YOUR WRONG TO VOTE: Age has benefits. The "been there done that" factor can halve research time.
Unfortunately when combined with an inevitable senior moment it can lead to misinformation. That's what led us to wrongly tell our readers that the race for prosecuting attorney would be decided on August 11 because only two people are running and one, by definition, is bound to get "50% plus 1."
That's how it has been in every election for prosecuting attorney (PA) on Kaua`i. But now for the first time a charter amendment that was passed by voters in 2008 will take effect for the PA election. And of course, being Kaua`i, it is required that something about it be absurd so the provision essentially says that even though there are only two candidates they will appear on "the first nonpartisan election" ballot for no particular reason other than that is the way the provision was written.
The impetus for the amendment was the 2006 election where, in what is commonly called the "primary" election, then-Mayor Bryan Baptiste ran for reelection and got 50% plus exactly four votes, beating out four opponents in what turned out to be the closest election in Kaua`i history.
It's understandable that with five candidates people just didn't show up for the primaries thinking no one would get the "50% plus 1" needed to be elected outright, without the top two going on to the November election.
They felt cheated when Baptiste got 8,173 votes and chief challenger, former Councilmember Jesse Fukushima came in with 4,725 votes, because when the other three- John Hoff, Bruce Pleas and Janee Taylor- got 1,984, 1,083 and 377 respectively it added up to 8169 votes for the others... four votes shy of the amount that would have prompted a November showdown between Baptiste and Fukushima.
It seemed like a no-brainer- change the charter so that no matter what the vote totals were,d the top two finishers in the primary would meet in November.
So the attorneys (some hired specifically to make sure the amendment did what the charter review commission wanted it to do) worded the amendment this way:
Article I The County And Its Government
Section 1.03. County Elections.
(C)1. Offices of the Mayor, Prosecuting Attorney and Council members to be elected by districts, if any. In the case of the offices of mayor, prosecuting attorney, or any council members to be elected by districts, the names of the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes for these offices in the first nonpartisan election shall be placed on the ballot for the second nonpartisan election. However, if there is only one candidate for each of said offices, such candidate shall be elected. (Amended 2008)
There's one problem with that. It works fine when there are three or more candidates because no matter what "the names of the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes" go on to November.
But the current charter failed to recognize what would happen if there are only two candidates. There are two choices on what the new law could and should do in that case. It could declare that the election- the one that actually elects the candidate- be held during "the first nonpartisan election," unless there is an actual tie- exactly 50% for each in which case they'd go on to November. Or the names could be left off the "primary" ballot- since it's just a waste of paper and ink since it won't determine anything anyway- and let the actual election to be held in November.
But, this being Kaua`i, a third choice was selected and now, for no particular reason, the two candidates for PA- incumbent Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho and challenger Deputy County Attorney Justin Kollar- will appear on the ballot in both August and September.
Which means that there are no meaningful Kaua`i-only, non-partisan races whatsoever on the ballot in August. Although there are partisan Democratic primary elections for US senate and house of representatives, the races for council and prosecuting attorney will appear on the ballot even though the results are moot and all will go on to November.
The same will be true for any future mayoral election and for council races if districting is ever implemented.
Kaua`i has always been "A Separate Kingdom" and, when it comes to writing our laws, a separate reality too.
Showing posts with label Charter amendments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charter amendments. Show all posts
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
DRIVING MR. CRAZY
DRIVING MR. CRAZY: It's been almost a dozen years since the first in a line of Kaua`i county attorneys began a new interpretation regarding just exactly whom they serve.
And it's been almost a dozen years that we've been waiting for a Kaua`i County Charter amendment that would put some kind of "public component" back into the job.
But even though a proposed charter amendment is in the pipeline it appears it's only going to make things worse.
Of course that is predictable considering the source.
Councilperson Mel Rapozo can always be counted upon to make muddy political waters even murkier. This time he's outdone himself with a pair of Resolutions, #'s 2012-22 and 2012-23 (neither of which is apparently available on-line), that, rather than put the Office of the County Attorney (CA) as far outside the reach of politics as is possible in county government, will insure that petty disagreements between future councils and administrations grow to Hatfield and McCoy proportions.
The first, Resolution 2012-22 is not actually directly related to the county attorney. But it is a result of the original event that begat the short-circuiting smoke currently emanating from the ears adjacent to Rapozo's decidedly less-than-legal mind.
The "reso" stems from Mel's head-scratching and seemingly meaningless obsession over last year's "late" salary commission (SC) proposal. It spawned a CA opinion that explained what "shall" meant in the context of the SC section of the charter, saying it was "administrative" rather than "directional" and citing some judicial rulings to that affect.
It basically said "give it a rest Mel."
But them's fightin' words to the Baboozster.
Rapozo decided to go to circuit court for a "ruling" but Judge Randall Valenciano essentially said the same thing as the CA had said. So now Mel has decided to take his obsession to the voters and, in Resolution 2012-22 he proposes to put the matter before the voters.
The rest of the council seems less than enthusiastic and at the second and potentially final reading last Wednesday they deferred the measure "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To Definitions Of 'Shall', 'Must', And 'May.'"
Oh joy... we can hardly wait to see how those terms will be defined in the "Mel Rapozo Legal Dictionary." We wouldn't want to depend on Black's when we can get it straight from the horse's read end.
But Mel wasn't done. After proposing to redefine legal terms with a Rapozian slant, he's decided that it was the dastardly-brilliant legal mind of Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. that concocted well-known Philadelphia Lawyer, CA Al Castillo's opinion on the matter.
As a result of Mel's fixation he came up with "Resolution No. 2012-23 "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To The Establishment Of The Office Of The Council Attorney" which would apparently divide the CA's office in two giving both the administration and the council their own independent county attorneys.
The pertinent parts of the current charter under "Article VIII- County Attorney" say:
Section 8.02. Appointment and Removal. The county attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, with the approval of the council....
Section 8.04. Powers, Duties and Functions. The county attorney shall be the chief legal adviser and legal representative of all agencies, including the council, and of all officers and employees in matters relating to their official powers and duties, and he shall represent the county in all legal proceedings. He shall perform all other services incident to his office as may be required by law.
But perhaps because he operates like them, Rapozo sees a political ghostie and ghoulie behind every door of the county's administrative offices and wants to enshrine his suspicions about Castillo's "opinions" by altering the county's overriding legal document, the charter, in his own image.
To understand how things got to this point- other than by simply saying "Mel got elected"- we need to go back to the history and evolution of the the functioning of the CA's office.
In 2001, then-newly-elected Mayor Bryan Baptiste hired current county "good-old-girl" Lani Nakazawa to her first-of-many positions with the county. She succeeded former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka's CA, Hartwell Blake, who rarely opined on anything other than how comfortable he was spending most of his years in the job sleeping under the air conditioner in the back of the council chambers.
Although the charter section on the CA is silent on anything relating to serving the public, before Nakazawa took office, CA's generally thought of the job as one that, while advising county administrative personnel as well as the council, publicly opined on questions of law regarding the county's charter, ordinances and administrative rules and routinely released those opinions to the public. .
He- yes of course they had all been "he's"- did it as part of what they saw as an implied "public component" of the CA's job.
When the 2006 Charter Review Commission (CRC) had its first confab one appointee was the former CA under then-Mayor JoAnn Yukimura, Michael Belles.
We attended that first meeting of the panel which was comprised of many surprisingly open-to-change appointees. In addition to testifying about our own experiences with shortcomings of the charter, we spoke to Belles during a break.
He asked what the one item was that we would most like see tackled. Our answer was "a total reorganization of all of Article VIII: County Attorney" especially parts regarding the "Appointment and Removal" and "Powers, Duties and Functions," excerpted above.
We explained the problems under Nakazawa which had included the fact that her strict reading of the section meant that she saw no public element to her job serving only county employees and officials- and never releasing any opinions unless her "clients" released them.
We even suggested that the CA become an elected position, thereby solving many of the problems created by conflicts between the mayor and council- or any two county entities for that matter.
Belles was surprised at the turn of events since his time as CA and said that during his tenure he would have "never imagined" that there was no "public component" to the job. As a matter of fact, he told us, he couldn't remember ever not releasing any of his or his offices opinion's of law.
A proposed amendment regarding the Office of the County Attorney's (OCA) never made it on any CRC list- it wasn't exactly a sexy issue and probably way too "inside baseball" for the public and maybe even the CRC. It wasn't even on commission members' radar screens.
They eventually put around a dozen-and-a-half amendments before the voters after narrowing it down from more than 30 original proposals so as to make citizen deliberation and decision-making manageable at election time.
But nothing on the OCA.
Ever since Nakazawa's reign, every county attorney has refused to release to the public opinions regarding interpretation of laws, especially those requested by the council. Add to that a council scheme to avoid releasing them until some convoluted, much debated, "process" for doing so was in place- something which the council under former-Chair Kaipo Asing quite mysteriously (yeah, right) could never figure out how to do- and of course no opinions were ever released.
That set up years of "Star Chamber" activities where not only couldn't they tell the public what the opinions were but the council would go into closed door "executive sessions (ES)" to even discuss what they were going to be discussing.
This year, under new Council Chair Jay Furfaro and after a years-on-end attempt by Councilmember Tim Bynum to just get the matter on the agenda under Asing, not only has a process been set up but opinions have even allegedly been "released."
But that's a big "allegedly."
Because damned if anyone has been able to get copies of the opinion or even find out if they have actually been released because the votes to release them have either been done in ES or, if they have actually been voted upon in open session, it's been done after the TV cameras have ceased to roll.
We still have not been able to get a copy of- or even figure out if it's available- the infamous opinion which, quite apparently, is actually at the heart of the Rapozo's discontent... the one that apparently says the mayor, not the police commission, has the authority to "discipline" or "suspend" the chief of police.
It's a perfect example of the continued dysfunction. The question of the release of that opinion was on the council's ES agenda for weeks on end only to stop appearing in March. Despite having asked numerous people who should be in the know, we still haven't been able to get a straight answer to the question of whether it's now a public document- much less get a copy of it if it is.
Oh sure- everyone including the Sultan of Brunei has referred to what the opinion supposedly says. But just try to get more than that out of anybody.
Today we're stuck with a definition of the appointment and duties of the CA that were written over 40 years ago at and for a time when the size of county government was probably less than a tenth of that of today. And the potential for political machination in- and so politicization of- the Office of the CA has grown exponentially along with that growth.
Throw one Mel Rapozo into the mix and something's gotta give.
Unfortunately the lack of political visionaries sitting around the council table- or at least ones willing to publicly spar with Mel over the matter- has enabled the original squeaky wheel to be poised to get all the grease.
And, as we intimated above, don't expect the CRC to tackle it. Chair Sherman Shiraishi has fully defeated the purpose of the CRC by coming before the council to ask them what they think each and every proposal the CRC is considering, effectively cutting the three ways of getting a charter amendment on the ballot- by citizen petition, by council resolution or by the CRC placing it there- down to two.
It looks like the council and mayor are going to "throw a rod" on the County's Truck-of-State long before anyone even bothers to look under the hood much less tackle a proper engine rebuild with what's best for the public in mind.
There's only one place that vehicle is being driven... and that's nuts.
And it's been almost a dozen years that we've been waiting for a Kaua`i County Charter amendment that would put some kind of "public component" back into the job.
But even though a proposed charter amendment is in the pipeline it appears it's only going to make things worse.
Of course that is predictable considering the source.
Councilperson Mel Rapozo can always be counted upon to make muddy political waters even murkier. This time he's outdone himself with a pair of Resolutions, #'s 2012-22 and 2012-23 (neither of which is apparently available on-line), that, rather than put the Office of the County Attorney (CA) as far outside the reach of politics as is possible in county government, will insure that petty disagreements between future councils and administrations grow to Hatfield and McCoy proportions.
The first, Resolution 2012-22 is not actually directly related to the county attorney. But it is a result of the original event that begat the short-circuiting smoke currently emanating from the ears adjacent to Rapozo's decidedly less-than-legal mind.
The "reso" stems from Mel's head-scratching and seemingly meaningless obsession over last year's "late" salary commission (SC) proposal. It spawned a CA opinion that explained what "shall" meant in the context of the SC section of the charter, saying it was "administrative" rather than "directional" and citing some judicial rulings to that affect.
It basically said "give it a rest Mel."
But them's fightin' words to the Baboozster.
Rapozo decided to go to circuit court for a "ruling" but Judge Randall Valenciano essentially said the same thing as the CA had said. So now Mel has decided to take his obsession to the voters and, in Resolution 2012-22 he proposes to put the matter before the voters.
The rest of the council seems less than enthusiastic and at the second and potentially final reading last Wednesday they deferred the measure "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To Definitions Of 'Shall', 'Must', And 'May.'"
Oh joy... we can hardly wait to see how those terms will be defined in the "Mel Rapozo Legal Dictionary." We wouldn't want to depend on Black's when we can get it straight from the horse's read end.
But Mel wasn't done. After proposing to redefine legal terms with a Rapozian slant, he's decided that it was the dastardly-brilliant legal mind of Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. that concocted well-known Philadelphia Lawyer, CA Al Castillo's opinion on the matter.
As a result of Mel's fixation he came up with "Resolution No. 2012-23 "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To The Establishment Of The Office Of The Council Attorney" which would apparently divide the CA's office in two giving both the administration and the council their own independent county attorneys.
The pertinent parts of the current charter under "Article VIII- County Attorney" say:
Section 8.02. Appointment and Removal. The county attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, with the approval of the council....
Section 8.04. Powers, Duties and Functions. The county attorney shall be the chief legal adviser and legal representative of all agencies, including the council, and of all officers and employees in matters relating to their official powers and duties, and he shall represent the county in all legal proceedings. He shall perform all other services incident to his office as may be required by law.
But perhaps because he operates like them, Rapozo sees a political ghostie and ghoulie behind every door of the county's administrative offices and wants to enshrine his suspicions about Castillo's "opinions" by altering the county's overriding legal document, the charter, in his own image.
To understand how things got to this point- other than by simply saying "Mel got elected"- we need to go back to the history and evolution of the the functioning of the CA's office.
In 2001, then-newly-elected Mayor Bryan Baptiste hired current county "good-old-girl" Lani Nakazawa to her first-of-many positions with the county. She succeeded former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka's CA, Hartwell Blake, who rarely opined on anything other than how comfortable he was spending most of his years in the job sleeping under the air conditioner in the back of the council chambers.
Although the charter section on the CA is silent on anything relating to serving the public, before Nakazawa took office, CA's generally thought of the job as one that, while advising county administrative personnel as well as the council, publicly opined on questions of law regarding the county's charter, ordinances and administrative rules and routinely released those opinions to the public. .
He- yes of course they had all been "he's"- did it as part of what they saw as an implied "public component" of the CA's job.
When the 2006 Charter Review Commission (CRC) had its first confab one appointee was the former CA under then-Mayor JoAnn Yukimura, Michael Belles.
We attended that first meeting of the panel which was comprised of many surprisingly open-to-change appointees. In addition to testifying about our own experiences with shortcomings of the charter, we spoke to Belles during a break.
He asked what the one item was that we would most like see tackled. Our answer was "a total reorganization of all of Article VIII: County Attorney" especially parts regarding the "Appointment and Removal" and "Powers, Duties and Functions," excerpted above.
We explained the problems under Nakazawa which had included the fact that her strict reading of the section meant that she saw no public element to her job serving only county employees and officials- and never releasing any opinions unless her "clients" released them.
We even suggested that the CA become an elected position, thereby solving many of the problems created by conflicts between the mayor and council- or any two county entities for that matter.
Belles was surprised at the turn of events since his time as CA and said that during his tenure he would have "never imagined" that there was no "public component" to the job. As a matter of fact, he told us, he couldn't remember ever not releasing any of his or his offices opinion's of law.
A proposed amendment regarding the Office of the County Attorney's (OCA) never made it on any CRC list- it wasn't exactly a sexy issue and probably way too "inside baseball" for the public and maybe even the CRC. It wasn't even on commission members' radar screens.
They eventually put around a dozen-and-a-half amendments before the voters after narrowing it down from more than 30 original proposals so as to make citizen deliberation and decision-making manageable at election time.
But nothing on the OCA.
Ever since Nakazawa's reign, every county attorney has refused to release to the public opinions regarding interpretation of laws, especially those requested by the council. Add to that a council scheme to avoid releasing them until some convoluted, much debated, "process" for doing so was in place- something which the council under former-Chair Kaipo Asing quite mysteriously (yeah, right) could never figure out how to do- and of course no opinions were ever released.
That set up years of "Star Chamber" activities where not only couldn't they tell the public what the opinions were but the council would go into closed door "executive sessions (ES)" to even discuss what they were going to be discussing.
This year, under new Council Chair Jay Furfaro and after a years-on-end attempt by Councilmember Tim Bynum to just get the matter on the agenda under Asing, not only has a process been set up but opinions have even allegedly been "released."
But that's a big "allegedly."
Because damned if anyone has been able to get copies of the opinion or even find out if they have actually been released because the votes to release them have either been done in ES or, if they have actually been voted upon in open session, it's been done after the TV cameras have ceased to roll.
We still have not been able to get a copy of- or even figure out if it's available- the infamous opinion which, quite apparently, is actually at the heart of the Rapozo's discontent... the one that apparently says the mayor, not the police commission, has the authority to "discipline" or "suspend" the chief of police.
It's a perfect example of the continued dysfunction. The question of the release of that opinion was on the council's ES agenda for weeks on end only to stop appearing in March. Despite having asked numerous people who should be in the know, we still haven't been able to get a straight answer to the question of whether it's now a public document- much less get a copy of it if it is.
Oh sure- everyone including the Sultan of Brunei has referred to what the opinion supposedly says. But just try to get more than that out of anybody.
Today we're stuck with a definition of the appointment and duties of the CA that were written over 40 years ago at and for a time when the size of county government was probably less than a tenth of that of today. And the potential for political machination in- and so politicization of- the Office of the CA has grown exponentially along with that growth.
Throw one Mel Rapozo into the mix and something's gotta give.
Unfortunately the lack of political visionaries sitting around the council table- or at least ones willing to publicly spar with Mel over the matter- has enabled the original squeaky wheel to be poised to get all the grease.
And, as we intimated above, don't expect the CRC to tackle it. Chair Sherman Shiraishi has fully defeated the purpose of the CRC by coming before the council to ask them what they think each and every proposal the CRC is considering, effectively cutting the three ways of getting a charter amendment on the ballot- by citizen petition, by council resolution or by the CRC placing it there- down to two.
It looks like the council and mayor are going to "throw a rod" on the County's Truck-of-State long before anyone even bothers to look under the hood much less tackle a proper engine rebuild with what's best for the public in mind.
There's only one place that vehicle is being driven... and that's nuts.
Friday, March 23, 2012
TAKING THE MINOTAUR BY THE HORNS
TAKING THE MINOTAUR BY THE HORNS: People are always claiming "I hate to tell you 'I told you so,' but..."
Yet who are we kidding?- we love to do it.
So today we'll set up what will most assuredly be a little "see?" moment, sometime in the near future.
The agenda for next Wednesday's council meeting contains the following item:
C 2012-98 Request (03/13/2012) from the Police Commission for authorization to expend funds up to $10,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a complaint with the Fifth Circuit Court and asking for a declaratory judgment as to who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
In addition the council has scheduled a closed-door, executive session (ES 535) for
a briefing on the retention of special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a declaratory action to determine who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
But let us save you some time and money folks- neither judge on Kaua`i is going to even rule on the matter. Both of them will tell you that essentially this is a political matter that needs a political solution.
Fifth Circuit Judges Randall Valenciano and Kathleen Watanabe have both shown this propensity for "punting" before and it's doubtful they will change now.
We've found it amusing that both "sides"- the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. vs. Police Chief Darryl Perry and the Kaua`i Police Commission- both adamantly claim the charter gives them the power to discipline the chief.
But, as we've said a number of times there is nothing in the charter or Kaua`i County Code- or for that matter state law- regarding who has the authority to discipline or suspend the chief.
Hiring and/or firing him or her does rest with the police commission. But otherwise the law is "silent."
Watenabe has a history of punting these kinds of things. For example, in her decisions regarding various cases of disturbances of `iwi kupuna- the bones of native Hawaiians- by developers, she adamantly refused to rule, saying that the laws and regulations regarding the individual island burial councils and the State Historical Preservation Department (SHPD) that oversees the process, are unclear and that the legislature needs to clear thing up.
Our description is an oversimplification. But what is clear is that Watanabe did indicate that the solution was a political decision, not a judicial one.
As to Valenciano he was recently asked by Council members Mel Rapozo and Kipukai Kuali`i to clear up the use of the word "shall" in a matter regarding the Kaua`i Salary Commission's March 15 deadline for submission of their yearly "recommendations." County Attorney Al Castillo had written an opinion that, in this case, ""shall" was used "administratively" and therefor has to be read as "should."
But when the two council members went before Valenciano's court, he also said that it was a political matter and not only didn't the two have standing but that they should look to changing the law to make things clear rather than asking him to essentially split a baby.
Does anyone think that in this case either of the judges are going to get involved? Both come from a government background and perspective, Watanabe having served as county attorney and in other government jobs and Valenciano having been a long-time council member, even running for mayor one time. Both have a healthy respect for letting the government wheels turn as freely as possible and apparently do not want to get involved in inter-agency squabbles like the one over who should discipline the chief.
The ball here is clearly and fully in the council's court as we said in the post cited above.
Section 7.05 of the Kaua`i County Charter details the "Powers, Duties and Functions" of the mayor.
There are 13 "Powers, Duties and Functions" The very last one reads:
M. Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter or by ordinance. (emphasis added)
This means that the council can actually pass an ordinance regardless of whether the charter defines a specific power of the mayor or not. This is somewhat unusual in that powers not designated in a controlling document cannot normally just be taken in an inferior document (such as the charter and an ordinance respectively)... unless, as it is in this case, it is specifically granted.
The council also has the power to put a charter amendment before the electorate via a resolution.
But either way the problem here is that it exists in the political realm. It is doubly political in that the council must make a political decision as to which entity they want to give that power to- whether they do so via an ordinance or a charter amendment.
Should they give it to the mayor or to the police commission? They will no doubt face criticism for doing either. If they passed an ordinance, first they would have to decide themselves which way to go. If they proposed a charter amendment, they could only propose one or the other for the electorate to vote for- there's no provision for having a referendum type of charter amendment- so they face the same dilemma.
In either scenario, if the council decides to spent the $10,000, the money is completely wasted.
And we're pretty confident that if they do approve the expenditure, we'll wind up with a nice "we told you so" to tack up on the wall with all the others.
Yet who are we kidding?- we love to do it.
So today we'll set up what will most assuredly be a little "see?" moment, sometime in the near future.
The agenda for next Wednesday's council meeting contains the following item:
C 2012-98 Request (03/13/2012) from the Police Commission for authorization to expend funds up to $10,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a complaint with the Fifth Circuit Court and asking for a declaratory judgment as to who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
In addition the council has scheduled a closed-door, executive session (ES 535) for
a briefing on the retention of special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a declaratory action to determine who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
But let us save you some time and money folks- neither judge on Kaua`i is going to even rule on the matter. Both of them will tell you that essentially this is a political matter that needs a political solution.
Fifth Circuit Judges Randall Valenciano and Kathleen Watanabe have both shown this propensity for "punting" before and it's doubtful they will change now.
We've found it amusing that both "sides"- the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. vs. Police Chief Darryl Perry and the Kaua`i Police Commission- both adamantly claim the charter gives them the power to discipline the chief.
But, as we've said a number of times there is nothing in the charter or Kaua`i County Code- or for that matter state law- regarding who has the authority to discipline or suspend the chief.
Hiring and/or firing him or her does rest with the police commission. But otherwise the law is "silent."
Watenabe has a history of punting these kinds of things. For example, in her decisions regarding various cases of disturbances of `iwi kupuna- the bones of native Hawaiians- by developers, she adamantly refused to rule, saying that the laws and regulations regarding the individual island burial councils and the State Historical Preservation Department (SHPD) that oversees the process, are unclear and that the legislature needs to clear thing up.
Our description is an oversimplification. But what is clear is that Watanabe did indicate that the solution was a political decision, not a judicial one.
As to Valenciano he was recently asked by Council members Mel Rapozo and Kipukai Kuali`i to clear up the use of the word "shall" in a matter regarding the Kaua`i Salary Commission's March 15 deadline for submission of their yearly "recommendations." County Attorney Al Castillo had written an opinion that, in this case, ""shall" was used "administratively" and therefor has to be read as "should."
But when the two council members went before Valenciano's court, he also said that it was a political matter and not only didn't the two have standing but that they should look to changing the law to make things clear rather than asking him to essentially split a baby.
Does anyone think that in this case either of the judges are going to get involved? Both come from a government background and perspective, Watanabe having served as county attorney and in other government jobs and Valenciano having been a long-time council member, even running for mayor one time. Both have a healthy respect for letting the government wheels turn as freely as possible and apparently do not want to get involved in inter-agency squabbles like the one over who should discipline the chief.
The ball here is clearly and fully in the council's court as we said in the post cited above.
Section 7.05 of the Kaua`i County Charter details the "Powers, Duties and Functions" of the mayor.
There are 13 "Powers, Duties and Functions" The very last one reads:
M. Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter or by ordinance. (emphasis added)
This means that the council can actually pass an ordinance regardless of whether the charter defines a specific power of the mayor or not. This is somewhat unusual in that powers not designated in a controlling document cannot normally just be taken in an inferior document (such as the charter and an ordinance respectively)... unless, as it is in this case, it is specifically granted.
The council also has the power to put a charter amendment before the electorate via a resolution.
But either way the problem here is that it exists in the political realm. It is doubly political in that the council must make a political decision as to which entity they want to give that power to- whether they do so via an ordinance or a charter amendment.
Should they give it to the mayor or to the police commission? They will no doubt face criticism for doing either. If they passed an ordinance, first they would have to decide themselves which way to go. If they proposed a charter amendment, they could only propose one or the other for the electorate to vote for- there's no provision for having a referendum type of charter amendment- so they face the same dilemma.
In either scenario, if the council decides to spent the $10,000, the money is completely wasted.
And we're pretty confident that if they do approve the expenditure, we'll wind up with a nice "we told you so" to tack up on the wall with all the others.
Friday, March 2, 2012
AND WE GET ON OUR KNEES AND PRAY...
AND WE GET ON OUR KNEES AND PRAY...: It's no secret among Kaua`i county-watchers. Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s attempt at power grabbing is nothing new- this time by claiming authority in disciplining Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry.
For a few years now Carvalho has been running a different but related proposal up the flagpole, one which would change the Kaua`i County Charter to take the power of appointment of department heads away from the boards and commissions that currently have it and give it to the mayor.
To hizzonah's chagrin though, there wasn't much saluting going on.
Currently the Kaua`i charter gives the power to appoint and remove their respective department heads to the Fire, Civil Service, Planning, Liquor Control and Police Commissions. In the case of the police chiefs of the various counties, it is a set-up that has been mandated by state law, making any charter change to give mayors that power effective only after legislative action.
The common wisdom behind this type of police department set-up (one that is used in most US jurisdictions) is that the local "para-military" constabulary should be under civilian control so as to "take the politics out of the police department."
Carvalho took his proposal to the police commission for their support, saying that, of course, there would first need to be a change in state law- something for which he said he was lobbying.
But the commission rebuffed his request. Of course being political appointees they weren't about to piss off their "boss" so, although they diplomatically said they "trusted" Carvalho himself to not interject politics into department business (perish the thought) were he to have the power to do so, they feared his successors might not be inclined to be as altruistic.
That's been percolating around the back of our mind while watching the current political circus, assuming that any charter change of this nature would have to wait for a change in Hawai`i Revised Statues (HRS).
You'd think we'd have learned by now. To paraphrase another meshugana, fool us 1,274 times... you can still get fooled again... and again... and again.
HRS 52D regulates county "Police Departments." Prior to 2010, HRS Section 52D-2 read "Chief of police. The police commission shall appoint a chief of police. "
However, unbeknownst to many, the 2010 legislature passed SB 2177 SD1, deleting those two sentences and substituting the following words "A chief of police shall be appointed and may be removed as prescribed by the charter of each county."
That means that, although the current charter remains legally binding, were the charter commission or the county council to place a different "prescription" before the electorate and should it pass, it would no longer be illegal to have any structure of control they desire- including of course moving the authority to hire and fire the chief of police from the police commission to the mayor.
Watch out for this one.
The Charter Review Commission (CRC) has been meeting to consider the current Perry vs Carvalho brouhaha as recently as this past Monday when they held a closed door executive session on the matter where presumably they considered a charter change to address the current "constitutional crisis."
As we described a week ago Thursday the current "crisis" is based on the fact that the charter is essentially silent on the disciplining of the police chief allowing both the mayor and the police commission to claim control- even though neither is given that clear authority in the charter.
The CRC used to meet every 10 years but now sits continually until 2016 after a charter change in 2006. Prior to the current election cycle, the CRC has been extremely independent, doing their work without checking with anyone regarding their proposed amendments. However the current CRC has been anything but independent with Chair and noted county lap-dog Sherman Shiraishi constantly coming before the council looking for scratches behind the ear and tummy rubs of approval on every move the commission is considering.
The mayor has had a more direct pipeline, not just as an ex-officio member of the CRC but through the Director of Boards and Commissions who was, until recently, Carvalho's spying eyes, ears and mouthpiece, John Isobe.
All Carvalho has to do is simply tell Shiraishi what he wants on the ballot- something he has not been shy about doing, sometimes even in writing. And in the Shiraishi family tradition, Sherm, like Clint before him, makes no bones about indicating his and the commission's desire to be as accommodating of elected officials as possible. After all it isn't like the Shiraishis haven't been on the receiving end of such largess for generations.
Oh, and even though the CRC is set up to be an independent, alternative to having the council propose charter amendments (they may also be proposed via citizen petition) the CRC has become simply an arms-length method of politically insulating the council from having to propose politically sensitive amendments in an election year.
That could well be the scenario that plays out this year. The council actually could take the reins over who can discipline the chief of police via an ordinance if they wanted to, leaving the appointment scheme the way it is now.
Yeah- right... right after they raise taxes and their salaries. Anyone got a 10 foot pole? Do we hear 20?
With the way the local press is led around by county-installed brass rings through their collective noses we wouldn't put it past the administration to try to get away with proposing an amendment that purports to "clear up" the confusion over who is in charge of disciplining the chief but actually transfers control over hiring and firing.
It wouldn't be the first time that the electorate was hornschwoggled via a "trick question" on the ballot- one that doesn't really reflect what the content of the amendment is. Remember that "conform to the sunshine law" bamboozle that actually did anything but "turn off the dark?"
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that in "clarifying" who has control of discipline of the chief the administration would also try to slip in a provision to give the mayor a little more power.
And if voters did somehow figure it out, the few that actually pay attention can be told that it was an innocent provision to avoid future conflict, resolving it in favor of "accountability to an elected official," the mayor, rather than an appointed group, the commission.
After all, Bernard has put so much effort into his patronage-based, "members only" cronyism, especially in the appointment of all boards members and commissioners, it'd be a shame to see it all go to waste.
For a few years now Carvalho has been running a different but related proposal up the flagpole, one which would change the Kaua`i County Charter to take the power of appointment of department heads away from the boards and commissions that currently have it and give it to the mayor.
To hizzonah's chagrin though, there wasn't much saluting going on.
Currently the Kaua`i charter gives the power to appoint and remove their respective department heads to the Fire, Civil Service, Planning, Liquor Control and Police Commissions. In the case of the police chiefs of the various counties, it is a set-up that has been mandated by state law, making any charter change to give mayors that power effective only after legislative action.
The common wisdom behind this type of police department set-up (one that is used in most US jurisdictions) is that the local "para-military" constabulary should be under civilian control so as to "take the politics out of the police department."
Carvalho took his proposal to the police commission for their support, saying that, of course, there would first need to be a change in state law- something for which he said he was lobbying.
But the commission rebuffed his request. Of course being political appointees they weren't about to piss off their "boss" so, although they diplomatically said they "trusted" Carvalho himself to not interject politics into department business (perish the thought) were he to have the power to do so, they feared his successors might not be inclined to be as altruistic.
That's been percolating around the back of our mind while watching the current political circus, assuming that any charter change of this nature would have to wait for a change in Hawai`i Revised Statues (HRS).
You'd think we'd have learned by now. To paraphrase another meshugana, fool us 1,274 times... you can still get fooled again... and again... and again.
HRS 52D regulates county "Police Departments." Prior to 2010, HRS Section 52D-2 read "Chief of police. The police commission shall appoint a chief of police. "
However, unbeknownst to many, the 2010 legislature passed SB 2177 SD1, deleting those two sentences and substituting the following words "A chief of police shall be appointed and may be removed as prescribed by the charter of each county."
That means that, although the current charter remains legally binding, were the charter commission or the county council to place a different "prescription" before the electorate and should it pass, it would no longer be illegal to have any structure of control they desire- including of course moving the authority to hire and fire the chief of police from the police commission to the mayor.
Watch out for this one.
The Charter Review Commission (CRC) has been meeting to consider the current Perry vs Carvalho brouhaha as recently as this past Monday when they held a closed door executive session on the matter where presumably they considered a charter change to address the current "constitutional crisis."
As we described a week ago Thursday the current "crisis" is based on the fact that the charter is essentially silent on the disciplining of the police chief allowing both the mayor and the police commission to claim control- even though neither is given that clear authority in the charter.
The CRC used to meet every 10 years but now sits continually until 2016 after a charter change in 2006. Prior to the current election cycle, the CRC has been extremely independent, doing their work without checking with anyone regarding their proposed amendments. However the current CRC has been anything but independent with Chair and noted county lap-dog Sherman Shiraishi constantly coming before the council looking for scratches behind the ear and tummy rubs of approval on every move the commission is considering.
The mayor has had a more direct pipeline, not just as an ex-officio member of the CRC but through the Director of Boards and Commissions who was, until recently, Carvalho's spying eyes, ears and mouthpiece, John Isobe.
All Carvalho has to do is simply tell Shiraishi what he wants on the ballot- something he has not been shy about doing, sometimes even in writing. And in the Shiraishi family tradition, Sherm, like Clint before him, makes no bones about indicating his and the commission's desire to be as accommodating of elected officials as possible. After all it isn't like the Shiraishis haven't been on the receiving end of such largess for generations.
Oh, and even though the CRC is set up to be an independent, alternative to having the council propose charter amendments (they may also be proposed via citizen petition) the CRC has become simply an arms-length method of politically insulating the council from having to propose politically sensitive amendments in an election year.
That could well be the scenario that plays out this year. The council actually could take the reins over who can discipline the chief of police via an ordinance if they wanted to, leaving the appointment scheme the way it is now.
Yeah- right... right after they raise taxes and their salaries. Anyone got a 10 foot pole? Do we hear 20?
With the way the local press is led around by county-installed brass rings through their collective noses we wouldn't put it past the administration to try to get away with proposing an amendment that purports to "clear up" the confusion over who is in charge of disciplining the chief but actually transfers control over hiring and firing.
It wouldn't be the first time that the electorate was hornschwoggled via a "trick question" on the ballot- one that doesn't really reflect what the content of the amendment is. Remember that "conform to the sunshine law" bamboozle that actually did anything but "turn off the dark?"
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that in "clarifying" who has control of discipline of the chief the administration would also try to slip in a provision to give the mayor a little more power.
And if voters did somehow figure it out, the few that actually pay attention can be told that it was an innocent provision to avoid future conflict, resolving it in favor of "accountability to an elected official," the mayor, rather than an appointed group, the commission.
After all, Bernard has put so much effort into his patronage-based, "members only" cronyism, especially in the appointment of all boards members and commissioners, it'd be a shame to see it all go to waste.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
PAY THE LADY
PAY THE LADY: Kaua`i County Council meetings are generally political exercises with long-winded, often well-deserved finger pointing at a stumble-bum mayor and his ever expanding cadre of appointed dimwitted cronies being the rule rather than the exception.
So it was no surprise that the subject of paying them all resulted in a few of the wilder politically-tinged sessions, with each councilmember unable to agree with any of the others on what the biggest issue was but all agreeing there's something rotten in the state of Lihu`e.
We've yet to view yesterday's finale to the latest chapter in the continuing saga regarding the most recent Salary Commission resolution where it was allowed to become law, if (always a big if) the local newspaper article is to be believed.
But anyone who has paid attention over the years knows that the debacle of political gamesmanship in every nook and cranny of Kaua`i government is the result of an ironic and iconic self-lit exploding cigar.
The subject of any legislative body's salaries is always a touchy subject. Kaua`i was no different and decades back the Salary Commission (SC) was created to take some of the pressure off the council so they could get a raise without really proposing one.
The only problem was that even with a recommendation from the SC, the council still had to ultimately vote to raise their own salaries. They tried some tinkering over the years, once to change the county charter to make any raise take effect only after the next election. But that didn't do any good because everyone knew that the incumbents were reelected over and over.
So throughout the 90's and into the 2000's, the council's, the mayor's and all other appointed officials' salaries remained the same because the council couldn’t stand the political heat associated with raising them. The council's salary for what was turning into a full time job as the island grew, was stuck at $28,000 and $32,000 for the chair. Some of their clerks were getting almost twice that.
It got to the point where civil service workers in many departments were getting paid a lot more than the department heads. In one case the salary for the County Engineer- the head of the Public Works Department- was so low he quit to take a civil service job in the behemoth department, leaving the job open for many years because no one who was qualified would take it.
Finally a solution was proposed. In an "experiment to take the politics out of the process," as it was called, the SC resolution wasn't advisory any more but would automatically take effect unless five or more members of the council voted stop it.
But really it was just an illusory change and although the smoke and mirror machines were fully engaged, people saw- or at least the council assumed the people saw, which is the same thing- that the council was still, in essence, in charge of either accepting or rejecting their own raises.
Though the first few raises went through with minimal grumbling because voters accepted the "salary inversion" excuse cited above, no one foresaw that the exponentially ballooning pay raises contained in the multiple-year resolutions would become outrageous when things like "furlough Fridays" and 5% pay cuts came about after the bottom fell out of the free enterprise system.
All of a sudden the whole process had to be reversed and the council was faced with a "yes means no and no means yes" situation where allowing the current resolution to pass would actually be giving out pay cuts and voting to reject the reso would allow raises to go into effect.
That's where the incompetence of the local newspaper comes in because none of the council members trusted reporter Leo Azambuja to correctly report the story so each councilmember, with visions of "Council Votes For Pay Raise Resolution" headlines, came up with his or her own excuse for why they were voting against the reso.
Some cited the March 15 date in the charter by which the resolution "shall" be forwarded to the council. One cited the apparent ethical violation allowing Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe to write the actual resolution lowering everyone's salary but giving himself a raise. Another claimed that the mayor directed the whole thing, charging impropriety through interference with the supposedly independent SC. Still another complained about the fact that the budget didn’t reflect the resolution even though the amounts were actually less than the salaries appropriated in the budget.
It got so wild that, in an unprecedented move, County Attorney Al Castillo took the hot seat and gave off-the-cuff verbal legal advice, trying to placate councilmembers' various phoney finaglings, with often conflicting and confusing opinions... made all the more perplexing when Castillo's deputy Mona Clarke sat in and gave even more advice, much of which was at odds with Castillo's counsel.
It's no wonder that the the council couldn’t even actively decide to "receive" the reso, essentially killing it and had to kill it via a reported tie vote which had the same effect of receiving it but without the full set of fingerprints.
Meanwhile any changes to Article XXIX of the charter regarding the Salary Commission isn't even on the radar screen of the Charter Commission which is contemplating asking voters once again to remove the prohibition on board and commission members from asking for money, favors and otherwise lobbying the council, planning commission and other boards and commissions... even though the same amendment was soundly rejected in 2010.
If campaign money is the mother's milk of politics then the actual salaries of elected officials is the meat and potatoes. But either way there's bound to a nice buffet spread to enable the expected politically-motivated food fight when next year's salary resolution hits the council floor.
So it was no surprise that the subject of paying them all resulted in a few of the wilder politically-tinged sessions, with each councilmember unable to agree with any of the others on what the biggest issue was but all agreeing there's something rotten in the state of Lihu`e.
We've yet to view yesterday's finale to the latest chapter in the continuing saga regarding the most recent Salary Commission resolution where it was allowed to become law, if (always a big if) the local newspaper article is to be believed.
But anyone who has paid attention over the years knows that the debacle of political gamesmanship in every nook and cranny of Kaua`i government is the result of an ironic and iconic self-lit exploding cigar.
The subject of any legislative body's salaries is always a touchy subject. Kaua`i was no different and decades back the Salary Commission (SC) was created to take some of the pressure off the council so they could get a raise without really proposing one.
The only problem was that even with a recommendation from the SC, the council still had to ultimately vote to raise their own salaries. They tried some tinkering over the years, once to change the county charter to make any raise take effect only after the next election. But that didn't do any good because everyone knew that the incumbents were reelected over and over.
So throughout the 90's and into the 2000's, the council's, the mayor's and all other appointed officials' salaries remained the same because the council couldn’t stand the political heat associated with raising them. The council's salary for what was turning into a full time job as the island grew, was stuck at $28,000 and $32,000 for the chair. Some of their clerks were getting almost twice that.
It got to the point where civil service workers in many departments were getting paid a lot more than the department heads. In one case the salary for the County Engineer- the head of the Public Works Department- was so low he quit to take a civil service job in the behemoth department, leaving the job open for many years because no one who was qualified would take it.
Finally a solution was proposed. In an "experiment to take the politics out of the process," as it was called, the SC resolution wasn't advisory any more but would automatically take effect unless five or more members of the council voted stop it.
But really it was just an illusory change and although the smoke and mirror machines were fully engaged, people saw- or at least the council assumed the people saw, which is the same thing- that the council was still, in essence, in charge of either accepting or rejecting their own raises.
Though the first few raises went through with minimal grumbling because voters accepted the "salary inversion" excuse cited above, no one foresaw that the exponentially ballooning pay raises contained in the multiple-year resolutions would become outrageous when things like "furlough Fridays" and 5% pay cuts came about after the bottom fell out of the free enterprise system.
All of a sudden the whole process had to be reversed and the council was faced with a "yes means no and no means yes" situation where allowing the current resolution to pass would actually be giving out pay cuts and voting to reject the reso would allow raises to go into effect.
That's where the incompetence of the local newspaper comes in because none of the council members trusted reporter Leo Azambuja to correctly report the story so each councilmember, with visions of "Council Votes For Pay Raise Resolution" headlines, came up with his or her own excuse for why they were voting against the reso.
Some cited the March 15 date in the charter by which the resolution "shall" be forwarded to the council. One cited the apparent ethical violation allowing Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe to write the actual resolution lowering everyone's salary but giving himself a raise. Another claimed that the mayor directed the whole thing, charging impropriety through interference with the supposedly independent SC. Still another complained about the fact that the budget didn’t reflect the resolution even though the amounts were actually less than the salaries appropriated in the budget.
It got so wild that, in an unprecedented move, County Attorney Al Castillo took the hot seat and gave off-the-cuff verbal legal advice, trying to placate councilmembers' various phoney finaglings, with often conflicting and confusing opinions... made all the more perplexing when Castillo's deputy Mona Clarke sat in and gave even more advice, much of which was at odds with Castillo's counsel.
It's no wonder that the the council couldn’t even actively decide to "receive" the reso, essentially killing it and had to kill it via a reported tie vote which had the same effect of receiving it but without the full set of fingerprints.
Meanwhile any changes to Article XXIX of the charter regarding the Salary Commission isn't even on the radar screen of the Charter Commission which is contemplating asking voters once again to remove the prohibition on board and commission members from asking for money, favors and otherwise lobbying the council, planning commission and other boards and commissions... even though the same amendment was soundly rejected in 2010.
If campaign money is the mother's milk of politics then the actual salaries of elected officials is the meat and potatoes. But either way there's bound to a nice buffet spread to enable the expected politically-motivated food fight when next year's salary resolution hits the council floor.
Monday, July 18, 2011
NOTHING TO SEE HERE
NOTHING TO SEE HERE: One thing that rampant county cronyism creates is a bunch of well-connected board and commission members whose qualifications are often as dubious as their conscientiousness.
When Charter Commission Chair Sherman Shiraishi showed up at last Wednesday's Council Committee of the Whole meeting to request the council's input on a "proposal to establish a permanent Charter Review Commission," it was the council that seemed befuddled as to why the commission is sitting for 10 years in the first place.
Seems that when the 2007-8 commission was empaneled for the then-usual "once every 10 years" assemblage there were so many proposals for changes to the charter that they had to limit the number that made it to the ballot to 15 from as many as 50 at one point, just so as not to overwhelm voters.
And that was without even touching the whole "county manager" mess or the apparent need for a slew of housekeeping changes.
As the session began a letter from Mayor Bernard Carvalho to the commission and council was produced raising the question as to why, if the commission was good to go until 2018, it was necessary to make it permanent now.
Well that was enough for Shiraishi to take his cue and all of a sudden, after months of charter commission meetings and weeks of council deferrals until Shiraishi could come to address the council, he instantly decided he agreed with the mayor after all.
Nope- no cronyism here... just good old independent thought.
But since Shiraishi and Board and Commissions Director John Isobe were there anyway the councilmembers decided to air some gripes about the charter and past amendments- whether they had any idea what they were talking about or not.
First up was Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who has a special black place in her heart for the ease with which citizen's can petition for a charter amendment- a 5% of registered voters threshold. That came about after she initiated and led the court fight- where the county sued the county- against the "Proposition 13" style property tax amendment that passed overwhelmingly in the early 2000's, only to be overturned by the Hawai`i Supreme Court in a confused ruling that no one really understood.
She and others maintain that a county's charter is "like the federal or state constitutions" in that it should be hard to change since it is a guiding document. But the difference is that while the federal and state constitutions grant rights to citizens and delineate powers, local charters merely take the powers left over and delineate the structure of the legislative and executive branches and list the various departments, board and commissions and the like, describing their functions- nuts and bolts measures that occasionally need revision due to changes in the needs of the community.
But that's a philosophical matter that can be argued either way. What wasn't was Yukimura's bemoaning of the fact that the people of Kaua`i "still need education" after they rejected changes to the infamous anti-cronyism section 20.02(D) of the charter which prohibits members of boards and commissions from "(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency."
It's a simple measure that stops perceptions of conflicts of interest before they start so that the "one hand washes the other" style of governance can be nipped in the bud.
It seems the charter commission has recently lost three of its members because they routinely represented clients before the council and planning commission and even though there are only a handful of such good old boys and girls on the island they have populated boards and commissions in droves. The county tried to ignore the provision for years even appointing conflicted individuals to the Ethics Board to rule for allowing the practice.
But when they finally tried to change the charter the voters rejected it and the Ethics Board was left with no other choice to finally issue an opinion enforcing the charter.
Of course there were nods of agreement around the council table as well as from Shiraishi and Isobe that indeed it is the voters who "don't get it."
Despite the need for things like reform of the county attorney section (we're the only island without a "corporation counsel") and a the transformation of the Department of Personnel Services into a modern Department Human Resources (another example of changing times leading to the need for changes to the charter) as well as a slew of needed housekeeping changes (like removing all the references to "he") councilmembers insist on the commission asking voters the same questions over and over (like four year council terms) even when they've been answered again and again... resoundingly.
Once again the trophy for the most dunderheaded performance of the day had to go to- who else- Chair Jay Furfaro.
Recently the council discovered that the Cost Control Commission (CCC) was taking the powers the charter gave them seriously, such as requiring the administration to submit bills to the council to carry out their recommendations within 30 days of their request. But despite the charter requirement, the administration had simply ignored three such requests in 2009.
That apparently got Furfaro looking through CCC documents where he noticed that they were discussing possible changes to the real property tax laws- something that Furfaro rarely fails to tell the public, whether it's on the agenda or not, that he is working on reforming.
Like a lion building up from a growl to a roar, Furfaro essentially asked what the heck the CCC was doing butting into the council's kuleana finally reading Section 3.10 from the charter:
Annual Budget and Capital Program. The council shall enact an annual budget ordinance, which shall include both the operational and capital expenditures for the fiscal year and the method of financing same. The council shall provide sufficient revenues to assure a balanced budget (emphasis his).
The council is in charge of property taxes, he bellowed, not the cost control commission.
Apparently Furfaro failed to read the charter's Section 28, regarding the CCC. Isobe, left with no choice but to defend the CCC- and so himself as the person in charge- then read 28.04 aloud:
The commission shall review personnel costs, real property taxes (emphasis added), travel budgets, contract procedures; review with the aim of eliminating programs and services available or more efficiently supplied by other governments or organizations; eliminate or consolidate overlapping or duplicate programs and services; scrutinize for reduction any county operation.
Furfaro hemmed and hawed and with a Ralph Kramden "hahmana-hamamana" quickly changed the subject but we were laughing too hard to hear what he said next.
What wasn't surprising at all was how quickly Shiraishi changed from the need for a perpetual charter commission to saying that there was barely any work to do as soon as the mayor told him what to think- and how fast the council agreed.
Because after all what's the good of being able to nominate and confirm a select set of yes men and women to board and commissions if they start to tell you no?
When Charter Commission Chair Sherman Shiraishi showed up at last Wednesday's Council Committee of the Whole meeting to request the council's input on a "proposal to establish a permanent Charter Review Commission," it was the council that seemed befuddled as to why the commission is sitting for 10 years in the first place.
Seems that when the 2007-8 commission was empaneled for the then-usual "once every 10 years" assemblage there were so many proposals for changes to the charter that they had to limit the number that made it to the ballot to 15 from as many as 50 at one point, just so as not to overwhelm voters.
And that was without even touching the whole "county manager" mess or the apparent need for a slew of housekeeping changes.
As the session began a letter from Mayor Bernard Carvalho to the commission and council was produced raising the question as to why, if the commission was good to go until 2018, it was necessary to make it permanent now.
Well that was enough for Shiraishi to take his cue and all of a sudden, after months of charter commission meetings and weeks of council deferrals until Shiraishi could come to address the council, he instantly decided he agreed with the mayor after all.
Nope- no cronyism here... just good old independent thought.
But since Shiraishi and Board and Commissions Director John Isobe were there anyway the councilmembers decided to air some gripes about the charter and past amendments- whether they had any idea what they were talking about or not.
First up was Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who has a special black place in her heart for the ease with which citizen's can petition for a charter amendment- a 5% of registered voters threshold. That came about after she initiated and led the court fight- where the county sued the county- against the "Proposition 13" style property tax amendment that passed overwhelmingly in the early 2000's, only to be overturned by the Hawai`i Supreme Court in a confused ruling that no one really understood.
She and others maintain that a county's charter is "like the federal or state constitutions" in that it should be hard to change since it is a guiding document. But the difference is that while the federal and state constitutions grant rights to citizens and delineate powers, local charters merely take the powers left over and delineate the structure of the legislative and executive branches and list the various departments, board and commissions and the like, describing their functions- nuts and bolts measures that occasionally need revision due to changes in the needs of the community.
But that's a philosophical matter that can be argued either way. What wasn't was Yukimura's bemoaning of the fact that the people of Kaua`i "still need education" after they rejected changes to the infamous anti-cronyism section 20.02(D) of the charter which prohibits members of boards and commissions from "(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency."
It's a simple measure that stops perceptions of conflicts of interest before they start so that the "one hand washes the other" style of governance can be nipped in the bud.
It seems the charter commission has recently lost three of its members because they routinely represented clients before the council and planning commission and even though there are only a handful of such good old boys and girls on the island they have populated boards and commissions in droves. The county tried to ignore the provision for years even appointing conflicted individuals to the Ethics Board to rule for allowing the practice.
But when they finally tried to change the charter the voters rejected it and the Ethics Board was left with no other choice to finally issue an opinion enforcing the charter.
Of course there were nods of agreement around the council table as well as from Shiraishi and Isobe that indeed it is the voters who "don't get it."
Despite the need for things like reform of the county attorney section (we're the only island without a "corporation counsel") and a the transformation of the Department of Personnel Services into a modern Department Human Resources (another example of changing times leading to the need for changes to the charter) as well as a slew of needed housekeeping changes (like removing all the references to "he") councilmembers insist on the commission asking voters the same questions over and over (like four year council terms) even when they've been answered again and again... resoundingly.
Once again the trophy for the most dunderheaded performance of the day had to go to- who else- Chair Jay Furfaro.
Recently the council discovered that the Cost Control Commission (CCC) was taking the powers the charter gave them seriously, such as requiring the administration to submit bills to the council to carry out their recommendations within 30 days of their request. But despite the charter requirement, the administration had simply ignored three such requests in 2009.
That apparently got Furfaro looking through CCC documents where he noticed that they were discussing possible changes to the real property tax laws- something that Furfaro rarely fails to tell the public, whether it's on the agenda or not, that he is working on reforming.
Like a lion building up from a growl to a roar, Furfaro essentially asked what the heck the CCC was doing butting into the council's kuleana finally reading Section 3.10 from the charter:
Annual Budget and Capital Program. The council shall enact an annual budget ordinance, which shall include both the operational and capital expenditures for the fiscal year and the method of financing same. The council shall provide sufficient revenues to assure a balanced budget (emphasis his).
The council is in charge of property taxes, he bellowed, not the cost control commission.
Apparently Furfaro failed to read the charter's Section 28, regarding the CCC. Isobe, left with no choice but to defend the CCC- and so himself as the person in charge- then read 28.04 aloud:
The commission shall review personnel costs, real property taxes (emphasis added), travel budgets, contract procedures; review with the aim of eliminating programs and services available or more efficiently supplied by other governments or organizations; eliminate or consolidate overlapping or duplicate programs and services; scrutinize for reduction any county operation.
Furfaro hemmed and hawed and with a Ralph Kramden "hahmana-hamamana" quickly changed the subject but we were laughing too hard to hear what he said next.
What wasn't surprising at all was how quickly Shiraishi changed from the need for a perpetual charter commission to saying that there was barely any work to do as soon as the mayor told him what to think- and how fast the council agreed.
Because after all what's the good of being able to nominate and confirm a select set of yes men and women to board and commissions if they start to tell you no?
Monday, April 18, 2011
SLIPPIN' ON THE SLIME
SLIPPIN' ON THE SLIME: Someone who we thought would know better called to ask why new state rep Derek Kawakami didn't have to recuse himself from voting on the "plastic grocery bag fee" bill currently still alive at the legislature, as he did as a county council member with our plastic bag "ban."
There were two reason why that struck us as strange- the first being that the person didn't know that state legislators don't even have to declare conflicts-of-interest much less refrain from participating or voting on the matter, the second that, unlike many, they did know that Kaua`i voters changed our county charter to state that councilmembers with a conflict "in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter."
The only problem with the provision is that the charter does not make clear who decides whether a conflict exists and so evidently leaves it up to the conflicted member to declare they have one. All the charter says is that "(t)he mayor, the council and the board of ethics shall be responsible for the enforcement of provisions of this article."
So when we saw Bill 2404 on the council's April 6 agenda which would give a $150,000 grant to this year's Kaua`i marathon, we could not believe that not only didn't Councilmember Dickie Chang recuse himself but he actually introduced the bill and it will be heard in his Economic Development Committee.
Chang, of course, hosts the local "Wala`au" television program which has gotten hours of "content" from the past two marathons- content which is the lifeblood for any television program as it generates the advertising revenue that Chang depends on for his living.
While the bill is in trouble already with Councilmember Mel Rapozo voting a rare "no" on the first reading of the bill and others expressing doubts they would vote to give money to the marathon again this year, the fact that there is a direct financial benefit to Chang from the marathon makes his failure to declare his conflict of interest unconscionable.
The charter also says that "(a)ny violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office."
The real solution to the whole conflict of interest problem is to make the office of councilmember a full time job and eliminate outside employment. That would of course necessitate raising the salary for the position to a level equitable with that of the mayor or department heads- about double what it is now.
But those who object to the extra approximately $350,000 a year that would take would do well to note that this not-at-all-unique expenditure is 3/7ths of that in one fell swoop and, when combined with other expenditures of a similar ilk, demonstrate that we're paying way more that 350Gs on the "back end."
Those wishing to testify on Bill 2404 can send their mana`o to counciltestimony@kauai.gov .
There were two reason why that struck us as strange- the first being that the person didn't know that state legislators don't even have to declare conflicts-of-interest much less refrain from participating or voting on the matter, the second that, unlike many, they did know that Kaua`i voters changed our county charter to state that councilmembers with a conflict "in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter."
The only problem with the provision is that the charter does not make clear who decides whether a conflict exists and so evidently leaves it up to the conflicted member to declare they have one. All the charter says is that "(t)he mayor, the council and the board of ethics shall be responsible for the enforcement of provisions of this article."
So when we saw Bill 2404 on the council's April 6 agenda which would give a $150,000 grant to this year's Kaua`i marathon, we could not believe that not only didn't Councilmember Dickie Chang recuse himself but he actually introduced the bill and it will be heard in his Economic Development Committee.
Chang, of course, hosts the local "Wala`au" television program which has gotten hours of "content" from the past two marathons- content which is the lifeblood for any television program as it generates the advertising revenue that Chang depends on for his living.
While the bill is in trouble already with Councilmember Mel Rapozo voting a rare "no" on the first reading of the bill and others expressing doubts they would vote to give money to the marathon again this year, the fact that there is a direct financial benefit to Chang from the marathon makes his failure to declare his conflict of interest unconscionable.
The charter also says that "(a)ny violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office."
The real solution to the whole conflict of interest problem is to make the office of councilmember a full time job and eliminate outside employment. That would of course necessitate raising the salary for the position to a level equitable with that of the mayor or department heads- about double what it is now.
But those who object to the extra approximately $350,000 a year that would take would do well to note that this not-at-all-unique expenditure is 3/7ths of that in one fell swoop and, when combined with other expenditures of a similar ilk, demonstrate that we're paying way more that 350Gs on the "back end."
Those wishing to testify on Bill 2404 can send their mana`o to counciltestimony@kauai.gov .
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
KAUA`I CHARTER AMENDMENTS: VOTE “YES” ONLY ON “RELATING TO POST EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY CONTRACTS” AND “RELATING TO DISCLOSURES”.
KAUA`I CHARTER AMENDMENTS: VOTE “YES” ONLY ON
“RELATING TO POST EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY CONTRACTS” AND “RELATING TO DISCLOSURES”.
VOTE "NO" ON
“RELATING TO COUNTY COUNCIL TERMS”,
“RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR MANAGING DIRECTOR”,
“RELATING TO FINANCIAL PROCEDURES”,
“RELATING TO BIDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY CONTRACTS” AND
“RELATING TO TIME EXTENSION FOR ETHICS ADVISORY OPINIONS”
Only two of the seven Kaua`i Charter Amendments (pdf) on the ballot November 2 deserve a “yes” vote although in both cases the changes are small where major changes should have been made.
The two are the ones entitled “Relating To Post Employment Requirements For County Contracts” and “Relating To Disclosures”
The question “Relating To Post Employment Requirements For County Contracts” reads
“Shall the County extend from six months to one year the timeframe prohibiting the County from entering into a contract with a former County employee or a firm that is represented by a former County employee, for those contracts where the former County employee participated in the subject matter while employed with the County?”
By all rights this should be extended to five years or at least two. But one year is better than the six months that is currently in the charter.
The question “Relating To Disclosures” reads
“Shall any employee delegated to act on behalf of the Director or Deputy Director of Finance be required to file a disclosure statement with the County Board of Ethics?”
This will at least add to those who are required to file financial disclosure statements although why it has to be charter amendment isn’t clear since there’s nothing in the charter that prevents the council from doing it by ordinance. There should be many more in county government filing disclosures that are currently not required to do so but one more is one more.
The other five proposed amendments are a hodge-podge of ill-considered and downright deceptive changes that do nothing to improve our charter and deserve “no” votes.
The question “Relating To County Council Terms” reads
“Shall the term of office for councilmembers be extended from two to four years with a limit of two consecutive four year terms?”
This question indicates the Charter Commission is insane, asking the same question for the umpteenth time and expecting a different answer. Requiring councilmembers to run every two years keeps them more accountable. Whereas it can be said that administrative heads have “agendas” to accomplish that may take four years that’s not true of legislators.
The question “Relating To Qualifications For Managing Director” reads
“Shall the Mayor’s Administrative Assistant, whose title shall be changed to Managing Director, be required to have appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties?”
This measure needs to go back to the drawing board. First of all it changes little. The list of qualifications is weak and the duties are few. The worst part is that the position remains solely an appointee of the mayor with no council confirmation. This is a problem with most of our department heads and what we really need is to make more positions subject to confirmation so as to add accountability. That would give the council some recourse in their oversight role when administrative officials “decline” an “invitation” to appear before the council. While we’re not a big proponent of the current proposals for a county manager hired solely by the council we sympathize with those who say this is just a poor attempt to placate those proponents.
The question “Relating To Financial Procedures” reads
“Shall the Charter provisions relating to centralized purchasing and disposition of surplus property be changed to conform with State law?”
It’s deja vu all over again with this trick questions about something being “changed to conform with state law”. In 2008 voters were deceived into removing a stricter standard for executive sessions from the charter with the same kind of wording asking if the charter should be “changed to conform with the sunshine law”. That resulted in less sunshine when uncritical readers thought they were voting for forcing the council into “complying” with the state sunshine law- a huge issue then as now.
This change would actually eliminate a charter requirement for what’s called “a standardization committee composed of three members” charged to “classify all materials, supplies, equipment commonly used by the various departments, offices or agencies of the county (who) shall prepare and adopt standards and specifications for such materials, supplies and equipment.” and a long list of other purchasing requirements that are apparently stricter than those in state law. Don’t let ‘em fool ya. Vote “no”
The question “Relating To Bidding Requirements For County Contracts” reads
“Shall the dollar limit without competitive bidding for contracts with County officers, employees or firms in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest, be increased from $500 to $1,000?”
Why in the world would you want increase the limit rather than eliminate it altogether? This provision has been abused in the past by breaking these non-bid contracts for moonlighting county employees with a conflict of interest into $499 chunks. Now they want to make them $999 chunks. Send a message and vote “no”
Finally the question “Relating To Time Extension For Ethics Advisory Opinions” reads
“Shall the time in which the County Board of Ethics has to render advisory opinions be extended from 30 days to 45 days, which opinions shall be binding on the Board, unless changed or revoked by the Board?”
With all the problems with the Board of Ethics THIS is what they pick to change- giving them more time to make decisions that they seem to be incapable of making. Plus they leave in two provisions that say
failure to submit an advisory opinion within said [thirty (30)] forty five (45) days shall be deemed a finding of no breach of the code.
Opinions rendered or deemed rendered shall be binding on the board in any subsequent charges concerning the officer or employee of the county until said opinion is amended or revoked by the board.
With the way the BOE has made these “findings” by flouting the plain charter language if anything each opinion should be reached on a case by case basis. The way it is now, bad decisions are almost impossible to be overturned or even revisited. Not only that but the “automatic no breach of code” section should be removed. Instead they want more time to make the kind of decisions that have taken them six months or more in the past few years. If they can’t do it in 30 days what makes them think they’ll be able to do it in 45? Vote “no” to this nonsense.
For more information go to the Charter Review Commission’s page at the county web site.
“RELATING TO POST EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY CONTRACTS” AND “RELATING TO DISCLOSURES”.
VOTE "NO" ON
“RELATING TO COUNTY COUNCIL TERMS”,
“RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS FOR MANAGING DIRECTOR”,
“RELATING TO FINANCIAL PROCEDURES”,
“RELATING TO BIDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR COUNTY CONTRACTS” AND
“RELATING TO TIME EXTENSION FOR ETHICS ADVISORY OPINIONS”
Only two of the seven Kaua`i Charter Amendments (pdf) on the ballot November 2 deserve a “yes” vote although in both cases the changes are small where major changes should have been made.
The two are the ones entitled “Relating To Post Employment Requirements For County Contracts” and “Relating To Disclosures”
The question “Relating To Post Employment Requirements For County Contracts” reads
“Shall the County extend from six months to one year the timeframe prohibiting the County from entering into a contract with a former County employee or a firm that is represented by a former County employee, for those contracts where the former County employee participated in the subject matter while employed with the County?”
By all rights this should be extended to five years or at least two. But one year is better than the six months that is currently in the charter.
The question “Relating To Disclosures” reads
“Shall any employee delegated to act on behalf of the Director or Deputy Director of Finance be required to file a disclosure statement with the County Board of Ethics?”
This will at least add to those who are required to file financial disclosure statements although why it has to be charter amendment isn’t clear since there’s nothing in the charter that prevents the council from doing it by ordinance. There should be many more in county government filing disclosures that are currently not required to do so but one more is one more.
The other five proposed amendments are a hodge-podge of ill-considered and downright deceptive changes that do nothing to improve our charter and deserve “no” votes.
The question “Relating To County Council Terms” reads
“Shall the term of office for councilmembers be extended from two to four years with a limit of two consecutive four year terms?”
This question indicates the Charter Commission is insane, asking the same question for the umpteenth time and expecting a different answer. Requiring councilmembers to run every two years keeps them more accountable. Whereas it can be said that administrative heads have “agendas” to accomplish that may take four years that’s not true of legislators.
The question “Relating To Qualifications For Managing Director” reads
“Shall the Mayor’s Administrative Assistant, whose title shall be changed to Managing Director, be required to have appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties?”
This measure needs to go back to the drawing board. First of all it changes little. The list of qualifications is weak and the duties are few. The worst part is that the position remains solely an appointee of the mayor with no council confirmation. This is a problem with most of our department heads and what we really need is to make more positions subject to confirmation so as to add accountability. That would give the council some recourse in their oversight role when administrative officials “decline” an “invitation” to appear before the council. While we’re not a big proponent of the current proposals for a county manager hired solely by the council we sympathize with those who say this is just a poor attempt to placate those proponents.
The question “Relating To Financial Procedures” reads
“Shall the Charter provisions relating to centralized purchasing and disposition of surplus property be changed to conform with State law?”
It’s deja vu all over again with this trick questions about something being “changed to conform with state law”. In 2008 voters were deceived into removing a stricter standard for executive sessions from the charter with the same kind of wording asking if the charter should be “changed to conform with the sunshine law”. That resulted in less sunshine when uncritical readers thought they were voting for forcing the council into “complying” with the state sunshine law- a huge issue then as now.
This change would actually eliminate a charter requirement for what’s called “a standardization committee composed of three members” charged to “classify all materials, supplies, equipment commonly used by the various departments, offices or agencies of the county (who) shall prepare and adopt standards and specifications for such materials, supplies and equipment.” and a long list of other purchasing requirements that are apparently stricter than those in state law. Don’t let ‘em fool ya. Vote “no”
The question “Relating To Bidding Requirements For County Contracts” reads
“Shall the dollar limit without competitive bidding for contracts with County officers, employees or firms in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest, be increased from $500 to $1,000?”
Why in the world would you want increase the limit rather than eliminate it altogether? This provision has been abused in the past by breaking these non-bid contracts for moonlighting county employees with a conflict of interest into $499 chunks. Now they want to make them $999 chunks. Send a message and vote “no”
Finally the question “Relating To Time Extension For Ethics Advisory Opinions” reads
“Shall the time in which the County Board of Ethics has to render advisory opinions be extended from 30 days to 45 days, which opinions shall be binding on the Board, unless changed or revoked by the Board?”
With all the problems with the Board of Ethics THIS is what they pick to change- giving them more time to make decisions that they seem to be incapable of making. Plus they leave in two provisions that say
failure to submit an advisory opinion within said [thirty (30)] forty five (45) days shall be deemed a finding of no breach of the code.
Opinions rendered or deemed rendered shall be binding on the board in any subsequent charges concerning the officer or employee of the county until said opinion is amended or revoked by the board.
With the way the BOE has made these “findings” by flouting the plain charter language if anything each opinion should be reached on a case by case basis. The way it is now, bad decisions are almost impossible to be overturned or even revisited. Not only that but the “automatic no breach of code” section should be removed. Instead they want more time to make the kind of decisions that have taken them six months or more in the past few years. If they can’t do it in 30 days what makes them think they’ll be able to do it in 45? Vote “no” to this nonsense.
For more information go to the Charter Review Commission’s page at the county web site.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
LOOK OUT KID, THEY KEEP IT ALL HID
LOOK OUT KID, THEY KEEP IT ALL HID: Trying to decipher the few Kaua`i county documents that are available at the web site is kind of like doing a Sudoku puzzle. They somehow add up to something but it takes a lot of work to figure out exactly what the sum is.
But since we committed yesterday to filling in the blanks through the use of the clues the county left, we’ve gotten a hold a text copy of what appears to be the thus-far “secret” proposed county charter amendments (see pp 12-18) we’ll all be voting on on November 2.
Apparently, although there’s no indication that they were ever approved by the Charter Review Commissions, a September 3 letter from County Clerk Peter Nakamura to state Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago transmitted seven questions, in time for them to be included on the actual ballot.
While they appear to be “official” we’ll have to wait and see when and if they were approved, not that the county won’t go ahead with them illegally anyway if they weren’t.
We’ll go over them briefly here with deeper analysis to come.
The first is the same old question that’s been asked and answered- in the negative- innumerable times but for some reason it’s on the ballot again. The ballot question reads
"Shall the term of office for councilmembers be extended from two to four years with a limit of two consecutive four year terms?"
When will these people accept that we like being able to recall our council every two years. They’re unaccountable enough already without only having to worry about the what the electorate thinks every four years.
We want to see an amendment saying that you can’t propose the same amendment more than once every 10 years.
The second is a response to the call for a county manager and eliminates the position of administrative assistant and creates a position of “Managing Director”.
The question on the ballot will be:
"Shall the Mayor's Administrative Assistant, whose title shall be changed to Managing Director, be required to have appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties?"
Here’s the exact language to be added to the charter, describing those “job qualifications” and “duties”
The mayor shall appoint and may remove a managing director. The managing director shall be a citizen of the United States not less than thirty (30) years of age and a resident elector of the county at least three years immediately prior to his appointment. The managing director shall have at least five years experience in an administrative or managerial position with at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in public administration, business or a related field.
A. Powers, Duties and Functions. Except as otherwise provided and under the supervision of the Mayor, the managing director shall:
(1) Serve as the mayor's principal administrative aide.
(2) Oversee the administrative functioning of all administrative departments.
(3) Prescribe standards of administrative practice to be followed and evaluate the management and performance of all administrative departments under the director's oversight.
(4) Attend meetings of the council and its committees upon request and provide information and reports as they may require.
(5) Perform all other duties as required by the charter or assigned by the mayor.
B. The salary for the managing director shall be set pursuant to Article
XXIX of this Charter.
Better than nothing.
The third is a new one on us and we’ll have to take a good look at it to figure it out. The question on the ballot asks:
"Shall the Charter provisions relating to centralized purchasing and disposition of surplus property be changed to conform with State law?"
The wording contains many additions and deletions and can be viewed on p 15 of the pdf linked above.
Number four is pretty self explanatory and the ballot question will read:
"Shall the dollar limit without competitive bidding for contracts with County officers, employees or firms in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest, be increased from $500 to $1,000?"
On first blush unless someone can make a pretty good case for it anything that makes corruption easier- as this would by allowing people to get paid twice as much by the county without triggering a competitive bid- $1000 rather than the current $500. If anything what's been called “the $500 loophole”- with the law having been avoided through serial $500 contracts- should be being plugged.
Number five is pretty self explanatory and reads:
"Shall the County extend from six months to one year the timeframe prohibiting the County from entering into a contract with a former County employee or a firm that is represented by a former County employee, for those contracts where the former County employee participated in the subject matter while employed with the County?"
This sounds like an improvement although we’d like to see two years or more to stop the “revolving door” which is one of the most corrupt of practices in the county and elsewhere.
Sixth is an amendment that apparently plugs a loophole on disclosures and asks
"Shall any employee delegated to act on behalf of the Director or Deputy Director of Finance be required to file a disclosure statement with the County Board of Ethics?"
We’re not sure what the problem is but apparently some in the finance department can act for the director and don’t have to disclose their potential conflicts of interest. It sounds good but we’ll have to take a good look at it in total.
Finally number seven is one we’ve been expecting and we’re ready to fight tooth and nail. It asks:
"Shall the time in which the County Board of Ethics has to render advisory opinions be extended from 30 days to 45 days, which opinions shall be binding on the Board, unless changed or revoked by the Board?"
The incompetence and even malfeasance of the Board of Ethics (BOE) has been well documented in this space (see left bar for our special report or click the link above for all our coverage of the BOE).
Why can't they make their decisions in a timely manner? To increase the time allotment just gives them more time to fumble and futz around trying to misread the plain reading of the charter and law. If they need to call special meetings, so be it. If they don’t have enough people for a quorum, get people who can show up.
An extra 15 days won’t really help these people. Thirty days has been plenty for over 40 years and it’s only the appointees under this and the last administration that seem to have a problem getting these advisory opinions done promptly instead of throwing the person- and sometimes the county- into a crisis because they can't decide what the law says... or more often just don’t want to deliver the bad news or are in the same conflict themselves.
Well that’s the seven- read ‘em and weep. Maybe sometime before the election we’ll get the official word.
But since we committed yesterday to filling in the blanks through the use of the clues the county left, we’ve gotten a hold a text copy of what appears to be the thus-far “secret” proposed county charter amendments (see pp 12-18) we’ll all be voting on on November 2.
Apparently, although there’s no indication that they were ever approved by the Charter Review Commissions, a September 3 letter from County Clerk Peter Nakamura to state Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago transmitted seven questions, in time for them to be included on the actual ballot.
While they appear to be “official” we’ll have to wait and see when and if they were approved, not that the county won’t go ahead with them illegally anyway if they weren’t.
We’ll go over them briefly here with deeper analysis to come.
The first is the same old question that’s been asked and answered- in the negative- innumerable times but for some reason it’s on the ballot again. The ballot question reads
"Shall the term of office for councilmembers be extended from two to four years with a limit of two consecutive four year terms?"
When will these people accept that we like being able to recall our council every two years. They’re unaccountable enough already without only having to worry about the what the electorate thinks every four years.
We want to see an amendment saying that you can’t propose the same amendment more than once every 10 years.
The second is a response to the call for a county manager and eliminates the position of administrative assistant and creates a position of “Managing Director”.
The question on the ballot will be:
"Shall the Mayor's Administrative Assistant, whose title shall be changed to Managing Director, be required to have appropriate job qualifications and perform certain duties?"
Here’s the exact language to be added to the charter, describing those “job qualifications” and “duties”
The mayor shall appoint and may remove a managing director. The managing director shall be a citizen of the United States not less than thirty (30) years of age and a resident elector of the county at least three years immediately prior to his appointment. The managing director shall have at least five years experience in an administrative or managerial position with at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution in public administration, business or a related field.
A. Powers, Duties and Functions. Except as otherwise provided and under the supervision of the Mayor, the managing director shall:
(1) Serve as the mayor's principal administrative aide.
(2) Oversee the administrative functioning of all administrative departments.
(3) Prescribe standards of administrative practice to be followed and evaluate the management and performance of all administrative departments under the director's oversight.
(4) Attend meetings of the council and its committees upon request and provide information and reports as they may require.
(5) Perform all other duties as required by the charter or assigned by the mayor.
B. The salary for the managing director shall be set pursuant to Article
XXIX of this Charter.
Better than nothing.
The third is a new one on us and we’ll have to take a good look at it to figure it out. The question on the ballot asks:
"Shall the Charter provisions relating to centralized purchasing and disposition of surplus property be changed to conform with State law?"
The wording contains many additions and deletions and can be viewed on p 15 of the pdf linked above.
Number four is pretty self explanatory and the ballot question will read:
"Shall the dollar limit without competitive bidding for contracts with County officers, employees or firms in which an officer or employee has a substantial interest, be increased from $500 to $1,000?"
On first blush unless someone can make a pretty good case for it anything that makes corruption easier- as this would by allowing people to get paid twice as much by the county without triggering a competitive bid- $1000 rather than the current $500. If anything what's been called “the $500 loophole”- with the law having been avoided through serial $500 contracts- should be being plugged.
Number five is pretty self explanatory and reads:
"Shall the County extend from six months to one year the timeframe prohibiting the County from entering into a contract with a former County employee or a firm that is represented by a former County employee, for those contracts where the former County employee participated in the subject matter while employed with the County?"
This sounds like an improvement although we’d like to see two years or more to stop the “revolving door” which is one of the most corrupt of practices in the county and elsewhere.
Sixth is an amendment that apparently plugs a loophole on disclosures and asks
"Shall any employee delegated to act on behalf of the Director or Deputy Director of Finance be required to file a disclosure statement with the County Board of Ethics?"
We’re not sure what the problem is but apparently some in the finance department can act for the director and don’t have to disclose their potential conflicts of interest. It sounds good but we’ll have to take a good look at it in total.
Finally number seven is one we’ve been expecting and we’re ready to fight tooth and nail. It asks:
"Shall the time in which the County Board of Ethics has to render advisory opinions be extended from 30 days to 45 days, which opinions shall be binding on the Board, unless changed or revoked by the Board?"
The incompetence and even malfeasance of the Board of Ethics (BOE) has been well documented in this space (see left bar for our special report or click the link above for all our coverage of the BOE).
Why can't they make their decisions in a timely manner? To increase the time allotment just gives them more time to fumble and futz around trying to misread the plain reading of the charter and law. If they need to call special meetings, so be it. If they don’t have enough people for a quorum, get people who can show up.
An extra 15 days won’t really help these people. Thirty days has been plenty for over 40 years and it’s only the appointees under this and the last administration that seem to have a problem getting these advisory opinions done promptly instead of throwing the person- and sometimes the county- into a crisis because they can't decide what the law says... or more often just don’t want to deliver the bad news or are in the same conflict themselves.
Well that’s the seven- read ‘em and weep. Maybe sometime before the election we’ll get the official word.
Monday, September 27, 2010
WAAAIT FOR IT.....
WAAAIT FOR IT.....: The Hawai`i Government Employee’s Association (HGEA) endorsements are out (thanks to Ian Lind for posting them) and they say more about Kaua`i in who and what doesn’t appear in them than what does.
Glaringly absent is any endorsement in the 15th House district where incumbent “Democrat” Jimmy Tokioka is facing off against Republican Larry Fillhart, the quotes around Democrat possibly explaining the endorsement.
Tokioka was a Republican before switching when he ran for Ezra Kanoho’s old seat and voted like one during his days on the Kaua`i County Council.
While Dee Morikawa in the 16th and Mina Morita in the 14th got the nods apparently Tokioka didn’t even get the “just because you’re a Democrat now” pick.
In the council race only four of the five incumbents running were deemed acceptable with buffoonish business shill Dickie Chang failing to make the grade for obvious reasons.
Less obvious was why former Mayor and Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura didn’t make the list while everybody’s darling- including the usual big-bucks special-interests- newcomer Nadine Nakamura along with former Councilperson Mel Rapozo getting a checkmark.
Is it a long standing grudge from her mayoral days when she tried to shake the county workers out of their slumbers or her more recent attempts to make everybody happy and so pleasing no one?
But the one thing missing from the Kaua`i endorsements- something that’s listed for all the other islands- is their recommendations for county charter amendments.
The reasons apparently is, incredibly enough, in an election that is five weeks from tomorrow the county has not finalize and announced the changes proposed by the Charter Review Commission.
A check of the CRC’s web page finds nothing, as does a check of the county’s elections page. To find the proposed amendments that will have apparently gotten final approval at today’s CRC meeting, one has to look at the agenda for the meeting since the last meeting minutes posted are those of July 26th.
It’s usually confusing enough to figure out what the charter amendments say and mean, as evidenced by last election’s trick question that removed the county’s “stricter than the state’s” sunshine guidelines under the guise of “conforming to the state sunshine law” (wmphasis added).
If this year’s questions don’t appear soon in the “newspaper of record” soon we’ll be doing their job for them again later this week- notwithstanding the way they hilariously and inappropriately editorialized this weekend about how they:
continue to utilize our resources to the best of our ability in our ongoing effort to hold our elected officials and other powerful players accountable (and) recognize the wide-ranging role the local newspaper plays in the community and we consider this responsibility of utmost importance.
Between the county and the local newspaper it’s apparently a race to the bottom to see who can best keep us un and ill-informed.
Glaringly absent is any endorsement in the 15th House district where incumbent “Democrat” Jimmy Tokioka is facing off against Republican Larry Fillhart, the quotes around Democrat possibly explaining the endorsement.
Tokioka was a Republican before switching when he ran for Ezra Kanoho’s old seat and voted like one during his days on the Kaua`i County Council.
While Dee Morikawa in the 16th and Mina Morita in the 14th got the nods apparently Tokioka didn’t even get the “just because you’re a Democrat now” pick.
In the council race only four of the five incumbents running were deemed acceptable with buffoonish business shill Dickie Chang failing to make the grade for obvious reasons.
Less obvious was why former Mayor and Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura didn’t make the list while everybody’s darling- including the usual big-bucks special-interests- newcomer Nadine Nakamura along with former Councilperson Mel Rapozo getting a checkmark.
Is it a long standing grudge from her mayoral days when she tried to shake the county workers out of their slumbers or her more recent attempts to make everybody happy and so pleasing no one?
But the one thing missing from the Kaua`i endorsements- something that’s listed for all the other islands- is their recommendations for county charter amendments.
The reasons apparently is, incredibly enough, in an election that is five weeks from tomorrow the county has not finalize and announced the changes proposed by the Charter Review Commission.
A check of the CRC’s web page finds nothing, as does a check of the county’s elections page. To find the proposed amendments that will have apparently gotten final approval at today’s CRC meeting, one has to look at the agenda for the meeting since the last meeting minutes posted are those of July 26th.
It’s usually confusing enough to figure out what the charter amendments say and mean, as evidenced by last election’s trick question that removed the county’s “stricter than the state’s” sunshine guidelines under the guise of “conforming to the state sunshine law” (wmphasis added).
If this year’s questions don’t appear soon in the “newspaper of record” soon we’ll be doing their job for them again later this week- notwithstanding the way they hilariously and inappropriately editorialized this weekend about how they:
continue to utilize our resources to the best of our ability in our ongoing effort to hold our elected officials and other powerful players accountable (and) recognize the wide-ranging role the local newspaper plays in the community and we consider this responsibility of utmost importance.
Between the county and the local newspaper it’s apparently a race to the bottom to see who can best keep us un and ill-informed.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
NEW BLOOD ON THE TRACKS
NEW BLOOD ON THE TRACKS: Today’s announcement that two- count ‘em two- actual college graduates with journalism degrees have been employed by the local newspaper comes as a shocking yet pleasant surprise... sort of.
While it’s nice to see real journalists hired- Vanessa Van Voorhis covering “business” and Andrea Frainier, “lifestyle”- it doesn’t change the fact that the more newsy government and police reporters are a little- or maybe a lot- less professional, although the government reporter Leo Azambuja has shown some improvement.
Though unfortunately that hasn’t led him to obtain the kind of expertise possessed his predecessor Mike Levine- no shame there- we still sometimes wonder whether he’s even trying.
In all fairness his editor Nathan Eagle could have made sure coverage of the ethically-challenged and oft incompetent Board Of Ethics (BOE) continued when Levine left for big city climes. But apparently neither Eagle nor Azambuja seem interested in covering BOE meetings and more importantly continuing Levine’s quest for BOE documents beyond replacing Levine’s name with Azambuja’s at their document-containing “Sunshine” web page.
But lucky live Kaua`i and not Bell California where the lack of citizen oversight led to obscene salaries for county officials.
Next time you see the trolls start criticizing our “nitpickers” remember that the only news we’ve been getting about the BOE lately has come from Horace Stoessel whose latest report on the BOE’s September 17 meeting- in the form of an as yet unpublished letter to the editor- describes the latest round of fear and loathing.
Here’s Horace’s report- see ya on the other side.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
In May Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark advised the Board of Ethics that County Code Section 3-1.7(d) absolutely prohibits the kinds of outside employment referenced in requests for advisory opinions involving four members of the Planning Department.
At its meeting on September 17 the Board reviewed a written opinion from Attorney Clark repeating and expanding the advice she gave in May and concluding: “It is the County Attorney’s opinion that an employee cannot create a work product for a private employer which the employee would reasonably expect the employer to submit to the Planning Department without a violation of K.C.C. 3-1.7 occurring.”
The Board acted accordingly and continued to set an example for other agencies by releasing the privileged opinion, which is available from the Office of Boards and Commissions.
I wish I could say that the quality of the May-to-September process leading to the Board’s decision matched the quality of the decision itself and the principled advice it was based on. However, the process left a trail of unanswered questions.
In light of the Charter requirement that a request for advisory opinion must be answered within thirty days, I think the most obvious question is, why did it take so long for the Board to answer this request, especially when its answer was based on the same advice it received on day one?
A short letter like this cannot do justice to the question. Suffice to say that it leads to numerous other questions pertaining to policies (and lack of policies), procedures and communication (or lack of communication) involving the Mayor’s office and Planning, Personnel, and County Attorney offices as well as the Board of Ethics.
I do not question the motives or integrity of county employees. I do say that there is plenty of room for improving governmental processes. One way to improve the processes is for agencies and citizens to extend mutual respect to and expect mutual accountability from each other.
What Horace doesn’t mention here is that rather than doing their job in a timely manner the BOE’s notorious inability to read plain English has caused them to request that the charter commission- another body whose meetings have been unattended by local newspaper reporters since Levine left- submit a charter amendment to voters to give the BOE more time to futz around.
The announcement of this year’s charter amendments will be forthcoming presently but if this change, and one to allow the mayor to consolidate power by taking away the police, fire and planning commissions’ ability to hire and fire their respective department heads, are typical of their work this year an across the board “no” vote from the electorate would seem to be a no-brainer.
Whether the news that will allow people to make informed decisions on proposed charter changes will reach them through their “newspaper of record” is anyone’s guess.
But at least they’ll have timely and accurate information about who opened a new scissors and scotch tape store and whose baby lu`ua served the best malasadas in Waimea.
While it’s nice to see real journalists hired- Vanessa Van Voorhis covering “business” and Andrea Frainier, “lifestyle”- it doesn’t change the fact that the more newsy government and police reporters are a little- or maybe a lot- less professional, although the government reporter Leo Azambuja has shown some improvement.
Though unfortunately that hasn’t led him to obtain the kind of expertise possessed his predecessor Mike Levine- no shame there- we still sometimes wonder whether he’s even trying.
In all fairness his editor Nathan Eagle could have made sure coverage of the ethically-challenged and oft incompetent Board Of Ethics (BOE) continued when Levine left for big city climes. But apparently neither Eagle nor Azambuja seem interested in covering BOE meetings and more importantly continuing Levine’s quest for BOE documents beyond replacing Levine’s name with Azambuja’s at their document-containing “Sunshine” web page.
But lucky live Kaua`i and not Bell California where the lack of citizen oversight led to obscene salaries for county officials.
Next time you see the trolls start criticizing our “nitpickers” remember that the only news we’ve been getting about the BOE lately has come from Horace Stoessel whose latest report on the BOE’s September 17 meeting- in the form of an as yet unpublished letter to the editor- describes the latest round of fear and loathing.
Here’s Horace’s report- see ya on the other side.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
In May Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark advised the Board of Ethics that County Code Section 3-1.7(d) absolutely prohibits the kinds of outside employment referenced in requests for advisory opinions involving four members of the Planning Department.
At its meeting on September 17 the Board reviewed a written opinion from Attorney Clark repeating and expanding the advice she gave in May and concluding: “It is the County Attorney’s opinion that an employee cannot create a work product for a private employer which the employee would reasonably expect the employer to submit to the Planning Department without a violation of K.C.C. 3-1.7 occurring.”
The Board acted accordingly and continued to set an example for other agencies by releasing the privileged opinion, which is available from the Office of Boards and Commissions.
I wish I could say that the quality of the May-to-September process leading to the Board’s decision matched the quality of the decision itself and the principled advice it was based on. However, the process left a trail of unanswered questions.
In light of the Charter requirement that a request for advisory opinion must be answered within thirty days, I think the most obvious question is, why did it take so long for the Board to answer this request, especially when its answer was based on the same advice it received on day one?
A short letter like this cannot do justice to the question. Suffice to say that it leads to numerous other questions pertaining to policies (and lack of policies), procedures and communication (or lack of communication) involving the Mayor’s office and Planning, Personnel, and County Attorney offices as well as the Board of Ethics.
I do not question the motives or integrity of county employees. I do say that there is plenty of room for improving governmental processes. One way to improve the processes is for agencies and citizens to extend mutual respect to and expect mutual accountability from each other.
What Horace doesn’t mention here is that rather than doing their job in a timely manner the BOE’s notorious inability to read plain English has caused them to request that the charter commission- another body whose meetings have been unattended by local newspaper reporters since Levine left- submit a charter amendment to voters to give the BOE more time to futz around.
The announcement of this year’s charter amendments will be forthcoming presently but if this change, and one to allow the mayor to consolidate power by taking away the police, fire and planning commissions’ ability to hire and fire their respective department heads, are typical of their work this year an across the board “no” vote from the electorate would seem to be a no-brainer.
Whether the news that will allow people to make informed decisions on proposed charter changes will reach them through their “newspaper of record” is anyone’s guess.
But at least they’ll have timely and accurate information about who opened a new scissors and scotch tape store and whose baby lu`ua served the best malasadas in Waimea.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
LOW AND OUTSIDE
LOW AND OUTSIDE: There’s nothing like watching Council Chair Kaipo Asing when he’s defending the indefensible and his latest attempt to block legislation from the agenda was as bizarre as it gets.
It was almost cringe-worthy and sad to watch the once mighty Minotaur become a babbling boob at last week’s council meeting redux of last year’s conflicts over the simple rights of councilmembers to introduce bills- events which might have informed the rote, chronological recital of events and quotes in the newspaper article about it had they been included.
This time the new wrinkle was Asing’s insistence that bills be reviewed by the county attorney (CA) before they can be introduced even though his nemesis Tim Bynum’s research showed that CA review before introduction is, at best, rare.
But the missing context wasn’t limited to our friend Leo Azambuja’s failure to go back and review last year’s coverage of the issues of councilmembers’ rights.
That would take a basic understanding of how the council services department works.
Seems that there was much made by Asing of how council “staff” had recommended that CA Al Castillo’s office review the three bills that Bynum wanted to introduce.
But Asing wasn’t talking about the various secretaries employed by the council. The staff he was referring to is the council’s own attorneys who don’t just review but actually help draft bills and have done so for decades without interference from the county attorney.
Under Asing’s tenure as chair however, use of the time of these “legislative analysts” has been strictly controlled, as has the use of any staff time for the use of other councilmembers. Who do you think prepares all of Asing’s infamous “power point presentations” given that Asing’s technical skills are such that he can’t even answer his own email?
Getting back to the analysts, although they are the ones that are supposed to make sure bills are the kuleana of county legislation and don’t conflict with state or federal statutes, all of a sudden Asing has relied on Castillo to interfere in the political process and determine public policy from the outside.
This politicization of the county attorney’s office could only happen under the Kaua`i County Charter which makes the CA’s appointment a dual responsibility of the administration and council and fails to list any component of serving the public’s interest.
In Castillo, Asing has found an all too willing ally who sees nothing wrong with the politicization that the charter seems to allow.
This has led to highly political actions coming out of the CA’s office, including the conduct of public policy behind the closed door of “executive sessions” that we’ve seen over the past few years.
Though most acknowledge that our charter’s section on the CA is lacking and it would be “necessary and desirable” to perhaps even elect our CAs, the charter review commission (CRC) seems to waste it’s time putting lengthened council terms and various districting plans on the ballot for the umpteenth time and otherwise tinkering around the edges, ignoring the one glaring deficiency that has caused untold confusion and corruption of the legislative process.
But who can blame the CRC when the most active citizens have distracted the body by pushing a “county manager system” onto the ballot despite the lack of evidence that anything would be different?
Unless and until people put pressure on the CRC to change the set-up of the county attorney’s office it will be ripe for abuse no matter who the council chair is.
It was almost cringe-worthy and sad to watch the once mighty Minotaur become a babbling boob at last week’s council meeting redux of last year’s conflicts over the simple rights of councilmembers to introduce bills- events which might have informed the rote, chronological recital of events and quotes in the newspaper article about it had they been included.
This time the new wrinkle was Asing’s insistence that bills be reviewed by the county attorney (CA) before they can be introduced even though his nemesis Tim Bynum’s research showed that CA review before introduction is, at best, rare.
But the missing context wasn’t limited to our friend Leo Azambuja’s failure to go back and review last year’s coverage of the issues of councilmembers’ rights.
That would take a basic understanding of how the council services department works.
Seems that there was much made by Asing of how council “staff” had recommended that CA Al Castillo’s office review the three bills that Bynum wanted to introduce.
But Asing wasn’t talking about the various secretaries employed by the council. The staff he was referring to is the council’s own attorneys who don’t just review but actually help draft bills and have done so for decades without interference from the county attorney.
Under Asing’s tenure as chair however, use of the time of these “legislative analysts” has been strictly controlled, as has the use of any staff time for the use of other councilmembers. Who do you think prepares all of Asing’s infamous “power point presentations” given that Asing’s technical skills are such that he can’t even answer his own email?
Getting back to the analysts, although they are the ones that are supposed to make sure bills are the kuleana of county legislation and don’t conflict with state or federal statutes, all of a sudden Asing has relied on Castillo to interfere in the political process and determine public policy from the outside.
This politicization of the county attorney’s office could only happen under the Kaua`i County Charter which makes the CA’s appointment a dual responsibility of the administration and council and fails to list any component of serving the public’s interest.
In Castillo, Asing has found an all too willing ally who sees nothing wrong with the politicization that the charter seems to allow.
This has led to highly political actions coming out of the CA’s office, including the conduct of public policy behind the closed door of “executive sessions” that we’ve seen over the past few years.
Though most acknowledge that our charter’s section on the CA is lacking and it would be “necessary and desirable” to perhaps even elect our CAs, the charter review commission (CRC) seems to waste it’s time putting lengthened council terms and various districting plans on the ballot for the umpteenth time and otherwise tinkering around the edges, ignoring the one glaring deficiency that has caused untold confusion and corruption of the legislative process.
But who can blame the CRC when the most active citizens have distracted the body by pushing a “county manager system” onto the ballot despite the lack of evidence that anything would be different?
Unless and until people put pressure on the CRC to change the set-up of the county attorney’s office it will be ripe for abuse no matter who the council chair is.
Monday, July 5, 2010
(PNN) SPECIAL COMMITTEE NIXES COUNTY MANAGER PROPOSAL; SAYS NO TO NOV. BALLOT PLACEMENT
SPECIAL COMMITTEE NIXES COUNTY MANAGER PROPOSAL; SAYS NO TO NOV. BALLOT PLACEMENT
(PNN) -- The proposal for a county manager form of government on Kaua`i will not appear on the ballot this November if the Charter Review Commission follows the recommendation of its Special Committee on County Governance (SCCG).
According to the recommendation section of the SCCG’s Report to the Kauai County Charter Review Commission:
The Special Committee on County Governance, by unanimous vote, recommends against placing a measure for a Council-Manager form of government on the 2010 General Election ballot. The committee, accordingly, recommends the adoption of this report, and further recommends that the issue of a Council-Manager form of government be postponed indefinitely.
After five meetings and three public sessions held across the island, Chair Patrick Stack and members Joel Guy and Jan TenBruggencate ultimately decided that, in keeping with their charge according to the county charter itself, they could not place the matter before the voters despite what they called “frequent, long-term and. well-reasoned arguments in its favor by a small group of committed citizens”
According to the report:
The Special Committee was constrained by the authority given the Charter Review Commission under the existing Kaua`i County Charter. Section 24-03 of the County Charter contains this authority: "In the event the commission deems changes are necessary or desirable, the commission may propose amendments to the existing charter or draft a new charter which shall be submitted to the county clerk." (Emphasis added) This is a key point. The Charter Review Commission is not authorized, as many public testifiers suggested, to place an item on the ballot simply to allow voters to express their choice.
The committee found the key phrase to be “necessary or desirable” after they compiled an actual 78 page Proposal for a County Manager Form of Government based on a submission from a group called “Citizens Ad Hoc Committee for a County Manager System”.
The committee did note that, although the charter commission has to find the changes necessary or desirable there are two other ways to get charter amendments on the ballot- via citizen petition or via county council resolution, neither of which have the restrictions the commission does.
The proposal document was complied by the committee by going through the county charter, page by page and word by word, replacing the word “mayor” with “county manager” where applicable, giving instructions for designating the chair of the county council as the “mayor”, listing methodologies for the appointment of the manager and listing qualifications for the job as well other changes.
The document has not yet been cleared by the county attorney’s and attorney general’s offices according to the report which also notes that none of the committee members are attorneys. The report does not say whether it be submitted to those offices before it comes before the full charter commission for a vote.
Despite questions raised as to whether the meetings, and especially the document produced- were covered by the sunshine law, according to one of the members of the Citizens Ad Hoc Committee, Glenn Mickens, the Office of Information Practices told him that the committee’s activites were exempt from the open meeting law under section 92 2.5 as long as the full commission dealt with the report according to the sunshine law provisions.
The report describes the changes that were made in the proposal saying
(t)he draft charter proposed a county governance system in which citizens would elect six members of a County Council, and would separately elect a Mayor. The Mayor would sit as chair of the County Council and would have limited administrative authority.
The Mayor and County Council would together select a professional County Manager. The County Manager under this system would be charged with the administration of county affairs, including the appointment of department heads unless otherwise provided for in the Charter.
But while the committee noted that the majority of those that they heard from were opposed to putting the measure on the ballot, the report say that:
(w)e note that in passing, but counting votes is not the Special Committee's assignment.
An important measure is whether the proposed system passes legal muster, which requires an opinion. from the County Attorney and/or the state Attorney General. We have not received a legal opinion on this specific proposal. State law requires a "county executive, administrative and legislative structure."
That structure is required in two different parts of the law of our state: Article VIll of the state constitution and Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 46. But making legal determination is not our assignment.
The Charter Review Commission's authority and thus the Special Committee's authority under the County Charter is to "study and review the operation of the county" and to recommend changes that it feels are "necessary or desirable." Setting aside our own judgment is not within our authority. If the members of this Special Committee were to move forward an issue the committee members do not feel is necessary or desirable, simply to give voters a chance to make a selection, we would violate our oaths to defend the County Charter.
Our assignment is to determine, after our own honest, extensive and considered review, whether the proposed form of government is a better form of government for this county at this time, or if it represents a necessary change. If we believe that it is, then we should recommend putting it on the ballot. If not, we should not.
The “findings” section of the report weighs the current mayor-council and county manager systems and lists the benefits and limitations of both concluding by saying that:
(t)he Special Committee finds no fundamental flaws with the Council-Manager form of government, but does not find that it inherently superior to Kauai’s current form of government, and does not find that a change from the current system is necessary or desirable for the effective functioning of government.
The full finding section reads as follows:
The Special Committee on County Governance finds that a Council-Manager form of government is a viable means of governing a municipality. The Committee finds that the Council-Mayor form is also a viable system, and one with a long history in Hawaii and on Kaua`i. The Special Committee finds that a large majority of individuals testifying or otherwise providing information to the committee favor retaining the current Council-Mayor system, for a variety of reasons. One often repeated reason was to have a direct voice in the selection of the county administrator, rather than an indirect voice through selection of a county manager through a single Mayor-Council panel.
The Special Committee finds that a key argument for the Council-Manager form of government is that it provides for an administrator for the county who has specific education and experience in management. The Committee finds that such experience could also be mandated for a mayoral aide under the current Mayor-Council system.
The Special Committee finds that a County Manager would be unable to function with the flexibility envisioned by some proponents due to legal limitations on his/her authority. In part, this is because under existing state law and county charter provisions, a County Manager would not be able to appoint many of the county's chief department heads. State law requires the personnel director and liquor control department head to be appointed by commission, and county charter requires the planning director, water department manager and the police and fire chiefs to be appointed by commission. A Mayor is similarly limited in oversight.
The Special Committee finds that the County Manager system removes certain cheeks and balances from county government, including the veto power of a mayor over legislative measures, and the development of a recommended budget under an elected administrator and its approval by an elected legislative body.
The Special Committee finds no fundamental flaws with the Council-Manager form of government, but does not find that it inherently superior to Kauai’s current form of government, and does not find that a change from the current system is necessary or desirable for the effective functioning of government.
According to the Charter Review Commission section of the county web site no meetings of the commission are scheduled yet.
(PNN) -- The proposal for a county manager form of government on Kaua`i will not appear on the ballot this November if the Charter Review Commission follows the recommendation of its Special Committee on County Governance (SCCG).
According to the recommendation section of the SCCG’s Report to the Kauai County Charter Review Commission:
The Special Committee on County Governance, by unanimous vote, recommends against placing a measure for a Council-Manager form of government on the 2010 General Election ballot. The committee, accordingly, recommends the adoption of this report, and further recommends that the issue of a Council-Manager form of government be postponed indefinitely.
After five meetings and three public sessions held across the island, Chair Patrick Stack and members Joel Guy and Jan TenBruggencate ultimately decided that, in keeping with their charge according to the county charter itself, they could not place the matter before the voters despite what they called “frequent, long-term and. well-reasoned arguments in its favor by a small group of committed citizens”
According to the report:
The Special Committee was constrained by the authority given the Charter Review Commission under the existing Kaua`i County Charter. Section 24-03 of the County Charter contains this authority: "In the event the commission deems changes are necessary or desirable, the commission may propose amendments to the existing charter or draft a new charter which shall be submitted to the county clerk." (Emphasis added) This is a key point. The Charter Review Commission is not authorized, as many public testifiers suggested, to place an item on the ballot simply to allow voters to express their choice.
The committee found the key phrase to be “necessary or desirable” after they compiled an actual 78 page Proposal for a County Manager Form of Government based on a submission from a group called “Citizens Ad Hoc Committee for a County Manager System”.
The committee did note that, although the charter commission has to find the changes necessary or desirable there are two other ways to get charter amendments on the ballot- via citizen petition or via county council resolution, neither of which have the restrictions the commission does.
The proposal document was complied by the committee by going through the county charter, page by page and word by word, replacing the word “mayor” with “county manager” where applicable, giving instructions for designating the chair of the county council as the “mayor”, listing methodologies for the appointment of the manager and listing qualifications for the job as well other changes.
The document has not yet been cleared by the county attorney’s and attorney general’s offices according to the report which also notes that none of the committee members are attorneys. The report does not say whether it be submitted to those offices before it comes before the full charter commission for a vote.
Despite questions raised as to whether the meetings, and especially the document produced- were covered by the sunshine law, according to one of the members of the Citizens Ad Hoc Committee, Glenn Mickens, the Office of Information Practices told him that the committee’s activites were exempt from the open meeting law under section 92 2.5 as long as the full commission dealt with the report according to the sunshine law provisions.
The report describes the changes that were made in the proposal saying
(t)he draft charter proposed a county governance system in which citizens would elect six members of a County Council, and would separately elect a Mayor. The Mayor would sit as chair of the County Council and would have limited administrative authority.
The Mayor and County Council would together select a professional County Manager. The County Manager under this system would be charged with the administration of county affairs, including the appointment of department heads unless otherwise provided for in the Charter.
But while the committee noted that the majority of those that they heard from were opposed to putting the measure on the ballot, the report say that:
(w)e note that in passing, but counting votes is not the Special Committee's assignment.
An important measure is whether the proposed system passes legal muster, which requires an opinion. from the County Attorney and/or the state Attorney General. We have not received a legal opinion on this specific proposal. State law requires a "county executive, administrative and legislative structure."
That structure is required in two different parts of the law of our state: Article VIll of the state constitution and Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 46. But making legal determination is not our assignment.
The Charter Review Commission's authority and thus the Special Committee's authority under the County Charter is to "study and review the operation of the county" and to recommend changes that it feels are "necessary or desirable." Setting aside our own judgment is not within our authority. If the members of this Special Committee were to move forward an issue the committee members do not feel is necessary or desirable, simply to give voters a chance to make a selection, we would violate our oaths to defend the County Charter.
Our assignment is to determine, after our own honest, extensive and considered review, whether the proposed form of government is a better form of government for this county at this time, or if it represents a necessary change. If we believe that it is, then we should recommend putting it on the ballot. If not, we should not.
The “findings” section of the report weighs the current mayor-council and county manager systems and lists the benefits and limitations of both concluding by saying that:
(t)he Special Committee finds no fundamental flaws with the Council-Manager form of government, but does not find that it inherently superior to Kauai’s current form of government, and does not find that a change from the current system is necessary or desirable for the effective functioning of government.
The full finding section reads as follows:
The Special Committee on County Governance finds that a Council-Manager form of government is a viable means of governing a municipality. The Committee finds that the Council-Mayor form is also a viable system, and one with a long history in Hawaii and on Kaua`i. The Special Committee finds that a large majority of individuals testifying or otherwise providing information to the committee favor retaining the current Council-Mayor system, for a variety of reasons. One often repeated reason was to have a direct voice in the selection of the county administrator, rather than an indirect voice through selection of a county manager through a single Mayor-Council panel.
The Special Committee finds that a key argument for the Council-Manager form of government is that it provides for an administrator for the county who has specific education and experience in management. The Committee finds that such experience could also be mandated for a mayoral aide under the current Mayor-Council system.
The Special Committee finds that a County Manager would be unable to function with the flexibility envisioned by some proponents due to legal limitations on his/her authority. In part, this is because under existing state law and county charter provisions, a County Manager would not be able to appoint many of the county's chief department heads. State law requires the personnel director and liquor control department head to be appointed by commission, and county charter requires the planning director, water department manager and the police and fire chiefs to be appointed by commission. A Mayor is similarly limited in oversight.
The Special Committee finds that the County Manager system removes certain cheeks and balances from county government, including the veto power of a mayor over legislative measures, and the development of a recommended budget under an elected administrator and its approval by an elected legislative body.
The Special Committee finds no fundamental flaws with the Council-Manager form of government, but does not find that it inherently superior to Kauai’s current form of government, and does not find that a change from the current system is necessary or desirable for the effective functioning of government.
According to the Charter Review Commission section of the county web site no meetings of the commission are scheduled yet.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU
WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU: We’re still not ready to support- or oppose for that matter- any “county manager” proposal but one thing that was said at the televised “meeting on wheels” of the Charter Review Commission’s Special Committee on County Governance held in Hanalei recently caused us to go back to the drawing board- not only ours but theirs.
That’s because it made us question the legality of the “current” document.
We had received a copy of the latest iteration penned by retired Princeville attorney Walter Lewis- who still refuses to disclose his involvement in the drafting of the proposed charter amendment in his columns in the local paper on the subject- and were all ready to declare it not ready for prime time due to, if nothing else, its legally sloppy nature, leaving many “new” sections in conflict with the remaining portions of the charter
But that may not matter because according a statement made at the meeting by our friend, one of the three committee members, Jan Tenbruggencate:
“We as a committee sat down after receiving the proposed document from the ad hoc committee and we reviewed the charter from beginning to end and made numerous changes to what was proposed.”
Other than causing us to have to go back and read the “new” proposal
before we open our trap it brings up a matter we’d have thought Jan would have considered before, as a duly selected member of a government board, he and the committee apparently went behind closed doors to do the work of the committee.
Although the section of the web site dedicated to the committee doesn’t list agendas for open meetings of the committee we’re pretty sure that the confab where this work was done was not open to the public.
And that would make it a blatant violation of the state open meetings or “sunshine” law.
According to HRS 92-2.5 Permitted Interactions Of Members
(b) Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum for the board, may be assigned to:
(1) Investigate a matter relating to the official business of their board; provided that:
(A) The scope of the investigation and the scope of each member's authority are defined at a meeting of the board;
(B) All resulting findings and recommendations are presented to the board at a meeting of the board
So far so good. The committee is permitted to do this kind of fact finding. But the next provisions looks bad for compliance with the sunshine law
(C) Deliberation and decisionmaking on the matter investigated, if any, occurs only at a duly noticed meeting of the board held subsequent to the meeting at which the findings and recommendations of the investigation were presented to the board
Any meeting of a board in the state or county must be open to the public with the exception of matters listed under eight provisions under HRS 92-5. But drafting a proposed document- even if by an “advisory” board- is not included in those exemptions.
One person can do it- arguably two. But not three.
The “last” charter commission- the one that in 2006 proposed a list of amendments as part of the “every 10 years” provision in the charter, including one creating the current semi-permanent commission lasting 10 years- did all their work at meetings open to the public.
They had a special appropriation from the council that allowed them to hire an attorney specifically to write up any proposed charter amendments and then they deliberated upon those in open session.
We’d have though Tenbruggencate would know better having been a staunch defender of the sunshine law throughout his career as the Kaua`i Bureau Chief of the Honolulu Advertiser. And perhaps somehow we missed it and the meeting at which they drafted the ‘new” proposal- which we will read and review soon- was duly agendaed and open to the public.
But we suspect that this was a well intentioned oversight that will have to be remedied to be in compliance with state law.
--------
We’ll be traveling into the belly of the beast tomorrow and actually be appearing on “community radio” station KKCR on Jonathan Jay’s program at 4 p.m. as part of a series of interviews he’s been doing on media on Kaua`i.
We have been assured that we will be allowed to discuss anything we want to including, in that context, our thoughts on KKCR itself although we don’t expect to dwell on it.
We’ll be taking calls so if anyone has questions as to local media or county government and issues before the council and/or administration- as well as the history behind them- we’ll be glad to answer them- assuming we know.
We may get to post tomorrow but will not on Friday. If we get busy tomorrow with other things, we’ll see ya Monday.
That’s because it made us question the legality of the “current” document.
We had received a copy of the latest iteration penned by retired Princeville attorney Walter Lewis- who still refuses to disclose his involvement in the drafting of the proposed charter amendment in his columns in the local paper on the subject- and were all ready to declare it not ready for prime time due to, if nothing else, its legally sloppy nature, leaving many “new” sections in conflict with the remaining portions of the charter
But that may not matter because according a statement made at the meeting by our friend, one of the three committee members, Jan Tenbruggencate:
“We as a committee sat down after receiving the proposed document from the ad hoc committee and we reviewed the charter from beginning to end and made numerous changes to what was proposed.”
Other than causing us to have to go back and read the “new” proposal
before we open our trap it brings up a matter we’d have thought Jan would have considered before, as a duly selected member of a government board, he and the committee apparently went behind closed doors to do the work of the committee.
Although the section of the web site dedicated to the committee doesn’t list agendas for open meetings of the committee we’re pretty sure that the confab where this work was done was not open to the public.
And that would make it a blatant violation of the state open meetings or “sunshine” law.
According to HRS 92-2.5 Permitted Interactions Of Members
(b) Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum for the board, may be assigned to:
(1) Investigate a matter relating to the official business of their board; provided that:
(A) The scope of the investigation and the scope of each member's authority are defined at a meeting of the board;
(B) All resulting findings and recommendations are presented to the board at a meeting of the board
So far so good. The committee is permitted to do this kind of fact finding. But the next provisions looks bad for compliance with the sunshine law
(C) Deliberation and decisionmaking on the matter investigated, if any, occurs only at a duly noticed meeting of the board held subsequent to the meeting at which the findings and recommendations of the investigation were presented to the board
Any meeting of a board in the state or county must be open to the public with the exception of matters listed under eight provisions under HRS 92-5. But drafting a proposed document- even if by an “advisory” board- is not included in those exemptions.
One person can do it- arguably two. But not three.
The “last” charter commission- the one that in 2006 proposed a list of amendments as part of the “every 10 years” provision in the charter, including one creating the current semi-permanent commission lasting 10 years- did all their work at meetings open to the public.
They had a special appropriation from the council that allowed them to hire an attorney specifically to write up any proposed charter amendments and then they deliberated upon those in open session.
We’d have though Tenbruggencate would know better having been a staunch defender of the sunshine law throughout his career as the Kaua`i Bureau Chief of the Honolulu Advertiser. And perhaps somehow we missed it and the meeting at which they drafted the ‘new” proposal- which we will read and review soon- was duly agendaed and open to the public.
But we suspect that this was a well intentioned oversight that will have to be remedied to be in compliance with state law.
--------
We’ll be traveling into the belly of the beast tomorrow and actually be appearing on “community radio” station KKCR on Jonathan Jay’s program at 4 p.m. as part of a series of interviews he’s been doing on media on Kaua`i.
We have been assured that we will be allowed to discuss anything we want to including, in that context, our thoughts on KKCR itself although we don’t expect to dwell on it.
We’ll be taking calls so if anyone has questions as to local media or county government and issues before the council and/or administration- as well as the history behind them- we’ll be glad to answer them- assuming we know.
We may get to post tomorrow but will not on Friday. If we get busy tomorrow with other things, we’ll see ya Monday.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
DISBELIEVING IS SEEING
DISBELIEVING IS SEEING: We actually enjoy ridiculing the all too easy to mock Kaua`i administration and council for their ability to keep us guessing whether they are just totally incompetent or simply so addicted to secrecy that it just seems that way.
Once again the ability to play the game of public policy and related public relation has taken a pie in the face with the county’s press release announcing “County Charter now available online”
Actually it’s always been there but as anyone who has gone to the now defunct- without a redirect- on-line version of the charter knows it’s been woefully out of date with recent charter amendments not just missing from the charter but unavailable anywhere at the county’s web site.
So it was with hope we that we read:
In response to numerous requests, the codified version of the County Charter is now available online.
To access the charter, please go to www.kauai.gov/CountyCharter.
Originally adopted by voters in 1969, there have been many amendments to the County Charter over the years.
Codified? Sounds good. Sounds like it might just be the actual words passed by the voters- all of them up through those passed in 2008.
So will the real charter final please stand up? Will we be able to cease having to do a search of our own files in order to find the language of, oh say, the seemingly forgotten, still unenforced, citizen-petitioned, general plan enforcement amendment and others passed recently?
Yeah, right- just read the penultimate line for a clue:
The official document remains in the County Clerk’s office.
And it was worse when we went to the new and improved posting where it says
Disclaimer: This is the Unofficial Charter of the County of Kaua`i, and as such MAY NOT represent the law in its current form (no warranties are made regarding its accuracy or completeness). It is being provided as a courtesy while the official edition is being finalized.
Please Note: This information is being provided as a public service. Users should confirm the accuracy of the information with the handcopy available at the Office of the County Clerk. While the County of Kaua`i will strive to keep this material accurate and up-to-date, those people needing an official, accurate, and up-to-date edition of the Charter will be able to obtain hard copies of those documents and other pertinent information from the Office of the County Clerk.
So the first result of the change is that no one who previously bookmarked the charter and never saw the release or the newspaper regurgitation story will be able to find it without jumping through who knows how many hoops.
But if you do find it what you’ll find is the long missing index (inaccurate when used with the pdf pages) but just the same tired old lack of amendments- with the exception of the addition of the “County Auditor” amendment but without any of the other 2008 changes and sans some earlier ones- notable the general plan amendment.
It’d be nice if it was even one step forward two steps backward with these dolts now and again but instead we have three steps sideways with a moonwalk thrown in to boot.
No wonder we ask so often “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Once again the ability to play the game of public policy and related public relation has taken a pie in the face with the county’s press release announcing “County Charter now available online”
Actually it’s always been there but as anyone who has gone to the now defunct- without a redirect- on-line version of the charter knows it’s been woefully out of date with recent charter amendments not just missing from the charter but unavailable anywhere at the county’s web site.
So it was with hope we that we read:
In response to numerous requests, the codified version of the County Charter is now available online.
To access the charter, please go to www.kauai.gov/CountyCharter.
Originally adopted by voters in 1969, there have been many amendments to the County Charter over the years.
Codified? Sounds good. Sounds like it might just be the actual words passed by the voters- all of them up through those passed in 2008.
So will the real charter final please stand up? Will we be able to cease having to do a search of our own files in order to find the language of, oh say, the seemingly forgotten, still unenforced, citizen-petitioned, general plan enforcement amendment and others passed recently?
Yeah, right- just read the penultimate line for a clue:
The official document remains in the County Clerk’s office.
And it was worse when we went to the new and improved posting where it says
Disclaimer: This is the Unofficial Charter of the County of Kaua`i, and as such MAY NOT represent the law in its current form (no warranties are made regarding its accuracy or completeness). It is being provided as a courtesy while the official edition is being finalized.
Please Note: This information is being provided as a public service. Users should confirm the accuracy of the information with the handcopy available at the Office of the County Clerk. While the County of Kaua`i will strive to keep this material accurate and up-to-date, those people needing an official, accurate, and up-to-date edition of the Charter will be able to obtain hard copies of those documents and other pertinent information from the Office of the County Clerk.
So the first result of the change is that no one who previously bookmarked the charter and never saw the release or the newspaper regurgitation story will be able to find it without jumping through who knows how many hoops.
But if you do find it what you’ll find is the long missing index (inaccurate when used with the pdf pages) but just the same tired old lack of amendments- with the exception of the addition of the “County Auditor” amendment but without any of the other 2008 changes and sans some earlier ones- notable the general plan amendment.
It’d be nice if it was even one step forward two steps backward with these dolts now and again but instead we have three steps sideways with a moonwalk thrown in to boot.
No wonder we ask so often “can’t anyone here play this game?”
Tuesday, 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
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
WHIPLASH
WHIPLASH: The use of tasers by police and what constitutes “excessive force” has caught our attention lately as it’s been impossible to find out what KPD’s policy was and/or is in light of a recent federal 9th Circuit Court ruling in Bryan v. McPherson which limited their use.
That’s why a Maui news headline- reprinted in the Honolulu Advertiser in place of their own neighbor island coverage- that said Maui officer's use of Taser on woman not excessive, court rules.
Seems the use is on a case by case basis with limits on both ends being established on the fly.
But it was the very last paragraph of the story that really caught our attention saying:
Former Deputy Corporation Counsel Laureen Martin argued the case. Deputies Corporation Counsel Richard B. Rost and Cheryl Tipton also represented the officers and county.
Now there’s something- in fact a couple of things- that we’d fall over backward in our chair if we read on Kaua`i.
The first is that they actually went, not just to trial but, to an appeal to the 9th Circuit “in house”- using county employees rather than hiring outside attorney’s at whopping prices as our “county attorney’s” office routinely (make that always) does.
The second is of course the “corporation counsel” system employed in every other county in the state.
It comes on the same days an another entry from seemingly blind and deaf Judge Al Laureta asking what specifically is wrong with our charter despite our treatises on the subject.
Although he asks in the context of the county manager proposal, a reorganization of the broken county attorney (CA) section of the charter is a good place to start.
One of the main problems is the inherent conflict embedded in our charter that empowers the CA to provide all legal advice to both the council and administration yet places the CA’s office within the administration giving the council little or no say- other than confirmation- in the department.
Reform of the CA’s office- whether electing the CA under the current set up or restructuring under a "corp counsel" system- seems a no brainer yet it has never been on the radar screen for the charter review commission (CRC).
The current system has been costing us millions every year to hire Honolulu law firms. It’s about time to see if the CRC can walk and chew gum at the same time and if not, instead of pouring their time into re-asking for the umpteenth time about four year council terms and fighting against putting effort into putting together an appropriate county manager proposal they might concentrate on fixing the most broken of all county departments.
----------------
Yesterday we inadvertently left out a link under “problems with the county’s sustainability plan” to Jan TenBruggencate’s piece on the subject, New county energy sustainability plan draft released which identifies many of the troublesome aspects much better than we could including the use of the word ridiculous and annoying word “disincentivize.”
That’s why a Maui news headline- reprinted in the Honolulu Advertiser in place of their own neighbor island coverage- that said Maui officer's use of Taser on woman not excessive, court rules.
Seems the use is on a case by case basis with limits on both ends being established on the fly.
But it was the very last paragraph of the story that really caught our attention saying:
Former Deputy Corporation Counsel Laureen Martin argued the case. Deputies Corporation Counsel Richard B. Rost and Cheryl Tipton also represented the officers and county.
Now there’s something- in fact a couple of things- that we’d fall over backward in our chair if we read on Kaua`i.
The first is that they actually went, not just to trial but, to an appeal to the 9th Circuit “in house”- using county employees rather than hiring outside attorney’s at whopping prices as our “county attorney’s” office routinely (make that always) does.
The second is of course the “corporation counsel” system employed in every other county in the state.
It comes on the same days an another entry from seemingly blind and deaf Judge Al Laureta asking what specifically is wrong with our charter despite our treatises on the subject.
Although he asks in the context of the county manager proposal, a reorganization of the broken county attorney (CA) section of the charter is a good place to start.
One of the main problems is the inherent conflict embedded in our charter that empowers the CA to provide all legal advice to both the council and administration yet places the CA’s office within the administration giving the council little or no say- other than confirmation- in the department.
Reform of the CA’s office- whether electing the CA under the current set up or restructuring under a "corp counsel" system- seems a no brainer yet it has never been on the radar screen for the charter review commission (CRC).
The current system has been costing us millions every year to hire Honolulu law firms. It’s about time to see if the CRC can walk and chew gum at the same time and if not, instead of pouring their time into re-asking for the umpteenth time about four year council terms and fighting against putting effort into putting together an appropriate county manager proposal they might concentrate on fixing the most broken of all county departments.
----------------
Yesterday we inadvertently left out a link under “problems with the county’s sustainability plan” to Jan TenBruggencate’s piece on the subject, New county energy sustainability plan draft released which identifies many of the troublesome aspects much better than we could including the use of the word ridiculous and annoying word “disincentivize.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
