GENIUS AT WORK: It's never easy when the Kaua`i County Council seeks information from the administration, especially when they want data that the administration either doesn't have or is unwilling to part with.
That is, of course, if the council really wants the info to begin with or is willing to settle for much less.
We've described the administration tactics like "the fog"- the soft-spoken lulling to sleep of councilmembers, as perfected by perennial appointee Ian Costa.
Then there's "the runaround," where the department head on the hot seat conveniently lacks the knowledge sought by the council and suggests that a subordinate has it but he's out of town today. After a two week deferral the subordinate shows up and suggests another subordinate has the answers but he's "got meetings today." When the second one shows up two weeks later, well he's "new here" and doesn't know how the whole mess got started but it was his predecessor’s fault and he promises that things will be better in the future now that he's on the job.
This usually goes on ad nausium until the council simply forgets about the matter or simply gives up.
But how did the county perfect this system of obfuscation and disinformation?
The credit must go to a man whose time in his office spans three administrations and whose expertise was on display at last Wednesday's council committee confab.
Managing Director (formerly called the Administrative Assistant) Gary Heu started in the job back during the Maryanne Kusaka administration and despite some missteps that would cause lesser heads to roll has managed to continue in the job through Mayor Bryan Baptiste’s term and now into that of Mayor Bernard Carvalho due to precisely the skills he exhibited Wednesday. The council wanted Heu to explain why, despite having three people on the job- and a fourth one coming- they have only addressed three out of the 40 energy-saving strategy recommendations from the cost control commission, as a recent county audit showed.
Speaking softly and with his characteristic long, ponderous pauses before responding to questions, Heu parried the council's criticisms with a mish-mosh of sensible non-sequitors before actually trying to turn the tables by suggesting that taking all this time to answer all these questions from the auditor and now the council- and complying with them after the recommendations- was what was stopping the administration from action.
Heu is the master of the "I'm not here" style of testimony, having the ability to come up with 700 ways of saying the same thing. But when you actually write it down and read back his words they're completely meaningless. He does this by seeming to accept some blame but actually shifting it, followed by a "we're fixing it as of last Tuesday" explanation.
So it didn't seem to matter when Council Chair Jay Furfaro started waving around a consultant-prepared energy plan that dated back to 1994 from the administration of then Mayor, now Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura which, even though is almost two decades old, contained many of the same recommendation from the cost control commission and county auditor.
One particularly absurd discussion occurred when Energy Coordinator Glen Sato sat by Heu's side for a "PowerPoint presentation"- to the usual ooo's and ahhh's of the council- which included a slide of what he called a "dashboard" that showed the precise energy usage and amount being generated by the new photovoltaic system on the roof of the Pi`ikoi Building. That was impressive until councilmembers asked whether the people who worked there had access to the part that showed how much they were actually using so they could practice conservation- the core of all energy strategies... which of course they didn't.
But "fear not" said Heu. The brand new "sustainability manager" position created by the council in this year’s budget, will be hired "next week" and then we'll really be able to start in on energy savings.
By then the council chambers resembled San Francisco at 4 in the afternoon after the fog rolls in. So seemingly satisfied with the non-progress on a matter that had caused so much consternation only an hour before, Heu disappeared into the mist to reappear again the next time the administration's buffoon-of-the-month fails at the runaround and "the fixer" is called to perform his the unique magic that has kept him on the job lo these many years.
Showing posts with label Bernard Carvalho. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernard Carvalho. Show all posts
Monday, August 29, 2011
Monday, October 11, 2010
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTIONS
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTIONS: We fully expected the brief, clueless presentation by the Department of Public Works (DPW) at last Wednesday’s council Public Works and Energy Committee meeting on the plastic bag ban ordinance 885 which we predicted over the past two weeks.
But the council’s equally befuddled response to both the lack of due diligence by the DPW and the incompetence of County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo in maintaining his quest to hold the legally required public hearing on the administrative rules after the ban takes effect, was both predictable and incomprehensibly blind to irregularities and outright chicanery.
The always incompetent DPW Solid Waste Division Director Troy Tanegawa’s “Power Point” presentation contained exactly one sentence in claiming that in fact there were no bags that meet the standards for use but offered no evidence that he had even checked with anyone, nor did he present any report on the subject.
The fact is that according to researcher Brad Parsons- who as we said last week spent a few days looking into the subject- although no one is presently making bags that are both “compostable” and “contain no fossil fuel polymers” there are companies that make material that could be used to manufacture them if there was a demand for them.
That of course means that if Tanigawa and his division had bothered to look into it as the official government representative of a jurisdiction that wanted bags to fit our unique ordinance - and do so when the ordinance was passed last October- they might have them available by now.
But we would have been shocked to actually find him doing his job at this point in time- he hasn’t shown any ability or initiative in the past 15 years so why would he start now?
And the fact that the council just sat there and bought his brief claim to have looked and found nothing isn’t much of a surprise either- why would they start actually doing their oversight job now?
But the real outrage was this absurdity- courtesy of CA Castillo- of holding the official public hearing on January 11, 2011 the date the ban goes into effect- and, even worse, the way the council went along with it.
Castillo first went into his “say no more-I can say no more” routine regarding the reason claiming it had something to do with a provision in the Hawai`i Revised Statues Chapter 91 which governs administrative (ad) rules, apparently trying to say that he couldn’t have the hearing until the law want into effect but not citing any provision.... perhaps because there isn’t one.
This of course despite the fact that the Maui plastic bag ban law’s ad rules have already gone through their public hearing in August for an ordinance with an effective date of, not so coincidentally, January 11, 2011.
But the real debacle was the fact that the “informational meetings” that the county has announced they will hold on Oct 25 and Nov. 5th & 8th from 10-11 a.m. are apparently being offered in lieu of the legally required official public hearings.
And of course no one on the council had any problem with that.
So why should you?
Maybe its because there’s nothing required of “informational meetings”- where Tanigawa assured the council they would “take testimony”- while there are 1767 words in §91-3 alone regarding “Procedure for adoption, amendment, or repeal of rules”.
Whereas nothing has to occur at an “informational meeting”- and no information obtained must be considered- under an official Chapter 91 public hearing on ad rules.
(2) Afford all interested persons opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing. The agency shall fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule. The agency may make its decision at the public hearing or announce then the date when it intends to make its decision. Upon adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule, the agency, if requested to do so by an interested person, shall issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its determination.(emphasis added).
Not only that but while the county can just plop a “notice” of an unofficial informational meeting on their web site in order to give the notice for a public hearing the agency promulgating the rules must
(1) Give at least thirty days' notice for a public hearing. The notice shall include:
(A) A statement of the topic of the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal or a general description of the subjects involved; and
(B) A statement that a copy of the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed will be mailed to any interested person who requests a copy, pays the required fees for the copy and the postage, if any, together with a description of where and how the requests may be made;
(C) A statement of when, where, and during what times the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed may be reviewed in person; and
(D The date, time, and place where the public hearing will be held and where interested persons may be heard on the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal.
But here’s the kicker:
The notice shall be mailed to all persons who have made a timely written request of the agency for advance notice of its rulemaking proceedings, given at least once statewide for state agencies and in the county for county agencies. Proposed state agency rules shall also be posted on the Internet as provided in section 91-2.6
The whole purpose of this process is to allow the greatest public input and scrutiny possible to these “rules” which, after all, have the effect of law. What’s supposed to happen is that since they are required to “fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule”- and of course demonstrate that they have- once that input is given, if it is substantive they are supposed to go back and rewrite the rules.
If that happens, according to the case note 50 H. 156, 434 P.2d 516 on §91-3:
Changes may be made in a rule between the original proposed and presented at a public hearing and as finally adopted. Substantial change in a rule after a public hearing may require another public hearing.
But leave it to a befuddled DPW, a twit of a CA, an Ainokea council and an administration that is so addicted to secrecy and dedicated to keeping incompetent appointees that they would rather ignore the laws in favor of minimizing public participation in public processes, to think their little mid-morning hour-long schmooze session can suffice for official state procedures, as expressed in law.
This whole business is of course a result of the way the council went about “banning” plastic bags in the first place.
Rather than just ban them outright as Maui and other jurisdictions have done, they decided to kiss the butts of the stores that insist on packing our landfill and polluting our roads and waters with these poison products by trying to carve out an “allowable” plastic bag... and then depend on the administration to actually do it’s due diligence in creating a set of rules for the two prong test they set out.
Because there are so few places with bans, in the first to set a reasonable standard that assures petroleum-free biodegradability, the Kaua`i standard would be able to be used by other jurisdictions when manufacturers actually produced them because there was now a market for them.
But our lazy DPW dunderheads had a year to work with manufacturers to use available materials to actually produce the type of bag that local merchants would buy- or at least attempt to do so- and instead sat on their collective `okole protecting their clicking and dialing fingers to they could show us all the middle one.
Then, to make this an archetypical tale of Kaua`i-style incompetence and illegalities, they have decided to supplant the rule making process with a secretive process designed to make sure the public has the least input into the rules possible.
The one mistake the council made was thinking Kaua`i could ever do anything innovative or even new.
And that might have caused Castillo’s, Tanegawa’s and Mayor Carvalho’s heads to explode.... not that that would make any difference...
But the council’s equally befuddled response to both the lack of due diligence by the DPW and the incompetence of County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo in maintaining his quest to hold the legally required public hearing on the administrative rules after the ban takes effect, was both predictable and incomprehensibly blind to irregularities and outright chicanery.
The always incompetent DPW Solid Waste Division Director Troy Tanegawa’s “Power Point” presentation contained exactly one sentence in claiming that in fact there were no bags that meet the standards for use but offered no evidence that he had even checked with anyone, nor did he present any report on the subject.
The fact is that according to researcher Brad Parsons- who as we said last week spent a few days looking into the subject- although no one is presently making bags that are both “compostable” and “contain no fossil fuel polymers” there are companies that make material that could be used to manufacture them if there was a demand for them.
That of course means that if Tanigawa and his division had bothered to look into it as the official government representative of a jurisdiction that wanted bags to fit our unique ordinance - and do so when the ordinance was passed last October- they might have them available by now.
But we would have been shocked to actually find him doing his job at this point in time- he hasn’t shown any ability or initiative in the past 15 years so why would he start now?
And the fact that the council just sat there and bought his brief claim to have looked and found nothing isn’t much of a surprise either- why would they start actually doing their oversight job now?
But the real outrage was this absurdity- courtesy of CA Castillo- of holding the official public hearing on January 11, 2011 the date the ban goes into effect- and, even worse, the way the council went along with it.
Castillo first went into his “say no more-I can say no more” routine regarding the reason claiming it had something to do with a provision in the Hawai`i Revised Statues Chapter 91 which governs administrative (ad) rules, apparently trying to say that he couldn’t have the hearing until the law want into effect but not citing any provision.... perhaps because there isn’t one.
This of course despite the fact that the Maui plastic bag ban law’s ad rules have already gone through their public hearing in August for an ordinance with an effective date of, not so coincidentally, January 11, 2011.
But the real debacle was the fact that the “informational meetings” that the county has announced they will hold on Oct 25 and Nov. 5th & 8th from 10-11 a.m. are apparently being offered in lieu of the legally required official public hearings.
And of course no one on the council had any problem with that.
So why should you?
Maybe its because there’s nothing required of “informational meetings”- where Tanigawa assured the council they would “take testimony”- while there are 1767 words in §91-3 alone regarding “Procedure for adoption, amendment, or repeal of rules”.
Whereas nothing has to occur at an “informational meeting”- and no information obtained must be considered- under an official Chapter 91 public hearing on ad rules.
(2) Afford all interested persons opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing. The agency shall fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule. The agency may make its decision at the public hearing or announce then the date when it intends to make its decision. Upon adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule, the agency, if requested to do so by an interested person, shall issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its determination.(emphasis added).
Not only that but while the county can just plop a “notice” of an unofficial informational meeting on their web site in order to give the notice for a public hearing the agency promulgating the rules must
(1) Give at least thirty days' notice for a public hearing. The notice shall include:
(A) A statement of the topic of the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal or a general description of the subjects involved; and
(B) A statement that a copy of the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed will be mailed to any interested person who requests a copy, pays the required fees for the copy and the postage, if any, together with a description of where and how the requests may be made;
(C) A statement of when, where, and during what times the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed may be reviewed in person; and
(D The date, time, and place where the public hearing will be held and where interested persons may be heard on the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal.
But here’s the kicker:
The notice shall be mailed to all persons who have made a timely written request of the agency for advance notice of its rulemaking proceedings, given at least once statewide for state agencies and in the county for county agencies. Proposed state agency rules shall also be posted on the Internet as provided in section 91-2.6
The whole purpose of this process is to allow the greatest public input and scrutiny possible to these “rules” which, after all, have the effect of law. What’s supposed to happen is that since they are required to “fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule”- and of course demonstrate that they have- once that input is given, if it is substantive they are supposed to go back and rewrite the rules.
If that happens, according to the case note 50 H. 156, 434 P.2d 516 on §91-3:
Changes may be made in a rule between the original proposed and presented at a public hearing and as finally adopted. Substantial change in a rule after a public hearing may require another public hearing.
But leave it to a befuddled DPW, a twit of a CA, an Ainokea council and an administration that is so addicted to secrecy and dedicated to keeping incompetent appointees that they would rather ignore the laws in favor of minimizing public participation in public processes, to think their little mid-morning hour-long schmooze session can suffice for official state procedures, as expressed in law.
This whole business is of course a result of the way the council went about “banning” plastic bags in the first place.
Rather than just ban them outright as Maui and other jurisdictions have done, they decided to kiss the butts of the stores that insist on packing our landfill and polluting our roads and waters with these poison products by trying to carve out an “allowable” plastic bag... and then depend on the administration to actually do it’s due diligence in creating a set of rules for the two prong test they set out.
Because there are so few places with bans, in the first to set a reasonable standard that assures petroleum-free biodegradability, the Kaua`i standard would be able to be used by other jurisdictions when manufacturers actually produced them because there was now a market for them.
But our lazy DPW dunderheads had a year to work with manufacturers to use available materials to actually produce the type of bag that local merchants would buy- or at least attempt to do so- and instead sat on their collective `okole protecting their clicking and dialing fingers to they could show us all the middle one.
Then, to make this an archetypical tale of Kaua`i-style incompetence and illegalities, they have decided to supplant the rule making process with a secretive process designed to make sure the public has the least input into the rules possible.
The one mistake the council made was thinking Kaua`i could ever do anything innovative or even new.
And that might have caused Castillo’s, Tanegawa’s and Mayor Carvalho’s heads to explode.... not that that would make any difference...
Monday, September 13, 2010
(PNN) NAKAMURA TOPS $50,000 IN CONTRIBUTIONS WITH KAWAKAMI AND YUKIMURA CLOSE BEHIND
NAKAMURA TOPS $50,000 IN CONTRIBUTIONS WITH KAWAKAMI AND YUKIMURA CLOSE BEHIND
(PNN) -- The money race for council candidates split into four distinct groups going into the preliminary election this Saturday with three approaching $50, 000, five between 16 and $21, 000, two between 1 and $4,000 and the rest not filing and/or not collecting at least $1000.
But with two exceptions they are all currently in debt after spending- and owing- more than they collected.
One of those with cash on hand is newcomer Nadine Nakamura who maintained her lead- but just barely- with $50,218.56. Two others came in right on her heels with freshman Derek Kawakami totaling $46,393.71 and former Mayor and Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura collecting $45,925.00 overall this election cycle.
Mayor Bernard Carvalho continued to build his war chest even though his opponent, Diana LeBedz, has vowed not to collect any cash. He has collected $37,537.02 this period to total $228,691.42, with $124,697.32 cash on hand.
In the middle of the pack are current Vice Chair Jay Furfaro who has brought in $21,040.00, former councilmember Mel Rapozo- who is also debt free- with $19,394.20, TV host Dickie Chang with $17,870.00, council veteran Tim Bynum at $16,477.99 and second time candidate Kipukai Kualii with $16,361.92.
Brining up the rear are former Planning Commission Chair Ted Daligdig at $3,700.00 overall and businessman Ed Justus at $1,760.00.
For more detailed info- including individual contributors- go to the Campaign Spending Commission’s Candidate Filing System
The following is a list of candidates taking in more than $1000 and as such are required to file. The information includes contributions to date which is for the whole election cycle, contributions this period which includes amounts collected from July through September 3, amounts spent overall and this period, outstanding debts which include both money owed and loans (those that are loans only are noted with “loan”) and the total surplus or deficit.
-------
Bernard Carvalho (Mayor)
Contributions to date $228,691.42
Contributions this period $37,537.02
Spent this period $35,482.81
Spent overall $165,618.34
Outstanding Debt $303.59
Surplus $124,697.32
Kaipo Asing
Outstanding Debt (loan) $1,350.00
Deficit $1,350.00
Tim Bynum
Contributions to date $16,477.99
Contributions this period $8,702.99
Spent this period $11,394.30
Spent overall $24,617.65
Outstanding Debt (Loan) $3,725.00
Deficit $3,768.19
Dickie Chang
Contributions to date $17,870.00
Contributions this period $4,450.00
Spent this period $13,929.59
Spent overall $42,912.43
Outstanding Debt $2,100.00
Deficit $30,479.77
Ted Daligdig
Contributions to date $3,700.00
Contributions this period $3,700.00
Spent this period $1,200.14
Spent overall $1,200.14
Outstanding Debt (loan) $3,000.00
Deficit $500.14
Dennis Fowler
Contributions to date $100.00
Contributions this period $0
Surplus $100.00
Jay Furfaro
Contributions to date $21,040.00
Contributions this period $13,740.00
Spent this period $8,717.96
Spent overall $16,229.32
Outstanding Debt $25,557.29
Deficit $20,027.62
Ed Justus
Contributions to date $1,760.00
Contributions this period $1,470.00
Spent this period $1,082.19
Spent overall $1,082.19
Outstanding Debt $1,211.49
Deficit $483.68
Derek Kawakami
Contributions to date $46,393.71
Contributions this period $24,258.27
Spent this period $11,694.37
Spent overall $33,829.81
Outstanding Debt $17,718.56
Deficit $5,154.66
Kipukai Kualii
Contributions to date $16,361.92
Contributions this period $6,040.78
Spent this period $1,233.06
Spent overall $11,554.20
Outstanding Debt (loan) $6,247.37
Deficit $1,439.65
Nadine Nakamura
Contributions to date $50,218.56
Contributions this period $14,713.00
Spent this period $15,507.40
Spent overall $29,038.30
Outstanding Debt $0
Surplus $21,180.26
Mel Rapozo
Contributions to date $19,394.20
Contributions this period $5,105.00
Spent this period $3,121.96
Spent overall $14,962.34
Outstanding Debt (Loan) $5,000.00
Surplus $2,367.82
Ken Taylor
Contributions to date $0
Contributions this period $0
Spent this period $147.04
Spent overall $147.04
Outstanding Debt $2,820.03
Deficit $2,967.07
JoAnn Yukimura
Contributions to date $45,925.00
Contributions this period $16,174.00
Spent this period $16,643.15
Spent overall $48,707.33
Outstanding Debt (loan) $26,000.00
Deficit $23,871.94
(PNN) -- The money race for council candidates split into four distinct groups going into the preliminary election this Saturday with three approaching $50, 000, five between 16 and $21, 000, two between 1 and $4,000 and the rest not filing and/or not collecting at least $1000.
But with two exceptions they are all currently in debt after spending- and owing- more than they collected.
One of those with cash on hand is newcomer Nadine Nakamura who maintained her lead- but just barely- with $50,218.56. Two others came in right on her heels with freshman Derek Kawakami totaling $46,393.71 and former Mayor and Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura collecting $45,925.00 overall this election cycle.
Mayor Bernard Carvalho continued to build his war chest even though his opponent, Diana LeBedz, has vowed not to collect any cash. He has collected $37,537.02 this period to total $228,691.42, with $124,697.32 cash on hand.
In the middle of the pack are current Vice Chair Jay Furfaro who has brought in $21,040.00, former councilmember Mel Rapozo- who is also debt free- with $19,394.20, TV host Dickie Chang with $17,870.00, council veteran Tim Bynum at $16,477.99 and second time candidate Kipukai Kualii with $16,361.92.
Brining up the rear are former Planning Commission Chair Ted Daligdig at $3,700.00 overall and businessman Ed Justus at $1,760.00.
For more detailed info- including individual contributors- go to the Campaign Spending Commission’s Candidate Filing System
The following is a list of candidates taking in more than $1000 and as such are required to file. The information includes contributions to date which is for the whole election cycle, contributions this period which includes amounts collected from July through September 3, amounts spent overall and this period, outstanding debts which include both money owed and loans (those that are loans only are noted with “loan”) and the total surplus or deficit.
-------
Bernard Carvalho (Mayor)
Contributions to date $228,691.42
Contributions this period $37,537.02
Spent this period $35,482.81
Spent overall $165,618.34
Outstanding Debt $303.59
Surplus $124,697.32
Kaipo Asing
Outstanding Debt (loan) $1,350.00
Deficit $1,350.00
Tim Bynum
Contributions to date $16,477.99
Contributions this period $8,702.99
Spent this period $11,394.30
Spent overall $24,617.65
Outstanding Debt (Loan) $3,725.00
Deficit $3,768.19
Dickie Chang
Contributions to date $17,870.00
Contributions this period $4,450.00
Spent this period $13,929.59
Spent overall $42,912.43
Outstanding Debt $2,100.00
Deficit $30,479.77
Ted Daligdig
Contributions to date $3,700.00
Contributions this period $3,700.00
Spent this period $1,200.14
Spent overall $1,200.14
Outstanding Debt (loan) $3,000.00
Deficit $500.14
Dennis Fowler
Contributions to date $100.00
Contributions this period $0
Surplus $100.00
Jay Furfaro
Contributions to date $21,040.00
Contributions this period $13,740.00
Spent this period $8,717.96
Spent overall $16,229.32
Outstanding Debt $25,557.29
Deficit $20,027.62
Ed Justus
Contributions to date $1,760.00
Contributions this period $1,470.00
Spent this period $1,082.19
Spent overall $1,082.19
Outstanding Debt $1,211.49
Deficit $483.68
Derek Kawakami
Contributions to date $46,393.71
Contributions this period $24,258.27
Spent this period $11,694.37
Spent overall $33,829.81
Outstanding Debt $17,718.56
Deficit $5,154.66
Kipukai Kualii
Contributions to date $16,361.92
Contributions this period $6,040.78
Spent this period $1,233.06
Spent overall $11,554.20
Outstanding Debt (loan) $6,247.37
Deficit $1,439.65
Nadine Nakamura
Contributions to date $50,218.56
Contributions this period $14,713.00
Spent this period $15,507.40
Spent overall $29,038.30
Outstanding Debt $0
Surplus $21,180.26
Mel Rapozo
Contributions to date $19,394.20
Contributions this period $5,105.00
Spent this period $3,121.96
Spent overall $14,962.34
Outstanding Debt (Loan) $5,000.00
Surplus $2,367.82
Ken Taylor
Contributions to date $0
Contributions this period $0
Spent this period $147.04
Spent overall $147.04
Outstanding Debt $2,820.03
Deficit $2,967.07
JoAnn Yukimura
Contributions to date $45,925.00
Contributions this period $16,174.00
Spent this period $16,643.15
Spent overall $48,707.33
Outstanding Debt (loan) $26,000.00
Deficit $23,871.94
Monday, March 29, 2010
DOGGIE PEE, DOGGIE DOO
DOGGIE PEE, DOGGIE DOO: It won’t be long now until dog poop is once again on the lips of the citizenry what with the expiration of the experimental “bikes on the dog path” law and the new law before the council promising a long hot summer of dog path hearings a-comin’.
So get out you doggie-doodoo-bag and pin it to your shirt because it’s already being spread pretty thick on the pages of the local newspaper- all before the public hearing on the bill to expand dog-crapping to the entire path and also before the required survey is available.
Just this weekend we’ve already been hit with a flaming bag-o-crap lobbed over the wall in a predictable disinformation campaign from the brownshirts of the so-called stakeholders committee: Dr. Randall C. Blake, Sue Hansen, Thomas Noyes, Dr. Becky Rhoades.
Even Joan Conrow- who is usually more concerned with topics of real importance such as her upcoming Honolulu Weekly piece on the latest from the Naue burials debacle- has been busy with watching where she walks after describing a little walk on the “linear park”
After a meeting of the persons if not the minds between her and Councilperson Tim Bynum, who has introduced the latest dog path bill and was an original proponent of the path, she wrote:
Koko and I found ourselves meeting Tim at Lihi Park — the southerly end of the section where dogs are allowed — yesterday afternoon.
Now, readers of this blog know that I am no fan of the Path, but it was a lovely day and the ocean — turquoise and glassy under an offshore wind — looked absolutely ono. Of course, I couldn’t legally access it for a swim so long as Koko was at my side, so I focused instead on the task at hand: listening to Tim.
For those who don’t generally delve into underworld of the anonymous trolls in the comments section of Joan’s blog, it’s pretty much of a zoo where the bored, lonely sophomoric and adolescent-minded baboons gather to mindlessly throw their own feces at each other and Joan.
And today, after mentioning the lawsuit against KIUC for refusing to do anything but talk about stopping their wholesale slaughter of Shearwaters, she wrote about what one particularly dedicated defacer posted over the weekend:
This topic always makes me think of the thoughtful “f the birds” comment left by the shift-key impaired, short dash-fixated “dwps” — aka “mainland mentality,” “Darwin was pretty smart,” “young white atheist male” and “anonymous” — who recently left the comment:
“only here, and a few weird places on the mainland populated by strange people, would a bike path be seen as some sort of bag thing. its bizarre”
I’m assuming he meant “bad” and not “bag,” so let me spell it out for him. A bike path that is part of a road system, so as to truly facilitate alternative transportation, could be seen as a good thing.
But a bike path that runs over a beach or burials, is constructed of coastline hardening concrete, delivers hordes of people to places previously untrammeled, exposes you to possible $500 fines and puts you on the radar of an over zealous enforcement officer riding a bicycle with a poodle in a basket, well, in my opinion, that’s a bad thing.
Although we generally skip the troll-fest we happened on this one and maybe not so coincidentally it stood out to us too.
So a little Kealia and island history is in order.
In 1976 a Japanese developer wanted to put a resort where the Kumukumu camp- right across the highway from the beach- had recently been shut down.
People fought like hell to stop it and did so successfully but at one point those who opposed it but thought it inevitable had suggested Kealia be officially designated as a county beach park to “protect” it from development.
Being malihini at the time we at first blanch didn’t get it. But on second thought we had been around the island long enough to have seen the pattern and saw what happened whenever a “park” designation was made.
Many local people knew full well what happens on Kaua`i when you make a beach or any other gathering place into a “park”.
Where people once had free reign to camp, fish, even drive right to the camping spot and generally be free of rules and restrictions, all of a sudden we now had permits, rangers, prohibitions- including against bringing dogs- and generally had to go somewhere else to relax on weekends ad holidays.
So we stopped the beach park at Kealia. Some of us tracked it for decades and every time the proposal came back up we nipped it in the bud.
Now comes the bike path- that had it’s origins in Kealia Kai- and we thought we had nixed the beach park idea again with a plan that would have the path just run along the old haul cane road.
But Bernard Carvalho- then head of at first the Parks and Rec Division and later the newly-created Department of Parks and Rec- unbeknownst to anyone including the council until it was a done deal, formed a secret committee (later called the stakeholders committee), filled it with bike path proponents and then “secretly” built illegal un-permitted pavilions along the bike path because they had “extra money” (don’t ya just love that one?).
Finally they had to tear down and re-do some of the pavilions that dotted the path. But instead of leaving well enough alone, when the “dog path” bill came along all of a sudden Bernard and his cronies had somehow “declared” the bike path with pavilions to be a “linear park” where dogs would be automatically banned,
Even though by law official designation of parks is supposed to be done by the council- not to mention that no one had ever heard of a “linear park” on Kaua`i before and in fact the term didn’t appear anywhere in our charter, ordinances or administrative rules- their “done deal” stood, especially when Bernard became Mayor.
So through the back door Kealia has essentially become a “beach park” despite citizen vigilance, all due to Bernard’s lack of foresight and bending and breaking of laws, rules and regs and the lack of anyone on the council willing to challenge anything having to do with the bike path since Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho left
That’s just one of the corners cut and reasons why we have an ugly ribbon of concrete running along the beach instead of the natural unspoiled shoreline we used to enjoy.
As with many Kaua`i institutions, its not “bike paths” in general- or electric power co-ops or a dozen other mom-and-apple-pie ideas- it’s THIS bike path that causes us to have to sidestep another stinking pile.
So get out you doggie-doodoo-bag and pin it to your shirt because it’s already being spread pretty thick on the pages of the local newspaper- all before the public hearing on the bill to expand dog-crapping to the entire path and also before the required survey is available.
Just this weekend we’ve already been hit with a flaming bag-o-crap lobbed over the wall in a predictable disinformation campaign from the brownshirts of the so-called stakeholders committee: Dr. Randall C. Blake, Sue Hansen, Thomas Noyes, Dr. Becky Rhoades.
Even Joan Conrow- who is usually more concerned with topics of real importance such as her upcoming Honolulu Weekly piece on the latest from the Naue burials debacle- has been busy with watching where she walks after describing a little walk on the “linear park”
After a meeting of the persons if not the minds between her and Councilperson Tim Bynum, who has introduced the latest dog path bill and was an original proponent of the path, she wrote:
Koko and I found ourselves meeting Tim at Lihi Park — the southerly end of the section where dogs are allowed — yesterday afternoon.
Now, readers of this blog know that I am no fan of the Path, but it was a lovely day and the ocean — turquoise and glassy under an offshore wind — looked absolutely ono. Of course, I couldn’t legally access it for a swim so long as Koko was at my side, so I focused instead on the task at hand: listening to Tim.
For those who don’t generally delve into underworld of the anonymous trolls in the comments section of Joan’s blog, it’s pretty much of a zoo where the bored, lonely sophomoric and adolescent-minded baboons gather to mindlessly throw their own feces at each other and Joan.
And today, after mentioning the lawsuit against KIUC for refusing to do anything but talk about stopping their wholesale slaughter of Shearwaters, she wrote about what one particularly dedicated defacer posted over the weekend:
This topic always makes me think of the thoughtful “f the birds” comment left by the shift-key impaired, short dash-fixated “dwps” — aka “mainland mentality,” “Darwin was pretty smart,” “young white atheist male” and “anonymous” — who recently left the comment:
“only here, and a few weird places on the mainland populated by strange people, would a bike path be seen as some sort of bag thing. its bizarre”
I’m assuming he meant “bad” and not “bag,” so let me spell it out for him. A bike path that is part of a road system, so as to truly facilitate alternative transportation, could be seen as a good thing.
But a bike path that runs over a beach or burials, is constructed of coastline hardening concrete, delivers hordes of people to places previously untrammeled, exposes you to possible $500 fines and puts you on the radar of an over zealous enforcement officer riding a bicycle with a poodle in a basket, well, in my opinion, that’s a bad thing.
Although we generally skip the troll-fest we happened on this one and maybe not so coincidentally it stood out to us too.
So a little Kealia and island history is in order.
In 1976 a Japanese developer wanted to put a resort where the Kumukumu camp- right across the highway from the beach- had recently been shut down.
People fought like hell to stop it and did so successfully but at one point those who opposed it but thought it inevitable had suggested Kealia be officially designated as a county beach park to “protect” it from development.
Being malihini at the time we at first blanch didn’t get it. But on second thought we had been around the island long enough to have seen the pattern and saw what happened whenever a “park” designation was made.
Many local people knew full well what happens on Kaua`i when you make a beach or any other gathering place into a “park”.
Where people once had free reign to camp, fish, even drive right to the camping spot and generally be free of rules and restrictions, all of a sudden we now had permits, rangers, prohibitions- including against bringing dogs- and generally had to go somewhere else to relax on weekends ad holidays.
So we stopped the beach park at Kealia. Some of us tracked it for decades and every time the proposal came back up we nipped it in the bud.
Now comes the bike path- that had it’s origins in Kealia Kai- and we thought we had nixed the beach park idea again with a plan that would have the path just run along the old haul cane road.
But Bernard Carvalho- then head of at first the Parks and Rec Division and later the newly-created Department of Parks and Rec- unbeknownst to anyone including the council until it was a done deal, formed a secret committee (later called the stakeholders committee), filled it with bike path proponents and then “secretly” built illegal un-permitted pavilions along the bike path because they had “extra money” (don’t ya just love that one?).
Finally they had to tear down and re-do some of the pavilions that dotted the path. But instead of leaving well enough alone, when the “dog path” bill came along all of a sudden Bernard and his cronies had somehow “declared” the bike path with pavilions to be a “linear park” where dogs would be automatically banned,
Even though by law official designation of parks is supposed to be done by the council- not to mention that no one had ever heard of a “linear park” on Kaua`i before and in fact the term didn’t appear anywhere in our charter, ordinances or administrative rules- their “done deal” stood, especially when Bernard became Mayor.
So through the back door Kealia has essentially become a “beach park” despite citizen vigilance, all due to Bernard’s lack of foresight and bending and breaking of laws, rules and regs and the lack of anyone on the council willing to challenge anything having to do with the bike path since Mel Rapozo and Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho left
That’s just one of the corners cut and reasons why we have an ugly ribbon of concrete running along the beach instead of the natural unspoiled shoreline we used to enjoy.
As with many Kaua`i institutions, its not “bike paths” in general- or electric power co-ops or a dozen other mom-and-apple-pie ideas- it’s THIS bike path that causes us to have to sidestep another stinking pile.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
MIA
MIA: In two days it’ll be two weeks since Mayor Bernard Carvalho pulled his little Friday afternoon press release scam to flim-flam those opposed to putting the bike path on Wailua Beach before he conveniently slipped town all to avoid answering questions about the bogus, mealy-mouth lie that the new plan will put the path on the highway and take it off the beach.
That was exacerbated the next day by the gross negligence by the local newspaper in presenting a patently false headline and a misleading article – one still not corrected or clarified- repeating the misleading words of the mayor’s press release without digging deeper to get to the truth of the matter.
It’s understandable that that ace reporter Michael Levine may have been confused at first but its inexcusable that there’s been no update to inform an ill-informed public, especially since the arbitrary “comment deadline” of Feb. 25, set by the administration, has come and gone.
Other than the “he said, she said” style quote from Judy Dalton late in the original article claiming it’s still on the beach there’s been no inkling in the paper of the fact that the path will still be on the beach, leading many of not most on the island to believe that the mayor has now miraculously given in and realigned the path to keep it off the beach.
While the on-line community has been on the story with our Steaming pile on bike path the following Monday, Joan Conrow’s visual depiction Tuesday and a widely distributed letter from Dalton on Wednesday it’s been nothing but silence from the primary news source and “newspaper of record” on the island except for a letter to the editor- one that seems unsure of itself- from Wendy Raebeck of Wailua yesterday.
But while the newspaper certainly should take some of the blame for perpetuating a lie it’s even more baffling as to what happened to the dozens of activists who brought the issue of burials to light and the hundreds if not thousands who were outraged enough to get the mayor to put out his bogus realignment announcement.
Were they similarly bamboozled? Have they just given up?
The officials in this county have shown that they will stonewall, obfuscate and even outright lie in order to get people to just go away so that they keep their corrupt little party going. And when we give up- as many apparently have in this instance- we become just another guard at the gates of the minotaur’s labyrinth.
--------
We’ll be taking a long weekend again unless something really sets our hair on fire- see ya Monday.
That was exacerbated the next day by the gross negligence by the local newspaper in presenting a patently false headline and a misleading article – one still not corrected or clarified- repeating the misleading words of the mayor’s press release without digging deeper to get to the truth of the matter.
It’s understandable that that ace reporter Michael Levine may have been confused at first but its inexcusable that there’s been no update to inform an ill-informed public, especially since the arbitrary “comment deadline” of Feb. 25, set by the administration, has come and gone.
Other than the “he said, she said” style quote from Judy Dalton late in the original article claiming it’s still on the beach there’s been no inkling in the paper of the fact that the path will still be on the beach, leading many of not most on the island to believe that the mayor has now miraculously given in and realigned the path to keep it off the beach.
While the on-line community has been on the story with our Steaming pile on bike path the following Monday, Joan Conrow’s visual depiction Tuesday and a widely distributed letter from Dalton on Wednesday it’s been nothing but silence from the primary news source and “newspaper of record” on the island except for a letter to the editor- one that seems unsure of itself- from Wendy Raebeck of Wailua yesterday.
But while the newspaper certainly should take some of the blame for perpetuating a lie it’s even more baffling as to what happened to the dozens of activists who brought the issue of burials to light and the hundreds if not thousands who were outraged enough to get the mayor to put out his bogus realignment announcement.
Were they similarly bamboozled? Have they just given up?
The officials in this county have shown that they will stonewall, obfuscate and even outright lie in order to get people to just go away so that they keep their corrupt little party going. And when we give up- as many apparently have in this instance- we become just another guard at the gates of the minotaur’s labyrinth.
--------
We’ll be taking a long weekend again unless something really sets our hair on fire- see ya Monday.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
REAL OPTIONS
REAL OPTIONS: As our readers- and anyone who’s seen a council meeting lately- know, one of the more power-drunk county officials is often demented County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo who last week thought it was within his purview to order someone testifying before the council to remove his hat.
Castillo is the latest in line of CA’s that have acted as political hacks and stooges for the council and mayor, following in the “law is what we say it is” footsteps of Hartwell Blake, Matthew Pyun and Lani Nakazawa who is currently serving Mayor Bernard Carvalho as his own private attorney and political “advisor”.
We’ve called for a charter amendment to elect the county attorney since the current 10-year-long charter review commission (CRC) first met in 2004 but it has escaped their radar screen due partially to the fact that the post-2006 members don’t seem capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time except for regurgitating an old seven-time rejected amendment for four-year council terms and other assorted Titanic seating-chart tinkering.
Today we received an advance copy of a letter from CRC watchdog Horace Stoessel making the case for an elected CA with a particularly pithy set of choices.
Here it is.
OPTIONS
The county charter provides for the county attorney to be appointed by the mayor, with council approval, and to serve as the county’s chief legal adviser and legal representative.
The charter also mandates that the Charter Commission “study and review the operation of the county government under this charter” and propose amendments to the charter that it deems necessary or desirable.
Based on my observations of government operations and study of the charter, if the commission honors its mandate it has two options for proposing amendments regarding the county attorney’s office.
If the commission wants to bring the operations of the office into line with the charter, it should propose that the county attorney, like the prosecuting attorney, be elected for a four-year term, thereby freeing the office from having to serve not one but two political masters who are sometimes at odds with each other.
However, if the commission deems that the proper course is to bring the charter into line with current practice, it should propose adding a phrase to make the charter read, “chief legal adviser, legal representative, and political enforcer.”
For reasons too obvious to require spelling out, I favor a proposal for a four-year elected term.
Horace Stoessel
Castillo is the latest in line of CA’s that have acted as political hacks and stooges for the council and mayor, following in the “law is what we say it is” footsteps of Hartwell Blake, Matthew Pyun and Lani Nakazawa who is currently serving Mayor Bernard Carvalho as his own private attorney and political “advisor”.
We’ve called for a charter amendment to elect the county attorney since the current 10-year-long charter review commission (CRC) first met in 2004 but it has escaped their radar screen due partially to the fact that the post-2006 members don’t seem capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time except for regurgitating an old seven-time rejected amendment for four-year council terms and other assorted Titanic seating-chart tinkering.
Today we received an advance copy of a letter from CRC watchdog Horace Stoessel making the case for an elected CA with a particularly pithy set of choices.
Here it is.
OPTIONS
The county charter provides for the county attorney to be appointed by the mayor, with council approval, and to serve as the county’s chief legal adviser and legal representative.
The charter also mandates that the Charter Commission “study and review the operation of the county government under this charter” and propose amendments to the charter that it deems necessary or desirable.
Based on my observations of government operations and study of the charter, if the commission honors its mandate it has two options for proposing amendments regarding the county attorney’s office.
If the commission wants to bring the operations of the office into line with the charter, it should propose that the county attorney, like the prosecuting attorney, be elected for a four-year term, thereby freeing the office from having to serve not one but two political masters who are sometimes at odds with each other.
However, if the commission deems that the proper course is to bring the charter into line with current practice, it should propose adding a phrase to make the charter read, “chief legal adviser, legal representative, and political enforcer.”
For reasons too obvious to require spelling out, I favor a proposal for a four-year elected term.
Horace Stoessel
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
UNEARTHING THE BONES OF CONTENTION
UNEARTHING THE BONES OF CONTENTION: The Kaua`i County Council usually has seven committees that, like the full council, meet on alternate Wednesdays with each councilmember chairing one or another.
And pity the poor chair who has a hot-potato or political football dumped in his or her lap. Or pity the poor bill or measure because often it is deferred indefinitely to flounder forever in committee purgatory, usually awaiting a “response” to questions for the administration combined with a committee chair’s reluctance to “rock the boat”.
Such was the case with Bill 2149, which was supposed to allow camping at Lydgate Park when it was introduced in September of 2005.
But when the bill hit the council’s table it turned out that, in the finest “fire, ready, aim” tradition of the administration of the Late Mayor Bryan Baptiste, the campground had already been constructed without the approval- or even knowledge- of just about anyone.
Anyone that is except current Mayor Bernard Carvalho who, in Batiste’s haste to get the area south of the traditional Lydgate area “cleaned up” was appointed to a head a secret “Mayor’s Advisory Task Force” in conjunction with his appointment to a newly created (just to give Carvalho an important job) “Office of Community Assistance”.
The problem was that Carvalho and the handful of county employees who filled out the force failed to check with anyone and even had it built without asking anyone about American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement... anyone including the Mayor’s ADA coordinator and the Mayor’s ADA Advisory Council.
It was even worse when it was found that the bathrooms were insufficient to handle the number of campers projected and there were no county employees to clean the place, much less enforce the camping regulations, much less provide 24 hour security for the area, much less a half-a-dozen other things.
At the time it was apparent that a few camping areas that were already built would have to be completely torn out and rebuilt to comply with the ADA. Plus the camp grounds were to become the first “paid” camping area under county administration and the scheme for fees and the number of campers in each area seemed to have been pulled out of someone’s er, sleeve.
After the councilmembers outrage subsided a bit, it became obvious that at least the issues would need to be resolved before anyone started camping in the area.
The last time anyone ever saw the bill it was deferred awaiting Carvalho’s answers to 11 questions posed on January 2006 when, a year or so later he was again asked to answer the questions in March of 2007.
The bill has suddenly resurfaced at the request of Parks and Transportation Committee member Tim Bynum who had chaired the Parks and Public Works Committee at the time and had been snubbed by Carvalho with his 2007 request for info.
Bynum came to the council by way of his leadership of the “Friends of Kamalani”, the citizens group that took up unofficial but de facto leadership of the entire Lydgate Park and bike path project that snakes it’s way through the park until it hits the end of the campgrounds and loops back on itself rather than going on it’s merry way to Nawiliwili where it may, someday- if there’s a lot more money forthcoming- come to a final terminus.
The administration was granted a deferral again last Wed. and has promised to be there next Wed. to answer the 11 questions and probably many more.
But while a select few know what the rush was that caused the campgrounds to rebuilt without any regard to the issues it’s existence raised, most don’t.
So a little history lesson is in order.
It actually goes back to Mayor Maryann Kusaka’s crusade to chase the local gay community from Kuna- aka Donkey- Beach back in the 90’s which itself is intimately tied into the origins of the bike path and the rise of Kusaka’s protégé Baptiste.
Kusaka’s efforts to roust the gays who held weekly campfires at the beach were quite public including calling for their removal at a press conference where she held up apparently used condoms that she said she personally collected in the area.
Then she got a group from her church to cut down trees and brush that shielded the beach from view from the cane road, all without the necessary SMA permits, causing members of the public to call for a criminal investigation.
This effort led to the attempt to receive the “gift” of the beach area from Kealia Kai owner and developer Tom McCloskey who shared Kusaka’s homophobia and tried to attach restriction to the deed to the land that included 24-hour golf-cart-roving security and nighttime closings of the area so as to also create a private beach for those who bought million dollar house sites in his agricultural ocean view subdivision.
And it would relieve him of a taxable yet useless for development parcel and, with the restrictions, still maintain control of who used the park.
Baptiste was the councilmember who introduced the deed for the area declaring the deal to be ready for approval upon submittal. But then Councilmember Gary Hooser saw the Trojan (no pun intended) Horse nature of the deed and delayed it for months until McCloskey gave up on many of the restrictions on the “county park”, angering Kusaka and Baptiste.
When Baptiste was publicly embarrassed by the revelation that, despite his statement that he had “just met” McCloskey at the council meeting, he had had breakfast with him that morning, Baptiste- after meeting with the brains behind the operation, Kusaka- came up with the plan for a Bike Path.
It would begin at the “gift parcel” and go all the way to Lihu`e. It would be paid for with $40 million in a federal “bike path for transportation, not recreation” grant and the 20% county matching share would come from the value of the land “gift” from McCloskey.
Of course that money and match are long since spent and the commitment to finish the transportation bike path remains the county’s responsibility, thus far costing at least another $10-15 million just to complete the chunk that ends at Lydgate- about half of the proposed length.
But the bike path isn’t the only “connection” between Kuna and Lydgate
With the public scrutiny- and many “incidents” of threats and even assaults by other church members who were now alerted to the “’scourge’ of the gay community at Donkey Beach”- they found a new area to congregate... the overgrown area south of Lydgate Park.
That was too much for Kusaka who was now on a new additional crusade- not just to rid the new area of dreaded homosexuals but to do so by extending the “bike path” into the area and then opening up a new campground- even though Lydgate camping was shut down years earlier because of drunken rowdiness and reports of drug dealing in the area up by the “big” pavilion.
When administrations changed and Baptiste replaced Kusaka he put his protégé, Carvalho, in charge of putting in the campgrounds- and to do it quickly.
Baptiste formed a “take force” without telling anyone and before anyone really knew what was happening the campgrounds were planned, built and installed all with no notification of the public or seemingly, many on the council.
They had blindly gone about it without complying with county and state codes for things like facilities and of course ADA compliance. But in a fait accompli they had “developed” the area removing the “undesirable element”.
The bill will be take up at the Wed. June 10, at the Park and Transportation Committee meeting sometime after 9 a.m. in the council chambers at the Historic County Building in Lihu`e.
And pity the poor chair who has a hot-potato or political football dumped in his or her lap. Or pity the poor bill or measure because often it is deferred indefinitely to flounder forever in committee purgatory, usually awaiting a “response” to questions for the administration combined with a committee chair’s reluctance to “rock the boat”.
Such was the case with Bill 2149, which was supposed to allow camping at Lydgate Park when it was introduced in September of 2005.
But when the bill hit the council’s table it turned out that, in the finest “fire, ready, aim” tradition of the administration of the Late Mayor Bryan Baptiste, the campground had already been constructed without the approval- or even knowledge- of just about anyone.
Anyone that is except current Mayor Bernard Carvalho who, in Batiste’s haste to get the area south of the traditional Lydgate area “cleaned up” was appointed to a head a secret “Mayor’s Advisory Task Force” in conjunction with his appointment to a newly created (just to give Carvalho an important job) “Office of Community Assistance”.
The problem was that Carvalho and the handful of county employees who filled out the force failed to check with anyone and even had it built without asking anyone about American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement... anyone including the Mayor’s ADA coordinator and the Mayor’s ADA Advisory Council.
It was even worse when it was found that the bathrooms were insufficient to handle the number of campers projected and there were no county employees to clean the place, much less enforce the camping regulations, much less provide 24 hour security for the area, much less a half-a-dozen other things.
At the time it was apparent that a few camping areas that were already built would have to be completely torn out and rebuilt to comply with the ADA. Plus the camp grounds were to become the first “paid” camping area under county administration and the scheme for fees and the number of campers in each area seemed to have been pulled out of someone’s er, sleeve.
After the councilmembers outrage subsided a bit, it became obvious that at least the issues would need to be resolved before anyone started camping in the area.
The last time anyone ever saw the bill it was deferred awaiting Carvalho’s answers to 11 questions posed on January 2006 when, a year or so later he was again asked to answer the questions in March of 2007.
The bill has suddenly resurfaced at the request of Parks and Transportation Committee member Tim Bynum who had chaired the Parks and Public Works Committee at the time and had been snubbed by Carvalho with his 2007 request for info.
Bynum came to the council by way of his leadership of the “Friends of Kamalani”, the citizens group that took up unofficial but de facto leadership of the entire Lydgate Park and bike path project that snakes it’s way through the park until it hits the end of the campgrounds and loops back on itself rather than going on it’s merry way to Nawiliwili where it may, someday- if there’s a lot more money forthcoming- come to a final terminus.
The administration was granted a deferral again last Wed. and has promised to be there next Wed. to answer the 11 questions and probably many more.
But while a select few know what the rush was that caused the campgrounds to rebuilt without any regard to the issues it’s existence raised, most don’t.
So a little history lesson is in order.
It actually goes back to Mayor Maryann Kusaka’s crusade to chase the local gay community from Kuna- aka Donkey- Beach back in the 90’s which itself is intimately tied into the origins of the bike path and the rise of Kusaka’s protégé Baptiste.
Kusaka’s efforts to roust the gays who held weekly campfires at the beach were quite public including calling for their removal at a press conference where she held up apparently used condoms that she said she personally collected in the area.
Then she got a group from her church to cut down trees and brush that shielded the beach from view from the cane road, all without the necessary SMA permits, causing members of the public to call for a criminal investigation.
This effort led to the attempt to receive the “gift” of the beach area from Kealia Kai owner and developer Tom McCloskey who shared Kusaka’s homophobia and tried to attach restriction to the deed to the land that included 24-hour golf-cart-roving security and nighttime closings of the area so as to also create a private beach for those who bought million dollar house sites in his agricultural ocean view subdivision.
And it would relieve him of a taxable yet useless for development parcel and, with the restrictions, still maintain control of who used the park.
Baptiste was the councilmember who introduced the deed for the area declaring the deal to be ready for approval upon submittal. But then Councilmember Gary Hooser saw the Trojan (no pun intended) Horse nature of the deed and delayed it for months until McCloskey gave up on many of the restrictions on the “county park”, angering Kusaka and Baptiste.
When Baptiste was publicly embarrassed by the revelation that, despite his statement that he had “just met” McCloskey at the council meeting, he had had breakfast with him that morning, Baptiste- after meeting with the brains behind the operation, Kusaka- came up with the plan for a Bike Path.
It would begin at the “gift parcel” and go all the way to Lihu`e. It would be paid for with $40 million in a federal “bike path for transportation, not recreation” grant and the 20% county matching share would come from the value of the land “gift” from McCloskey.
Of course that money and match are long since spent and the commitment to finish the transportation bike path remains the county’s responsibility, thus far costing at least another $10-15 million just to complete the chunk that ends at Lydgate- about half of the proposed length.
But the bike path isn’t the only “connection” between Kuna and Lydgate
With the public scrutiny- and many “incidents” of threats and even assaults by other church members who were now alerted to the “’scourge’ of the gay community at Donkey Beach”- they found a new area to congregate... the overgrown area south of Lydgate Park.
That was too much for Kusaka who was now on a new additional crusade- not just to rid the new area of dreaded homosexuals but to do so by extending the “bike path” into the area and then opening up a new campground- even though Lydgate camping was shut down years earlier because of drunken rowdiness and reports of drug dealing in the area up by the “big” pavilion.
When administrations changed and Baptiste replaced Kusaka he put his protégé, Carvalho, in charge of putting in the campgrounds- and to do it quickly.
Baptiste formed a “take force” without telling anyone and before anyone really knew what was happening the campgrounds were planned, built and installed all with no notification of the public or seemingly, many on the council.
They had blindly gone about it without complying with county and state codes for things like facilities and of course ADA compliance. But in a fait accompli they had “developed” the area removing the “undesirable element”.
The bill will be take up at the Wed. June 10, at the Park and Transportation Committee meeting sometime after 9 a.m. in the council chambers at the Historic County Building in Lihu`e.
Monday, December 22, 2008
BEST PAW FORWARD
BEST PAW FORWARD: Well, one council meeting down and if last Wednesday’s is any indication the next 101 for this council will provide plenty of nap time.
Because for all the talk of change there wasn’t a peep of challenge of anything by anyone.
The biggest controversy was who gushed the most in lavishing undeserved praise of another one of those vapid content-free PowerPoint presentations, this time from new Director of Parks and Recreation Leonard “Lenny” Rapozo,
Rapozo was rewarded with the job despite no expertise or experience in the area, taking over for now-Mayor Bernard Carvalho after qualifying by running Carvalho’s campaign.
The meeting started out with promise when the monthly-minister- whose name we didn’t catch- slyly told a story about the time he ran a red light.
When confronted by his son in his lawlessness, instead of stressing how important a person he was and making excuses like “I had to get to church to deliver my sermon”, he told the boy he’d (pardon the interruption) “try to do better next time”.
If any of the re-elected councilmembers caught the significance or applicability of his parable they didn’t let on.
That was followed by the first indication that this is going to be yet another “go along to get along council” when an executive session was yanked from the end of the agenda and inserted into a mid-morning slot, leaving those who came to speak on other items out in the hall waiting.
Despite pleas from the nitpickers to explain 1) why the council allowed a trick question on the ballot to remove our own Kaua`i Sunshine Law from the county charter, 2) why, if it was removed from the charter, it was still on the agenda and 3) when they could see the now-moot county attorney’s opinion on the matter as proscribed by the state sunshine law- they were, as usual dismissed summarily by Chair Kaipo Asing.
But surprisingly enough the county’s “outside” attorney- only identified as “David” despite the fact he is working for the council, got up and actually lied in trying to “explain to the new council members” how the infamous 3.07(e) provision was rejected by a judge.
The fact is that the charter provision had nothing to do with the infamous ES-177 case.
David- Minkins, we believe his last name is- tried to use a judges ruling specific to ES-177 to give the impression that the judge ruled that the council could do anything they damn well please in secret meetings as long as they cloak it in “attorney client privilege”.
First he attempted to try to mash-up and mix-up the case with a request by Walter Lewis and Ray Chuan to see a slew of past executive sessions minutes after the need for secrecy was no longer valid- something provided for in the Sunshine Law.- a case that had nothing to do with ES-177 in which the county sued the Office of Information Practices (OIP) which oversees the Sunshine Law.
The case of ES-177 involved newly elected at the time Councilmember Mel Rapozo when, acceding to OIP, he apparently ranted and raged over a bunch of police department matters that had nothing to do with the agendaed subject matter.
Judge Kathleen Wantanabe’s ruling however was actually very specific to that particular ES transcript saying that any “attorney-client privilege” at the meeting was “inexorably intertwined” with the portions that normally would not be covered- something that Minkins of course did not mention at all.
And the councilmembers- all seven – sat there like bumps on a log and okayed the current request for an ES on a current unrelated lawsuit against the county.
Later the questionable use of asset forfeiture funds we discussed last week- and specifically sent to the council as testimony- wasn’t even mentioned by any of the seven
The uses of the fund for a boat, new badges and a fax machine was approved unanimously without discussion of whether they were “supplemental” in nature as the law for the funds’ use requires.
But this was all a prelude for “the show” when Rapozo, with his deputy Kylan Dela Cruz by his side, whipped out a stack of apparently expensive, spiral-bound booklets, with plastic covers, printed on high quality, almost poster-board like, paper and distributed them to councilmembers before proceeding with their “presentation”.
“Lenny” was introduced with no last name and when Councilmember Tim Bynum asked him to identify himself Rapozo claimed he already had.
Rapozo actually started off trying to get away without doing his PowerPoint presentation and had to be forced to use the glorified overhead projector..
Then believe it or not he started off by saying “On the first page we identified the dog path task force members”.
But this was no mere slip of the tongue like the one that an embarrassed Kaipo Asing used a few months ago to be met with derisive laughter.
He followed it up by describing the next item- “meeting dates... to help us with the enforcement part of the dog path”.
“PowerPoint” presentations for the council have been the coin of the realm for department heads in recent times under the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste, especially Carvalho who used them in order to feign competence, as we discussed a while back.
They obviously figure that the councilmembers are too dumb- or too incompetent themselves- to notice that the content is usually just a bare-bones outline of stuff that would fit on one sheet of paper with no exposition of the specifics of each “point”,
This one though went further, presenting pages of two-per sheet giant color photos of the various signs and other “features” that anyone could see if they visited the path.... none of which explained any specifics.
The first page appeared to have maybe 25 word tops with such outline subjects as “Maintenance” and lines under it saying “trash cans”, “landscape”, “informational signs”, and “dispensers and refills”
That was followed by the only other thing on the page the heading “Enforcement” which was followed by “2 bicycles (stored at Kapa`a Neighborhood center), “3 vehicles” and “hand held radios.”
Actually this brought the only questioning because apparently they took three old police vehicles to use on the non-motorized traffic bike path.
Asing was incredulous because, as anyone in county government knows and he explained, there is a strict policy against using old “retired” police vehicles because they are “high powered” and notorious gas-hogs.
After some other superfluous info with a distinct lack of detail and the “how I spent my summer vacation” picture-show came the most important thing the council had demanded they come up with more than a month ago but never got because Carvalho was too busy running for Mayor- the actual forms for the bureaucratic functioning of the experimental “dog path”- those for writing tickets, signing up volunteers etc.
Problem was that, although they were in that Cadillac of Booklets they weren’t on the actual slide show- er, PowerPoint..
Well with all the gushing from all- and we mean all- the councilmembers you would have thought these geniuses had expanded string theory what with all the oooo’s and ahhhh’s over the presentation.
We’re distinctly disappointed in the new council for starting off on the wrong foot.
The fact is that it becomes increasingly more difficult to stop unethical, even illegal practices once you allow them to happen by not raising your hand to question them.
No one’s asking the newbies to be confrontational but at least ask the questions required of an oversight body when you’re made aware of them.
That’s been the major complaint about the council- even when members of the public legitimately question practices, do research to back it up and testify or submit it to them they’re greeted with “thanks for sharing- all in favor?- next item please”.
In the case of the police requests, the chief was even in the room. And in the case of the prosecutor’s fax machine if she wasn’t there, why not? Certainly when she was a councilperson the new prosecutor, Shaylene Iseri Carvalho would have demanded someone requesting money from the council be there to answer questions.
And accepting shoddy work without asking pertinent - not impertinent- questions is bad enough. But heaping praise instead of deserved criticism can only be seen as a political ploy possibly to secure a place at the corruption table.
Worse is actually voting for the measure that should have gotten more scrutiny without asking the questions the voters expect will be asked.
Once you have complemented people who are doing shoddy work on one matter how do you confront them later?
Some may say “hey- give them a chance- that was just their first meeting”. But that misses the point- that first meeting will set the tone for other 101 over the next two years.
If past is prologue it could be “same old, same old” as the new members especially if instead of sharpening elbows they just use them to make room for themselves in the “look the other way” old boys and girls club.
We’ll see how it goes in January but if last Wednesday was any indication we’re not too hopeful for any change.
Because for all the talk of change there wasn’t a peep of challenge of anything by anyone.
The biggest controversy was who gushed the most in lavishing undeserved praise of another one of those vapid content-free PowerPoint presentations, this time from new Director of Parks and Recreation Leonard “Lenny” Rapozo,
Rapozo was rewarded with the job despite no expertise or experience in the area, taking over for now-Mayor Bernard Carvalho after qualifying by running Carvalho’s campaign.
The meeting started out with promise when the monthly-minister- whose name we didn’t catch- slyly told a story about the time he ran a red light.
When confronted by his son in his lawlessness, instead of stressing how important a person he was and making excuses like “I had to get to church to deliver my sermon”, he told the boy he’d (pardon the interruption) “try to do better next time”.
If any of the re-elected councilmembers caught the significance or applicability of his parable they didn’t let on.
That was followed by the first indication that this is going to be yet another “go along to get along council” when an executive session was yanked from the end of the agenda and inserted into a mid-morning slot, leaving those who came to speak on other items out in the hall waiting.
Despite pleas from the nitpickers to explain 1) why the council allowed a trick question on the ballot to remove our own Kaua`i Sunshine Law from the county charter, 2) why, if it was removed from the charter, it was still on the agenda and 3) when they could see the now-moot county attorney’s opinion on the matter as proscribed by the state sunshine law- they were, as usual dismissed summarily by Chair Kaipo Asing.
But surprisingly enough the county’s “outside” attorney- only identified as “David” despite the fact he is working for the council, got up and actually lied in trying to “explain to the new council members” how the infamous 3.07(e) provision was rejected by a judge.
The fact is that the charter provision had nothing to do with the infamous ES-177 case.
David- Minkins, we believe his last name is- tried to use a judges ruling specific to ES-177 to give the impression that the judge ruled that the council could do anything they damn well please in secret meetings as long as they cloak it in “attorney client privilege”.
First he attempted to try to mash-up and mix-up the case with a request by Walter Lewis and Ray Chuan to see a slew of past executive sessions minutes after the need for secrecy was no longer valid- something provided for in the Sunshine Law.- a case that had nothing to do with ES-177 in which the county sued the Office of Information Practices (OIP) which oversees the Sunshine Law.
The case of ES-177 involved newly elected at the time Councilmember Mel Rapozo when, acceding to OIP, he apparently ranted and raged over a bunch of police department matters that had nothing to do with the agendaed subject matter.
Judge Kathleen Wantanabe’s ruling however was actually very specific to that particular ES transcript saying that any “attorney-client privilege” at the meeting was “inexorably intertwined” with the portions that normally would not be covered- something that Minkins of course did not mention at all.
And the councilmembers- all seven – sat there like bumps on a log and okayed the current request for an ES on a current unrelated lawsuit against the county.
Later the questionable use of asset forfeiture funds we discussed last week- and specifically sent to the council as testimony- wasn’t even mentioned by any of the seven
The uses of the fund for a boat, new badges and a fax machine was approved unanimously without discussion of whether they were “supplemental” in nature as the law for the funds’ use requires.
But this was all a prelude for “the show” when Rapozo, with his deputy Kylan Dela Cruz by his side, whipped out a stack of apparently expensive, spiral-bound booklets, with plastic covers, printed on high quality, almost poster-board like, paper and distributed them to councilmembers before proceeding with their “presentation”.
“Lenny” was introduced with no last name and when Councilmember Tim Bynum asked him to identify himself Rapozo claimed he already had.
Rapozo actually started off trying to get away without doing his PowerPoint presentation and had to be forced to use the glorified overhead projector..
Then believe it or not he started off by saying “On the first page we identified the dog path task force members”.
But this was no mere slip of the tongue like the one that an embarrassed Kaipo Asing used a few months ago to be met with derisive laughter.
He followed it up by describing the next item- “meeting dates... to help us with the enforcement part of the dog path”.
“PowerPoint” presentations for the council have been the coin of the realm for department heads in recent times under the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste, especially Carvalho who used them in order to feign competence, as we discussed a while back.
They obviously figure that the councilmembers are too dumb- or too incompetent themselves- to notice that the content is usually just a bare-bones outline of stuff that would fit on one sheet of paper with no exposition of the specifics of each “point”,
This one though went further, presenting pages of two-per sheet giant color photos of the various signs and other “features” that anyone could see if they visited the path.... none of which explained any specifics.
The first page appeared to have maybe 25 word tops with such outline subjects as “Maintenance” and lines under it saying “trash cans”, “landscape”, “informational signs”, and “dispensers and refills”
That was followed by the only other thing on the page the heading “Enforcement” which was followed by “2 bicycles (stored at Kapa`a Neighborhood center), “3 vehicles” and “hand held radios.”
Actually this brought the only questioning because apparently they took three old police vehicles to use on the non-motorized traffic bike path.
Asing was incredulous because, as anyone in county government knows and he explained, there is a strict policy against using old “retired” police vehicles because they are “high powered” and notorious gas-hogs.
After some other superfluous info with a distinct lack of detail and the “how I spent my summer vacation” picture-show came the most important thing the council had demanded they come up with more than a month ago but never got because Carvalho was too busy running for Mayor- the actual forms for the bureaucratic functioning of the experimental “dog path”- those for writing tickets, signing up volunteers etc.
Problem was that, although they were in that Cadillac of Booklets they weren’t on the actual slide show- er, PowerPoint..
Well with all the gushing from all- and we mean all- the councilmembers you would have thought these geniuses had expanded string theory what with all the oooo’s and ahhhh’s over the presentation.
We’re distinctly disappointed in the new council for starting off on the wrong foot.
The fact is that it becomes increasingly more difficult to stop unethical, even illegal practices once you allow them to happen by not raising your hand to question them.
No one’s asking the newbies to be confrontational but at least ask the questions required of an oversight body when you’re made aware of them.
That’s been the major complaint about the council- even when members of the public legitimately question practices, do research to back it up and testify or submit it to them they’re greeted with “thanks for sharing- all in favor?- next item please”.
In the case of the police requests, the chief was even in the room. And in the case of the prosecutor’s fax machine if she wasn’t there, why not? Certainly when she was a councilperson the new prosecutor, Shaylene Iseri Carvalho would have demanded someone requesting money from the council be there to answer questions.
And accepting shoddy work without asking pertinent - not impertinent- questions is bad enough. But heaping praise instead of deserved criticism can only be seen as a political ploy possibly to secure a place at the corruption table.
Worse is actually voting for the measure that should have gotten more scrutiny without asking the questions the voters expect will be asked.
Once you have complemented people who are doing shoddy work on one matter how do you confront them later?
Some may say “hey- give them a chance- that was just their first meeting”. But that misses the point- that first meeting will set the tone for other 101 over the next two years.
If past is prologue it could be “same old, same old” as the new members especially if instead of sharpening elbows they just use them to make room for themselves in the “look the other way” old boys and girls club.
We’ll see how it goes in January but if last Wednesday was any indication we’re not too hopeful for any change.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
BUT DID IT HAVE TO BE A TOOTHLESS HOUND AND AN OLD GRAY MARE
BUT DID IT HAVE TO BE A TOOTHLESS HOUND AND AN OLD GRAY MARE?: The blurry line between journalists and public relations hacks and flacks is getting more indistinguishable every day with reporters who started out afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted downsized into suckling on the teat of corporate conniving to sell you what you don’t want and never needed.
But those few who are left working for mainstream publications and TV news outlets are under more and more pressure to swallow any dog and pony show that provides innocuous and subservient news-hole fodder.
So it should come as no surprise that the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders have nothing on the Hawai`i press corps when it came to swallowing whole Linda Lingle’s latest PR stunt- her supposed economic stimulus program comprised of already approved projects repackaged with a shiny new bow.
You really have to search hard to find out anything that is actually being done in the supposed “fast tracking” and as a matter of fact no one in Honolulu that we can find has actually uncovered the fact that there is actually nothing being done this week that wasn’t being done last week except for the grin and grip for three neighbor island mayors seeking to appear as though they are “doing something to fix the economy”.
A look at the two major Honolulu dailies shows piss poor journalism in ballyhooing Lingle’s application of porcine makeup with not a one actually asking- much less reporting on- exactly what kind of “fast tracking” will actually be done.
The Advertiser’s Peter Boylan is particular smitten, leading his report by saying.
The state is looking to fast- track $1.86 billion worth of capital improvement projects to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
The 1,521 projects include highway improvements; maintenance and new construction at public schools and university and community college campuses; public library upgrades and repairs; small boat harbor upgrades and expansion; Hawaiian Homes construction; public housing facility repairs and renovations; and hospital and healthcare facility improvements.
After a paragraph saying Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann refused to show up for the farce he continues to describe the sow’s ear as a silk purse, saying
The projects identified by Lingle have already been budgeted and approved by the Legislature, and construction could begin within the next 18 months. The projects are set to be put out to bid by September 2009 and awarded by June 2010, Lingle said.
Lingle said she wants to stimulate the economy because "no one is coming here to rescue us. It is up to us."
She added: "My bottom line is it can't be business as usual. That won't work in these times."
The state will pay for the projects with a series of bond issues or by taking money from $3 billion it has in the bank, Lingle said.
Then he’s off on a tangent of Honolulu’s need for other projects turning his piece into a he said/she said political battle between the mayor and governor, never getting back to exactly what the real “news” is
The Star Bulletin’s usually astute Nina Wu was even more vapid. She not only fails to report what specific “fast tracking” there will be she doesn’t even mention that phrase much less explain that they are just a recycled and repackaged list of projects.
Wu simply regurgitates Lingle’s PR crew’s descriptions of the wondrous amounts of money Lingle will single handedly be bestowing on we commoners saying
Calling it an unprecedented initiative, the governor said the main goal was to create jobs.
"It's about real families," said Lingle. "When I talk to our team, I don't talk about it in terms of CIP or projects; I talk about it in terms of your neighbors, your friends, your family being able to have a decent life, being able to make their mortgage payments. That's what the effort is all about."
And that’s nothing compared to the editorial in today’s Star-Bulletin which proclaims “Lingle stimulus plan should work, in time” saying
GOING forward with state construction projects in an expedited timeframe announced by Gov. Linda Lingle should help the state climb out of its current financial ditch but not overnight. The move to hurry along approved state projects in cooperation with federal and county actions is laudable but limited by processes that cannot be sidestepped.
Lingle said more than 1,500 projects statewide that were approved by the Legislature will be put on a fast track, an 80 percent increase of projects previously put on such a schedule. Even then, she said at a news conference, the projects will be put out to bid by next September and contracts awarded by a year-and-a-half from now.
Want a more pantingly pedantic point of virew? Try today’s blog post from Advertiser columnist Dave Shapiro who has apparently been looking for something to butter up his fave on the fifth floor after being forced more and more recently to acknowledge her failed administration.
Instead of pointing out the emperor’s lack of appropriate apparel he pushes to what appears to be the Advertiser’s party line, turning the story into a hit piece on Hannemann. He wrote:
So what happened when Lingle called Hawai’i mayors together to work on an economic plan? Hannemann skipped out, and he deserves as much criticism as he earlier heaped on Lingle.
Before puking out political punditry that praises the Governor and the neighbor island mayors and faults His Mufiness for having more important things to do than participate in ding-a-Lingle’s no-news news-event.
Of course none of the TV news programs had anything more in their fleeting coverage than what they were spoon-fed and most were decidedly worse in terms of not reporting the deceit itself much less details of it.
But credit where credit is due- even if it is from what is usually the worst paper in the state- or country for that matter- The Garbage- er, Garden Island (TGI) on Kaua`i.
In reading relatively new reporter Michael Levine’s article you get a feeling that he wasn’t buying the gift wrapped turd.
Apparently he actually asked some of these questions and after describing the already-in-the-pipeline nature of the projects and listing some of the amounts of money to be spent he writes
However, the announcement should not be seen as Lingle actually releasing the funds from the state’s coffers — Pang said projects in which bids have not yet been awarded are not ready for release, and that the standard process, including planning and permitting, still has to occur on a case-by-case basis.
As an example of what’s not new he reports that
Nearly half of Kaua‘i’s funding total is expected to be used to widen a two-mile stretch of Kaumuali‘i Highway between Anonui Street and the Lihu‘e Mill Bridge.
According to information on the CIP Web site, that project alone is projected to cost just over $70 million.
The project is expected to go out to bid in June 2009, to be awarded in September 2009, and to begin construction in February 2010. The contract time is projected to be 825 days.
So the project, which was always scheduled for that timeframe as he reported previously, will now be scheduled for that same time... only this time it’s thanks to Lingle with an assist in doing nothing from Kaua`i Mayor Bernard Carvalho
According to Levine there’s nothing specific they will be doing to fast track anything except for determining what if anything they can do- which is probably nothing.
“These projects will help in getting our construction and building trade sectors moving,” Mayor Bernard Carvalho, who pledged support for the program at an afternoon press conference with Lingle and other county mayors, said in a release.
Beth Tokioka, executive assistant to Carvalho, said the mayor’s staff was continuing to look through the list to determine what assistance the county can provide to help speed up the process.
Additionally, Carvalho said in a press release that the county is compiling its own list of high-priority CIP projects for immediate and near-term implementation.
“Millions of dollars at the county level are already in the pipeline or are ready to be awarded,” he said.“We are currently preparing for a bond float so that we can fund additional CIP projects.
Supporting our economy during these difficult times remains a top priority for my administration.”
So let’s get this straight- even the fast-tracking is a con job because there’s no guarantee from Lingle that this will speed up her “release” of the funds or that she’ll do it any differently than what is proscribed by laws and rules. And, Carvalho will also be following the law and rules at the county level for permitting and planning approval.
We can only hope that someone like Levine- if not him- is named to replace the departing TGI Editor Adam Harju who is reportedly moving on to- believe it or not- “The Cambodia Daily”.
Levine has done some really exceptional reporting even though Harju has been a stalwart of censorship and drivel in service to publisher Mark Lewis.
But it appears, despite Harju’s denials when he took the job that he was “here to stay”, Kaua`i was for him just “another stop on the circuit” of small but increasingly larger community papers that younger mainland reporters ride to professional legitimacy.
Well the community’s gain is Harju’s loss- As everyone knows the only reason he was here was for the surfing anyway. We’ll most likely be looking forward to an even more out of touch malahini from “the circuit” taking the TGI reigns.
Keep it riel Adam and don’t take any bamboo ones. We’ll let Pol Pot’s living henchmen know they have nothing to worry about in the way of investigative work from you.
But those few who are left working for mainstream publications and TV news outlets are under more and more pressure to swallow any dog and pony show that provides innocuous and subservient news-hole fodder.
So it should come as no surprise that the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders have nothing on the Hawai`i press corps when it came to swallowing whole Linda Lingle’s latest PR stunt- her supposed economic stimulus program comprised of already approved projects repackaged with a shiny new bow.
You really have to search hard to find out anything that is actually being done in the supposed “fast tracking” and as a matter of fact no one in Honolulu that we can find has actually uncovered the fact that there is actually nothing being done this week that wasn’t being done last week except for the grin and grip for three neighbor island mayors seeking to appear as though they are “doing something to fix the economy”.
A look at the two major Honolulu dailies shows piss poor journalism in ballyhooing Lingle’s application of porcine makeup with not a one actually asking- much less reporting on- exactly what kind of “fast tracking” will actually be done.
The Advertiser’s Peter Boylan is particular smitten, leading his report by saying.
The state is looking to fast- track $1.86 billion worth of capital improvement projects to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
The 1,521 projects include highway improvements; maintenance and new construction at public schools and university and community college campuses; public library upgrades and repairs; small boat harbor upgrades and expansion; Hawaiian Homes construction; public housing facility repairs and renovations; and hospital and healthcare facility improvements.
After a paragraph saying Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann refused to show up for the farce he continues to describe the sow’s ear as a silk purse, saying
The projects identified by Lingle have already been budgeted and approved by the Legislature, and construction could begin within the next 18 months. The projects are set to be put out to bid by September 2009 and awarded by June 2010, Lingle said.
Lingle said she wants to stimulate the economy because "no one is coming here to rescue us. It is up to us."
She added: "My bottom line is it can't be business as usual. That won't work in these times."
The state will pay for the projects with a series of bond issues or by taking money from $3 billion it has in the bank, Lingle said.
Then he’s off on a tangent of Honolulu’s need for other projects turning his piece into a he said/she said political battle between the mayor and governor, never getting back to exactly what the real “news” is
The Star Bulletin’s usually astute Nina Wu was even more vapid. She not only fails to report what specific “fast tracking” there will be she doesn’t even mention that phrase much less explain that they are just a recycled and repackaged list of projects.
Wu simply regurgitates Lingle’s PR crew’s descriptions of the wondrous amounts of money Lingle will single handedly be bestowing on we commoners saying
Calling it an unprecedented initiative, the governor said the main goal was to create jobs.
"It's about real families," said Lingle. "When I talk to our team, I don't talk about it in terms of CIP or projects; I talk about it in terms of your neighbors, your friends, your family being able to have a decent life, being able to make their mortgage payments. That's what the effort is all about."
And that’s nothing compared to the editorial in today’s Star-Bulletin which proclaims “Lingle stimulus plan should work, in time” saying
GOING forward with state construction projects in an expedited timeframe announced by Gov. Linda Lingle should help the state climb out of its current financial ditch but not overnight. The move to hurry along approved state projects in cooperation with federal and county actions is laudable but limited by processes that cannot be sidestepped.
Lingle said more than 1,500 projects statewide that were approved by the Legislature will be put on a fast track, an 80 percent increase of projects previously put on such a schedule. Even then, she said at a news conference, the projects will be put out to bid by next September and contracts awarded by a year-and-a-half from now.
Want a more pantingly pedantic point of virew? Try today’s blog post from Advertiser columnist Dave Shapiro who has apparently been looking for something to butter up his fave on the fifth floor after being forced more and more recently to acknowledge her failed administration.
Instead of pointing out the emperor’s lack of appropriate apparel he pushes to what appears to be the Advertiser’s party line, turning the story into a hit piece on Hannemann. He wrote:
So what happened when Lingle called Hawai’i mayors together to work on an economic plan? Hannemann skipped out, and he deserves as much criticism as he earlier heaped on Lingle.
Before puking out political punditry that praises the Governor and the neighbor island mayors and faults His Mufiness for having more important things to do than participate in ding-a-Lingle’s no-news news-event.
Of course none of the TV news programs had anything more in their fleeting coverage than what they were spoon-fed and most were decidedly worse in terms of not reporting the deceit itself much less details of it.
But credit where credit is due- even if it is from what is usually the worst paper in the state- or country for that matter- The Garbage- er, Garden Island (TGI) on Kaua`i.
In reading relatively new reporter Michael Levine’s article you get a feeling that he wasn’t buying the gift wrapped turd.
Apparently he actually asked some of these questions and after describing the already-in-the-pipeline nature of the projects and listing some of the amounts of money to be spent he writes
However, the announcement should not be seen as Lingle actually releasing the funds from the state’s coffers — Pang said projects in which bids have not yet been awarded are not ready for release, and that the standard process, including planning and permitting, still has to occur on a case-by-case basis.
As an example of what’s not new he reports that
Nearly half of Kaua‘i’s funding total is expected to be used to widen a two-mile stretch of Kaumuali‘i Highway between Anonui Street and the Lihu‘e Mill Bridge.
According to information on the CIP Web site, that project alone is projected to cost just over $70 million.
The project is expected to go out to bid in June 2009, to be awarded in September 2009, and to begin construction in February 2010. The contract time is projected to be 825 days.
So the project, which was always scheduled for that timeframe as he reported previously, will now be scheduled for that same time... only this time it’s thanks to Lingle with an assist in doing nothing from Kaua`i Mayor Bernard Carvalho
According to Levine there’s nothing specific they will be doing to fast track anything except for determining what if anything they can do- which is probably nothing.
“These projects will help in getting our construction and building trade sectors moving,” Mayor Bernard Carvalho, who pledged support for the program at an afternoon press conference with Lingle and other county mayors, said in a release.
Beth Tokioka, executive assistant to Carvalho, said the mayor’s staff was continuing to look through the list to determine what assistance the county can provide to help speed up the process.
Additionally, Carvalho said in a press release that the county is compiling its own list of high-priority CIP projects for immediate and near-term implementation.
“Millions of dollars at the county level are already in the pipeline or are ready to be awarded,” he said.“We are currently preparing for a bond float so that we can fund additional CIP projects.
Supporting our economy during these difficult times remains a top priority for my administration.”
So let’s get this straight- even the fast-tracking is a con job because there’s no guarantee from Lingle that this will speed up her “release” of the funds or that she’ll do it any differently than what is proscribed by laws and rules. And, Carvalho will also be following the law and rules at the county level for permitting and planning approval.
We can only hope that someone like Levine- if not him- is named to replace the departing TGI Editor Adam Harju who is reportedly moving on to- believe it or not- “The Cambodia Daily”.
Levine has done some really exceptional reporting even though Harju has been a stalwart of censorship and drivel in service to publisher Mark Lewis.
But it appears, despite Harju’s denials when he took the job that he was “here to stay”, Kaua`i was for him just “another stop on the circuit” of small but increasingly larger community papers that younger mainland reporters ride to professional legitimacy.
Well the community’s gain is Harju’s loss- As everyone knows the only reason he was here was for the surfing anyway. We’ll most likely be looking forward to an even more out of touch malahini from “the circuit” taking the TGI reigns.
Keep it riel Adam and don’t take any bamboo ones. We’ll let Pol Pot’s living henchmen know they have nothing to worry about in the way of investigative work from you.
Monday, December 1, 2008
PRESERVATION OF THE HERD
PRESERVATION OF THE HERD: Kaua`i history was made today when three people got up and testified at the inaugural meeting of the Kaua`i County Council as political insiders and shocked family members watched what until today had been perfunctory sessions with no interruption for public comment.
Although no preparations had been made for the public to speak, former council candidate Bruce Pleas approached the county clerk and new county attorney before the meeting started and they told Mayor Barnard Carvalho- and later chair Kaipo Asing- that yes, this was a “real;” council meeting and the public was entitled to be heard from on all agenda items according to the state sunshine law.
After the swearing in of Carvalho’s department heads, the deputy prosecutors and new Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, Carvalho and the council members was sworn in, by 5th Circuit Court Judge and former councilmember Randall Valenciano
The big news is that County Engineer Donald Fujimoto took the oath and told us that he has kept his job despite reports Carvalho had been seeking to replace him.
When the meeting began with Carvalho presiding – as the charter requires until a chair is chosen- Pleas told the council that he was disappointed in both the decision to appoint Kaipo Asing chair and the manner by which the decision was reached, asking that the “top vote getter” Jay Furfaro be appointed instead.
Council watchdog Ken Taylor agreed that we needn’t be “stuck with” the decision made in an unofficial meeting last Monday where the council split 4-3 in the voting for Asing after which committee assignments were foisted upon the three losers by Asing and three others.
He asked that the council “postpone the decision... so we can have a public discussion of the matter”.
PNN also testified and also asked that the process be repeated in an official meeting adding that in any case we favored seeing Furfaro continue in the Chair- a post he assumed when Asing became acting mayor upon the death of former mayor Bryan Baptiste last summer.
But former council candidate Kipukai Kuali`i- like most of the gathered, seemingly, unaware that this was an actual council meeting and that the meeting last Monday wasn’t- said he “doesn’t understand” why members of the public were permitted to speak at all saying “I don’t think anyone should come up here now and try to influence the process”.
Following Asing’s nomination by Darryl Kaneshiro, Furfaro spoke and although he thanked those who supported him said “I intend to support the group’s majority opinion (and) cast my support to Mr. Asing.”
After Kaneshiro pointed out that the top vote getter is not always the appointed chair Lani Kawahara thanked those who spoke and said “Despite a bumpy start we will do our best for you. (and) in the spirit of democracy I will support the majority”.
Furfaro was then nominated for vice chair by Tim Bynum- one of three to vote for Furfaro for chair last week along with Kawahara and Furfaro himself.- and was elected unanimously.
But the new council rules- which are passed at the inaugural meeting every two years- were what spurred the most testimony.
Pleas pointed out a conflict with the new charter amendment which requires recusal upon the declaration of a potential conflict of interest by a councilperson, saying the rules state that if a councilperson is not excused he or she must vote on every matter.
Furfaro said the issue would be revisited after the charter amendment takes effect- 30 days after it is passed, according to the charter.
Pleas also noted a section that has never been enforced but has been in council rules in the past which requires those testifying to provide not just their name as the council usually requests but their address, whom they are speaking for and whether or not they are “ a registered lobbyist in compliance with HRS 97, Lobbyist Law.”
He promised that he himself would state such at all meetings he attends this year and asked the council to enforce the rule for lobbyists and perhaps change the requirement that an address be provided.
But the main issue was raised by PNN in requesting that the meeting times be changed back to 1:30 p.m. as they had been for decades until four years ago when they were shifted to 9 a.m.
We explained how people who want to testify now must take a whole day off work to do so rather than the half day a 1:30 time would require. In addition we pointed out how many times council communications to various administration personnel came back with answers to council questions right at 9 a.m. on meeting days, leaving for no time for review by councilmembers and causing all sorts of delays.
A later start would allow for examination of those ubiquitous “last minute documents” and allow for requesting the administration to come down and explain them if necessary rather than, as often happens, stopping the meeting and asking staff to “track them down” to let them know their immediate presence is requested.
We also asked that the council to consider reverting to having the second committee meetings of each month at 4:30 p.m. to allow the public to testify on matters “in committee” without having to take any time off from work.
Pleas, Taylor and PNN asked for a deferral of the rules in Resolution 2009-2 until the next council meeting but as the clock ticked toward the 1 p.m. ceremonial inauguration in the main hall, with people glancing at their watches at a quickening pace all the recommendations failed to attract any amendments and the rules passed as written.
Although we heard opposition to changing the meeting times from both Asing and Kaneshiro, Kawahara told us she was in support of at least considering it and so was Derek Kawakami who told us he would actually prefer the later schedule and would try to bring the matter up at a meeting soon.
Finally both Pleas and PNN asked for a deferral of action the contentious committee assignments that were foisted upon the minority last Monday so that a full discussion at a real public meeting could take place.
Last Monday’s meeting was unofficial due to what the state OIP has called a “loophole in the Sunshine Law” which allowed the pre-determination of the assignments and even the vote outcome since the council was not sworn in yet so weren’t “councilmembers” yet and therefore subject to law.
But the councilmembers- even those who didn’t like the process or results- said they would support the will of the majority and approved the committee assignments in a unanimous “aye” vote.
Vice chair Furfaro did say he would look into the possibility of taking up a discussion of the changes the public asked for “in the near future”.
The meeting was taped for cablecasting.
Although no preparations had been made for the public to speak, former council candidate Bruce Pleas approached the county clerk and new county attorney before the meeting started and they told Mayor Barnard Carvalho- and later chair Kaipo Asing- that yes, this was a “real;” council meeting and the public was entitled to be heard from on all agenda items according to the state sunshine law.
After the swearing in of Carvalho’s department heads, the deputy prosecutors and new Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, Carvalho and the council members was sworn in, by 5th Circuit Court Judge and former councilmember Randall Valenciano
The big news is that County Engineer Donald Fujimoto took the oath and told us that he has kept his job despite reports Carvalho had been seeking to replace him.
When the meeting began with Carvalho presiding – as the charter requires until a chair is chosen- Pleas told the council that he was disappointed in both the decision to appoint Kaipo Asing chair and the manner by which the decision was reached, asking that the “top vote getter” Jay Furfaro be appointed instead.
Council watchdog Ken Taylor agreed that we needn’t be “stuck with” the decision made in an unofficial meeting last Monday where the council split 4-3 in the voting for Asing after which committee assignments were foisted upon the three losers by Asing and three others.
He asked that the council “postpone the decision... so we can have a public discussion of the matter”.
PNN also testified and also asked that the process be repeated in an official meeting adding that in any case we favored seeing Furfaro continue in the Chair- a post he assumed when Asing became acting mayor upon the death of former mayor Bryan Baptiste last summer.
But former council candidate Kipukai Kuali`i- like most of the gathered, seemingly, unaware that this was an actual council meeting and that the meeting last Monday wasn’t- said he “doesn’t understand” why members of the public were permitted to speak at all saying “I don’t think anyone should come up here now and try to influence the process”.
Following Asing’s nomination by Darryl Kaneshiro, Furfaro spoke and although he thanked those who supported him said “I intend to support the group’s majority opinion (and) cast my support to Mr. Asing.”
After Kaneshiro pointed out that the top vote getter is not always the appointed chair Lani Kawahara thanked those who spoke and said “Despite a bumpy start we will do our best for you. (and) in the spirit of democracy I will support the majority”.
Furfaro was then nominated for vice chair by Tim Bynum- one of three to vote for Furfaro for chair last week along with Kawahara and Furfaro himself.- and was elected unanimously.
But the new council rules- which are passed at the inaugural meeting every two years- were what spurred the most testimony.
Pleas pointed out a conflict with the new charter amendment which requires recusal upon the declaration of a potential conflict of interest by a councilperson, saying the rules state that if a councilperson is not excused he or she must vote on every matter.
Furfaro said the issue would be revisited after the charter amendment takes effect- 30 days after it is passed, according to the charter.
Pleas also noted a section that has never been enforced but has been in council rules in the past which requires those testifying to provide not just their name as the council usually requests but their address, whom they are speaking for and whether or not they are “ a registered lobbyist in compliance with HRS 97, Lobbyist Law.”
He promised that he himself would state such at all meetings he attends this year and asked the council to enforce the rule for lobbyists and perhaps change the requirement that an address be provided.
But the main issue was raised by PNN in requesting that the meeting times be changed back to 1:30 p.m. as they had been for decades until four years ago when they were shifted to 9 a.m.
We explained how people who want to testify now must take a whole day off work to do so rather than the half day a 1:30 time would require. In addition we pointed out how many times council communications to various administration personnel came back with answers to council questions right at 9 a.m. on meeting days, leaving for no time for review by councilmembers and causing all sorts of delays.
A later start would allow for examination of those ubiquitous “last minute documents” and allow for requesting the administration to come down and explain them if necessary rather than, as often happens, stopping the meeting and asking staff to “track them down” to let them know their immediate presence is requested.
We also asked that the council to consider reverting to having the second committee meetings of each month at 4:30 p.m. to allow the public to testify on matters “in committee” without having to take any time off from work.
Pleas, Taylor and PNN asked for a deferral of the rules in Resolution 2009-2 until the next council meeting but as the clock ticked toward the 1 p.m. ceremonial inauguration in the main hall, with people glancing at their watches at a quickening pace all the recommendations failed to attract any amendments and the rules passed as written.
Although we heard opposition to changing the meeting times from both Asing and Kaneshiro, Kawahara told us she was in support of at least considering it and so was Derek Kawakami who told us he would actually prefer the later schedule and would try to bring the matter up at a meeting soon.
Finally both Pleas and PNN asked for a deferral of action the contentious committee assignments that were foisted upon the minority last Monday so that a full discussion at a real public meeting could take place.
Last Monday’s meeting was unofficial due to what the state OIP has called a “loophole in the Sunshine Law” which allowed the pre-determination of the assignments and even the vote outcome since the council was not sworn in yet so weren’t “councilmembers” yet and therefore subject to law.
But the councilmembers- even those who didn’t like the process or results- said they would support the will of the majority and approved the committee assignments in a unanimous “aye” vote.
Vice chair Furfaro did say he would look into the possibility of taking up a discussion of the changes the public asked for “in the near future”.
The meeting was taped for cablecasting.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
WHAT’S HE DOING BACK THERE?
WHAT’S HE DOING BACK THERE?: Despite our analysis of the council’s organizational meeting yesterday and our conclusion that the 4-3 split is a positive development there’s still a lot of bemoaning of how the process was “lacking...lokahi” (unity expressed with harmony) and “akahai” (kindness) and “aloha” (love and consideration for each other)” according to someone who might know- former councilperson JoAnn Yukimura.
Her letter to the editor in today’s local paper describes how it might have gone if everyone had followed the usual gritted-teeth, phony-smiling-while-readying-the-backstabbing-knife kabuki of council organizational meetings past.
But for those who still want to express themselves on the raw power play that Kaipo Asing and his 3D (Darryl, Derek and Dickie) cohorts, don’t forget- it’s not official yet.
Because, speaking of Kabuki, there’s yet another piece of theater yet to take place that is usually done out of sight of the public amidst the pomp and circumstance of the inaugural gala at the Convention hall.
Every two years- and four in the case of the mayor- there’s what appears to be the swearing in of the newly elected officers on the stage of the convention hall before a packed house.
But what many don’t know is that this is but a play because the actual swearing in and even the inaugural meeting of the council has already taken place.
The agenda for the first meeting of the council is already published and it includes the following list of items
INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE KAUA‘I COUNTY COUNCIL
MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2008 12:00 NOON
KAUA‘I WAR MEMORIAL CONVENTION HALL 4191 Hardy Street Lihu`e, Kaua`i, Hawai`i
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR-ELECT BERNARD P. CARVALHO, JR.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL VICE CHAIRPERSON.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2009-01, RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE COUNTY
CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Resolution No. 2009-02, RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF
COMMITTEES AND THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS
Resolution No. 2009-03, RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSONS, VICE CHAIRPERSONS, AND MEMBERS OF THE SEVERAL STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Before the big “event”, usually in the back ballroom, the real inauguration and meeting is played out in accordance with the Charter which reads:
Section 7.01.(Mayoral) Election and Term of Office. The electors of the county shall elect a mayor whose term of office shall be four years beginning at twelve o'clock meridian on the first working day of December following his election. No person shall serve as mayor for more than two consecutive full terms.
Section 3.07. Organization of Council; Officers; Rules; Employees.
A. The council shall meet in the council room at the county building or in the Kauai War Memorial Convention Hall for its organization promptly after its inauguration and swearing-in ceremony at which time it shall elect one of its members as chairman and presiding officer of the council. Until such time as the chairman is elected, the mayor shall preside at the council meetings, provided that the mayor shall not have a vote. The council shall also elect one of its members as vice-chairman who shall act as the presiding officer in the event of the chairman's absence. The council shall appoint a presiding officer pro tempore from its members in the event of the absence of both the chairman and vice-chairman.
B. The council shall adopt such rules as it may deem necessary for the organization of committees and the transaction of its business.
Some strange things stand out to the observant, in a plain reading of agenda. How can a “mayor-elect” serve as the original presiding officer before the new council has a chair? Doesn’t he have to take office first?
And how can the council meeting start at noon when the mayor is sworn in at noon?
Actually what usually happens- or has happened in the past- is this:
Before the council is assembled the 5th circuit court judge with the most seniority swears in the new mayor in a even more secretive ceremony in a smaller corner somewhere (we’ve never actually seen this happen despite trying on an occasion or two) precisely at noon along with the council.
Then later the mayor presides over the first council meeting and takes the actual vote for the chair person which, despite the lack of a report of such in the papers or blogs, is not really official yet.
Though we’ve never seen it happen, by law the council is required to take public testimony at this inaugural meeting- if you get there early enough and can find it.
That means that the new mayor is required to allow anyone there time to speak on not just the “Appointment of the council chairperson” but once again on the “Appointment of the vice chairperson” and once again again on the “Resolution relating to the appointment of the chairpersons, vice chairpersons, and members of the several standing committees of the council of the county of Kaua`i.”
One question that arises- and you have permission to skip this part if your eyes glaze over with a blur of “too much information”- is how long each person is permitted to speak.
People have often heard the council chair say “according to our rules you’re allowed three minutes to speak and another three minutes once everyone else has had a chance to testify”.
But those “rules” are necessarily voted on by each new council- as the agenda above says- after the appointment of the chair and vice chair (although before the vote on committee chairs and assignments).
According to the Sunshine law, testimony on every agenda item must be taken and the OIP has said that that means that the council must define in its rules how long each person is allowed and then stick to it.
But if the rules aren’t passed yet is there a time limit?
But back to those rules. They are perhaps the most important thing that guides the council throughout the two year term and also contains the times and day of the week of the meetings.
Until recently regular council meetings took place at 1:30 p.m. and have traditionally taken place on Thursdays not the current Wednesdays. Committee meetings took place at 9 a.m. for the first one of the month and 4:30 p.m. for the second.
This 4:30 meeting was instituted in the 90’s to allow more public testimony. And the 1:30 start of regular meetings enabled the same thing- they usually began with public hearings on bills and then moved on to regular council business enabling people who wanted to testify to only take a half day off from work to do so.
But in the secrecy and hidden action years of the Asing regime everything that can be done has been done to diminish the public’s participation including things like shifting the order of agenda items so that, if a crowd is there at 9 a.m. to testify and then thins out, eventually no one is left when the item comes up late in the afternoon.
Anyone who complains they can’t take time off from work to attend council meetings would do well to show up and make a stink about the early meeting times- if you can find the meeting.
----------------------
News flash- the Honolulu Advertiser is reporting that some of Mayor Elect Carvalho’s cabinet appointments are official
According the “breaking news” article:
Gary Heu will be reappointed to the position of administrative assistant and Wallace G. Rezentes Jr. will be reappointed as finance director.
Other appointments include:
• Director of Parks and Recreation: Lenny Rapozo Jr.
• Director of the Office of Economic Development: George Costa Jr.
• Deputy Director of Finance: Belma Baris (reappointment).
• Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation: Kylan Dela Cruz (reappointment).
Additionally, Beth Tokioka will be appointed executive assistant to the mayor and will be responsible for communications, governmental affairs and community relations. Mary Daubert will be reappointed as public information officer and will report to Tokioka.
Rapozo has been employed by the state Department of Public Safety for 20 years and is currently the branch manager for Kaua`i. He is also chairman of the county's Parks & Recreation Department Advisory Committee, and a member of the Kaua`i Police Commission.
Costa is general manager of the Kauai Hilton Resort, and has 32 years experience in hotel management on Kaua`i. He is president of the Hawaii Hotel and Lodging Association — Kauai Chapter. For the past six months, he has served as a member of the Landfill Siting Committee for Kaua`i County.
Tokioka has served for the past five years as director of the Office of Economic Development. Before that, she served as the county's public information officer and executive secretary to the mayor.
The positions of county attorney and chief engineer have not yet been filled. Those interested in applying for these positions should forward a cover letter and resume to Mayor-elect Bernard P. Carvalho Jr., P.O. Box 3510, Lihu`e, HI 96766.
The real news is there that Dela Cruz, who was expected to take over the reigns from Carvalho at Parks and Rec. has been replaced by Carvalho’s campaign manager Rapozo... So much for the new era of merit based, non-crony appointments.
As expected, Tokioka- another campaign stalwart- still has a job. But the question is, where did this new job come from?
There has never been an “executive assistant to the mayor ...for communications, governmental affairs and community relations” before and more importantly of course no such line item appropriation for the job appears in the council approved 2008-09 county budget
Also, according to an unconfirmed contention in the comments to that article, someone reports that Ed Okomoto will be fired as the head of Wailua Golf Course, effective Dec. 1.
What happened Bernard? Couldn’t get a good tee time?
The list does not include an appointment for the Convention Hall manager, a post the mayor does appoint that is considered a “political plum”- a low workload job usually awarded to campaign supporters.
What also strikes us is the appointment of departmental deputies which, according to one of the only county attorney opinions by Lani Nakazawa ever released to the public, is illegal as the charter is clear that department heads are selected by the mayor and then they appoint their deputies.
The matter was a bone of contention during the Kusaka administration when she attempted to install an unqualified crony as the deputy planning director and got then county Attorney Hartwell Blake Sr. to opine that she could.
But following a two year battle by government watchdog Horace Stoessel the new administration’s county attorney reversed the ruling and disallowed the mayor the privilege of appointing deputies. and the a new council chair, Ron Kouchi released it.
This is not my beautiful new administration... same as it ever was.
---------------
Correction/clarification: Yesterday we reported that Andrea Brower supported Derek Kawakami in this year’s council election. Although we and many others believed that was the case we might have drawn the conclusion in part due to of her association with and Malama Kaua`i and Keone Kealoha. Ms Brower says she in fact did not support Kawakami. In addition the piece as a whole might have been read to intimate that Brower was malahini. She was born and raised on Kaua`i and in no way was the characterization meant to apply to her.
Her letter to the editor in today’s local paper describes how it might have gone if everyone had followed the usual gritted-teeth, phony-smiling-while-readying-the-backstabbing-knife kabuki of council organizational meetings past.
But for those who still want to express themselves on the raw power play that Kaipo Asing and his 3D (Darryl, Derek and Dickie) cohorts, don’t forget- it’s not official yet.
Because, speaking of Kabuki, there’s yet another piece of theater yet to take place that is usually done out of sight of the public amidst the pomp and circumstance of the inaugural gala at the Convention hall.
Every two years- and four in the case of the mayor- there’s what appears to be the swearing in of the newly elected officers on the stage of the convention hall before a packed house.
But what many don’t know is that this is but a play because the actual swearing in and even the inaugural meeting of the council has already taken place.
The agenda for the first meeting of the council is already published and it includes the following list of items
INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE KAUA‘I COUNTY COUNCIL
MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2008 12:00 NOON
KAUA‘I WAR MEMORIAL CONVENTION HALL 4191 Hardy Street Lihu`e, Kaua`i, Hawai`i
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR-ELECT BERNARD P. CARVALHO, JR.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL VICE CHAIRPERSON.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2009-01, RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE COUNTY
CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Resolution No. 2009-02, RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF
COMMITTEES AND THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS
Resolution No. 2009-03, RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSONS, VICE CHAIRPERSONS, AND MEMBERS OF THE SEVERAL STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Before the big “event”, usually in the back ballroom, the real inauguration and meeting is played out in accordance with the Charter which reads:
Section 7.01.(Mayoral) Election and Term of Office. The electors of the county shall elect a mayor whose term of office shall be four years beginning at twelve o'clock meridian on the first working day of December following his election. No person shall serve as mayor for more than two consecutive full terms.
Section 3.07. Organization of Council; Officers; Rules; Employees.
A. The council shall meet in the council room at the county building or in the Kauai War Memorial Convention Hall for its organization promptly after its inauguration and swearing-in ceremony at which time it shall elect one of its members as chairman and presiding officer of the council. Until such time as the chairman is elected, the mayor shall preside at the council meetings, provided that the mayor shall not have a vote. The council shall also elect one of its members as vice-chairman who shall act as the presiding officer in the event of the chairman's absence. The council shall appoint a presiding officer pro tempore from its members in the event of the absence of both the chairman and vice-chairman.
B. The council shall adopt such rules as it may deem necessary for the organization of committees and the transaction of its business.
Some strange things stand out to the observant, in a plain reading of agenda. How can a “mayor-elect” serve as the original presiding officer before the new council has a chair? Doesn’t he have to take office first?
And how can the council meeting start at noon when the mayor is sworn in at noon?
Actually what usually happens- or has happened in the past- is this:
Before the council is assembled the 5th circuit court judge with the most seniority swears in the new mayor in a even more secretive ceremony in a smaller corner somewhere (we’ve never actually seen this happen despite trying on an occasion or two) precisely at noon along with the council.
Then later the mayor presides over the first council meeting and takes the actual vote for the chair person which, despite the lack of a report of such in the papers or blogs, is not really official yet.
Though we’ve never seen it happen, by law the council is required to take public testimony at this inaugural meeting- if you get there early enough and can find it.
That means that the new mayor is required to allow anyone there time to speak on not just the “Appointment of the council chairperson” but once again on the “Appointment of the vice chairperson” and once again again on the “Resolution relating to the appointment of the chairpersons, vice chairpersons, and members of the several standing committees of the council of the county of Kaua`i.”
One question that arises- and you have permission to skip this part if your eyes glaze over with a blur of “too much information”- is how long each person is permitted to speak.
People have often heard the council chair say “according to our rules you’re allowed three minutes to speak and another three minutes once everyone else has had a chance to testify”.
But those “rules” are necessarily voted on by each new council- as the agenda above says- after the appointment of the chair and vice chair (although before the vote on committee chairs and assignments).
According to the Sunshine law, testimony on every agenda item must be taken and the OIP has said that that means that the council must define in its rules how long each person is allowed and then stick to it.
But if the rules aren’t passed yet is there a time limit?
But back to those rules. They are perhaps the most important thing that guides the council throughout the two year term and also contains the times and day of the week of the meetings.
Until recently regular council meetings took place at 1:30 p.m. and have traditionally taken place on Thursdays not the current Wednesdays. Committee meetings took place at 9 a.m. for the first one of the month and 4:30 p.m. for the second.
This 4:30 meeting was instituted in the 90’s to allow more public testimony. And the 1:30 start of regular meetings enabled the same thing- they usually began with public hearings on bills and then moved on to regular council business enabling people who wanted to testify to only take a half day off from work to do so.
But in the secrecy and hidden action years of the Asing regime everything that can be done has been done to diminish the public’s participation including things like shifting the order of agenda items so that, if a crowd is there at 9 a.m. to testify and then thins out, eventually no one is left when the item comes up late in the afternoon.
Anyone who complains they can’t take time off from work to attend council meetings would do well to show up and make a stink about the early meeting times- if you can find the meeting.
----------------------
News flash- the Honolulu Advertiser is reporting that some of Mayor Elect Carvalho’s cabinet appointments are official
According the “breaking news” article:
Gary Heu will be reappointed to the position of administrative assistant and Wallace G. Rezentes Jr. will be reappointed as finance director.
Other appointments include:
• Director of Parks and Recreation: Lenny Rapozo Jr.
• Director of the Office of Economic Development: George Costa Jr.
• Deputy Director of Finance: Belma Baris (reappointment).
• Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation: Kylan Dela Cruz (reappointment).
Additionally, Beth Tokioka will be appointed executive assistant to the mayor and will be responsible for communications, governmental affairs and community relations. Mary Daubert will be reappointed as public information officer and will report to Tokioka.
Rapozo has been employed by the state Department of Public Safety for 20 years and is currently the branch manager for Kaua`i. He is also chairman of the county's Parks & Recreation Department Advisory Committee, and a member of the Kaua`i Police Commission.
Costa is general manager of the Kauai Hilton Resort, and has 32 years experience in hotel management on Kaua`i. He is president of the Hawaii Hotel and Lodging Association — Kauai Chapter. For the past six months, he has served as a member of the Landfill Siting Committee for Kaua`i County.
Tokioka has served for the past five years as director of the Office of Economic Development. Before that, she served as the county's public information officer and executive secretary to the mayor.
The positions of county attorney and chief engineer have not yet been filled. Those interested in applying for these positions should forward a cover letter and resume to Mayor-elect Bernard P. Carvalho Jr., P.O. Box 3510, Lihu`e, HI 96766.
The real news is there that Dela Cruz, who was expected to take over the reigns from Carvalho at Parks and Rec. has been replaced by Carvalho’s campaign manager Rapozo... So much for the new era of merit based, non-crony appointments.
As expected, Tokioka- another campaign stalwart- still has a job. But the question is, where did this new job come from?
There has never been an “executive assistant to the mayor ...for communications, governmental affairs and community relations” before and more importantly of course no such line item appropriation for the job appears in the council approved 2008-09 county budget
Also, according to an unconfirmed contention in the comments to that article, someone reports that Ed Okomoto will be fired as the head of Wailua Golf Course, effective Dec. 1.
What happened Bernard? Couldn’t get a good tee time?
The list does not include an appointment for the Convention Hall manager, a post the mayor does appoint that is considered a “political plum”- a low workload job usually awarded to campaign supporters.
What also strikes us is the appointment of departmental deputies which, according to one of the only county attorney opinions by Lani Nakazawa ever released to the public, is illegal as the charter is clear that department heads are selected by the mayor and then they appoint their deputies.
The matter was a bone of contention during the Kusaka administration when she attempted to install an unqualified crony as the deputy planning director and got then county Attorney Hartwell Blake Sr. to opine that she could.
But following a two year battle by government watchdog Horace Stoessel the new administration’s county attorney reversed the ruling and disallowed the mayor the privilege of appointing deputies. and the a new council chair, Ron Kouchi released it.
This is not my beautiful new administration... same as it ever was.
---------------
Correction/clarification: Yesterday we reported that Andrea Brower supported Derek Kawakami in this year’s council election. Although we and many others believed that was the case we might have drawn the conclusion in part due to of her association with and Malama Kaua`i and Keone Kealoha. Ms Brower says she in fact did not support Kawakami. In addition the piece as a whole might have been read to intimate that Brower was malahini. She was born and raised on Kaua`i and in no way was the characterization meant to apply to her.
Monday, November 17, 2008
A HOLE IS NOT TO DIG
A HOLE IS NOT TO DIG: One of the results of the defeat of JoAnn Yukimura in the mayoral election is that the idea of a garbage-to-electricity incinerator remains on the table at least as far as the administration of Mayor-Elect Bernard Carvalho is concerned.
But whether that sits well with the new county council- who will make the final decision- is up for grabs.
The council still hasn’t signed off on the R.W,. Beck study that recommends a waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerator-as we discussed in June- but that hasn’t stopped Carvalho from declaring “we have a plan and we need to follow it”.
The Beck report doesn’t make clear how the competing schemes it now contains will work. Originally the plan called for the incinerator only. But the council asked Beck to go back and include a plan for a massive recycling effort including curbside pickup and moreover a “MERF”- Materials Recovery Facility- where the whole trash stream goes through a sorting process to remove the recyclable and reusable materials.
The problem is that it really is a one or the other situation especially because it’s doubtful the waste stream on Kaua`i is really big enough to support a “waste- to energy” facility even with the whole trash stream, including recyclables.
It especially doesn’t make economic sense when viewed with an eye toward “economies of scale”. Unlike say, Honolulu we just don’t create enough trash to make the costly pollution spewing facility work here- and even more so after ¾ of the stream is taken out for recycling and reuse..
Those issues are unaddressed in Walter Lewis’ column in the local paper this Saturday which attempts to start fabricating the bandwagon leading to an incinerator.
He couches the issue of the facility as one of that “would result in significantly lower electric rates on Kaua`i.” but ignores the cost of the facility itself and how we would feed the beast.
And in today’s paper is a letter from another Princeville resident seemingly ready to jump aboard Lewis’ bandwagon- destination: Fool’s Paradise.
Well who can blame them? Because it’s doubtful that Princeville is on the list of possible sites for the plant. Which raises the question of just where would this monstrosity- which has a price tag some have estimated at more than $125 million- be situated?
Given the fact that Kaua`i county has been trying to find a place for a new landfill for the last 20 years without success the real question is whether there is going to be one community saying “give us the dump” and another town that will “accept” an incinerator- even if we start paying them off like we’re doing in Kekaha, as we discussed last month.
The article in last Friday’s newspaper hardly did justice to the breadth of the issue in covering last week’s contentious council meeting regarding the $650,000 bribe to Kekaha to get them to stop complaining about the dump that’s being expanded there
Although it pointed out how the county and the community had apparently settled their differences over the county trying to control the process for deciding how to spend the money, what it left out was the fact that the $.65 million was a low-ball figure according to outgoing Councilmember Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho.
“We originally wanted to start at a million” and that wasn’t even “nearly enough” she told those gathered for last week’s council meeting saying a million dollars was a low-end figure that the council had asked be included in the mayor’s budget. But when the Baptiste administration only offered $100,000 she said the $650,000 figure was “a compromise... for now”.
She said the payment is just a start and only for this year. She said it didn’t make up for 50 years of “putting up with” the landfill nor did it pay for “inconveniences” over the next who-knows-how-many years until a new dump is opened and the Kekaha one goes through the 30-year EPA mandated process of closing a landfill.
And of course this is just for a dump that already exists. The real question is how much “hush” money taxpayers are going to have to come up with to get a community to put a new one in their midst and what the yearly payments for that one will be.
And of course the same can be said about an even more disgusting incinerator because although trucks rumble up to each one, the rubbish stays in one place with a dump while an incinerator spews poisons all over the place.... and yes, even the new “EPA approved” WTE incinerators do that.
How many millions- or perhaps tens of millions- are we talking about? And for how many years? And in how many places?... once the trend starts what other types of facilities like power plants – or even windmills or solar farms- will require pay-offs.
The issue of payments aside and concentrating just on the cost, the whole WTE idea makes little sense. Our only hope might be something Carvalho- in his inimitable “I’ll lead the people by doing whatever they say they want me to do” way- said during the statewide TV debate.
“Maybe we’ll even ship it out” he told viewers when challenged as to the whole landfill siting, recycling waste-to-energy/incinerator debate.. right after he committed to the WTE in the Beck “plan”.
And although he was grasping at political straws, even a broken clock is right twice a day and Carvalho verbally stumbled onto the only sensible cost effective way there is to deal with our waste as we detailed last June.
Using a Zero-Waste program’s principles we can require curb-side recycling, set up a MERF to separate the rest and ship the last small amount- estimated to be a high of 30% but a low of less than 10% of our waste stream- and ship it to any one of a number of landfills in the mainland-northwest that are ready, willing, able and in fact eager to take it off our hands.... all at a comparable cost to what we are paying today
For a small island to ship-in virtually all of it’s consumer goods and then, when we’re done with them, bury them in the ground is insanity and unsustainable.
Though there is a line of thought that sending a community’s trash to a far away place is ecologically irresponsible- as former Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura has stated- that is a concept that might be appropriate where regional landfills are widely available and goods are grown and manufactured nearby, not on an island that imports all it’s “stuff” from 2000 miles away..
To throw that stuff in a hole in the ground makes the least ecological sense of all.
“Ship it in-ship it out” has got to be our garbage future. And apparently if we all demand it, the broken-clock-born program will be instituted before the one that’s ticking on our solid waste crisis strikes midnight and we’re overrun by mice and rotten pumpkins.
But whether that sits well with the new county council- who will make the final decision- is up for grabs.
The council still hasn’t signed off on the R.W,. Beck study that recommends a waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerator-as we discussed in June- but that hasn’t stopped Carvalho from declaring “we have a plan and we need to follow it”.
The Beck report doesn’t make clear how the competing schemes it now contains will work. Originally the plan called for the incinerator only. But the council asked Beck to go back and include a plan for a massive recycling effort including curbside pickup and moreover a “MERF”- Materials Recovery Facility- where the whole trash stream goes through a sorting process to remove the recyclable and reusable materials.
The problem is that it really is a one or the other situation especially because it’s doubtful the waste stream on Kaua`i is really big enough to support a “waste- to energy” facility even with the whole trash stream, including recyclables.
It especially doesn’t make economic sense when viewed with an eye toward “economies of scale”. Unlike say, Honolulu we just don’t create enough trash to make the costly pollution spewing facility work here- and even more so after ¾ of the stream is taken out for recycling and reuse..
Those issues are unaddressed in Walter Lewis’ column in the local paper this Saturday which attempts to start fabricating the bandwagon leading to an incinerator.
He couches the issue of the facility as one of that “would result in significantly lower electric rates on Kaua`i.” but ignores the cost of the facility itself and how we would feed the beast.
And in today’s paper is a letter from another Princeville resident seemingly ready to jump aboard Lewis’ bandwagon- destination: Fool’s Paradise.
Well who can blame them? Because it’s doubtful that Princeville is on the list of possible sites for the plant. Which raises the question of just where would this monstrosity- which has a price tag some have estimated at more than $125 million- be situated?
Given the fact that Kaua`i county has been trying to find a place for a new landfill for the last 20 years without success the real question is whether there is going to be one community saying “give us the dump” and another town that will “accept” an incinerator- even if we start paying them off like we’re doing in Kekaha, as we discussed last month.
The article in last Friday’s newspaper hardly did justice to the breadth of the issue in covering last week’s contentious council meeting regarding the $650,000 bribe to Kekaha to get them to stop complaining about the dump that’s being expanded there
Although it pointed out how the county and the community had apparently settled their differences over the county trying to control the process for deciding how to spend the money, what it left out was the fact that the $.65 million was a low-ball figure according to outgoing Councilmember Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho.
“We originally wanted to start at a million” and that wasn’t even “nearly enough” she told those gathered for last week’s council meeting saying a million dollars was a low-end figure that the council had asked be included in the mayor’s budget. But when the Baptiste administration only offered $100,000 she said the $650,000 figure was “a compromise... for now”.
She said the payment is just a start and only for this year. She said it didn’t make up for 50 years of “putting up with” the landfill nor did it pay for “inconveniences” over the next who-knows-how-many years until a new dump is opened and the Kekaha one goes through the 30-year EPA mandated process of closing a landfill.
And of course this is just for a dump that already exists. The real question is how much “hush” money taxpayers are going to have to come up with to get a community to put a new one in their midst and what the yearly payments for that one will be.
And of course the same can be said about an even more disgusting incinerator because although trucks rumble up to each one, the rubbish stays in one place with a dump while an incinerator spews poisons all over the place.... and yes, even the new “EPA approved” WTE incinerators do that.
How many millions- or perhaps tens of millions- are we talking about? And for how many years? And in how many places?... once the trend starts what other types of facilities like power plants – or even windmills or solar farms- will require pay-offs.
The issue of payments aside and concentrating just on the cost, the whole WTE idea makes little sense. Our only hope might be something Carvalho- in his inimitable “I’ll lead the people by doing whatever they say they want me to do” way- said during the statewide TV debate.
“Maybe we’ll even ship it out” he told viewers when challenged as to the whole landfill siting, recycling waste-to-energy/incinerator debate.. right after he committed to the WTE in the Beck “plan”.
And although he was grasping at political straws, even a broken clock is right twice a day and Carvalho verbally stumbled onto the only sensible cost effective way there is to deal with our waste as we detailed last June.
Using a Zero-Waste program’s principles we can require curb-side recycling, set up a MERF to separate the rest and ship the last small amount- estimated to be a high of 30% but a low of less than 10% of our waste stream- and ship it to any one of a number of landfills in the mainland-northwest that are ready, willing, able and in fact eager to take it off our hands.... all at a comparable cost to what we are paying today
For a small island to ship-in virtually all of it’s consumer goods and then, when we’re done with them, bury them in the ground is insanity and unsustainable.
Though there is a line of thought that sending a community’s trash to a far away place is ecologically irresponsible- as former Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura has stated- that is a concept that might be appropriate where regional landfills are widely available and goods are grown and manufactured nearby, not on an island that imports all it’s “stuff” from 2000 miles away..
To throw that stuff in a hole in the ground makes the least ecological sense of all.
“Ship it in-ship it out” has got to be our garbage future. And apparently if we all demand it, the broken-clock-born program will be instituted before the one that’s ticking on our solid waste crisis strikes midnight and we’re overrun by mice and rotten pumpkins.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
NEW LEADER, NEW PACK?:
NEW LEADER, NEW PACK?: One of the most contentious issues among the electorate if not the candidates during the election to replace the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste was the fate of the many department heads.
Charges of everything from total incompetence to crony-based malfeasance have been leveled against almost every one of the appointees some of whom have served two Republican administrations for up to 14 years
But in an article in today’s Honolulu Advertiser Democratic Mayor-elect Bernard Carvalho indicates he well may keep many of those under fire.
According to Diana Leone’s report
Carvalho won't announce any of his Cabinet members until he has the whole roster worked out, he said. He would only say that his appointees will include current county officials and newcomers.
"We don't want to burn bridges," Carvalho said of his decision to talk with each person who wants to stay on, instead of using the traditional group resignation to make way for a new mayor.
That indicates that those hoping for checks and balances to effectuate change when department head “confirmations” come up before the council may be in for a disappointment.
The article states that
Among the appointments will be an administrative assistant, who on Kaua`i functions as the deputy mayor; directors of the departments of finance, parks, and public works; the county attorney; and leaders of the economic development, housing, elderly affairs, transportation and public information offices.
The police and fire chiefs, and planning and emergency management directors are appointed by citizen commissions. As mayor, Carvalho eventually will get a chance to make appointments to those commissions, but only as vacancies comes up.
But here’s what the Charter says about whether the terms of department heads end with the swearing in of a new mayor
Section 6.04. Appointment and Removal of Officers and Employees.
A) The administrative assistant to the mayor and all department heads shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, except as otherwise provided by this charter.
Though it might appear ambiguous it does say they are appointed by THE mayor, not a past one. But the reality is that the council has absolutely no say over these department heads... with one exception.
According to Section 8.02.
The county attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, with the approval of the council.
With that exception all department heads- whether created by Charter or by a vote of five members of the council- are appointed by the mayor or an overseeing board or commission with no say by the council.
Just for future reference this is the list of Charter created departments and the way their heads are selected.
Section 10.02. Appointment and Removal of Director or Finance. The director of finance shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor.
Section 11.04. Chief of Police. The chief of police shall be appointed by the police commission.
Section 12.02. Fire Chief. The fire chief shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor. (note- though this appears in the on-line version of the charter at the county web-site it has been replaced by a Fire commission which appoints the chief in a charter change made in the 2006 election)
Section 13.02. County Engineer. The county engineer shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor.
Section 14.04 (Planning) Director. The planning director shall be appointed and may be removed by the (planning) commission.
Section 15.04. Director of Personnel Services. The director of personnel services... shall be appointed and may be removed by the (civil service) commission.
Section 16.05 (Liquor Control Commission).Director. The director shall be appointed and may be removed by the liquor control commission.
Section 17.04. (Water Board) Staff. The board shall appoint an engineer duly registered under Hawaii State laws pertaining to registration of engineers. He shall be known as the manager and chief engineer and shall be the head of the department.
Section 18.01. Civil Defense Agency. There shall be a civil defense agency whose powers, duties, functions and organization shall be as provided by law.
(note: The head of the Department of Parks and Recreation is also a charter created post but is also has not been added at the county web-site since it’s 2006 approval by voters but we believe, from memory, it is not an appointment subject to council approval)
Unfortunately, unlike almost every other jurisdiction in the county- and every one in the state- the laws of Kaua`i expressed in the County Code are not available on-line so it is difficult to establish which of the non charter-created agency heads might be subject to council approval, if any.- if memory serves there are none.
Assuming the answer is zero with the exception of the county attorney it seems that for all practical (if not political) purposes it doesn’t really matter whether Carvalho “keeps” department heads or reappoints those over whom he has to power of appointment.
Many wonder why the Kaua`i system of governance is referred to as a “strong mayor” system by many and this is one reason- the council has little or no power over the people who run the county,
The other is this short little ditty from the end of the county council charter section
Section 3.18. Restrictions on County Council and Council members. The council and its members shall not interfere with the administrative processes delegated to the mayor.
Except for the purpose of investigative inquiries under Section 3.17, the council or its members, in dealing with county employees, or with county officers who are subjected to the direction and supervision of the mayor, shall deal solely through the mayor. and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such employee or officer either publicly or privately.
The upshot is that the council is expected to appropriate money and enact the laws to run the county but has zero access to accurate information on the essential “how’s that going” questions.
And they have little or no recourse should they not get it.
The council essentially doles out cash and passes laws defining what administration personnel are supposed to do in a complete vacuum. They have to “request” the very appearance of a department head cannot even require that they tell the truth in their testimony.
This leads to citizen cries for fiscal responsibility on the part of the council without them having any tools to hold the administration personnel accountable for what they do with the money except on a voluntary basis
The council can of course launch a full fledged “investigation” where they can quasi-judicially swear in witnesses and compel accurate testimony
But an investigation is a high cost, time-consuming and unwieldy process that has never been used despite calls for a public works department investigation from citizens and even some councilmembers.
This has all led many to call for a new structure whereby a “county manager” would be hired by the council and the job of mayor would become strictly ceremonial.
But if the problems of a “strong mayor” system is in the lack of a balance- as in the term “checks and balances”- it seems the same might be said of an even “strong(er) council” system.
A more sensible approach might be to revise these two areas of the charter making all appointments of department and agency heads subject to council approval and allowing the council to initiate removal processes rather than waiting for the mayor to do so..
The second step would be to allow the council to compel the appearance of department heads to appear before them and designate their testimony to be subject to perjury-like charges of lying to the council.
The current set up isn’t working and the reason can be put squarely on the “strong mayor, weak council” system set up in our charter.
Some worry about a similar lack of balance in the new “strong council, weak mayor” system specifically detailed in the county manager proposal put before the charter commission by commissioner Walter Bryant this year.
It might be about time we actually take the time and energy to deconstruct the nuts and bolts of what is hanging up the machinery of county government and change the cogs enough to get this contraption running smoothly.
Charges of everything from total incompetence to crony-based malfeasance have been leveled against almost every one of the appointees some of whom have served two Republican administrations for up to 14 years
But in an article in today’s Honolulu Advertiser Democratic Mayor-elect Bernard Carvalho indicates he well may keep many of those under fire.
According to Diana Leone’s report
Carvalho won't announce any of his Cabinet members until he has the whole roster worked out, he said. He would only say that his appointees will include current county officials and newcomers.
"We don't want to burn bridges," Carvalho said of his decision to talk with each person who wants to stay on, instead of using the traditional group resignation to make way for a new mayor.
That indicates that those hoping for checks and balances to effectuate change when department head “confirmations” come up before the council may be in for a disappointment.
The article states that
Among the appointments will be an administrative assistant, who on Kaua`i functions as the deputy mayor; directors of the departments of finance, parks, and public works; the county attorney; and leaders of the economic development, housing, elderly affairs, transportation and public information offices.
The police and fire chiefs, and planning and emergency management directors are appointed by citizen commissions. As mayor, Carvalho eventually will get a chance to make appointments to those commissions, but only as vacancies comes up.
But here’s what the Charter says about whether the terms of department heads end with the swearing in of a new mayor
Section 6.04. Appointment and Removal of Officers and Employees.
A) The administrative assistant to the mayor and all department heads shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, except as otherwise provided by this charter.
Though it might appear ambiguous it does say they are appointed by THE mayor, not a past one. But the reality is that the council has absolutely no say over these department heads... with one exception.
According to Section 8.02.
The county attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, with the approval of the council.
With that exception all department heads- whether created by Charter or by a vote of five members of the council- are appointed by the mayor or an overseeing board or commission with no say by the council.
Just for future reference this is the list of Charter created departments and the way their heads are selected.
Section 10.02. Appointment and Removal of Director or Finance. The director of finance shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor.
Section 11.04. Chief of Police. The chief of police shall be appointed by the police commission.
Section 12.02. Fire Chief. The fire chief shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor. (note- though this appears in the on-line version of the charter at the county web-site it has been replaced by a Fire commission which appoints the chief in a charter change made in the 2006 election)
Section 13.02. County Engineer. The county engineer shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor.
Section 14.04 (Planning) Director. The planning director shall be appointed and may be removed by the (planning) commission.
Section 15.04. Director of Personnel Services. The director of personnel services... shall be appointed and may be removed by the (civil service) commission.
Section 16.05 (Liquor Control Commission).Director. The director shall be appointed and may be removed by the liquor control commission.
Section 17.04. (Water Board) Staff. The board shall appoint an engineer duly registered under Hawaii State laws pertaining to registration of engineers. He shall be known as the manager and chief engineer and shall be the head of the department.
Section 18.01. Civil Defense Agency. There shall be a civil defense agency whose powers, duties, functions and organization shall be as provided by law.
(note: The head of the Department of Parks and Recreation is also a charter created post but is also has not been added at the county web-site since it’s 2006 approval by voters but we believe, from memory, it is not an appointment subject to council approval)
Unfortunately, unlike almost every other jurisdiction in the county- and every one in the state- the laws of Kaua`i expressed in the County Code are not available on-line so it is difficult to establish which of the non charter-created agency heads might be subject to council approval, if any.- if memory serves there are none.
Assuming the answer is zero with the exception of the county attorney it seems that for all practical (if not political) purposes it doesn’t really matter whether Carvalho “keeps” department heads or reappoints those over whom he has to power of appointment.
Many wonder why the Kaua`i system of governance is referred to as a “strong mayor” system by many and this is one reason- the council has little or no power over the people who run the county,
The other is this short little ditty from the end of the county council charter section
Section 3.18. Restrictions on County Council and Council members. The council and its members shall not interfere with the administrative processes delegated to the mayor.
Except for the purpose of investigative inquiries under Section 3.17, the council or its members, in dealing with county employees, or with county officers who are subjected to the direction and supervision of the mayor, shall deal solely through the mayor. and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such employee or officer either publicly or privately.
The upshot is that the council is expected to appropriate money and enact the laws to run the county but has zero access to accurate information on the essential “how’s that going” questions.
And they have little or no recourse should they not get it.
The council essentially doles out cash and passes laws defining what administration personnel are supposed to do in a complete vacuum. They have to “request” the very appearance of a department head cannot even require that they tell the truth in their testimony.
This leads to citizen cries for fiscal responsibility on the part of the council without them having any tools to hold the administration personnel accountable for what they do with the money except on a voluntary basis
The council can of course launch a full fledged “investigation” where they can quasi-judicially swear in witnesses and compel accurate testimony
But an investigation is a high cost, time-consuming and unwieldy process that has never been used despite calls for a public works department investigation from citizens and even some councilmembers.
This has all led many to call for a new structure whereby a “county manager” would be hired by the council and the job of mayor would become strictly ceremonial.
But if the problems of a “strong mayor” system is in the lack of a balance- as in the term “checks and balances”- it seems the same might be said of an even “strong(er) council” system.
A more sensible approach might be to revise these two areas of the charter making all appointments of department and agency heads subject to council approval and allowing the council to initiate removal processes rather than waiting for the mayor to do so..
The second step would be to allow the council to compel the appearance of department heads to appear before them and designate their testimony to be subject to perjury-like charges of lying to the council.
The current set up isn’t working and the reason can be put squarely on the “strong mayor, weak council” system set up in our charter.
Some worry about a similar lack of balance in the new “strong council, weak mayor” system specifically detailed in the county manager proposal put before the charter commission by commissioner Walter Bryant this year.
It might be about time we actually take the time and energy to deconstruct the nuts and bolts of what is hanging up the machinery of county government and change the cogs enough to get this contraption running smoothly.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
WE’RE READY FOR OUR CLOSE-UP, MRS. DEVILLE
WE’RE READY FOR OUR CLOSE-UP, MRS. DEVILLE: Although the Honolulu Advertiser’s headline blares Election officials ready for 100% turnout it seems that the turnout today won’t effect the election on Kaua`i as much as that of those who voted early.
A whopping 11, 032 people had already voted before the polls opened today, a figure that could be 50% of the votes.
The last comparable November mayoral election on Kaua`i would have to be the 2002 election where the total vote in the mayor’s race was only about 23,000. That year the number of registered voters was only about a thousand less than this year.
That could mean that, unlike in the past when catch-ups and fall-outs were common between the first “printout”- comprised of the early voters and sometimes those who voted before noon- and the final tally, the first release tonight might not be changing much.
The eighth place council candidate after the first tally in the past has “made up” as many as 500 votes when the results were final. But expect anything more than a 200 vote margin for seventh place contender to be insurmountable
It’s anyone’s guess whether the latest of the dozens of screw-up by “King” Kevin Cronin and his state Elections Office will invalidate a stack of the mail-in ballots.
Honolulu Advertiser correspondent and blogger Derrick DePledge tells us today that
Staff at the state Office of Elections believe they have found the reason for the unusually high number of over votes on absentee mail ballots during the September primary in the (Honolulu) mayor’s race.
The Office of Elections rejected 1,599 absentee mail ballots because of overvotes — 3.1 percent of the total — by far the highest for any race.
Kevin Cronin, the state’s chief elections officer, said staff believe that most of the overvotes were caused by the way the ballots were folded. Cronin said the folds — made either when ballots were mailed out or when they were returned by voters — left creases that optical-scan voting machines read as votes for minor candidates Paul Manner and George Nitta.
The creases also created a high number of overvotes in the District 3 state Board of Education race.
“We are approximately 95 percent certain that this is what created the overvotes in the absentee mail ballots,” Cronin said this afternoon.
Although there were no apparent anomalies on Kaua`i in the primaries in terms of overvotes it might be something to look for tonight when the results are released.
It’s just another nail in the coffin for Cronin’s all-the-bells-and-whistles $41 million contract with HartIntercivic that was voided and will have to be re-bid next year.
The question of who is going to bid against them might be a factor when the next system is procured because we’ve learned that their chief competitor ES&S is reportedly closing their office in Honolulu.
And in another one from the “bet you’re gonna vote this time, hippie” file, in following-up on our thoughts yesterday on the voter suppression, vote flipping and the rest of the ubiquitous fraud we realized that it’s all actually doing wonders for the “get out the vote” efforts for Obama.
Normally there’s a self limiting factor in landslides- if people listen to polls and think the vote is a foregone conclusion many don’t bother to vote.
But since people have heard about all the fraud- including a dozen people who pointed out to us yesterday’s Democracy Now! revelations, as summarized well at KauaiEclectic today- the question on voters’ minds is, will the fraud be overwhelmed by a wide enough margin for Obama to win?
A friend in Germany sent us a Spiegel article this morning about a team of German observers in Florida and apparently the Germans are even more outraged about all this than we are.
He translated and paraphrased it this way
European election observers (in Fr. Lauderdale, Fla.) are surprised and complain about that they only allowed to visit one polling place. That this particular polling place was pre-selected by Government Officials. ... this is unacceptable..... to tell election observers which polling place they have to visit and which polling places are not / off limits .... specially in Florida (as we all remember) had in 2000 some irregularities.... we (the election observers) have had expected more sensibility... said Rep. Meinhardt (Member of House of Rep. in Germany)...
And, if you’ve been living in a cave and woke up today trying to find out who was running in the special mayor’s race to replace Bryan Baptiste, you’d know there was an election but wouldn’t know who was running by reading today’s edition of our local Kaua`i rag.
Though it’s chocked full of numbers and the names of everyone else running for office on Kaua`i the article fails to mention the names Bernard Carvalho and JoAnn Yukimura.
Well it could be worse- yesterday there wasn’t an article about the election at all.
Nor has there been a mention much less coverage in the alleged newspaper about the fraudulent nature of the six Charter Amendment amendments on the ballot on Kaua`i.
First off. they were unnumbered on the ballot causing communication between voters regarding the virtues of any particular amendment almost impossible.
Then the inclusion of the entire amendment for the citizen’s General Plan proposal was a sure fire voter suppression measure.
And two of the questions were intentionally worded to give the impression the measure would do the exact opposite of what was described in the question.
Yet as dismal as the actions of the newspaper, the county clerk, the county attorney and the charter commission was the lack of action by the citizens of Kaua`i who declined to file suit before the election... insuring that the fraudulent results will no doubt stand.
All in all it’s been a disappointing election year with few worthy candidates and even fewer seemingly informed voters... par for the course these days in what is billed on CNN as “election result courtesy of Exxon-Mobile.”
We’ll be gagging down and digesting the local results with Lani Kawahara tonight at HawaiiLink, right behind Hamura’s. Join us and celebrate the one bright spot in the Kaua`i election.
A whopping 11, 032 people had already voted before the polls opened today, a figure that could be 50% of the votes.
The last comparable November mayoral election on Kaua`i would have to be the 2002 election where the total vote in the mayor’s race was only about 23,000. That year the number of registered voters was only about a thousand less than this year.
That could mean that, unlike in the past when catch-ups and fall-outs were common between the first “printout”- comprised of the early voters and sometimes those who voted before noon- and the final tally, the first release tonight might not be changing much.
The eighth place council candidate after the first tally in the past has “made up” as many as 500 votes when the results were final. But expect anything more than a 200 vote margin for seventh place contender to be insurmountable
It’s anyone’s guess whether the latest of the dozens of screw-up by “King” Kevin Cronin and his state Elections Office will invalidate a stack of the mail-in ballots.
Honolulu Advertiser correspondent and blogger Derrick DePledge tells us today that
Staff at the state Office of Elections believe they have found the reason for the unusually high number of over votes on absentee mail ballots during the September primary in the (Honolulu) mayor’s race.
The Office of Elections rejected 1,599 absentee mail ballots because of overvotes — 3.1 percent of the total — by far the highest for any race.
Kevin Cronin, the state’s chief elections officer, said staff believe that most of the overvotes were caused by the way the ballots were folded. Cronin said the folds — made either when ballots were mailed out or when they were returned by voters — left creases that optical-scan voting machines read as votes for minor candidates Paul Manner and George Nitta.
The creases also created a high number of overvotes in the District 3 state Board of Education race.
“We are approximately 95 percent certain that this is what created the overvotes in the absentee mail ballots,” Cronin said this afternoon.
Although there were no apparent anomalies on Kaua`i in the primaries in terms of overvotes it might be something to look for tonight when the results are released.
It’s just another nail in the coffin for Cronin’s all-the-bells-and-whistles $41 million contract with HartIntercivic that was voided and will have to be re-bid next year.
The question of who is going to bid against them might be a factor when the next system is procured because we’ve learned that their chief competitor ES&S is reportedly closing their office in Honolulu.
And in another one from the “bet you’re gonna vote this time, hippie” file, in following-up on our thoughts yesterday on the voter suppression, vote flipping and the rest of the ubiquitous fraud we realized that it’s all actually doing wonders for the “get out the vote” efforts for Obama.
Normally there’s a self limiting factor in landslides- if people listen to polls and think the vote is a foregone conclusion many don’t bother to vote.
But since people have heard about all the fraud- including a dozen people who pointed out to us yesterday’s Democracy Now! revelations, as summarized well at KauaiEclectic today- the question on voters’ minds is, will the fraud be overwhelmed by a wide enough margin for Obama to win?
A friend in Germany sent us a Spiegel article this morning about a team of German observers in Florida and apparently the Germans are even more outraged about all this than we are.
He translated and paraphrased it this way
European election observers (in Fr. Lauderdale, Fla.) are surprised and complain about that they only allowed to visit one polling place. That this particular polling place was pre-selected by Government Officials. ... this is unacceptable..... to tell election observers which polling place they have to visit and which polling places are not / off limits .... specially in Florida (as we all remember) had in 2000 some irregularities.... we (the election observers) have had expected more sensibility... said Rep. Meinhardt (Member of House of Rep. in Germany)...
And, if you’ve been living in a cave and woke up today trying to find out who was running in the special mayor’s race to replace Bryan Baptiste, you’d know there was an election but wouldn’t know who was running by reading today’s edition of our local Kaua`i rag.
Though it’s chocked full of numbers and the names of everyone else running for office on Kaua`i the article fails to mention the names Bernard Carvalho and JoAnn Yukimura.
Well it could be worse- yesterday there wasn’t an article about the election at all.
Nor has there been a mention much less coverage in the alleged newspaper about the fraudulent nature of the six Charter Amendment amendments on the ballot on Kaua`i.
First off. they were unnumbered on the ballot causing communication between voters regarding the virtues of any particular amendment almost impossible.
Then the inclusion of the entire amendment for the citizen’s General Plan proposal was a sure fire voter suppression measure.
And two of the questions were intentionally worded to give the impression the measure would do the exact opposite of what was described in the question.
Yet as dismal as the actions of the newspaper, the county clerk, the county attorney and the charter commission was the lack of action by the citizens of Kaua`i who declined to file suit before the election... insuring that the fraudulent results will no doubt stand.
All in all it’s been a disappointing election year with few worthy candidates and even fewer seemingly informed voters... par for the course these days in what is billed on CNN as “election result courtesy of Exxon-Mobile.”
We’ll be gagging down and digesting the local results with Lani Kawahara tonight at HawaiiLink, right behind Hamura’s. Join us and celebrate the one bright spot in the Kaua`i election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
