maximum distance from the existing edge of the pavement to the furthest point of new pavement will be approximately 15 feet. (emphasis added)
The question is of course does that refer to the “existing edge of the pavement” on the mauka side or makai side? To say “all the widening will take place on the mauka side” obviously isn’t true since she already admitted that it will be widened onto the beach.
Don’t forget- Mori is just a spokesperson, not an engineer and apparently has a very loose grasp on what is actually happening.
Well at least the wider community now knows that the bike path was not removed from the beach. But it’s still unclear how much of the beach it will take. Is it four or five feet?... is it 11 feet?.. is it more?
Don’t expect the truth from Carvalho’s lips. When they move they apparently speak only the words of his spinmeister Tokioka , warbling “Together We Can... Hoodwink Them All”.
--------
We’ll be taking a long weekend- unless something sets our hair on fire we’ll see ya Monday.
It answers affirmatively the question of whether Carvalho and his administration has heard the old joke about ascertaining that their lips are moving in order to tell if they are lying.
They seemingly live by the motto “if you don’t speak no one can accuse you of deceit”.
Though the matter has gone from clear as mud to clear as muddy water it’s not as though it wasn’t a valiant effort on the part of ace reporter Mike Levine who seemingly couldn’t get anyone to give him a straight answer and couldn’t even get the protesters to admit they were duped by hizzonah.
Once again the headline is somewhat unclear in saying New path route to straddle shoulder, sand because, as we wrote the Monday following the original article, the definition of the “shoulder” is in question- it the shoulder the paved part or is there a shoulder” that’s on the sand? And what does straddle mean in that context? And what exactly does “straddle” mean in this context?
The lead seems to make it clear at least that:
A concrete multi-use path will still sit on the sand dunes in Wailua even after last month’s compromise moved the proposed route from the county park to the state highway right-of-way, officials recently confirmed.
But the next paragraph is again somewhat baffling:
“Based upon the preliminary plans for the path, the maximum distance from the edge of the current pavement out to the outer edge of the new path will be between four and five feet,” state Department of Transportation spokeswoman Tammy Mori said via e-mail after consulting with Kaua`i District Engineer Ray McCormick.
It would seem to say that part of the path is going to be where the paved shoulder currently sits and go to up to five feet onto the beach. But what the rest of the article says indicates is that no one but Mori would talk to Levine and she might not be too sure of her facts.
That’s followed by a roundabout quote from Building Division Chief Doug Haigh- one that had to be obtained through an email from the county’s public information officer Mary Daubert rather than through a conversation with Haigh himself.
And no wonder- it’s so confused and uninformative, it begs a few follow-up questions, ones which Haigh was of course unavailable to answer.
First he says:
“Along the middle of Wailua Beach, the path will essentially straddle the location of the existing rock wall (to be removed),”
The “middle” of Wailua Beach? The middle of what? And it does not say whether it will be fully on the beach since the rock wall is on the beach, not the paved shoulder.
Another key of the original deception was the use of the word “shoulder” without referring to the paved part so that when they said it was on the shoulder it was actually on the beach sands. When combined with the term “right of way” it seemed to indicate the paved shoulder.
But Haigh’s next statement confirms our suspicion that the use of the term “right of way” was being used by Carvalho and his mouthpiece Beth Tokioka to confuse people.
“The Kuhio Highway right-of-way is approximately four to five feet makai of the rock wall. Some vegetation may be removed and some earth shoulder may need grading.”
That confirms that the right of way extends onto the beach so that statement itself can’t be right either since the “right of way” includes all of the highway. To say the “right-of-way IS approximately four to five feet makai of the rock wall” can’t be true- only that it “extends” to that point.
We pick this apart to show the obvious attempt by county officials to try to cover for Carvalho’s and Tokioka’s attempted bamboozle by using confusing terms and seemingly contradictory statements.
Also note that Mori made her statement “via email after consulting with Kaua`i District Engineer Ray McCormick”. That means McCormick- who when cornered was quoted by participants at the mayors meeting with dissidents on Thursday Jan. 14 as saying the bike path would start where the pavement ends- also apparently wouldn’t take calls or answer Levine’s questions, pushing the question “upstairs” to Mori
What exactly did he tell Mori? And why was it different than what he told people at the meeting? Did Mori get it right? Did she even ask the question Levine wanted answered?
Who knows- we’ve danced this reporter’s dance before and can recognize it when it gets into print. Obviously Levine was stymied at every turn in attempting to get to the truth, as evidenced by the fact that it took him almost a month to get this much.
The mere fact that neither Haigh or McCormick- nor apparently Carvalho- would speak to him directly tells you that all is not as it appears and someone is fudging something.
And to make the whole thing even more confusing there was another paragraph with more of Mori’s statement.
(T)he state Department of Transportation is still planning to widen the road to four lanes. The widening project will add one 11-foot-wide lane to the Lihu`e-bound side of the road and a turn lane for Kuamo`o Road, and all the widening will take place on the mauka side, Mori said. The maximum distance from the existing edge of the pavement to the furthest point of new pavement will be approximately 15 feet. (emphasis added)
The question is of course does that refer to the “existing edge of the pavement” on the mauka side or makai side? To say “all the widening will take place on the mauka side” obviously isn’t true since she already admitted that it will be widened onto the beach.
Don’t forget- Mori is just a spokesperson, not an engineer and apparently has a very loose grasp on what is actually happening.
Well at least the wider community now knows that the bike path was not removed from the beach. But it’s still unclear how much of the beach it will take. Is it four or five feet?... is it 11 feet?.. is it more?
Don’t expect the truth from Carvalho’s lips. When they move they apparently speak only the words of his spinmeister Tokioka , warbling “Together We Can... Hoodwink Them All”.
--------
We’ll be taking a long weekend- unless something sets our hair on fire we’ll see ya Monday.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
...GANG AFT AGLEY
...GANG AFT AGLEY: The dysfunctionality of the corrupt crony-riddled board and commission (B&C) system on Kaua`i is not a new issue.
Prior to 2004 members were like babes in the woods, usually flung into their positions with no idea what they were supposed to do, getting on-the-job training confined to whatever dysfunctionality the current members had adopted from their predecessors.
They were selected via a closed secretive process by the mayor and interviewed in secret by the county council before an open confirmation with the public receiving little more than the name of the prospective appointees.
Most didn’t know the sunshine law from a hole in the ground and were surprised to find out they needed agendas- much less ones published and posted six days in advance- to meet and that the public was not just allowed to attend but were to be given the opportunity to testify regarding any and all agenda items.
It was so bad that the charter review commission (CRC) of that year decided that a skilled administrator and staff was needed to bring some cohesion and sunshine to the system.
But under B&C Administrator John Isobe most observers agree that if anything the lack of transparency and independence of members has gone from bad to worse with an administrator unskilled in anything but obfuscation and public relations keeping the selection process hidden, documents unreleased or difficult to obtain- one who sees open meetings and public input as a nuisance and foists that attitude on business and development oriented B&C members all too willing to help him do his dirty work for the administration.
The charter amendment- which, along with any and all amendments from the 2006 and 2008 are unavailable at the county web site, even on the non-updated page where the charter appears- was carefully drafted by the CRC to do a few things.
One was to select someone with skills and experience in doing the job.
The amendment on the ballot read:
There shall be a boards and commissions administrator and any necessary staff. The administrator shall have such training, education or experience as shall qualify the administrator to perform the duties described in this section.
Though the qualifications are pretty general it’s hard to see how Isobe meets them. Rather, a look at his past shows him to be a PR flack and himself a crony of the past three administrations.
A UH graduate and “lifelong” Hawai`i resident Isobe first shows up in 1996 as a spokesperson for Princeville corporation during a time of conflict with the homeowners there over various issues.
Though the dates are unclear his first stint with the county was as Deputy Finance Director under the Kusaka administration and was appointed to a state community-based economic development advisory council in 2006.
He was also a member of the infamous Kaua`i Economic Development Board under disgraced head Gary Baldwin who started the business-friendly pro-development board promoting a staunch chamber of commerce agenda until Baldwin left in disgrace after it was revealed that he was a wanted for running a financial scam on the mainland.
Then having proved himself adept at defending large and powerful corporations he held a positions at Kaua`i Community College (KCC) serving as director of the Kauai Rural Development Project where he developed “F.A.R.M... a strategy to bring the Kauai business community together through education” according to the Pacific Business Journal (PBJ) article in 2001.
That led to a job as training coordinator in the Office of Continuing Education and Training at KCC where, rather than offering traditional academic courses, he was part of a push to serve “business organizations, visitor bureau, chamber of commerce and (the) work-force investment board” telling PBJ in 2003 “’We are in constant contact with people in the industry and our courses revolve around their needs’" .
How that constitutes “training, education or experience as shall qualify” him to be B&C Administrator is anyone’s guess. It certainly qualifies him to know all the pro- development cronies in the Chamber of Commerce-KEDB crowd in order to make sure the B&Cs are stacked to reflect and protect their interests.
One of the most important parts of the amendment was what the administrator was supposed to do and the CRC made sure that open governance principles were to be one of the more important functions.
The charter amendment reads in part:
The administrator shall assist in providing administrative and operational support to the various county boards and commissions. Such support shall include, but not be limited to: assisting in the recruitment, orientation, education, and training of board or commission members regarding their powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities under the charter... (and) helping to educate such members about applicable state and county ethics laws and the State Sunshine Law... (emphasis added).
But the words “sunshine law” never appear at the county web site’s B&C page. Instead here’s Isobe’s blurb at the top of the B&C page:
Kauai County's 16 boards and commissions are comprised of 116 volunteer board members and commissioners who oversee and make critical decisions about key County functions and groups. Volunteers who serve on Kauai County boards and commissions are the best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources. They give an extraordinary amount of time to serve in these roles each year and make both personal and professional sacrifices to do so. Because of this and the weight of their responsibilities to our community, they are among Kauai's treasures.
Instead of trying to recruit everyday citizens who have no preconceived notions- and especially no conflicts of interests in “their fields”- rather he seeks to find the “best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources”- a euphemism for well connected people with a lot to lose if they offend the mayor, who can be counted on to “not rock the boat”... also known as his and the mayors cronies, supporters and campaign contributors, which includes Isobe.
Want more proof? Just look at the notice posted for the first B&C training session this year, scheduled for January 29th, on the “Role Of The Board/Commission Member”.
For some incredibly tone deaf reason it is not itself “agendaed” as a government meeting but rather is printed on Kaua`i Chamber of Commerce stationary and is apparently sponsored by the business promotion organization “Leadership Kaua`i”.
Among the topics covered are:
...your duties and responsibilities as a board or commission member, tips on what resources and materials are available (i.e. charter, county and state laws), general provisions of the law, standards of ethical conduct, guidelines on effective communications (and) basic parliamentary procedure.
The importance of transparency, open meetings and records and public testimony are not to be found.
This is exactly the attitude that former Board of Ethics member Rolf Bieber spoke of, especially the attitude among B&C members that they are the elite and know better than the common rabble whose testimony should be tolerated only because it is required by law- a law they are barely aware of.
John Isobe is the exact opposite of what a B&C administrator should be and is a disgrace to democracy and good governance. His resignation and replacement with a trained manager- one experienced in facilitating communication between citizen volunteers and members of the public- can only be a positive for Kaua`i which at deserves to have the charter amendment they passed honored.
---------
We’ve gotta get outta the house tomorrow and Friday. Unless we feel especially ambitious we’ll be back Monday.
Prior to 2004 members were like babes in the woods, usually flung into their positions with no idea what they were supposed to do, getting on-the-job training confined to whatever dysfunctionality the current members had adopted from their predecessors.
They were selected via a closed secretive process by the mayor and interviewed in secret by the county council before an open confirmation with the public receiving little more than the name of the prospective appointees.
Most didn’t know the sunshine law from a hole in the ground and were surprised to find out they needed agendas- much less ones published and posted six days in advance- to meet and that the public was not just allowed to attend but were to be given the opportunity to testify regarding any and all agenda items.
It was so bad that the charter review commission (CRC) of that year decided that a skilled administrator and staff was needed to bring some cohesion and sunshine to the system.
But under B&C Administrator John Isobe most observers agree that if anything the lack of transparency and independence of members has gone from bad to worse with an administrator unskilled in anything but obfuscation and public relations keeping the selection process hidden, documents unreleased or difficult to obtain- one who sees open meetings and public input as a nuisance and foists that attitude on business and development oriented B&C members all too willing to help him do his dirty work for the administration.
The charter amendment- which, along with any and all amendments from the 2006 and 2008 are unavailable at the county web site, even on the non-updated page where the charter appears- was carefully drafted by the CRC to do a few things.
One was to select someone with skills and experience in doing the job.
The amendment on the ballot read:
There shall be a boards and commissions administrator and any necessary staff. The administrator shall have such training, education or experience as shall qualify the administrator to perform the duties described in this section.
Though the qualifications are pretty general it’s hard to see how Isobe meets them. Rather, a look at his past shows him to be a PR flack and himself a crony of the past three administrations.
A UH graduate and “lifelong” Hawai`i resident Isobe first shows up in 1996 as a spokesperson for Princeville corporation during a time of conflict with the homeowners there over various issues.
Though the dates are unclear his first stint with the county was as Deputy Finance Director under the Kusaka administration and was appointed to a state community-based economic development advisory council in 2006.
He was also a member of the infamous Kaua`i Economic Development Board under disgraced head Gary Baldwin who started the business-friendly pro-development board promoting a staunch chamber of commerce agenda until Baldwin left in disgrace after it was revealed that he was a wanted for running a financial scam on the mainland.
Then having proved himself adept at defending large and powerful corporations he held a positions at Kaua`i Community College (KCC) serving as director of the Kauai Rural Development Project where he developed “F.A.R.M... a strategy to bring the Kauai business community together through education” according to the Pacific Business Journal (PBJ) article in 2001.
That led to a job as training coordinator in the Office of Continuing Education and Training at KCC where, rather than offering traditional academic courses, he was part of a push to serve “business organizations, visitor bureau, chamber of commerce and (the) work-force investment board” telling PBJ in 2003 “’We are in constant contact with people in the industry and our courses revolve around their needs’" .
How that constitutes “training, education or experience as shall qualify” him to be B&C Administrator is anyone’s guess. It certainly qualifies him to know all the pro- development cronies in the Chamber of Commerce-KEDB crowd in order to make sure the B&Cs are stacked to reflect and protect their interests.
One of the most important parts of the amendment was what the administrator was supposed to do and the CRC made sure that open governance principles were to be one of the more important functions.
The charter amendment reads in part:
The administrator shall assist in providing administrative and operational support to the various county boards and commissions. Such support shall include, but not be limited to: assisting in the recruitment, orientation, education, and training of board or commission members regarding their powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities under the charter... (and) helping to educate such members about applicable state and county ethics laws and the State Sunshine Law... (emphasis added).
But the words “sunshine law” never appear at the county web site’s B&C page. Instead here’s Isobe’s blurb at the top of the B&C page:
Kauai County's 16 boards and commissions are comprised of 116 volunteer board members and commissioners who oversee and make critical decisions about key County functions and groups. Volunteers who serve on Kauai County boards and commissions are the best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources. They give an extraordinary amount of time to serve in these roles each year and make both personal and professional sacrifices to do so. Because of this and the weight of their responsibilities to our community, they are among Kauai's treasures.
Instead of trying to recruit everyday citizens who have no preconceived notions- and especially no conflicts of interests in “their fields”- rather he seeks to find the “best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources”- a euphemism for well connected people with a lot to lose if they offend the mayor, who can be counted on to “not rock the boat”... also known as his and the mayors cronies, supporters and campaign contributors, which includes Isobe.
Want more proof? Just look at the notice posted for the first B&C training session this year, scheduled for January 29th, on the “Role Of The Board/Commission Member”.
For some incredibly tone deaf reason it is not itself “agendaed” as a government meeting but rather is printed on Kaua`i Chamber of Commerce stationary and is apparently sponsored by the business promotion organization “Leadership Kaua`i”.
Among the topics covered are:
...your duties and responsibilities as a board or commission member, tips on what resources and materials are available (i.e. charter, county and state laws), general provisions of the law, standards of ethical conduct, guidelines on effective communications (and) basic parliamentary procedure.
The importance of transparency, open meetings and records and public testimony are not to be found.
This is exactly the attitude that former Board of Ethics member Rolf Bieber spoke of, especially the attitude among B&C members that they are the elite and know better than the common rabble whose testimony should be tolerated only because it is required by law- a law they are barely aware of.
John Isobe is the exact opposite of what a B&C administrator should be and is a disgrace to democracy and good governance. His resignation and replacement with a trained manager- one experienced in facilitating communication between citizen volunteers and members of the public- can only be a positive for Kaua`i which at deserves to have the charter amendment they passed honored.
---------
We’ve gotta get outta the house tomorrow and Friday. Unless we feel especially ambitious we’ll be back Monday.
Monday, June 22, 2009
(PNN) COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES TO BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED
COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES TO BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED
(PNN)-- Public disclosure of financial information required by state law of certain county officials will now be subject to public review according to a letter to all board and commission members from Executive Assistant and Administrator of the Office of Boards and Commissions, John Isobe.
The Hawai`i State Constitution’s "Code of Ethics” Article XVI states that
financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures.
That has apparently never been the case on Kaua`i where the Board of Ethics (BOE) has for decades routinely received the pubic disclosures in executive session where they have redacted whatever they consider to be sensitive and/or personal and financial information as defined in the Universal Information Practices Act’s (UIPA) section 92F-14(6).
As a matter of fact, the very financial information meant to be reviewed for violations of conflict of interest provisions by the board so they can stop the conflict from occurring appear to be the ones that have been hidden from the public so as not to embarrass those required to file.
According to the County Charter, Article XX, the “mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent” are specifically required to publicly make public financial disclosures. All others may file a confidential disclosure.
According to Isobe’s letter
At its meeting on June 4, 2009, the Board of Ethics received a ruling from the Count (sic) Attorney's Office that all Disclosure Statements required to be filed with the Board are public record and must be released if requested by a member of the public.
When releasing this information, we have been instructed to only remove your personal information such as mailing address and contact phone number. For this reason, please be advised that any financial information will NOT be protected as defined under Section 92F-14(6), Hawaii Revised Statutes. (emphasis not added).
The warning is a apparently stunning admission that previously they were not “released if requested by a member of the public” and “financial information (was) protected”.
Two witnesses independently offered that the color went out of Isobe’s shocked-expression face when the board revealed the change of opinion in open session
According to the state constitution’s Code of Ethics:
financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures... All financial disclosure statements shall include, but not be limited to, sources and amounts of income, business ownership, officer and director positions, ownership of real property, debts, creditor interests in insolvent businesses and the names of persons represented before government agencies.
The practice of not disclosing public disclosures is rooted in the county ordinance and BOE rules, both also called the Code of Ethics, which conflict with the more authoritative county charter and state constitution.
Currently the administrative rules of the BOE say
3.1 WHO TO FILE
All elected and appointed officers and employees, who are elected or appointed by officers elected pursuant to law or by County agencies and who have discretionary, executive or policy making powers and responsibilities shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to Article XX the Code of Ethics
3.2 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Disclosures filed with the Board are confidential and the Board shall not release the contents thereof except as required by law except as provided under HRS 92F-14 (6).
But a new proposed change, based in part on what the county attorney has apparently told the BOE in a June 4 executive session meeting would reverse that 180 degrees and, if passed, the rules would read
RULE 3: DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 WHO MUST FILE
The mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent (3/12/09) shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to the Code of Ethics
3.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION
Disclosures filed with the Board are public record.
The matter was brought to the attention of the board beginning in March through the efforts of a handful of public watchdogs including Horace Stoessel, Glenn Mickens, Ed Coll, Walter Lewis and, especially Rob Abrew who persisted in researching and presenting the documentation that led to the new policy after BOE member Rolf Briber insisted the board pay attention to the pubic testimony.
Abrew and the others questioned why the disclosure forms were being reviewed in executive session in the first place rather than going having them go straight to public purview.
At first members of the board listed an evolving series of seemingly innocuous reasons for the secrecy, none of which indicated any changes to the substantive financial disclosures were made by the board.
But at the April 4 BOE meeting Bieber brought the matter up and the minutes indicate that what went on in executive sessions on financial disclosures was anything but innocuous.
The minutes say:
Chair (Leila) Fuller explained that the Disclosures are reviewed in Executive Session for the purpose of checking for potential conflict of interest but in those Disclosures are personal financial information that may not want to by mistake open the door for something. After they are approved in Executive Session they become a public document so the public has access to those documents once they are approved but the confidential and private information that should not be public knowledge is redacted when a member of the public requests a copy of the disclosure,
Mr. (Paul) Weil asked if they were not public documents from the beginning, the public has access to them even before we have approved or accepted them. Chair Fuller said they have no reason to be a public document before they are accepted. Mr. Weil asked to be directed to the Code that says they are not public documents until the Board has accepted them. Attorney Clark referenced HRS 92-F 14. Staff noted it was a public document except where provided under HRS 92-F 14 (6) which lists items that would be redacted before anyone looks at them.
This was the first admission by a BOE member that financial disclosures were being changed at all much less to avoid “opening the door” by disclosing too much financial information regarding conflicts of interest.
Resistance has been high to changing the rules, first proposed earlier this year, primarily by Fuller and former Chair Mark Hubbard.
Previously reasons they offered for executive session receipt of the disclosures had included making sure they were “complete” and were not “incorrect” since, they said, filers might not realize what they are filing, despite the fact in fling they are required to notarize an “affidavit”.
The further minutes reflect a desperation to find reasons to resist complete public disclosure of the completed public disclosure forms.
Mr. Bieber said his point at minimum was they have a better relationship with the public regarding this. Chair Fuller asked Mr. Bieber how he proposed (the Board) do that. Mr. Bieber said maybe there was another way they could go over the Disclosures, perhaps a packet with Disclosures in them instead of spending time in the meeting in Executive Session doing that. Chair Fuller cautioned against that because if they were to get the Disclosures in a packet that is just that many more pieces of document that are out in the public in case their briefcase gets lost or misplaced and likened it to a State computer with sensitive information on it that got misplaced or lost.
Reached for comment Bieber, said in an email:
Change in application of Disclosure Law has been long overdue for the County employees and officers of Kauai. The Board of Ethics is finally conforming to State Law properly within its Rules.
I am proud to say this came from the public. I simply moved the Board of Ethics to continue to provide the public hearing arena to maintain open dialog. Ethics agreed.
Substantial credit for this change in important Disclosure Law application goes to the public individuals who testified to bring more sunshine into County government operation, a small yet substantial victory for much needed open government and democracy on Kauai.
According to Abrew, at the June 4 meeting after an executive session on the matter the board returned armed with a new county attorney’s opinion requiring the change in policy although he could not say which whether they met with new County Attorney Al Castillo or one of his deputies.
While the written opinion has not been released as yet, the BOE has been the only board or commission to release a county attorney’s opinion in many years and it could be released at their July meeting.
The public is still awaiting a promised new opinion on the enforcement of the prohibition of board and commission members appearing on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions, as contained in the county charter’s section 20.02(d).
For more information on the BOE read PNN’s three part investigative series Unethical culture- Government service with a personal “touch”
Read Part 1- Bored of Ethics on the Board of Ethics?Read Part 2- The Long and Winding Road to InertiaRead Part 3- Deep Thoughts- A “Handy” Diversion
(PNN)-- Public disclosure of financial information required by state law of certain county officials will now be subject to public review according to a letter to all board and commission members from Executive Assistant and Administrator of the Office of Boards and Commissions, John Isobe.
The Hawai`i State Constitution’s "Code of Ethics” Article XVI states that
financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures.
That has apparently never been the case on Kaua`i where the Board of Ethics (BOE) has for decades routinely received the pubic disclosures in executive session where they have redacted whatever they consider to be sensitive and/or personal and financial information as defined in the Universal Information Practices Act’s (UIPA) section 92F-14(6).
As a matter of fact, the very financial information meant to be reviewed for violations of conflict of interest provisions by the board so they can stop the conflict from occurring appear to be the ones that have been hidden from the public so as not to embarrass those required to file.
According to the County Charter, Article XX, the “mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent” are specifically required to publicly make public financial disclosures. All others may file a confidential disclosure.
According to Isobe’s letter
At its meeting on June 4, 2009, the Board of Ethics received a ruling from the Count (sic) Attorney's Office that all Disclosure Statements required to be filed with the Board are public record and must be released if requested by a member of the public.
When releasing this information, we have been instructed to only remove your personal information such as mailing address and contact phone number. For this reason, please be advised that any financial information will NOT be protected as defined under Section 92F-14(6), Hawaii Revised Statutes. (emphasis not added).
The warning is a apparently stunning admission that previously they were not “released if requested by a member of the public” and “financial information (was) protected”.
Two witnesses independently offered that the color went out of Isobe’s shocked-expression face when the board revealed the change of opinion in open session
According to the state constitution’s Code of Ethics:
financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures... All financial disclosure statements shall include, but not be limited to, sources and amounts of income, business ownership, officer and director positions, ownership of real property, debts, creditor interests in insolvent businesses and the names of persons represented before government agencies.
The practice of not disclosing public disclosures is rooted in the county ordinance and BOE rules, both also called the Code of Ethics, which conflict with the more authoritative county charter and state constitution.
Currently the administrative rules of the BOE say
3.1 WHO TO FILE
All elected and appointed officers and employees, who are elected or appointed by officers elected pursuant to law or by County agencies and who have discretionary, executive or policy making powers and responsibilities shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to Article XX the Code of Ethics
3.2 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Disclosures filed with the Board are confidential and the Board shall not release the contents thereof except as required by law except as provided under HRS 92F-14 (6).
But a new proposed change, based in part on what the county attorney has apparently told the BOE in a June 4 executive session meeting would reverse that 180 degrees and, if passed, the rules would read
RULE 3: DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 WHO MUST FILE
The mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent (3/12/09) shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to the Code of Ethics
3.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION
Disclosures filed with the Board are public record.
The matter was brought to the attention of the board beginning in March through the efforts of a handful of public watchdogs including Horace Stoessel, Glenn Mickens, Ed Coll, Walter Lewis and, especially Rob Abrew who persisted in researching and presenting the documentation that led to the new policy after BOE member Rolf Briber insisted the board pay attention to the pubic testimony.
Abrew and the others questioned why the disclosure forms were being reviewed in executive session in the first place rather than going having them go straight to public purview.
At first members of the board listed an evolving series of seemingly innocuous reasons for the secrecy, none of which indicated any changes to the substantive financial disclosures were made by the board.
But at the April 4 BOE meeting Bieber brought the matter up and the minutes indicate that what went on in executive sessions on financial disclosures was anything but innocuous.
The minutes say:
Chair (Leila) Fuller explained that the Disclosures are reviewed in Executive Session for the purpose of checking for potential conflict of interest but in those Disclosures are personal financial information that may not want to by mistake open the door for something. After they are approved in Executive Session they become a public document so the public has access to those documents once they are approved but the confidential and private information that should not be public knowledge is redacted when a member of the public requests a copy of the disclosure,
Mr. (Paul) Weil asked if they were not public documents from the beginning, the public has access to them even before we have approved or accepted them. Chair Fuller said they have no reason to be a public document before they are accepted. Mr. Weil asked to be directed to the Code that says they are not public documents until the Board has accepted them. Attorney Clark referenced HRS 92-F 14. Staff noted it was a public document except where provided under HRS 92-F 14 (6) which lists items that would be redacted before anyone looks at them.
This was the first admission by a BOE member that financial disclosures were being changed at all much less to avoid “opening the door” by disclosing too much financial information regarding conflicts of interest.
Resistance has been high to changing the rules, first proposed earlier this year, primarily by Fuller and former Chair Mark Hubbard.
Previously reasons they offered for executive session receipt of the disclosures had included making sure they were “complete” and were not “incorrect” since, they said, filers might not realize what they are filing, despite the fact in fling they are required to notarize an “affidavit”.
The further minutes reflect a desperation to find reasons to resist complete public disclosure of the completed public disclosure forms.
Mr. Bieber said his point at minimum was they have a better relationship with the public regarding this. Chair Fuller asked Mr. Bieber how he proposed (the Board) do that. Mr. Bieber said maybe there was another way they could go over the Disclosures, perhaps a packet with Disclosures in them instead of spending time in the meeting in Executive Session doing that. Chair Fuller cautioned against that because if they were to get the Disclosures in a packet that is just that many more pieces of document that are out in the public in case their briefcase gets lost or misplaced and likened it to a State computer with sensitive information on it that got misplaced or lost.
Reached for comment Bieber, said in an email:
Change in application of Disclosure Law has been long overdue for the County employees and officers of Kauai. The Board of Ethics is finally conforming to State Law properly within its Rules.
I am proud to say this came from the public. I simply moved the Board of Ethics to continue to provide the public hearing arena to maintain open dialog. Ethics agreed.
Substantial credit for this change in important Disclosure Law application goes to the public individuals who testified to bring more sunshine into County government operation, a small yet substantial victory for much needed open government and democracy on Kauai.
According to Abrew, at the June 4 meeting after an executive session on the matter the board returned armed with a new county attorney’s opinion requiring the change in policy although he could not say which whether they met with new County Attorney Al Castillo or one of his deputies.
While the written opinion has not been released as yet, the BOE has been the only board or commission to release a county attorney’s opinion in many years and it could be released at their July meeting.
The public is still awaiting a promised new opinion on the enforcement of the prohibition of board and commission members appearing on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions, as contained in the county charter’s section 20.02(d).
For more information on the BOE read PNN’s three part investigative series Unethical culture- Government service with a personal “touch”
Read Part 1- Bored of Ethics on the Board of Ethics?Read Part 2- The Long and Winding Road to InertiaRead Part 3- Deep Thoughts- A “Handy” Diversion
Monday, March 23, 2009
GETTING THE LIES OF THE LAND
GETTING THE LIES OF THE LAND: Somewhere in the bowels of the County Attorney’s office, where the special layering of confidentiality obscure all other secrets, presumably sits a hush-hush file whose surreptitiousness is of the utmost clandestine nature.
We can only presume that an examination of that file would reveal the details of not only all the reasons why the county doles out big bucks to “special counsels” in Honolulu to litigate our lawsuits, but why they lose every time.
This year however even the $1.2 million dollars appropriated in last year’s budget wasn’t enough to satisfy the beast and apparently they have already gone though that and are asking the council for an additional $300,000 to cover the overspending.
But even that may not be enough because according to the budget submitted by Mayor Bernard Carvalho they have already spent a whopping $1,575,587 this fiscal year- $75,587 more than the total they would have in the budget if Bill #2307, appropriating the $300,000, passes.
That $300,000 is just slightly less than the $337,169 spent all last year meaning for some reason we’ve spent $1,238,418 more this year than last because none of the eight attorneys in the office are competent enough. And that’s just through March 15 with certainly more to come by the June 30 end of the fiscal year
So where is all that money going? Well, that’s the biggest secret of all. Because although the council must publicly approve each expenditure “up to” a certain amount each for specific case, the information on how much is actually spent is of course, a secret.
But there are clues and one on this week’s agenda points the finger toward a common target of lawsuits- the often absurd and unruly determinations made by our various administrative boards and commissions.
These boards and commissions are the repository, not for the best and the brightest or those who benevolently give themselves to public service but rather for the most part, for hacks and cronies of the mayor who seek to at best pad their resumes or at worst make decisions to financially benefit other cronies who sit on other boards with whom they do business every day in the community.
And they do so by flouting rules- if indeed rules exist- and making quite blatant arbitrary and capricious rulings that baffle the members of the public who have experienced their handiwork and walk away with a bad taste in their mouths for so-called due processes of Kaua`i county government.
The cases in point this week are two lawsuit listed as “Claims” on this Wednesday’s county council agenda, filed against the Liquor Commission - one of the most secretive and entrenched in the county- over the denial of a liquor permit to well known local businessman James “JJ” Jasper.
According to one of two similar suits Jasper filed, the commission made their decision without any of the due process required by law- due process that should be contained in administrative rules in accordance with HRS Chapter 91 but, typically on Kaua`i don’t even exist or don’t properly- or legally- address the conduct of adjudicatory functions of many of them.
The suit paints a picture of a commission that didn’t even notify him of the hearing or the result, denied him any of the records and in fact secretly met in violation of open hearing and meeting laws. The commission then let the long time Director of the Liquor Control Eric Homna spin his tale and also act as the commissions attorney in secret executive session, and finally made their determination based solely on Homna’s contention, refusing to allow Jasper to present and cross examine witnesses or have other rights under state laws regarding contested case hearings.
This echoes the complaints of many others when interacting with the various boards and commissions.
The case of the Board of Ethics is even worse. Not only have they been operating without rules that adhere to state law for years they have actually encoded the arbitrary and capriciousness of their decision making process in the rules they do have,
They are apparently seeking to change their rules but the new draft just gives them not just the current power to make arbitrary secret decisions but the power to not even take cases or acknowledge them if they so decide. And even if they do they can suspend due processes like the ability to call witnesses and hear from the complainant when they make their decisions.
And they are currently plotting to pass the new rules without even holding the public hearing that HRS 91 requires.
The Ethics Board, as PNN has reported in the past, has been engaged in a battle to somehow ignore the provisions in the county charter in sections 20,02(d) which prohibit members of boards and commissions from appearing before other boards and commissions on behalf of private parties.
And at their last meeting, after failing to get voters to take the provision out of the charter last November, Board Chair Mark Hubbard- a Grove Farm executive- attempted to take the 20.02(D) provisions out of the “Guide to Ethics” the county publishes for it’s employees, board members and other officers at the last meeting according to Ethics Board watchdog Horace Stoessel.
No telling how much they are costing the county in lawsuits over the years but it doesn’t appear it will get any better unless new county Attorney Al Castillo reverses another of those “secret opinions” that seemingly allow the board to ignore 20.02(d) and reins in the other lawlessness.
Another den of baffling inequity is the Board of Review (BOR) which determines cases of property tax appeals.
Quite revealing was the testimony of realtor Mike Dyer and others during a recent hearing on a bill to try to change the BOR process- a bill that the council has deferred until next September when it will probably then again procrastinate long enough to make it “too late for this year” as they did last month after discussing the bill for months earlier.
Dyer described the experience he and many other have had of getting decisions denying their appeals without any rhyme or reason usually just rubber stamping the county assessor’s determination with a process that allows the BOR to arbitrarily make rulings with no supporting documentation for their decision.
That has been the common hallmark of almost all others of the adjudicatory boards and commissions on Kaua`i- decisions are made without any explanation or justification.
That has led to some of the most costly lawsuits, especially against the all powerful planning commission which has caused to county to lose three lawsuits this year and probably will again in the future unless they start documenting their decisions.
Perhaps the most infamous was the recent decision regarding the new resort in Waipouli when all they needed to do, according to a separate suit by 1000 Friends attorney Dan Hempey, was file a “finding of fact” on the issues that went into making their determination,
But instead they just make their determination without “officially” finding the facts, causing the judge in the lawsuit that followed to say the commission’s decision was voided - that after spending oodles of cash on a “special counsel” whose bungling of the case caused the county to lose out on normally routine givebacks from the developer in addition to the lawyer’s fees.
Similar was the case of the “Monkey Pod Tree” development in Koloa and the bottled water case where the incompetence of the boards and commissions caused their decisions to be voided in the courts when the usual gaggle of less than competent lawyers the county routinely hires did their usual long, drawn-out, losing job.
And you can bet more and more of these cases will be coming up as developers learn they can get what they want in court because of the incompetence of the staff in properly arming their boards and commission with competent and adequate administrative oversight- rather than the hacks and cronies who populate the offices of the departments and Mayor’s office itself- as well as representation by competent attorneys
People thought that in passing a charter amendment in 2006 establishing an office of Boards and Commissions to administrate the various entities, some semblance of competence would be established. But instead then Mayor Bryan Baptiste appointed a crony of cronies, long time county insider John Isobe to the post who continues in the job under Carvalho.
According to members of the public who watch and bull dog the various boards, Isobe has worked tirelessly to treat the public as a nuisance that must be dealt with through secrecy. treating them like the proverbial mushrooms- kept in the dark and fed plenty of manure.
Many on Kaua`i just ignore all this and think well, it doesn’t really effect them. But money changes everything and if they knew how much this attitude was costing them through lawsuits and other payoffs and paybacks to the revolving-door, chamber-of-commerce crowd, perhaps their attitude would differ.
We can only presume that an examination of that file would reveal the details of not only all the reasons why the county doles out big bucks to “special counsels” in Honolulu to litigate our lawsuits, but why they lose every time.
This year however even the $1.2 million dollars appropriated in last year’s budget wasn’t enough to satisfy the beast and apparently they have already gone though that and are asking the council for an additional $300,000 to cover the overspending.
But even that may not be enough because according to the budget submitted by Mayor Bernard Carvalho they have already spent a whopping $1,575,587 this fiscal year- $75,587 more than the total they would have in the budget if Bill #2307, appropriating the $300,000, passes.
That $300,000 is just slightly less than the $337,169 spent all last year meaning for some reason we’ve spent $1,238,418 more this year than last because none of the eight attorneys in the office are competent enough. And that’s just through March 15 with certainly more to come by the June 30 end of the fiscal year
So where is all that money going? Well, that’s the biggest secret of all. Because although the council must publicly approve each expenditure “up to” a certain amount each for specific case, the information on how much is actually spent is of course, a secret.
But there are clues and one on this week’s agenda points the finger toward a common target of lawsuits- the often absurd and unruly determinations made by our various administrative boards and commissions.
These boards and commissions are the repository, not for the best and the brightest or those who benevolently give themselves to public service but rather for the most part, for hacks and cronies of the mayor who seek to at best pad their resumes or at worst make decisions to financially benefit other cronies who sit on other boards with whom they do business every day in the community.
And they do so by flouting rules- if indeed rules exist- and making quite blatant arbitrary and capricious rulings that baffle the members of the public who have experienced their handiwork and walk away with a bad taste in their mouths for so-called due processes of Kaua`i county government.
The cases in point this week are two lawsuit listed as “Claims” on this Wednesday’s county council agenda, filed against the Liquor Commission - one of the most secretive and entrenched in the county- over the denial of a liquor permit to well known local businessman James “JJ” Jasper.
According to one of two similar suits Jasper filed, the commission made their decision without any of the due process required by law- due process that should be contained in administrative rules in accordance with HRS Chapter 91 but, typically on Kaua`i don’t even exist or don’t properly- or legally- address the conduct of adjudicatory functions of many of them.
The suit paints a picture of a commission that didn’t even notify him of the hearing or the result, denied him any of the records and in fact secretly met in violation of open hearing and meeting laws. The commission then let the long time Director of the Liquor Control Eric Homna spin his tale and also act as the commissions attorney in secret executive session, and finally made their determination based solely on Homna’s contention, refusing to allow Jasper to present and cross examine witnesses or have other rights under state laws regarding contested case hearings.
This echoes the complaints of many others when interacting with the various boards and commissions.
The case of the Board of Ethics is even worse. Not only have they been operating without rules that adhere to state law for years they have actually encoded the arbitrary and capriciousness of their decision making process in the rules they do have,
They are apparently seeking to change their rules but the new draft just gives them not just the current power to make arbitrary secret decisions but the power to not even take cases or acknowledge them if they so decide. And even if they do they can suspend due processes like the ability to call witnesses and hear from the complainant when they make their decisions.
And they are currently plotting to pass the new rules without even holding the public hearing that HRS 91 requires.
The Ethics Board, as PNN has reported in the past, has been engaged in a battle to somehow ignore the provisions in the county charter in sections 20,02(d) which prohibit members of boards and commissions from appearing before other boards and commissions on behalf of private parties.
And at their last meeting, after failing to get voters to take the provision out of the charter last November, Board Chair Mark Hubbard- a Grove Farm executive- attempted to take the 20.02(D) provisions out of the “Guide to Ethics” the county publishes for it’s employees, board members and other officers at the last meeting according to Ethics Board watchdog Horace Stoessel.
No telling how much they are costing the county in lawsuits over the years but it doesn’t appear it will get any better unless new county Attorney Al Castillo reverses another of those “secret opinions” that seemingly allow the board to ignore 20.02(d) and reins in the other lawlessness.
Another den of baffling inequity is the Board of Review (BOR) which determines cases of property tax appeals.
Quite revealing was the testimony of realtor Mike Dyer and others during a recent hearing on a bill to try to change the BOR process- a bill that the council has deferred until next September when it will probably then again procrastinate long enough to make it “too late for this year” as they did last month after discussing the bill for months earlier.
Dyer described the experience he and many other have had of getting decisions denying their appeals without any rhyme or reason usually just rubber stamping the county assessor’s determination with a process that allows the BOR to arbitrarily make rulings with no supporting documentation for their decision.
That has been the common hallmark of almost all others of the adjudicatory boards and commissions on Kaua`i- decisions are made without any explanation or justification.
That has led to some of the most costly lawsuits, especially against the all powerful planning commission which has caused to county to lose three lawsuits this year and probably will again in the future unless they start documenting their decisions.
Perhaps the most infamous was the recent decision regarding the new resort in Waipouli when all they needed to do, according to a separate suit by 1000 Friends attorney Dan Hempey, was file a “finding of fact” on the issues that went into making their determination,
But instead they just make their determination without “officially” finding the facts, causing the judge in the lawsuit that followed to say the commission’s decision was voided - that after spending oodles of cash on a “special counsel” whose bungling of the case caused the county to lose out on normally routine givebacks from the developer in addition to the lawyer’s fees.
Similar was the case of the “Monkey Pod Tree” development in Koloa and the bottled water case where the incompetence of the boards and commissions caused their decisions to be voided in the courts when the usual gaggle of less than competent lawyers the county routinely hires did their usual long, drawn-out, losing job.
And you can bet more and more of these cases will be coming up as developers learn they can get what they want in court because of the incompetence of the staff in properly arming their boards and commission with competent and adequate administrative oversight- rather than the hacks and cronies who populate the offices of the departments and Mayor’s office itself- as well as representation by competent attorneys
People thought that in passing a charter amendment in 2006 establishing an office of Boards and Commissions to administrate the various entities, some semblance of competence would be established. But instead then Mayor Bryan Baptiste appointed a crony of cronies, long time county insider John Isobe to the post who continues in the job under Carvalho.
According to members of the public who watch and bull dog the various boards, Isobe has worked tirelessly to treat the public as a nuisance that must be dealt with through secrecy. treating them like the proverbial mushrooms- kept in the dark and fed plenty of manure.
Many on Kaua`i just ignore all this and think well, it doesn’t really effect them. But money changes everything and if they knew how much this attitude was costing them through lawsuits and other payoffs and paybacks to the revolving-door, chamber-of-commerce crowd, perhaps their attitude would differ.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
LEGAL BEAGLES OR BRAINLESS BUFFOONS
LEGAL BEAGLES OR BRAINLESS BUFFOONS? It appears from last week’s discussion by the Kaua`i County Council- as accurately portrayed in today’s local paper - that councilmembers have made the leap from being merely ludicrous to absolutely insane when it comes to withholding County Attorney opinions on public policy matters.
If, as Mel Rapozo is quoted as saying, “Kaua`i is unique” it’s because councilmembers apparently think they aren’t subject to state law.
Because the Sunshine Law - which requires open meetings be the norm - specifically bans the discussion of public policy behind closed doors and does not make an exception for the “attorney-client” loophole the council has used to hide the basis for enacting legislation.
Sunshine laws are based on the premise that bodies of elected and appointed officials are different from other organizations and businesses. They are not subject to the same laws that allow for privacy of information because, in dealing with public policy, they are seen as representatives of the people and those people have a right to watch and comment upon their official actions.
For anyone who hasn’t read the Declaration of policy and intent contained in HRS chapter 92, here it is:
In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Governmental agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. Therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy - the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of governmental agencies - shall be conducted as openly as possible. To implement this policy the legislature declares that:
(1) It is the intent of this part to protect the people's right to know;
(2) The provisions requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed; and
(3) The provisions providing for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.
Note that the law was enacted to cover the “formation and conduct of public policy”.
And note that it doesn’t recognize- or even mention the “attorney-client privilege” that others enjoy but limits “boards” to discussing in closed session only that what is specifically exempted from open meetings requirements.
The Sunshine Law contains a section, 92-5(a), that details those eight specific reasons a meeting may be held in secret. And discussion of attorney-client privileged material is not among the defined things they may do behind closed doors.
HRS 92-5(a)4 does allow them to “consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities”;
But 92-5(b) specifically says that
In no instance shall the board make a decision or deliberate toward a decision in an executive meeting on matters not directly related to the purposes specified in subsection (a).
Pretty damn clear, eh? But it even says:
No chance meeting, permitted interaction, or electronic communication shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of this part to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.
As we reported in June that second sentence has recently been adjudicated in Right to Know Committee v. City Council City and County of Honolulu to mean that they can’t use any “serial” method such as circulating paperwork from one to another to avoid the requirement they keep public policy deliberations and decisions completely available to the public.
Paperwork? Like maybe a County Attorney’s opinion?
But judging by the conversation last Wednesday we don’t need no stinkin’ Sunshine laws on Kaua`i. The council will decide when they want to tell us what deliberations they want us in on and guess what- there are none, if they can get away with it.
The attorney-client privilege is specifically not a part of their “privileges” in the law but you wouldn’t know it from the way the council has not just used it to keep the public policy opinions from the public but, in absurd bit of through the looking glass nonsense, has gone into secret executive sessions to discuss the public policy contained in those opinions- opinions that they requested in the first place.
Therefore any public policy question- especially ones that they don’t want to have done in the light of day for fear of the political repercussions- can be submitted for a CA “opinion” and then forever remain in the council’s black hole of executive sessions
If the effect of keeping a County Attorney’s opinion from public eyes is allowing public policy to be conducted in secret what part of that equation can be changed to make the law whole?
Yeah, We thought so too. Don’t all talk at once, councilmembers.
By the council’s reasoning we can assume the whole Sunshine law is invalid as long as they ask the County Attorney about whatever they want to hide from the public.
The problem is that the council says they are such idiots that they cannot distinguish actual litigation from potential litigation.
In theory every action- every law they enact, every resolution they consider, every expenditure they approve- is subject to litigation. But in actuality there are lawsuits, and there is public policy.
You know lawsuits by their tell-tale stamp from the courts establishing that they have been filed. You know the public policy by the fact that you are discussing it to provide for the legitimate functions of passing laws and the like.
The problem for the council is that when the policy and intent of open meetings laws is implemented it forbids the discussion of public policy without the public being fully informed.
And their solution is to consider every part of public policy a potential lawsuit.
The word legal comes from the word law. And so every “law” has a “legal” component by definition. And that’s exactly what the council has used as their premise in these matters since early this decade.
So does that mean that everything the Council does is covered by the exemption 92(a)4 which reads
A board may hold a meeting closed to the public... (t)o consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities;
Do the councilmembers think that discussing their “powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities” with an attorney is the same as actually exercising them?
Apparently so.
The question is if the Council decides state laws don’t apply to them and no one takes them to court does the public outcry make a sound?
Apparently not.
If, as Mel Rapozo is quoted as saying, “Kaua`i is unique” it’s because councilmembers apparently think they aren’t subject to state law.
Because the Sunshine Law - which requires open meetings be the norm - specifically bans the discussion of public policy behind closed doors and does not make an exception for the “attorney-client” loophole the council has used to hide the basis for enacting legislation.
Sunshine laws are based on the premise that bodies of elected and appointed officials are different from other organizations and businesses. They are not subject to the same laws that allow for privacy of information because, in dealing with public policy, they are seen as representatives of the people and those people have a right to watch and comment upon their official actions.
For anyone who hasn’t read the Declaration of policy and intent contained in HRS chapter 92, here it is:
In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Governmental agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. Therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy - the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of governmental agencies - shall be conducted as openly as possible. To implement this policy the legislature declares that:
(1) It is the intent of this part to protect the people's right to know;
(2) The provisions requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed; and
(3) The provisions providing for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.
Note that the law was enacted to cover the “formation and conduct of public policy”.
And note that it doesn’t recognize- or even mention the “attorney-client privilege” that others enjoy but limits “boards” to discussing in closed session only that what is specifically exempted from open meetings requirements.
The Sunshine Law contains a section, 92-5(a), that details those eight specific reasons a meeting may be held in secret. And discussion of attorney-client privileged material is not among the defined things they may do behind closed doors.
HRS 92-5(a)4 does allow them to “consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities”;
But 92-5(b) specifically says that
In no instance shall the board make a decision or deliberate toward a decision in an executive meeting on matters not directly related to the purposes specified in subsection (a).
Pretty damn clear, eh? But it even says:
No chance meeting, permitted interaction, or electronic communication shall be used to circumvent the spirit or requirements of this part to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.
As we reported in June that second sentence has recently been adjudicated in Right to Know Committee v. City Council City and County of Honolulu to mean that they can’t use any “serial” method such as circulating paperwork from one to another to avoid the requirement they keep public policy deliberations and decisions completely available to the public.
Paperwork? Like maybe a County Attorney’s opinion?
But judging by the conversation last Wednesday we don’t need no stinkin’ Sunshine laws on Kaua`i. The council will decide when they want to tell us what deliberations they want us in on and guess what- there are none, if they can get away with it.
The attorney-client privilege is specifically not a part of their “privileges” in the law but you wouldn’t know it from the way the council has not just used it to keep the public policy opinions from the public but, in absurd bit of through the looking glass nonsense, has gone into secret executive sessions to discuss the public policy contained in those opinions- opinions that they requested in the first place.
Therefore any public policy question- especially ones that they don’t want to have done in the light of day for fear of the political repercussions- can be submitted for a CA “opinion” and then forever remain in the council’s black hole of executive sessions
If the effect of keeping a County Attorney’s opinion from public eyes is allowing public policy to be conducted in secret what part of that equation can be changed to make the law whole?
Yeah, We thought so too. Don’t all talk at once, councilmembers.
By the council’s reasoning we can assume the whole Sunshine law is invalid as long as they ask the County Attorney about whatever they want to hide from the public.
The problem is that the council says they are such idiots that they cannot distinguish actual litigation from potential litigation.
In theory every action- every law they enact, every resolution they consider, every expenditure they approve- is subject to litigation. But in actuality there are lawsuits, and there is public policy.
You know lawsuits by their tell-tale stamp from the courts establishing that they have been filed. You know the public policy by the fact that you are discussing it to provide for the legitimate functions of passing laws and the like.
The problem for the council is that when the policy and intent of open meetings laws is implemented it forbids the discussion of public policy without the public being fully informed.
And their solution is to consider every part of public policy a potential lawsuit.
The word legal comes from the word law. And so every “law” has a “legal” component by definition. And that’s exactly what the council has used as their premise in these matters since early this decade.
So does that mean that everything the Council does is covered by the exemption 92(a)4 which reads
A board may hold a meeting closed to the public... (t)o consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities;
Do the councilmembers think that discussing their “powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities” with an attorney is the same as actually exercising them?
Apparently so.
The question is if the Council decides state laws don’t apply to them and no one takes them to court does the public outcry make a sound?
Apparently not.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
THE LABRADOR’S LABYRINTH
THE LABRADOR’S LABYRINTH: We now have a new administration on Kaua`i and though it was probably illegal for once and future Council Chair and current fleeting Mayor Kaipo Asing to delay taking office there is one thing that there’s no disputing if you read the Kaua`i County charter.
Kaua`i was without a Mayor for the 11 days between when Asing was “appointed” mayor and the day he took his oath of office.
While Administrative Assistant Gary Heu legally took office after the death of Mayor Bryan Baptiste, the Charter is clear on one thing- he ceased to be mayor when Asing was selected, no matter when Asing thinks he took office.
Section 7.06 of the Kaua`i County Charter states:
(I)n case of a vacancy in the office of the mayor, until a new mayor is appointed or elected, the administrative assistant shall act as mayor.
As we harped upon a few weeks back Asing and the County Attorney he carries around in his pocket gave some mumbo jumbo about the resignation from the council and swearing-in allowing him to apparently be both Council Chair and Mayor.
The charter makes it quite apparent that the new appointee becomes mayor upon the selection or “appointment” by the council but it does not state this in so many words
So of course when Kaipo “so sue me” Asing and his fellow Minotaur “Judge”- County Attorney Matthew Pyun saw that they could make up some cockamamie excuse to hold onto power long enough to allow Asing to pass legislation as a Council member and then sign it as mayor, they punched a hole in the wall, called it a loophole and dragged the county through it.
Apparently, according to Pyun’s First Deputy Harrison Kawate the Charter doesn’t count because “general practice” calls for something different than that which is described under the actual law.
The only excuse they didn’t use is that the Charter didn’t specifically require him to ask “mother may I’ before he took his baby steps between appointment and ceremonial inauguration before taking the giant one from the council chambers across the street into the dark recesses of the Round Building.
We did however hear a rumor that the decision was based on the lack a “Simon Says” provision in the Charter.
Even assuming this perversion of justice in the name of paternalism- Kaipo’s singular obsession- is legal or even moot now that the deed is done, the Charter is extremely clear that Hue ceased to be Mayor when Asing was appointed not when the appointee took office. It says “the administrative assistant shall act as mayor... until a new mayor is appointed”.
Unless Webster’s and our understanding of the word “until” is inaccurate the concept creates a timeline when something ceases to be true- in this case Hue’s `okole’s placement in the mayor’s seat.
So what? “What” is that any action by Heu during those 11 days is null and void for official purposes. And anyone effected by any official documents he might have signed may now consider them to be invalid.
The traditional secrecy and incompetence of the administration on Kaua`i may prevent us from ever finding out what official actions were taken in the last 11 days of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Heu administration but we will be reporting on our request for the information.
We’ll leave you with the apparent anthem of Kaua`i County Government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69b2Fcd4m5A
The Minotaur Song
by the Incredible String Band
Straight from the shoulder
I think like a soldier
I know what's right and what's wrong
He knows what's right and what's wrong.
I'm the original discriminating buffalo man
And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can
He'll do what's wrong as long as he can
I live in a labyrinth under the sea
Down in the dark as dark as can be
I like the dark as dark as can be
He likes the dark as dark as can be
I'll even attack you or eat you whole
Down in the dark my bone mills roll
Porridge for my porridge bowl
Porridge for his porridge bowl
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
Moo
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
A minotaur gets very sore
His features they are such a bore
His habits are predicta-bull
Aggressively relia-bull, bull, bull
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
I'm the original discriminating buffalo man
And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can
He'll do what's wrong as long as he can
Kaua`i was without a Mayor for the 11 days between when Asing was “appointed” mayor and the day he took his oath of office.
While Administrative Assistant Gary Heu legally took office after the death of Mayor Bryan Baptiste, the Charter is clear on one thing- he ceased to be mayor when Asing was selected, no matter when Asing thinks he took office.
Section 7.06 of the Kaua`i County Charter states:
(I)n case of a vacancy in the office of the mayor, until a new mayor is appointed or elected, the administrative assistant shall act as mayor.
As we harped upon a few weeks back Asing and the County Attorney he carries around in his pocket gave some mumbo jumbo about the resignation from the council and swearing-in allowing him to apparently be both Council Chair and Mayor.
The charter makes it quite apparent that the new appointee becomes mayor upon the selection or “appointment” by the council but it does not state this in so many words
So of course when Kaipo “so sue me” Asing and his fellow Minotaur “Judge”- County Attorney Matthew Pyun saw that they could make up some cockamamie excuse to hold onto power long enough to allow Asing to pass legislation as a Council member and then sign it as mayor, they punched a hole in the wall, called it a loophole and dragged the county through it.
Apparently, according to Pyun’s First Deputy Harrison Kawate the Charter doesn’t count because “general practice” calls for something different than that which is described under the actual law.
The only excuse they didn’t use is that the Charter didn’t specifically require him to ask “mother may I’ before he took his baby steps between appointment and ceremonial inauguration before taking the giant one from the council chambers across the street into the dark recesses of the Round Building.
We did however hear a rumor that the decision was based on the lack a “Simon Says” provision in the Charter.
Even assuming this perversion of justice in the name of paternalism- Kaipo’s singular obsession- is legal or even moot now that the deed is done, the Charter is extremely clear that Hue ceased to be Mayor when Asing was appointed not when the appointee took office. It says “the administrative assistant shall act as mayor... until a new mayor is appointed”.
Unless Webster’s and our understanding of the word “until” is inaccurate the concept creates a timeline when something ceases to be true- in this case Hue’s `okole’s placement in the mayor’s seat.
So what? “What” is that any action by Heu during those 11 days is null and void for official purposes. And anyone effected by any official documents he might have signed may now consider them to be invalid.
The traditional secrecy and incompetence of the administration on Kaua`i may prevent us from ever finding out what official actions were taken in the last 11 days of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Heu administration but we will be reporting on our request for the information.
We’ll leave you with the apparent anthem of Kaua`i County Government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69b2Fcd4m5A
The Minotaur Song
by the Incredible String Band
Straight from the shoulder
I think like a soldier
I know what's right and what's wrong
He knows what's right and what's wrong.
I'm the original discriminating buffalo man
And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can
He'll do what's wrong as long as he can
I live in a labyrinth under the sea
Down in the dark as dark as can be
I like the dark as dark as can be
He likes the dark as dark as can be
I'll even attack you or eat you whole
Down in the dark my bone mills roll
Porridge for my porridge bowl
Porridge for his porridge bowl
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
Moo
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
A minotaur gets very sore
His features they are such a bore
His habits are predicta-bull
Aggressively relia-bull, bull, bull
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
I'm the original discriminating buffalo man
And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can
He'll do what's wrong as long as he can
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
THE MASTER’S GONE AWAY
THE MASTER’S GONE AWAY: Bryan Baptiste died as he lived- covering up... even his own death..
It all sounded fishy. We suspected “the county” was being, eh, let’s say “less than transparent” about Baptiste’s condition over the past couple of weeks, especially after they didn’t announce his surgery until three days after the operation... which had been supposedly “planned” a week before after “routine medical tests”
Then we found out scanty information at that. As we reported we asked, heck we badgered the County spokesperson to at least reveal how many by-passes he had after she said “definitely did not have a heart attack”.
It just about isn’t possible that someone would go in for “routine tests”- and any tests to determine he needed a quadruple bypass would be anything but “routine”- and come out with a by-pass, even just one. Nowadays the doctors would almost certainly do some angioplasty and/or place some stents before going for a surgical by-pass... unless of course he had already suffered a heart attack, which despite the denial is probably what happened
Bryan most likely did what many people unfortunately do- they cover up the chest pains known as “angina”, sometimes even to themselves until it’s too late and you have four such badly clogged arteries you need them replaced.
The stark truth, not even in hindsight, is that Bryan wasn’t in any shape to survive the surgery but obviously it was his only choice. By the time many people in his state of health have a heart attack- and he had probably at least had a “silent” one before- they have already ignored or covered up their chest pain.
As we reported, a myocardial infraction- the most common type “heart attack”- is defined as tissue death in the heart muscle due to the blockage of a coronary artery. No one has a quadruple bypass without having had this kind of “heart attack”. We’d bet dollars to donuts that if the definitive test were done measuring a rise in cardiac enzymes were released that’s what it would show.
A cardiologist interviewed by KITV said “I’m sort of baffled by this” and that was most likely because the “facts”- or at least the ones the county claimed were facts were the only ones he had access to- didn’t line up with Baptiste’s death.
Grossly overweight, with reportedly uncontrolled diabetes, Baptiste was a walking time bomb as far as his “big heart” was concerned.
We gotta say the Bryan was consistent.
Someone said to us yesterday that we killed him. Well around here it feels like one of those Seineld episodes with Bryan not wanting to reveal the extent of his perilous health being told by doctors not to let his famous temper get the best of him and stay to away from anything that would cause it to explode. Next scene see him in the hospital hiding around the corner to listen to others, as was his habit, and overhearing his press secretary mentioning that that damn Andy Parx won’t play the “swallow every lie whole” game the local press plays so well and was askin’ a lot of medical questions. (SERENITY NOW Bryan, SERENITY NOW).
But once home with the opportunity beckoning withstanding a peek at the internet (what could it hurt?) is too much. Cut to the last scene with poor Bryan slumped over a lap top in a closet with our Saturday “'even on his sick bed’ he’s packing the Ethic Board with Grove Farm cronies” article on the screen. (bah, ba-da-bah, ba-da-bah bass line closing theme plays ).
We’re not sure if we’re relieved or upset that we had originally written “death bed” but decided to go with the facts since he hadn’t, as yet, actually died.
So what does the council do after he dies? First thing they do is violate the sunshine law which prohibits their meeting to “deliberate toward a decision” by holding a meeting with Acting mayor Gary Heu to talk who among them they will choose to succeed him, as the County Charter dictates they must do.
And one of these people is going to be the next Mayor, at least until November.
There’s not one of them that doesn’t want the Mayor’s job if for no other reason just for the power and ego gratification and they’ve been jockeying for that position since 2006.
The exception may be Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho who apparently wants the prosecutor’s job. So guess what- she could be the king maker. And she will pick her to ally Mel who has already jumped into the race according to a quote in today’s Advertiser.
Tim Bynum surprisingly enough could emerge as Mel’s rival only since there is a deep hatred between Tim and the Shay/Mel tag team. JoAnn is not well liked on the council, especially by Shaylene and others who have to sit through her incessant thinking out loud and other sleep inducing activity on the Council as well as her apparent back-stabs in various votes over the last few years. She doesn’t really have a true ally on the council with even Chair Kaipo Asing showing aggravation with her in public, something Asing rarely does no matter how angry he is.
Despite JoAnn’s need for validation by being reelected as Mayor after she took her ’94 defeat personally and so switched from being an activist to a consummate politician, she may be alone on the Council in thinking she should get the job no matter what might happen in November.
The “job” by the way could be a ten year term since anyone appointed and elected to fill the term would be eligible for a full two terms after that despite term limits. Section 7.01 of the Charter enforces term limits by stating “No person shall serve as mayor for more than two consecutive full terms”
So if JoAnn is shut out her vote could also be crucial. .
And that leaves Jay Furfaro as the wild card because as a policy wonk JoAnn knows that he would certainly be the best administrator of the seven after running hotels for many years until his recent “retirement”- although he still technically works for Princeville Corporation as a “consultant” which he says is because of his cultural and historical knowledge.
Jay probably has more brains than the rest of them put together. So if there’s any way politics becomes moot because the support is spread too thin,. he could get the nod because even his “foes” who remember that he “was” a Republican don’t actually actively dislike him personally
Many are talking about Asing having the inside track and being the favorite. But forget that- Asing had enough of that after trying to unseat Mayor Kusaka in ’98 and instead of being the shoo-in everyone saw him as on the day he filed his papers he couldn’t even place second, even though he had been the top vote getter in most of the past Council elections.
The only way Kaipo will take the job is if no one else wants it or he thinks no one else can do it. He’ll tell anyone who will listen that he only ran for Mayor 10 years ago because Kusaka was so awful and her Democratic opponent Mary Thronas was dingy, as everyone found out after watching her try to take on the duties of council chair from ’96-98.
Asing knows by now his forte is not as an administrator but a legislator. He’s got it wired and, in his mid-70’s he’s not about to try to learn new tricks.
As far as Ron Kouchi goes he only wanted to be Mayor because he saw it as an increase of power, not because he thought he’d be especially good at filling the potholes and keeping the lights on.
Hard to say what he learned after being squeaked out by Baptiste in ’02 but the fact that he ran for Council again instead of challenging the incumbent Baptiste in ’06 speaks pages if not volumes.
Plus there’s one important aspect all will have to consider- money.
Councilpeople are technically “part time” and the ridiculously low salary requires outside employment. Ron followed up his loss in ’02 with a lucrative revolving-door job with a big developer which he can keep on the council but would have to give up as Mayor even though technically there’s no law stopping him from having outside employment... although with the proposed demolishment of ethics law coming from the Charter Commission it could make for an interesting line to toe for the next Mayor..
And there’s always the fact that Ron would be the obvious choice for Chair when and if Kaipo gives it up and might just see that as the carrot that complements and accommodates his financial situation.
It all depends on what’s important to Ron- money or power. Look for money to win out because Joy likes nice things and he’s got kids to put through college although when taking about Ron’s ego and quest for power, never count it out.
It’s possible if he wants it enough, it’s his because Shay and Mel genuinely like him and depend on his process expertise as an alternative to Asing’s posturings. And that would make for a Jay vs. Ron race for that last vote, although Ron isn’t likely to get it from Kaipo or JoAnn who considered him the devil incarnate through the 80’s and 90’s
And if the fighting gets hot and heavy and there could be a two-two-two split with Shay-Mel, the JoAnn-Jay and Kaipo-Ron (imagine that) pairings.
Which is why Tim could slip right in. He’s so dumb normally no one would want to see him as Mayor. But this is the seat of Bryan Baptiste we’re talking about, who perhaps wasn’t the most vapid person in elective office on Kaua`i the last two years only because of Bynum’s presence.
Plus, if these guys have to sit there with him for another two years it would probably drive them right up a wall so what better way to pull off their own legislative agenda’s than to kick him upstairs.
If JoAnn or Jay can’t get any more votes for either of themselves, they might be more willing to see it this way. So if Tim can peel off one of the “two Chairs”, Ron or Kaipo, it could happen for him.
Kaipo though has probably had enough of dumb guys after six years of Baptiste and 10 years sitting with him on the Council. He actually acts in what he thinks is the best interest of the community, even though that recipe usually involves one cup of secrecy two cups of paternalism and a few splashes of arrogance and ego.
Once that’s all over the clock, starts to run on the 30 days the Council will have to replace whomever moves up to the Mayor’s slot. Derrick Kawakami is a political skein and a rich good old boy by birth and predilection and that may be what they all would be looking for, all else being corruptly equal. He’s shown he can be a stuffed shirt shill for developers just like them, what with his with his old-paradigm-worshipping work for KIUC.
But they may dig deeper and go back to Darryl Kaneshiro. And Gary Heu is certainly the only Baptiste administration official with any respect at all around the Historic County Building, their testimonials to Baptiste recently notwithstanding.
And who knows? If familiarity hasn’t bred contempt Glenn Mickens name could come up if for no other reason than that would stop him from keeping an eye on them from the outside by making him an insider. They call him the 8th councilmember anyway and he knows more about the process the issues and needed legislation than anyone who’s not on the Council. Don’t hold your breath Glenn.
Whomever it is will serve for only a few months and we don’t see councilmembers really wanting a new climber like Derrick get a leg up because he most likely has designs on and might usurp some of their power and might even gain enough strength to move up and leave one of them in eighth place in November.
Darryl would be content to be the same as he was on the council- a reliable vote with the majority. And he could well be on the ballot anyway in November and slip in due to the now two vacancies.
Being on the council early isn’t going to give Darryl any more votes in November because he’s already a known council product. Plus he’s never really sought to “move up” either into council leadership or the mayor’s seat or the legislature so he would be a safe choice for them.
Gary’s political alliances are a mystery, at least to us, but having been the right arm of a Republican mayor may nix his chances with an all Democratic Council.
We need to all keep an eye on them though and make sure that any and all discussions take place publicly. But look for apparent done deals cropping up when they convene open meetings to discuss it. We guarantee it since they’re already apparently broke the law when more than two of them met behind closed doors Monday morning to discuss some preliminaries..
And we thought it was going to be a dull local election season.
It all sounded fishy. We suspected “the county” was being, eh, let’s say “less than transparent” about Baptiste’s condition over the past couple of weeks, especially after they didn’t announce his surgery until three days after the operation... which had been supposedly “planned” a week before after “routine medical tests”
Then we found out scanty information at that. As we reported we asked, heck we badgered the County spokesperson to at least reveal how many by-passes he had after she said “definitely did not have a heart attack”.
It just about isn’t possible that someone would go in for “routine tests”- and any tests to determine he needed a quadruple bypass would be anything but “routine”- and come out with a by-pass, even just one. Nowadays the doctors would almost certainly do some angioplasty and/or place some stents before going for a surgical by-pass... unless of course he had already suffered a heart attack, which despite the denial is probably what happened
Bryan most likely did what many people unfortunately do- they cover up the chest pains known as “angina”, sometimes even to themselves until it’s too late and you have four such badly clogged arteries you need them replaced.
The stark truth, not even in hindsight, is that Bryan wasn’t in any shape to survive the surgery but obviously it was his only choice. By the time many people in his state of health have a heart attack- and he had probably at least had a “silent” one before- they have already ignored or covered up their chest pain.
As we reported, a myocardial infraction- the most common type “heart attack”- is defined as tissue death in the heart muscle due to the blockage of a coronary artery. No one has a quadruple bypass without having had this kind of “heart attack”. We’d bet dollars to donuts that if the definitive test were done measuring a rise in cardiac enzymes were released that’s what it would show.
A cardiologist interviewed by KITV said “I’m sort of baffled by this” and that was most likely because the “facts”- or at least the ones the county claimed were facts were the only ones he had access to- didn’t line up with Baptiste’s death.
Grossly overweight, with reportedly uncontrolled diabetes, Baptiste was a walking time bomb as far as his “big heart” was concerned.
We gotta say the Bryan was consistent.
Someone said to us yesterday that we killed him. Well around here it feels like one of those Seineld episodes with Bryan not wanting to reveal the extent of his perilous health being told by doctors not to let his famous temper get the best of him and stay to away from anything that would cause it to explode. Next scene see him in the hospital hiding around the corner to listen to others, as was his habit, and overhearing his press secretary mentioning that that damn Andy Parx won’t play the “swallow every lie whole” game the local press plays so well and was askin’ a lot of medical questions. (SERENITY NOW Bryan, SERENITY NOW).
But once home with the opportunity beckoning withstanding a peek at the internet (what could it hurt?) is too much. Cut to the last scene with poor Bryan slumped over a lap top in a closet with our Saturday “'even on his sick bed’ he’s packing the Ethic Board with Grove Farm cronies” article on the screen. (bah, ba-da-bah, ba-da-bah bass line closing theme plays ).
We’re not sure if we’re relieved or upset that we had originally written “death bed” but decided to go with the facts since he hadn’t, as yet, actually died.
So what does the council do after he dies? First thing they do is violate the sunshine law which prohibits their meeting to “deliberate toward a decision” by holding a meeting with Acting mayor Gary Heu to talk who among them they will choose to succeed him, as the County Charter dictates they must do.
And one of these people is going to be the next Mayor, at least until November.
There’s not one of them that doesn’t want the Mayor’s job if for no other reason just for the power and ego gratification and they’ve been jockeying for that position since 2006.
The exception may be Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho who apparently wants the prosecutor’s job. So guess what- she could be the king maker. And she will pick her to ally Mel who has already jumped into the race according to a quote in today’s Advertiser.
Tim Bynum surprisingly enough could emerge as Mel’s rival only since there is a deep hatred between Tim and the Shay/Mel tag team. JoAnn is not well liked on the council, especially by Shaylene and others who have to sit through her incessant thinking out loud and other sleep inducing activity on the Council as well as her apparent back-stabs in various votes over the last few years. She doesn’t really have a true ally on the council with even Chair Kaipo Asing showing aggravation with her in public, something Asing rarely does no matter how angry he is.
Despite JoAnn’s need for validation by being reelected as Mayor after she took her ’94 defeat personally and so switched from being an activist to a consummate politician, she may be alone on the Council in thinking she should get the job no matter what might happen in November.
The “job” by the way could be a ten year term since anyone appointed and elected to fill the term would be eligible for a full two terms after that despite term limits. Section 7.01 of the Charter enforces term limits by stating “No person shall serve as mayor for more than two consecutive full terms”
So if JoAnn is shut out her vote could also be crucial. .
And that leaves Jay Furfaro as the wild card because as a policy wonk JoAnn knows that he would certainly be the best administrator of the seven after running hotels for many years until his recent “retirement”- although he still technically works for Princeville Corporation as a “consultant” which he says is because of his cultural and historical knowledge.
Jay probably has more brains than the rest of them put together. So if there’s any way politics becomes moot because the support is spread too thin,. he could get the nod because even his “foes” who remember that he “was” a Republican don’t actually actively dislike him personally
Many are talking about Asing having the inside track and being the favorite. But forget that- Asing had enough of that after trying to unseat Mayor Kusaka in ’98 and instead of being the shoo-in everyone saw him as on the day he filed his papers he couldn’t even place second, even though he had been the top vote getter in most of the past Council elections.
The only way Kaipo will take the job is if no one else wants it or he thinks no one else can do it. He’ll tell anyone who will listen that he only ran for Mayor 10 years ago because Kusaka was so awful and her Democratic opponent Mary Thronas was dingy, as everyone found out after watching her try to take on the duties of council chair from ’96-98.
Asing knows by now his forte is not as an administrator but a legislator. He’s got it wired and, in his mid-70’s he’s not about to try to learn new tricks.
As far as Ron Kouchi goes he only wanted to be Mayor because he saw it as an increase of power, not because he thought he’d be especially good at filling the potholes and keeping the lights on.
Hard to say what he learned after being squeaked out by Baptiste in ’02 but the fact that he ran for Council again instead of challenging the incumbent Baptiste in ’06 speaks pages if not volumes.
Plus there’s one important aspect all will have to consider- money.
Councilpeople are technically “part time” and the ridiculously low salary requires outside employment. Ron followed up his loss in ’02 with a lucrative revolving-door job with a big developer which he can keep on the council but would have to give up as Mayor even though technically there’s no law stopping him from having outside employment... although with the proposed demolishment of ethics law coming from the Charter Commission it could make for an interesting line to toe for the next Mayor..
And there’s always the fact that Ron would be the obvious choice for Chair when and if Kaipo gives it up and might just see that as the carrot that complements and accommodates his financial situation.
It all depends on what’s important to Ron- money or power. Look for money to win out because Joy likes nice things and he’s got kids to put through college although when taking about Ron’s ego and quest for power, never count it out.
It’s possible if he wants it enough, it’s his because Shay and Mel genuinely like him and depend on his process expertise as an alternative to Asing’s posturings. And that would make for a Jay vs. Ron race for that last vote, although Ron isn’t likely to get it from Kaipo or JoAnn who considered him the devil incarnate through the 80’s and 90’s
And if the fighting gets hot and heavy and there could be a two-two-two split with Shay-Mel, the JoAnn-Jay and Kaipo-Ron (imagine that) pairings.
Which is why Tim could slip right in. He’s so dumb normally no one would want to see him as Mayor. But this is the seat of Bryan Baptiste we’re talking about, who perhaps wasn’t the most vapid person in elective office on Kaua`i the last two years only because of Bynum’s presence.
Plus, if these guys have to sit there with him for another two years it would probably drive them right up a wall so what better way to pull off their own legislative agenda’s than to kick him upstairs.
If JoAnn or Jay can’t get any more votes for either of themselves, they might be more willing to see it this way. So if Tim can peel off one of the “two Chairs”, Ron or Kaipo, it could happen for him.
Kaipo though has probably had enough of dumb guys after six years of Baptiste and 10 years sitting with him on the Council. He actually acts in what he thinks is the best interest of the community, even though that recipe usually involves one cup of secrecy two cups of paternalism and a few splashes of arrogance and ego.
Once that’s all over the clock, starts to run on the 30 days the Council will have to replace whomever moves up to the Mayor’s slot. Derrick Kawakami is a political skein and a rich good old boy by birth and predilection and that may be what they all would be looking for, all else being corruptly equal. He’s shown he can be a stuffed shirt shill for developers just like them, what with his with his old-paradigm-worshipping work for KIUC.
But they may dig deeper and go back to Darryl Kaneshiro. And Gary Heu is certainly the only Baptiste administration official with any respect at all around the Historic County Building, their testimonials to Baptiste recently notwithstanding.
And who knows? If familiarity hasn’t bred contempt Glenn Mickens name could come up if for no other reason than that would stop him from keeping an eye on them from the outside by making him an insider. They call him the 8th councilmember anyway and he knows more about the process the issues and needed legislation than anyone who’s not on the Council. Don’t hold your breath Glenn.
Whomever it is will serve for only a few months and we don’t see councilmembers really wanting a new climber like Derrick get a leg up because he most likely has designs on and might usurp some of their power and might even gain enough strength to move up and leave one of them in eighth place in November.
Darryl would be content to be the same as he was on the council- a reliable vote with the majority. And he could well be on the ballot anyway in November and slip in due to the now two vacancies.
Being on the council early isn’t going to give Darryl any more votes in November because he’s already a known council product. Plus he’s never really sought to “move up” either into council leadership or the mayor’s seat or the legislature so he would be a safe choice for them.
Gary’s political alliances are a mystery, at least to us, but having been the right arm of a Republican mayor may nix his chances with an all Democratic Council.
We need to all keep an eye on them though and make sure that any and all discussions take place publicly. But look for apparent done deals cropping up when they convene open meetings to discuss it. We guarantee it since they’re already apparently broke the law when more than two of them met behind closed doors Monday morning to discuss some preliminaries..
And we thought it was going to be a dull local election season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
