DID YOU KNOW OR NO, YA KNOW?: The more you know the less you know because as you come to know what you now know you also come to know what you don't know. The trick is to know now what you don't know now and what you didn't know then... ya know?
Didn't think so.
What we do know is that even a gallon of hot sauce isn't going to make our keyboard more palatable after our misguided ingestion pledge last week.
Civil Beat's (CB) robo-calling poll accurately predicted an astonishing 20+ point win by Tulsi Gabbard (54.0%) over Mufi Hannemann (33.6%) in the 2nd US Congressional District Democratic Primary, proving to be more accurate than the Honolulu Star-Advertiser "real live person" poll, which had Mufi up by10. The fact that the difference was apparently due to exceptionally low totals for Esther Kia`aina (5.7%) and Bob Marx (3.7%)- who had been predicted to come in closer to 10% each- doesn't make our esophagus any wider or teeth any sharper.
But the results may have had little or nothing to do with the polling method because in the US Senate race it was the reverse with CB predicting a virtual tie and the S-A prognosticating a 12% margin for Mazie Hirono who actually won by 17% over Ed Case.
Go figgah.
Another thing we we got wrong, albeit a year ago, was our support for the winner of this year's Corrupt Pol of the Year award, Kaua`i Councilmember KipuKai Kuali`i. Though he didn't actually win in 2010 he wound up being appointed to the council. But the worst part is that he finished in the money this Saturday with an appropriate 666 finish - 6th place with 6.6% of the vote.
We do know now what we didn't know then- that asking people to "plunk" for Kuali`i in 2010 joins our qwerty-chewing pledge as one of our more bone-headed moves because he's turned out to be a first-class hack who's traded in his political soul in support of Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's prosecutorial crime spree.
He now blindly follows Iseri adherent, her boot-licker-in-chief Mel Rapozo. Together they lead the goose-stepping cadre that champions our favorite race-baiter, "Ms Shay it, don't spray it."
That support grew out Kipukai's apparent back room deal for the redirection of a Victim-Witness program grant from Iseri's office to Kualii`s employer at the YWCA.
It's become laughingly obvious to anyone who watches the council in action that Kipukai has now gone to the dark side. But not only did he trade various votes to allow Iseri to get away with a slew of shenanigans and outright unlawful activity, it has cost the county a hefty chunk of cash in the form of an EEOC settlement for the firing of Victim Witness Counselor Erin Wilson.
Wilson was succinctly described by Joan Conrow as "the single mom who moved here all the way from Colorado to work as a victim witness coordinator, only to be fired a couple of months into the job because there supposedly wasn't enough work."
Of course there wasn't enough work because Iseri shuffled the job over to the "Y" in exchange for Kipukai's undying support for Iseri in the slew of past, present and we presume, future Shay-related scandals.
We do know that, unbelievably enough, for now, Kuali`i finished 1/10% (102 votes) ahead of Gary Hooser and 2/10% (152 votes) ahead of Tim Bynum in Saturday's useless election.
What we don't know is how to make sure that by Nov. 6 everybody knows about Kualii's little pact.
Showing posts with label Civil Beat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Beat. Show all posts
Monday, August 13, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
HUNG UP?
HUNG UP?: Getting telephone polled (and everyone knows how painful that can be, as Steve Allen used to say) used to be a rare event. While some were annoyed at having to answer questions from a stranger at dinner time, more often "poll-ees" felt that it was so out of the ordinary that they might as well thoughtfully answer the "poll-ers'" questions.
But this year, with the ubiquitous use of the "robo-call"- those pre-recorded "push '1' if you plan to vote for candidate 'X'" calls- we knew it couldn't just be our imagination that the phone seems to ring with these things once a day and twice on Sunday.
We've actually answered at least a half a dozen of theses things this year and screened out another large handful- usually with an "egad, not again" attitude- more than the total number we've ever received over the years.
We'd gotten a strange feeling that these robo-calls- a term that some consider pejorative even though it's the common parlance for any pre-recorded call- were yielding bogus results for a long time, for many reasons.
But the absurdly counter-intuitive results of a "Civil Beat (CB)" poll yesterday that has Tulsi Gabbard taking a sudden and stunning 49%-29% lead over Mufi Hannemann in the 2nd U.S. Congressional District race, all but confirms our suspicions... especially coming, as it does, on the heels of a CB-reported tie a few weeks back and a 10 point lead by Hannemann in a "Hawai`i News Now/Star Advertiser HNN/SA" poll a week before.
Even with the respective "margins of error" a simply statistical explanation doesn't cut it. There has to be something else going on here.
And if our experiences, along with those of some of our Facebook "friends," is any indication it is the robo-calls themselves that provide an explanation.
First of all it appears that only those with a "land-line" have been robo-called. Those with cell phones need not apply. Some say that this discriminates against younger and poorer voters being included but no matter what demographic groups it favors, the results are going to be skewed one way or another.
It may be simply the annoyance factor that causes people to auto-hang-up on auto-calls.
We've developed a habit of doing just that. Whether it's the recent polling or other calls of late, as soon as it becomes apparent that the call is a recording, we hang up,`` having developed the attitude that if it's not important enough for them to call personally it's not important enough for us to answer.
Plus of course there is the modern phenomena of screening calls based on caller ID. This may vary with how busy one is at the moment but if we're busy in the kitchen and an unknown mainland number comes up, we're a whole lot less likely to answer it- and even less so if the caller's number and name are blocked.
We basically asked our Facebook "friends" if they had landlines or cells, how many calls they got and whether the calls were "live or Memorex" ("taped," for all you youngsters) as well as how the number of calls compared to past years.
What we found is that that we're not alone in our response to robo-calls or "touch-tone polling" as Civil Beat would prefer they be referred to. Here are some of the responses left on on our Facebook page (all "Sic"):
- I have been getting at least 3 to 4 a week on land line. I hang up or don't take calls but then they go to message and I still have to deal with them. Most of them come in early evening. They are from everywhere; local, state, fed.
- I think I've probably gotten about 3 in the last month. Not sure. I hang up as soon as I realize its a computer. Been getting a few voice mails asking me to vote for their candidate
-1) hangup on robo-calls, 2) Ask any live person who commissioned the poll, have yet to get an answer and hang-up, 3) if they tell me who commissioned the poll I throw flak at the pollster.
- I have had more survey calls than ever before. Maybe a total of six, four were robo calls. Two were definite push polls, maybe three. All calls were to a land line. Only screened one that I did not take, a repeat call from one surveyor I hung up on for being a push poll. One seemed pointed at prosecutor office, all others combined house and senate. One earlier included county council questions.
In response to that last one, probably because it wasn't clear, candidate for Prosecuting Attorney Justin Kollar responded, "Just so everyone knows, my campaign has done no robocalling. ZERO."
That concurs with a report from Joan Conrow- one that quite a few others have independently confirmed for us- that described what could only be called a "push poll" and seemed to be from Kollar's opponent, incumbent Shaylene Iseri Carvalho.
Our favorite questions from that Iseri push poll was "do you read the blogs?" quite obviously because she's in trouble if they do.
Oh, and here's one response we got via email,
I've had about the same experience you have Andy, though far more than a half dozen, with many calls being from out of the area and automated, a few were actual live interview calls. Some are obviously partisan, others I could not tell who was sponsoring them. I screened one caller, Bob Marx, as noted on my caller ID, and they called back 4 times within a couple of hours. They have all been on my land line, apparently gotten from the phone book. They are a nuisance.
But though this is a small sampling and of course is not a "scientific poll" it is significant in that everyone who responded did so with frustration- oh, all right call it anger- over robo-calls. Remember they don't seem to object to getting polling calls, just that they were the recorded type.
One factor we haven’t heard mentioned is the relative difficulty of the whole "touch tone call" phenomena. Although most of us are used to it by now, no one likes it. Humorists and comedians have had a field day with them for more than a decade now.
Arguably, once you get past the usual desire to talk to a live person- and the fact that that option either doesn't seem to be on the list or is the last one of 10 choices (and is never "0")- the worst part is trying to find the right button on these telephones that no longer have a separate receiver and number pad, but instead have the keypad right next to where you talk and listen so that you have to keep taking the phone away from your head to push the right button and bringing it back to your ear... until your arms (or ear) starts to fall off.
And boy are you in trouble if you didn't catch the first couple of selections of what has become a long, bewildering set of choices. Are you really going to have the machine read the selections again? Or are you more likely to just push any button just to get the thing over with?
And then there's the regular poll that turns into a push poll. Although there's been some argument- usually from the people who run them- that they aren't push polls for one double-talking reason or another, everyone knows them when they hear them.
And they've heard quite a few this year.
Our favorite was one where, five minutes in, the "caller" asks a series of questions beginning with "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Mufi if you knew that he" followed by some horrendous anecdotal tale of apparent avarice or corruption. One question included the words "Pearl Harbor" and "Senator Inouye" and if you weren’t paying close attention you might get the impression that Mufi was at the controls of a Japanese Zero honing in on the 442nd.
Another negative of robo-calls is the impatience factor with a long list of choices. You just know that 10 minutes into a call that had asked for "five minutes of your time" people are starting to push "1" or "2" just to make the process go faster, thinking they already have 10 minutes invested so they don't want to hang up now, they just want it to be over.
Whether these things we do make sense or not isn't important- it's simply what we do without really thinking about it.
Then of course there's the one where the choices change and they type of question remains the same. After a list of four or five questions with the same two possible answers, all of a sudden you realize there are now seven different choices and you just pushed "1" only because that was the one you had been pushing on similar questions.
But the big question here is, assuming that robo-calls give skewed data, why would it favor Tulsi over Mufi?
Well, let's look at those specifics.
Mufi is not exactly the kind of candidate that makes people excited about his candidacy. First of all he's a conservative candidate in what has been arguably described as "the most liberal district in the country." And he's running in a Democratic primary where he started with a big lead without any real progressive oppositions.
The Democratic base had been craving a candidate they could get excited about. Former Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser apparently chose not to run for the post he ran for some years back and many suspect it was because of the daunting task of raising enough money to take on the presumed favorite, Hannemann. And he had name recognition after also running for lt. governor last year whereas Gabbard has never run for statewide office before, just state representative and Honolulu county council.
Enter Tulsi. Then enter lots of money- much of it from the mainland- to publicize her status as a "born-again lefty."
Even though anywhere else he'd be a Republican, Mufi's support has come from the Democratic "machine" who are supporting him as the "establishment" candidate. Many have been supporting him simply because of name recognition.
But as Gabbard started to raise money and get her name out there she negated much of that and now has become the "go to" candidate who, although they were probably going to vote for Mufi before, has now excited those who were looking for a "progressive alternative."
And make no mistake about it- the Democratic progressives have become excited having long "got over" her former radical right wing stance on marriage rights and other issues.
Those are the people who would be more likely to stay on the phone to get their "choice" registered with the thought that polls numbers create the bandwagon effect.
No one's getting "excited" over the prospect of Congressman Hannemann... except maybe for those who expect a federal contract from the well "know pay-to-play" pol.
And don't forget about the "Mufi haters." Hannemann has tremendous negatives with high "dislike" numbers that he's generated over the years. He's been characterized, if not caricatured, as having a "bullying" style and has been accused of negative- even allegedly racist- campaigning, most recently in his run for governor where he lost to Neil Abercrombie two years ago.
Not too many Mufi Mavens are going to stay on the phone through a robo-call to register their support for him. As a matter of fact, we'd venture to say most of his supporters think it's "in the bag" already- don't forget, this poll wasn't out at the time.
All that could lead to a situation where those most likely to stay through a recorded call- even though they hate robo-calls- would be Gabbard supporters whereas the least likely would be Hannemann supporters.
And for what it's worth, it's a lot easier to hang up on a recording than a person, especially in the "Aloha State" so there's a natural skewing at the most basic level.
We really feel sorry for our friend Mike Levine whose job at Civil Beat was to try to explain how such an anomaly could possibly be valid. He actually did a good job of it and you come away thinking "well, it could happen."
But, upon reflection, no- it couldn't happen. A 30 point difference in two almost simultaneous polls cannot be reasoned away even with the old standby of "it's just snapshot."
When you look at the difference between the HNN/SA and CB polls, the main thing- maybe the only thing- that sticks out is the method of gathering the information. And if it's the method that's in question and one candidate is roundly not just disliked but actively hated then, as most critical thinkers and rational people will tell you, the likely answer is going to be the correct one- that something is kapakahi with the robo-call methodology.
If Tulsi Gabbard beats Mufi Hannemann by 20 points this Saturday we'll eat this keyboard. Because it would be easier to ingest a pound of plastic and metal than it would to swallow the validity of these robo-calls.
But this year, with the ubiquitous use of the "robo-call"- those pre-recorded "push '1' if you plan to vote for candidate 'X'" calls- we knew it couldn't just be our imagination that the phone seems to ring with these things once a day and twice on Sunday.
We've actually answered at least a half a dozen of theses things this year and screened out another large handful- usually with an "egad, not again" attitude- more than the total number we've ever received over the years.
We'd gotten a strange feeling that these robo-calls- a term that some consider pejorative even though it's the common parlance for any pre-recorded call- were yielding bogus results for a long time, for many reasons.
But the absurdly counter-intuitive results of a "Civil Beat (CB)" poll yesterday that has Tulsi Gabbard taking a sudden and stunning 49%-29% lead over Mufi Hannemann in the 2nd U.S. Congressional District race, all but confirms our suspicions... especially coming, as it does, on the heels of a CB-reported tie a few weeks back and a 10 point lead by Hannemann in a "Hawai`i News Now/Star Advertiser HNN/SA" poll a week before.
Even with the respective "margins of error" a simply statistical explanation doesn't cut it. There has to be something else going on here.
And if our experiences, along with those of some of our Facebook "friends," is any indication it is the robo-calls themselves that provide an explanation.
First of all it appears that only those with a "land-line" have been robo-called. Those with cell phones need not apply. Some say that this discriminates against younger and poorer voters being included but no matter what demographic groups it favors, the results are going to be skewed one way or another.
It may be simply the annoyance factor that causes people to auto-hang-up on auto-calls.
We've developed a habit of doing just that. Whether it's the recent polling or other calls of late, as soon as it becomes apparent that the call is a recording, we hang up,`` having developed the attitude that if it's not important enough for them to call personally it's not important enough for us to answer.
Plus of course there is the modern phenomena of screening calls based on caller ID. This may vary with how busy one is at the moment but if we're busy in the kitchen and an unknown mainland number comes up, we're a whole lot less likely to answer it- and even less so if the caller's number and name are blocked.
We basically asked our Facebook "friends" if they had landlines or cells, how many calls they got and whether the calls were "live or Memorex" ("taped," for all you youngsters) as well as how the number of calls compared to past years.
What we found is that that we're not alone in our response to robo-calls or "touch-tone polling" as Civil Beat would prefer they be referred to. Here are some of the responses left on on our Facebook page (all "Sic"):
- I have been getting at least 3 to 4 a week on land line. I hang up or don't take calls but then they go to message and I still have to deal with them. Most of them come in early evening. They are from everywhere; local, state, fed.
- I think I've probably gotten about 3 in the last month. Not sure. I hang up as soon as I realize its a computer. Been getting a few voice mails asking me to vote for their candidate
-1) hangup on robo-calls, 2) Ask any live person who commissioned the poll, have yet to get an answer and hang-up, 3) if they tell me who commissioned the poll I throw flak at the pollster.
- I have had more survey calls than ever before. Maybe a total of six, four were robo calls. Two were definite push polls, maybe three. All calls were to a land line. Only screened one that I did not take, a repeat call from one surveyor I hung up on for being a push poll. One seemed pointed at prosecutor office, all others combined house and senate. One earlier included county council questions.
In response to that last one, probably because it wasn't clear, candidate for Prosecuting Attorney Justin Kollar responded, "Just so everyone knows, my campaign has done no robocalling. ZERO."
That concurs with a report from Joan Conrow- one that quite a few others have independently confirmed for us- that described what could only be called a "push poll" and seemed to be from Kollar's opponent, incumbent Shaylene Iseri Carvalho.
Our favorite questions from that Iseri push poll was "do you read the blogs?" quite obviously because she's in trouble if they do.
Oh, and here's one response we got via email,
I've had about the same experience you have Andy, though far more than a half dozen, with many calls being from out of the area and automated, a few were actual live interview calls. Some are obviously partisan, others I could not tell who was sponsoring them. I screened one caller, Bob Marx, as noted on my caller ID, and they called back 4 times within a couple of hours. They have all been on my land line, apparently gotten from the phone book. They are a nuisance.
But though this is a small sampling and of course is not a "scientific poll" it is significant in that everyone who responded did so with frustration- oh, all right call it anger- over robo-calls. Remember they don't seem to object to getting polling calls, just that they were the recorded type.
One factor we haven’t heard mentioned is the relative difficulty of the whole "touch tone call" phenomena. Although most of us are used to it by now, no one likes it. Humorists and comedians have had a field day with them for more than a decade now.
Arguably, once you get past the usual desire to talk to a live person- and the fact that that option either doesn't seem to be on the list or is the last one of 10 choices (and is never "0")- the worst part is trying to find the right button on these telephones that no longer have a separate receiver and number pad, but instead have the keypad right next to where you talk and listen so that you have to keep taking the phone away from your head to push the right button and bringing it back to your ear... until your arms (or ear) starts to fall off.
And boy are you in trouble if you didn't catch the first couple of selections of what has become a long, bewildering set of choices. Are you really going to have the machine read the selections again? Or are you more likely to just push any button just to get the thing over with?
And then there's the regular poll that turns into a push poll. Although there's been some argument- usually from the people who run them- that they aren't push polls for one double-talking reason or another, everyone knows them when they hear them.
And they've heard quite a few this year.
Our favorite was one where, five minutes in, the "caller" asks a series of questions beginning with "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Mufi if you knew that he" followed by some horrendous anecdotal tale of apparent avarice or corruption. One question included the words "Pearl Harbor" and "Senator Inouye" and if you weren’t paying close attention you might get the impression that Mufi was at the controls of a Japanese Zero honing in on the 442nd.
Another negative of robo-calls is the impatience factor with a long list of choices. You just know that 10 minutes into a call that had asked for "five minutes of your time" people are starting to push "1" or "2" just to make the process go faster, thinking they already have 10 minutes invested so they don't want to hang up now, they just want it to be over.
Whether these things we do make sense or not isn't important- it's simply what we do without really thinking about it.
Then of course there's the one where the choices change and they type of question remains the same. After a list of four or five questions with the same two possible answers, all of a sudden you realize there are now seven different choices and you just pushed "1" only because that was the one you had been pushing on similar questions.
But the big question here is, assuming that robo-calls give skewed data, why would it favor Tulsi over Mufi?
Well, let's look at those specifics.
Mufi is not exactly the kind of candidate that makes people excited about his candidacy. First of all he's a conservative candidate in what has been arguably described as "the most liberal district in the country." And he's running in a Democratic primary where he started with a big lead without any real progressive oppositions.
The Democratic base had been craving a candidate they could get excited about. Former Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser apparently chose not to run for the post he ran for some years back and many suspect it was because of the daunting task of raising enough money to take on the presumed favorite, Hannemann. And he had name recognition after also running for lt. governor last year whereas Gabbard has never run for statewide office before, just state representative and Honolulu county council.
Enter Tulsi. Then enter lots of money- much of it from the mainland- to publicize her status as a "born-again lefty."
Even though anywhere else he'd be a Republican, Mufi's support has come from the Democratic "machine" who are supporting him as the "establishment" candidate. Many have been supporting him simply because of name recognition.
But as Gabbard started to raise money and get her name out there she negated much of that and now has become the "go to" candidate who, although they were probably going to vote for Mufi before, has now excited those who were looking for a "progressive alternative."
And make no mistake about it- the Democratic progressives have become excited having long "got over" her former radical right wing stance on marriage rights and other issues.
Those are the people who would be more likely to stay on the phone to get their "choice" registered with the thought that polls numbers create the bandwagon effect.
No one's getting "excited" over the prospect of Congressman Hannemann... except maybe for those who expect a federal contract from the well "know pay-to-play" pol.
And don't forget about the "Mufi haters." Hannemann has tremendous negatives with high "dislike" numbers that he's generated over the years. He's been characterized, if not caricatured, as having a "bullying" style and has been accused of negative- even allegedly racist- campaigning, most recently in his run for governor where he lost to Neil Abercrombie two years ago.
Not too many Mufi Mavens are going to stay on the phone through a robo-call to register their support for him. As a matter of fact, we'd venture to say most of his supporters think it's "in the bag" already- don't forget, this poll wasn't out at the time.
All that could lead to a situation where those most likely to stay through a recorded call- even though they hate robo-calls- would be Gabbard supporters whereas the least likely would be Hannemann supporters.
And for what it's worth, it's a lot easier to hang up on a recording than a person, especially in the "Aloha State" so there's a natural skewing at the most basic level.
We really feel sorry for our friend Mike Levine whose job at Civil Beat was to try to explain how such an anomaly could possibly be valid. He actually did a good job of it and you come away thinking "well, it could happen."
But, upon reflection, no- it couldn't happen. A 30 point difference in two almost simultaneous polls cannot be reasoned away even with the old standby of "it's just snapshot."
When you look at the difference between the HNN/SA and CB polls, the main thing- maybe the only thing- that sticks out is the method of gathering the information. And if it's the method that's in question and one candidate is roundly not just disliked but actively hated then, as most critical thinkers and rational people will tell you, the likely answer is going to be the correct one- that something is kapakahi with the robo-call methodology.
If Tulsi Gabbard beats Mufi Hannemann by 20 points this Saturday we'll eat this keyboard. Because it would be easier to ingest a pound of plastic and metal than it would to swallow the validity of these robo-calls.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
PROCESS OF ELUCIDATION
PROCESS OF ELUCIDATION: One of the more absurd of Yogi Berra's non-sequiturs was that "nobody goes there any more- it's too crowded."
When it comes the field of "acceptable" candidates in this year's elections the ballot is anything but crowded. That's the case up and down the ticket on Kaua`i but it's exemplified by the County Council election where a record low nine people are running for seven seats.
The key word there is "acceptable" because the way democracy has combined with capitalism in America we've managed to define "acceptable" as "corporate-funded, duopoly selected."
But that has little or nothing to do with the reason why Hawai`i in particular is at or near the bottom of the list in voter turnout. This week a six-part series by blogger/journalist Ian Lind in Civil Beat tried to explain why through statistical gymnastics that, while we're sure are true, seemed anything but insightful.
One thing missing in Lind's report is the "sun and surf" factor.
Stay with us. Hawai`i is the home of the tourism-industry crummy jobs that cause all members of the family to work at least two close-to-minimum-wage jobs apiece. With the cost of living higher than other places in the US, people just don't have time to pay attention to politics and certainly want to spend their leisure time doing something other than figuring out who to vote for.
Even though we political junkies don't see the logic in that, it makes more sense when you add in that "immigrants" don't exactly flock here to get involved in politics, which also goes for those born and raised here who have usually chosen to "stay home" after they finish school.
Most people are here one way or another because they can surf, hike, snorkel, fish and do all the things that make living in the islands unique. If anything, they came here- or stay here- because they are actually running away from places obsessed with politics and the like.
Then of course there are also those who aren't particularly interested in participating in what they see as the central activity that an "occupying nation" uses to justify their military control and "make the world safe for democracy." Though it's not a vast number who think that way, it's more than most people think.
But if you really want to know why few among the remaining are voting it may be the simplest reason of all: there's "no one" running.
Why vote when all the Democrats and Republicans are greedy power mongers who are all, in one way or another, on the take?
While there are exceptions that prove the rule like Mina Morita or Gary Hooser (who, maybe not so coincidentally, are both currently out of office although Hooser is seeking to return to the county council) it's been like pulling proverbial teeth to get people to run for office these days.
We just spent a year and a half recruiting candidates and didn’t find a one. We even lost a couple at the last second.
We approached almost every "community activist" we know, even some we disagree with because we knew that at least they fight for things they actually believe in. And every one said "thanks but no thanks," some adding "why in the hell would I want to do that?"
Indeed running for office is a daunting proposition. Just the prospect of having to ask people for money makes many back off. The idea of spending every spare moment for a year going door to door, attending every gathering and being subjected to more scrutiny than a prize pig at an auction is not one that makes one's heart go pitter-patter.
Surprisingly many say that actually serving- crafting legislation, guiding it through, going to meetings and all that intriguing stuff- is what they want to avoid because they'd have to deal with all the a-holes in office who, for the most part, actually enjoy all the back-stabbing political gamesmanship that got them into office and keeps them there.
Can you imagine having to sit there with Mel Rapozo or Dickie Chang- and not just sit there at a meeting but actually negotiate with and schmooze them? Are you going to listen to Jay Furfaro go on endlessly about his delusions of success or try to figure out why Kipukai Kuali`i would be aligning himself with Rapozo and the Queen of Spleen, Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho- and then actually come up with equally sinister plans to oppose their evil schemes?
What fun. Who'd wanna go surfing when you can listen to a three hour report on some incomprehensible, unattainable, feel-good plan to spend a million bucks to spruce up the county building parking lot?
So there you have it- an electorate that's already got better things to do and actually came or stayed here to get away from the backstabbing political culture on the mainland. And if they do take a look at the local political culture they see nothing but a bunch of moronic and vicious bozos appealing to what's left of the electorate. And those that do vote do so on the basis of who went to school with whom and whether they attend the same church... or cock fight.
And it's only getting worse. Don't forget the last mayoral election where the only one to run against a punch-drunk, concussion-syndrome-addled, ex-football player was a well-meaning too-smart-for-the-job, haole lady who'd lived here all of ten minutes. And this year, even with the criminally insane, moist-Malaprop-spewing Iseri running for prosecuting attorney against what appears to be a smart, honest and upstanding progressive apparently actually interested in serving justice (imagine that), it's still a race too close to call because she grew up here and he didn't.
It doesn't get any better with our choices for US congress where unlike the Kaua`i state legislative contest, there is one. For the U.S. house it's a war-obsessed vet who has gotten non-religion and is suddenly bigoted-no-more, running against a slimy pay-for-play veteran who has as much substance as dark matter. And for senate it's a pseudo-progressive against a pseudo-Democrat in the primaries and the winner gets to take on the Stepford Wife, chameleon ex-governor who has the unique talent for speaking out of all three sides of her mouth.
Those are our choices? Well actually not. Because even though we have convinced ourselves that we can only vote for one of them, there are others on the ballot, many of whom aren't corrupt caricatures of public servants. It's just that we've convinced ourselves we're not allowed to vote for them.
The fact is that people believe in the cockamamie "two party system" that has created a fraudulent scheme where legalized bribery is compulsory, corporate billionaires do the bribing and everyone is too intimidated to vote for the candidate they actually like because no one else will.
Maybe Yogi had it right: there's nobody running- the field is too crowded. In other words, why would you vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein? She's too popular.
When it comes the field of "acceptable" candidates in this year's elections the ballot is anything but crowded. That's the case up and down the ticket on Kaua`i but it's exemplified by the County Council election where a record low nine people are running for seven seats.
The key word there is "acceptable" because the way democracy has combined with capitalism in America we've managed to define "acceptable" as "corporate-funded, duopoly selected."
But that has little or nothing to do with the reason why Hawai`i in particular is at or near the bottom of the list in voter turnout. This week a six-part series by blogger/journalist Ian Lind in Civil Beat tried to explain why through statistical gymnastics that, while we're sure are true, seemed anything but insightful.
One thing missing in Lind's report is the "sun and surf" factor.
Stay with us. Hawai`i is the home of the tourism-industry crummy jobs that cause all members of the family to work at least two close-to-minimum-wage jobs apiece. With the cost of living higher than other places in the US, people just don't have time to pay attention to politics and certainly want to spend their leisure time doing something other than figuring out who to vote for.
Even though we political junkies don't see the logic in that, it makes more sense when you add in that "immigrants" don't exactly flock here to get involved in politics, which also goes for those born and raised here who have usually chosen to "stay home" after they finish school.
Most people are here one way or another because they can surf, hike, snorkel, fish and do all the things that make living in the islands unique. If anything, they came here- or stay here- because they are actually running away from places obsessed with politics and the like.
Then of course there are also those who aren't particularly interested in participating in what they see as the central activity that an "occupying nation" uses to justify their military control and "make the world safe for democracy." Though it's not a vast number who think that way, it's more than most people think.
But if you really want to know why few among the remaining are voting it may be the simplest reason of all: there's "no one" running.
Why vote when all the Democrats and Republicans are greedy power mongers who are all, in one way or another, on the take?
While there are exceptions that prove the rule like Mina Morita or Gary Hooser (who, maybe not so coincidentally, are both currently out of office although Hooser is seeking to return to the county council) it's been like pulling proverbial teeth to get people to run for office these days.
We just spent a year and a half recruiting candidates and didn’t find a one. We even lost a couple at the last second.
We approached almost every "community activist" we know, even some we disagree with because we knew that at least they fight for things they actually believe in. And every one said "thanks but no thanks," some adding "why in the hell would I want to do that?"
Indeed running for office is a daunting proposition. Just the prospect of having to ask people for money makes many back off. The idea of spending every spare moment for a year going door to door, attending every gathering and being subjected to more scrutiny than a prize pig at an auction is not one that makes one's heart go pitter-patter.
Surprisingly many say that actually serving- crafting legislation, guiding it through, going to meetings and all that intriguing stuff- is what they want to avoid because they'd have to deal with all the a-holes in office who, for the most part, actually enjoy all the back-stabbing political gamesmanship that got them into office and keeps them there.
Can you imagine having to sit there with Mel Rapozo or Dickie Chang- and not just sit there at a meeting but actually negotiate with and schmooze them? Are you going to listen to Jay Furfaro go on endlessly about his delusions of success or try to figure out why Kipukai Kuali`i would be aligning himself with Rapozo and the Queen of Spleen, Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho- and then actually come up with equally sinister plans to oppose their evil schemes?
What fun. Who'd wanna go surfing when you can listen to a three hour report on some incomprehensible, unattainable, feel-good plan to spend a million bucks to spruce up the county building parking lot?
So there you have it- an electorate that's already got better things to do and actually came or stayed here to get away from the backstabbing political culture on the mainland. And if they do take a look at the local political culture they see nothing but a bunch of moronic and vicious bozos appealing to what's left of the electorate. And those that do vote do so on the basis of who went to school with whom and whether they attend the same church... or cock fight.
And it's only getting worse. Don't forget the last mayoral election where the only one to run against a punch-drunk, concussion-syndrome-addled, ex-football player was a well-meaning too-smart-for-the-job, haole lady who'd lived here all of ten minutes. And this year, even with the criminally insane, moist-Malaprop-spewing Iseri running for prosecuting attorney against what appears to be a smart, honest and upstanding progressive apparently actually interested in serving justice (imagine that), it's still a race too close to call because she grew up here and he didn't.
It doesn't get any better with our choices for US congress where unlike the Kaua`i state legislative contest, there is one. For the U.S. house it's a war-obsessed vet who has gotten non-religion and is suddenly bigoted-no-more, running against a slimy pay-for-play veteran who has as much substance as dark matter. And for senate it's a pseudo-progressive against a pseudo-Democrat in the primaries and the winner gets to take on the Stepford Wife, chameleon ex-governor who has the unique talent for speaking out of all three sides of her mouth.
Those are our choices? Well actually not. Because even though we have convinced ourselves that we can only vote for one of them, there are others on the ballot, many of whom aren't corrupt caricatures of public servants. It's just that we've convinced ourselves we're not allowed to vote for them.
The fact is that people believe in the cockamamie "two party system" that has created a fraudulent scheme where legalized bribery is compulsory, corporate billionaires do the bribing and everyone is too intimidated to vote for the candidate they actually like because no one else will.
Maybe Yogi had it right: there's nobody running- the field is too crowded. In other words, why would you vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein? She's too popular.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
PICK YOUR POISON
PICK YOUR POISON: It looked bad- real bad. Now?- maybe not so much.
There appeared to be the proverbial slim and no chance to stop our 2nd US Congressional District from falling into the hands of one of, if not the most obnoxious, disingenuous and generally politically repulsive hack in the islands.
Perennial political opportunist Mufi Hannemann announced early for the seat and as the list of no-name challengers grew it was punctuated by a name that seemed equally repulsive in its own way: Gabbard.
The one running for the 2nd CD wasn't State Senator Mike Gabbard- the bigoted homophobe who was in large part responsible for our first-in-the-nation state constitutional amendment allowing the banning of gay marriage- a voter approved measure that followed the first-in-the-nation state supreme court ruling that had mandated equity in marriage.
Another political hack, Gabbard was one of those Hawai`i Republicans who saw his political future in the GOP as nonexistent and so was reborn an environmentalist Democrat.
The Gabbard on the ballot is his daughter, Honolulu Councilmember Tulsi Gabbard, who, although she led the also-rans in early polls, trailed Hannemann by a wide, almost insurmountable margin.
It was hard to not see Tulsi as an almost equally repulsive choice, having supported her father's evangelical hate-spewing zealotry in the late 90's and having little or no chance to win to boot.
Apparently we aren't the only ones that have reserved a little corner of political hell for the Mufster- a hack in the truest sense of the word- whose style is to tell people what he thinks they want to hear unless he's busy race-baiting or staking out equally repulsive positions on civil rights.
We thought, "oh well- why bother." The seat held by the late beloved progressive Patsy Mink had already fallen into the hands of the blue-dog devil Ed Case for a few years a few years back and, well, we've become accustomed to falling out of the political frying pan.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the proforma. Not only has Tulsi Gabbard renounced her prior positions on marriage and civil unions, but a recent poll in Civil Beat shows she has not only caught up but passed Hannemann in a recent poll by a four point margin (35%-31%)- just slightly more than the 3.7% margin of error.
We should not though that her position is not exactly pro gay marriage but that slithery-slimy one where she's opposed to state involvement in marriage of any type and favors civil unions for all
Unfortunately other candidates, like the more progressive Esther Kia`aina, are seemingly out of it at around 10%. But the question this raises as to the Tulsi- Mufi race (are we really supposed to say "Tulsi-Mufi without laughing for the next five months?) is, do you believe her?
The answer is another question? Does it matter?
In essence it is one of those "potted plant" elections- in other words one where our first reaction to the announced presumed victor is, "I'd vote for a ficus before I'd vote for him."
Tulsi Gabbard's transformation has got to raise a few eyebrows, from a military yahoo who quit her state senate seat to kill Arabs after rallying the home troops to enshrine bigotry in our state constitution, to a liberal lioness.
But it's going to be a lot easier for us and many others to forget the past if the choice is between (as local talk show host Jonathan Jay posted on Facebook) "the tall one and the hot one."
Well all we can say is we'd rather get burned from the heat than looked down on by corruption from above.
There appeared to be the proverbial slim and no chance to stop our 2nd US Congressional District from falling into the hands of one of, if not the most obnoxious, disingenuous and generally politically repulsive hack in the islands.
Perennial political opportunist Mufi Hannemann announced early for the seat and as the list of no-name challengers grew it was punctuated by a name that seemed equally repulsive in its own way: Gabbard.
The one running for the 2nd CD wasn't State Senator Mike Gabbard- the bigoted homophobe who was in large part responsible for our first-in-the-nation state constitutional amendment allowing the banning of gay marriage- a voter approved measure that followed the first-in-the-nation state supreme court ruling that had mandated equity in marriage.
Another political hack, Gabbard was one of those Hawai`i Republicans who saw his political future in the GOP as nonexistent and so was reborn an environmentalist Democrat.
The Gabbard on the ballot is his daughter, Honolulu Councilmember Tulsi Gabbard, who, although she led the also-rans in early polls, trailed Hannemann by a wide, almost insurmountable margin.
It was hard to not see Tulsi as an almost equally repulsive choice, having supported her father's evangelical hate-spewing zealotry in the late 90's and having little or no chance to win to boot.
Apparently we aren't the only ones that have reserved a little corner of political hell for the Mufster- a hack in the truest sense of the word- whose style is to tell people what he thinks they want to hear unless he's busy race-baiting or staking out equally repulsive positions on civil rights.
We thought, "oh well- why bother." The seat held by the late beloved progressive Patsy Mink had already fallen into the hands of the blue-dog devil Ed Case for a few years a few years back and, well, we've become accustomed to falling out of the political frying pan.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the proforma. Not only has Tulsi Gabbard renounced her prior positions on marriage and civil unions, but a recent poll in Civil Beat shows she has not only caught up but passed Hannemann in a recent poll by a four point margin (35%-31%)- just slightly more than the 3.7% margin of error.
We should not though that her position is not exactly pro gay marriage but that slithery-slimy one where she's opposed to state involvement in marriage of any type and favors civil unions for all
Unfortunately other candidates, like the more progressive Esther Kia`aina, are seemingly out of it at around 10%. But the question this raises as to the Tulsi- Mufi race (are we really supposed to say "Tulsi-Mufi without laughing for the next five months?) is, do you believe her?
The answer is another question? Does it matter?
In essence it is one of those "potted plant" elections- in other words one where our first reaction to the announced presumed victor is, "I'd vote for a ficus before I'd vote for him."
Tulsi Gabbard's transformation has got to raise a few eyebrows, from a military yahoo who quit her state senate seat to kill Arabs after rallying the home troops to enshrine bigotry in our state constitution, to a liberal lioness.
But it's going to be a lot easier for us and many others to forget the past if the choice is between (as local talk show host Jonathan Jay posted on Facebook) "the tall one and the hot one."
Well all we can say is we'd rather get burned from the heat than looked down on by corruption from above.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
WRAPPING IT UP
WRAPPING IT UP: It was going swimmingly last December. As we said at the time, Kaua`i was having it's first non-white Christmas in decades after our single-use plastic grocery bag ban had miraculously cleansed the roadsides, trees and oceans of the ugly tinsel that the use of the bags had ubiquitously wrought.
Not only had Maui similarly banned them, but the Big Island was poised to okay a bill (since passed) which, while delaying a complete ban for a couple of years, will make it three out of four counties that have cleaned up their acts.
So it was a pleasant surprise at the time when Honolulu Council Chair Ernie Martin said he would introduce a bill to add O`ahu to the list, making for an effective "county-by-county" state-wide ban.
But when the state legislature opened in January, things fell apart. As we wrote at the time, a bill was introduced at the legislature- loudly backed by the Sierra Club (SC) and their Executive Director/lobbyist, Robert Harris- to institute a fee for all grocery bags, plastic and paper.
The bill would have allowed the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i to stand, but the subtleties of the repercussions of the bill in reopening the issue were apparently lost on Harris and the SC.
As we wrote in February, the state "fee" bill was actually opposed by those on Maui and Kaua`i who had worked hard to pass their bans and feared that the supermarket and plastic bag lobbyists- who had battled hard against the three neighbor island bans- would use the bill to drive a wedge between those whose efforts stood to come to fruition in effectively banning plastic bags statewide and the SC's Harris, along with a couple of other environmental lobbyists on O`ahu. They included the Honolulu chapter of the Surfrider Foundation which supported the SC and Harris despite opposition from the Kaua`i Surfrider group that had worked for the ban here as we reported in February.
Right now the state bill teeters on the brink of death. But because of the discussions over the state bill, the Honolulu City Council's Martin altered his bill from an outright ban to a sort of hybrid requiring a fee at first, then leading up to a total ban (although when--and if--the latter would happen is anybody’s guess at this point).
Because of the legislative confusion and indecision, the lobbyists for the grocery stores are back using one of their arguments against plastic bag bags--that using paper bags is more costly and in the long run worse for the environment than plastic.
In yesterday's Civil Beat Sophie Cocke reported that:
On Kauai and Maui, retailers are paying about $30,000 more every year to cover the costs of increases in paper bag use, according to Melissa Pavlicek, a spokeswoman for Safeway and Times Supermarket stores.
The contention is that this is because people are actually shunning the use of reusable cloth bags and are demanding paper bags since plastic ones are unavailable.
But anyone who shops on Kaua`i and has tried to walk out of a supermarket- especially Safeway- knows this is total bullsh*t.
When we do our shopping our habit is to bring a cooler for chilled goods and, rather than try to remember to bring some cloth bags into the store, we simply put our purchases back in the cart and bring them to the car where we either put them directly in the cloth bags or on the seat to bag if necessary when we get home to carry in the groceries.
But trying to get past the checkout without our purchases winding up in paper bags--even if it's one or two small items that can be carried in our arms--is like trying get the dreaded bottle of water on an airplane: it simply cannot be done.
Never, we repeat never, has anyone shopping at Safeway been asked "Do you need a bag today?" That alone would remind people that they don't really need one, especially on Kaua`i where nobody is walking but rather driving away with their goodies.
We did a little "research" and found out that not only are check-out personnel not told to ask but they are forbidden from asking if people need a bag.
The evolution of our typical visits has gone like this since the ban on plastic bags.
At first as the check-out process began we'd say "no bags please." Then while we were busy swiping our card or fishing out the money they'd invariably place the items in a bag anyway, forcing us to remove the items.
So we decided to say it twice- once when they started the process and another time halfway through. Still all the stuff was in a bag when we looked up.
This went on and on and, no matter our level of vigilance, it was "all in the bag" as it were.
We finally took our "club card" and put a piece of masking tape on the front of it saying "NO BAGS PLEASE" with a red laundry marker. Still the stuff wound up in a paper bag even if it was simply a quart of milk.
It became like some kind misdirection magic trick. No matter how much we tried to pay attention, the had was quicker than the eye and poof- a paper bag invariably appeared surrounding our purchases.
The last time we attempted to pay full attention- almost Clockwork Orange style- we had gotten the attention of the check-out person and repeated "no bags please" three times, kept our eye on the whole process only to look to our right and find that another checkout clerk had sneaked around to the front of the checkout stand and placed all our stuff in paper bags.
Our next step is to bring in a boom box, place the volume at "eleven" and play a loop of 100 people loudly chanting "No Bags Please.... No Bags Please... No Bags Please."
Are these the actions of a store that is concerned about the use of paper bags?
Perhaps making reusable bags for 50 cents a piece like WalMart does would help but then how could Safeway lobby to make plastic available due to the "cost" of paper?
The Sierra Club does lots of good, especially through the lobbying efforts of people like Harris and the executive directors who came before him. But the fact is that sometimes they become so enamored of their own power and blinded by what sounded like a "good idea" at one time that they can’t see the forest for the trees. They become so insular and invested in their own ideas and pet projects--many of them Honolulu-centric--they can't tell they are doing more harm than good.
And because they have the power to speak for the entire environmental community, others wind up with little or no ability to lobby against a position taken by Harris and the SC when they remain blind to the repercussions of their actions.
One apparent reason that Harris has been supporting the state "fee" bill is that some of the money would have gone to a watershed protection fund. But just because it's a "neat scheme" and Harris can more easily wield his power in the legislature than the rest of the environmental community--especially when it comes to opposition from neighbor islanders--that doesn't automatically make his and SC's position a good idea.
On the contrar, it is Harris and the SC that have effectively facilitated the Honolulu Council's altering of their bill to now include a fee that will supposedly lead to a total ban sometime in the indeterminate future. But that will take another revisiting of the issue and leave the door open to more intense lobbying from the supermarket and plastic bag industries.
In this case it was easy to foresee that the industry lobbyists would take advantage of this "fee" business to throw the whole issue back up for discussion. We said it back in January.
Rather than supporting the county-by-county statewide ban, which Harris says is his and SC's eventual goal, they have stuck like glue to this convoluted "fee" system.
Fortunately, the legislative bill seems to be dying the death it deserves despite last ditch efforts from Harris. We know we speak for many when we say that all Harris is doing at this point is threatening to undo all the work we did to pass the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i by opening the door to further corporate lobbying.
If this keeps up it may well get to some of those neighbor island council members who opposed the bans now in place--as well as those that were fence sitting but did vote to ban plastic bag--to revisit the bans in place over here.
Please Bob--you made a mistake, just let it go. Otherwise we may have to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy just to keep the gains we have made. We have our hands full already dealing with Safeway's paper bag policies--we know they'd just love to start wrapping their "gifts" in plastic once again.
Not only had Maui similarly banned them, but the Big Island was poised to okay a bill (since passed) which, while delaying a complete ban for a couple of years, will make it three out of four counties that have cleaned up their acts.
So it was a pleasant surprise at the time when Honolulu Council Chair Ernie Martin said he would introduce a bill to add O`ahu to the list, making for an effective "county-by-county" state-wide ban.
But when the state legislature opened in January, things fell apart. As we wrote at the time, a bill was introduced at the legislature- loudly backed by the Sierra Club (SC) and their Executive Director/lobbyist, Robert Harris- to institute a fee for all grocery bags, plastic and paper.
The bill would have allowed the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i to stand, but the subtleties of the repercussions of the bill in reopening the issue were apparently lost on Harris and the SC.
As we wrote in February, the state "fee" bill was actually opposed by those on Maui and Kaua`i who had worked hard to pass their bans and feared that the supermarket and plastic bag lobbyists- who had battled hard against the three neighbor island bans- would use the bill to drive a wedge between those whose efforts stood to come to fruition in effectively banning plastic bags statewide and the SC's Harris, along with a couple of other environmental lobbyists on O`ahu. They included the Honolulu chapter of the Surfrider Foundation which supported the SC and Harris despite opposition from the Kaua`i Surfrider group that had worked for the ban here as we reported in February.
Right now the state bill teeters on the brink of death. But because of the discussions over the state bill, the Honolulu City Council's Martin altered his bill from an outright ban to a sort of hybrid requiring a fee at first, then leading up to a total ban (although when--and if--the latter would happen is anybody’s guess at this point).
Because of the legislative confusion and indecision, the lobbyists for the grocery stores are back using one of their arguments against plastic bag bags--that using paper bags is more costly and in the long run worse for the environment than plastic.
In yesterday's Civil Beat Sophie Cocke reported that:
On Kauai and Maui, retailers are paying about $30,000 more every year to cover the costs of increases in paper bag use, according to Melissa Pavlicek, a spokeswoman for Safeway and Times Supermarket stores.
The contention is that this is because people are actually shunning the use of reusable cloth bags and are demanding paper bags since plastic ones are unavailable.
But anyone who shops on Kaua`i and has tried to walk out of a supermarket- especially Safeway- knows this is total bullsh*t.
When we do our shopping our habit is to bring a cooler for chilled goods and, rather than try to remember to bring some cloth bags into the store, we simply put our purchases back in the cart and bring them to the car where we either put them directly in the cloth bags or on the seat to bag if necessary when we get home to carry in the groceries.
But trying to get past the checkout without our purchases winding up in paper bags--even if it's one or two small items that can be carried in our arms--is like trying get the dreaded bottle of water on an airplane: it simply cannot be done.
Never, we repeat never, has anyone shopping at Safeway been asked "Do you need a bag today?" That alone would remind people that they don't really need one, especially on Kaua`i where nobody is walking but rather driving away with their goodies.
We did a little "research" and found out that not only are check-out personnel not told to ask but they are forbidden from asking if people need a bag.
The evolution of our typical visits has gone like this since the ban on plastic bags.
At first as the check-out process began we'd say "no bags please." Then while we were busy swiping our card or fishing out the money they'd invariably place the items in a bag anyway, forcing us to remove the items.
So we decided to say it twice- once when they started the process and another time halfway through. Still all the stuff was in a bag when we looked up.
This went on and on and, no matter our level of vigilance, it was "all in the bag" as it were.
We finally took our "club card" and put a piece of masking tape on the front of it saying "NO BAGS PLEASE" with a red laundry marker. Still the stuff wound up in a paper bag even if it was simply a quart of milk.
It became like some kind misdirection magic trick. No matter how much we tried to pay attention, the had was quicker than the eye and poof- a paper bag invariably appeared surrounding our purchases.
The last time we attempted to pay full attention- almost Clockwork Orange style- we had gotten the attention of the check-out person and repeated "no bags please" three times, kept our eye on the whole process only to look to our right and find that another checkout clerk had sneaked around to the front of the checkout stand and placed all our stuff in paper bags.
Our next step is to bring in a boom box, place the volume at "eleven" and play a loop of 100 people loudly chanting "No Bags Please.... No Bags Please... No Bags Please."
Are these the actions of a store that is concerned about the use of paper bags?
Perhaps making reusable bags for 50 cents a piece like WalMart does would help but then how could Safeway lobby to make plastic available due to the "cost" of paper?
The Sierra Club does lots of good, especially through the lobbying efforts of people like Harris and the executive directors who came before him. But the fact is that sometimes they become so enamored of their own power and blinded by what sounded like a "good idea" at one time that they can’t see the forest for the trees. They become so insular and invested in their own ideas and pet projects--many of them Honolulu-centric--they can't tell they are doing more harm than good.
And because they have the power to speak for the entire environmental community, others wind up with little or no ability to lobby against a position taken by Harris and the SC when they remain blind to the repercussions of their actions.
One apparent reason that Harris has been supporting the state "fee" bill is that some of the money would have gone to a watershed protection fund. But just because it's a "neat scheme" and Harris can more easily wield his power in the legislature than the rest of the environmental community--especially when it comes to opposition from neighbor islanders--that doesn't automatically make his and SC's position a good idea.
On the contrar, it is Harris and the SC that have effectively facilitated the Honolulu Council's altering of their bill to now include a fee that will supposedly lead to a total ban sometime in the indeterminate future. But that will take another revisiting of the issue and leave the door open to more intense lobbying from the supermarket and plastic bag industries.
In this case it was easy to foresee that the industry lobbyists would take advantage of this "fee" business to throw the whole issue back up for discussion. We said it back in January.
Rather than supporting the county-by-county statewide ban, which Harris says is his and SC's eventual goal, they have stuck like glue to this convoluted "fee" system.
Fortunately, the legislative bill seems to be dying the death it deserves despite last ditch efforts from Harris. We know we speak for many when we say that all Harris is doing at this point is threatening to undo all the work we did to pass the bans on Kaua`i, Maui and Hawai`i by opening the door to further corporate lobbying.
If this keeps up it may well get to some of those neighbor island council members who opposed the bans now in place--as well as those that were fence sitting but did vote to ban plastic bag--to revisit the bans in place over here.
Please Bob--you made a mistake, just let it go. Otherwise we may have to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy just to keep the gains we have made. We have our hands full already dealing with Safeway's paper bag policies--we know they'd just love to start wrapping their "gifts" in plastic once again.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
SchMUSINGS
SchMUSINGS: It was actually a dark and stormy night. The rain was harder than the two feet in three days last weekend and hail was pelting the window so hard it woke us up. But we don't have dogs to walk, the electricity was off and the last time we saw the dawn- or even got up, got out of bed and went outside in the dark- was probably 30 years ago when seeing the sunrise was a result of an all-nighter. So we grabbed another blanket and some ear plugs, rolled over and went back to sleep.
Our apologies to Joan Conrow but since we're going to flit around and do it between games today it seems an appropriate way to commence.
First comes the news that former local Kaua`i newspaper editor Nathan Eagle, the other half of the dynamic duo, has landed a gig with his former cohort, joining ace reporter Mike Levine at Civil Beat.
No surprise on this end since whenever, against all odds, our local paper ends up mysteriously hiring someone even halfway competent, they eventually leave for a real publication. But congrats to CB and Nathan. We can only hope that maybe with two (count 'em two) ex-Kaua`i residents CB will treat Kaua`i like we exist.
Better news on the medical marijuana front. SB 2262 which "clarifies that the medical use of marijuana is considered to be consistent with the Pain Patients' Bill of Rights" has passed the senate and first reading in the house. Passage of the bill will mean that chronic pain patients will now have the right to receive medical marijuana in addition to all other appropriate medications.
That is coupled with the death of House Bill 1963 which was the horrendous effort courtesy of Assistant Director of the Department of Public Safety Keith Kamita- an effort also backed by Kaua`i Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri Carvalho- that would have actually removed chronic pain as a condition for which medical marijuana could be recommended. HB 1963 miraculously didn't get a hearing scheduled by the house Judiciary Committee.
Of course in the "now you see it now you don't" Hawai`i State Legislature, nothing is ever approved until it actually gets signed into law and nothing is ever-ever-ever really dead.
Then, from the "shocked-shocked" file, according to Civil Beat, Kaua`i State Senator Ron Kouchi has jumped on the ethically-bankrupt, legalized-bribery bandwagon by holding a Honolulu fundraiser during the legislative session. Last Night's soiree was a hundred-bucks-a-head affair held at the Mandalay restaurant.
Some states ban the practice of holding fund-raisers during a legislative session. But of course in catch-me-if-you-can-Hawai`i, legislators routinely cash in by holding these events in the hopes of scooping up some cash from those who have an interest in seeing the recipient's vote go a certain way on certain soon-to-be-considered bills. Since quid pro quo's are hard if not impossible to prove it's a practice that is looked upon with disgust by good governance and campaign reform mavens everywhere.
The fundraiser by-the-by is being organized by former Kaua`i Deputy County Attorney Harrison Kawate who worked under perennially county-government-employed former County Attorney Lani Nakazawa. We could go on with many more revolving door connections but the next game is starting soon.
Last but certainly not least is the latest dust up involving our always bafflingly buffoonish Prosecutor, the aforementioned reefer-madness adherent, Shaylene Iseri Carvalho.
Those who missed the real story behind the vague coverage in the local newspaper of the horse-abuse case will want to check in with the aforementioned Joan Conrow and read her coverage beginning last Friday.
Seems dear Shay actually threatened to use her prosecutorial discretion to drop the infamous animal cruelty case because one of the animal control officers at Kaua`i Human Society (KHS) got into a dust up with one of Shay's cousin over a complaint about the cousin's barking dogs and then his lack of dog licenses. Shay claimed the officer was trespassing and is a habitual liar whose testimony in the horse case would be unreliable, so Iseri wanted KHS to fire her.
It's a lot more juicy than that so read Joan's coverage.
But Iseri is back this week with more questionable behavior in a series of emails received by most of the attorneys on Kaua`i regarding the formation of a "Kaua'i Bar Bench Committee"- a "working group of attorneys [formed to] discuss and present issues to our judges [regarding] matters pertaining to judicial administration" according to one local attorney.
The group is being put together through the efforts of local attorney Rosa Flores who, after apparently putting in hours of volunteer time on behalf of the "Kaua`i Bar," innocently sent the following email confirming the "members" of the group, apparently "BCCing" almost all of the attorneys on Kaua`i
Subject: Re: KBA Bench Bar Committee Members
Hi Everyone,
I am very happy to announce the Bench Bar Committee Members. We are very fortunate to have had such an amazing amount of interest and support in the creation of this Committee.
Civil (Circuit Court): Dan Hempey
Collections (District Court): Tim Tobin
Landlord/Tenant, Self-Help Center, Legal Aid, Indigent Services: Emiko Meyers
Criminal Defense: June Ikemoto
Family Law: Caren Dennemeyer
Public Defenders: revolving
Prosecutors Office: revolving/unknown
County Attorneys: Justin Kollar
KBA President/Chair: Rosa Flores
KBA Vice-President/Vice-Chair: Shauna Cahill
The private attorneys on the Committee all wear many hats with various specialties, so we'll have a great overlap in coverage at all times. Please feel free to direct concerns, inquiries, comments, etc. that you would like to bring to the attention of our judges to the Committee member representing your particular area of interest. Everyone is also welcome to direct any inquiries to myself or Shauna Cahill anytime.
Committee Members, I will be in touch soon with all of you.
Thank you,
Rosa
This seemingly pleasant note, apparently following a lot of hard work on Flores' part, elicited a disturbing response from Iseri addressed Flores and CCed to around 75 local attorneys (with the original email in the thread) as well as the Kaua`i judges.
Subject: Re: KBA Bench Bar Committee Members
Aloha Rosa,
It would have been considerate of you to have contacted our office to inquire who would be the representative for the OPA because I would have told you clearly, that it would be me. Please put my name down as the representative of our office.
Shay
Okey-dokey. Apparently because the email was sent to the entire Kaua`i bar, Flores felt compelled to reply to the content and the tone of Iseri's response. She wrote:
Talk about a slap in the face for the best of intentions. Thank you for everyone else for their support in this endeavor, and to the volunteer representatives who took the initiative to contact me.
But Iseri wasn't done with Flores and, CCing the other, wrote back:
We did contact you. Your response is very unprofessional.
Unprofessional? Flores had had just about enough and felt she had to set the record straight. She wrote back saying:
As you very well know, I responded to you directly last week following your assertion that your agency should be represented, and in my response I agreed that your agency should be represented. No mention was made from you as to who would be the representative, and I do not have the time to hunt down attorneys from every possible section to see who is willing to attend the meetings. Yours was not the only agency which did not have name for their rep, but they were nonetheless indicated as being part of the committee.
If anyone else is offended that I did not put their names, please know that it was not intentional; my psychic mind-reading skills are not developed to the point at which I would like them to be. And I apologize for yet another unprofessional response from me.
Not having appeared rude and offensive enough Iseri first wrote:
It definitely is another unprofessional response.
finally adding
I also do not want to be a party to anymore unprofessional emails
Finally Flores realized who she was dealing with and ended the futile conversation by stating
Duly noted. Thank you and God Bless!
Isn't this an election year? Seems everyone knows that but Shaylene.
Our apologies to Joan Conrow but since we're going to flit around and do it between games today it seems an appropriate way to commence.
First comes the news that former local Kaua`i newspaper editor Nathan Eagle, the other half of the dynamic duo, has landed a gig with his former cohort, joining ace reporter Mike Levine at Civil Beat.
No surprise on this end since whenever, against all odds, our local paper ends up mysteriously hiring someone even halfway competent, they eventually leave for a real publication. But congrats to CB and Nathan. We can only hope that maybe with two (count 'em two) ex-Kaua`i residents CB will treat Kaua`i like we exist.
Better news on the medical marijuana front. SB 2262 which "clarifies that the medical use of marijuana is considered to be consistent with the Pain Patients' Bill of Rights" has passed the senate and first reading in the house. Passage of the bill will mean that chronic pain patients will now have the right to receive medical marijuana in addition to all other appropriate medications.
That is coupled with the death of House Bill 1963 which was the horrendous effort courtesy of Assistant Director of the Department of Public Safety Keith Kamita- an effort also backed by Kaua`i Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri Carvalho- that would have actually removed chronic pain as a condition for which medical marijuana could be recommended. HB 1963 miraculously didn't get a hearing scheduled by the house Judiciary Committee.
Of course in the "now you see it now you don't" Hawai`i State Legislature, nothing is ever approved until it actually gets signed into law and nothing is ever-ever-ever really dead.
Then, from the "shocked-shocked" file, according to Civil Beat, Kaua`i State Senator Ron Kouchi has jumped on the ethically-bankrupt, legalized-bribery bandwagon by holding a Honolulu fundraiser during the legislative session. Last Night's soiree was a hundred-bucks-a-head affair held at the Mandalay restaurant.
Some states ban the practice of holding fund-raisers during a legislative session. But of course in catch-me-if-you-can-Hawai`i, legislators routinely cash in by holding these events in the hopes of scooping up some cash from those who have an interest in seeing the recipient's vote go a certain way on certain soon-to-be-considered bills. Since quid pro quo's are hard if not impossible to prove it's a practice that is looked upon with disgust by good governance and campaign reform mavens everywhere.
The fundraiser by-the-by is being organized by former Kaua`i Deputy County Attorney Harrison Kawate who worked under perennially county-government-employed former County Attorney Lani Nakazawa. We could go on with many more revolving door connections but the next game is starting soon.
Last but certainly not least is the latest dust up involving our always bafflingly buffoonish Prosecutor, the aforementioned reefer-madness adherent, Shaylene Iseri Carvalho.
Those who missed the real story behind the vague coverage in the local newspaper of the horse-abuse case will want to check in with the aforementioned Joan Conrow and read her coverage beginning last Friday.
Seems dear Shay actually threatened to use her prosecutorial discretion to drop the infamous animal cruelty case because one of the animal control officers at Kaua`i Human Society (KHS) got into a dust up with one of Shay's cousin over a complaint about the cousin's barking dogs and then his lack of dog licenses. Shay claimed the officer was trespassing and is a habitual liar whose testimony in the horse case would be unreliable, so Iseri wanted KHS to fire her.
It's a lot more juicy than that so read Joan's coverage.
But Iseri is back this week with more questionable behavior in a series of emails received by most of the attorneys on Kaua`i regarding the formation of a "Kaua'i Bar Bench Committee"- a "working group of attorneys [formed to] discuss and present issues to our judges [regarding] matters pertaining to judicial administration" according to one local attorney.
The group is being put together through the efforts of local attorney Rosa Flores who, after apparently putting in hours of volunteer time on behalf of the "Kaua`i Bar," innocently sent the following email confirming the "members" of the group, apparently "BCCing" almost all of the attorneys on Kaua`i
Subject: Re: KBA Bench Bar Committee Members
Hi Everyone,
I am very happy to announce the Bench Bar Committee Members. We are very fortunate to have had such an amazing amount of interest and support in the creation of this Committee.
Civil (Circuit Court): Dan Hempey
Collections (District Court): Tim Tobin
Landlord/Tenant, Self-Help Center, Legal Aid, Indigent Services: Emiko Meyers
Criminal Defense: June Ikemoto
Family Law: Caren Dennemeyer
Public Defenders: revolving
Prosecutors Office: revolving/unknown
County Attorneys: Justin Kollar
KBA President/Chair: Rosa Flores
KBA Vice-President/Vice-Chair: Shauna Cahill
The private attorneys on the Committee all wear many hats with various specialties, so we'll have a great overlap in coverage at all times. Please feel free to direct concerns, inquiries, comments, etc. that you would like to bring to the attention of our judges to the Committee member representing your particular area of interest. Everyone is also welcome to direct any inquiries to myself or Shauna Cahill anytime.
Committee Members, I will be in touch soon with all of you.
Thank you,
Rosa
This seemingly pleasant note, apparently following a lot of hard work on Flores' part, elicited a disturbing response from Iseri addressed Flores and CCed to around 75 local attorneys (with the original email in the thread) as well as the Kaua`i judges.
Subject: Re: KBA Bench Bar Committee Members
Aloha Rosa,
It would have been considerate of you to have contacted our office to inquire who would be the representative for the OPA because I would have told you clearly, that it would be me. Please put my name down as the representative of our office.
Shay
Okey-dokey. Apparently because the email was sent to the entire Kaua`i bar, Flores felt compelled to reply to the content and the tone of Iseri's response. She wrote:
Talk about a slap in the face for the best of intentions. Thank you for everyone else for their support in this endeavor, and to the volunteer representatives who took the initiative to contact me.
But Iseri wasn't done with Flores and, CCing the other, wrote back:
We did contact you. Your response is very unprofessional.
Unprofessional? Flores had had just about enough and felt she had to set the record straight. She wrote back saying:
As you very well know, I responded to you directly last week following your assertion that your agency should be represented, and in my response I agreed that your agency should be represented. No mention was made from you as to who would be the representative, and I do not have the time to hunt down attorneys from every possible section to see who is willing to attend the meetings. Yours was not the only agency which did not have name for their rep, but they were nonetheless indicated as being part of the committee.
If anyone else is offended that I did not put their names, please know that it was not intentional; my psychic mind-reading skills are not developed to the point at which I would like them to be. And I apologize for yet another unprofessional response from me.
Not having appeared rude and offensive enough Iseri first wrote:
It definitely is another unprofessional response.
finally adding
I also do not want to be a party to anymore unprofessional emails
Finally Flores realized who she was dealing with and ended the futile conversation by stating
Duly noted. Thank you and God Bless!
Isn't this an election year? Seems everyone knows that but Shaylene.
Monday, December 12, 2011
ON AGAIN, OFF AGAIN
ON AGAIN, OFF AGAIN: We've been merciless with our local newspaper, especially since the departure of "Big Mike" Levine who is making quite the name for himself covering the Honolulu City Council for the online news source Civil Beat with the same rabid no-holds-barred coverage he provided for the Kaua`i community.
But what made the era remarkable- especially considering the seemingly determined efforts of the owners and publishers to dumb down the content and bend over for the Chamber of Commerce crowd- was Levine's tag-team partner Editor Nathan Eagle who, despite the orders from above, managed to shine even with a usually semi-literate, untalented group of underlings.
And now it's Eagle's turn to exit as we've learned with a one-way ticket to South America where he plans to both work and play, "hopefully more of the latter."
Eagle, whose last day will be Wednesday, has no idea who his replacement will be but we fear the worst given that the search for a new editor has been ongoing without success.
The facts that the salaries are traditionally of the starvation variety at the paper and that the job has been advertised locally don't instill much hope that anything resembling professionalism will be a trait of Eagle's replacement.
For the uninitiated, there is a "circuit" where many new J-school grads jump on board, travel the country, spend a couple-o-few years working, first at small papers and then gradually larger ones, trying to make their mark and move up the ladder while honing their skills. Many do it because they need the experience- others because they like the lifestyle.
And separate from the chaff, some of the highest quality semolina has come from that job mill.
The thing is that a Hawai`i assignment usually attracts those who will work for less, and many times that is reflected in their work. The Anthony Sommers, Dennis Wilkens, and the Levines and Eagles of the world are the exception rather than the rule. They generally arrive sans family or attachments and, although they sometimes intend to stay a while, they usually eventually depart for bigger and better things, disgusted with the way they've been treated both financially and as to the freedom to report what they actually see without a filter imposed from above.
The Andy Gross episode of a few years back is typical. The then fairly newly-hired Gross started nosing around the sale and operation of the then newly-created electrical "co-op" and eventually had his copy squelched by then weekend-Editor Paul Curtis, a former close associate of Gregg Gardiner, the "founder" of KIUC. With Gardiner at the helm and Curtis writing the copy at the notorious "The Kaua`i Times" they worked to, among other ventures, overturn the Nukoli`i vote, support the Hanalei boaters and champion various other efforts that took a crap on the people of Kaua`i.
So don't expect much when the new editor is named, especially with Publisher and CofC Board Member Randy Kozerski in charge. Kozerski fired the last business editor for perceived disregard of Chamber news and then hired the next one with instructions to pump up the CofC with more and more "positive" coverage.
So get ready to meet the news boss. We can only hope they're the same as the old boss.
But what made the era remarkable- especially considering the seemingly determined efforts of the owners and publishers to dumb down the content and bend over for the Chamber of Commerce crowd- was Levine's tag-team partner Editor Nathan Eagle who, despite the orders from above, managed to shine even with a usually semi-literate, untalented group of underlings.
And now it's Eagle's turn to exit as we've learned with a one-way ticket to South America where he plans to both work and play, "hopefully more of the latter."
Eagle, whose last day will be Wednesday, has no idea who his replacement will be but we fear the worst given that the search for a new editor has been ongoing without success.
The facts that the salaries are traditionally of the starvation variety at the paper and that the job has been advertised locally don't instill much hope that anything resembling professionalism will be a trait of Eagle's replacement.
For the uninitiated, there is a "circuit" where many new J-school grads jump on board, travel the country, spend a couple-o-few years working, first at small papers and then gradually larger ones, trying to make their mark and move up the ladder while honing their skills. Many do it because they need the experience- others because they like the lifestyle.
And separate from the chaff, some of the highest quality semolina has come from that job mill.
The thing is that a Hawai`i assignment usually attracts those who will work for less, and many times that is reflected in their work. The Anthony Sommers, Dennis Wilkens, and the Levines and Eagles of the world are the exception rather than the rule. They generally arrive sans family or attachments and, although they sometimes intend to stay a while, they usually eventually depart for bigger and better things, disgusted with the way they've been treated both financially and as to the freedom to report what they actually see without a filter imposed from above.
The Andy Gross episode of a few years back is typical. The then fairly newly-hired Gross started nosing around the sale and operation of the then newly-created electrical "co-op" and eventually had his copy squelched by then weekend-Editor Paul Curtis, a former close associate of Gregg Gardiner, the "founder" of KIUC. With Gardiner at the helm and Curtis writing the copy at the notorious "The Kaua`i Times" they worked to, among other ventures, overturn the Nukoli`i vote, support the Hanalei boaters and champion various other efforts that took a crap on the people of Kaua`i.
So don't expect much when the new editor is named, especially with Publisher and CofC Board Member Randy Kozerski in charge. Kozerski fired the last business editor for perceived disregard of Chamber news and then hired the next one with instructions to pump up the CofC with more and more "positive" coverage.
So get ready to meet the news boss. We can only hope they're the same as the old boss.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
GATHER YE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS WHILE YE MAY
GATHER YE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS WHILE YE MAY: Though we haven't viewed it yet, reports are that the Kaua`i County Council got quite the last minute earful at yesterday's meeting on a recommendation for a state legislative bill that would require labeling of foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO).
The Maui council-generated measure was a part of the Hawai`i State Association of Counties (HSAC) legislative package that all four counties must approve for the recommendations to be sent to the 2012 legislature for consideration and, although the package has been on the council's agenda for more than a month, it was the first discussion of the proposal.
Previously the council had concentrated only on their own recommendation for a bill to close loopholes in the solar hot water mandate for new construction which had undergone changes before being sent, along with the rest of the package, to the full council from committee a week ago, seemingly destined for final disposition yesterday.
But a last minute barrage of emails and Facebook postings by GMO-Free Kaua`i turned out the anti-GMO troops and, according to a Facebook posting by GMO-Free 's Jeri Di Pietro, the council re-referred the package back to committee to be debated next Wednesday.
But while the measure is still alive on Kaua`i, according to Big Mike Levine of Civil Beat, it may face the ax on O`ahu where the Honolulu City Council removed the measure from the package in committee on Tuesday and sent it to the full council without the bill that would require GMO products to say so on thhe labels.
The good news though is that Honolulu didn't reject it because they didn't agree with the bill but because, according to Levine, even though "Safety, Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee Chair Tulsi Gabbard said it's a matter of people knowing what they're feeding their families," she "eventually recommended that the GMO measure be removed, saying it's an important issue that needs a full airing that can't happen now under the tight timeline for the legislative package."
But even though the bill may not get the recommendation of HSAC this year, it's important that the precautionary principle be stressed next week to the council which needs an education on the issue to counter the various farm bureaus' silly contention that because "no one has gotten sick or died" (failing to add "yet") from GMOs, they're perfectly safe and therefore, for some reason, people shouldn't be told what's in their food.
According to Wikipedia, the Precautionary Principle states that "if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action."
Of course the various individual island farm bureaus are populated by Pioneer and Sygenta sycophants who never seem to be able to answer the question of how people would know they were getting sick or otherwise suffering harm from GMO products if they don't know they're eating them.
If you care about the issue, either write the council at counciltestimony@kauai.gov or better still, show up next Wednesday at 9 a.m. and tell them in person.
It may be an uphill fight with big campaign cash and yelps of "jobs, jobs, jobs for the westside" from the industry, but now that the FDA has apparently permitted individual jurisdictions to pass their own labeling laws, the fight has to begin somewhere and with its corn seed folks spreading their Frankenfood pollen all over Waimea, Kaua`i is as good a place as any to start.
The Maui council-generated measure was a part of the Hawai`i State Association of Counties (HSAC) legislative package that all four counties must approve for the recommendations to be sent to the 2012 legislature for consideration and, although the package has been on the council's agenda for more than a month, it was the first discussion of the proposal.
Previously the council had concentrated only on their own recommendation for a bill to close loopholes in the solar hot water mandate for new construction which had undergone changes before being sent, along with the rest of the package, to the full council from committee a week ago, seemingly destined for final disposition yesterday.
But a last minute barrage of emails and Facebook postings by GMO-Free Kaua`i turned out the anti-GMO troops and, according to a Facebook posting by GMO-Free 's Jeri Di Pietro, the council re-referred the package back to committee to be debated next Wednesday.
But while the measure is still alive on Kaua`i, according to Big Mike Levine of Civil Beat, it may face the ax on O`ahu where the Honolulu City Council removed the measure from the package in committee on Tuesday and sent it to the full council without the bill that would require GMO products to say so on thhe labels.
The good news though is that Honolulu didn't reject it because they didn't agree with the bill but because, according to Levine, even though "Safety, Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee Chair Tulsi Gabbard said it's a matter of people knowing what they're feeding their families," she "eventually recommended that the GMO measure be removed, saying it's an important issue that needs a full airing that can't happen now under the tight timeline for the legislative package."
But even though the bill may not get the recommendation of HSAC this year, it's important that the precautionary principle be stressed next week to the council which needs an education on the issue to counter the various farm bureaus' silly contention that because "no one has gotten sick or died" (failing to add "yet") from GMOs, they're perfectly safe and therefore, for some reason, people shouldn't be told what's in their food.
According to Wikipedia, the Precautionary Principle states that "if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action."
Of course the various individual island farm bureaus are populated by Pioneer and Sygenta sycophants who never seem to be able to answer the question of how people would know they were getting sick or otherwise suffering harm from GMO products if they don't know they're eating them.
If you care about the issue, either write the council at counciltestimony@kauai.gov or better still, show up next Wednesday at 9 a.m. and tell them in person.
It may be an uphill fight with big campaign cash and yelps of "jobs, jobs, jobs for the westside" from the industry, but now that the FDA has apparently permitted individual jurisdictions to pass their own labeling laws, the fight has to begin somewhere and with its corn seed folks spreading their Frankenfood pollen all over Waimea, Kaua`i is as good a place as any to start.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
OCCUPY THIS
OCCUPY THIS: One of the stranger aspects of the Occupy Kaua`i "rally" (for lack of a better term) last Saturday was the presence of Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry. But stranger than his mere presence is the way he has taken advantage of the local version of the movement to pump up his image in the media.
Not just his presence but his statements- that essentially he was there to protect the participants- were widely reported although he and his officers just stood by during the one thus-far-unreported incident. Just after the 11 a.m. start two state trucks came by packed with contra-flow "cone-droppers" who yelled at "protesters" to, among other slightly nastier things, stay out of the street, even though no one was obstructing traffic.
And obviously Perry's fellow officers didn't seem to care.
But Perry wasn't done with his use of the rally for personal PR purposes after Sunday's and Monday's TV and print offense.
Today a piece in the online "newspaper" Civil Beat appeared in the form of an "interview" with the Chief although it had Perry's own byline making it unclear if the "questions" were Civil Beat's (as the first question intimated) or Perry's own.
Anyway he took advantage to of the opportunity to say things like:
The “occupy” movement and civil unrest in general is a means to express displeasure and/or dissatisfaction with the current state of the political climate as it relates to government or corporate policy.
Growing up in the 1960s during the Vietnam Era, and being witness to local protest movements concerning Native Hawaiians, I can understand the frustration of individuals who feel that they are disadvantaged through no fault of their own or they need to stand up for others who are not able to do so on their own.
But don't for a minute think he was supporting the confrontational aspect of the movement pitting the "99%" of the people against the 1% that control most of the wealth in this country and county.
He went on to say:
This frustration appears to be global, but I believe what is unique about Hawaii in their appeal to the silent majority via demonstrations, is that we have great respect for each other which is based in our up-bringing of being pono. I want to make it clear, that this respect for one another is not racial and specific to one ethnicity, it is more culturally based, and as you know, Hawaii is a mixture of all races coming together and believing that we don’t check our values at the door for a cause or circumstances; that our integrity is always at the forefront of our actions.
Ah, the old plantation mentality appeal, essentially saying that we 99%ers just love to be exploited by the 1% and are too laid back to do anything but have our say and go back to our cruddy, exploitative, starvation-wage jobs.
Well we wonder how Perry and his KPD officers are going to react if a plan by the group "Occupy Kaua`i" comes to fruition.
According to a widely circulated email, members of the group met Monday evening and
after much thought and even more deliberation, we decided that we would do an actual "occupation" at the park near the county building beginning this Friday. We are going to have a meeting at the pavilion at Lydgate park on Thursday Oct. 20th at 7pm. We are going to go over our goals, concerns (we have somebody looking into legal issues), planning, logistics...etc. We will be having a potluck, so please bring something to share, but no big deal if you don't. Please inform anybody you know who may be interested in standing with the 99%.
Assuming the "legal" issues can be worked out, it will be interesting to see how Chief Perry and his force respond to the only actual "occupation" in the islands- what with the respect and permissiveness he's been expressing toward the group in the media this week.
Not just his presence but his statements- that essentially he was there to protect the participants- were widely reported although he and his officers just stood by during the one thus-far-unreported incident. Just after the 11 a.m. start two state trucks came by packed with contra-flow "cone-droppers" who yelled at "protesters" to, among other slightly nastier things, stay out of the street, even though no one was obstructing traffic.
And obviously Perry's fellow officers didn't seem to care.
But Perry wasn't done with his use of the rally for personal PR purposes after Sunday's and Monday's TV and print offense.
Today a piece in the online "newspaper" Civil Beat appeared in the form of an "interview" with the Chief although it had Perry's own byline making it unclear if the "questions" were Civil Beat's (as the first question intimated) or Perry's own.
Anyway he took advantage to of the opportunity to say things like:
The “occupy” movement and civil unrest in general is a means to express displeasure and/or dissatisfaction with the current state of the political climate as it relates to government or corporate policy.
Growing up in the 1960s during the Vietnam Era, and being witness to local protest movements concerning Native Hawaiians, I can understand the frustration of individuals who feel that they are disadvantaged through no fault of their own or they need to stand up for others who are not able to do so on their own.
But don't for a minute think he was supporting the confrontational aspect of the movement pitting the "99%" of the people against the 1% that control most of the wealth in this country and county.
He went on to say:
This frustration appears to be global, but I believe what is unique about Hawaii in their appeal to the silent majority via demonstrations, is that we have great respect for each other which is based in our up-bringing of being pono. I want to make it clear, that this respect for one another is not racial and specific to one ethnicity, it is more culturally based, and as you know, Hawaii is a mixture of all races coming together and believing that we don’t check our values at the door for a cause or circumstances; that our integrity is always at the forefront of our actions.
Ah, the old plantation mentality appeal, essentially saying that we 99%ers just love to be exploited by the 1% and are too laid back to do anything but have our say and go back to our cruddy, exploitative, starvation-wage jobs.
Well we wonder how Perry and his KPD officers are going to react if a plan by the group "Occupy Kaua`i" comes to fruition.
According to a widely circulated email, members of the group met Monday evening and
after much thought and even more deliberation, we decided that we would do an actual "occupation" at the park near the county building beginning this Friday. We are going to have a meeting at the pavilion at Lydgate park on Thursday Oct. 20th at 7pm. We are going to go over our goals, concerns (we have somebody looking into legal issues), planning, logistics...etc. We will be having a potluck, so please bring something to share, but no big deal if you don't. Please inform anybody you know who may be interested in standing with the 99%.
Assuming the "legal" issues can be worked out, it will be interesting to see how Chief Perry and his force respond to the only actual "occupation" in the islands- what with the respect and permissiveness he's been expressing toward the group in the media this week.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
BURN BABY BURN
BURN BABY BURN: Ian Lind used to call it a "two newspaper day" when, first of all Honolulu had two newspapers and, they apparently got different information resulting in a different "lede" in each.
But even after the so-called merger of the two, today's treatment throughout the state on Kaua`i Island Utility Coop's (KIUC) announcement that they're going to try to take money they borrowed for a generation unit and instead build "the largest solar installation in the state," yielded at least two distinctly different stories nonetheless.
The local Kaua`i newspaper's Business Editor Vanessa Van Voorhis started by regurgitating the KIUC press release announcement, writing in her lede
Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative on Wednesday announced its intent to pursue the development of a 10-megawatt solar farm, which would be the largest of its kind in the state.
“KIUC would have more solar PV concentration (per capita) than any utility in the U.S., if this project can be successfully developed,” KIUC CEO David Bissell said in a press release.
The co-op intends to construct the integrated PV and Battery Energy Storage System project by reallocating a $68 million previously approved loan from Rural Utility Service. RUS had approved the funding for a 10-MW “Gen X” or “CT2” combustion turbine generator.
But then well into the article she pulls the following fact from, well, apparently nowhere:
KIUC says the combustion turbine was originally hoped to be fueled by renewable bio-diesel, but that technology has not developed quickly enough to realistically use the RUS funds in the approved timeframe.
Who "KIUC" is in this case is unknown since the press release doesn't say a thing about what kind of fuel the "10-MW 'Gen X” or “CT2' combustion turbine generator" uses. Perhaps Van Voorhis was confused by an announcement a year ago that KIUC had signed an agreement to buy bio-diesel for their Ele`ele power plant. But the term "combustion generator" sounds like something quite different from burning bio-diesel. Then again what do we know.
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser wasn’t much help since they apparently didn't even bother to call anyone, re-upchucking the original KIUC chuck.
But, as many have found, there's a new kid on the block.
At the on-line "newspaper" Civil Beat we apparently get the real story from reporter Sophie Cocke. She spoke to KIUC Production Manager Brad Rockwell, before writing the following headline and lede.
Kauai Scraps Biomass Plant for Solar Farm
Biomass is out, solar is in.
The Kauai utility is planning to use $68 million in funds that had originally been allocated for a biomass plant to build the largest photovoltaic array on the island – 10 megawatts.
Jeez- was that so hard? And all in 38 words.
Two different "newspapers of record" and one can't bother to make any phone calls and the other calls only the spokesperson for KIUC and seemingly gets the story wrong.
The usual excuse at the paper on Kaua`i is that, as local people often say to their often FOB reporters, "you ain’t from around here, are ya?". But Cocke isn't exactly from Makaweli either.
Guess it's just another "can't anyone here play this game?" day.
But even after the so-called merger of the two, today's treatment throughout the state on Kaua`i Island Utility Coop's (KIUC) announcement that they're going to try to take money they borrowed for a generation unit and instead build "the largest solar installation in the state," yielded at least two distinctly different stories nonetheless.
The local Kaua`i newspaper's Business Editor Vanessa Van Voorhis started by regurgitating the KIUC press release announcement, writing in her lede
Kaua‘i Island Utility Cooperative on Wednesday announced its intent to pursue the development of a 10-megawatt solar farm, which would be the largest of its kind in the state.
“KIUC would have more solar PV concentration (per capita) than any utility in the U.S., if this project can be successfully developed,” KIUC CEO David Bissell said in a press release.
The co-op intends to construct the integrated PV and Battery Energy Storage System project by reallocating a $68 million previously approved loan from Rural Utility Service. RUS had approved the funding for a 10-MW “Gen X” or “CT2” combustion turbine generator.
But then well into the article she pulls the following fact from, well, apparently nowhere:
KIUC says the combustion turbine was originally hoped to be fueled by renewable bio-diesel, but that technology has not developed quickly enough to realistically use the RUS funds in the approved timeframe.
Who "KIUC" is in this case is unknown since the press release doesn't say a thing about what kind of fuel the "10-MW 'Gen X” or “CT2' combustion turbine generator" uses. Perhaps Van Voorhis was confused by an announcement a year ago that KIUC had signed an agreement to buy bio-diesel for their Ele`ele power plant. But the term "combustion generator" sounds like something quite different from burning bio-diesel. Then again what do we know.
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser wasn’t much help since they apparently didn't even bother to call anyone, re-upchucking the original KIUC chuck.
But, as many have found, there's a new kid on the block.
At the on-line "newspaper" Civil Beat we apparently get the real story from reporter Sophie Cocke. She spoke to KIUC Production Manager Brad Rockwell, before writing the following headline and lede.
Kauai Scraps Biomass Plant for Solar Farm
Biomass is out, solar is in.
The Kauai utility is planning to use $68 million in funds that had originally been allocated for a biomass plant to build the largest photovoltaic array on the island – 10 megawatts.
Jeez- was that so hard? And all in 38 words.
Two different "newspapers of record" and one can't bother to make any phone calls and the other calls only the spokesperson for KIUC and seemingly gets the story wrong.
The usual excuse at the paper on Kaua`i is that, as local people often say to their often FOB reporters, "you ain’t from around here, are ya?". But Cocke isn't exactly from Makaweli either.
Guess it's just another "can't anyone here play this game?" day.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
OXYMORONICALLY SPEAKING
OXYMORONICALLY SPEAKING: Little kids and we old futs have something in common- we both refuse to fall for BS conundrums.
While sophomoric angst-ridden teens may obsess over questions like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does make a sound " any wise-ass seven year old will suggest using a tape recorder to show it does and the crotchety crowd will just say "of course it does- what are you an idiot?".
But today that very question- or an approximation thereof- presents itself by asking "if a newspaper that has a 'paywall' sues the the governor's for his refusal to release the list of judicial nominees, does anyone hear about it?".
The answer is only if you find out through "'Civil Beath'" which, though similarly paywalled, offers as many free one-month subscriptions as you have email addresses.
That's a long way to go to say that the news itself is certainly welcome in that the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (S-A) is dipping into it's monopolistically-engorged pockets to do what they should have done the first time Governor Neil Abercrombie decided to flout tradition- and an Office of Information Practices (OIP) opinion- by refusing to release the list (after state senate approval).
The suit itself- provided in copy-protected form by Civil Beat which has come under fire for copy-protecting other public documents- attempts to refute the governor's claim that to release the list would, as the law says, "frustrate a legitimate government function"- that of appointing judges from a list provided by a judicial selection committee.
But strangely enough the suit fails to try to refute Abercrombie's contention other than essentially saying "no it doesn't."
Are we to assume the hearing will feature ten year old attorneys alternately screaming "yes it does... no it doesn't... yes it does... no it doesn't." until one grabs the others hair and the other bites the first one on the leg?
Abercrombie claims is that attorneys will be less willing to submit their names to the selection committee because they risk the ire of their employers, partners or even clients- both current and future- by letting them know they might be leaving.
But the S-A suit simply ignores the argument itself by refusing to address either of the two issues- first, whether a public announcement will in fact cause problems for the applicant and two, if that's true- whether it rise to the level of "frustration of a legitimate government function."
Now we're normally an unqualified supporter of the preamble to the Sunshine Law which presumes that government documents are to be made public unless they are specifically exempted by law- and that the law should be "liberally applied."
But we've got to admit that, after talking about this with five different attorneys over the past few months, we have come around to the governor's thinking. All five said that the fact that their names would become public has colored their decisions as to whether or not to apply for a judgeship.
The five include lawyers, who both work with partners and without, are in the government's employ and in private practice and do both criminal and civil law. And all said that the release of their names is a consideration and some said that indeed it has influenced their decision not to apply.
That means that- our admittedly small sample notwithstanding- the only question is whether, assuming the "fact" that what Abercrombie claims is true, does it actually "frustrate a legitimate government function?".
Whenever we've seen these kinds of determinations the "function" is stated. In this case it would be "the appointment of judges by the governor."
But the problem for the governor is that the law does not state that his job is to appoint judges from the widest possible pool, just that he pick from a list provided by the selection committee.
Attorneys will make the decision as to whether to seek a judgeship for any number of reasons. Certainly the usual drop in pay is a consideration so should the law require the state to make up the difference to widen the pool? Suppose the appointment requires a move from a neighbor island to Honolulu and the attorney has children who are in an excellent public school? Should he or she be compensated for having to put them in a private school if there is no comparable public school available?
Of course not. The legitimate government function is to provide a list, not to insure that the list includes every attorney in the state who otherwise would consider a judicial appointment.
The governor's claim regarding the release of the names of attorneys who aren't selected may be true. But it is for all intent and purpose it is irrelevant because unless the attorney general comes up with a heretofore unspoken rationale to say that this actually frustrates a legitimate government function Abercrombie's claim doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
While sophomoric angst-ridden teens may obsess over questions like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does make a sound " any wise-ass seven year old will suggest using a tape recorder to show it does and the crotchety crowd will just say "of course it does- what are you an idiot?".
But today that very question- or an approximation thereof- presents itself by asking "if a newspaper that has a 'paywall' sues the the governor's for his refusal to release the list of judicial nominees, does anyone hear about it?".
The answer is only if you find out through "'Civil Beath'" which, though similarly paywalled, offers as many free one-month subscriptions as you have email addresses.
That's a long way to go to say that the news itself is certainly welcome in that the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (S-A) is dipping into it's monopolistically-engorged pockets to do what they should have done the first time Governor Neil Abercrombie decided to flout tradition- and an Office of Information Practices (OIP) opinion- by refusing to release the list (after state senate approval).
The suit itself- provided in copy-protected form by Civil Beat which has come under fire for copy-protecting other public documents- attempts to refute the governor's claim that to release the list would, as the law says, "frustrate a legitimate government function"- that of appointing judges from a list provided by a judicial selection committee.
But strangely enough the suit fails to try to refute Abercrombie's contention other than essentially saying "no it doesn't."
Are we to assume the hearing will feature ten year old attorneys alternately screaming "yes it does... no it doesn't... yes it does... no it doesn't." until one grabs the others hair and the other bites the first one on the leg?
Abercrombie claims is that attorneys will be less willing to submit their names to the selection committee because they risk the ire of their employers, partners or even clients- both current and future- by letting them know they might be leaving.
But the S-A suit simply ignores the argument itself by refusing to address either of the two issues- first, whether a public announcement will in fact cause problems for the applicant and two, if that's true- whether it rise to the level of "frustration of a legitimate government function."
Now we're normally an unqualified supporter of the preamble to the Sunshine Law which presumes that government documents are to be made public unless they are specifically exempted by law- and that the law should be "liberally applied."
But we've got to admit that, after talking about this with five different attorneys over the past few months, we have come around to the governor's thinking. All five said that the fact that their names would become public has colored their decisions as to whether or not to apply for a judgeship.
The five include lawyers, who both work with partners and without, are in the government's employ and in private practice and do both criminal and civil law. And all said that the release of their names is a consideration and some said that indeed it has influenced their decision not to apply.
That means that- our admittedly small sample notwithstanding- the only question is whether, assuming the "fact" that what Abercrombie claims is true, does it actually "frustrate a legitimate government function?".
Whenever we've seen these kinds of determinations the "function" is stated. In this case it would be "the appointment of judges by the governor."
But the problem for the governor is that the law does not state that his job is to appoint judges from the widest possible pool, just that he pick from a list provided by the selection committee.
Attorneys will make the decision as to whether to seek a judgeship for any number of reasons. Certainly the usual drop in pay is a consideration so should the law require the state to make up the difference to widen the pool? Suppose the appointment requires a move from a neighbor island to Honolulu and the attorney has children who are in an excellent public school? Should he or she be compensated for having to put them in a private school if there is no comparable public school available?
Of course not. The legitimate government function is to provide a list, not to insure that the list includes every attorney in the state who otherwise would consider a judicial appointment.
The governor's claim regarding the release of the names of attorneys who aren't selected may be true. But it is for all intent and purpose it is irrelevant because unless the attorney general comes up with a heretofore unspoken rationale to say that this actually frustrates a legitimate government function Abercrombie's claim doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
A HOLE IS TO DIG
A HOLE IS TO DIG: If we ever have cause to need a really good pick and shovel- aw heck, make that a backhoe- we know just where to turn.
We'd just call the worst reporter at the worst newspaper in the state- arguably in the country although we haven’t read them all- because it would take heavy equipment to bury the lede the way our little buddy does it in our local Kaua`i newspaper.
Today, while sifting through the recent thin gruel of council activity, he decided to preview tomorrow's "special" council meeting to name yet another "sister city" in Japan- a program designed to increase tourism, presumably both ways.
The first clue that Kaua`i denizens might think twice about taking a trip to Iwaki was the location- the Fukushima Prefecture. But it takes until the sixth paragraph, over 200 words into the story before we find out for certain that Iwaki "is less than 30 miles away from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, badly damaged in the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami on March 11."
That "clue" assumes you're going to make the connection between Iwaki and the massive radiation still permeating Fukushima Prefecture. The final words of the article come closer, saying
Because of the March 11 earthquake and subsequent tsunami, Iwaki’s government closed the city’s swimming beaches for the entire year.
Iwaki government has also said that it doesn’t expect many visitors to the city’s beaches due to the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Nowhere in the article does the word "radiation" appear.
But, as the saying goes, "you knew darn well I was a snake before you let me in."
You'd expect better from the former editor of the Rocky Mountain News and current editor of the on-line Civil Beat news outlet.
John Temple's opinion piece today echoed some of our concerns about the spate of police harassment of local reporters for taking photographs of police in action, saying that the rest of the public should also be protected when taking photos of police.
Good point. But in setting up the piece he writes of "two recent incidents, one involving the publisher of a Maui weekly newspaper and the other involving a Big Island blogger."
And this is how he describes them.
The first incident came on Maui this spring, when an officer hit Maui Times publisher Tommy Russo's camera when he was filming from a public place. The officer is heard telling Russo: "I don't want to be filmed, and if I don't want to be filmed, I don't have to be filmed....
"The other Hawaii incident came on the Big Island, where earlier this month blogger Damon Tucker was arrested while he was taking photos and videos of police arresting people from a public sidewalk. He says police confiscated his iPhone and camera and he now faces misdemeanor charges of obstructing government operations."
And, although he links to Tucker's posts he fails to let readers know that Tucker alleges he was severely beaten by police in making the arrest.
And that makes exactly zero coverage of that fact in the mainstream, statewide Hawai`i "print" media, although Channel 9 did have one feature on the event the next day.
The "lede" of a story is generally what the the reporter determines is most important and "newsworthy" thing in the story. In the "inverted triangle" of newswriting it is contained in the opening words of the story.
Good reporters take a breath when sitting down at the keyboard and try to come up with the core information that makes the news news.
They don't "save it" for later in the story or even "forget" to mention it.
It's understandable when, for the umpteenth time our local paper bungles it. But when the pros do it it's gotta make you wonder what they're thinking.
We'd just call the worst reporter at the worst newspaper in the state- arguably in the country although we haven’t read them all- because it would take heavy equipment to bury the lede the way our little buddy does it in our local Kaua`i newspaper.
Today, while sifting through the recent thin gruel of council activity, he decided to preview tomorrow's "special" council meeting to name yet another "sister city" in Japan- a program designed to increase tourism, presumably both ways.
The first clue that Kaua`i denizens might think twice about taking a trip to Iwaki was the location- the Fukushima Prefecture. But it takes until the sixth paragraph, over 200 words into the story before we find out for certain that Iwaki "is less than 30 miles away from Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, badly damaged in the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami on March 11."
That "clue" assumes you're going to make the connection between Iwaki and the massive radiation still permeating Fukushima Prefecture. The final words of the article come closer, saying
Because of the March 11 earthquake and subsequent tsunami, Iwaki’s government closed the city’s swimming beaches for the entire year.
Iwaki government has also said that it doesn’t expect many visitors to the city’s beaches due to the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Nowhere in the article does the word "radiation" appear.
But, as the saying goes, "you knew darn well I was a snake before you let me in."
You'd expect better from the former editor of the Rocky Mountain News and current editor of the on-line Civil Beat news outlet.
John Temple's opinion piece today echoed some of our concerns about the spate of police harassment of local reporters for taking photographs of police in action, saying that the rest of the public should also be protected when taking photos of police.
Good point. But in setting up the piece he writes of "two recent incidents, one involving the publisher of a Maui weekly newspaper and the other involving a Big Island blogger."
And this is how he describes them.
The first incident came on Maui this spring, when an officer hit Maui Times publisher Tommy Russo's camera when he was filming from a public place. The officer is heard telling Russo: "I don't want to be filmed, and if I don't want to be filmed, I don't have to be filmed....
"The other Hawaii incident came on the Big Island, where earlier this month blogger Damon Tucker was arrested while he was taking photos and videos of police arresting people from a public sidewalk. He says police confiscated his iPhone and camera and he now faces misdemeanor charges of obstructing government operations."
And, although he links to Tucker's posts he fails to let readers know that Tucker alleges he was severely beaten by police in making the arrest.
And that makes exactly zero coverage of that fact in the mainstream, statewide Hawai`i "print" media, although Channel 9 did have one feature on the event the next day.
The "lede" of a story is generally what the the reporter determines is most important and "newsworthy" thing in the story. In the "inverted triangle" of newswriting it is contained in the opening words of the story.
Good reporters take a breath when sitting down at the keyboard and try to come up with the core information that makes the news news.
They don't "save it" for later in the story or even "forget" to mention it.
It's understandable when, for the umpteenth time our local paper bungles it. But when the pros do it it's gotta make you wonder what they're thinking.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
DO YOU SMELL THAT?
DO YOU SMELL THAT?: They say that justice delayed is justice denied but what about news? Well, they also ask, who needs yesterday's papers?
While it's widely acknowledged that our local newspaper is, um, shall we say, "content challenged," perhaps their worst feature is the lack of timely reporting of government doings unless it's a spoon-fed and regurgitated press release from the county's public information officer.
This "when we get around to it" style of journalism is not just an affront to those who have a need to be informed but makes it particularly difficult to get involved in government when, say, there's an article on Tuesday about a bill that passed out of a council committee at the previous Wednesday's meeting and is due for final approval the following day- leaving less than 24 hours to arrange to be there to give testimony.
But while today's Kaua`i newspaper is devoid of coverage of yesterday's meeting, real journalism is happening- not just the next day but item by item in real time- not far away.
And wouldn’t you know it? It's none other than our old friend Micheal Levine, late of the Kaua`i press corps who has taken up residence at Honolulu Hale and is using 21st century technology to do his reporting for "Civil Beat".
A look at his daily "Inside Honolulu" column shows no less than 9 blurbs in covering and posting the actions of the Honolulu City Council at various times throughout the day, with the headings:
10:36 a.m. The 'Million-Dollar Baby Toe'
10:51 a.m. Godbey Confirmed As Corp Counsel
11:19 Council Sends Ag Property Tax Bill To Mayor
12:26 p.m. Council To Defer Laie Hotel Vote
12:49 p.m. 'You Got Shafted, I Got Shafted'
3:06 p.m. Laie Hotel Deferred One Month
3:54 p.m. Mililani Senior Development Gets OK
4:22 p.m. $1 Million Settlement Approved
5:38 Council Advances Campaign Sign Rules
Why even the lowly Hawai`i (Island) Tribune Herald has an article today about a controversial bill taken up at their council's Wednesday meeting.
But it’s a rare occurrence when we get coverage of Wednesday's meeting by Friday with the usual routine being a Saturday or Sunday entry... usually a muddled attempt by a certain story-telling-challenged individual- whose name rhymes with Slazumbuja- apparently trying to make sense of what he saw.
It gets worse by the day. For today's news of a $215,000 settlement of a sexual harassment suit filed by PMRF firefighters against ITT one had to turn to the pay-walled Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
And for news of the scandalous allegations of misconduct on the part of the "old" Kaua`i Independent Foodbank- made by the "new" Hawai`i Foodbank- you had to turn to Bob Jones' last two columns in "Midweek." Or you could check out Joan Conrow's "heads up" on the story where the news that the reason for the non-coverage may just be that the publisher of the local paper sits on the "old" foodbank's board of directors.
All we got today was a confusing account of some plea agreement- from who knows how long ago- in what appeared to be a dispute between Kilauea neighbors that resulted in threats.
At least the local paper does serve one constituency- the fishing community is happy to have something in which to wrap their catch. Either way, if you leave your catch lying around for a few days the fact that it stinks is bound to be evident.
--------
Note: While the local newspaper remains silent on their naming of victims of crime as we discussed on Monday, we did receive the following comment purported to be from Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri Carvalho:
I have no idea how the paper's new police beat reporter Tom LaVenture got the list, although I suspect it was from the indictment, which by law, is public record.
As you correctly noted, the victims' names did not appear on any official county press release page or the prosecuting attorney's page at the county web site. It is for those very reasons that you state below:
"It's bad enough to list the victim of a burglary, letting potential crooks know who might might be making themselves a good target for another burglary. But to list the name of an abuse victim and potentially subject the person to the unwarranted taunts, ridicule and shame that many times unfortunately accompany such situations, is just plain professional misconduct"
that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney(OPA) has NEVER released victims' names to be published.
Thank you for addressing this issue, as the OPA strongly seeks to protect against the revictimization of victims.
Mahalo,
Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho
Kauai Prosecuting Attorney
While it's widely acknowledged that our local newspaper is, um, shall we say, "content challenged," perhaps their worst feature is the lack of timely reporting of government doings unless it's a spoon-fed and regurgitated press release from the county's public information officer.
This "when we get around to it" style of journalism is not just an affront to those who have a need to be informed but makes it particularly difficult to get involved in government when, say, there's an article on Tuesday about a bill that passed out of a council committee at the previous Wednesday's meeting and is due for final approval the following day- leaving less than 24 hours to arrange to be there to give testimony.
But while today's Kaua`i newspaper is devoid of coverage of yesterday's meeting, real journalism is happening- not just the next day but item by item in real time- not far away.
And wouldn’t you know it? It's none other than our old friend Micheal Levine, late of the Kaua`i press corps who has taken up residence at Honolulu Hale and is using 21st century technology to do his reporting for "Civil Beat".
A look at his daily "Inside Honolulu" column shows no less than 9 blurbs in covering and posting the actions of the Honolulu City Council at various times throughout the day, with the headings:
10:36 a.m. The 'Million-Dollar Baby Toe'
10:51 a.m. Godbey Confirmed As Corp Counsel
11:19 Council Sends Ag Property Tax Bill To Mayor
12:26 p.m. Council To Defer Laie Hotel Vote
12:49 p.m. 'You Got Shafted, I Got Shafted'
3:06 p.m. Laie Hotel Deferred One Month
3:54 p.m. Mililani Senior Development Gets OK
4:22 p.m. $1 Million Settlement Approved
5:38 Council Advances Campaign Sign Rules
Why even the lowly Hawai`i (Island) Tribune Herald has an article today about a controversial bill taken up at their council's Wednesday meeting.
But it’s a rare occurrence when we get coverage of Wednesday's meeting by Friday with the usual routine being a Saturday or Sunday entry... usually a muddled attempt by a certain story-telling-challenged individual- whose name rhymes with Slazumbuja- apparently trying to make sense of what he saw.
It gets worse by the day. For today's news of a $215,000 settlement of a sexual harassment suit filed by PMRF firefighters against ITT one had to turn to the pay-walled Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
And for news of the scandalous allegations of misconduct on the part of the "old" Kaua`i Independent Foodbank- made by the "new" Hawai`i Foodbank- you had to turn to Bob Jones' last two columns in "Midweek." Or you could check out Joan Conrow's "heads up" on the story where the news that the reason for the non-coverage may just be that the publisher of the local paper sits on the "old" foodbank's board of directors.
All we got today was a confusing account of some plea agreement- from who knows how long ago- in what appeared to be a dispute between Kilauea neighbors that resulted in threats.
At least the local paper does serve one constituency- the fishing community is happy to have something in which to wrap their catch. Either way, if you leave your catch lying around for a few days the fact that it stinks is bound to be evident.
--------
Note: While the local newspaper remains silent on their naming of victims of crime as we discussed on Monday, we did receive the following comment purported to be from Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri Carvalho:
I have no idea how the paper's new police beat reporter Tom LaVenture got the list, although I suspect it was from the indictment, which by law, is public record.
As you correctly noted, the victims' names did not appear on any official county press release page or the prosecuting attorney's page at the county web site. It is for those very reasons that you state below:
"It's bad enough to list the victim of a burglary, letting potential crooks know who might might be making themselves a good target for another burglary. But to list the name of an abuse victim and potentially subject the person to the unwarranted taunts, ridicule and shame that many times unfortunately accompany such situations, is just plain professional misconduct"
that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney(OPA) has NEVER released victims' names to be published.
Thank you for addressing this issue, as the OPA strongly seeks to protect against the revictimization of victims.
Mahalo,
Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho
Kauai Prosecuting Attorney
Thursday, August 4, 2011
BUDDING GENIUSES
BUDDING GENIUSES: We don't often follow trials, especially in Honolulu, mainly because the news outlets there don't do so either except for those that bleed profusely.
But because of the extensive coverage and rare live bogging by "Civil Beat" of the human trafficking trial of the Sou brothers of Aloun Farms, today we turned first to Sara Lin's blog only to discover that the prosecution apparently bungled the case so badly they were forced to permanently drop all charges today.
But what's even more shocking is that it appears that the reason is that they actually did not even know what the law said at the time the alleged crimes took place.
Piecing together the events this morning from various accounts- Ken Kobayashi of the Star Advertiser being the only one to note that the charges were dropped "permanently"- it appears that the lead attorney flown in from Washington D.C., Susan French, only figured out last Friday that the law had been changed in 2008 or 2009 (depending on the news source) and, in fact, that she had even misled the grand jury in obtaining the indictment.
Though no one will admit it, according to Hawaii Reporter, Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Cushman told U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway this morning that "the dismissal was caused 'by the discovery of new evidence Friday,'” which was the day that French apparently discovered her blunder.
It's rare that we're at a loss for words but the level of incompetence here- especially given how many lives have been effected including the Sous and the dozens of Thai workers involved- is unfathomable.
While the brothers weren't actually charged with a violation of the law that changed- making it now illegal to pay for the transportation of foreign contract labor- it was apparently a major part of the case against them.
What kind of utter malpractice rules not just our local U.S. attorneys' office but the U.S. Justice Department itself, that no one among the slew of lawyers discovered the error?
It kind of makes you wonder what they are busy with... maybe harassing Roger Christie, the head of the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry in Hilo who has been held without bail in federal detention for over a year now for his marijuana church activities. Or could it be threatening state legislators that if they pass a law to allow "compassion centers" to legally distribute medical marijuana they might just arrest the government officials that would administrate the program?
The Hawaii U.S. Attorney's office has been an out-of-control joke for a long time now with justice being determined by U.S. administration policies as evidenced by the Bush appointment scandal a few years back.
We've watched as they use high handed tactics as well as threats and detentions based on thread-bare evidence to force plea deals when their cases are weak for way too long now but this insanity takes the cake.
We'll leave the details of that for another day. Today we simply await the impending justice of seeing the rolling heads that are sure to come from this case.
But because of the extensive coverage and rare live bogging by "Civil Beat" of the human trafficking trial of the Sou brothers of Aloun Farms, today we turned first to Sara Lin's blog only to discover that the prosecution apparently bungled the case so badly they were forced to permanently drop all charges today.
But what's even more shocking is that it appears that the reason is that they actually did not even know what the law said at the time the alleged crimes took place.
Piecing together the events this morning from various accounts- Ken Kobayashi of the Star Advertiser being the only one to note that the charges were dropped "permanently"- it appears that the lead attorney flown in from Washington D.C., Susan French, only figured out last Friday that the law had been changed in 2008 or 2009 (depending on the news source) and, in fact, that she had even misled the grand jury in obtaining the indictment.
Though no one will admit it, according to Hawaii Reporter, Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Cushman told U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway this morning that "the dismissal was caused 'by the discovery of new evidence Friday,'” which was the day that French apparently discovered her blunder.
It's rare that we're at a loss for words but the level of incompetence here- especially given how many lives have been effected including the Sous and the dozens of Thai workers involved- is unfathomable.
While the brothers weren't actually charged with a violation of the law that changed- making it now illegal to pay for the transportation of foreign contract labor- it was apparently a major part of the case against them.
What kind of utter malpractice rules not just our local U.S. attorneys' office but the U.S. Justice Department itself, that no one among the slew of lawyers discovered the error?
It kind of makes you wonder what they are busy with... maybe harassing Roger Christie, the head of the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry in Hilo who has been held without bail in federal detention for over a year now for his marijuana church activities. Or could it be threatening state legislators that if they pass a law to allow "compassion centers" to legally distribute medical marijuana they might just arrest the government officials that would administrate the program?
The Hawaii U.S. Attorney's office has been an out-of-control joke for a long time now with justice being determined by U.S. administration policies as evidenced by the Bush appointment scandal a few years back.
We've watched as they use high handed tactics as well as threats and detentions based on thread-bare evidence to force plea deals when their cases are weak for way too long now but this insanity takes the cake.
We'll leave the details of that for another day. Today we simply await the impending justice of seeing the rolling heads that are sure to come from this case.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
THERE''S NO BUSINESS LIKE NEWS BUSINESS
THERE''S NO BUSINESS LIKE NEWS BUSINESS: It's not as bad as we expected it to be to skip the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (S-A) when their paywall went up today because we realize now how little information we actually got from our morning perusals.
But that reality has spurred the realization that the one thing that the "newspaper of record" accomplished is to lose that status and throw itself into an all-out "NewsWar" with the nascent on-line news provider Civil Beat (CB).
Presumably the S-A started charging for their on-line version in an attempt to capitalize on what they thought was the fact that they are the 'real' newspaper. But, with the addition of their own "breaking news" section linked to the neighbor island papers and the AP feed, Civil Beat has positioned itself to go head to head with the S-A.
And, it's no contest. The group of young eager journos at CB actually like where they work and it shows in their work. But the old line "survivors" that populate the news desks at the S-A have all been to hell and back recently after the so-called "merger" made jobs in reporting scarce. They all no doubt resent the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads- the unspoken fact that "you can be replaced chickie-baby."
It shows in their work. It's rote and formulaic. There's very little depth and there's nary a link to any additional information. The S-A's coverage hit only the surface of the news like a flat stone skimmed across the water.
While over at CB the writing is lively and inventive and the reporters seem to have the attitude that even coverage of daily events should be treated as "enterprise" journalism that digs into the subject and provides the kind of full perspective that comes from writing for on-line consumption.
For CB reporters, space is unlimited and not just the result of a "news hole"- a term used for what is left over for content when the advertising is laid out in a print newspaper.
But the S-A isn't taking things lying down if yesterday's "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"- or at least do too- moment during the Sou trial in any indication,"
CB reporter Sara Lin, in the Annie Oakley role, had unsurprisingly taken the initiative weeks ago in making the enterprising move of asking Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway if she could "live blog" from the human trafficking trial of Aloun Farms owners Mike and Alec Sou.
Mollway okayed the request after a much published discussion and said that Lin could do it but would be the only one and had to share her information with the rest of the press in a "press pool" arrangement.
Then S-A courts reporter Ken Kobayashi in the Frank Butler role decided that, a week into the trial, he wanted "in" on the action in a seemingly day late and dollar short decision that reeks of a distinct "what exactly are we" through process from the S-A publisher, sent a letter to Mollway asking to join Lin in live blogging.
Mollway told Kobayashi that essentially that boat had sailed and that she would have to think about a fair way to do it again in the future should she or others in the federal court decide to do it at all.
That came with a caveat on Mollway's part as to whom she would consider in the future for such blogging, noting that requests would have to come from "authorized" or "credentialed" press because she didn't want, for instance, the defendant's "spouse (to) set up a blog to advocate the party's case."
She also noted that a "one blogger only" policy would likely be imposed so that the U.S. marshals could keep track to make sure that there were no recordings or pictures, which are forbidden by federal law.
That of course brings up the matter of who would be considered for this pool assignment.
Because while Lin and Kobayashi might think they are the only marksmen in town, "I'm just a blogger" Larry Geller of Disappeared News might just stake a claim as the new gun in town.
Apparently Geller has also been attending the trial and giving his account after he gets home every day. We're sure he would like to be considered to be part of that "pool"- if not THE live blogger.
But although Lin said that CB has emailed each blurb to various news outlets before she hit the "post" button we seriously doubt any bloggers were included.
The fact is that while the winner in the S-A's decision to charge for the on-line news is undoubtedly Civil Beat- which is now a direct competitor whereas yesterday they weren't- it also opens up the field for other news providers, even if they are "just bloggers."
When Blogger Geller comes to Chief Sitting Bull Mollway and says "I'm An Indian too," in light of today's leveling of the table, he's as entitled as anybody to be "Doin' What Come Naturally."
But that reality has spurred the realization that the one thing that the "newspaper of record" accomplished is to lose that status and throw itself into an all-out "NewsWar" with the nascent on-line news provider Civil Beat (CB).
Presumably the S-A started charging for their on-line version in an attempt to capitalize on what they thought was the fact that they are the 'real' newspaper. But, with the addition of their own "breaking news" section linked to the neighbor island papers and the AP feed, Civil Beat has positioned itself to go head to head with the S-A.
And, it's no contest. The group of young eager journos at CB actually like where they work and it shows in their work. But the old line "survivors" that populate the news desks at the S-A have all been to hell and back recently after the so-called "merger" made jobs in reporting scarce. They all no doubt resent the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads- the unspoken fact that "you can be replaced chickie-baby."
It shows in their work. It's rote and formulaic. There's very little depth and there's nary a link to any additional information. The S-A's coverage hit only the surface of the news like a flat stone skimmed across the water.
While over at CB the writing is lively and inventive and the reporters seem to have the attitude that even coverage of daily events should be treated as "enterprise" journalism that digs into the subject and provides the kind of full perspective that comes from writing for on-line consumption.
For CB reporters, space is unlimited and not just the result of a "news hole"- a term used for what is left over for content when the advertising is laid out in a print newspaper.
But the S-A isn't taking things lying down if yesterday's "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"- or at least do too- moment during the Sou trial in any indication,"
CB reporter Sara Lin, in the Annie Oakley role, had unsurprisingly taken the initiative weeks ago in making the enterprising move of asking Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway if she could "live blog" from the human trafficking trial of Aloun Farms owners Mike and Alec Sou.
Mollway okayed the request after a much published discussion and said that Lin could do it but would be the only one and had to share her information with the rest of the press in a "press pool" arrangement.
Then S-A courts reporter Ken Kobayashi in the Frank Butler role decided that, a week into the trial, he wanted "in" on the action in a seemingly day late and dollar short decision that reeks of a distinct "what exactly are we" through process from the S-A publisher, sent a letter to Mollway asking to join Lin in live blogging.
Mollway told Kobayashi that essentially that boat had sailed and that she would have to think about a fair way to do it again in the future should she or others in the federal court decide to do it at all.
That came with a caveat on Mollway's part as to whom she would consider in the future for such blogging, noting that requests would have to come from "authorized" or "credentialed" press because she didn't want, for instance, the defendant's "spouse (to) set up a blog to advocate the party's case."
She also noted that a "one blogger only" policy would likely be imposed so that the U.S. marshals could keep track to make sure that there were no recordings or pictures, which are forbidden by federal law.
That of course brings up the matter of who would be considered for this pool assignment.
Because while Lin and Kobayashi might think they are the only marksmen in town, "I'm just a blogger" Larry Geller of Disappeared News might just stake a claim as the new gun in town.
Apparently Geller has also been attending the trial and giving his account after he gets home every day. We're sure he would like to be considered to be part of that "pool"- if not THE live blogger.
But although Lin said that CB has emailed each blurb to various news outlets before she hit the "post" button we seriously doubt any bloggers were included.
The fact is that while the winner in the S-A's decision to charge for the on-line news is undoubtedly Civil Beat- which is now a direct competitor whereas yesterday they weren't- it also opens up the field for other news providers, even if they are "just bloggers."
When Blogger Geller comes to Chief Sitting Bull Mollway and says "I'm An Indian too," in light of today's leveling of the table, he's as entitled as anybody to be "Doin' What Come Naturally."
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
INFORMATION TAR-TAR
INFORMATION TAR-TAR: Ever since the Office of Information Practices (OIP) lost the infamous ES-177 case- wherein the County of Kaua`i went to court to avoid releasing the minutes of an executive session despite apparent legislative intent to give OIP ultimate authority and ban such court action- we've kind of felt like the guy in the movies screaming in futility while spinning through the vacuum of space.
But recent attention has been paid by Civil Beat Editor John Temple prompting the OIP to defend itself- in a letter from the current director entitled "The Raw Truth"- for refusing to, as they see it, waste their time trying to claim their "teeth" that the court took away.
We're not going to try to rehash the long and winding road of ES-177 and CofK vs OIP again here but today Temple does point out a new wrinkle that puts OIP's finger-pointing at the legislature in a new light saying that under:
sections 92F-15.5 and 92F-28 of Hawaii Revised Statutes that the OIP has authority to hear and make binding decisions in appeals if it exercises its rule-making authority.
Apparently OIP has never bothered to promulgate Chapter 91 Administrative Rules to set up an appeals process for agencies who disagree with their Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) rulings to follow- one of Kaua`i County's major gripes in their suit having been the denial of "due process."
In addition today, another open records and meetings junkie, blogger/journalist Ian Lind takes a shot at OIP's defense by noting that in CofK vs OIP the court actually distinguished it from another case where OIP's authority was upheld, noting that "board meeting minutes are specifically covered by HRS Chapter 92, whereas development proposals, such as the ones at issue" in the other case, are not.
Of course the only reason the ES-177 case is finally getting statewide attention is that Governor Neil Abercrombie refused to adhere to an OIP decision on releasing the names of candidates for the Hawaii Supreme Court and then refused to reappoint the OIP director who made the decision.
But one thing that again occurs to us today, has bothered us since the first day the CofK decided to file suit.
Why exactly did the county bother to sue and not just ignore the OIP?
By filing suit they risked losing but by ignoring the OIP- as many are doing today, they apparently would have risked nothing. That's because of something that neither Temple nor Lind nor OIP itself has mentioned- something that really exposed the weak link in all of this.
According to the Sunshine Law under §92-12 Enforcement,
(a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.
The fact is that, because the law also says that anyone who doesn't agree with an OIP directive can sue in circuit court, attorneys general have consistently said that one must go to court first and so, they have refused to enforce OIP's opinions.
Thus the root of the claim that OIP is a "toothless tiger" is that the AG refuses to enforce its decisions.
That is why Abercrombie can get away with thumbing his nose at the OIP- not because the legislature hasn't been clear enough, as Temple points out today in citing the 1989 conference committee report for the sunshine law, as the OIP did in it's arguments in CofK vs. OIP.
Seems that "The Raw Truth" is that OIP does have options- options that you can bet the always-reticent-to-act legislature will be sure to iterate next year when they consider the OIP's request for tooth sharpening.
But recent attention has been paid by Civil Beat Editor John Temple prompting the OIP to defend itself- in a letter from the current director entitled "The Raw Truth"- for refusing to, as they see it, waste their time trying to claim their "teeth" that the court took away.
We're not going to try to rehash the long and winding road of ES-177 and CofK vs OIP again here but today Temple does point out a new wrinkle that puts OIP's finger-pointing at the legislature in a new light saying that under:
sections 92F-15.5 and 92F-28 of Hawaii Revised Statutes that the OIP has authority to hear and make binding decisions in appeals if it exercises its rule-making authority.
Apparently OIP has never bothered to promulgate Chapter 91 Administrative Rules to set up an appeals process for agencies who disagree with their Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) rulings to follow- one of Kaua`i County's major gripes in their suit having been the denial of "due process."
In addition today, another open records and meetings junkie, blogger/journalist Ian Lind takes a shot at OIP's defense by noting that in CofK vs OIP the court actually distinguished it from another case where OIP's authority was upheld, noting that "board meeting minutes are specifically covered by HRS Chapter 92, whereas development proposals, such as the ones at issue" in the other case, are not.
Of course the only reason the ES-177 case is finally getting statewide attention is that Governor Neil Abercrombie refused to adhere to an OIP decision on releasing the names of candidates for the Hawaii Supreme Court and then refused to reappoint the OIP director who made the decision.
But one thing that again occurs to us today, has bothered us since the first day the CofK decided to file suit.
Why exactly did the county bother to sue and not just ignore the OIP?
By filing suit they risked losing but by ignoring the OIP- as many are doing today, they apparently would have risked nothing. That's because of something that neither Temple nor Lind nor OIP itself has mentioned- something that really exposed the weak link in all of this.
According to the Sunshine Law under §92-12 Enforcement,
(a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.
The fact is that, because the law also says that anyone who doesn't agree with an OIP directive can sue in circuit court, attorneys general have consistently said that one must go to court first and so, they have refused to enforce OIP's opinions.
Thus the root of the claim that OIP is a "toothless tiger" is that the AG refuses to enforce its decisions.
That is why Abercrombie can get away with thumbing his nose at the OIP- not because the legislature hasn't been clear enough, as Temple points out today in citing the 1989 conference committee report for the sunshine law, as the OIP did in it's arguments in CofK vs. OIP.
Seems that "The Raw Truth" is that OIP does have options- options that you can bet the always-reticent-to-act legislature will be sure to iterate next year when they consider the OIP's request for tooth sharpening.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
LOOKIN' LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR BRAINS ON THE GROUND
LOOKIN' LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR BRAINS ON THE GROUND: Mom always said that the only reason to keep banging your head against the wall is that it feels so good when you stop.
But sometimes it feels a little better when someone comes along and and joins in by banging theirs.
We've concussed more times than we care to remember over the "paper tiger" status of the state's Office of Information Practices (OIP) that resulted from the infamous "ES-177" case in which the County of Kaua`i sued the OIP rather than give up the minutes to an "executive session (ES)" in 2005.
But today we gained a banging-mate in the person of John Temple of the on-line news source Civil Beat who, in bemoaning the fact that new OIP chief Cheryl Kakazu Park called "futile," any effort to force either Governor Neil Abercrombie or the Honolulu Police Department to release records that, despite OIP orders to "give 'em up," remain ferreted away in some filing cabinet.
Temple actually figured out why, despite a clear law backed up by legislative intent documents, OIP lost it's sole authority to determine when documents must be made public by the state and its political subdivisions, actually citing the ES-177 case, albeit through a link.
In County of Kaua`i vs Office of Information Practices the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the county could in fact go to circuit court to overturn an OIP directive.
According to the decision:
OIP maintained that HRS § 92F-15.5(b) (1993) did not provide County "the right to appeal or otherwise contest an OIP determination that a record must be disclosed under the [Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)]." OIP cited to Conference Committee Report No. 17 on Senate Bill No. 1799, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 763-64, which stated that "a government agency dissatisfied with an administrative ruling by the OIP does not have the right to bring an action in circuit court to contest the OIP ruling." OIP also cited to HRS § 632-1, which provided, inter alia, that "[w]here . . . a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy shall be followed."
But despite the fact that the original request was for the minutes- clearly a document- the court ruled that the real intent somehow dealt with HRS 92, the open meetings or Sunshine law, over which OIP does not have sole discretion.
We're certainly gratified to have someone with a bigger megaphone take up the cause and couldn't agree more with Temple who concluded today's first of two columns by saying that the language in HRS 92F-15.5:
clearly gives the OIP the power to order government agencies to make records available. Yet, that power isn't being wielded today, at least in part because of a 2009 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decision. That case involved not just the UIPA but also the open meetings law, known as the Sunshine law, which doesn't give the OIP the same strong powers as the open records law.
The result of the appeals court decision appears to be confusion — and a weakened OIP.
Cheryl Kakazu Park, OIP's director, defends her office, but says she's going to seek clarification of its powers from the Legislature next year. She says she sees agencies voluntarily comply with OIP advice.
"For the most part, they have wanted to comply," she told me.
Maybe.
But it was Park who wrote that it would be "futile" for her to rule on an appeal of the governor's rejection of requests for the names of judicial nominees.
Futile. Even though the language of the statute clearly says what should happen when OIP rules on appeal that a document should be public: "The agency shall make the record available."
Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
It's a two edged sword. Even though the open meetings and records laws in Hawai`i are broken, anyone who has seen the legislature in action know that they are just as libel to make things worse as they are to remedy the situation once they get a bill on the table.
But perhaps the sound of other headbangers will force the legislature to give the OIP the authority that they were supposedly given when the law was passed.
But sometimes it feels a little better when someone comes along and and joins in by banging theirs.
We've concussed more times than we care to remember over the "paper tiger" status of the state's Office of Information Practices (OIP) that resulted from the infamous "ES-177" case in which the County of Kaua`i sued the OIP rather than give up the minutes to an "executive session (ES)" in 2005.
But today we gained a banging-mate in the person of John Temple of the on-line news source Civil Beat who, in bemoaning the fact that new OIP chief Cheryl Kakazu Park called "futile," any effort to force either Governor Neil Abercrombie or the Honolulu Police Department to release records that, despite OIP orders to "give 'em up," remain ferreted away in some filing cabinet.
Temple actually figured out why, despite a clear law backed up by legislative intent documents, OIP lost it's sole authority to determine when documents must be made public by the state and its political subdivisions, actually citing the ES-177 case, albeit through a link.
In County of Kaua`i vs Office of Information Practices the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the county could in fact go to circuit court to overturn an OIP directive.
According to the decision:
OIP maintained that HRS § 92F-15.5(b) (1993) did not provide County "the right to appeal or otherwise contest an OIP determination that a record must be disclosed under the [Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)]." OIP cited to Conference Committee Report No. 17 on Senate Bill No. 1799, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 763-64, which stated that "a government agency dissatisfied with an administrative ruling by the OIP does not have the right to bring an action in circuit court to contest the OIP ruling." OIP also cited to HRS § 632-1, which provided, inter alia, that "[w]here . . . a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy shall be followed."
But despite the fact that the original request was for the minutes- clearly a document- the court ruled that the real intent somehow dealt with HRS 92, the open meetings or Sunshine law, over which OIP does not have sole discretion.
We're certainly gratified to have someone with a bigger megaphone take up the cause and couldn't agree more with Temple who concluded today's first of two columns by saying that the language in HRS 92F-15.5:
clearly gives the OIP the power to order government agencies to make records available. Yet, that power isn't being wielded today, at least in part because of a 2009 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decision. That case involved not just the UIPA but also the open meetings law, known as the Sunshine law, which doesn't give the OIP the same strong powers as the open records law.
The result of the appeals court decision appears to be confusion — and a weakened OIP.
Cheryl Kakazu Park, OIP's director, defends her office, but says she's going to seek clarification of its powers from the Legislature next year. She says she sees agencies voluntarily comply with OIP advice.
"For the most part, they have wanted to comply," she told me.
Maybe.
But it was Park who wrote that it would be "futile" for her to rule on an appeal of the governor's rejection of requests for the names of judicial nominees.
Futile. Even though the language of the statute clearly says what should happen when OIP rules on appeal that a document should be public: "The agency shall make the record available."
Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
It's a two edged sword. Even though the open meetings and records laws in Hawai`i are broken, anyone who has seen the legislature in action know that they are just as libel to make things worse as they are to remedy the situation once they get a bill on the table.
But perhaps the sound of other headbangers will force the legislature to give the OIP the authority that they were supposedly given when the law was passed.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
FIND THE RED QUEEN
FIND THE RED QUEEN: You can set your watch- well, maybe your calendar- by it.
As the two minute warning for the first half of the legislature approaches, with “first decking” coming up on Friday, some wiseacre will try to use the old fumbleroosky play- called in the trade “the gut and replace.”
It’s a self explanatory way to get around the constitutional requirement that bills be introduced very early in the session and it tends to come up this week every year- usually this very day, the Tuesday before first decking, when almost every committee is doing “decision making” on all the bills that have been held up for one reason or another over the past month.
While everyone else- including the press- is busy watching their bill of choice, someone will inevitably try to slip in the worst piece of crap ever by gutting a good bill and inserting a horrific one.
This year's crook was Democratic Sen. Brickwood Galuteria, who has gutted SB 671- a bill introduced by Democratic Sen. Les Ihara to tighten up ethics rules on gift giving- and replacing it with another that would entirely blow up any semblance of ethics in gift giving.
But instead of it sneaking through, as has been the habit over the past decades, in the on-line age it dominated the on-line world late yesterday and this morning.
You can read the gory details at Civil Beat or almost any news and politics blog you choose- Dave Shapiro’s, Ian Lind’s and Larry Geller’s.
But only Geller figured out what the out the “rooski” part of the play was for anyone who discovered the fumble and wanted to testify.
He wrote:
Even if you wanted to testify against SB671 SD1, you can’t, because of the way it is set up. If you submit testimony it would be registered under SB671, not the amended version. Now, SB671, as originally written, appears to be a very fine bill. So if you testified in opposition, you’d be opposing that bill. It’s the way the computer is set up. The committee did not provide a way to testify against the new, evil amendment.
That’s right it's not even one of those “no means yes and yes means no” kind of dirty tricks. It’s more like the “head I win, tails you lose” swindle where the con man gets to interpret all the yeses and noes as whatever he wants them to mean.
Ordinarily this would be the part where we post the email address for the Senate Judiciary Committee but actually this time so many people know about the scam that it is apparently covered.
Instead cross your fingers that today’s decision making on moving oversight of medical marijuana from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Health goes smoothly. Then if this stuff continues to give you headaches you’ll be more likely to have the medicine to help it go away.
As the two minute warning for the first half of the legislature approaches, with “first decking” coming up on Friday, some wiseacre will try to use the old fumbleroosky play- called in the trade “the gut and replace.”
It’s a self explanatory way to get around the constitutional requirement that bills be introduced very early in the session and it tends to come up this week every year- usually this very day, the Tuesday before first decking, when almost every committee is doing “decision making” on all the bills that have been held up for one reason or another over the past month.
While everyone else- including the press- is busy watching their bill of choice, someone will inevitably try to slip in the worst piece of crap ever by gutting a good bill and inserting a horrific one.
This year's crook was Democratic Sen. Brickwood Galuteria, who has gutted SB 671- a bill introduced by Democratic Sen. Les Ihara to tighten up ethics rules on gift giving- and replacing it with another that would entirely blow up any semblance of ethics in gift giving.
But instead of it sneaking through, as has been the habit over the past decades, in the on-line age it dominated the on-line world late yesterday and this morning.
You can read the gory details at Civil Beat or almost any news and politics blog you choose- Dave Shapiro’s, Ian Lind’s and Larry Geller’s.
But only Geller figured out what the out the “rooski” part of the play was for anyone who discovered the fumble and wanted to testify.
He wrote:
Even if you wanted to testify against SB671 SD1, you can’t, because of the way it is set up. If you submit testimony it would be registered under SB671, not the amended version. Now, SB671, as originally written, appears to be a very fine bill. So if you testified in opposition, you’d be opposing that bill. It’s the way the computer is set up. The committee did not provide a way to testify against the new, evil amendment.
That’s right it's not even one of those “no means yes and yes means no” kind of dirty tricks. It’s more like the “head I win, tails you lose” swindle where the con man gets to interpret all the yeses and noes as whatever he wants them to mean.
Ordinarily this would be the part where we post the email address for the Senate Judiciary Committee but actually this time so many people know about the scam that it is apparently covered.
Instead cross your fingers that today’s decision making on moving oversight of medical marijuana from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Health goes smoothly. Then if this stuff continues to give you headaches you’ll be more likely to have the medicine to help it go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
