EIGHTY SEVEN STRIKES AND YOU’RE STILL NOT OUT: You’d think that after battling against the recent gutting of the transient vacation rental ordinance, Council Chair Kaipo Asing and his right hand man- or left hand as it goes at the table- Derek Kawakami would be champing at the bit to finally close some of the biggest loopholes in Kaua`i agricultural land use law.
Maybe so... if you just arrived from Mars yesterday and had missed the Gordian knot of hypocrisy and deceit that has dominated their actions and along with those of fellow gatekeepers of the Minotaur’s labyrinth, Councilmembers Darryl Kaneshiro and Dickie Chang, for the past almost two years.
So when the four of them voted down three “no brainer” bills to stop some of the biggest abuses of ag land on “first reading” you only had to look at who introduced them to figure out why.
Councilmember Tim Bynum’s bills would have:
- stopped the semi secretive way vast tracts of ag land have been chopped into tiny little pieces by requiring a public hearing before the planning commission for all ag land subdivisions;
- limited the size of “farm dwellings” to 2500 feet without planning commission approval and;
- lowered the “density”- the number of acres per farm dwelling- on ag land to the standards used on the other neighbor islands.
But what was almost astonishing was that neither Bynum or Kawahara- nor anyone from the public- said anything about Kaneshiro’s hysterical, fist-pounding, emotionally high-pitched tirade about how the bill would personally effect him due to his ownership and/or control of vast tracts of agricultural lands where he runs his ranching operations, complaining how the bills would limit his ability to subdivide his own ag lands for housing for his children, grandchildren and presumably the generations a-comin’.
Presumably they all had temporary amnesia as to a recent county charter amendment to the “Code of Ethics” under section 20,04B: Disclosure, which says that:
(a)ny elected official... who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority... in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.
What the heck was Kaneshiro doing even speaking on the subject much less literally screaming about how the bills would directly effect him?
That charter does however list the penalties for violations of the code under 20.04C, Penalties.
(1) Any violation of any of the provisions of this section shall, at the option of the director of finance, render forfeit and void the contract, work, business, sale or transaction affected.
(2) Any violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office or employment.
Presumably that means it would take action by the Director of Finance to nullify the vote to receive the three bills. Good luck with that, especially because it would take an action from the moribund, sycophantic Board of Ethics (BOE) to get him to do it..
It’s hard to say what the bigger outrage is- a first ever (that we can recall, and that goes back almost 30 years) “receipt” of a bill for first reading due to objectionable content or the fact that Kaneshiro was not only permitted to speak on the subject but to cast the deciding vote, with one Councilmember, Jay Furfaro (a supposed member of Bynum and Kawahara’s minority faction) absent and not voting.
Maybe it was the way Kawakami tried to turn it into a flag waving “protect the American Dream” matter to allow people to build huge mansions and subdivide their land while failing to mention that the bills dealt with agricultural lands
Maybe it was the way Asing seemed to have a deer-in-the-headlights look in his eyes saying absolutely nothing while his henchmen made a farce of his recent strenuous defense of preservation of agricultural lands, even to the point of forbidding farm worker housing with a bazillion restrictions.
Maybe it was, as usual, Chang's clueless political lockstep with the majority and inability to think for himself .
Maybe it was the attempt by Asing to try to blame it all on the “county attorney’s concerns” about the bills only to have the CA call bullsh*t on him by saying that he would have concerns about ALL land use bills.
No, the biggest outrage of all is that these three measures to protect what’s left of our agricultural lands are dead for the immediate future.
Showing posts with label Kaipo and the 3D's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kaipo and the 3D's. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
ONLY HALF BULL?
ONLY HALF BULL?: Deep in the darkest recesses of the Minotaur’s labyrinth when the light of day threatens to expose all, his minions scurry to defend the perimeters at every parry of the knights of illumination.
And last Wednesday, the news that that of death of the Minotaur was premature being still unknown, his minotaur-in-waiting performed his own dance of darkness as if to prove his worthiness to ascend to the throne
Council Chair Kaipo Asing indeed filed to run for another term last Thursday despite statements in 2008 that this term would be his last.
His filing came on the heels of another slaying of the oft promised and always delayed on-line, live streaming of meetings and posting of video and agenda-related documents.
The six month deferment was accomplished through the complicity of his always rely-a-bull 3-D’s who were joined by the clueless would-be king, Jay Furfaro, whose continued confusion over how the sunshine law actually works gave the excuse for essentially the defeat of another attempt by Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara to get everyone to move off the dime and “git ’r done”
And though the local paper not only ran an article but an editorial each was, as usual, equally clueless as to the back story and Furfaro’s apparently inability to understand the basics of the state’s open meetings “sunshine” laws.
Furfaro’s confusion goes back to December of 2008 when we filed a complaint with the Office of Information Practices (OIP) after he was caught Red-Handed sending a letter to fellow councilpersons not just describing the then-new original bill calling for “non-enforcement agreements” for vacation rentals on ag land, but soliciting their support which is forbidden under any and all circumstances by law.
OIP opened a case, as we reported in Jan. of 2009 but rather than admit his blatant violation of the law Furfaro has been fighting it ever since, even somehow spending, as he said Wednesday, $1700 to do so.
The law is actually very simple. Pay attention Jay.
Councilmembers cannot discuss any matter either on an agenda or that might be on a future agenda with more than one other councilmember. And even then they cannot solicit or commit to a vote.
And, they can’t get around that by “serial one-on-one communications” or by going through a third party to do so.
The correct way to introduce anything they want to discuss is to put it on the agenda as either a communication or a bill or resolution. Otherwise it is forbidden to discuss it with more than one other member.
Once it is on the agenda the way to discuss it is to wait for the item to come up on the agenda and then say and do anything you want including introducing or even “floating” amendments to a bill.
But somehow Furfaro remains obstinate in his refusal to learn these simple procedures as evidenced by the fact that at this very meeting, during this very agenda item where he brought up his confusion in order to ask for the deferral, he referred to a 19 page letter he had sent to the Civil Service Commission regarding his thoughts on county furloughs- which the council has set for December discussion- and actually sent a copy of that letter to the rest of the council without putting it on the agenda.
All he would have had to do was send a communication with the 19 page letter to the council, have it placed on the agenda and it would have been legal. But as if to re-iterate his inability to understand a simple concept that all other council, boards and commissions in the state seem to have no trouble understanding, he just distributed it to councilmembers by placing it in their mailboxes.
Furfaro has even devised another attempted by-pass of the law lately calling for the “floating” of amendments to a bill at one committee meeting to be taken up at the next one but making them available only to the councilmembers and not to the public, according to discussion at Wednesday’s meeting.
Just as absurd were some of the other excuses used to delay implementation of the system- for which the contract has been signed and apparently all the protests have now been resolved.
What the resolution calls for in the posting of all the accompanying paperwork for all agenda items- not just the actual communications, bills and resolutions but the background documents pertaining to the item.
Right now “hard copies”- on paper- of all those are available to the public at council services as soon as the agenda is officially filed. And copies of each are made for councilpersons as part of their “packet” which they also receive when the agenda is filed.
According to sources at council services the copying machine there isn’t just some $39.99 Wal Mart special. It’s a fancy schmancy piece of work that not only makes copies but makes digital copies of each and can, with the push of a button can- drum roll please- even post them on line automatically.
But you would think that they needed a Manhattan project to figure out how to post them and then have to hire three more employees to push that bottom from the way Furfaro, Asing and Councilpersons Dickie Chang, Darryl Kaneshiro and Derrick Kawakami jumped at the chance to defer posting the documents- via the system which IT Division Chief Erik Knutzen told us a year and a half ago was ready to go- until they resolve the “county furloughs” issue and meet with staff to figure out how to push the button.... something they’ve had four years to do.
But there are no buttons at door to the labyrinth and distribution of information remains for now on a need-to-know basis.
And last Wednesday, the news that that of death of the Minotaur was premature being still unknown, his minotaur-in-waiting performed his own dance of darkness as if to prove his worthiness to ascend to the throne
Council Chair Kaipo Asing indeed filed to run for another term last Thursday despite statements in 2008 that this term would be his last.
His filing came on the heels of another slaying of the oft promised and always delayed on-line, live streaming of meetings and posting of video and agenda-related documents.
The six month deferment was accomplished through the complicity of his always rely-a-bull 3-D’s who were joined by the clueless would-be king, Jay Furfaro, whose continued confusion over how the sunshine law actually works gave the excuse for essentially the defeat of another attempt by Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara to get everyone to move off the dime and “git ’r done”
And though the local paper not only ran an article but an editorial each was, as usual, equally clueless as to the back story and Furfaro’s apparently inability to understand the basics of the state’s open meetings “sunshine” laws.
Furfaro’s confusion goes back to December of 2008 when we filed a complaint with the Office of Information Practices (OIP) after he was caught Red-Handed sending a letter to fellow councilpersons not just describing the then-new original bill calling for “non-enforcement agreements” for vacation rentals on ag land, but soliciting their support which is forbidden under any and all circumstances by law.
OIP opened a case, as we reported in Jan. of 2009 but rather than admit his blatant violation of the law Furfaro has been fighting it ever since, even somehow spending, as he said Wednesday, $1700 to do so.
The law is actually very simple. Pay attention Jay.
Councilmembers cannot discuss any matter either on an agenda or that might be on a future agenda with more than one other councilmember. And even then they cannot solicit or commit to a vote.
And, they can’t get around that by “serial one-on-one communications” or by going through a third party to do so.
The correct way to introduce anything they want to discuss is to put it on the agenda as either a communication or a bill or resolution. Otherwise it is forbidden to discuss it with more than one other member.
Once it is on the agenda the way to discuss it is to wait for the item to come up on the agenda and then say and do anything you want including introducing or even “floating” amendments to a bill.
But somehow Furfaro remains obstinate in his refusal to learn these simple procedures as evidenced by the fact that at this very meeting, during this very agenda item where he brought up his confusion in order to ask for the deferral, he referred to a 19 page letter he had sent to the Civil Service Commission regarding his thoughts on county furloughs- which the council has set for December discussion- and actually sent a copy of that letter to the rest of the council without putting it on the agenda.
All he would have had to do was send a communication with the 19 page letter to the council, have it placed on the agenda and it would have been legal. But as if to re-iterate his inability to understand a simple concept that all other council, boards and commissions in the state seem to have no trouble understanding, he just distributed it to councilmembers by placing it in their mailboxes.
Furfaro has even devised another attempted by-pass of the law lately calling for the “floating” of amendments to a bill at one committee meeting to be taken up at the next one but making them available only to the councilmembers and not to the public, according to discussion at Wednesday’s meeting.
Just as absurd were some of the other excuses used to delay implementation of the system- for which the contract has been signed and apparently all the protests have now been resolved.
What the resolution calls for in the posting of all the accompanying paperwork for all agenda items- not just the actual communications, bills and resolutions but the background documents pertaining to the item.
Right now “hard copies”- on paper- of all those are available to the public at council services as soon as the agenda is officially filed. And copies of each are made for councilpersons as part of their “packet” which they also receive when the agenda is filed.
According to sources at council services the copying machine there isn’t just some $39.99 Wal Mart special. It’s a fancy schmancy piece of work that not only makes copies but makes digital copies of each and can, with the push of a button can- drum roll please- even post them on line automatically.
But you would think that they needed a Manhattan project to figure out how to post them and then have to hire three more employees to push that bottom from the way Furfaro, Asing and Councilpersons Dickie Chang, Darryl Kaneshiro and Derrick Kawakami jumped at the chance to defer posting the documents- via the system which IT Division Chief Erik Knutzen told us a year and a half ago was ready to go- until they resolve the “county furloughs” issue and meet with staff to figure out how to push the button.... something they’ve had four years to do.
But there are no buttons at door to the labyrinth and distribution of information remains for now on a need-to-know basis.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
SAME OLD TRICKS
SAME OLD TRICKS: When veteran Arizona reporter Anthony Sommer took the job of Honolulu Star Bulletin Kaua`i Bureau Chief- a position that has long since disappeared along with the paper’s coverage of Kaua`i- although he continued to attend Kaua`i County Council meetings, the fairly in-depth weekly coverage he had provided in his brief tenure at the local Kaua`i newspaper suddenly dried up.
And what did make it into the S-B seemed to be lacking any detail. When people asked, Tony was more than forthcoming with the reason.
Seems his editor, Frank Bilge- er Bridgewater, didn’t want all that “inside baseball” stuff -as they tend to call any detail from the neighbor islands- and in fact, the choppy copy in final articles was due to the chainsaw nature of Frank’s blue pencil.
So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that it took the Honolulu Advertiser’s part-time Kaua`i correspondent Diana Leone almost a year to produce her first in depth coverage of the Kaua`i council activities and almost five months to finally cover the fact that Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum have been “prodding the state's smallest county to ‘move into the 21st century’ and post more government information online”.
Better late than never, Leone reports that:
More than four months later — and more than two years after Bynum first brought up the issues — the mavericks are claiming progress in their quest for equality among council members and better public access to information.
Kawahara calls the posting of council and committee meeting minutes on the county's official Web site since July 3 "a major accomplishment."
While the article does a good job of telling the story- and comparing what the council provides on-line with the other islands in a handy-dandy chart- what is implied but not stated is that absolutely no improvement has been made in the on-line access by the council to documents as a result of the actions of the two... at least according to the administration and Council Chair Kaipo Asing who claimed at the time that the posting of council minutes and recap summaries were a result of their own initiative not the push by Bynum and Kawahara.
Yes, the jobs of Kawahara and Bynum have been made easier with the availability of all documents addressed to the council as a whole being made available to them in a “binder in the council break room”- a “solution” that, although though it placated them still leaves the public without the ability to receive these supposedly public documents in a timely manner.
And now they apparently are able to introduce bills and resolutions unimpeded- the biggest outrage of all and one the Leone fails to mention.
The article does make note of how we are still the only county that doesn’t even make copies of bills and resolutions available on-line, still requiring a physical trip to Lihu`e if someone wants to interpret the agenda.
Although Bynum has done a good job of posting them himself on his and Kawahara’s kauaiinfo.org web site- although tomorrow’s meeting’s documents are nowhere to be found- it shouldn’t be up to him to spend every Friday afternoon holed up at his office scanning and posting all the minutia that makes it possible for people to do their homework so they can speak intelligently on items at council meetings- ironically enough a major complaint directed to members of the public from Asing and his 3-D Swiss Guard, Dickie (Chang), Darryl (Kaneshiro) and Derek (Kawakami).
Promises of presently posting not just the documents but live streaming video of meetings- and an indexed by subject archive of the video clips- were seemingly just another stonewalling device designed to make the all-to-used-to-being-ignored people, just go away- return to your homes... nothing to see here.
As we predicted when the two mavericks, as Leone calls them, decided a promise to “do better next time” from Asing- one that wasn’t worth the paper it wasn’t written on- was enough, they apparently crept back into the dark of the Minotaur’s labyrinth since they were now getting the documents they wanted even if the public was still in the dark.
But it sure was exciting for a month or two to think things might improve, wasn’t it?
And what did make it into the S-B seemed to be lacking any detail. When people asked, Tony was more than forthcoming with the reason.
Seems his editor, Frank Bilge- er Bridgewater, didn’t want all that “inside baseball” stuff -as they tend to call any detail from the neighbor islands- and in fact, the choppy copy in final articles was due to the chainsaw nature of Frank’s blue pencil.
So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that it took the Honolulu Advertiser’s part-time Kaua`i correspondent Diana Leone almost a year to produce her first in depth coverage of the Kaua`i council activities and almost five months to finally cover the fact that Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum have been “prodding the state's smallest county to ‘move into the 21st century’ and post more government information online”.
Better late than never, Leone reports that:
More than four months later — and more than two years after Bynum first brought up the issues — the mavericks are claiming progress in their quest for equality among council members and better public access to information.
Kawahara calls the posting of council and committee meeting minutes on the county's official Web site since July 3 "a major accomplishment."
While the article does a good job of telling the story- and comparing what the council provides on-line with the other islands in a handy-dandy chart- what is implied but not stated is that absolutely no improvement has been made in the on-line access by the council to documents as a result of the actions of the two... at least according to the administration and Council Chair Kaipo Asing who claimed at the time that the posting of council minutes and recap summaries were a result of their own initiative not the push by Bynum and Kawahara.
Yes, the jobs of Kawahara and Bynum have been made easier with the availability of all documents addressed to the council as a whole being made available to them in a “binder in the council break room”- a “solution” that, although though it placated them still leaves the public without the ability to receive these supposedly public documents in a timely manner.
And now they apparently are able to introduce bills and resolutions unimpeded- the biggest outrage of all and one the Leone fails to mention.
The article does make note of how we are still the only county that doesn’t even make copies of bills and resolutions available on-line, still requiring a physical trip to Lihu`e if someone wants to interpret the agenda.
Although Bynum has done a good job of posting them himself on his and Kawahara’s kauaiinfo.org web site- although tomorrow’s meeting’s documents are nowhere to be found- it shouldn’t be up to him to spend every Friday afternoon holed up at his office scanning and posting all the minutia that makes it possible for people to do their homework so they can speak intelligently on items at council meetings- ironically enough a major complaint directed to members of the public from Asing and his 3-D Swiss Guard, Dickie (Chang), Darryl (Kaneshiro) and Derek (Kawakami).
Promises of presently posting not just the documents but live streaming video of meetings- and an indexed by subject archive of the video clips- were seemingly just another stonewalling device designed to make the all-to-used-to-being-ignored people, just go away- return to your homes... nothing to see here.
As we predicted when the two mavericks, as Leone calls them, decided a promise to “do better next time” from Asing- one that wasn’t worth the paper it wasn’t written on- was enough, they apparently crept back into the dark of the Minotaur’s labyrinth since they were now getting the documents they wanted even if the public was still in the dark.
But it sure was exciting for a month or two to think things might improve, wasn’t it?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
THEY ARE THE EGGMEN
THEY ARE THE EGGMEN: Wednesday’s council meetings was the first in months where discussion of council rules and associated matters weren’t on the agenda with dissident Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara seemingly trusting that changes are in the works and so the public’s access to information will be radically expanded and the rules will be followed without bizarre or sinister interpretations.
But that trust was belied shortly after the gavel was pounded when government watchdog Rob Abrew continued his battle to have the council follow at least one of its own rules.
When the matter of the agenda came up on the agenda Abrew once again questioned why the council’s agenda again contained an item Communication C-2009-288 that violated council rule 15(b).
Although the state sunshine law calls for all agenda item to be posted six calendar days before the meeting the council has it’s own rule saying that:
All communications to be placed on the agenda must be initialed by the Council Chair and received by the Council or the Office of the County Clerk before 4:30 p.m. on the Friday two weeks preceding the day of the regular or Committee meeting.
The item in question was time stamped” as “received” on Thursday August 13th for the August 19th meeting.
So after laying out the case once again- as he did at the last council meeting where County Attorney Al Castillo had told him and the council the rules were simply “guidelines” that could be chucked in the trash on a whim- asking the council “are we going to pick and choose the ‘guidelines’?” which are followed.
In the past councilmembers- especially Chair Kaipo “il duce” Asing and his right hand man, defender of the realm Darryl Kaneshiro, have been relentless in claiming the council must always follow their rules- especially the one that calls to testimony to be restricted to two three minute segments.
But now that it proves inconvenient the rules are suddenly discretionary.
Kaneshiro started the defense with the old misdirection play claiming he didn’t really see what the problem was since no law was being broken referring to the sunshine law’s six day requirement. But Abrew patiently explained it all over again that that was basically irrelevant to the council rules.
What’s been called “the secret sunshine law”, HRS 92-71, allows counties to strengthen the state laws against closed government.
Then it was old-boy-in-waiting and latest addition to the palace guard Derek Kawakami’s turn to explain away the apparent flouting of the rules. He explained the intent of the rule launching into an explanation of how it was designed to make sure the staff wasn’t inundated at the sunshine law deadline because sometimes “matters come up” at the last moment that must be on the agenda.
Last meeting Kawakami was adamant that the rules were being followed and that there was no need to form an ad hoc committee to review them to come up with any changes at all.
The fact that experts agree that rules should be either followed or changed never came up.
Bynum on the other hand cited a promise to review the rules internally made by the chair and the three other councilmembers who voted down the committee idea.
He countered that “I heard a commitment to address the rules” at the last meeting and “I trust in due time we’ll do that” adding that the problem is that “as written the rule is absolute- that’s something we may want to look at.”
Kawahara agreed that “there is a commitment to look at the rules” and with that the agenda was approved without any action to effectuate any changes.
The council rules are archaic having been written 25 years ago, way before the “information age” and in a barely post-plantation era when dissent was not just unacceptable but could with five votes “suspend without pay for not more than one month any member for disorderly or contemptuous behavior or for personal vilification in its presence.”
No one could watch the last couple of meetings without finding that this description of behavior fit more than one councilmember’s actions.
There are a slew of other eyebrow raisers in the rules along with ones that are never followed.
For instance right off the bat, we’ve been going to inaugural meetings for years and we’ve never heard from any three member “credential committee” called for in Rule 1(a)2. It states that:
The Mayor, as the temporary Chair, shall appoint a credentials committee of not less than three members. The credentials committee shall immediately examine the credentials of the members elected. If a majority of the credentials are in order, the credentials committee shall so report and the oath of office shall be administered to the Councilmembers-elect by some person duly qualified to administer oaths.
Sometime when we feel ambitious we’ll go past the first couple of pages and point out some of the other rules that are either ignored or violated routinely. But just remember that four councilmembers found that the rules are just fine as they are at the last meeting.
But that trust was belied shortly after the gavel was pounded when government watchdog Rob Abrew continued his battle to have the council follow at least one of its own rules.
When the matter of the agenda came up on the agenda Abrew once again questioned why the council’s agenda again contained an item Communication C-2009-288 that violated council rule 15(b).
Although the state sunshine law calls for all agenda item to be posted six calendar days before the meeting the council has it’s own rule saying that:
All communications to be placed on the agenda must be initialed by the Council Chair and received by the Council or the Office of the County Clerk before 4:30 p.m. on the Friday two weeks preceding the day of the regular or Committee meeting.
The item in question was time stamped” as “received” on Thursday August 13th for the August 19th meeting.
So after laying out the case once again- as he did at the last council meeting where County Attorney Al Castillo had told him and the council the rules were simply “guidelines” that could be chucked in the trash on a whim- asking the council “are we going to pick and choose the ‘guidelines’?” which are followed.
In the past councilmembers- especially Chair Kaipo “il duce” Asing and his right hand man, defender of the realm Darryl Kaneshiro, have been relentless in claiming the council must always follow their rules- especially the one that calls to testimony to be restricted to two three minute segments.
But now that it proves inconvenient the rules are suddenly discretionary.
Kaneshiro started the defense with the old misdirection play claiming he didn’t really see what the problem was since no law was being broken referring to the sunshine law’s six day requirement. But Abrew patiently explained it all over again that that was basically irrelevant to the council rules.
What’s been called “the secret sunshine law”, HRS 92-71, allows counties to strengthen the state laws against closed government.
Then it was old-boy-in-waiting and latest addition to the palace guard Derek Kawakami’s turn to explain away the apparent flouting of the rules. He explained the intent of the rule launching into an explanation of how it was designed to make sure the staff wasn’t inundated at the sunshine law deadline because sometimes “matters come up” at the last moment that must be on the agenda.
Last meeting Kawakami was adamant that the rules were being followed and that there was no need to form an ad hoc committee to review them to come up with any changes at all.
The fact that experts agree that rules should be either followed or changed never came up.
Bynum on the other hand cited a promise to review the rules internally made by the chair and the three other councilmembers who voted down the committee idea.
He countered that “I heard a commitment to address the rules” at the last meeting and “I trust in due time we’ll do that” adding that the problem is that “as written the rule is absolute- that’s something we may want to look at.”
Kawahara agreed that “there is a commitment to look at the rules” and with that the agenda was approved without any action to effectuate any changes.
The council rules are archaic having been written 25 years ago, way before the “information age” and in a barely post-plantation era when dissent was not just unacceptable but could with five votes “suspend without pay for not more than one month any member for disorderly or contemptuous behavior or for personal vilification in its presence.”
No one could watch the last couple of meetings without finding that this description of behavior fit more than one councilmember’s actions.
There are a slew of other eyebrow raisers in the rules along with ones that are never followed.
For instance right off the bat, we’ve been going to inaugural meetings for years and we’ve never heard from any three member “credential committee” called for in Rule 1(a)2. It states that:
The Mayor, as the temporary Chair, shall appoint a credentials committee of not less than three members. The credentials committee shall immediately examine the credentials of the members elected. If a majority of the credentials are in order, the credentials committee shall so report and the oath of office shall be administered to the Councilmembers-elect by some person duly qualified to administer oaths.
Sometime when we feel ambitious we’ll go past the first couple of pages and point out some of the other rules that are either ignored or violated routinely. But just remember that four councilmembers found that the rules are just fine as they are at the last meeting.
Friday, August 7, 2009
ACHTUNG AHMADINASING
ACHTUNG AHMADINASING: Democracy took it’s lumps at Wednesday’s council meeting as the first real votes on specific resolutions were squelched by the now well-defined majority which used every trick in the book to avoid taking actions to resolve simplest of issues brought forward by reform Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara.
The total lack of rationality and recognition of reality was striking. The meeting served as a coming out party for good-old-boy-in-waiting Prince Derek Kawakami who, with established defender of the realm Darryl Kaneshiro, flanked-in-phalanx the besieged Chair Kaipo Asing with a feigned rhetorical “problem?... what problem” blindness topped with a flourish of “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it”.
Everyone knew there’d be trouble as soon as the resolution to form an ad hoc committee to study and propose changes to the council rules was read and Kaneshiro quickly moved to receive- meaning kill- the resolution before Bynum or Kawahara could move to approve it.
After Bynum tried to briefly detail the problems he and Kawahara have had with the rules- especially rule 10(c) pertaining to placing items on the agenda- it quickly degenerated into a series of misdirections and silly personal attacks from Kawakami, Kaneshiro and Asing himself.
Although it was the ad hoc committee resolution that was on the table Kawakami started the distractions by saying that there was no need for a clarification of 10(c) because another rule- 15(c)- allowed placement if items on the agenda by a council 2/3 vote.
Of course that had failed to be enough to do the trick when Bynum tried to get an item on the agenda on June 3.
That started the whole thing. Not only that but of course the real issue is that councilmembers should have the right to introduce any item with or without support from four other members.
Yet that was to become a rallying cry when the actual resolution to clarify rule 10(c) came up later on the agenda.
The first silliness came from the reliably clueless Councilmember Dickie Change who attacked Bynum by saying that at the June 3 meeting, when County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo stifled discussion of the non-agendaed item as a sunshine law violation, councilmember Jay Furfaro had moved to defer the matter but no one seconded it
“I was shocked no one seconded it” Chang said using hindsight to tell Bynum he had the opportunity to put it on a future agenda right there even though the motive for the request for deferral was unknown at that moment- and because a motion for deferral ends discussion.
Chang seemingly either forget or wasn’t aware that as a councilmember he could have seconded it himself.
The mouth, if not brain-engaged Chang then indicated that he was now going to oppose the resolution that he co-introduced with Furfaro saying it wasn’t really “the 360” it appeared to be, forgetting to stop ay 180 and indicating that the audience wasn’t the only one getting dizzy with all the spinning.
Then it was time for Asing to issue the first of his lip-service repetitions of a statement he made on July 22nd saying that “the chair does not have absolute power” despite the fact that he had exercised such by routinely stopping Bynum and other members from placing matters on the agenda- something Bynum has documented at his kauaiinfo.org web site with the actual memos sent to Asing.
“Pay attention to what I say, not what I do” Asing had admitted refusing to place matters on the agenda while denying it in the same breath at the 22nd – as PNN reported last week- and again later during Wednesday’s meeting.
Asing glared at Bynum and called Bynum’s well documented problems with agenda placement “manufactured problems” stating with palms raised “I don’t understand- where did it come from?”.
Next Kawahara made a statement that would be butchered, misquoted and used to attack her by Kaneshiro and Kawakami later in the meeting, saying to Asing that changes in the rules “that were actually brought up to you in the six months I’ve been here” but were not given a place on the agenda.
During the discussion of the rule change itself Kaneshiro would be adamant in heatedly accusing Kawahara over and over of lying by saying she personally had sent memos asking to introduce measures even though she said no such thing.
But the issue of the ad hoc committee was what was actually on the table and there were real problems with the idea- problems that became clear when one of the proposed members, former council chair Ron Kouchi, spoke.
After saying he might have a “perceived conflict of interest” since his employer has a bill coming up on the council’s agenda, he pointed out that the committee would need council staff time and therefore have to direct staff- something he said non-members would have all sorts of difficulty doing.
He said in the past such committees and “task forces’ always had one or two councilmembers to direct staff.
That led to some discussion by Kaneshiro and others regarding the possibility of putting a resolution on a future agenda to form a committee with up to the two councilmembers- the number sunshine law allows to communicate on council matters- to study the rules although there was no real commitment to do so.
The resolution was then "received" by a 4-3 vote with Furfaro- if not Chang- supporting his own resolution along with Bynum and Kawahara.
But the show was just beginning and after lunch the fireworks were lit when the actual rule change resolution- one to clarify that rule 10(c) couldn’t be used by the chair to keep items off the agenda indefinitely - came to the floor.
The change seemed simple and straightforward enough but again Kaneshiro quickly moved to receive and kill the resolution and it was quickly seconded by Kawakami as the script apparently called for.
Kawakami again brought up rule 15(c) repeatedly calling it an “alternative mechanism” for placing things on the agenda even though the measure would then require a 2/3 vote to go foreword.
Bynum tried to calmly explain- as if anyone could forget- all the hassle he had when he tried to get something on the agenda that way and Kawahara reiterated that a 2/3 vote certainly was a “different level” of support that needed to be met and wasn’t “equal” to the simple rule 10(c) which guarantees councilmembers the basic right of a representative in a democracy- to introduce measures for the agenda.
Then it was Kawakami’s time to shine and show his stuff to any good old boys who might have doubted his ability to get down and dirty by defending Asing and the status quo- a very important skill in their eyes and a trial by fire that many sycophants have had to endure to be accepted into the club.
He and Kaneshiro then lit into Kawahara over and over with the ‘you said you had submitted things for the agenda” which of course she didn’t say- and was of course a distraction from the self evident story that has been told over and over about Bynum’s well documented two and a half year quest for democracy... one that everyone had witnessed since June 3 when the two month plus circus of attempting to get the rule change on the agenda began.
Bynum then tried to refocus back on the issue at hand reading the rules and trying to again briefly recap the hassles he’s had even trying to get something on the agenda, even through the 2/3 vote method.
He then called for Castillo to come up so he could ask him if it’s even possible to use the 15)c) “alternative mechanism” since it was Castillo who had said everything he tried to do on June 3 violated the sunshine law because it wasn’t on the agenda- a catch-22 PNN has described in detail over the past couple of months .
Bynum asked simply “can a councilmember make a motion to put something on a future agenda”.
But Castillo hemmed and hawed and eventually refused to answer him, even reverting back to the bad old days of former CA’s who requested everything be put in writing, saying he needed a “specific set of facts” to “make a ruling”.
Then it was time for Asing to repeat his “the chair does not have absolute power” line adding “I don’t believe one person should have that power”.
And of course Kaneshiro, Kawakami and Chang agreed with that and praised Asing for saying- if not doing- it. They also agreed that there was no problem since the chair had said it so it must be true.
And why change the rule if there was no problem they reasoned, acting as if the last two months had never happened and they hadn’t read the documents or heard the testimony.
That was when Asing had his own meltdown trying to say that he had never blocked anything from the agenda at the same time as admitting it had happened quite a few times.
Some of the back and forth exchanges were priceless. At one point Bynum asked Asing “didn’t you tell me you wouldn’t put (a resolution) on the agenda”.
Asing screamed “no!” before giving an excuse as to why he didn’t put it on the agenda.
Another time Asing denied blocking Bynum’s Po`ipu Beach Erosion Study bill which, at the July 22nd meeting, Asing had admitted he had blocked.
And when Bynum finally asked Asing if he had blocked the very resolution that was on the table- the one Bynum and Kawahara had fought for two months to get placed on the agenda- Asing, after having debated for ten minutes, finally said “I’m not going to get into a debate”.
In previous meetings former councilpersons JoAnn Yukimura and Mel Rapozo had testified that they also had the experience of having bills refused agenda placement but when Bynum tried to say that, Asing yelled “that’s an accusation”- something that made no sense (of course it was) and something he’s done before when cornered.
First Asing countered the Yukimura denial by talking about a bill that she wanted to introduce that, he said, had not been “cleared by the county attorney” and admitting that he blocked the bill- vowing he’d do it again if it hadn’t been run by the CA.
But Bynum said that he had forgotten about that bill but what he was really talking about was that Yukimura had tried to introduce a resolution opposing the Superferry coming to Kaua`i without an EIS and Asing refused to put it on the agenda because it was “too controversial”.
That caused the clueless Chang to agree with Asing’s decision saying “I can see the reason why the chair would not put that on the agenda” mentioning the controversy in the community at the time and citing the convention hall debacle with the governor being shouted down.
All this of course should have been enough to indicate that the rules needed clarification but led by Kawakami the three “D’s”- Derek, Dickie and Darryl- each said they personally had never had any problem placing matters on the agenda so there didn’t seem to be any problem with the rules.
Finally, in the ultimate “are you going to believe me or your lyin’ eyes” statement, Kawakami said told the council that “nothing (in the rules) gives the chair that kind of power (to refuse agenda placement)... the rules in place, properly applied, work just fine”, completely ignoring that the rules had very apparently not been “properly applied” and the resolution sought to clarify them so they would be.
Finally to no one’s surprise despite the fact that, as Bynum said, “there has been a problem- that’s as clear as a bell”, the resolution was “received” by a 4-3 vote with Furfaro joining Bynum and Kawahara in voting against the move to kill the rule change and Kaipo and the three D’s standing together in the same majority that put Asing in the council chair last December.
In case we haven’t done a good enough job in conveying the “through the looking glass” tone of the whole meeting, we’ve taken the opportunity sum it up with a re-write of the psychedelic Carrollian favorite, “White Rabbit” by the Jefferson Airplane.
***************
One bill makes him shudder and
Another makes you bawl
And the one the chair initials
Don’t do anything at all.
Ask Peter when he’s 10 feet tall.
And if you go chasing minutes
And you see them in the hall
Tell ‘em a reso-toting Minotaur
Has told you, “you’ve got gall”
Call Dickie when he was just small,
When men who rule on ethics
Get up and tell you they don’t know
And you’ve just missed weeks of email
And your mind can’t grasp it all
Ask Kaipo- I think he’ll know
When logic and proportion
Are received and, now they’re dead
And Darryl’s shredding Roberts
And Derek’s knocking head’s
Remember what the old boys said
Stay in bed
We’re all in bed
The total lack of rationality and recognition of reality was striking. The meeting served as a coming out party for good-old-boy-in-waiting Prince Derek Kawakami who, with established defender of the realm Darryl Kaneshiro, flanked-in-phalanx the besieged Chair Kaipo Asing with a feigned rhetorical “problem?... what problem” blindness topped with a flourish of “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it”.
Everyone knew there’d be trouble as soon as the resolution to form an ad hoc committee to study and propose changes to the council rules was read and Kaneshiro quickly moved to receive- meaning kill- the resolution before Bynum or Kawahara could move to approve it.
After Bynum tried to briefly detail the problems he and Kawahara have had with the rules- especially rule 10(c) pertaining to placing items on the agenda- it quickly degenerated into a series of misdirections and silly personal attacks from Kawakami, Kaneshiro and Asing himself.
Although it was the ad hoc committee resolution that was on the table Kawakami started the distractions by saying that there was no need for a clarification of 10(c) because another rule- 15(c)- allowed placement if items on the agenda by a council 2/3 vote.
Of course that had failed to be enough to do the trick when Bynum tried to get an item on the agenda on June 3.
That started the whole thing. Not only that but of course the real issue is that councilmembers should have the right to introduce any item with or without support from four other members.
Yet that was to become a rallying cry when the actual resolution to clarify rule 10(c) came up later on the agenda.
The first silliness came from the reliably clueless Councilmember Dickie Change who attacked Bynum by saying that at the June 3 meeting, when County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo stifled discussion of the non-agendaed item as a sunshine law violation, councilmember Jay Furfaro had moved to defer the matter but no one seconded it
“I was shocked no one seconded it” Chang said using hindsight to tell Bynum he had the opportunity to put it on a future agenda right there even though the motive for the request for deferral was unknown at that moment- and because a motion for deferral ends discussion.
Chang seemingly either forget or wasn’t aware that as a councilmember he could have seconded it himself.
The mouth, if not brain-engaged Chang then indicated that he was now going to oppose the resolution that he co-introduced with Furfaro saying it wasn’t really “the 360” it appeared to be, forgetting to stop ay 180 and indicating that the audience wasn’t the only one getting dizzy with all the spinning.
Then it was time for Asing to issue the first of his lip-service repetitions of a statement he made on July 22nd saying that “the chair does not have absolute power” despite the fact that he had exercised such by routinely stopping Bynum and other members from placing matters on the agenda- something Bynum has documented at his kauaiinfo.org web site with the actual memos sent to Asing.
“Pay attention to what I say, not what I do” Asing had admitted refusing to place matters on the agenda while denying it in the same breath at the 22nd – as PNN reported last week- and again later during Wednesday’s meeting.
Asing glared at Bynum and called Bynum’s well documented problems with agenda placement “manufactured problems” stating with palms raised “I don’t understand- where did it come from?”.
Next Kawahara made a statement that would be butchered, misquoted and used to attack her by Kaneshiro and Kawakami later in the meeting, saying to Asing that changes in the rules “that were actually brought up to you in the six months I’ve been here” but were not given a place on the agenda.
During the discussion of the rule change itself Kaneshiro would be adamant in heatedly accusing Kawahara over and over of lying by saying she personally had sent memos asking to introduce measures even though she said no such thing.
But the issue of the ad hoc committee was what was actually on the table and there were real problems with the idea- problems that became clear when one of the proposed members, former council chair Ron Kouchi, spoke.
After saying he might have a “perceived conflict of interest” since his employer has a bill coming up on the council’s agenda, he pointed out that the committee would need council staff time and therefore have to direct staff- something he said non-members would have all sorts of difficulty doing.
He said in the past such committees and “task forces’ always had one or two councilmembers to direct staff.
That led to some discussion by Kaneshiro and others regarding the possibility of putting a resolution on a future agenda to form a committee with up to the two councilmembers- the number sunshine law allows to communicate on council matters- to study the rules although there was no real commitment to do so.
The resolution was then "received" by a 4-3 vote with Furfaro- if not Chang- supporting his own resolution along with Bynum and Kawahara.
But the show was just beginning and after lunch the fireworks were lit when the actual rule change resolution- one to clarify that rule 10(c) couldn’t be used by the chair to keep items off the agenda indefinitely - came to the floor.
The change seemed simple and straightforward enough but again Kaneshiro quickly moved to receive and kill the resolution and it was quickly seconded by Kawakami as the script apparently called for.
Kawakami again brought up rule 15(c) repeatedly calling it an “alternative mechanism” for placing things on the agenda even though the measure would then require a 2/3 vote to go foreword.
Bynum tried to calmly explain- as if anyone could forget- all the hassle he had when he tried to get something on the agenda that way and Kawahara reiterated that a 2/3 vote certainly was a “different level” of support that needed to be met and wasn’t “equal” to the simple rule 10(c) which guarantees councilmembers the basic right of a representative in a democracy- to introduce measures for the agenda.
Then it was Kawakami’s time to shine and show his stuff to any good old boys who might have doubted his ability to get down and dirty by defending Asing and the status quo- a very important skill in their eyes and a trial by fire that many sycophants have had to endure to be accepted into the club.
He and Kaneshiro then lit into Kawahara over and over with the ‘you said you had submitted things for the agenda” which of course she didn’t say- and was of course a distraction from the self evident story that has been told over and over about Bynum’s well documented two and a half year quest for democracy... one that everyone had witnessed since June 3 when the two month plus circus of attempting to get the rule change on the agenda began.
Bynum then tried to refocus back on the issue at hand reading the rules and trying to again briefly recap the hassles he’s had even trying to get something on the agenda, even through the 2/3 vote method.
He then called for Castillo to come up so he could ask him if it’s even possible to use the 15)c) “alternative mechanism” since it was Castillo who had said everything he tried to do on June 3 violated the sunshine law because it wasn’t on the agenda- a catch-22 PNN has described in detail over the past couple of months .
Bynum asked simply “can a councilmember make a motion to put something on a future agenda”.
But Castillo hemmed and hawed and eventually refused to answer him, even reverting back to the bad old days of former CA’s who requested everything be put in writing, saying he needed a “specific set of facts” to “make a ruling”.
Then it was time for Asing to repeat his “the chair does not have absolute power” line adding “I don’t believe one person should have that power”.
And of course Kaneshiro, Kawakami and Chang agreed with that and praised Asing for saying- if not doing- it. They also agreed that there was no problem since the chair had said it so it must be true.
And why change the rule if there was no problem they reasoned, acting as if the last two months had never happened and they hadn’t read the documents or heard the testimony.
That was when Asing had his own meltdown trying to say that he had never blocked anything from the agenda at the same time as admitting it had happened quite a few times.
Some of the back and forth exchanges were priceless. At one point Bynum asked Asing “didn’t you tell me you wouldn’t put (a resolution) on the agenda”.
Asing screamed “no!” before giving an excuse as to why he didn’t put it on the agenda.
Another time Asing denied blocking Bynum’s Po`ipu Beach Erosion Study bill which, at the July 22nd meeting, Asing had admitted he had blocked.
And when Bynum finally asked Asing if he had blocked the very resolution that was on the table- the one Bynum and Kawahara had fought for two months to get placed on the agenda- Asing, after having debated for ten minutes, finally said “I’m not going to get into a debate”.
In previous meetings former councilpersons JoAnn Yukimura and Mel Rapozo had testified that they also had the experience of having bills refused agenda placement but when Bynum tried to say that, Asing yelled “that’s an accusation”- something that made no sense (of course it was) and something he’s done before when cornered.
First Asing countered the Yukimura denial by talking about a bill that she wanted to introduce that, he said, had not been “cleared by the county attorney” and admitting that he blocked the bill- vowing he’d do it again if it hadn’t been run by the CA.
But Bynum said that he had forgotten about that bill but what he was really talking about was that Yukimura had tried to introduce a resolution opposing the Superferry coming to Kaua`i without an EIS and Asing refused to put it on the agenda because it was “too controversial”.
That caused the clueless Chang to agree with Asing’s decision saying “I can see the reason why the chair would not put that on the agenda” mentioning the controversy in the community at the time and citing the convention hall debacle with the governor being shouted down.
All this of course should have been enough to indicate that the rules needed clarification but led by Kawakami the three “D’s”- Derek, Dickie and Darryl- each said they personally had never had any problem placing matters on the agenda so there didn’t seem to be any problem with the rules.
Finally, in the ultimate “are you going to believe me or your lyin’ eyes” statement, Kawakami said told the council that “nothing (in the rules) gives the chair that kind of power (to refuse agenda placement)... the rules in place, properly applied, work just fine”, completely ignoring that the rules had very apparently not been “properly applied” and the resolution sought to clarify them so they would be.
Finally to no one’s surprise despite the fact that, as Bynum said, “there has been a problem- that’s as clear as a bell”, the resolution was “received” by a 4-3 vote with Furfaro joining Bynum and Kawahara in voting against the move to kill the rule change and Kaipo and the three D’s standing together in the same majority that put Asing in the council chair last December.
In case we haven’t done a good enough job in conveying the “through the looking glass” tone of the whole meeting, we’ve taken the opportunity sum it up with a re-write of the psychedelic Carrollian favorite, “White Rabbit” by the Jefferson Airplane.
***************
One bill makes him shudder and
Another makes you bawl
And the one the chair initials
Don’t do anything at all.
Ask Peter when he’s 10 feet tall.
And if you go chasing minutes
And you see them in the hall
Tell ‘em a reso-toting Minotaur
Has told you, “you’ve got gall”
Call Dickie when he was just small,
When men who rule on ethics
Get up and tell you they don’t know
And you’ve just missed weeks of email
And your mind can’t grasp it all
Ask Kaipo- I think he’ll know
When logic and proportion
Are received and, now they’re dead
And Darryl’s shredding Roberts
And Derek’s knocking head’s
Remember what the old boys said
Stay in bed
We’re all in bed
Thursday, August 6, 2009
PORRIDGE FOR HIS PORRIDGE BOWL
PORRIDGE FOR HIS PORRIDGE BOWL: The headline in the local paper today says it all: Council kills proposed rule changes.
But did anyone expect anything different?
As we sit here watching the unfolding debacle on the next-day airing of the meeting- another symbol of the Minotaur’s labyrinth that keeps the dark as dark as can be- as Ed Coll detailed in a letter to the editor in today’s local paper- we’re amazed that anyone thought there would be a different outcome, one we foresaw yesterday.
As Joan Conrow remarked today:
But who, really, besides the politically naïve, imagined that things would be significantly different after the recent brouhaha, or that “reform” was ever going to be an item on the Council’s agenda?
Who? We’ll certainly the formerly outraged malihini among us such as blogger Brad Parsons who wrote at his Aloha Analytics site today.
I think the public is ready to move on and hoping that Kaipo is a man of his word, per his statements to keep the agenda open to all Council members.
With all due respect, Parsons- who since he arrived here last year after years of activism on Maui and has done a great job of assimilating some of the political absurdities and Catch-22’s of Kaua`i government and informing other community members- apparently doesn’t seem to have a sense of the pent up rage that has exploded locally, not just among the north shore progressive “settler” community- as our friend Katy Rose is fond of calling them- but among the dismayed and indeed fed up local community across the island.
Because much to the contrary of the “white man’s burden” mentality of those settlers, those who know all too well the history of oppression aren’t stupid and are feeling less and less cowed and more and more pissed-off over the past couple of months now that they actually have at least two if not three members of the council willing to attest to the nudity of the emperor Asing and his sycophantic palace guard.
They’ve seen the issue plastered all over the local newspaper- where today, we’re sure, reporter extraordinaire Michael Levine did as good a job as possible in describing yesterday’s slap in the face of reform given the space he had to report it.
And while it’s likely they will be not among those who will be “lighting up” the letters to the editor page- as Parsons reported one councilmember predicted- it is likely they have long memories of the type of plantation-mentality paternalism that comes with the suppression of democracy the council majority has exhibited.
And yesterday’s actions only cemented the building rage.
As Joan said:
It brings to mind a conversation I had with a relative newcomer to the island who approached me on Tuesday saying, “Isn’t it great that the Council is going to be more open?” And that prompted me to reply, “I don’t think anything is really going to change,” to which he responded, grudgingly, “Well, maybe not, but at least it’s all out on the table.”
Perhaps the recent events will serve to more thoroughly inform some of the newbies of just how Kauai politics work, and how deeply entrenched the system is, so they can drop their dreamy-eyed vision that a) any one of them has a prayer of getting elected and b) any sort of meaningful change or progressive movement will come from that body, at least so long as the voting majority continues to elect the people they do.
The positive in all this is that not just the locals who know what the score is but Joan’s “newbies” can’t avert their gaze from which side of the labyrinth gate the remaining councilmembers are on.
Anyone who thought that Derek Kawakami or Dickie Chang were anything but hacks and shills for the Minotaur are certainly no longer so deluded. And Council minority “leader” Jay Furfaro’s reported support can’t be a bad sign although his past wavering leave any predictions about the future still in flux.
Some will wait for leadership from Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara in maintaining the fight for democracy, open government and transparency. Others will wait for the other shoe to drop when, not if, the rights of the public and even councilmembers are trampled upon once again.
But the coals are still glowing hot and tinderbox is getting drier every day.
Though elections might seem a long way off, Joan’s dreary observations notwithstanding anyone who has the gumption to stand, sword drawn and enter the domain of the half man/half bull would be well served to start preparing for November 2010 so we can turn that 3-4 into at least a 4-3.
We’ll have more on the particulars once we have a chance to witness the debacle for ourselves but for now, if the past two weeks are any indication, the outrage and backlash against the majority is what will inform the story yet to be told and that can’t help but build after yesterday’s repudiation of the rights of the people of Kaua`i.
But did anyone expect anything different?
As we sit here watching the unfolding debacle on the next-day airing of the meeting- another symbol of the Minotaur’s labyrinth that keeps the dark as dark as can be- as Ed Coll detailed in a letter to the editor in today’s local paper- we’re amazed that anyone thought there would be a different outcome, one we foresaw yesterday.
As Joan Conrow remarked today:
But who, really, besides the politically naïve, imagined that things would be significantly different after the recent brouhaha, or that “reform” was ever going to be an item on the Council’s agenda?
Who? We’ll certainly the formerly outraged malihini among us such as blogger Brad Parsons who wrote at his Aloha Analytics site today.
I think the public is ready to move on and hoping that Kaipo is a man of his word, per his statements to keep the agenda open to all Council members.
With all due respect, Parsons- who since he arrived here last year after years of activism on Maui and has done a great job of assimilating some of the political absurdities and Catch-22’s of Kaua`i government and informing other community members- apparently doesn’t seem to have a sense of the pent up rage that has exploded locally, not just among the north shore progressive “settler” community- as our friend Katy Rose is fond of calling them- but among the dismayed and indeed fed up local community across the island.
Because much to the contrary of the “white man’s burden” mentality of those settlers, those who know all too well the history of oppression aren’t stupid and are feeling less and less cowed and more and more pissed-off over the past couple of months now that they actually have at least two if not three members of the council willing to attest to the nudity of the emperor Asing and his sycophantic palace guard.
They’ve seen the issue plastered all over the local newspaper- where today, we’re sure, reporter extraordinaire Michael Levine did as good a job as possible in describing yesterday’s slap in the face of reform given the space he had to report it.
And while it’s likely they will be not among those who will be “lighting up” the letters to the editor page- as Parsons reported one councilmember predicted- it is likely they have long memories of the type of plantation-mentality paternalism that comes with the suppression of democracy the council majority has exhibited.
And yesterday’s actions only cemented the building rage.
As Joan said:
It brings to mind a conversation I had with a relative newcomer to the island who approached me on Tuesday saying, “Isn’t it great that the Council is going to be more open?” And that prompted me to reply, “I don’t think anything is really going to change,” to which he responded, grudgingly, “Well, maybe not, but at least it’s all out on the table.”
Perhaps the recent events will serve to more thoroughly inform some of the newbies of just how Kauai politics work, and how deeply entrenched the system is, so they can drop their dreamy-eyed vision that a) any one of them has a prayer of getting elected and b) any sort of meaningful change or progressive movement will come from that body, at least so long as the voting majority continues to elect the people they do.
The positive in all this is that not just the locals who know what the score is but Joan’s “newbies” can’t avert their gaze from which side of the labyrinth gate the remaining councilmembers are on.
Anyone who thought that Derek Kawakami or Dickie Chang were anything but hacks and shills for the Minotaur are certainly no longer so deluded. And Council minority “leader” Jay Furfaro’s reported support can’t be a bad sign although his past wavering leave any predictions about the future still in flux.
Some will wait for leadership from Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara in maintaining the fight for democracy, open government and transparency. Others will wait for the other shoe to drop when, not if, the rights of the public and even councilmembers are trampled upon once again.
But the coals are still glowing hot and tinderbox is getting drier every day.
Though elections might seem a long way off, Joan’s dreary observations notwithstanding anyone who has the gumption to stand, sword drawn and enter the domain of the half man/half bull would be well served to start preparing for November 2010 so we can turn that 3-4 into at least a 4-3.
We’ll have more on the particulars once we have a chance to witness the debacle for ourselves but for now, if the past two weeks are any indication, the outrage and backlash against the majority is what will inform the story yet to be told and that can’t help but build after yesterday’s repudiation of the rights of the people of Kaua`i.
Monday, July 27, 2009
WE’VE SPRUNG A LEAK MR. CHRISTIAN
WE’VE SPRUNG A LEAK MR. CHRISTIAN: Our coverage of last Wednesday’s Meltdown of the Minotaur gave a lengthy depiction of the issues raised by council reformers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara and Chair Kaipo Asing’s point by point ducking of the issues and attempts to make it a personal pissing contest.
Before we begin today’s part 2 we should correct our reference to “an apparently long recess where, according to witnesses Castillo badgered Kawahara in an animated conversation” and that “she wanted an executive session (ES) to apparently discuss some of the threats Castillo made.”
Although she did have a short conversation with Castillo, according to other witnesses it was brief and uneventful and there was a different conversation with “someone” else that had her apparently upset her and was possibly related to the reason the police showed up later and spoke with Kawahara.
But, back to the meeting, despite the fact that at one point Asing promised he would “work to resolve the issues” beginning today no one believes that will happen based on his continued adamancy after that statement that everything was ok with the way he manages the council.
And the reason is that it’s more than apparent that, although the issues raised so far by Bynum and Kawahara - getting mail and correspondence addressed to them, placing bills on the agenda and equitable access to all council documents- seem like relatively small simple matters, they strike at the heart of Asing’s control of every aspect of the function and work product of the county council.
If you watch the part of the meeting after the dinner break you’ll see how the implications of any implementation of these seemingly manini changes threaten the day to day back-room dealing that is the hallmark of Asing’s rule, as it was for every chair before him.
That may be why at one point an agitated Asing screamed “so we now have two people running things- the clerk and Lani Kawahara” and “why are we having this discussions in public?”- control information and you control everything.
That’s may be why Asing stated that communications from the administration and constituents alike dealing with matters for the council’s considerations go first to an “agenda file” where they are “sanitized” and “cleaned up”.
And that may be why Asing’s three supporters- the three D’s who voted to put him into the chair- all said they like it that way so they aren’t “overwhelmed” with information.
Obviously Uncle Kaipo gives them all the information they need.
Anyone who has read the full liturgy of attempts by Bynum and later Kawahara- detailed at their kauaiinfo web site- to get just the three simply “no-brainer” changes made knows how despite Asing’s incredulity that they “went to the newspaper” instead of going to him are bafflingly disingenuous. The stream of memos there show how hard they tried to take care of matters internally.
Bynum’s memos go back years and when Kawahara came on board last December she started asking for the same changes.
Yet Asing ignored every single memo, not just ignoring the content but not even responding by saying “let’s talk about it” or something similar. In fact the document trail shows Bynum tried over and over to set up a meeting with both Asing and County Clerk Peter Nakamura in the same room at the same time.
Instead each told him to talk to the other.
Which is why the crucial moment of the long day’s journey into night came when freshman Councilmember Dickie Chang asked Kawahara if she had ever met face to face with Asing on the matters they raised.
Kawahara told him “no” and that began the unraveling and full confession, unintentional though it was, by Chang, Asing and long time councilperson Darryl Kaneshiro as they described not just specific instances but the broad practices of making decisions in the bowels of the county building instead of on the council floor.
Tone deaf and seeming having never read the state sunshine law (or at least certainly not “getting it”) Chang actually told how he discusses all matters with Asing and others, colluding to make sure everything- including the outcome- was already scripted by the time of the meeting was called to order.
Kaneshiro, who should have known better, joined in also incredulous over Kawahara’s lack of an appearance before Asing to kow-two and “request” these things to happen- despite the fact that a two year lack of response to Bynum’s memos- and six months to hers- had made it apparent Asing had no appetite for even discussing the changes.
Chang prattled on and on actually using the terms “to cut a deal” and “play the game” in describing how he discussed most council matters with Asing and also implicating councilperson Jay Furfaro with whom Chang said, he discusses “everything”.
For the record, the sunshine law does allow two and only two councilmembers to meet and discuss council matters as long as they don’t use that exception to achieve inclusion of three or more members in the discussion by first talking to each individually then using serial one on one communications to “spread the word”.
But even in a two person discussion any commitment to voting certain way on any matter- including even asking directly whether the other supports specific legislation amendments, or any other official council action- is strictly prohibited.
The law is designed to prevent deals from being made anywhere but in a duly called meeting of a subject body, in front of the public where all deliberations toward decisions and all decision-making is supposed to be done.
Oh and the law states that in every case the sunshine law is to be “liberally construed toward openness”.
Kawahara’s attempts to resolve these issues in memos and make them part of the public record is exactly the way things are supposed to happen under the sunshine law.
But as actually described by Chang, Kaneshiro, and rookie Councilperson Derek Kawakami (who left the meeting at one point) and intimated by Furfaro, for those seeking admission to the Kaua`i County Council Club the way that business is conducted is in a backroom office where the script is written and violations of the law go undetected.
Wannabe old boy Chang is just clueless enough to think that meeting face to face in a back room is preferable to the professionalism that Bynum and Kawahara use in doing their job.
Chang made a point that he does government business the same way he does business in the schmooze-o-rama, glad-handing world of the visitor’s industry and in his promotional television program Wala`ua.
He treats his official duties as if he were “playing the game” and “cutting a deal” with his resort-manager and tourism promotion crowd and actually thinks that’s a good thing. oblivious to the difference and, in fact, laws designed to prevent that very type of deal making.
We were surprised by one conversation we had over the weekend with one voter who supports open government but told us of concerns that Kawahara hadn’t “played the game the right way” perhaps because she is a political neophyte who just hasn’t learned to cut a deal yet.
We suggested that perhaps she simply has principles, “gets” the open government and prefers to lead by example by refusing to bow down to the illegal back-room methodology, hoping that others will eventually get the message and stop their secret dealings.
Or that voters will understand that and vote out those who continue to think skulking in the labyrinth is ok and vote in people who will do a professional, transparent job of governing.
One other thing should be pointed out- Kaipo Asing is almost impossible to communicate with much less to meet with. He doesn’t send or receive email. He doesn’t now how to gather information on-line.
He does not “get” email or computers, in either sense of the word.
But he also does not take phone calls when he is at the county building– and he almost never returns any of the resulting messages unless it’s from someone internal to the county or someone else with whom he wants or needs to communicate.
His office door is anything but open- as a matter of fact few even know where it is. He has refused to take the great big “fish bowl” office designated for the council chair that’s right next to the entrance to the council chamber. Nor is he in one the offices in the mutli-office room in the front end of the building.
As a matter of fact the only way to find his office is to go through the council services section where no members of the public are allowed without invitation.
One more note for today- much was made by Asing at the meeting that there is an ongoing “investigation” because he believes that “someone tampered with the county web site”- a charge he made numerous times and was apparently used by County Attorney Al Castillo to successfully shut down much of the discussion.
But apparently, it was the recent institution of a new email address, counciltestimony@kauai.gov that was at issue.
One of the mail problems Kawahara and Bynum had was, as we reported Friday, getting email at the council@kauai.gov address that was supposed to go to all councilmembers in email format but, in actuality, was distributed via a print-out, without the return address and delayed- sometimes by a week or more.
So, since Asing and Nakamura refused to send all councilmembers constituent mail going to the “council” address, County IT director Erik Knutzen set up the new "counciltestimony" address that automatically sends copies to each councilperson with no intermediary.
Our understanding is that this is what Asing is objecting to calling it “tampering with the county web site” without of course understanding that email is not the same as a “web site” and so understanding that simply forwarding mail for an entirely new address “tampering”.
Bizarre.
We still haven’t written about the section of the meeting dealing with the “resolution” to form an advisory committee- comprised of three charter old-boy-club members- to study council rules.
We’re waiting until tomorrow because of the usual total incompetence- which we presume it was despite widespread conspiracy theories in the community- of Ho`ike Community Television and its chief, J Robertson..
On Saturday we called to report that at the end of Friday’s cablecast of the meeting the last crucial moments of the vote to go into an executive session were deleted. On it two voices can be heard voting “aye” before the tape end moments later.
According to the article by reporter Michael Levine in Friday’s local paper:
The motion to go into the late-night executive session garnered only two votes — Bynum’s and Kawahara’s — causing Kawahara to yell angrily and slam her papers on the table.
However this correction appeared in the paper on Saturday.
The... story... should say the final motion to go into executive session at the end of the meeting garnered three votes — Lani Kawahara’s, Tim Bynum’s and Jay Furfaro’s — failing 3-3.
Although the tape seems to indicate only two votes, it does end there.
Email attempts seeking clarification from Levine as to how his original observation came to be “corrected” drew no response at press time.
Back to Ho`ike, we were told Saturday that only Mr. Robertson could “fix” the apparent glitch and despite our repeated attempts to communicate the urgency we were told he couldn’t be disturbed until Monday.
Then for the rest of the weekend instead of the last two plus hours of the meeting- including the entire resolution discussion- viewers watched a black screen.
Seems they could fix it- they “fixed it good”.
The executive session was requested by Kawahara but everyone was mum as to the reason although many who were there believe it directly related to whatever happened to upset Kawahara during the first recess and something that happened between her and “someone” other than Castillo, as we mentioned above.
Interestingly, Castillo illegally called for the “unanticipated” ES saying it was to “discuss the councils privileges, liabilities, power and duties” using the language of exemption from open meetings #4 under HRS 95-5(a) of the sunshine law.
But according to a long standing opinion from the Office of Information Practices (OIP) which administers the sunshine law, all agenda items including ES’ must have a detailed, specific (not general) purpose listed for the ES in addition to the cited exemption.
Before we begin today’s part 2 we should correct our reference to “an apparently long recess where, according to witnesses Castillo badgered Kawahara in an animated conversation” and that “she wanted an executive session (ES) to apparently discuss some of the threats Castillo made.”
Although she did have a short conversation with Castillo, according to other witnesses it was brief and uneventful and there was a different conversation with “someone” else that had her apparently upset her and was possibly related to the reason the police showed up later and spoke with Kawahara.
But, back to the meeting, despite the fact that at one point Asing promised he would “work to resolve the issues” beginning today no one believes that will happen based on his continued adamancy after that statement that everything was ok with the way he manages the council.
And the reason is that it’s more than apparent that, although the issues raised so far by Bynum and Kawahara - getting mail and correspondence addressed to them, placing bills on the agenda and equitable access to all council documents- seem like relatively small simple matters, they strike at the heart of Asing’s control of every aspect of the function and work product of the county council.
If you watch the part of the meeting after the dinner break you’ll see how the implications of any implementation of these seemingly manini changes threaten the day to day back-room dealing that is the hallmark of Asing’s rule, as it was for every chair before him.
That may be why at one point an agitated Asing screamed “so we now have two people running things- the clerk and Lani Kawahara” and “why are we having this discussions in public?”- control information and you control everything.
That’s may be why Asing stated that communications from the administration and constituents alike dealing with matters for the council’s considerations go first to an “agenda file” where they are “sanitized” and “cleaned up”.
And that may be why Asing’s three supporters- the three D’s who voted to put him into the chair- all said they like it that way so they aren’t “overwhelmed” with information.
Obviously Uncle Kaipo gives them all the information they need.
Anyone who has read the full liturgy of attempts by Bynum and later Kawahara- detailed at their kauaiinfo web site- to get just the three simply “no-brainer” changes made knows how despite Asing’s incredulity that they “went to the newspaper” instead of going to him are bafflingly disingenuous. The stream of memos there show how hard they tried to take care of matters internally.
Bynum’s memos go back years and when Kawahara came on board last December she started asking for the same changes.
Yet Asing ignored every single memo, not just ignoring the content but not even responding by saying “let’s talk about it” or something similar. In fact the document trail shows Bynum tried over and over to set up a meeting with both Asing and County Clerk Peter Nakamura in the same room at the same time.
Instead each told him to talk to the other.
Which is why the crucial moment of the long day’s journey into night came when freshman Councilmember Dickie Chang asked Kawahara if she had ever met face to face with Asing on the matters they raised.
Kawahara told him “no” and that began the unraveling and full confession, unintentional though it was, by Chang, Asing and long time councilperson Darryl Kaneshiro as they described not just specific instances but the broad practices of making decisions in the bowels of the county building instead of on the council floor.
Tone deaf and seeming having never read the state sunshine law (or at least certainly not “getting it”) Chang actually told how he discusses all matters with Asing and others, colluding to make sure everything- including the outcome- was already scripted by the time of the meeting was called to order.
Kaneshiro, who should have known better, joined in also incredulous over Kawahara’s lack of an appearance before Asing to kow-two and “request” these things to happen- despite the fact that a two year lack of response to Bynum’s memos- and six months to hers- had made it apparent Asing had no appetite for even discussing the changes.
Chang prattled on and on actually using the terms “to cut a deal” and “play the game” in describing how he discussed most council matters with Asing and also implicating councilperson Jay Furfaro with whom Chang said, he discusses “everything”.
For the record, the sunshine law does allow two and only two councilmembers to meet and discuss council matters as long as they don’t use that exception to achieve inclusion of three or more members in the discussion by first talking to each individually then using serial one on one communications to “spread the word”.
But even in a two person discussion any commitment to voting certain way on any matter- including even asking directly whether the other supports specific legislation amendments, or any other official council action- is strictly prohibited.
The law is designed to prevent deals from being made anywhere but in a duly called meeting of a subject body, in front of the public where all deliberations toward decisions and all decision-making is supposed to be done.
Oh and the law states that in every case the sunshine law is to be “liberally construed toward openness”.
Kawahara’s attempts to resolve these issues in memos and make them part of the public record is exactly the way things are supposed to happen under the sunshine law.
But as actually described by Chang, Kaneshiro, and rookie Councilperson Derek Kawakami (who left the meeting at one point) and intimated by Furfaro, for those seeking admission to the Kaua`i County Council Club the way that business is conducted is in a backroom office where the script is written and violations of the law go undetected.
Wannabe old boy Chang is just clueless enough to think that meeting face to face in a back room is preferable to the professionalism that Bynum and Kawahara use in doing their job.
Chang made a point that he does government business the same way he does business in the schmooze-o-rama, glad-handing world of the visitor’s industry and in his promotional television program Wala`ua.
He treats his official duties as if he were “playing the game” and “cutting a deal” with his resort-manager and tourism promotion crowd and actually thinks that’s a good thing. oblivious to the difference and, in fact, laws designed to prevent that very type of deal making.
We were surprised by one conversation we had over the weekend with one voter who supports open government but told us of concerns that Kawahara hadn’t “played the game the right way” perhaps because she is a political neophyte who just hasn’t learned to cut a deal yet.
We suggested that perhaps she simply has principles, “gets” the open government and prefers to lead by example by refusing to bow down to the illegal back-room methodology, hoping that others will eventually get the message and stop their secret dealings.
Or that voters will understand that and vote out those who continue to think skulking in the labyrinth is ok and vote in people who will do a professional, transparent job of governing.
One other thing should be pointed out- Kaipo Asing is almost impossible to communicate with much less to meet with. He doesn’t send or receive email. He doesn’t now how to gather information on-line.
He does not “get” email or computers, in either sense of the word.
But he also does not take phone calls when he is at the county building– and he almost never returns any of the resulting messages unless it’s from someone internal to the county or someone else with whom he wants or needs to communicate.
His office door is anything but open- as a matter of fact few even know where it is. He has refused to take the great big “fish bowl” office designated for the council chair that’s right next to the entrance to the council chamber. Nor is he in one the offices in the mutli-office room in the front end of the building.
As a matter of fact the only way to find his office is to go through the council services section where no members of the public are allowed without invitation.
One more note for today- much was made by Asing at the meeting that there is an ongoing “investigation” because he believes that “someone tampered with the county web site”- a charge he made numerous times and was apparently used by County Attorney Al Castillo to successfully shut down much of the discussion.
But apparently, it was the recent institution of a new email address, counciltestimony@kauai.gov that was at issue.
One of the mail problems Kawahara and Bynum had was, as we reported Friday, getting email at the council@kauai.gov address that was supposed to go to all councilmembers in email format but, in actuality, was distributed via a print-out, without the return address and delayed- sometimes by a week or more.
So, since Asing and Nakamura refused to send all councilmembers constituent mail going to the “council” address, County IT director Erik Knutzen set up the new "counciltestimony" address that automatically sends copies to each councilperson with no intermediary.
Our understanding is that this is what Asing is objecting to calling it “tampering with the county web site” without of course understanding that email is not the same as a “web site” and so understanding that simply forwarding mail for an entirely new address “tampering”.
Bizarre.
We still haven’t written about the section of the meeting dealing with the “resolution” to form an advisory committee- comprised of three charter old-boy-club members- to study council rules.
We’re waiting until tomorrow because of the usual total incompetence- which we presume it was despite widespread conspiracy theories in the community- of Ho`ike Community Television and its chief, J Robertson..
On Saturday we called to report that at the end of Friday’s cablecast of the meeting the last crucial moments of the vote to go into an executive session were deleted. On it two voices can be heard voting “aye” before the tape end moments later.
According to the article by reporter Michael Levine in Friday’s local paper:
The motion to go into the late-night executive session garnered only two votes — Bynum’s and Kawahara’s — causing Kawahara to yell angrily and slam her papers on the table.
However this correction appeared in the paper on Saturday.
The... story... should say the final motion to go into executive session at the end of the meeting garnered three votes — Lani Kawahara’s, Tim Bynum’s and Jay Furfaro’s — failing 3-3.
Although the tape seems to indicate only two votes, it does end there.
Email attempts seeking clarification from Levine as to how his original observation came to be “corrected” drew no response at press time.
Back to Ho`ike, we were told Saturday that only Mr. Robertson could “fix” the apparent glitch and despite our repeated attempts to communicate the urgency we were told he couldn’t be disturbed until Monday.
Then for the rest of the weekend instead of the last two plus hours of the meeting- including the entire resolution discussion- viewers watched a black screen.
Seems they could fix it- they “fixed it good”.
The executive session was requested by Kawahara but everyone was mum as to the reason although many who were there believe it directly related to whatever happened to upset Kawahara during the first recess and something that happened between her and “someone” other than Castillo, as we mentioned above.
Interestingly, Castillo illegally called for the “unanticipated” ES saying it was to “discuss the councils privileges, liabilities, power and duties” using the language of exemption from open meetings #4 under HRS 95-5(a) of the sunshine law.
But according to a long standing opinion from the Office of Information Practices (OIP) which administers the sunshine law, all agenda items including ES’ must have a detailed, specific (not general) purpose listed for the ES in addition to the cited exemption.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
IT TAKES TWICE TWO BABY- AND BABY ONLY MAKES THREE
IT TAKES TWICE TWO BABY- AND BABY ONLY MAKES THREE: No one can accuse Councilperson Jay Furfaro of missing enough moist fingers to tell which way the political winds are blowing. So of course the fact that he beat a path to the door of the never-never land of the local newspaper to say “I'm a dissident too” should come as no surprise, especially to our readers who heard about his apparent 180 last week.
But inaccuracies like the mayor having a role in the selection of the county clerk aside (the council alone makes the choice), the article attempts to makes sure everyone in town now adds his name to the list of “good guys”, making for three votes where four is the magic number.
People may remember- and the article fails to note- that actually Furfaro ran for chair this year and garnered the votes of the original council dissidents Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara, who have had the courage of their convictions as opposed to Furfaro who jumped on the bandwagon after wide-spread outrage in the community and a lack of support for Chair Kaipo Asing surfaced, even among many of Asing’s lock step supporters.
That may answer at least the first of the questions Joan Conrow asked today, wondering why:
Given Kaipo’s history, why did the Council vote to again make Kaipo chair? Why doesn’t the Council act now to remove him from that position? And why didn’t the Council move to change some of its rules when Kaipo was briefly dethroned and warming the seat at the mayor’s office? Surely they would have found an ally in former Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura.
The first two being a matter of “doing the math”- and the math being a function of the political climbing of freshman Derrek Kawakami, the deer-in-the-headlights wits of the glad-handing Dickie Chang and the founding nature of Darryl Kaneshiro’s membership in the old boys club (he was Mayor Eduardo Malapit’s administrative assistant)- Kaipo will remain in power until either Derrek gets the message from voters or Dickie buys a pair (no, eyes).
But the third question begs a little recent history lesson.
In the article Furfaro touts how he tried to deal with the “secret county attorney opinions” quagmire created by Asing and former County Attorney Lani Nakazawa and continued by her successor Matthew Pyun.
In typical credit grabbing Furfaro style the article neglects to mention that it was Bynum who kept harping on the Star Chamber nature of the “we have an opinion that explains our actions but we can’t share it with you” machinations.
It was actually Bynum who challenged the policy over and over in open council session and was prepared to overturn it immediately.
While it was Furfaro who put it on the agenda while he was temporary chair in Asing’s absence last summer after Asing moved to the mayor’s slot when Bryan Baptiste died, it was also he who said they needed to wait to act until they had a “county-wide policy”- applying to boards and commissions too- for releasing the opinion, which of course the county attorney had to come up with- and still hasn’t to this day.
That was after he had adamantly agreed with Asing that there first must be a council policy enacted to release them, even though they had been routinely released for years before Asing’s reign as chair.
But that could have been done quickly as Bynum said he had prepared just such a policy, hence the requirement for a county-wide policy to further delay the seemingly not so inevitable.
That leads to the related statement in last sentence of Joan’s ponderings- “Surely they would have found an ally in former Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura.”
Well Joan, surely you jest.
If there was one person who not just allowed but promulgated the secrecy of the Asing regime it was our dear JoAnn.
She used her status and abilities as an attorney to talk out of both sides of her mouth on this, claiming to support open governance but doing everything she could to perpetuate both the “secret county attorney opinions” and use of the executive session to hide embarrassing political decisions regarding public policy under the guise of “discussions with their attorney” matters of “potential, future litigation” arising from discussions of pending legislation- a warping of the sunshine law that was used just last week to discuss either implementing, or more likely fighting, the new citizen’s general plan enforcement charter amendment.
This all came to a head last summer during the bill to allow existing illegal transient vacation rentals in non visitor destination areas after threats to sue the county from Board of Realtors’ attorney Jonathan Chun “forced” her, as planning committee chair, to pass out a bill grandfathering anyone who had been violating state law for years, based on a convoluted county attorney opinion that had been released before the change was made to keep them secret.
(Actually the release of that opinion at the time was instrumental in the thinking of Yukimura that these opinions should not be released because the release of that opinion was cited by Chun as giving people reason to believe that their illegal activities were indeed legal.)
The Star Chamber-ish nature of the problem was that no one could question the legal basis for the grandfathering because it was all based on an unreleased newer county attorney’s opinion that was also another excuse to talk about public policy behind closed doors.
Although the article contains a lot of convoluted thinking and feigned ignorance by Furfaro- which we may go into at a later date- one particularly typifies Furfaro’s seeming need to be associated with the reformers while still helping construct roadblocks.
Trying to archive the past two years’ meeting minutes, as Bynum and Kawahara requested through a still unanswered UIPA request, would be tough to do logistically until then, Furfaro said. He noted additional concerns over what minutes should even be posted online, particularly executive session minutes.
First of all no one is asking to post executive session (ES) minutes although there is a move to get the council to release ES minutes that are required by law to be made public when the purpose of the ES would no longer be defeated by releasing them. The clerk’s office must segregate them now so the disingenuity of that is apparent.
The fact is that Bynum and Kawahara have already posted the minutes going back to February and are planning to complete the project whether their UIPA request is granted or not... and the ones that were posted were done in a short session of scanning and posting by Bynum.
The purpose of the UIPA request to avoid the scanning since the minutes exist in electronic form meaning that all it would take to post them is a few key board strokes, no scanning needed.
It’s typical of Furfaro’s style, probably learned at the feet of Yukimura, where lip service to open governance is negated by actions to set up roadblocks to accountability and transparency.
Can’t anyone here play this game?
As they (ok, we) say, the Minotaur can’t guard the labyrinth all alone and with dissidents like Furfaro, who needs sycophants?.
But inaccuracies like the mayor having a role in the selection of the county clerk aside (the council alone makes the choice), the article attempts to makes sure everyone in town now adds his name to the list of “good guys”, making for three votes where four is the magic number.
People may remember- and the article fails to note- that actually Furfaro ran for chair this year and garnered the votes of the original council dissidents Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara, who have had the courage of their convictions as opposed to Furfaro who jumped on the bandwagon after wide-spread outrage in the community and a lack of support for Chair Kaipo Asing surfaced, even among many of Asing’s lock step supporters.
That may answer at least the first of the questions Joan Conrow asked today, wondering why:
Given Kaipo’s history, why did the Council vote to again make Kaipo chair? Why doesn’t the Council act now to remove him from that position? And why didn’t the Council move to change some of its rules when Kaipo was briefly dethroned and warming the seat at the mayor’s office? Surely they would have found an ally in former Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura.
The first two being a matter of “doing the math”- and the math being a function of the political climbing of freshman Derrek Kawakami, the deer-in-the-headlights wits of the glad-handing Dickie Chang and the founding nature of Darryl Kaneshiro’s membership in the old boys club (he was Mayor Eduardo Malapit’s administrative assistant)- Kaipo will remain in power until either Derrek gets the message from voters or Dickie buys a pair (no, eyes).
But the third question begs a little recent history lesson.
In the article Furfaro touts how he tried to deal with the “secret county attorney opinions” quagmire created by Asing and former County Attorney Lani Nakazawa and continued by her successor Matthew Pyun.
In typical credit grabbing Furfaro style the article neglects to mention that it was Bynum who kept harping on the Star Chamber nature of the “we have an opinion that explains our actions but we can’t share it with you” machinations.
It was actually Bynum who challenged the policy over and over in open council session and was prepared to overturn it immediately.
While it was Furfaro who put it on the agenda while he was temporary chair in Asing’s absence last summer after Asing moved to the mayor’s slot when Bryan Baptiste died, it was also he who said they needed to wait to act until they had a “county-wide policy”- applying to boards and commissions too- for releasing the opinion, which of course the county attorney had to come up with- and still hasn’t to this day.
That was after he had adamantly agreed with Asing that there first must be a council policy enacted to release them, even though they had been routinely released for years before Asing’s reign as chair.
But that could have been done quickly as Bynum said he had prepared just such a policy, hence the requirement for a county-wide policy to further delay the seemingly not so inevitable.
That leads to the related statement in last sentence of Joan’s ponderings- “Surely they would have found an ally in former Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura.”
Well Joan, surely you jest.
If there was one person who not just allowed but promulgated the secrecy of the Asing regime it was our dear JoAnn.
She used her status and abilities as an attorney to talk out of both sides of her mouth on this, claiming to support open governance but doing everything she could to perpetuate both the “secret county attorney opinions” and use of the executive session to hide embarrassing political decisions regarding public policy under the guise of “discussions with their attorney” matters of “potential, future litigation” arising from discussions of pending legislation- a warping of the sunshine law that was used just last week to discuss either implementing, or more likely fighting, the new citizen’s general plan enforcement charter amendment.
This all came to a head last summer during the bill to allow existing illegal transient vacation rentals in non visitor destination areas after threats to sue the county from Board of Realtors’ attorney Jonathan Chun “forced” her, as planning committee chair, to pass out a bill grandfathering anyone who had been violating state law for years, based on a convoluted county attorney opinion that had been released before the change was made to keep them secret.
(Actually the release of that opinion at the time was instrumental in the thinking of Yukimura that these opinions should not be released because the release of that opinion was cited by Chun as giving people reason to believe that their illegal activities were indeed legal.)
The Star Chamber-ish nature of the problem was that no one could question the legal basis for the grandfathering because it was all based on an unreleased newer county attorney’s opinion that was also another excuse to talk about public policy behind closed doors.
Although the article contains a lot of convoluted thinking and feigned ignorance by Furfaro- which we may go into at a later date- one particularly typifies Furfaro’s seeming need to be associated with the reformers while still helping construct roadblocks.
Trying to archive the past two years’ meeting minutes, as Bynum and Kawahara requested through a still unanswered UIPA request, would be tough to do logistically until then, Furfaro said. He noted additional concerns over what minutes should even be posted online, particularly executive session minutes.
First of all no one is asking to post executive session (ES) minutes although there is a move to get the council to release ES minutes that are required by law to be made public when the purpose of the ES would no longer be defeated by releasing them. The clerk’s office must segregate them now so the disingenuity of that is apparent.
The fact is that Bynum and Kawahara have already posted the minutes going back to February and are planning to complete the project whether their UIPA request is granted or not... and the ones that were posted were done in a short session of scanning and posting by Bynum.
The purpose of the UIPA request to avoid the scanning since the minutes exist in electronic form meaning that all it would take to post them is a few key board strokes, no scanning needed.
It’s typical of Furfaro’s style, probably learned at the feet of Yukimura, where lip service to open governance is negated by actions to set up roadblocks to accountability and transparency.
Can’t anyone here play this game?
As they (ok, we) say, the Minotaur can’t guard the labyrinth all alone and with dissidents like Furfaro, who needs sycophants?.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
DARKNESS, DARKNESS
DARKNESS, DARKNESS: To no one’s surprise the matter of amending council rules to force Chair Kaipo Asing to allow all councilmembers to place matters on the agenda is not on this week’s council agenda, filed yesterday for a rare Tuesday meeting next week.
The complete “packet” containing all the paperwork for the agendaed communications, bills, claims, legal matters, public hearings, executive sessions and committee reports for the meeting are set to be posted by Councilperson Tim Bynum on Friday at his and Councilperson Lani Kawahara’s kauaiinfo.org web site where a new essay on their efforts appears on the main page today.
The piece details three goals:
Goal # 1 - Allow all Councilmembers to place items on the Council agenda for consideration.
Goal # 2 - Make key public documents readily available to the public on the County's web site.
Goal # 3 - Circulate Council Service documents equitably to all Councilmembers in a timely manner.
Bynum and Kawahara are set to appear on community radio KKCR-FM this afternoon at 4 p.m. to discuss their efforts.
One matter that may not be clear to many is the “Catch-22” nature of the dilemma that Bynum faced when he tried to place consideration of the rules on the agenda at the June 3 meeting if letters to the editor in today’s local newspaper are any indication.
As a letter by council watchdog Glenn Mickens points out there are only two ways that a matter can be placed on the council’s agenda. One is to get it “initialed” by the chair and have it duly posted six days before the meeting.
The other is to move to amend the agenda when it is up for approval at the meeting itself.
According to the state sunshine law, nothing maybe added to the posted agenda if it is “of reasonably major importance” and “action thereon by the board will affect a significant number of persons”.
Though it is not clear in the law who is to determine whether those conditions are met. The law is clear that nothing may be discussed unless it is on the agenda. So at the meeting when Chair Asing and County Attorney Al Castillo declared that those conditions were met, in doing so they claimed that it precluded even a discussion of the matter.
This would seem to be a flaw in the law but what is clear is that the Office of Information Practices (OIP) is the entity that is charged with making determinations with regard to the Sunshine law.
At Bynum’s behest they had reviewed the proposed rule change and ruled it was ok to add it on the day of the meeting but even that was ruled by Castillo to be a taboo subject for discussion.
The problem is that it raises the question of how any matter could be ever added to the agenda if even the discussion of whether to add the matter cannot take place, much less a council vote on the matter.
The catch-22 is simply that a matter cannot be placed on the posted agenda without the chair’s “initials” but the chair also apparently can block discussion of an addition on the day of the meeting by claiming the sunshine law forbids discussion of non-agendaed items.
It became even more obvious there are still many who don’t know or understand what happened at the meeting when a letter by Alfred Laureta appeared suggesting that there was a simple solution.
Lauretta wrote:
A councilperson who wants to bring a serious matter to the attention of the council for serious consideration and action has a vehicle available to him/her. This is called a “motion” which, if duly “seconded,” is discussed and voted upon. A motion lacking a second is denied discussion or dies for want of a majority vote.
Parliamentary rules are available also to prevent or shorten discussion which involve matters not of substance or material to the issue and which so often, on televised sessions of the council, becomes political in nature.
I suggest that the Guest Viewpoint authors sponsor motions on the council floor of the next council meeting that will appropriately correct the situation they complain about. Will rule changes involve constitutional, charter, legal considerations? Or simple majority vote?
If they succeed in their motions, it is true that Kaipo is a “dictator.” If not...?
As PNN readers know from our reports of the events of June 3, Bynum did indeed make that motion to place the matter on the agenda and it was seconded by Kawahara.
Since the attempt and motion was made and seconded only to be thwarted in an apparently unlawful manner (council rules require that Robert’s Rules are to be used unless otherwise stated), it would seem that Lauretta, a retired Kaua`i 5th Circuit Court judge and known ally of Asing’s, would agree with the “dictator” tag Asing has earned.
One more thought that came up today when we received an email from someone seeking information on how to go through the required filings to release the minutes of the executive session on June 3.
In Section 92-9(b) the Sunshine Law states that
minutes of executive meetings may be withheld so long as their publication would defeat the lawful purpose of the executive meeting, but no longer.
The lawful purpose was purportedly to determine whether the matter could be placed on that meeting’s agenda. Since that meeting is over the lawful purpose can no longer be defeated so the condition no longer exists and the minutes should be made public immediately.
The complete “packet” containing all the paperwork for the agendaed communications, bills, claims, legal matters, public hearings, executive sessions and committee reports for the meeting are set to be posted by Councilperson Tim Bynum on Friday at his and Councilperson Lani Kawahara’s kauaiinfo.org web site where a new essay on their efforts appears on the main page today.
The piece details three goals:
Goal # 1 - Allow all Councilmembers to place items on the Council agenda for consideration.
Goal # 2 - Make key public documents readily available to the public on the County's web site.
Goal # 3 - Circulate Council Service documents equitably to all Councilmembers in a timely manner.
Bynum and Kawahara are set to appear on community radio KKCR-FM this afternoon at 4 p.m. to discuss their efforts.
One matter that may not be clear to many is the “Catch-22” nature of the dilemma that Bynum faced when he tried to place consideration of the rules on the agenda at the June 3 meeting if letters to the editor in today’s local newspaper are any indication.
As a letter by council watchdog Glenn Mickens points out there are only two ways that a matter can be placed on the council’s agenda. One is to get it “initialed” by the chair and have it duly posted six days before the meeting.
The other is to move to amend the agenda when it is up for approval at the meeting itself.
According to the state sunshine law, nothing maybe added to the posted agenda if it is “of reasonably major importance” and “action thereon by the board will affect a significant number of persons”.
Though it is not clear in the law who is to determine whether those conditions are met. The law is clear that nothing may be discussed unless it is on the agenda. So at the meeting when Chair Asing and County Attorney Al Castillo declared that those conditions were met, in doing so they claimed that it precluded even a discussion of the matter.
This would seem to be a flaw in the law but what is clear is that the Office of Information Practices (OIP) is the entity that is charged with making determinations with regard to the Sunshine law.
At Bynum’s behest they had reviewed the proposed rule change and ruled it was ok to add it on the day of the meeting but even that was ruled by Castillo to be a taboo subject for discussion.
The problem is that it raises the question of how any matter could be ever added to the agenda if even the discussion of whether to add the matter cannot take place, much less a council vote on the matter.
The catch-22 is simply that a matter cannot be placed on the posted agenda without the chair’s “initials” but the chair also apparently can block discussion of an addition on the day of the meeting by claiming the sunshine law forbids discussion of non-agendaed items.
It became even more obvious there are still many who don’t know or understand what happened at the meeting when a letter by Alfred Laureta appeared suggesting that there was a simple solution.
Lauretta wrote:
A councilperson who wants to bring a serious matter to the attention of the council for serious consideration and action has a vehicle available to him/her. This is called a “motion” which, if duly “seconded,” is discussed and voted upon. A motion lacking a second is denied discussion or dies for want of a majority vote.
Parliamentary rules are available also to prevent or shorten discussion which involve matters not of substance or material to the issue and which so often, on televised sessions of the council, becomes political in nature.
I suggest that the Guest Viewpoint authors sponsor motions on the council floor of the next council meeting that will appropriately correct the situation they complain about. Will rule changes involve constitutional, charter, legal considerations? Or simple majority vote?
If they succeed in their motions, it is true that Kaipo is a “dictator.” If not...?
As PNN readers know from our reports of the events of June 3, Bynum did indeed make that motion to place the matter on the agenda and it was seconded by Kawahara.
Since the attempt and motion was made and seconded only to be thwarted in an apparently unlawful manner (council rules require that Robert’s Rules are to be used unless otherwise stated), it would seem that Lauretta, a retired Kaua`i 5th Circuit Court judge and known ally of Asing’s, would agree with the “dictator” tag Asing has earned.
One more thought that came up today when we received an email from someone seeking information on how to go through the required filings to release the minutes of the executive session on June 3.
In Section 92-9(b) the Sunshine Law states that
minutes of executive meetings may be withheld so long as their publication would defeat the lawful purpose of the executive meeting, but no longer.
The lawful purpose was purportedly to determine whether the matter could be placed on that meeting’s agenda. Since that meeting is over the lawful purpose can no longer be defeated so the condition no longer exists and the minutes should be made public immediately.
Monday, January 26, 2009
DOGGED PERSISTENCE
DOGGED PERSISTENCE: The bill we’ve been following to appropriate $85,000 to help the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) with recruiting is up for final passage on Wednesday but not before both a bang and a whimper at last week’s Public Safety Committee meeting.
On Jan. 15 we posted the prepared public hearing testimony of council watchdog Glenn Mickens questioning the need to throw money at the problem without first finding out why we are so dismally behind other islands in keeping our force fully staffed.
Mickens also maintained that the “morale problem”- upon which much of the shortage was blamed for years- hasn’t gotten any better since the ouster of Chief KC Lum and the installation of Chief Darryl Perry.
And on Jan. 20 we reported on the reaction of Council Chair Kaipo Asing at the Jan 14 hearing, generally excoriating Mickens for his attempt to link the shortage to morale and just about calling him a liar regarding the numbers from other islands' departments.
The bang at last Wed.’s (Jan 21) committee meeting was the sound of Mickens' explosive report after he called each department on each island and got the accurate figures.
And the whimper was the way a silent Asing simply skulked out of the council chambers after Mickens’ presentation without any recognition of Mickens' work or an apology for his diatribe the previous week during the “public hearing”- where by law council members are supposed to refrain from comment on public testimony.
Mickens' testimony – reproduced in full below- said that
HCPD (Hawaii County) has a total of 432 police officer positions and 9 of those are unfilled at this time. Meaning that they are about 2% from being completely full.
HPD (Oahu) has a total of 2134 officers and only 10 of those are unfilled or 1/2 of 1%.
Maui PD has 367 officers with 36 vacancies meaning about 10% are unfilled.
And our department according to our organizational chart on our Web site has 141 total officers with 23 vacancies or 16.3%.
And our numbers are actually it’s even worse now than when they were posted
At it’s Jan 23 meeting the Kaua`i Police Commission heard a report from the chief that the latest figure is that we are 28 not 23 officers short and we currently do not even have a recruiting class in progress.
And there was discussion among commissioners about how we can expect a slew of retirements in the near future with many “reaching 20 (years service)” very soon.
The chief reported that a class starting on Feb 2 has 13 recruits, but there are about 40 names on a list of those who passed the test and another 80 on a waiting list to take the test.
It’s not clear if the council had these numbers, but in response to at least one aspect of Mickens testimony, a Councilperson Jay Furfaro-introduced amendment to the bill was passed.
While the original bill required that the department use $65,000 of the money to hire a “consultant”, the amendment would allow them to hire someone (Mickens suggested using a retired officer) to simply run the required “background checks” on applicants since that is apparently why, though there are 120 people who have applied, only 13 are in the current class.
It should be noted that no one from KPD ever appeared before the council to answer questions regarding the bill or on recruiting in general. Nor was there even a request by any council member to have anyone from the department present.
That may be the first time we’ve ever seen a departmental appropriation bill sail though the council without the presence of department personnel at some point to answer questions and shepherd the bill through.
Much of the discussion, especially from Councilperson Dickie Chang, centered around finding out what the other islands’ departments were doing that was working so well and applying it to recruiting on Kaua`i. But it is unknown if that message will reach KPD brass because they simply weren’t there to hear it.
Bill 2296 is expected to pass unanimously on second reading this Wed at the full council meeting which begins at 9 a.m.
Glenn Mickens' Testimony on KPD recruiting :
In my testimony at the Public Hearing on 1/14 I made some statementsbasically trying to back up my theory that this council shouldn't be approving $85 thousand for a consultant and for advertising to get more police on our force.
I made the statement that "I understood" that our other Islands had their police positions filled and since SHOPO sets salaries for the entire state, pay is not, in my opinion, the biggest problem with recruiting. As Jay said, it is part of the entire problem but probably not the largest.
My friend, Council Chair Asing, basically stated that the numbers I was giving for other island's employment status were wrong.
So I called the police departments on Oahu, the Big Island and Maui. What I found out was very interesting.
HCPD (Hawaii County) has a total of 432 police officer positions and 9 of those are unfilled at this time. Meaning that they are about 2% from being completely full.
HPD (Oahu) has a total of 2134 officers and only 10 of those are unfilled or 1/2 of 1%.
Maui PD has 367 officers with 36 vacancies meaning about 10% are unfilled.
And our department according to our organizational chart on our Web site has 141 total officers with 23 vacancies or 16.3%.
So, it appears that besides our unfilled positions of 16.3%, the other Islands are much closer to being 100% full and this was my point. Instead of Kaipo questioning my figures I am sure he could have called the other police departments to confirm or deny the accuracy of my numbers.
Council member Chang made a very good observation at the last meeting when he said that if the other Islands have their positions filled, our department should take a page from their book and find out what they do to fill vacant positions. In fact I complimented the other departments when I spoke to them for their method of hiring and retaining their officers.
So, it would appear prudent to me to do as someone has suggested to help solve some of our problems. Find a retired officer or someone with police experience, put them on an 89 day hire, pay them from the unfilled budget (saving about $79 thousand of the $85 thousand being asked for) and thus not task a working officer with the recruiting responsibility and putting that persons work load on another officer which could only increase problems in the force.
Also, the council passed and adopted Resolution # 2005-65 Draft 1 on December 1, 2005. This resolution established a council investigating committee to investigate the Kauai Police Department.
Since all aspects of the police department were to be looked into under Charter Section 3.17----which must have included hiring and retention practices---the reasons for not being able to fill most vacancies must have been identified. So why are we wanting to spend $85 thousand to duplicate what was done or should have been done?
Again, I am opposed to Bill 2296 and do not believe that the proposed $85 thousand will solve the problem that it was meant to address.
On Jan. 15 we posted the prepared public hearing testimony of council watchdog Glenn Mickens questioning the need to throw money at the problem without first finding out why we are so dismally behind other islands in keeping our force fully staffed.
Mickens also maintained that the “morale problem”- upon which much of the shortage was blamed for years- hasn’t gotten any better since the ouster of Chief KC Lum and the installation of Chief Darryl Perry.
And on Jan. 20 we reported on the reaction of Council Chair Kaipo Asing at the Jan 14 hearing, generally excoriating Mickens for his attempt to link the shortage to morale and just about calling him a liar regarding the numbers from other islands' departments.
The bang at last Wed.’s (Jan 21) committee meeting was the sound of Mickens' explosive report after he called each department on each island and got the accurate figures.
And the whimper was the way a silent Asing simply skulked out of the council chambers after Mickens’ presentation without any recognition of Mickens' work or an apology for his diatribe the previous week during the “public hearing”- where by law council members are supposed to refrain from comment on public testimony.
Mickens' testimony – reproduced in full below- said that
HCPD (Hawaii County) has a total of 432 police officer positions and 9 of those are unfilled at this time. Meaning that they are about 2% from being completely full.
HPD (Oahu) has a total of 2134 officers and only 10 of those are unfilled or 1/2 of 1%.
Maui PD has 367 officers with 36 vacancies meaning about 10% are unfilled.
And our department according to our organizational chart on our Web site has 141 total officers with 23 vacancies or 16.3%.
And our numbers are actually it’s even worse now than when they were posted
At it’s Jan 23 meeting the Kaua`i Police Commission heard a report from the chief that the latest figure is that we are 28 not 23 officers short and we currently do not even have a recruiting class in progress.
And there was discussion among commissioners about how we can expect a slew of retirements in the near future with many “reaching 20 (years service)” very soon.
The chief reported that a class starting on Feb 2 has 13 recruits, but there are about 40 names on a list of those who passed the test and another 80 on a waiting list to take the test.
It’s not clear if the council had these numbers, but in response to at least one aspect of Mickens testimony, a Councilperson Jay Furfaro-introduced amendment to the bill was passed.
While the original bill required that the department use $65,000 of the money to hire a “consultant”, the amendment would allow them to hire someone (Mickens suggested using a retired officer) to simply run the required “background checks” on applicants since that is apparently why, though there are 120 people who have applied, only 13 are in the current class.
It should be noted that no one from KPD ever appeared before the council to answer questions regarding the bill or on recruiting in general. Nor was there even a request by any council member to have anyone from the department present.
That may be the first time we’ve ever seen a departmental appropriation bill sail though the council without the presence of department personnel at some point to answer questions and shepherd the bill through.
Much of the discussion, especially from Councilperson Dickie Chang, centered around finding out what the other islands’ departments were doing that was working so well and applying it to recruiting on Kaua`i. But it is unknown if that message will reach KPD brass because they simply weren’t there to hear it.
Bill 2296 is expected to pass unanimously on second reading this Wed at the full council meeting which begins at 9 a.m.
Glenn Mickens' Testimony on KPD recruiting :
In my testimony at the Public Hearing on 1/14 I made some statementsbasically trying to back up my theory that this council shouldn't be approving $85 thousand for a consultant and for advertising to get more police on our force.
I made the statement that "I understood" that our other Islands had their police positions filled and since SHOPO sets salaries for the entire state, pay is not, in my opinion, the biggest problem with recruiting. As Jay said, it is part of the entire problem but probably not the largest.
My friend, Council Chair Asing, basically stated that the numbers I was giving for other island's employment status were wrong.
So I called the police departments on Oahu, the Big Island and Maui. What I found out was very interesting.
HCPD (Hawaii County) has a total of 432 police officer positions and 9 of those are unfilled at this time. Meaning that they are about 2% from being completely full.
HPD (Oahu) has a total of 2134 officers and only 10 of those are unfilled or 1/2 of 1%.
Maui PD has 367 officers with 36 vacancies meaning about 10% are unfilled.
And our department according to our organizational chart on our Web site has 141 total officers with 23 vacancies or 16.3%.
So, it appears that besides our unfilled positions of 16.3%, the other Islands are much closer to being 100% full and this was my point. Instead of Kaipo questioning my figures I am sure he could have called the other police departments to confirm or deny the accuracy of my numbers.
Council member Chang made a very good observation at the last meeting when he said that if the other Islands have their positions filled, our department should take a page from their book and find out what they do to fill vacant positions. In fact I complimented the other departments when I spoke to them for their method of hiring and retaining their officers.
So, it would appear prudent to me to do as someone has suggested to help solve some of our problems. Find a retired officer or someone with police experience, put them on an 89 day hire, pay them from the unfilled budget (saving about $79 thousand of the $85 thousand being asked for) and thus not task a working officer with the recruiting responsibility and putting that persons work load on another officer which could only increase problems in the force.
Also, the council passed and adopted Resolution # 2005-65 Draft 1 on December 1, 2005. This resolution established a council investigating committee to investigate the Kauai Police Department.
Since all aspects of the police department were to be looked into under Charter Section 3.17----which must have included hiring and retention practices---the reasons for not being able to fill most vacancies must have been identified. So why are we wanting to spend $85 thousand to duplicate what was done or should have been done?
Again, I am opposed to Bill 2296 and do not believe that the proposed $85 thousand will solve the problem that it was meant to address.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
WHAT’S HE DOING BACK THERE?
WHAT’S HE DOING BACK THERE?: Despite our analysis of the council’s organizational meeting yesterday and our conclusion that the 4-3 split is a positive development there’s still a lot of bemoaning of how the process was “lacking...lokahi” (unity expressed with harmony) and “akahai” (kindness) and “aloha” (love and consideration for each other)” according to someone who might know- former councilperson JoAnn Yukimura.
Her letter to the editor in today’s local paper describes how it might have gone if everyone had followed the usual gritted-teeth, phony-smiling-while-readying-the-backstabbing-knife kabuki of council organizational meetings past.
But for those who still want to express themselves on the raw power play that Kaipo Asing and his 3D (Darryl, Derek and Dickie) cohorts, don’t forget- it’s not official yet.
Because, speaking of Kabuki, there’s yet another piece of theater yet to take place that is usually done out of sight of the public amidst the pomp and circumstance of the inaugural gala at the Convention hall.
Every two years- and four in the case of the mayor- there’s what appears to be the swearing in of the newly elected officers on the stage of the convention hall before a packed house.
But what many don’t know is that this is but a play because the actual swearing in and even the inaugural meeting of the council has already taken place.
The agenda for the first meeting of the council is already published and it includes the following list of items
INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE KAUA‘I COUNTY COUNCIL
MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2008 12:00 NOON
KAUA‘I WAR MEMORIAL CONVENTION HALL 4191 Hardy Street Lihu`e, Kaua`i, Hawai`i
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR-ELECT BERNARD P. CARVALHO, JR.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL VICE CHAIRPERSON.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2009-01, RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE COUNTY
CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Resolution No. 2009-02, RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF
COMMITTEES AND THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS
Resolution No. 2009-03, RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSONS, VICE CHAIRPERSONS, AND MEMBERS OF THE SEVERAL STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Before the big “event”, usually in the back ballroom, the real inauguration and meeting is played out in accordance with the Charter which reads:
Section 7.01.(Mayoral) Election and Term of Office. The electors of the county shall elect a mayor whose term of office shall be four years beginning at twelve o'clock meridian on the first working day of December following his election. No person shall serve as mayor for more than two consecutive full terms.
Section 3.07. Organization of Council; Officers; Rules; Employees.
A. The council shall meet in the council room at the county building or in the Kauai War Memorial Convention Hall for its organization promptly after its inauguration and swearing-in ceremony at which time it shall elect one of its members as chairman and presiding officer of the council. Until such time as the chairman is elected, the mayor shall preside at the council meetings, provided that the mayor shall not have a vote. The council shall also elect one of its members as vice-chairman who shall act as the presiding officer in the event of the chairman's absence. The council shall appoint a presiding officer pro tempore from its members in the event of the absence of both the chairman and vice-chairman.
B. The council shall adopt such rules as it may deem necessary for the organization of committees and the transaction of its business.
Some strange things stand out to the observant, in a plain reading of agenda. How can a “mayor-elect” serve as the original presiding officer before the new council has a chair? Doesn’t he have to take office first?
And how can the council meeting start at noon when the mayor is sworn in at noon?
Actually what usually happens- or has happened in the past- is this:
Before the council is assembled the 5th circuit court judge with the most seniority swears in the new mayor in a even more secretive ceremony in a smaller corner somewhere (we’ve never actually seen this happen despite trying on an occasion or two) precisely at noon along with the council.
Then later the mayor presides over the first council meeting and takes the actual vote for the chair person which, despite the lack of a report of such in the papers or blogs, is not really official yet.
Though we’ve never seen it happen, by law the council is required to take public testimony at this inaugural meeting- if you get there early enough and can find it.
That means that the new mayor is required to allow anyone there time to speak on not just the “Appointment of the council chairperson” but once again on the “Appointment of the vice chairperson” and once again again on the “Resolution relating to the appointment of the chairpersons, vice chairpersons, and members of the several standing committees of the council of the county of Kaua`i.”
One question that arises- and you have permission to skip this part if your eyes glaze over with a blur of “too much information”- is how long each person is permitted to speak.
People have often heard the council chair say “according to our rules you’re allowed three minutes to speak and another three minutes once everyone else has had a chance to testify”.
But those “rules” are necessarily voted on by each new council- as the agenda above says- after the appointment of the chair and vice chair (although before the vote on committee chairs and assignments).
According to the Sunshine law, testimony on every agenda item must be taken and the OIP has said that that means that the council must define in its rules how long each person is allowed and then stick to it.
But if the rules aren’t passed yet is there a time limit?
But back to those rules. They are perhaps the most important thing that guides the council throughout the two year term and also contains the times and day of the week of the meetings.
Until recently regular council meetings took place at 1:30 p.m. and have traditionally taken place on Thursdays not the current Wednesdays. Committee meetings took place at 9 a.m. for the first one of the month and 4:30 p.m. for the second.
This 4:30 meeting was instituted in the 90’s to allow more public testimony. And the 1:30 start of regular meetings enabled the same thing- they usually began with public hearings on bills and then moved on to regular council business enabling people who wanted to testify to only take a half day off from work to do so.
But in the secrecy and hidden action years of the Asing regime everything that can be done has been done to diminish the public’s participation including things like shifting the order of agenda items so that, if a crowd is there at 9 a.m. to testify and then thins out, eventually no one is left when the item comes up late in the afternoon.
Anyone who complains they can’t take time off from work to attend council meetings would do well to show up and make a stink about the early meeting times- if you can find the meeting.
----------------------
News flash- the Honolulu Advertiser is reporting that some of Mayor Elect Carvalho’s cabinet appointments are official
According the “breaking news” article:
Gary Heu will be reappointed to the position of administrative assistant and Wallace G. Rezentes Jr. will be reappointed as finance director.
Other appointments include:
• Director of Parks and Recreation: Lenny Rapozo Jr.
• Director of the Office of Economic Development: George Costa Jr.
• Deputy Director of Finance: Belma Baris (reappointment).
• Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation: Kylan Dela Cruz (reappointment).
Additionally, Beth Tokioka will be appointed executive assistant to the mayor and will be responsible for communications, governmental affairs and community relations. Mary Daubert will be reappointed as public information officer and will report to Tokioka.
Rapozo has been employed by the state Department of Public Safety for 20 years and is currently the branch manager for Kaua`i. He is also chairman of the county's Parks & Recreation Department Advisory Committee, and a member of the Kaua`i Police Commission.
Costa is general manager of the Kauai Hilton Resort, and has 32 years experience in hotel management on Kaua`i. He is president of the Hawaii Hotel and Lodging Association — Kauai Chapter. For the past six months, he has served as a member of the Landfill Siting Committee for Kaua`i County.
Tokioka has served for the past five years as director of the Office of Economic Development. Before that, she served as the county's public information officer and executive secretary to the mayor.
The positions of county attorney and chief engineer have not yet been filled. Those interested in applying for these positions should forward a cover letter and resume to Mayor-elect Bernard P. Carvalho Jr., P.O. Box 3510, Lihu`e, HI 96766.
The real news is there that Dela Cruz, who was expected to take over the reigns from Carvalho at Parks and Rec. has been replaced by Carvalho’s campaign manager Rapozo... So much for the new era of merit based, non-crony appointments.
As expected, Tokioka- another campaign stalwart- still has a job. But the question is, where did this new job come from?
There has never been an “executive assistant to the mayor ...for communications, governmental affairs and community relations” before and more importantly of course no such line item appropriation for the job appears in the council approved 2008-09 county budget
Also, according to an unconfirmed contention in the comments to that article, someone reports that Ed Okomoto will be fired as the head of Wailua Golf Course, effective Dec. 1.
What happened Bernard? Couldn’t get a good tee time?
The list does not include an appointment for the Convention Hall manager, a post the mayor does appoint that is considered a “political plum”- a low workload job usually awarded to campaign supporters.
What also strikes us is the appointment of departmental deputies which, according to one of the only county attorney opinions by Lani Nakazawa ever released to the public, is illegal as the charter is clear that department heads are selected by the mayor and then they appoint their deputies.
The matter was a bone of contention during the Kusaka administration when she attempted to install an unqualified crony as the deputy planning director and got then county Attorney Hartwell Blake Sr. to opine that she could.
But following a two year battle by government watchdog Horace Stoessel the new administration’s county attorney reversed the ruling and disallowed the mayor the privilege of appointing deputies. and the a new council chair, Ron Kouchi released it.
This is not my beautiful new administration... same as it ever was.
---------------
Correction/clarification: Yesterday we reported that Andrea Brower supported Derek Kawakami in this year’s council election. Although we and many others believed that was the case we might have drawn the conclusion in part due to of her association with and Malama Kaua`i and Keone Kealoha. Ms Brower says she in fact did not support Kawakami. In addition the piece as a whole might have been read to intimate that Brower was malahini. She was born and raised on Kaua`i and in no way was the characterization meant to apply to her.
Her letter to the editor in today’s local paper describes how it might have gone if everyone had followed the usual gritted-teeth, phony-smiling-while-readying-the-backstabbing-knife kabuki of council organizational meetings past.
But for those who still want to express themselves on the raw power play that Kaipo Asing and his 3D (Darryl, Derek and Dickie) cohorts, don’t forget- it’s not official yet.
Because, speaking of Kabuki, there’s yet another piece of theater yet to take place that is usually done out of sight of the public amidst the pomp and circumstance of the inaugural gala at the Convention hall.
Every two years- and four in the case of the mayor- there’s what appears to be the swearing in of the newly elected officers on the stage of the convention hall before a packed house.
But what many don’t know is that this is but a play because the actual swearing in and even the inaugural meeting of the council has already taken place.
The agenda for the first meeting of the council is already published and it includes the following list of items
INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE KAUA‘I COUNTY COUNCIL
MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2008 12:00 NOON
KAUA‘I WAR MEMORIAL CONVENTION HALL 4191 Hardy Street Lihu`e, Kaua`i, Hawai`i
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY MAYOR-ELECT BERNARD P. CARVALHO, JR.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL VICE CHAIRPERSON.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution No. 2009-01, RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE COUNTY
CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Resolution No. 2009-02, RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF
COMMITTEES AND THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS
Resolution No. 2009-03, RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSONS, VICE CHAIRPERSONS, AND MEMBERS OF THE SEVERAL STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA‘I
Before the big “event”, usually in the back ballroom, the real inauguration and meeting is played out in accordance with the Charter which reads:
Section 7.01.(Mayoral) Election and Term of Office. The electors of the county shall elect a mayor whose term of office shall be four years beginning at twelve o'clock meridian on the first working day of December following his election. No person shall serve as mayor for more than two consecutive full terms.
Section 3.07. Organization of Council; Officers; Rules; Employees.
A. The council shall meet in the council room at the county building or in the Kauai War Memorial Convention Hall for its organization promptly after its inauguration and swearing-in ceremony at which time it shall elect one of its members as chairman and presiding officer of the council. Until such time as the chairman is elected, the mayor shall preside at the council meetings, provided that the mayor shall not have a vote. The council shall also elect one of its members as vice-chairman who shall act as the presiding officer in the event of the chairman's absence. The council shall appoint a presiding officer pro tempore from its members in the event of the absence of both the chairman and vice-chairman.
B. The council shall adopt such rules as it may deem necessary for the organization of committees and the transaction of its business.
Some strange things stand out to the observant, in a plain reading of agenda. How can a “mayor-elect” serve as the original presiding officer before the new council has a chair? Doesn’t he have to take office first?
And how can the council meeting start at noon when the mayor is sworn in at noon?
Actually what usually happens- or has happened in the past- is this:
Before the council is assembled the 5th circuit court judge with the most seniority swears in the new mayor in a even more secretive ceremony in a smaller corner somewhere (we’ve never actually seen this happen despite trying on an occasion or two) precisely at noon along with the council.
Then later the mayor presides over the first council meeting and takes the actual vote for the chair person which, despite the lack of a report of such in the papers or blogs, is not really official yet.
Though we’ve never seen it happen, by law the council is required to take public testimony at this inaugural meeting- if you get there early enough and can find it.
That means that the new mayor is required to allow anyone there time to speak on not just the “Appointment of the council chairperson” but once again on the “Appointment of the vice chairperson” and once again again on the “Resolution relating to the appointment of the chairpersons, vice chairpersons, and members of the several standing committees of the council of the county of Kaua`i.”
One question that arises- and you have permission to skip this part if your eyes glaze over with a blur of “too much information”- is how long each person is permitted to speak.
People have often heard the council chair say “according to our rules you’re allowed three minutes to speak and another three minutes once everyone else has had a chance to testify”.
But those “rules” are necessarily voted on by each new council- as the agenda above says- after the appointment of the chair and vice chair (although before the vote on committee chairs and assignments).
According to the Sunshine law, testimony on every agenda item must be taken and the OIP has said that that means that the council must define in its rules how long each person is allowed and then stick to it.
But if the rules aren’t passed yet is there a time limit?
But back to those rules. They are perhaps the most important thing that guides the council throughout the two year term and also contains the times and day of the week of the meetings.
Until recently regular council meetings took place at 1:30 p.m. and have traditionally taken place on Thursdays not the current Wednesdays. Committee meetings took place at 9 a.m. for the first one of the month and 4:30 p.m. for the second.
This 4:30 meeting was instituted in the 90’s to allow more public testimony. And the 1:30 start of regular meetings enabled the same thing- they usually began with public hearings on bills and then moved on to regular council business enabling people who wanted to testify to only take a half day off from work to do so.
But in the secrecy and hidden action years of the Asing regime everything that can be done has been done to diminish the public’s participation including things like shifting the order of agenda items so that, if a crowd is there at 9 a.m. to testify and then thins out, eventually no one is left when the item comes up late in the afternoon.
Anyone who complains they can’t take time off from work to attend council meetings would do well to show up and make a stink about the early meeting times- if you can find the meeting.
----------------------
News flash- the Honolulu Advertiser is reporting that some of Mayor Elect Carvalho’s cabinet appointments are official
According the “breaking news” article:
Gary Heu will be reappointed to the position of administrative assistant and Wallace G. Rezentes Jr. will be reappointed as finance director.
Other appointments include:
• Director of Parks and Recreation: Lenny Rapozo Jr.
• Director of the Office of Economic Development: George Costa Jr.
• Deputy Director of Finance: Belma Baris (reappointment).
• Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation: Kylan Dela Cruz (reappointment).
Additionally, Beth Tokioka will be appointed executive assistant to the mayor and will be responsible for communications, governmental affairs and community relations. Mary Daubert will be reappointed as public information officer and will report to Tokioka.
Rapozo has been employed by the state Department of Public Safety for 20 years and is currently the branch manager for Kaua`i. He is also chairman of the county's Parks & Recreation Department Advisory Committee, and a member of the Kaua`i Police Commission.
Costa is general manager of the Kauai Hilton Resort, and has 32 years experience in hotel management on Kaua`i. He is president of the Hawaii Hotel and Lodging Association — Kauai Chapter. For the past six months, he has served as a member of the Landfill Siting Committee for Kaua`i County.
Tokioka has served for the past five years as director of the Office of Economic Development. Before that, she served as the county's public information officer and executive secretary to the mayor.
The positions of county attorney and chief engineer have not yet been filled. Those interested in applying for these positions should forward a cover letter and resume to Mayor-elect Bernard P. Carvalho Jr., P.O. Box 3510, Lihu`e, HI 96766.
The real news is there that Dela Cruz, who was expected to take over the reigns from Carvalho at Parks and Rec. has been replaced by Carvalho’s campaign manager Rapozo... So much for the new era of merit based, non-crony appointments.
As expected, Tokioka- another campaign stalwart- still has a job. But the question is, where did this new job come from?
There has never been an “executive assistant to the mayor ...for communications, governmental affairs and community relations” before and more importantly of course no such line item appropriation for the job appears in the council approved 2008-09 county budget
Also, according to an unconfirmed contention in the comments to that article, someone reports that Ed Okomoto will be fired as the head of Wailua Golf Course, effective Dec. 1.
What happened Bernard? Couldn’t get a good tee time?
The list does not include an appointment for the Convention Hall manager, a post the mayor does appoint that is considered a “political plum”- a low workload job usually awarded to campaign supporters.
What also strikes us is the appointment of departmental deputies which, according to one of the only county attorney opinions by Lani Nakazawa ever released to the public, is illegal as the charter is clear that department heads are selected by the mayor and then they appoint their deputies.
The matter was a bone of contention during the Kusaka administration when she attempted to install an unqualified crony as the deputy planning director and got then county Attorney Hartwell Blake Sr. to opine that she could.
But following a two year battle by government watchdog Horace Stoessel the new administration’s county attorney reversed the ruling and disallowed the mayor the privilege of appointing deputies. and the a new council chair, Ron Kouchi released it.
This is not my beautiful new administration... same as it ever was.
---------------
Correction/clarification: Yesterday we reported that Andrea Brower supported Derek Kawakami in this year’s council election. Although we and many others believed that was the case we might have drawn the conclusion in part due to of her association with and Malama Kaua`i and Keone Kealoha. Ms Brower says she in fact did not support Kawakami. In addition the piece as a whole might have been read to intimate that Brower was malahini. She was born and raised on Kaua`i and in no way was the characterization meant to apply to her.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
