SAY NO MORE; I CAN SAY NO MORE: Incomprehensible.
The word can apply to any number of things - if not most anything- when it comes to government and politics on Kaua`i. Usually it can be used to describe the account of council meetings when the local newspaper's Leo Azumbuja sets digit to keyboard.
But in the case of his Thursday account of Wednesday's Committee of the Whole meeting- one held to "fix" an imbalance in the county's budget- one can give poor Leo a pass because his unintelligible account was only slightly more unintelligible than the meeting itself.
Don't bother to watch the meeting in order to try and find out what happened to cause the council to give preliminary approval to bills 2241 and 2242 in an attempt to rectify the fact that the county's budget apparently isn't balanced- or for that matter in order to figure out why no one knew it wasn't balanced until well after it was passed- or for that matter how much is- or isn't- "missing," depending on who you ask.
All the words were there- spoken at the meeting and dutifully reported by Azumbuja: "encumbrances"... "a million dollars"... "capital improvement"... "administration"... "adolescent drug treatment center"... "budget deliberation process." It's just that neither watching nor reading put them in any sensible and coherent order so as to tell the story of what the heck was going on.
It took a few days and talking to a few sources close to county government to figure out the whole story but here's what the whole meshugaas was apparently about.
Seems that the long anticipated and even longer delayed adolescent drug treatment center was funded (again) as part of the county's recent bond float. But actually locating and designing the facility has been a political football that was one of those "now you see it now you don't" items in this year's capital improvement project (CIP) budget.
A couple-or-few years back when Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. finally (again) "told" the community where it was to be located, those in the Lihu`e residential area of Isenburg Tract- a predominantly Japanese neighborhood named for a German family that was voted off the island after World War 1- didn't take too kindly to the announcement and took a decidedly NIMBY attitude toward it.
So to oversimplify a long story and make it short on top of that, when this year's budget was on the table, the council either (depending on who you talk to) told the mayor, or wrote it in the budget document that the mayor couldn't actually "encumber" the money until the council actually saw the plans for the center including a buy-in by the Isenberg residents.
Encumbering the money is a process whereby the actual dollars are, for lack of a better word, reserved for the specific project by the administration. At that point, it is, for all intents and purposes, considered spent.
And apparently that's exactly what the mayor did- encumber a half a million dollars for "phase one" of the project which included sighting and design.
So even though the council had told him not to do anything until hizzonah came back to them with "da plan"- and that meant before he encumbered the money- he decided to do it anyway. In other words even though the money was in the bond fund, it wasn't in the budget to be "encumbered" in the first place.
It's hard to say what the legality of all this is. County Attorney Al Castillo refused to say anything in open session even though Council Chair Jay Furfaro swore up and down the charter that nothing illegal happened- that even though the county charter says the budget must be balanced and quite obviously this year's budget wasn't. And even though the mayor "spent" the money that wasn't there. And even though during a recent debate current Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene "Go to your homes- nothing to see here" Iseri-Carvalho- who is running what looks like a losing battle for re-election- has sworn she will prosecute a million dollar theft of county money.
Castillo also warned the council not to talk about the adolescent drug treatment center because somehow it wasn't "on the agenda."
Supposedly the two bills will put the money where it belongs and everyone will live happily ever after.
According to the newspaper article the mayor's mouthpiece, Beth Tokioka, has seemingly blamed the council saying “(t)he imbalance was caused in part by errors in Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.’s March 15 initial and May 8 supplemental budget submission, which were not detected and addressed during the budget deliberation process.”
No one particularly wants anything to be perfectly clear because this is an election year and each councilmember's political ass is on the musical chairs line- one that's due to leave two people without seats when the music stops on November 6.
They're just lucky to have Azambuja on the job to make sure that the lack of any clarity and acumen at the meeting was reported with Leo's usual lack of grasp of the matter at hand.
Don't ya just love this town?
Showing posts with label Kaua`i County Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kaua`i County Council. Show all posts
Monday, September 3, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
PROCESS OF ELUCIDATION
PROCESS OF ELUCIDATION: One of the more absurd of Yogi Berra's non-sequiturs was that "nobody goes there any more- it's too crowded."
When it comes the field of "acceptable" candidates in this year's elections the ballot is anything but crowded. That's the case up and down the ticket on Kaua`i but it's exemplified by the County Council election where a record low nine people are running for seven seats.
The key word there is "acceptable" because the way democracy has combined with capitalism in America we've managed to define "acceptable" as "corporate-funded, duopoly selected."
But that has little or nothing to do with the reason why Hawai`i in particular is at or near the bottom of the list in voter turnout. This week a six-part series by blogger/journalist Ian Lind in Civil Beat tried to explain why through statistical gymnastics that, while we're sure are true, seemed anything but insightful.
One thing missing in Lind's report is the "sun and surf" factor.
Stay with us. Hawai`i is the home of the tourism-industry crummy jobs that cause all members of the family to work at least two close-to-minimum-wage jobs apiece. With the cost of living higher than other places in the US, people just don't have time to pay attention to politics and certainly want to spend their leisure time doing something other than figuring out who to vote for.
Even though we political junkies don't see the logic in that, it makes more sense when you add in that "immigrants" don't exactly flock here to get involved in politics, which also goes for those born and raised here who have usually chosen to "stay home" after they finish school.
Most people are here one way or another because they can surf, hike, snorkel, fish and do all the things that make living in the islands unique. If anything, they came here- or stay here- because they are actually running away from places obsessed with politics and the like.
Then of course there are also those who aren't particularly interested in participating in what they see as the central activity that an "occupying nation" uses to justify their military control and "make the world safe for democracy." Though it's not a vast number who think that way, it's more than most people think.
But if you really want to know why few among the remaining are voting it may be the simplest reason of all: there's "no one" running.
Why vote when all the Democrats and Republicans are greedy power mongers who are all, in one way or another, on the take?
While there are exceptions that prove the rule like Mina Morita or Gary Hooser (who, maybe not so coincidentally, are both currently out of office although Hooser is seeking to return to the county council) it's been like pulling proverbial teeth to get people to run for office these days.
We just spent a year and a half recruiting candidates and didn’t find a one. We even lost a couple at the last second.
We approached almost every "community activist" we know, even some we disagree with because we knew that at least they fight for things they actually believe in. And every one said "thanks but no thanks," some adding "why in the hell would I want to do that?"
Indeed running for office is a daunting proposition. Just the prospect of having to ask people for money makes many back off. The idea of spending every spare moment for a year going door to door, attending every gathering and being subjected to more scrutiny than a prize pig at an auction is not one that makes one's heart go pitter-patter.
Surprisingly many say that actually serving- crafting legislation, guiding it through, going to meetings and all that intriguing stuff- is what they want to avoid because they'd have to deal with all the a-holes in office who, for the most part, actually enjoy all the back-stabbing political gamesmanship that got them into office and keeps them there.
Can you imagine having to sit there with Mel Rapozo or Dickie Chang- and not just sit there at a meeting but actually negotiate with and schmooze them? Are you going to listen to Jay Furfaro go on endlessly about his delusions of success or try to figure out why Kipukai Kuali`i would be aligning himself with Rapozo and the Queen of Spleen, Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho- and then actually come up with equally sinister plans to oppose their evil schemes?
What fun. Who'd wanna go surfing when you can listen to a three hour report on some incomprehensible, unattainable, feel-good plan to spend a million bucks to spruce up the county building parking lot?
So there you have it- an electorate that's already got better things to do and actually came or stayed here to get away from the backstabbing political culture on the mainland. And if they do take a look at the local political culture they see nothing but a bunch of moronic and vicious bozos appealing to what's left of the electorate. And those that do vote do so on the basis of who went to school with whom and whether they attend the same church... or cock fight.
And it's only getting worse. Don't forget the last mayoral election where the only one to run against a punch-drunk, concussion-syndrome-addled, ex-football player was a well-meaning too-smart-for-the-job, haole lady who'd lived here all of ten minutes. And this year, even with the criminally insane, moist-Malaprop-spewing Iseri running for prosecuting attorney against what appears to be a smart, honest and upstanding progressive apparently actually interested in serving justice (imagine that), it's still a race too close to call because she grew up here and he didn't.
It doesn't get any better with our choices for US congress where unlike the Kaua`i state legislative contest, there is one. For the U.S. house it's a war-obsessed vet who has gotten non-religion and is suddenly bigoted-no-more, running against a slimy pay-for-play veteran who has as much substance as dark matter. And for senate it's a pseudo-progressive against a pseudo-Democrat in the primaries and the winner gets to take on the Stepford Wife, chameleon ex-governor who has the unique talent for speaking out of all three sides of her mouth.
Those are our choices? Well actually not. Because even though we have convinced ourselves that we can only vote for one of them, there are others on the ballot, many of whom aren't corrupt caricatures of public servants. It's just that we've convinced ourselves we're not allowed to vote for them.
The fact is that people believe in the cockamamie "two party system" that has created a fraudulent scheme where legalized bribery is compulsory, corporate billionaires do the bribing and everyone is too intimidated to vote for the candidate they actually like because no one else will.
Maybe Yogi had it right: there's nobody running- the field is too crowded. In other words, why would you vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein? She's too popular.
When it comes the field of "acceptable" candidates in this year's elections the ballot is anything but crowded. That's the case up and down the ticket on Kaua`i but it's exemplified by the County Council election where a record low nine people are running for seven seats.
The key word there is "acceptable" because the way democracy has combined with capitalism in America we've managed to define "acceptable" as "corporate-funded, duopoly selected."
But that has little or nothing to do with the reason why Hawai`i in particular is at or near the bottom of the list in voter turnout. This week a six-part series by blogger/journalist Ian Lind in Civil Beat tried to explain why through statistical gymnastics that, while we're sure are true, seemed anything but insightful.
One thing missing in Lind's report is the "sun and surf" factor.
Stay with us. Hawai`i is the home of the tourism-industry crummy jobs that cause all members of the family to work at least two close-to-minimum-wage jobs apiece. With the cost of living higher than other places in the US, people just don't have time to pay attention to politics and certainly want to spend their leisure time doing something other than figuring out who to vote for.
Even though we political junkies don't see the logic in that, it makes more sense when you add in that "immigrants" don't exactly flock here to get involved in politics, which also goes for those born and raised here who have usually chosen to "stay home" after they finish school.
Most people are here one way or another because they can surf, hike, snorkel, fish and do all the things that make living in the islands unique. If anything, they came here- or stay here- because they are actually running away from places obsessed with politics and the like.
Then of course there are also those who aren't particularly interested in participating in what they see as the central activity that an "occupying nation" uses to justify their military control and "make the world safe for democracy." Though it's not a vast number who think that way, it's more than most people think.
But if you really want to know why few among the remaining are voting it may be the simplest reason of all: there's "no one" running.
Why vote when all the Democrats and Republicans are greedy power mongers who are all, in one way or another, on the take?
While there are exceptions that prove the rule like Mina Morita or Gary Hooser (who, maybe not so coincidentally, are both currently out of office although Hooser is seeking to return to the county council) it's been like pulling proverbial teeth to get people to run for office these days.
We just spent a year and a half recruiting candidates and didn’t find a one. We even lost a couple at the last second.
We approached almost every "community activist" we know, even some we disagree with because we knew that at least they fight for things they actually believe in. And every one said "thanks but no thanks," some adding "why in the hell would I want to do that?"
Indeed running for office is a daunting proposition. Just the prospect of having to ask people for money makes many back off. The idea of spending every spare moment for a year going door to door, attending every gathering and being subjected to more scrutiny than a prize pig at an auction is not one that makes one's heart go pitter-patter.
Surprisingly many say that actually serving- crafting legislation, guiding it through, going to meetings and all that intriguing stuff- is what they want to avoid because they'd have to deal with all the a-holes in office who, for the most part, actually enjoy all the back-stabbing political gamesmanship that got them into office and keeps them there.
Can you imagine having to sit there with Mel Rapozo or Dickie Chang- and not just sit there at a meeting but actually negotiate with and schmooze them? Are you going to listen to Jay Furfaro go on endlessly about his delusions of success or try to figure out why Kipukai Kuali`i would be aligning himself with Rapozo and the Queen of Spleen, Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho- and then actually come up with equally sinister plans to oppose their evil schemes?
What fun. Who'd wanna go surfing when you can listen to a three hour report on some incomprehensible, unattainable, feel-good plan to spend a million bucks to spruce up the county building parking lot?
So there you have it- an electorate that's already got better things to do and actually came or stayed here to get away from the backstabbing political culture on the mainland. And if they do take a look at the local political culture they see nothing but a bunch of moronic and vicious bozos appealing to what's left of the electorate. And those that do vote do so on the basis of who went to school with whom and whether they attend the same church... or cock fight.
And it's only getting worse. Don't forget the last mayoral election where the only one to run against a punch-drunk, concussion-syndrome-addled, ex-football player was a well-meaning too-smart-for-the-job, haole lady who'd lived here all of ten minutes. And this year, even with the criminally insane, moist-Malaprop-spewing Iseri running for prosecuting attorney against what appears to be a smart, honest and upstanding progressive apparently actually interested in serving justice (imagine that), it's still a race too close to call because she grew up here and he didn't.
It doesn't get any better with our choices for US congress where unlike the Kaua`i state legislative contest, there is one. For the U.S. house it's a war-obsessed vet who has gotten non-religion and is suddenly bigoted-no-more, running against a slimy pay-for-play veteran who has as much substance as dark matter. And for senate it's a pseudo-progressive against a pseudo-Democrat in the primaries and the winner gets to take on the Stepford Wife, chameleon ex-governor who has the unique talent for speaking out of all three sides of her mouth.
Those are our choices? Well actually not. Because even though we have convinced ourselves that we can only vote for one of them, there are others on the ballot, many of whom aren't corrupt caricatures of public servants. It's just that we've convinced ourselves we're not allowed to vote for them.
The fact is that people believe in the cockamamie "two party system" that has created a fraudulent scheme where legalized bribery is compulsory, corporate billionaires do the bribing and everyone is too intimidated to vote for the candidate they actually like because no one else will.
Maybe Yogi had it right: there's nobody running- the field is too crowded. In other words, why would you vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein? She's too popular.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
LET'S GO OUT TO THE LOBBY AND GET OURSELVES A WRIT
LET'S GO OUT TO THE LOBBY AND GET OURSELVES A WRIT: The news that the Kaua`i Police Commission has filed suit against Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. to have a court determine whether hizzonah had the power to suspend Police Chief Darryl Perry in February is no surprise.
On March 23 we noted that:
The agenda for next Wednesday's council meeting contains the following item:
C 2012-98 Request (03/13/2012) from the Police Commission for authorization to expend funds up to $10,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a complaint with the Fifth Circuit Court and asking for a declaratory judgment as to who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
In noting the appropriation we said that:
People are always claiming "I hate to tell you 'I told you so,' but..."
Yet who are we kidding?- we love to do it.
So today we'll set up what will most assuredly be a little "see?" moment, sometime in the near future.
So call this Act 2 of this would-be three-act melodrama that, as we noted, will no doubt finish with a somewhat existential ending where, when it’s all over, the characters wind up right were they started.
Because we're willing to bet the farm that neither of the two 5th Circuit Count judges, Randall Valenciano and Kathleen Watanabe, are going to rule on what is essentially a political matter- a matter that the council could, according to the county charter, decide by themselves if they had once iota of election year political will.
Yeah- that'll happen... about the time Kapa`a traffic is a quaint anachronism.
Both judges have shown a propensity for "punting" whenever they possibly can. As we previously pointed out:
Watenabe has a history of punting these kinds of things. For example, in her decisions regarding various cases of disturbances of `iwi kupuna- the bones of native Hawaiians- by developers, she adamantly refused to rule, saying that the laws and regulations regarding the individual island burial councils and the State Historical Preservation Department (SHPD) that oversees the process, are unclear and that the legislature needs to clear thing up.
Our description is an oversimplification. But what is clear is that Watanabe did indicate that the solution was a political decision, not a judicial one.
As to Valenciano he was recently asked by Council members Mel Rapozo and Kipukai Kuali`i to clear up the use of the word "shall" in a matter regarding the Kaua`i Salary Commission's March 15 deadline for submission of their yearly "recommendations." County Attorney Al Castillo had written an opinion that, in this case, ""shall" was used "administratively" and therefor has to be read as "should."
But when the two council members went before Valenciano's court, he also said that it was a political matter and not only didn't the two have standing but that they should look to changing the law to make things clear rather than asking him to essentially split a baby.
Does anyone think that in this case either of the judges are going to get involved? Both come from a government background and perspective, Watanabe having served as county attorney and in other government jobs and Valenciano having been a long-time council member, even running for mayor one time. Both have a healthy respect for letting the government wheels turn as freely as possible and apparently do not want to get involved in inter-agency squabbles like the one over who should discipline the chief.
The ball here is clearly and fully in the council's court...
Section 7.05 of the Kaua`i County Charter details the "Powers, Duties and Functions" of the mayor.
There are 13 "Powers, Duties and Functions" The very last one reads:
"M. Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter or by ordinance. (emphasis added)."
This means that the council can actually pass an ordinance regardless of whether the charter defines a specific power of the mayor or not. This is somewhat unusual in that powers not designated in a controlling document cannot normally just be taken in an inferior document (such as the charter and an ordinance respectively)... unless, as it is in this case, it is specifically granted.
The council also has the power to put a charter amendment before the electorate via a resolution.
But either way the problem here is that it exists in the political realm. It is doubly political in that the council must make a political decision as to which entity they want to give that power to- whether they do so via an ordinance or a charter amendment.
Should they give it to the mayor or to the police commission? They will no doubt face criticism for doing either. If they passed an ordinance, first they would have to decide themselves which way to go. If they proposed a charter amendment, they could only propose one or the other for the electorate to vote for- there's no provision for having a referendum type of charter amendment- so they face the same dilemma.
In either scenario, if the council decides to spent the $10,000, the money is completely wasted.
And we're pretty confident that if they do approve the expenditure, we'll wind up with a nice "we told you so" to tack up on the wall with all the others.
At the time we had no illusion that the council would do anything the "easy" way. Then, as now, the seven councilmembers were and are all too aware that public opinion's on the side of the police commission. But not by as wide a margin as many may think.
Despite the brouhaha, Carvalho still has plenty of loyal political adherents who wouldn't take kindly to a charter amendment that would give the disiplining power to the commission.
Make no mistake- everyone in town has an opinion as to whether Carvalho was right or wrong and they're pretty adamant on each side... enough to make it a voting-decision issue.
As a matter of fact just proposing a charter amendment that would give one side or the other the power to discipline or suspend the chief would be a political hazard for councilmember... no matter which way they voted on whichever side the measure would give the power to.
No one on the council can afford to throw away a single "one vote" they're always asking voters to "save" for them. And with the popular former state Senator Gary Hooser in the race there is, with little doubt, going to be one eighth-place-finisher among the incumbents... a vote for one "side" or the other could be the determining factor as to who that "one" is.
The Charter Review Commission (CRC) is still, as far as we know, dithering as to whether to put a measure on the ballot- probably one giving the commission, not the mayor, the power. CRC Chair Sherman Shiraishi actually tried to ask the council what the commission should do earlier this year with no real response forthcoming.
So now that the suit has been filed, as the local newspaper noted this morning, it's conveniently out of the council's hands because supposedly no one is permitted to comment on the matter since it's a "legal" proceeding now.
The paper quoted one of the attorneys filing the suit as saying this.
(Corlis J) Chang said the case is not a complicated one, and they seek to have a 5th Circuit judge decide on who has the authority to discipline the chief of police. The mayor has one view and the police commission has a different view, she said.
“It’s a really simple issue and its one where there are two different viewpoints, and our goal is to get a resolution from the court,” Chang said. “This is straight forward and there are no other agendas here.”
But apparently it is about- well no actually, exactly- 10G's worth of complicated.
This though may just be the key quote in the article:
Chang said it’s very early in the case and once the mayor has responded to the summons they will submit their motions and wait to be assigned a judge and a hearing date. Then she said it would be a matter of presenting legal issues based on documentation and legal precedents.
Apparently getting a ruling that tells the council and police commission to stop wasting the court’s time with what is essentially a political decisions should take until... let's see, subtract the campaign contribution... carry the sign waver... divide by the stack of council certificates and awards... oh we'd say... about... Wednesday, November 7- the day after the election.
On March 23 we noted that:
The agenda for next Wednesday's council meeting contains the following item:
C 2012-98 Request (03/13/2012) from the Police Commission for authorization to expend funds up to $10,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a complaint with the Fifth Circuit Court and asking for a declaratory judgment as to who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
In noting the appropriation we said that:
People are always claiming "I hate to tell you 'I told you so,' but..."
Yet who are we kidding?- we love to do it.
So today we'll set up what will most assuredly be a little "see?" moment, sometime in the near future.
So call this Act 2 of this would-be three-act melodrama that, as we noted, will no doubt finish with a somewhat existential ending where, when it’s all over, the characters wind up right were they started.
Because we're willing to bet the farm that neither of the two 5th Circuit Count judges, Randall Valenciano and Kathleen Watanabe, are going to rule on what is essentially a political matter- a matter that the council could, according to the county charter, decide by themselves if they had once iota of election year political will.
Yeah- that'll happen... about the time Kapa`a traffic is a quaint anachronism.
Both judges have shown a propensity for "punting" whenever they possibly can. As we previously pointed out:
Watenabe has a history of punting these kinds of things. For example, in her decisions regarding various cases of disturbances of `iwi kupuna- the bones of native Hawaiians- by developers, she adamantly refused to rule, saying that the laws and regulations regarding the individual island burial councils and the State Historical Preservation Department (SHPD) that oversees the process, are unclear and that the legislature needs to clear thing up.
Our description is an oversimplification. But what is clear is that Watanabe did indicate that the solution was a political decision, not a judicial one.
As to Valenciano he was recently asked by Council members Mel Rapozo and Kipukai Kuali`i to clear up the use of the word "shall" in a matter regarding the Kaua`i Salary Commission's March 15 deadline for submission of their yearly "recommendations." County Attorney Al Castillo had written an opinion that, in this case, ""shall" was used "administratively" and therefor has to be read as "should."
But when the two council members went before Valenciano's court, he also said that it was a political matter and not only didn't the two have standing but that they should look to changing the law to make things clear rather than asking him to essentially split a baby.
Does anyone think that in this case either of the judges are going to get involved? Both come from a government background and perspective, Watanabe having served as county attorney and in other government jobs and Valenciano having been a long-time council member, even running for mayor one time. Both have a healthy respect for letting the government wheels turn as freely as possible and apparently do not want to get involved in inter-agency squabbles like the one over who should discipline the chief.
The ball here is clearly and fully in the council's court...
Section 7.05 of the Kaua`i County Charter details the "Powers, Duties and Functions" of the mayor.
There are 13 "Powers, Duties and Functions" The very last one reads:
"M. Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter or by ordinance. (emphasis added)."
This means that the council can actually pass an ordinance regardless of whether the charter defines a specific power of the mayor or not. This is somewhat unusual in that powers not designated in a controlling document cannot normally just be taken in an inferior document (such as the charter and an ordinance respectively)... unless, as it is in this case, it is specifically granted.
The council also has the power to put a charter amendment before the electorate via a resolution.
But either way the problem here is that it exists in the political realm. It is doubly political in that the council must make a political decision as to which entity they want to give that power to- whether they do so via an ordinance or a charter amendment.
Should they give it to the mayor or to the police commission? They will no doubt face criticism for doing either. If they passed an ordinance, first they would have to decide themselves which way to go. If they proposed a charter amendment, they could only propose one or the other for the electorate to vote for- there's no provision for having a referendum type of charter amendment- so they face the same dilemma.
In either scenario, if the council decides to spent the $10,000, the money is completely wasted.
And we're pretty confident that if they do approve the expenditure, we'll wind up with a nice "we told you so" to tack up on the wall with all the others.
At the time we had no illusion that the council would do anything the "easy" way. Then, as now, the seven councilmembers were and are all too aware that public opinion's on the side of the police commission. But not by as wide a margin as many may think.
Despite the brouhaha, Carvalho still has plenty of loyal political adherents who wouldn't take kindly to a charter amendment that would give the disiplining power to the commission.
Make no mistake- everyone in town has an opinion as to whether Carvalho was right or wrong and they're pretty adamant on each side... enough to make it a voting-decision issue.
As a matter of fact just proposing a charter amendment that would give one side or the other the power to discipline or suspend the chief would be a political hazard for councilmember... no matter which way they voted on whichever side the measure would give the power to.
No one on the council can afford to throw away a single "one vote" they're always asking voters to "save" for them. And with the popular former state Senator Gary Hooser in the race there is, with little doubt, going to be one eighth-place-finisher among the incumbents... a vote for one "side" or the other could be the determining factor as to who that "one" is.
The Charter Review Commission (CRC) is still, as far as we know, dithering as to whether to put a measure on the ballot- probably one giving the commission, not the mayor, the power. CRC Chair Sherman Shiraishi actually tried to ask the council what the commission should do earlier this year with no real response forthcoming.
So now that the suit has been filed, as the local newspaper noted this morning, it's conveniently out of the council's hands because supposedly no one is permitted to comment on the matter since it's a "legal" proceeding now.
The paper quoted one of the attorneys filing the suit as saying this.
(Corlis J) Chang said the case is not a complicated one, and they seek to have a 5th Circuit judge decide on who has the authority to discipline the chief of police. The mayor has one view and the police commission has a different view, she said.
“It’s a really simple issue and its one where there are two different viewpoints, and our goal is to get a resolution from the court,” Chang said. “This is straight forward and there are no other agendas here.”
But apparently it is about- well no actually, exactly- 10G's worth of complicated.
This though may just be the key quote in the article:
Chang said it’s very early in the case and once the mayor has responded to the summons they will submit their motions and wait to be assigned a judge and a hearing date. Then she said it would be a matter of presenting legal issues based on documentation and legal precedents.
Apparently getting a ruling that tells the council and police commission to stop wasting the court’s time with what is essentially a political decisions should take until... let's see, subtract the campaign contribution... carry the sign waver... divide by the stack of council certificates and awards... oh we'd say... about... Wednesday, November 7- the day after the election.
Friday, June 8, 2012
PLENTY OF NOTHIN'
PLENTY OF NOTHIN': It's gonna be the best of elections. It's gonna be the worst of elections.
Yes it's a dickens o' pickin's and a tale all too sh*tty when it comes to the most dismal number of candidates for the seven seats on the the Kaua`i County Council in memory. Yet on the plus side the enumeration of only nine names includes Gary Hooser, a politician who makes us reluctant to use the term to describe Gary since it's usually reserved for corrupt cronies and despicable despots.
Hooser, who started his public service career on the council from 1998-2002 before becoming the Kauai's State Senator from 2002-2010, is returning to his roots. His presence will no doubt bring the level of council discourse and accomplishment, if not to the highest rung of the ladder of good governance, a least out of the existing swirling sewer of percolating pestilence.
The problem is that the rest of the list is made up of the same old seven incumbent-hacks we've grown to, in some cases loath, in others tolerate, plus local and UH baseball hero, Ross Kagawa, who has two chances- the proverbial slim and none, with slim nursing a terminal illness.
So we're down to a proverbial game of musical chairs and the only reason to vote in the election- the one in November that is because all will get past the August 11 "primary"- is to see who gets dumped when Hooser is inevitably added.
While we are tempted to just "plunk" for Gary (a term for not using all seven votes and simply "plunking" down only the names of those who one truly likes) and may do so in November, for now we will list the rest of those running based on exactly how much of a worthless piece of crap each one is and why.
So for all you dumpers out there (and if you're not one, please register now) here's our list of dumpees in order of dump-worthiness.
1) Dickie Chang. This is probably the hardest choice- whether to make our good friend Dickie our least favorite or save that honor for Mel Rapozo. It's like trying to decide whether you like the guy who is repeatedly plunging a knife in your back or prefer the guy who is standing there watching, trying to decide when and whether to either encourage the stabber or condemn him... although it would certainly never occur to him too stop him.
Dickie is the proverbial man who, like former State Rep Ezra Kanoho for whom the phrase was created, "never met a hotel he didn't like." Dickie's penchant for lap-dog behavior- usually in the service of Chair Jay Furfaro- is infamous and when he does take a stand it is clearly taken with clay feet planted firmly on both sides of the fence. The one thing we can say about Dickie is that this is exactly what we expected from him. That of course makes-
2) Mel Rapozo the next one to not vote for. Mel manages to play politics with the simplest of no-brainers, using his unique blend of bamboozical logic and contortionistic, convoluted unreasoning as his moral compass- a compass that continually points in one direction... toward Mel. Perhaps the most emblematic representation of this bit of Kabuki is his recent attempt to change the charter because he didn't like an opinion from County Attorney Al Castillo’s office regarding the legal use of the word "shall." Rapozo didn't like what Castillo told him the law said and what the courts have consistently ruled on the matter, so he first tried to get his cohorts to hire Mel's own personal choice of outside lawyer to tell him what he wanted the law to say. When that failed he unsuccessfully tried to garner enough votes to put the matter before the electorate even though if it did pass it would be moot from the day it was enacted because it doesn't matter what our charter says when the state courts have already ruled on the matter.
Rapozo's "are-you-going-to-believe-me-or-your-lyin'-eyes" defense of Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho as she "took the fifth" and demanded a private attorney to represent her rather than openly discuss her budget with the council- has known no bounds, making for some fascinatingly fractured farces... quintessential Rapozo.
That brings us to the aforementioned "larger than life" (both girth-wise and in his own mind-wise) current Chair-
3) Jay Furfaro. Furfaro managed to eek out a 4-3 vote for chair last election, something that he may not be able to do with Hooser on the council. More on that later.
Furfaro is a throwback to the old style Hawai`i "orator" whose chest-thumping, credit-taking, egotistical style of expression is endlessly enigmatic to watch especially as lunch and sometimes dinner breaks are approaching. As the clock ticks toward noon it invariably throws him into incoherent ramblings and rushed decision making, commensurate with the decibel level of his stomach growling. To be fair, he is diabetic but his munching-vs-governing meter is out of whack even for someone who has "the sugar." Speaking of sweetness, the next on our bottoms-up itemizing is someone who turned out to be NutraSweet. That would be-
4) Kipukai Kuali`i. Kipukai was appointed after current State Representative and then Councilmember Derek Kawakami was appointed to fill Mina Morita's spot when she was appointed to be the head the Public Utilities Commission. People expected a lot from his "win" of 2010's post-election version of musical chairs and got virtually nothing. He has turned out to be simply a little less of a political animal than Rapozo and seems quite content to learn more at Mel's feet. Although he has gone after some of the more absurd council appropriations- when they suit his political bent- the last straw was his unshakable support for Iseri after she fired the Victim/Witness Counselors in her office. That eliminated the long-time county positions and instead she contracted out the duties to (drum roll please) Kualii's employer, the YWCA, ensuring his support before the council. He not only sold his political soul but he then refused to recuse himself from participating in the council's deliberations regarding Iseri. And speaking of disappointments there's-
5) Nadine Nakamura, although in her case disappointment may be a bit strong because we never expected any more than we got. The would be a politically malleable councilmember who doesn't seem to have a position on anything other than compromise, even when one of the options is at best unpalatable, at worst patently absurd. Her prime directive for the past two years has apparently been to take good legislation and introduce difficult-to-reject amendments that make the original unacceptable, even in cases when the votes are there for passage. Even if she did govern from a progressive viewpoint no one would know it because her experience as a facilitator and mediator have made her into a gutless wonder who makes one question whether there is any substance there at all. And speaking of substance there's-
6) Tim Bynum. Some would have him positioned at the bottom of this list for his effort to allow transient vacation rentals (TVRs) on Ag land, not to mention his previous work to allow them to be grandfathered on all otherwise zoned land. We can hardly ignore that and other positions he's taken. On the other hand he was, with then Councilmember Lani Kawahara, primarily responsible for the plastic bag ban and also successfully took on then Council Chair Kaipo Asing over open governance issues. What we can say is that at least they have apparently been taken because he believes in whatever he has supported. But if for no other reason than his persecution-prosecution by political enemy Iseri in the Ricecooker-gate scandal- an abuse of power on her part that we hope will end in November with the election of Justin Kollar (more on that race in a future post)- we have positioned him among the keepers this time. He could have folded but his persistence has unveiled alleged criminal activity on Iseri's part. All that pretty much also goes for-
7) JoAnn Yukimura. It's not that our disappointment with JoAnn has diminished to a level where we enthusiastically rate her the numero uno councilmember- although she has done some really good stuff recently.* But she also went along with Bynum on the Ag TVR issue and was the prime mover behind the grandfathering efforts, preferring to knuckle under to big money developers rather than go to court to enforce the laws apparently forbidding them.
We've questioned the consistency of those we have spoken to who were dead set against supporting Bynum due to the TVR debacle but were equally as supportive of Yukimura. We've simply asked them how they can condemn Bynum on that issue without doing the same for JoAnn.
All we can say is that is, on balance- and especially given the reality of the fact that six of the seven are going to be on the council whether we like it or not- we are forced to rate Bynum and Yukimura as "plunkworthy," to coin a term.
That leaves only one issue to be decided in November when it comes to the council race- the question of council leadership, which hangs in the balance.
After the 2010 election Yukimura challenged Furfaro for chair. Furfaro had Chang's, Rapozo's and, at the time, Kawakami's votes leaving Yukimura with Bynum's and Nakamura's.
In order to wrest control of the chair- assuming either Yukimura or possibly Hooser will challenge Furfaro and that Nakamura will maintain her vote for Yukimura- the addition of Hooser makes a change in the chair a distinct possibility. That also assumes that the odd-man-out is either Chang, Rapozo or Kuali`i. We can't be sure of Kualii's vote but suspect he is politically indebted to Furfaro after Furfaro gave procedural support to Kuali`i and Rapozo during some of the budget hearings regarding Iseri.
If the election were held tomorrow in addition to being shocked, surprised and totally taken aback, we would be forced to plunk for Hooser, Yukimura, Bynum and Nakamura since leadership is the only issue to be decided. But equally as important is NOT to vote for Chang, Rapozo, Furfaro or Kuali`i.
The August primary will tell us something about the strength of each candidate- it has always been like a super-accurate poll since 14 candidates usually get though to the November vote. In this case although all - and only- nine will make it through, we'll certainly know more about the strength of each by August 12.
One thing is all but certain- this mess of a council will make it through this year's election with six or seven intact. And while it gives us plenty to froth and foam about, any plans we've had to be a kinder and gentler rabid reporter may well end up, shall we say, going to the dogs.
*Correction: It was Tim Bynum who, along with Lani Kawahara, was primarily responsible for the single use plastic bag "ban," not, as we originally said JoAnn Yukimura who was not on the council at the time the bill passed. The original on line version has been corrected. We regret the error
-------
We are heartsick over the loss of Rose Schlegel, the daughter of our good friends Sherry and Jim (Pole) Pollock, who lost her life in an apparent freak accident in Kalalau Valley Wednesday. It is horrendous to lose any loved one but to lose a child, even one aged 30, is unimaginably tragic and their pain and sorrow must be unbearable. Please keep them in your thoughts and, if appropriate, prayers. It makes one wonder how such bad things can happen to such good people while selfish and mean people go unscathed. Don't forget to hug your loved ones, especially your keiki, today and every day. Life is fragile, seemingly especially for the righteous. We love you Sherry and Pole and will hold Rose in our thoughts forever.
Yes it's a dickens o' pickin's and a tale all too sh*tty when it comes to the most dismal number of candidates for the seven seats on the the Kaua`i County Council in memory. Yet on the plus side the enumeration of only nine names includes Gary Hooser, a politician who makes us reluctant to use the term to describe Gary since it's usually reserved for corrupt cronies and despicable despots.
Hooser, who started his public service career on the council from 1998-2002 before becoming the Kauai's State Senator from 2002-2010, is returning to his roots. His presence will no doubt bring the level of council discourse and accomplishment, if not to the highest rung of the ladder of good governance, a least out of the existing swirling sewer of percolating pestilence.
The problem is that the rest of the list is made up of the same old seven incumbent-hacks we've grown to, in some cases loath, in others tolerate, plus local and UH baseball hero, Ross Kagawa, who has two chances- the proverbial slim and none, with slim nursing a terminal illness.
So we're down to a proverbial game of musical chairs and the only reason to vote in the election- the one in November that is because all will get past the August 11 "primary"- is to see who gets dumped when Hooser is inevitably added.
While we are tempted to just "plunk" for Gary (a term for not using all seven votes and simply "plunking" down only the names of those who one truly likes) and may do so in November, for now we will list the rest of those running based on exactly how much of a worthless piece of crap each one is and why.
So for all you dumpers out there (and if you're not one, please register now) here's our list of dumpees in order of dump-worthiness.
1) Dickie Chang. This is probably the hardest choice- whether to make our good friend Dickie our least favorite or save that honor for Mel Rapozo. It's like trying to decide whether you like the guy who is repeatedly plunging a knife in your back or prefer the guy who is standing there watching, trying to decide when and whether to either encourage the stabber or condemn him... although it would certainly never occur to him too stop him.
Dickie is the proverbial man who, like former State Rep Ezra Kanoho for whom the phrase was created, "never met a hotel he didn't like." Dickie's penchant for lap-dog behavior- usually in the service of Chair Jay Furfaro- is infamous and when he does take a stand it is clearly taken with clay feet planted firmly on both sides of the fence. The one thing we can say about Dickie is that this is exactly what we expected from him. That of course makes-
2) Mel Rapozo the next one to not vote for. Mel manages to play politics with the simplest of no-brainers, using his unique blend of bamboozical logic and contortionistic, convoluted unreasoning as his moral compass- a compass that continually points in one direction... toward Mel. Perhaps the most emblematic representation of this bit of Kabuki is his recent attempt to change the charter because he didn't like an opinion from County Attorney Al Castillo’s office regarding the legal use of the word "shall." Rapozo didn't like what Castillo told him the law said and what the courts have consistently ruled on the matter, so he first tried to get his cohorts to hire Mel's own personal choice of outside lawyer to tell him what he wanted the law to say. When that failed he unsuccessfully tried to garner enough votes to put the matter before the electorate even though if it did pass it would be moot from the day it was enacted because it doesn't matter what our charter says when the state courts have already ruled on the matter.
Rapozo's "are-you-going-to-believe-me-or-your-lyin'-eyes" defense of Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho as she "took the fifth" and demanded a private attorney to represent her rather than openly discuss her budget with the council- has known no bounds, making for some fascinatingly fractured farces... quintessential Rapozo.
That brings us to the aforementioned "larger than life" (both girth-wise and in his own mind-wise) current Chair-
3) Jay Furfaro. Furfaro managed to eek out a 4-3 vote for chair last election, something that he may not be able to do with Hooser on the council. More on that later.
Furfaro is a throwback to the old style Hawai`i "orator" whose chest-thumping, credit-taking, egotistical style of expression is endlessly enigmatic to watch especially as lunch and sometimes dinner breaks are approaching. As the clock ticks toward noon it invariably throws him into incoherent ramblings and rushed decision making, commensurate with the decibel level of his stomach growling. To be fair, he is diabetic but his munching-vs-governing meter is out of whack even for someone who has "the sugar." Speaking of sweetness, the next on our bottoms-up itemizing is someone who turned out to be NutraSweet. That would be-
4) Kipukai Kuali`i. Kipukai was appointed after current State Representative and then Councilmember Derek Kawakami was appointed to fill Mina Morita's spot when she was appointed to be the head the Public Utilities Commission. People expected a lot from his "win" of 2010's post-election version of musical chairs and got virtually nothing. He has turned out to be simply a little less of a political animal than Rapozo and seems quite content to learn more at Mel's feet. Although he has gone after some of the more absurd council appropriations- when they suit his political bent- the last straw was his unshakable support for Iseri after she fired the Victim/Witness Counselors in her office. That eliminated the long-time county positions and instead she contracted out the duties to (drum roll please) Kualii's employer, the YWCA, ensuring his support before the council. He not only sold his political soul but he then refused to recuse himself from participating in the council's deliberations regarding Iseri. And speaking of disappointments there's-
5) Nadine Nakamura, although in her case disappointment may be a bit strong because we never expected any more than we got. The would be a politically malleable councilmember who doesn't seem to have a position on anything other than compromise, even when one of the options is at best unpalatable, at worst patently absurd. Her prime directive for the past two years has apparently been to take good legislation and introduce difficult-to-reject amendments that make the original unacceptable, even in cases when the votes are there for passage. Even if she did govern from a progressive viewpoint no one would know it because her experience as a facilitator and mediator have made her into a gutless wonder who makes one question whether there is any substance there at all. And speaking of substance there's-
6) Tim Bynum. Some would have him positioned at the bottom of this list for his effort to allow transient vacation rentals (TVRs) on Ag land, not to mention his previous work to allow them to be grandfathered on all otherwise zoned land. We can hardly ignore that and other positions he's taken. On the other hand he was, with then Councilmember Lani Kawahara, primarily responsible for the plastic bag ban and also successfully took on then Council Chair Kaipo Asing over open governance issues. What we can say is that at least they have apparently been taken because he believes in whatever he has supported. But if for no other reason than his persecution-prosecution by political enemy Iseri in the Ricecooker-gate scandal- an abuse of power on her part that we hope will end in November with the election of Justin Kollar (more on that race in a future post)- we have positioned him among the keepers this time. He could have folded but his persistence has unveiled alleged criminal activity on Iseri's part. All that pretty much also goes for-
7) JoAnn Yukimura. It's not that our disappointment with JoAnn has diminished to a level where we enthusiastically rate her the numero uno councilmember- although she has done some really good stuff recently.* But she also went along with Bynum on the Ag TVR issue and was the prime mover behind the grandfathering efforts, preferring to knuckle under to big money developers rather than go to court to enforce the laws apparently forbidding them.
We've questioned the consistency of those we have spoken to who were dead set against supporting Bynum due to the TVR debacle but were equally as supportive of Yukimura. We've simply asked them how they can condemn Bynum on that issue without doing the same for JoAnn.
All we can say is that is, on balance- and especially given the reality of the fact that six of the seven are going to be on the council whether we like it or not- we are forced to rate Bynum and Yukimura as "plunkworthy," to coin a term.
That leaves only one issue to be decided in November when it comes to the council race- the question of council leadership, which hangs in the balance.
After the 2010 election Yukimura challenged Furfaro for chair. Furfaro had Chang's, Rapozo's and, at the time, Kawakami's votes leaving Yukimura with Bynum's and Nakamura's.
In order to wrest control of the chair- assuming either Yukimura or possibly Hooser will challenge Furfaro and that Nakamura will maintain her vote for Yukimura- the addition of Hooser makes a change in the chair a distinct possibility. That also assumes that the odd-man-out is either Chang, Rapozo or Kuali`i. We can't be sure of Kualii's vote but suspect he is politically indebted to Furfaro after Furfaro gave procedural support to Kuali`i and Rapozo during some of the budget hearings regarding Iseri.
If the election were held tomorrow in addition to being shocked, surprised and totally taken aback, we would be forced to plunk for Hooser, Yukimura, Bynum and Nakamura since leadership is the only issue to be decided. But equally as important is NOT to vote for Chang, Rapozo, Furfaro or Kuali`i.
The August primary will tell us something about the strength of each candidate- it has always been like a super-accurate poll since 14 candidates usually get though to the November vote. In this case although all - and only- nine will make it through, we'll certainly know more about the strength of each by August 12.
One thing is all but certain- this mess of a council will make it through this year's election with six or seven intact. And while it gives us plenty to froth and foam about, any plans we've had to be a kinder and gentler rabid reporter may well end up, shall we say, going to the dogs.
*Correction: It was Tim Bynum who, along with Lani Kawahara, was primarily responsible for the single use plastic bag "ban," not, as we originally said JoAnn Yukimura who was not on the council at the time the bill passed. The original on line version has been corrected. We regret the error
-------
We are heartsick over the loss of Rose Schlegel, the daughter of our good friends Sherry and Jim (Pole) Pollock, who lost her life in an apparent freak accident in Kalalau Valley Wednesday. It is horrendous to lose any loved one but to lose a child, even one aged 30, is unimaginably tragic and their pain and sorrow must be unbearable. Please keep them in your thoughts and, if appropriate, prayers. It makes one wonder how such bad things can happen to such good people while selfish and mean people go unscathed. Don't forget to hug your loved ones, especially your keiki, today and every day. Life is fragile, seemingly especially for the righteous. We love you Sherry and Pole and will hold Rose in our thoughts forever.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
(PNN) GARY HOOSER WILL RUN FOR OFFICE THIS YEAR; LEANING TOWARD COUNCIL THOUGH SENATE STILL A POSSIBILITY
GARY HOOSER WILL RUN FOR OFFICE THIS YEAR; LEANING TOWARD COUNCIL THOUGH SENATE STILL A POSSIBILITY
(PNN) -- Former Kaua`i County Councilmember and State Senator Gary Hooser will run for office this year according to a credible source with direct knowledge of Hooser's plans.
Hooser is strongly leaning toward running for council although a senate run is still a possibility. He is expected to "pull papers" Monday morning and file them later in the day.
Hooser currently serves as the appointed Director Office of Environmental Quality Control in the Abercrombie administration where he successfully fought off this year's legislative attempts to dramatically weaken HRS Chapter 343 environmental review laws regarding Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
If he decides on running for council he will be seeking to reclaim his old seat where he served from 1998 through 2002. As a councilmember he helped blow the lid off of Papa`a Bay mud slide in the original "Developers Gone Wild" grubbing and grading hearings, sponsored a charter amendment giving the council audit power and was instrumental in keeping access to Kealia Kai open 24 hours a day seven days a week without security guards.
He also led efforts to uncover and reveal the facts in the "Red Chrysler-gate" scandal during the Kusaka administration, when it was revealed that Kusaka had, at county expense, secretly leased an expensive luxury car from her former campaign manager.
Hooser served as Kaua`i senator from 2002 until 2010, the last four years as Senate Majority Leader.
As Senator, Hooser was the primary introducer and mover in the Senate to pass a first-in-nation mandate for solar hot water heaters. He was instrumental in passing legislation protecting farm lands from onerous "gentleman farms'" restrictive covenants and "brought home the bacon" leading to improvements to Na Pali trail, Kilauea School and Wailua Bridge. He also helped resolve the Koke`e lease issue enabling local residents to get first rights to the leases of state cabins there.
Hooser was the first to speak out against school furloughs, led the fight in the Senate for civil unions, and is a former Chair of the Democratic Party Environmental Caucus.
According to the source, Hooser has grown weary of the Honolulu climate and is looking forward to re-connecting to his island home and his friends here on Kaua`i. Hooser lives in Wailua Homesteads with his wife Claudette, two dogs, (Roxie and Hina), one cat, (Socks) and 5 chickens (Dolly and 4 unnamed Rhode Island Reds). He has two adult children, Dylan and Kelli-Rose.
For more information on Hooser go to http://www.garyhooser.com/ .
(PNN) -- Former Kaua`i County Councilmember and State Senator Gary Hooser will run for office this year according to a credible source with direct knowledge of Hooser's plans.
Hooser is strongly leaning toward running for council although a senate run is still a possibility. He is expected to "pull papers" Monday morning and file them later in the day.
Hooser currently serves as the appointed Director Office of Environmental Quality Control in the Abercrombie administration where he successfully fought off this year's legislative attempts to dramatically weaken HRS Chapter 343 environmental review laws regarding Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
If he decides on running for council he will be seeking to reclaim his old seat where he served from 1998 through 2002. As a councilmember he helped blow the lid off of Papa`a Bay mud slide in the original "Developers Gone Wild" grubbing and grading hearings, sponsored a charter amendment giving the council audit power and was instrumental in keeping access to Kealia Kai open 24 hours a day seven days a week without security guards.
He also led efforts to uncover and reveal the facts in the "Red Chrysler-gate" scandal during the Kusaka administration, when it was revealed that Kusaka had, at county expense, secretly leased an expensive luxury car from her former campaign manager.
Hooser served as Kaua`i senator from 2002 until 2010, the last four years as Senate Majority Leader.
As Senator, Hooser was the primary introducer and mover in the Senate to pass a first-in-nation mandate for solar hot water heaters. He was instrumental in passing legislation protecting farm lands from onerous "gentleman farms'" restrictive covenants and "brought home the bacon" leading to improvements to Na Pali trail, Kilauea School and Wailua Bridge. He also helped resolve the Koke`e lease issue enabling local residents to get first rights to the leases of state cabins there.
Hooser was the first to speak out against school furloughs, led the fight in the Senate for civil unions, and is a former Chair of the Democratic Party Environmental Caucus.
According to the source, Hooser has grown weary of the Honolulu climate and is looking forward to re-connecting to his island home and his friends here on Kaua`i. Hooser lives in Wailua Homesteads with his wife Claudette, two dogs, (Roxie and Hina), one cat, (Socks) and 5 chickens (Dolly and 4 unnamed Rhode Island Reds). He has two adult children, Dylan and Kelli-Rose.
For more information on Hooser go to http://www.garyhooser.com/ .
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
YOU REALLY GOTTA ASK
YOU REALLY GOTTA ASK?: Yeah, yeah, we know- hope springs eternal and all that stuff. But to tell you the truth it doesn't look good.
This year we just may find out what would happen if they had an election and nobody ran.
It's really hard to find anyone who isn't ready to throw the bums out this November, but usually there are plenty of new bums standing in line to replace them. Except, as the June 5 deadline for candidates to file approaches, other than incumbents, there is nary a Kaua`i legislative candidate who has even "pulled papers" much less filed them.
Despite the fact that all of of our legislators on Kaua`i voted for the dreaded bill that would have more or less repealed parts of HRS 343- the Hawai`i Environmental Protect Act (HEPA)- by exempting projects from local review, permitting, and of course public hearings, all thus far are running unopposed.
In State Senator District 8 Ronald D Kouchi, and in the House, State Representatives in District 14, 15 and 16, Derek S K Kawakami, James K Tokioka and Daynette S Morikawa (respectively) will get free passes if nothing changes, although we hear there may be a surprise announcement from a familiar name as the filing deadline approaches.
And while both incumbent Shaylene C Iseri-Carvalho and challenger Justin F Kollar have filed to run for Kauai Prosecuting Attorney, no one has filed to challenge any of the incumbent council members.
Six of the current seven- Dick S Chang, Joseph J Furfaro, Kipukai L Kuali'i, Nadine K Nakamura, Melvin Rapozo and Joann A Yukimura- have pulled papers with Rapozo and Kuali`i having actually filed them. But only three challengers- all pretty much unknown and with little chance of garnering enough support to oust any of the incumbents- have pulled papers and none of those has yet filed.
According to a Facebook page under that name, the first challenger, Christina Gutierrez-More of Kapa`a
is a Northern San Joaquin Valley, California native residing on Kauai for the past 9 years. She has been a dedicated mother of two and hardworking entrepreneur for the past 6 years. Her goal is to represent the Kauai people in issues that matter most to our island community. She is focused on positive growth, sustainability, renewable energy, affordable living and finding the means to support our ailing public school system and salvaging it's fundamental art programs. The natural beauty of Kauai and its residences' are dear to her heart and in her best interest. Please support her campaign and enable her to represent your community and make a stand for Kauai as a council member.
At a page called "Keikilane" a profile of someone named Leialoha L Sanchez- also of Kapa`a according to her filing- says
I was born in the Philippines to a Navy Captain, William Flores of Kailua and a domestic engineer, Debra Naihe of Waimanalo. I have 2 older brothers, Kalani and Kaipo and a younger sister, Ka’ohu. After the death of our father, our family relocated to Kaua’i. We spent the remainder of our childhood there and like most ‘ohana’s living in rural Hawai’i; we are “thick as thieves”. I am happily married to my best friend, Robin, who weird enough shares the same middle name as me. We have 2 beautiful flowers (girls) who add to our arrangement, Ka’uolani who's 7 years old and Kaumakakaihuia who will be 3 years old in December. The day I became a teacher was the day I became a mother.
In 1997, I moved to Hilo to further my education. I attended Ka Haka Ula o Ke’elikolani Hawaiian Language College at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo. I graduated with my Bachelors of Arts degree in Hawaiian Language with a minor in Pacific Island History. My Bachelor’s degree has allowed me to work in several Hawaiian immersion schools and other charter schools that serve Native Hawaiian students and or provides a Native Hawaiian perspective to its students.
Reflection
As a teacher, I found it to be true that education is the one constant in many children’s lives and has an immense influence in shaping the person they become. My work experiences have made more appreciative of education as a way of life rather than a career.
Assuming it is the same person who filed, Elizabeth K Toulon of Koloa is a scion of the kama`aina Knudsen/Toulon clan. According to "campaignmoney.com," she has given money to right wing PACS such as "Minuteman PAC Inc," an anti-immigration, "secure borders" organization and "Eagle Forum PAC," an anti-abortion PAC apparently under the control of Republican activist Phyllis Schlafly as well as to the brief 2008 presidential campaign of Elizabeth Dole, former Secretary of Transportation under President George W Bush.
And that it. Of course the deadline could be extended depending on a ruling from the federal courts- expected any day now- on the Hawai`i reapportionment plan. But that doesn't change the fact that no one seems interested in serving in office.
And who can blame them. As jobs go it's a real stinker and can be a career killer. The salary sucks for both legislator and council and, although each is considered a part time job, they take up most of your time and limit your employment choices because an "understanding boss" is a necessity.
Job security is a real conundrum. If you do keep getting reelected you then get pegged in the public's eye as one of those "professional politicians" that no one likes. As soon as you're an incumbent you're automatically just the latest bum to be thrown out.
Who needs it? Just to get started, as anyone who knows the drill will tell you, the first thing you need to do is get out your extensive address book and call 100 friends and ask them each for $100. If you can't do that successfully you better just forget it. And if you get that done then it's time to cold-call a list of another 1000 people and ask each of them for $100.
If you do happen to get elected- usually not because the voters especially like you but because they really dislike the other guy- every one of those people who gave you money is going to call you and ask you for something... usually something you'd rather not do. And if you want to get reelected you have to either do what they ask or figure out how to turn them down without pissing them off.
Of course that's not to mention spending every waking moment you're not at work at the high school girls' water polo games, Tutu's baby lu`au or Uncle's birthday and every other boring vacuous event you'd never in your right mind attend... oh- and walk up to and schmooze everyone there, even those assholes you'd never otherwise talk to.
Do you really need to ask why no one is running? We're surprised that anyone ever does.
This year we just may find out what would happen if they had an election and nobody ran.
It's really hard to find anyone who isn't ready to throw the bums out this November, but usually there are plenty of new bums standing in line to replace them. Except, as the June 5 deadline for candidates to file approaches, other than incumbents, there is nary a Kaua`i legislative candidate who has even "pulled papers" much less filed them.
Despite the fact that all of of our legislators on Kaua`i voted for the dreaded bill that would have more or less repealed parts of HRS 343- the Hawai`i Environmental Protect Act (HEPA)- by exempting projects from local review, permitting, and of course public hearings, all thus far are running unopposed.
In State Senator District 8 Ronald D Kouchi, and in the House, State Representatives in District 14, 15 and 16, Derek S K Kawakami, James K Tokioka and Daynette S Morikawa (respectively) will get free passes if nothing changes, although we hear there may be a surprise announcement from a familiar name as the filing deadline approaches.
And while both incumbent Shaylene C Iseri-Carvalho and challenger Justin F Kollar have filed to run for Kauai Prosecuting Attorney, no one has filed to challenge any of the incumbent council members.
Six of the current seven- Dick S Chang, Joseph J Furfaro, Kipukai L Kuali'i, Nadine K Nakamura, Melvin Rapozo and Joann A Yukimura- have pulled papers with Rapozo and Kuali`i having actually filed them. But only three challengers- all pretty much unknown and with little chance of garnering enough support to oust any of the incumbents- have pulled papers and none of those has yet filed.
According to a Facebook page under that name, the first challenger, Christina Gutierrez-More of Kapa`a
is a Northern San Joaquin Valley, California native residing on Kauai for the past 9 years. She has been a dedicated mother of two and hardworking entrepreneur for the past 6 years. Her goal is to represent the Kauai people in issues that matter most to our island community. She is focused on positive growth, sustainability, renewable energy, affordable living and finding the means to support our ailing public school system and salvaging it's fundamental art programs. The natural beauty of Kauai and its residences' are dear to her heart and in her best interest. Please support her campaign and enable her to represent your community and make a stand for Kauai as a council member.
At a page called "Keikilane" a profile of someone named Leialoha L Sanchez- also of Kapa`a according to her filing- says
I was born in the Philippines to a Navy Captain, William Flores of Kailua and a domestic engineer, Debra Naihe of Waimanalo. I have 2 older brothers, Kalani and Kaipo and a younger sister, Ka’ohu. After the death of our father, our family relocated to Kaua’i. We spent the remainder of our childhood there and like most ‘ohana’s living in rural Hawai’i; we are “thick as thieves”. I am happily married to my best friend, Robin, who weird enough shares the same middle name as me. We have 2 beautiful flowers (girls) who add to our arrangement, Ka’uolani who's 7 years old and Kaumakakaihuia who will be 3 years old in December. The day I became a teacher was the day I became a mother.
In 1997, I moved to Hilo to further my education. I attended Ka Haka Ula o Ke’elikolani Hawaiian Language College at the University of Hawai’i at Hilo. I graduated with my Bachelors of Arts degree in Hawaiian Language with a minor in Pacific Island History. My Bachelor’s degree has allowed me to work in several Hawaiian immersion schools and other charter schools that serve Native Hawaiian students and or provides a Native Hawaiian perspective to its students.
Reflection
As a teacher, I found it to be true that education is the one constant in many children’s lives and has an immense influence in shaping the person they become. My work experiences have made more appreciative of education as a way of life rather than a career.
Assuming it is the same person who filed, Elizabeth K Toulon of Koloa is a scion of the kama`aina Knudsen/Toulon clan. According to "campaignmoney.com," she has given money to right wing PACS such as "Minuteman PAC Inc," an anti-immigration, "secure borders" organization and "Eagle Forum PAC," an anti-abortion PAC apparently under the control of Republican activist Phyllis Schlafly as well as to the brief 2008 presidential campaign of Elizabeth Dole, former Secretary of Transportation under President George W Bush.
And that it. Of course the deadline could be extended depending on a ruling from the federal courts- expected any day now- on the Hawai`i reapportionment plan. But that doesn't change the fact that no one seems interested in serving in office.
And who can blame them. As jobs go it's a real stinker and can be a career killer. The salary sucks for both legislator and council and, although each is considered a part time job, they take up most of your time and limit your employment choices because an "understanding boss" is a necessity.
Job security is a real conundrum. If you do keep getting reelected you then get pegged in the public's eye as one of those "professional politicians" that no one likes. As soon as you're an incumbent you're automatically just the latest bum to be thrown out.
Who needs it? Just to get started, as anyone who knows the drill will tell you, the first thing you need to do is get out your extensive address book and call 100 friends and ask them each for $100. If you can't do that successfully you better just forget it. And if you get that done then it's time to cold-call a list of another 1000 people and ask each of them for $100.
If you do happen to get elected- usually not because the voters especially like you but because they really dislike the other guy- every one of those people who gave you money is going to call you and ask you for something... usually something you'd rather not do. And if you want to get reelected you have to either do what they ask or figure out how to turn them down without pissing them off.
Of course that's not to mention spending every waking moment you're not at work at the high school girls' water polo games, Tutu's baby lu`au or Uncle's birthday and every other boring vacuous event you'd never in your right mind attend... oh- and walk up to and schmooze everyone there, even those assholes you'd never otherwise talk to.
Do you really need to ask why no one is running? We're surprised that anyone ever does.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
P.O.H.A.K.U.: ROCKIN' IN THE SHAY WORLD; A PNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
P.O.H.A.K.U.: ROCKIN' IN THE SHAY WORLD;
WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL WANTS ANSWERED ON PROSECUTOR'S SIGNATURE DIVERSION PROGRAM?
A PNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
(PNN) -- Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's much ballyhooed P.O.H.A.K.U. program to "divert" minor offenders from jail has blown-up recently as two councilmembers have tried to ask questions about the program while the rest have blocked those queries, even refusing to hold closed door discussions of the program.
A PNN investigation has uncovered what some of those questions may be and found both process and monetary improprieties associated with the program as well as false claims on the part of Iseri and conflicts of interest within the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA).
For those who have not followed the council machinations lately, for weeks now Iseri, her First Deputy Jake Delaplane and her chief ally on the council Mel Rapozo have thwarted Councilmembers JoAnn Yukimura and Tim Bynum from even discussing the P.O.H.A.K.U. program, with the latest dust-up occurring at Friday's budget session for the OPA.
The council has twice defeated requests for an executive session with County Attorney Al Castillo, and when Council Chair Jay Furfaro was at a doctor's appointment Friday morning, Rapozo acted as chair and banned all discussion of P.O.H.A.K.U.
That enraged Bynum and Yukimura with Yukimura forced to withhold a power point presentation she had prepared to expose some of the alleged wrongdoing in the P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
But Rapozo banned discussion despite its direct relevance to the the agenda item: the OPA's budget, because, he claimed, County Attorney Al Castillo had banned the discussion- something Castillo later denied.
For those who want a blow-by-blow of the multi-level, multi-player chess game of the past month or so, including Friday's budget session, we recommend reading Joan Conrow's Kaua`i Eclectic coverage here, here and here
The overriding question no one has answered is why? What is Iseri so apparently trying to hide? No one can honestly watch the meetings without asking themselves that question. Why are she and Delaplane "running out the clock" with repetitive power point presentations and long winded answers to questions no one asked every time they are subjected to council questioning?
So what are Yukimura and Bynum trying to question her about?
The key to answering that is apparently a company that, despite Iseri's claim that the program is fully of her design and implementation, is apparently the entity that is responsible for the nuts and bolts of the P.O.H.A.K.U. program... a company called Strategic Justice Partners (SJP) LLC of Nevada.
Politically, P.O.H.A.K.U., which has been implemented for a few years now, has been a key to Iseri's campaign for re-election and she has promoted it recently in two articles in the local newspaper touting community meetings and the program's alleged successes. Iseri's official P.O.H.A.K.U. website calls it "a new innovative diversion program that was designed by the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) as an alternative to the traditional court process."
But although SJP has never publicly been mentioned by Iseri or her department's personnel, a look at the bottom of the P.O.H.A.K.U. web site says "Content copyright 2011-2012. Strategic Justice Partners. All rights reserved."
And a visit to the SJP web site reveals where the program really came from. The very first thing you see there on the right side is the statement that:
Strategic Justice Partners is a leader in Alternative Sentencing, Diversion and Early Release Programs.
"Our Diversion programs have a 94% completion rate with over 96% of participants rating their experience as "good" or "outstanding".
And under the "What We Do" button it describes a service that sound exactly like the P.O.H.A.K.U. program, saying they provide:
Diversion Programs
Diversion Programs result in lower recidivism than “Stand in line-Pay a fine” justice while dramatically reducing the burden and costs on Prosecutors and Courts. http://www.strategicjusticepartners.com/What_We_Do.html
And the main program exemplary of their work? At the top of the left had side of the home page of the site is a color photo of a smiling, lei-bedecked Iseri alongside a photo of a Kaua`i-style poi pounder (the symbol of P.O.H.A.K.U.) under the title "Kaua'i County Hawai`i; P.O.H.A.K.U. Program." and a blurb that says "We are pleased to introduce P.O.H.A.K.U., an innovative alternative to the traditional court Process."
It doesn't really say who "we" is but the context demands one interpret it as being SJP especially because it's their web site.
Iseri has recently been holding a series of meetings- meetings dutifully reported upon by the local newspaper- apparently as a part of, or at least in conjunction with, her campaign for re-election in the fall. One example of how she has used P.O.H.A.K.U. for political haymaking at every turn is the wording of a communication to the county council for a special council meeting on April 11.
At the time Iseri was asking the "Council approval to apply for and receive Technical Assistance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Vera Institute of Justice's national Cost-Benefit Knowledge Bank for Criminal Justice," although it has since been withdrawn at Iseri's request, apparently because that would have opened the door to questioning about P.O.H.A.K.U.
What would make us say that might be the reason? Well, Iseri had already applied for the "technical assistance" before the item was to have been approved by the council. Not only that but she withdrew the request after all the other delay requests on her part had failed... and she did so in a late night email to the chair, sent the night before the meeting where P.O.H.A.K.U. was to have been discussed.
But it's the rest of the communication that had many laughing at the unique wording that was anything but the usual kind of straightforward "communications for approval." It went on to say that the assistance "will allow the OPA to find innovative programs and develop procedures to ensure that the community is served in the most cost efficient manner and in the best way possible."
Some may say "so what?- it's politics... nothing wrong with that... they all do it." But we bring this up not just to point to the use of the program as a political tool for Iseri but to point out what exactly amounts to wrongdoing here.
It's not clear what precisely SJP's full role is. But what is true is that the association between the OPA and SJP has never come before the council nor has there even been any type of official "procurement process" for SJP's services, as provided by law.
Any "grant" to any department or for that matter any donation of anything, including information or assistance must, by law, come before the county council for approval. It's usually in an official communication for approval to "apply for, accept and indemnify" as the agenda item would normally read. But the words "Strategic Justice Partners" have never been mentioned in even verbal form to the council much less written.
That would be for a grant or donation type of thing. What if the OPA is involved financially with SJP? The fact is that there has never been any official procurement of services from SJP. Nor of course has there ever been a type of contract or "memorandum of agreement" (MOA) which would also have to have been approved by the council.
Finally there have never been any HRS Chapter 91 Administrative Rules promulgated, which according to state law are required to establish procedures for how, say, the OPA would engage with SJP in the P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
But all that is just procedural. Here's what happens if you, as they say, "follow the money."
Because SJP is a Nevada corporation if it wants to do business in Hawai`i it must file with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) and have an "agent" in Hawai`i.
The DCCA filing shows SJP to be a for-profit corporation and the agent in Hawai`i is none other than Iseri's second-in-command, Delaplane.
The filing is simply the initial corporate document and apparently no 2012 report has been submitted. There is nothing to indicate whether Delaplane is being paid for being the sole representative of SJP in Hawai`i. But the fact that he is both their agent and part of the team that is contracting with SJP- the OPA- makes for a blatant conflict of interest.
So who gets what money and where does it come from?
The upcoming OPA's budget for 2013 shows a request for around $20,000 for four different diversion programs although there is no breakdown of how much of that would go to P.O.H.A.K.U. That is one reason why Yukimura and Bynum were asking questions- or want to ask them- in the first place; to find out how much is for each program and in fact what the county funding mechanism(s) for P.O.H.A.K.U. actually are/is. It also "opens the door" so to speak, to discuss the program.
But PNN did learn of one funding source that isn't listed anywhere and certainly has not been communicated to the council.
At Iseri's P.O.H.A.K.U. website those in the program can go to the "Register for Class" page. Under "P.O.H.A.K.U. Class Registration" it says:
You may schedule your P.O.H.A.K.U. class date below.
You must pay your program fees prior to registering.
You may REGISTER with a credit or debit card below or visit any Bank of Hawaii Branch with the deposit slip you were given (emphasis added).
And, PNN has learned, that the "deposit slip" is filled out to deposit $200 to an account bearing the name of, not the County of Kaua`i as one would expect for a program designed and run by Iseri but rather, Strategic Justice Partners.
According to testimony by Delaplane on Friday before the council 49 people have completed the program and so what is clear is that at least that many have paid SJP $200 each for a total of almost $10,000.
What is not clear however is whether the money is refunded if the person doesn't complete the diversion program. The question of how many people failed has, of course, not been discussed because nothing about POHAKU has been able to be discussed, even though both Delaplane and Iseri were permitted to tout it Friday during their "power point" presentation to the council on the budget.
Even- or maybe especially- if the OPA never sees or touches a nickel, improprieties abound with this setup. As we said, P.O.H.A.K.U. itself has never even been approved by the council. Plus, there has never been a procurement of services for SJP nor has there been any MOA, both of which would have to come before the council for approval.
Oh- and one more thing.
The only person listed as a "member" of SJP is one Kirk Barrus. That means he is the sole owner of SJP. Yet a search of SJP's web site does not readily yield Barrus' name- or any other associated with the company.
So who is Barrus? What is his background?
According to David Lazarus' "Consumer Confidential" in the February 20, 2008, Los Angeles Times, Kirk Barrus was the Senior Vice President and spokesperson for a company called American Corrective Counseling Services (ACCS).
In an article in which Lazarus discusses Bush-era court rulings providing full immunity to companies doing business with the government he cites the example of "AT&T and Verizon immunity for their roles in any past and future eavesdropping on the American people."
But ACCS was not granted immunity in the case at hand and Lazarus writes that:
when it comes to public-private canoodling, the most egregious case I've seen recently involved a San Clemente company, American Corrective Counseling Services, that worked with public prosecutors to go after people who bounced checks.
He describes the scam this way:
In contacting consumers, ACCS represented itself as actually being the district attorney's office, even though the cases involved may not have been vetted in advance by an actual prosecutor.
In return for its efforts, ACCS typically would be entitled to a $100 fee and as much as 60% of any fines paid...
Lois Artz, a 72-year-old resident of the Northern California city of Petaluma, received what looked like a very serious letter from the Sonoma County district attorney's office in November 2005.
"The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office has received a CRIME REPORT alleging you have violated Penal Code 476(a) of the California State Statute: Issuing a Worthless Check," the letter warned.
"A conviction under this statute is punishable by up to one (1) year in county jail, or in a state prison, and up to $1,000 in fines," it said.
The letter advised Artz, a former Bank of America branch manager, to enroll in a "bad check restitution program" and to pay $196.62 in fines.
"When I saw that letter, I almost fainted," she told me. "I was beside myself."
Her crime, Artz said, was writing a check for a $26.62 carton of smokes and not having sufficient funds in her bank account to cover it. Artz said she'd been distracted caring for her daughter, who has breast cancer, but she knows that's no excuse.
What troubled her was that her case seemingly was elevated with alarming speed to the level of criminal prosecution without anyone trying to work things out with her.
"I was humiliated and terrified," Artz said. "I felt like any time I turned around, there would be somebody there telling me to come with them."
According to court documents, ACCS went after more than 100,000 Californians in 2001, the latest year for which data are available. And most if not all those people believed they'd been contacted by a government agency, not a private company.
In speaking for ACCS, Barrus
denied that the company acts independently when it chases down suspected check scofflaws.
"We operate under the total control of the district attorney," he said. "We're basically a secretarial service, and therefore should carry the district attorney's immunity.
"They're not letters from a private company," Barrus insisted. "They're letters from a district attorney."
There is another article in The Press Democrat describing the situation in more detail
The fact that the council has questions for Iseri about P.O.H.A.K.U. shouldn't surprise anybody.
We'd certainly like to know a few things.
Did SJP receive other funds such as ACCS did in collecting "as much as 60% of any fines paid" in the California case? Did the OPA either receive or expend any funding directly or indirectly to or from SJP? What exactly is Delaplane's role? What does he do as "agent?" Is he a paid agent? If so, how much? If so, what if anything is Iseri's cut? Doesn't Delaplane or Iseri see an inherent conflict in a operation where someone- so far apparently SJP- is receiving at least $10,000? Why is Iseri so transparently covering up her and the OPA's association with SJP? Is it simply to take credit for a program she didn't really design and implement or is there more?.. perhaps a financial association?
We haven't been able to uncover all the facts or follow all the money. But we sure hope that Rapozo- along with Councilmembers Kipukai Kuali`i, Dickie Chang, and Chair Jay Furfaro- stop blocking at least an executive session but preferably have a full public airing of the issues involved.
Oh by the way- Kuali`i refused to recuse himself from discussions of the OPA's budget despite the fact that the Erin Wilson Victim Witness position cut by Iseri- which is the subject of a complaint by Wilson as we discussed in January - was contracted out to the YWCA where Kuali`i works.
The next thing scheduled for the matter is an executive session set to take place April 30.
WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL WANTS ANSWERED ON PROSECUTOR'S SIGNATURE DIVERSION PROGRAM?
A PNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
(PNN) -- Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's much ballyhooed P.O.H.A.K.U. program to "divert" minor offenders from jail has blown-up recently as two councilmembers have tried to ask questions about the program while the rest have blocked those queries, even refusing to hold closed door discussions of the program.
A PNN investigation has uncovered what some of those questions may be and found both process and monetary improprieties associated with the program as well as false claims on the part of Iseri and conflicts of interest within the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA).
For those who have not followed the council machinations lately, for weeks now Iseri, her First Deputy Jake Delaplane and her chief ally on the council Mel Rapozo have thwarted Councilmembers JoAnn Yukimura and Tim Bynum from even discussing the P.O.H.A.K.U. program, with the latest dust-up occurring at Friday's budget session for the OPA.
The council has twice defeated requests for an executive session with County Attorney Al Castillo, and when Council Chair Jay Furfaro was at a doctor's appointment Friday morning, Rapozo acted as chair and banned all discussion of P.O.H.A.K.U.
That enraged Bynum and Yukimura with Yukimura forced to withhold a power point presentation she had prepared to expose some of the alleged wrongdoing in the P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
But Rapozo banned discussion despite its direct relevance to the the agenda item: the OPA's budget, because, he claimed, County Attorney Al Castillo had banned the discussion- something Castillo later denied.
For those who want a blow-by-blow of the multi-level, multi-player chess game of the past month or so, including Friday's budget session, we recommend reading Joan Conrow's Kaua`i Eclectic coverage here, here and here
The overriding question no one has answered is why? What is Iseri so apparently trying to hide? No one can honestly watch the meetings without asking themselves that question. Why are she and Delaplane "running out the clock" with repetitive power point presentations and long winded answers to questions no one asked every time they are subjected to council questioning?
So what are Yukimura and Bynum trying to question her about?
The key to answering that is apparently a company that, despite Iseri's claim that the program is fully of her design and implementation, is apparently the entity that is responsible for the nuts and bolts of the P.O.H.A.K.U. program... a company called Strategic Justice Partners (SJP) LLC of Nevada.
Politically, P.O.H.A.K.U., which has been implemented for a few years now, has been a key to Iseri's campaign for re-election and she has promoted it recently in two articles in the local newspaper touting community meetings and the program's alleged successes. Iseri's official P.O.H.A.K.U. website calls it "a new innovative diversion program that was designed by the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) as an alternative to the traditional court process."
But although SJP has never publicly been mentioned by Iseri or her department's personnel, a look at the bottom of the P.O.H.A.K.U. web site says "Content copyright 2011-2012. Strategic Justice Partners. All rights reserved."
And a visit to the SJP web site reveals where the program really came from. The very first thing you see there on the right side is the statement that:
Strategic Justice Partners is a leader in Alternative Sentencing, Diversion and Early Release Programs.
"Our Diversion programs have a 94% completion rate with over 96% of participants rating their experience as "good" or "outstanding".
And under the "What We Do" button it describes a service that sound exactly like the P.O.H.A.K.U. program, saying they provide:
Diversion Programs
Diversion Programs result in lower recidivism than “Stand in line-Pay a fine” justice while dramatically reducing the burden and costs on Prosecutors and Courts. http://www.strategicjusticepartners.com/What_We_Do.html
And the main program exemplary of their work? At the top of the left had side of the home page of the site is a color photo of a smiling, lei-bedecked Iseri alongside a photo of a Kaua`i-style poi pounder (the symbol of P.O.H.A.K.U.) under the title "Kaua'i County Hawai`i; P.O.H.A.K.U. Program." and a blurb that says "We are pleased to introduce P.O.H.A.K.U., an innovative alternative to the traditional court Process."
It doesn't really say who "we" is but the context demands one interpret it as being SJP especially because it's their web site.
Iseri has recently been holding a series of meetings- meetings dutifully reported upon by the local newspaper- apparently as a part of, or at least in conjunction with, her campaign for re-election in the fall. One example of how she has used P.O.H.A.K.U. for political haymaking at every turn is the wording of a communication to the county council for a special council meeting on April 11.
At the time Iseri was asking the "Council approval to apply for and receive Technical Assistance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Vera Institute of Justice's national Cost-Benefit Knowledge Bank for Criminal Justice," although it has since been withdrawn at Iseri's request, apparently because that would have opened the door to questioning about P.O.H.A.K.U.
What would make us say that might be the reason? Well, Iseri had already applied for the "technical assistance" before the item was to have been approved by the council. Not only that but she withdrew the request after all the other delay requests on her part had failed... and she did so in a late night email to the chair, sent the night before the meeting where P.O.H.A.K.U. was to have been discussed.
But it's the rest of the communication that had many laughing at the unique wording that was anything but the usual kind of straightforward "communications for approval." It went on to say that the assistance "will allow the OPA to find innovative programs and develop procedures to ensure that the community is served in the most cost efficient manner and in the best way possible."
Some may say "so what?- it's politics... nothing wrong with that... they all do it." But we bring this up not just to point to the use of the program as a political tool for Iseri but to point out what exactly amounts to wrongdoing here.
It's not clear what precisely SJP's full role is. But what is true is that the association between the OPA and SJP has never come before the council nor has there even been any type of official "procurement process" for SJP's services, as provided by law.
Any "grant" to any department or for that matter any donation of anything, including information or assistance must, by law, come before the county council for approval. It's usually in an official communication for approval to "apply for, accept and indemnify" as the agenda item would normally read. But the words "Strategic Justice Partners" have never been mentioned in even verbal form to the council much less written.
That would be for a grant or donation type of thing. What if the OPA is involved financially with SJP? The fact is that there has never been any official procurement of services from SJP. Nor of course has there ever been a type of contract or "memorandum of agreement" (MOA) which would also have to have been approved by the council.
Finally there have never been any HRS Chapter 91 Administrative Rules promulgated, which according to state law are required to establish procedures for how, say, the OPA would engage with SJP in the P.O.H.A.K.U. program.
But all that is just procedural. Here's what happens if you, as they say, "follow the money."
Because SJP is a Nevada corporation if it wants to do business in Hawai`i it must file with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) and have an "agent" in Hawai`i.
The DCCA filing shows SJP to be a for-profit corporation and the agent in Hawai`i is none other than Iseri's second-in-command, Delaplane.
The filing is simply the initial corporate document and apparently no 2012 report has been submitted. There is nothing to indicate whether Delaplane is being paid for being the sole representative of SJP in Hawai`i. But the fact that he is both their agent and part of the team that is contracting with SJP- the OPA- makes for a blatant conflict of interest.
So who gets what money and where does it come from?
The upcoming OPA's budget for 2013 shows a request for around $20,000 for four different diversion programs although there is no breakdown of how much of that would go to P.O.H.A.K.U. That is one reason why Yukimura and Bynum were asking questions- or want to ask them- in the first place; to find out how much is for each program and in fact what the county funding mechanism(s) for P.O.H.A.K.U. actually are/is. It also "opens the door" so to speak, to discuss the program.
But PNN did learn of one funding source that isn't listed anywhere and certainly has not been communicated to the council.
At Iseri's P.O.H.A.K.U. website those in the program can go to the "Register for Class" page. Under "P.O.H.A.K.U. Class Registration" it says:
You may schedule your P.O.H.A.K.U. class date below.
You must pay your program fees prior to registering.
You may REGISTER with a credit or debit card below or visit any Bank of Hawaii Branch with the deposit slip you were given (emphasis added).
And, PNN has learned, that the "deposit slip" is filled out to deposit $200 to an account bearing the name of, not the County of Kaua`i as one would expect for a program designed and run by Iseri but rather, Strategic Justice Partners.
According to testimony by Delaplane on Friday before the council 49 people have completed the program and so what is clear is that at least that many have paid SJP $200 each for a total of almost $10,000.
What is not clear however is whether the money is refunded if the person doesn't complete the diversion program. The question of how many people failed has, of course, not been discussed because nothing about POHAKU has been able to be discussed, even though both Delaplane and Iseri were permitted to tout it Friday during their "power point" presentation to the council on the budget.
Even- or maybe especially- if the OPA never sees or touches a nickel, improprieties abound with this setup. As we said, P.O.H.A.K.U. itself has never even been approved by the council. Plus, there has never been a procurement of services for SJP nor has there been any MOA, both of which would have to come before the council for approval.
Oh- and one more thing.
The only person listed as a "member" of SJP is one Kirk Barrus. That means he is the sole owner of SJP. Yet a search of SJP's web site does not readily yield Barrus' name- or any other associated with the company.
So who is Barrus? What is his background?
According to David Lazarus' "Consumer Confidential" in the February 20, 2008, Los Angeles Times, Kirk Barrus was the Senior Vice President and spokesperson for a company called American Corrective Counseling Services (ACCS).
In an article in which Lazarus discusses Bush-era court rulings providing full immunity to companies doing business with the government he cites the example of "AT&T and Verizon immunity for their roles in any past and future eavesdropping on the American people."
But ACCS was not granted immunity in the case at hand and Lazarus writes that:
when it comes to public-private canoodling, the most egregious case I've seen recently involved a San Clemente company, American Corrective Counseling Services, that worked with public prosecutors to go after people who bounced checks.
He describes the scam this way:
In contacting consumers, ACCS represented itself as actually being the district attorney's office, even though the cases involved may not have been vetted in advance by an actual prosecutor.
In return for its efforts, ACCS typically would be entitled to a $100 fee and as much as 60% of any fines paid...
Lois Artz, a 72-year-old resident of the Northern California city of Petaluma, received what looked like a very serious letter from the Sonoma County district attorney's office in November 2005.
"The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office has received a CRIME REPORT alleging you have violated Penal Code 476(a) of the California State Statute: Issuing a Worthless Check," the letter warned.
"A conviction under this statute is punishable by up to one (1) year in county jail, or in a state prison, and up to $1,000 in fines," it said.
The letter advised Artz, a former Bank of America branch manager, to enroll in a "bad check restitution program" and to pay $196.62 in fines.
"When I saw that letter, I almost fainted," she told me. "I was beside myself."
Her crime, Artz said, was writing a check for a $26.62 carton of smokes and not having sufficient funds in her bank account to cover it. Artz said she'd been distracted caring for her daughter, who has breast cancer, but she knows that's no excuse.
What troubled her was that her case seemingly was elevated with alarming speed to the level of criminal prosecution without anyone trying to work things out with her.
"I was humiliated and terrified," Artz said. "I felt like any time I turned around, there would be somebody there telling me to come with them."
According to court documents, ACCS went after more than 100,000 Californians in 2001, the latest year for which data are available. And most if not all those people believed they'd been contacted by a government agency, not a private company.
In speaking for ACCS, Barrus
denied that the company acts independently when it chases down suspected check scofflaws.
"We operate under the total control of the district attorney," he said. "We're basically a secretarial service, and therefore should carry the district attorney's immunity.
"They're not letters from a private company," Barrus insisted. "They're letters from a district attorney."
There is another article in The Press Democrat describing the situation in more detail
The fact that the council has questions for Iseri about P.O.H.A.K.U. shouldn't surprise anybody.
We'd certainly like to know a few things.
Did SJP receive other funds such as ACCS did in collecting "as much as 60% of any fines paid" in the California case? Did the OPA either receive or expend any funding directly or indirectly to or from SJP? What exactly is Delaplane's role? What does he do as "agent?" Is he a paid agent? If so, how much? If so, what if anything is Iseri's cut? Doesn't Delaplane or Iseri see an inherent conflict in a operation where someone- so far apparently SJP- is receiving at least $10,000? Why is Iseri so transparently covering up her and the OPA's association with SJP? Is it simply to take credit for a program she didn't really design and implement or is there more?.. perhaps a financial association?
We haven't been able to uncover all the facts or follow all the money. But we sure hope that Rapozo- along with Councilmembers Kipukai Kuali`i, Dickie Chang, and Chair Jay Furfaro- stop blocking at least an executive session but preferably have a full public airing of the issues involved.
Oh by the way- Kuali`i refused to recuse himself from discussions of the OPA's budget despite the fact that the Erin Wilson Victim Witness position cut by Iseri- which is the subject of a complaint by Wilson as we discussed in January - was contracted out to the YWCA where Kuali`i works.
The next thing scheduled for the matter is an executive session set to take place April 30.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
DRIVING MR. CRAZY
DRIVING MR. CRAZY: It's been almost a dozen years since the first in a line of Kaua`i county attorneys began a new interpretation regarding just exactly whom they serve.
And it's been almost a dozen years that we've been waiting for a Kaua`i County Charter amendment that would put some kind of "public component" back into the job.
But even though a proposed charter amendment is in the pipeline it appears it's only going to make things worse.
Of course that is predictable considering the source.
Councilperson Mel Rapozo can always be counted upon to make muddy political waters even murkier. This time he's outdone himself with a pair of Resolutions, #'s 2012-22 and 2012-23 (neither of which is apparently available on-line), that, rather than put the Office of the County Attorney (CA) as far outside the reach of politics as is possible in county government, will insure that petty disagreements between future councils and administrations grow to Hatfield and McCoy proportions.
The first, Resolution 2012-22 is not actually directly related to the county attorney. But it is a result of the original event that begat the short-circuiting smoke currently emanating from the ears adjacent to Rapozo's decidedly less-than-legal mind.
The "reso" stems from Mel's head-scratching and seemingly meaningless obsession over last year's "late" salary commission (SC) proposal. It spawned a CA opinion that explained what "shall" meant in the context of the SC section of the charter, saying it was "administrative" rather than "directional" and citing some judicial rulings to that affect.
It basically said "give it a rest Mel."
But them's fightin' words to the Baboozster.
Rapozo decided to go to circuit court for a "ruling" but Judge Randall Valenciano essentially said the same thing as the CA had said. So now Mel has decided to take his obsession to the voters and, in Resolution 2012-22 he proposes to put the matter before the voters.
The rest of the council seems less than enthusiastic and at the second and potentially final reading last Wednesday they deferred the measure "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To Definitions Of 'Shall', 'Must', And 'May.'"
Oh joy... we can hardly wait to see how those terms will be defined in the "Mel Rapozo Legal Dictionary." We wouldn't want to depend on Black's when we can get it straight from the horse's read end.
But Mel wasn't done. After proposing to redefine legal terms with a Rapozian slant, he's decided that it was the dastardly-brilliant legal mind of Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. that concocted well-known Philadelphia Lawyer, CA Al Castillo's opinion on the matter.
As a result of Mel's fixation he came up with "Resolution No. 2012-23 "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To The Establishment Of The Office Of The Council Attorney" which would apparently divide the CA's office in two giving both the administration and the council their own independent county attorneys.
The pertinent parts of the current charter under "Article VIII- County Attorney" say:
Section 8.02. Appointment and Removal. The county attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, with the approval of the council....
Section 8.04. Powers, Duties and Functions. The county attorney shall be the chief legal adviser and legal representative of all agencies, including the council, and of all officers and employees in matters relating to their official powers and duties, and he shall represent the county in all legal proceedings. He shall perform all other services incident to his office as may be required by law.
But perhaps because he operates like them, Rapozo sees a political ghostie and ghoulie behind every door of the county's administrative offices and wants to enshrine his suspicions about Castillo's "opinions" by altering the county's overriding legal document, the charter, in his own image.
To understand how things got to this point- other than by simply saying "Mel got elected"- we need to go back to the history and evolution of the the functioning of the CA's office.
In 2001, then-newly-elected Mayor Bryan Baptiste hired current county "good-old-girl" Lani Nakazawa to her first-of-many positions with the county. She succeeded former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka's CA, Hartwell Blake, who rarely opined on anything other than how comfortable he was spending most of his years in the job sleeping under the air conditioner in the back of the council chambers.
Although the charter section on the CA is silent on anything relating to serving the public, before Nakazawa took office, CA's generally thought of the job as one that, while advising county administrative personnel as well as the council, publicly opined on questions of law regarding the county's charter, ordinances and administrative rules and routinely released those opinions to the public. .
He- yes of course they had all been "he's"- did it as part of what they saw as an implied "public component" of the CA's job.
When the 2006 Charter Review Commission (CRC) had its first confab one appointee was the former CA under then-Mayor JoAnn Yukimura, Michael Belles.
We attended that first meeting of the panel which was comprised of many surprisingly open-to-change appointees. In addition to testifying about our own experiences with shortcomings of the charter, we spoke to Belles during a break.
He asked what the one item was that we would most like see tackled. Our answer was "a total reorganization of all of Article VIII: County Attorney" especially parts regarding the "Appointment and Removal" and "Powers, Duties and Functions," excerpted above.
We explained the problems under Nakazawa which had included the fact that her strict reading of the section meant that she saw no public element to her job serving only county employees and officials- and never releasing any opinions unless her "clients" released them.
We even suggested that the CA become an elected position, thereby solving many of the problems created by conflicts between the mayor and council- or any two county entities for that matter.
Belles was surprised at the turn of events since his time as CA and said that during his tenure he would have "never imagined" that there was no "public component" to the job. As a matter of fact, he told us, he couldn't remember ever not releasing any of his or his offices opinion's of law.
A proposed amendment regarding the Office of the County Attorney's (OCA) never made it on any CRC list- it wasn't exactly a sexy issue and probably way too "inside baseball" for the public and maybe even the CRC. It wasn't even on commission members' radar screens.
They eventually put around a dozen-and-a-half amendments before the voters after narrowing it down from more than 30 original proposals so as to make citizen deliberation and decision-making manageable at election time.
But nothing on the OCA.
Ever since Nakazawa's reign, every county attorney has refused to release to the public opinions regarding interpretation of laws, especially those requested by the council. Add to that a council scheme to avoid releasing them until some convoluted, much debated, "process" for doing so was in place- something which the council under former-Chair Kaipo Asing quite mysteriously (yeah, right) could never figure out how to do- and of course no opinions were ever released.
That set up years of "Star Chamber" activities where not only couldn't they tell the public what the opinions were but the council would go into closed door "executive sessions (ES)" to even discuss what they were going to be discussing.
This year, under new Council Chair Jay Furfaro and after a years-on-end attempt by Councilmember Tim Bynum to just get the matter on the agenda under Asing, not only has a process been set up but opinions have even allegedly been "released."
But that's a big "allegedly."
Because damned if anyone has been able to get copies of the opinion or even find out if they have actually been released because the votes to release them have either been done in ES or, if they have actually been voted upon in open session, it's been done after the TV cameras have ceased to roll.
We still have not been able to get a copy of- or even figure out if it's available- the infamous opinion which, quite apparently, is actually at the heart of the Rapozo's discontent... the one that apparently says the mayor, not the police commission, has the authority to "discipline" or "suspend" the chief of police.
It's a perfect example of the continued dysfunction. The question of the release of that opinion was on the council's ES agenda for weeks on end only to stop appearing in March. Despite having asked numerous people who should be in the know, we still haven't been able to get a straight answer to the question of whether it's now a public document- much less get a copy of it if it is.
Oh sure- everyone including the Sultan of Brunei has referred to what the opinion supposedly says. But just try to get more than that out of anybody.
Today we're stuck with a definition of the appointment and duties of the CA that were written over 40 years ago at and for a time when the size of county government was probably less than a tenth of that of today. And the potential for political machination in- and so politicization of- the Office of the CA has grown exponentially along with that growth.
Throw one Mel Rapozo into the mix and something's gotta give.
Unfortunately the lack of political visionaries sitting around the council table- or at least ones willing to publicly spar with Mel over the matter- has enabled the original squeaky wheel to be poised to get all the grease.
And, as we intimated above, don't expect the CRC to tackle it. Chair Sherman Shiraishi has fully defeated the purpose of the CRC by coming before the council to ask them what they think each and every proposal the CRC is considering, effectively cutting the three ways of getting a charter amendment on the ballot- by citizen petition, by council resolution or by the CRC placing it there- down to two.
It looks like the council and mayor are going to "throw a rod" on the County's Truck-of-State long before anyone even bothers to look under the hood much less tackle a proper engine rebuild with what's best for the public in mind.
There's only one place that vehicle is being driven... and that's nuts.
And it's been almost a dozen years that we've been waiting for a Kaua`i County Charter amendment that would put some kind of "public component" back into the job.
But even though a proposed charter amendment is in the pipeline it appears it's only going to make things worse.
Of course that is predictable considering the source.
Councilperson Mel Rapozo can always be counted upon to make muddy political waters even murkier. This time he's outdone himself with a pair of Resolutions, #'s 2012-22 and 2012-23 (neither of which is apparently available on-line), that, rather than put the Office of the County Attorney (CA) as far outside the reach of politics as is possible in county government, will insure that petty disagreements between future councils and administrations grow to Hatfield and McCoy proportions.
The first, Resolution 2012-22 is not actually directly related to the county attorney. But it is a result of the original event that begat the short-circuiting smoke currently emanating from the ears adjacent to Rapozo's decidedly less-than-legal mind.
The "reso" stems from Mel's head-scratching and seemingly meaningless obsession over last year's "late" salary commission (SC) proposal. It spawned a CA opinion that explained what "shall" meant in the context of the SC section of the charter, saying it was "administrative" rather than "directional" and citing some judicial rulings to that affect.
It basically said "give it a rest Mel."
But them's fightin' words to the Baboozster.
Rapozo decided to go to circuit court for a "ruling" but Judge Randall Valenciano essentially said the same thing as the CA had said. So now Mel has decided to take his obsession to the voters and, in Resolution 2012-22 he proposes to put the matter before the voters.
The rest of the council seems less than enthusiastic and at the second and potentially final reading last Wednesday they deferred the measure "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To Definitions Of 'Shall', 'Must', And 'May.'"
Oh joy... we can hardly wait to see how those terms will be defined in the "Mel Rapozo Legal Dictionary." We wouldn't want to depend on Black's when we can get it straight from the horse's read end.
But Mel wasn't done. After proposing to redefine legal terms with a Rapozian slant, he's decided that it was the dastardly-brilliant legal mind of Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. that concocted well-known Philadelphia Lawyer, CA Al Castillo's opinion on the matter.
As a result of Mel's fixation he came up with "Resolution No. 2012-23 "Proposing A Charter Amendment Relating To The Establishment Of The Office Of The Council Attorney" which would apparently divide the CA's office in two giving both the administration and the council their own independent county attorneys.
The pertinent parts of the current charter under "Article VIII- County Attorney" say:
Section 8.02. Appointment and Removal. The county attorney shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor, with the approval of the council....
Section 8.04. Powers, Duties and Functions. The county attorney shall be the chief legal adviser and legal representative of all agencies, including the council, and of all officers and employees in matters relating to their official powers and duties, and he shall represent the county in all legal proceedings. He shall perform all other services incident to his office as may be required by law.
But perhaps because he operates like them, Rapozo sees a political ghostie and ghoulie behind every door of the county's administrative offices and wants to enshrine his suspicions about Castillo's "opinions" by altering the county's overriding legal document, the charter, in his own image.
To understand how things got to this point- other than by simply saying "Mel got elected"- we need to go back to the history and evolution of the the functioning of the CA's office.
In 2001, then-newly-elected Mayor Bryan Baptiste hired current county "good-old-girl" Lani Nakazawa to her first-of-many positions with the county. She succeeded former Mayor Maryanne Kusaka's CA, Hartwell Blake, who rarely opined on anything other than how comfortable he was spending most of his years in the job sleeping under the air conditioner in the back of the council chambers.
Although the charter section on the CA is silent on anything relating to serving the public, before Nakazawa took office, CA's generally thought of the job as one that, while advising county administrative personnel as well as the council, publicly opined on questions of law regarding the county's charter, ordinances and administrative rules and routinely released those opinions to the public. .
He- yes of course they had all been "he's"- did it as part of what they saw as an implied "public component" of the CA's job.
When the 2006 Charter Review Commission (CRC) had its first confab one appointee was the former CA under then-Mayor JoAnn Yukimura, Michael Belles.
We attended that first meeting of the panel which was comprised of many surprisingly open-to-change appointees. In addition to testifying about our own experiences with shortcomings of the charter, we spoke to Belles during a break.
He asked what the one item was that we would most like see tackled. Our answer was "a total reorganization of all of Article VIII: County Attorney" especially parts regarding the "Appointment and Removal" and "Powers, Duties and Functions," excerpted above.
We explained the problems under Nakazawa which had included the fact that her strict reading of the section meant that she saw no public element to her job serving only county employees and officials- and never releasing any opinions unless her "clients" released them.
We even suggested that the CA become an elected position, thereby solving many of the problems created by conflicts between the mayor and council- or any two county entities for that matter.
Belles was surprised at the turn of events since his time as CA and said that during his tenure he would have "never imagined" that there was no "public component" to the job. As a matter of fact, he told us, he couldn't remember ever not releasing any of his or his offices opinion's of law.
A proposed amendment regarding the Office of the County Attorney's (OCA) never made it on any CRC list- it wasn't exactly a sexy issue and probably way too "inside baseball" for the public and maybe even the CRC. It wasn't even on commission members' radar screens.
They eventually put around a dozen-and-a-half amendments before the voters after narrowing it down from more than 30 original proposals so as to make citizen deliberation and decision-making manageable at election time.
But nothing on the OCA.
Ever since Nakazawa's reign, every county attorney has refused to release to the public opinions regarding interpretation of laws, especially those requested by the council. Add to that a council scheme to avoid releasing them until some convoluted, much debated, "process" for doing so was in place- something which the council under former-Chair Kaipo Asing quite mysteriously (yeah, right) could never figure out how to do- and of course no opinions were ever released.
That set up years of "Star Chamber" activities where not only couldn't they tell the public what the opinions were but the council would go into closed door "executive sessions (ES)" to even discuss what they were going to be discussing.
This year, under new Council Chair Jay Furfaro and after a years-on-end attempt by Councilmember Tim Bynum to just get the matter on the agenda under Asing, not only has a process been set up but opinions have even allegedly been "released."
But that's a big "allegedly."
Because damned if anyone has been able to get copies of the opinion or even find out if they have actually been released because the votes to release them have either been done in ES or, if they have actually been voted upon in open session, it's been done after the TV cameras have ceased to roll.
We still have not been able to get a copy of- or even figure out if it's available- the infamous opinion which, quite apparently, is actually at the heart of the Rapozo's discontent... the one that apparently says the mayor, not the police commission, has the authority to "discipline" or "suspend" the chief of police.
It's a perfect example of the continued dysfunction. The question of the release of that opinion was on the council's ES agenda for weeks on end only to stop appearing in March. Despite having asked numerous people who should be in the know, we still haven't been able to get a straight answer to the question of whether it's now a public document- much less get a copy of it if it is.
Oh sure- everyone including the Sultan of Brunei has referred to what the opinion supposedly says. But just try to get more than that out of anybody.
Today we're stuck with a definition of the appointment and duties of the CA that were written over 40 years ago at and for a time when the size of county government was probably less than a tenth of that of today. And the potential for political machination in- and so politicization of- the Office of the CA has grown exponentially along with that growth.
Throw one Mel Rapozo into the mix and something's gotta give.
Unfortunately the lack of political visionaries sitting around the council table- or at least ones willing to publicly spar with Mel over the matter- has enabled the original squeaky wheel to be poised to get all the grease.
And, as we intimated above, don't expect the CRC to tackle it. Chair Sherman Shiraishi has fully defeated the purpose of the CRC by coming before the council to ask them what they think each and every proposal the CRC is considering, effectively cutting the three ways of getting a charter amendment on the ballot- by citizen petition, by council resolution or by the CRC placing it there- down to two.
It looks like the council and mayor are going to "throw a rod" on the County's Truck-of-State long before anyone even bothers to look under the hood much less tackle a proper engine rebuild with what's best for the public in mind.
There's only one place that vehicle is being driven... and that's nuts.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
IF TREES FALL ON KAUA`I WILL DEVELOPERS COMPREHENSIVELY ZONE IT?
IF TREES FALL ON KAUA`I WILL DEVELOPERS COMPREHENSIVELY ZONE IT?: The first step in what will arguably be the most important process taken up by the county council in recent memory was taken today after more than 20 years of discussion.
And most likely no one will notice. Or care.
The long delayed "CZO update" passed "first reading" today and will be going to a public hearing soon. But the measure, designed to clarify and simplify zoning on the island will probably do more to confuse and complicate matters than anything else.
According to the purpose statement of the bill (#2433) this "first phase" of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) update is "focusing on organizational and format changes," and said to be "non-substantive" by council staffer Peter Morimoto.
It's 166 pages long... and that's the short version. The full "Ramseyered" version- with underlines and brackets to denote additions and deletions, respectively- is a thick monster of a document which was waved in the air at today's meeting. But since it replaces the entire CZO it has been introduced in the "short" form.
But just wait. The second "substantive bill" will no doubt be even longer and more complicated because it contains all the changes that the council and planning department have been putting off ever since the original CZO was passed in 1972.
Prior to then Kaua`i was "anything goes" when it came to building anything at all, anywhere one desired. That's why you see structures over 40 years old that make you ask "how did they ever allow that to be built?"--not just for the construction itself but for the location.
The 1972 CZO established standards for the first time on Kaua`i and has been amended in dribs and drabs over the years to form what one council member called a "hodgepodge" of a document that has plagued everyone who's tried to use it for decades.
Many "general" amendments were delayed or just blown off because no one knew where to put them or what precisely needed to change. And the ones that did get passed were just stuck in anywhere.
Since the mid 80's, every time the council came up against a problem with the document they would inevitably throw up their hands and say, "well- that's another one for the 'CZO update'." But of course that update never happened- until now.
Former Mayor from 1988-94 and now Council member JoAnn Yukimura told the council at today's "extended" meeting (after yesterday's power outage caused the meeting to be re-convened this morning) that her administration had worked on getting it done. And Council Chair Jay Furfaro said that when he served as Chair of the Planning Commission in 1997 he was promised by the planning department that it would be ready for commission scrutiny "by the end of the year."
Over the past decade-plus the council has appropriated money at least twice (some say three times but who's counting?) to allow the planning department to hire a consultant as the process became longer and more complicated.
That was during the reign of Planning Director Ian Costa whose use of what we've called "the fog" managed to bamboozle the council with promises of "soon" followed by requests for more money, followed by more promises of "soon" and more requests for more money.
Anyway, according to the purpose section of this first "housekeeping" bill:
The County of Kaua`i adopted the first General Plan in 1971 (updated in 1984 and 2000).
Subsequently, the County of Kaua`i adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) in 1972. Since its adoption, the County of Kaua`i has approved several amendments to specific provisions of the CZO. However, the CZO has not been updated in a comprehensive manner since its adoption.
In order to present the CZO update in a more orderly fashion, the CZO Update has been divided into two phases, with the first phase focusing on organizational and format changes. This involves mainly moving or relocating existing provisions to more appropriate locations in the code. The first phase also includes the re-codification of ordinance amendments made to the CZO. The second phase will show the newly reformatted document with recommended substantive changes to the code in a Ramseyered format which will be forthcoming after the first phase has been completed.
Thus, the purpose of this ordinance is to complete the first phase of the CZO update by adopting all organizational, format changes, and to re-codify ordinance amendments made to the CZO to date.
The "second phase" will supposedly contain all the changes that people have sought over the years. But that, in and of itself, is going to be much longer and much, much more complicated.
And of course controversial.
You can count on the fact that developers will want certain measures to be amenable to development while the public interest will be to maintain control over that very development.
The devil will be in the details. With hundreds of pages of old and new provisions all up for grabs you can bet that the monied side will have banks of attorneys scrutinizing each "shall," "will" and "may" for an advantage- that all important "technicality" that will make a judge take notice.
Add to that the recent cap on development that was instituted after a petition-derived charter amendment limited growth to an amount determined in the general plan. And add to that the fact that another general plan update is due to commence any time now with the last one having been completed in 2002 and a charter mandate that they occur once every 10 years.
You can bet that the "development community" will be seeking to water down slow growth and "keep Kaua`i, Kaua`i" forces at bay at every step of the process.
The second phase will not be introduced until this first phase is done according to council staff and the content will come from the planning department where it will go though public hearings and planning commission approval before it eventually reaches the council.
If regular citizens want to participate in that process, the time to organize is not when the bill hits the council floor, but now while there is still time to formulate positions and get ready for those first planning commission hearings.
What the timeline is for all of this is anyone's guess. But those who are concerned about growth on Kaua`i can't start paying attention to this one too soon because there is no doubt the other side is already at work, having waited many years for this "opportunity."
As an aside, the actual text of the bill is available on-line, although apparently council members weren't aware of that today. That's probably because it's not at the council's page at the county web site but as part of the "Granicus" site, which is the company that does the video of the council meetings and where items are both streamed live and archived.
It's also where the "paperwork" accompanying each item on the council's agenda is now being posted.
A couple of weeks ago we wrote about the appearance of this "paperwork" for council agenda items on-line after years of delay- much of the delay, as we said, apparently intentional. At the time we complained that although Granicus was finally posting the material it was not in "text" form but rather as a scanned document.
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/03/now-you-dont-see-it-now-you-still-dont.html
This week, however, many of the documents- including bills, resolutions and other communications- started to appear in text form, allowing the words to be copied and pasted from the document.
That's where the CZO update bill is posted and since the "new" CZO will replace the old one in its entirety, the new one is simply posted in its entirety.
We point this out because the council seemed blissfully unaware of the posting, even through apparently someone on their staff provided Granicus with the documents in the text format.
During the meeting council members kept asking their staff to "scan" and post a copy, seemingly unaware of the fact that it was available to the public in a text format through Granicus, although not in the Ramseyer format. But if Granicus could post the one they have there now, couldn't they also have put up a text-format copy of the Ramseyered document? (Unless the purpose is to cut down thousands of trees to provide paper to print everything out.)
Did anyone ever check to see if Kaipo Asing or Peter Nakamura had stock in either Georgia Pacific or Weyerhauser?
Well, we wouldn't be happy if we didn't have something to complain about.
And most likely no one will notice. Or care.
The long delayed "CZO update" passed "first reading" today and will be going to a public hearing soon. But the measure, designed to clarify and simplify zoning on the island will probably do more to confuse and complicate matters than anything else.
According to the purpose statement of the bill (#2433) this "first phase" of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) update is "focusing on organizational and format changes," and said to be "non-substantive" by council staffer Peter Morimoto.
It's 166 pages long... and that's the short version. The full "Ramseyered" version- with underlines and brackets to denote additions and deletions, respectively- is a thick monster of a document which was waved in the air at today's meeting. But since it replaces the entire CZO it has been introduced in the "short" form.
But just wait. The second "substantive bill" will no doubt be even longer and more complicated because it contains all the changes that the council and planning department have been putting off ever since the original CZO was passed in 1972.
Prior to then Kaua`i was "anything goes" when it came to building anything at all, anywhere one desired. That's why you see structures over 40 years old that make you ask "how did they ever allow that to be built?"--not just for the construction itself but for the location.
The 1972 CZO established standards for the first time on Kaua`i and has been amended in dribs and drabs over the years to form what one council member called a "hodgepodge" of a document that has plagued everyone who's tried to use it for decades.
Many "general" amendments were delayed or just blown off because no one knew where to put them or what precisely needed to change. And the ones that did get passed were just stuck in anywhere.
Since the mid 80's, every time the council came up against a problem with the document they would inevitably throw up their hands and say, "well- that's another one for the 'CZO update'." But of course that update never happened- until now.
Former Mayor from 1988-94 and now Council member JoAnn Yukimura told the council at today's "extended" meeting (after yesterday's power outage caused the meeting to be re-convened this morning) that her administration had worked on getting it done. And Council Chair Jay Furfaro said that when he served as Chair of the Planning Commission in 1997 he was promised by the planning department that it would be ready for commission scrutiny "by the end of the year."
Over the past decade-plus the council has appropriated money at least twice (some say three times but who's counting?) to allow the planning department to hire a consultant as the process became longer and more complicated.
That was during the reign of Planning Director Ian Costa whose use of what we've called "the fog" managed to bamboozle the council with promises of "soon" followed by requests for more money, followed by more promises of "soon" and more requests for more money.
Anyway, according to the purpose section of this first "housekeeping" bill:
The County of Kaua`i adopted the first General Plan in 1971 (updated in 1984 and 2000).
Subsequently, the County of Kaua`i adopted the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) in 1972. Since its adoption, the County of Kaua`i has approved several amendments to specific provisions of the CZO. However, the CZO has not been updated in a comprehensive manner since its adoption.
In order to present the CZO update in a more orderly fashion, the CZO Update has been divided into two phases, with the first phase focusing on organizational and format changes. This involves mainly moving or relocating existing provisions to more appropriate locations in the code. The first phase also includes the re-codification of ordinance amendments made to the CZO. The second phase will show the newly reformatted document with recommended substantive changes to the code in a Ramseyered format which will be forthcoming after the first phase has been completed.
Thus, the purpose of this ordinance is to complete the first phase of the CZO update by adopting all organizational, format changes, and to re-codify ordinance amendments made to the CZO to date.
The "second phase" will supposedly contain all the changes that people have sought over the years. But that, in and of itself, is going to be much longer and much, much more complicated.
And of course controversial.
You can count on the fact that developers will want certain measures to be amenable to development while the public interest will be to maintain control over that very development.
The devil will be in the details. With hundreds of pages of old and new provisions all up for grabs you can bet that the monied side will have banks of attorneys scrutinizing each "shall," "will" and "may" for an advantage- that all important "technicality" that will make a judge take notice.
Add to that the recent cap on development that was instituted after a petition-derived charter amendment limited growth to an amount determined in the general plan. And add to that the fact that another general plan update is due to commence any time now with the last one having been completed in 2002 and a charter mandate that they occur once every 10 years.
You can bet that the "development community" will be seeking to water down slow growth and "keep Kaua`i, Kaua`i" forces at bay at every step of the process.
The second phase will not be introduced until this first phase is done according to council staff and the content will come from the planning department where it will go though public hearings and planning commission approval before it eventually reaches the council.
If regular citizens want to participate in that process, the time to organize is not when the bill hits the council floor, but now while there is still time to formulate positions and get ready for those first planning commission hearings.
What the timeline is for all of this is anyone's guess. But those who are concerned about growth on Kaua`i can't start paying attention to this one too soon because there is no doubt the other side is already at work, having waited many years for this "opportunity."
As an aside, the actual text of the bill is available on-line, although apparently council members weren't aware of that today. That's probably because it's not at the council's page at the county web site but as part of the "Granicus" site, which is the company that does the video of the council meetings and where items are both streamed live and archived.
It's also where the "paperwork" accompanying each item on the council's agenda is now being posted.
A couple of weeks ago we wrote about the appearance of this "paperwork" for council agenda items on-line after years of delay- much of the delay, as we said, apparently intentional. At the time we complained that although Granicus was finally posting the material it was not in "text" form but rather as a scanned document.
http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/03/now-you-dont-see-it-now-you-still-dont.html
This week, however, many of the documents- including bills, resolutions and other communications- started to appear in text form, allowing the words to be copied and pasted from the document.
That's where the CZO update bill is posted and since the "new" CZO will replace the old one in its entirety, the new one is simply posted in its entirety.
We point this out because the council seemed blissfully unaware of the posting, even through apparently someone on their staff provided Granicus with the documents in the text format.
During the meeting council members kept asking their staff to "scan" and post a copy, seemingly unaware of the fact that it was available to the public in a text format through Granicus, although not in the Ramseyer format. But if Granicus could post the one they have there now, couldn't they also have put up a text-format copy of the Ramseyered document? (Unless the purpose is to cut down thousands of trees to provide paper to print everything out.)
Did anyone ever check to see if Kaipo Asing or Peter Nakamura had stock in either Georgia Pacific or Weyerhauser?
Well, we wouldn't be happy if we didn't have something to complain about.
Friday, March 23, 2012
TAKING THE MINOTAUR BY THE HORNS
TAKING THE MINOTAUR BY THE HORNS: People are always claiming "I hate to tell you 'I told you so,' but..."
Yet who are we kidding?- we love to do it.
So today we'll set up what will most assuredly be a little "see?" moment, sometime in the near future.
The agenda for next Wednesday's council meeting contains the following item:
C 2012-98 Request (03/13/2012) from the Police Commission for authorization to expend funds up to $10,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a complaint with the Fifth Circuit Court and asking for a declaratory judgment as to who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
In addition the council has scheduled a closed-door, executive session (ES 535) for
a briefing on the retention of special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a declaratory action to determine who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
But let us save you some time and money folks- neither judge on Kaua`i is going to even rule on the matter. Both of them will tell you that essentially this is a political matter that needs a political solution.
Fifth Circuit Judges Randall Valenciano and Kathleen Watanabe have both shown this propensity for "punting" before and it's doubtful they will change now.
We've found it amusing that both "sides"- the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. vs. Police Chief Darryl Perry and the Kaua`i Police Commission- both adamantly claim the charter gives them the power to discipline the chief.
But, as we've said a number of times there is nothing in the charter or Kaua`i County Code- or for that matter state law- regarding who has the authority to discipline or suspend the chief.
Hiring and/or firing him or her does rest with the police commission. But otherwise the law is "silent."
Watenabe has a history of punting these kinds of things. For example, in her decisions regarding various cases of disturbances of `iwi kupuna- the bones of native Hawaiians- by developers, she adamantly refused to rule, saying that the laws and regulations regarding the individual island burial councils and the State Historical Preservation Department (SHPD) that oversees the process, are unclear and that the legislature needs to clear thing up.
Our description is an oversimplification. But what is clear is that Watanabe did indicate that the solution was a political decision, not a judicial one.
As to Valenciano he was recently asked by Council members Mel Rapozo and Kipukai Kuali`i to clear up the use of the word "shall" in a matter regarding the Kaua`i Salary Commission's March 15 deadline for submission of their yearly "recommendations." County Attorney Al Castillo had written an opinion that, in this case, ""shall" was used "administratively" and therefor has to be read as "should."
But when the two council members went before Valenciano's court, he also said that it was a political matter and not only didn't the two have standing but that they should look to changing the law to make things clear rather than asking him to essentially split a baby.
Does anyone think that in this case either of the judges are going to get involved? Both come from a government background and perspective, Watanabe having served as county attorney and in other government jobs and Valenciano having been a long-time council member, even running for mayor one time. Both have a healthy respect for letting the government wheels turn as freely as possible and apparently do not want to get involved in inter-agency squabbles like the one over who should discipline the chief.
The ball here is clearly and fully in the council's court as we said in the post cited above.
Section 7.05 of the Kaua`i County Charter details the "Powers, Duties and Functions" of the mayor.
There are 13 "Powers, Duties and Functions" The very last one reads:
M. Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter or by ordinance. (emphasis added)
This means that the council can actually pass an ordinance regardless of whether the charter defines a specific power of the mayor or not. This is somewhat unusual in that powers not designated in a controlling document cannot normally just be taken in an inferior document (such as the charter and an ordinance respectively)... unless, as it is in this case, it is specifically granted.
The council also has the power to put a charter amendment before the electorate via a resolution.
But either way the problem here is that it exists in the political realm. It is doubly political in that the council must make a political decision as to which entity they want to give that power to- whether they do so via an ordinance or a charter amendment.
Should they give it to the mayor or to the police commission? They will no doubt face criticism for doing either. If they passed an ordinance, first they would have to decide themselves which way to go. If they proposed a charter amendment, they could only propose one or the other for the electorate to vote for- there's no provision for having a referendum type of charter amendment- so they face the same dilemma.
In either scenario, if the council decides to spent the $10,000, the money is completely wasted.
And we're pretty confident that if they do approve the expenditure, we'll wind up with a nice "we told you so" to tack up on the wall with all the others.
Yet who are we kidding?- we love to do it.
So today we'll set up what will most assuredly be a little "see?" moment, sometime in the near future.
The agenda for next Wednesday's council meeting contains the following item:
C 2012-98 Request (03/13/2012) from the Police Commission for authorization to expend funds up to $10,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a complaint with the Fifth Circuit Court and asking for a declaratory judgment as to who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
In addition the council has scheduled a closed-door, executive session (ES 535) for
a briefing on the retention of special counsel to represent the Police Commission in filing a declaratory action to determine who has the authority to supervise and/or discipline the Chief of Police.
But let us save you some time and money folks- neither judge on Kaua`i is going to even rule on the matter. Both of them will tell you that essentially this is a political matter that needs a political solution.
Fifth Circuit Judges Randall Valenciano and Kathleen Watanabe have both shown this propensity for "punting" before and it's doubtful they will change now.
We've found it amusing that both "sides"- the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. vs. Police Chief Darryl Perry and the Kaua`i Police Commission- both adamantly claim the charter gives them the power to discipline the chief.
But, as we've said a number of times there is nothing in the charter or Kaua`i County Code- or for that matter state law- regarding who has the authority to discipline or suspend the chief.
Hiring and/or firing him or her does rest with the police commission. But otherwise the law is "silent."
Watenabe has a history of punting these kinds of things. For example, in her decisions regarding various cases of disturbances of `iwi kupuna- the bones of native Hawaiians- by developers, she adamantly refused to rule, saying that the laws and regulations regarding the individual island burial councils and the State Historical Preservation Department (SHPD) that oversees the process, are unclear and that the legislature needs to clear thing up.
Our description is an oversimplification. But what is clear is that Watanabe did indicate that the solution was a political decision, not a judicial one.
As to Valenciano he was recently asked by Council members Mel Rapozo and Kipukai Kuali`i to clear up the use of the word "shall" in a matter regarding the Kaua`i Salary Commission's March 15 deadline for submission of their yearly "recommendations." County Attorney Al Castillo had written an opinion that, in this case, ""shall" was used "administratively" and therefor has to be read as "should."
But when the two council members went before Valenciano's court, he also said that it was a political matter and not only didn't the two have standing but that they should look to changing the law to make things clear rather than asking him to essentially split a baby.
Does anyone think that in this case either of the judges are going to get involved? Both come from a government background and perspective, Watanabe having served as county attorney and in other government jobs and Valenciano having been a long-time council member, even running for mayor one time. Both have a healthy respect for letting the government wheels turn as freely as possible and apparently do not want to get involved in inter-agency squabbles like the one over who should discipline the chief.
The ball here is clearly and fully in the council's court as we said in the post cited above.
Section 7.05 of the Kaua`i County Charter details the "Powers, Duties and Functions" of the mayor.
There are 13 "Powers, Duties and Functions" The very last one reads:
M. Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this charter or by ordinance. (emphasis added)
This means that the council can actually pass an ordinance regardless of whether the charter defines a specific power of the mayor or not. This is somewhat unusual in that powers not designated in a controlling document cannot normally just be taken in an inferior document (such as the charter and an ordinance respectively)... unless, as it is in this case, it is specifically granted.
The council also has the power to put a charter amendment before the electorate via a resolution.
But either way the problem here is that it exists in the political realm. It is doubly political in that the council must make a political decision as to which entity they want to give that power to- whether they do so via an ordinance or a charter amendment.
Should they give it to the mayor or to the police commission? They will no doubt face criticism for doing either. If they passed an ordinance, first they would have to decide themselves which way to go. If they proposed a charter amendment, they could only propose one or the other for the electorate to vote for- there's no provision for having a referendum type of charter amendment- so they face the same dilemma.
In either scenario, if the council decides to spent the $10,000, the money is completely wasted.
And we're pretty confident that if they do approve the expenditure, we'll wind up with a nice "we told you so" to tack up on the wall with all the others.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
NOW YOU DON'T SEE IT, NOW YOU STILL DON'T SEE IT
NOW YOU DON'T SEE IT, NOW YOU STILL DON'T SEE IT: We realize that criticizing the council today may be one of those "no good deeds goes unpunished" type of things. After all, it only took a decade and half to get the paperwork for council agenda items posted on-line after the promise had been made to get it done "tout suite."
So today we have an excuse for our usual "but we digress" style.
Legendary local Kaua`i newspaper Editor Jean Holmes tells the story of how, when the paper's founder Charlie Fern hired her from the Howard County Times in Maryland, he assigned her to cover the Kaua`i County Council.
"When I walked in they practically had to put their pants on" she used to say of the colorful, equally legendary (albeit for different reasons) cast of council characters who had never seen a woman in the council chambers, much less a "lady reporter."
When we first attended a meeting in the pre-television days, not much had changed except that a different cast of characters were perturbed, this time at a haole hippie being in their midst.
Proceedings came to a screeching halt but after a bit of "who the heck are you and what are you here for?" then-County Clerk "Bunji" Shimomura (are we even close to the correct name and or spelling of either?) informed them, much to their astonishment, that indeed they had to allow members of the public- even this apparent wild man- to observe them in action.
But TV changed things. Dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990's, public access TV put council proceedings under the public microscope, albeit in fits and starts with officials finding ways to delay and indeed at times suspend cablecasts until almost 2000.
Around the same time, something called the "internet" was burgeoning and it took a mammoth effort to just get the weekly agendas posted at "kauai.com"- the domain purchased by then-Mayor Maryanne Kusaka, despite the fact that governments already had "dot gov" domains reserved exclusively for them.
By then, as a regular, we had gotten used to the cat and mouse game that interested members of the public, like the notorious "nitpickers"- and even reporters- were required to play, especially when it came to obtaining the aforementioned paperwork. The most annoying flaming hoop was the one called "how can you ask for it by name if you don't know it exists?". The OIP wasn't exactly accessible those days- even with a long distance call there was no "attorney of the day"- so we got pretty much got only what they wanted us to get.
But then suddenly, with the ascension of Ron Kouchi to Council Chair and Republican Kusaka in the mayor’s seat, revealing administration scandals- from, gem-gate to red-Chrysler-gate- became Kouchi's favorite game and the paperwork- especially the juicy stuff- began flowing on a more regular basis.
But there was a catch- although by the early 2000's the council's agendas began to be posted on-line the associated paperwork was available only at Council Services desk. Of course the game in those days was that agendas for the then-Thursday meetings came out as or after the doors to Council Services were locked for the weekend- with the required six days notice for meetings conveniently reduced to three beginning Monday at 9 a.m.
Than meant the already small window got smaller still and required a trip to Lihu`e to boot.
So, with the turn of the century began our quixotic century quest to get that paperwork posted on-line. But so too started the paternalistic reign of Chair Kaipo "it's not public information until I say it's public information... and the OIP can 'bite me'" Asing.
You get the idea. For ten years councilmembers promised posting of documents would begin post haste. Eventually though, not only Asing but even those self-same councilmembers- now having seen who was politically buttering their Portuguese Sweet Bread- were suddenly silent on the issue.
Without those documents by the way, the community would probably never know about the slew of sexual harassment cases which we only found out about because the suit was included- perhaps accidentally- in the "packet." Previous to that we had to be handed papers cloak and dagger style by anonymous sources- one time literally under a toilet stall.
Of course the main problem now is that although the paperwork is available- not at the council's page of the county web site but through "Granicus," a huge mainland company that is contracted to produce and "webcast" the meetings- it is not available in a "text" format but as a "scanned" file.
That means that someone trying to use any of the paperwork to testify- or for any reason like informing others- cannot simply "lift" the text from the file but must re-type it.
It is also probably a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) because the "voice recognition" software used by the visually-challenged will not work with a "picture" of the piece of paper- which is what is essentially what is being used by the county, which apparently supplies Granicus with the files.
Of course some of the paperwork either wasn't created in text or doesn't lend itself to text such as maps or graphs or the like. But there is what is called "Optical Recognition" software which is widely used these days to convert a scanned picture of the words into a "text file." Although errors may be contained in the conversion, going back and comparing it with the original is certainly preferable having to "key in" a 5,000 word document or even a 100-word quote.
Of course we complain because we do this all the time- take documents and post them in text. We have a friend (yes- we do have a few despite being a recovering asshole-a-holic) who has been very generous with his/her time in doing conversions for us. But the county could do this once, for everybody... after all they say they've had to create a new full-time position just to post the already available paperwork.
Scanning and posting around 25- 50 pages apparently takes 40 hours a week. Guess they had to look for an available slug because there wasn't a competent tortoise or snail on the civil service list (sorry- nothing personal, just personnel).
We just discovered the availability of the files today so we don't know yet when the documents will be posted each week (why do we suspect they won't be available when the agenda is ready- usually on Thursdays- but rather as late as they can get away with?.. maybe because we've been dealing with these guys for almost 30 years).
We're not sure who is responsible for the postings- given that "new" Council Chair Jay Furfaro has been on the job for 15 months now without change and brand new County Clerk Ricky Watenabe has been on the job for only about a month or so, we suspect that it is Ricky's doing... especially since Rick has been one of the only senior staffers in council services who has not just made himself available but actually never lied through his teeth to us or evaded our questions and/or requests, lo these decades.
Anyway there's still some stuff missing like committee reports, some communications, legal documents (a real biggie as to digging out news) and even a resolution and a bill for second reading (meaning "ready for final passage") as well as of course whatever is available for executive sessions- another document treasure trove which, many times, is where court filings of lawsuits may be available since they are public records.
So yes- it is a "what have you done for me lately" type of thing. Maybe we should make like the local newspaper... sit down, shut up and say "thanks for the crumbs massah"
All we can say is "put your pants on ladies and gentlemen of the council, there are woman and kids- and wildly rabid reporters- watching.
So today we have an excuse for our usual "but we digress" style.
Legendary local Kaua`i newspaper Editor Jean Holmes tells the story of how, when the paper's founder Charlie Fern hired her from the Howard County Times in Maryland, he assigned her to cover the Kaua`i County Council.
"When I walked in they practically had to put their pants on" she used to say of the colorful, equally legendary (albeit for different reasons) cast of council characters who had never seen a woman in the council chambers, much less a "lady reporter."
When we first attended a meeting in the pre-television days, not much had changed except that a different cast of characters were perturbed, this time at a haole hippie being in their midst.
Proceedings came to a screeching halt but after a bit of "who the heck are you and what are you here for?" then-County Clerk "Bunji" Shimomura (are we even close to the correct name and or spelling of either?) informed them, much to their astonishment, that indeed they had to allow members of the public- even this apparent wild man- to observe them in action.
But TV changed things. Dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990's, public access TV put council proceedings under the public microscope, albeit in fits and starts with officials finding ways to delay and indeed at times suspend cablecasts until almost 2000.
Around the same time, something called the "internet" was burgeoning and it took a mammoth effort to just get the weekly agendas posted at "kauai.com"- the domain purchased by then-Mayor Maryanne Kusaka, despite the fact that governments already had "dot gov" domains reserved exclusively for them.
By then, as a regular, we had gotten used to the cat and mouse game that interested members of the public, like the notorious "nitpickers"- and even reporters- were required to play, especially when it came to obtaining the aforementioned paperwork. The most annoying flaming hoop was the one called "how can you ask for it by name if you don't know it exists?". The OIP wasn't exactly accessible those days- even with a long distance call there was no "attorney of the day"- so we got pretty much got only what they wanted us to get.
But then suddenly, with the ascension of Ron Kouchi to Council Chair and Republican Kusaka in the mayor’s seat, revealing administration scandals- from, gem-gate to red-Chrysler-gate- became Kouchi's favorite game and the paperwork- especially the juicy stuff- began flowing on a more regular basis.
But there was a catch- although by the early 2000's the council's agendas began to be posted on-line the associated paperwork was available only at Council Services desk. Of course the game in those days was that agendas for the then-Thursday meetings came out as or after the doors to Council Services were locked for the weekend- with the required six days notice for meetings conveniently reduced to three beginning Monday at 9 a.m.
Than meant the already small window got smaller still and required a trip to Lihu`e to boot.
So, with the turn of the century began our quixotic century quest to get that paperwork posted on-line. But so too started the paternalistic reign of Chair Kaipo "it's not public information until I say it's public information... and the OIP can 'bite me'" Asing.
You get the idea. For ten years councilmembers promised posting of documents would begin post haste. Eventually though, not only Asing but even those self-same councilmembers- now having seen who was politically buttering their Portuguese Sweet Bread- were suddenly silent on the issue.
Without those documents by the way, the community would probably never know about the slew of sexual harassment cases which we only found out about because the suit was included- perhaps accidentally- in the "packet." Previous to that we had to be handed papers cloak and dagger style by anonymous sources- one time literally under a toilet stall.
Of course the main problem now is that although the paperwork is available- not at the council's page of the county web site but through "Granicus," a huge mainland company that is contracted to produce and "webcast" the meetings- it is not available in a "text" format but as a "scanned" file.
That means that someone trying to use any of the paperwork to testify- or for any reason like informing others- cannot simply "lift" the text from the file but must re-type it.
It is also probably a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) because the "voice recognition" software used by the visually-challenged will not work with a "picture" of the piece of paper- which is what is essentially what is being used by the county, which apparently supplies Granicus with the files.
Of course some of the paperwork either wasn't created in text or doesn't lend itself to text such as maps or graphs or the like. But there is what is called "Optical Recognition" software which is widely used these days to convert a scanned picture of the words into a "text file." Although errors may be contained in the conversion, going back and comparing it with the original is certainly preferable having to "key in" a 5,000 word document or even a 100-word quote.
Of course we complain because we do this all the time- take documents and post them in text. We have a friend (yes- we do have a few despite being a recovering asshole-a-holic) who has been very generous with his/her time in doing conversions for us. But the county could do this once, for everybody... after all they say they've had to create a new full-time position just to post the already available paperwork.
Scanning and posting around 25- 50 pages apparently takes 40 hours a week. Guess they had to look for an available slug because there wasn't a competent tortoise or snail on the civil service list (sorry- nothing personal, just personnel).
We just discovered the availability of the files today so we don't know yet when the documents will be posted each week (why do we suspect they won't be available when the agenda is ready- usually on Thursdays- but rather as late as they can get away with?.. maybe because we've been dealing with these guys for almost 30 years).
We're not sure who is responsible for the postings- given that "new" Council Chair Jay Furfaro has been on the job for 15 months now without change and brand new County Clerk Ricky Watenabe has been on the job for only about a month or so, we suspect that it is Ricky's doing... especially since Rick has been one of the only senior staffers in council services who has not just made himself available but actually never lied through his teeth to us or evaded our questions and/or requests, lo these decades.
Anyway there's still some stuff missing like committee reports, some communications, legal documents (a real biggie as to digging out news) and even a resolution and a bill for second reading (meaning "ready for final passage") as well as of course whatever is available for executive sessions- another document treasure trove which, many times, is where court filings of lawsuits may be available since they are public records.
So yes- it is a "what have you done for me lately" type of thing. Maybe we should make like the local newspaper... sit down, shut up and say "thanks for the crumbs massah"
All we can say is "put your pants on ladies and gentlemen of the council, there are woman and kids- and wildly rabid reporters- watching.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
ASSORTED SECRET VALENTINES
ASSORTED SECRET VALENTINES: Although those involved with events surrounding the harassment compliant and subsequent shakeup in the Kaua`i Police Department have been tight lipped as to the "result" of Tuesday's Kaua`i Police Commission executive sessions on the matter, the Kaua`i County Council will apparently get some kind of closed-door briefing their own selves tomorrow, if only a session with the county attorney discussing the legality of Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s "removal" of Police Chief Darryl Perry a couple of weeks back.
Apparently Perry, along with Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan- the two Assistant Chiefs Perry he put on leave the day before Carvalho's ax similarly fell on him- remain on paid administrative leave pending who knows what.
But the council has scheduled its own closed door briefing tomorrow with an agenda notice that reads:
ES-524 Pursuant to HRS sections 92-4, 92-5(a)(4), and section 3.07(e) of the Kaua'i County Charter, the Office of the County Attorney, on behalf of the Council, requests an executive session with the Council to provide the Council with a briefing on the Mayor's authority to exercise direct supervision over or discipline of the Chief of Police. The briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
But although the public will not be privy to what presumably County Attorney Al Castillo tells them, citizens will be permitted to public vent their frustrations, not just for the council's edification but for that of the viewing public.
Also on the agenda is an interesting little item that, although also scheduled for a clandestine confab, reveals that someone in the county has been busy with shenanigans of their own.
Communication 2012-52 requests council's "authorization to expend funds up to $50,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Board of Ethics in BOE 11-003 and BOE 11-004 and related matters."
And what exactly are BOE 11-003 and 11-004? According to the December 9, 2011 Board of Ethics agenda:
BOE 11-003 Letter dated 11/25/11 requesting the BOE to initiate an investigation into allegations that an employee or officer of the county has improperly used county resources
BOR 11- 004 Letter dated 11/25/11 alleging an employee or officer of the county has improperly disclosed information and used their (sic) position to secure a benefit, privilege or exemption for them selves (sic) or others
This of course could be anything from simple theft to abuse of power. But it could also have to do with the alleged misconduct, primarily in the Department of Personnel, regarding filings for sick and vacation leave, as we reported the day the story of the suspension of the two assistant chiefs broke.
Whichever it is, it will certainly be one to watch.
And, in a followup to the story of the closing of the Jailhouse Pub and Grill and how it will effects the county's efforts to somehow return the municipal Wailua Golf Course to it's "enterprise fund" status- essentially a place where the county at least breaks even on running it, money-wise- one problem, albeit apparently a political one, is that has been that the way because of the way the charter reads and how fee setting has "worked" since the golf course's inception.
Currently it is the council that sets the rates per round. But a public discussion of the matter has already been held and it's obvious that the council doesn't want to be held responsible for raising ridiculously low rates for seniors and youth- especially in an election year. Yet the county attorney has verbally opined that they are somehow stuck doing it due to charter provisions that disallow the administrative setting of the rates by the Department of Parks and Recreation- where the council would much rather the authority reside.
The argument is that the rates need changing over and over in order to find the "point of diminishing returns"- the place where the cost of a round will not discourage people from playing in Wailua rather than the half a gazillion commercial golf courses- thus finding the "just right price" to optimize revenue.
Why they need to do this in executive session is anyone's guess but apparently the verbal expression of the legal situation by Castillo wasn’t enough and so tomorrow they will be:
consult(ing) with the County Attorney regarding the Council's release of the County Attorney's written legal opinion dated January 17,2012, regarding the delegation of fee setting for Wailua Golf Course and related matters.
As usual all the "good stuff" tomorrow will be done in executive session. Although the Minotaur has departed the labyrinth, "Uncle Kaipo Potter's Council Chamber of Secrets" is alive and functioning well. There's an unsubstantiated rumor going around (spread by us) that they’re working on creating a banner- costing $5,000 and to be funded in executive session- saying "Under New Management."
Perhaps they can borrow a practically brand new one from the Jailhouse Pub and Grill.
Apparently Perry, along with Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan- the two Assistant Chiefs Perry he put on leave the day before Carvalho's ax similarly fell on him- remain on paid administrative leave pending who knows what.
But the council has scheduled its own closed door briefing tomorrow with an agenda notice that reads:
ES-524 Pursuant to HRS sections 92-4, 92-5(a)(4), and section 3.07(e) of the Kaua'i County Charter, the Office of the County Attorney, on behalf of the Council, requests an executive session with the Council to provide the Council with a briefing on the Mayor's authority to exercise direct supervision over or discipline of the Chief of Police. The briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item.
But although the public will not be privy to what presumably County Attorney Al Castillo tells them, citizens will be permitted to public vent their frustrations, not just for the council's edification but for that of the viewing public.
Also on the agenda is an interesting little item that, although also scheduled for a clandestine confab, reveals that someone in the county has been busy with shenanigans of their own.
Communication 2012-52 requests council's "authorization to expend funds up to $50,000.00 to retain special counsel to represent the Board of Ethics in BOE 11-003 and BOE 11-004 and related matters."
And what exactly are BOE 11-003 and 11-004? According to the December 9, 2011 Board of Ethics agenda:
BOE 11-003 Letter dated 11/25/11 requesting the BOE to initiate an investigation into allegations that an employee or officer of the county has improperly used county resources
BOR 11- 004 Letter dated 11/25/11 alleging an employee or officer of the county has improperly disclosed information and used their (sic) position to secure a benefit, privilege or exemption for them selves (sic) or others
This of course could be anything from simple theft to abuse of power. But it could also have to do with the alleged misconduct, primarily in the Department of Personnel, regarding filings for sick and vacation leave, as we reported the day the story of the suspension of the two assistant chiefs broke.
Whichever it is, it will certainly be one to watch.
And, in a followup to the story of the closing of the Jailhouse Pub and Grill and how it will effects the county's efforts to somehow return the municipal Wailua Golf Course to it's "enterprise fund" status- essentially a place where the county at least breaks even on running it, money-wise- one problem, albeit apparently a political one, is that has been that the way because of the way the charter reads and how fee setting has "worked" since the golf course's inception.
Currently it is the council that sets the rates per round. But a public discussion of the matter has already been held and it's obvious that the council doesn't want to be held responsible for raising ridiculously low rates for seniors and youth- especially in an election year. Yet the county attorney has verbally opined that they are somehow stuck doing it due to charter provisions that disallow the administrative setting of the rates by the Department of Parks and Recreation- where the council would much rather the authority reside.
The argument is that the rates need changing over and over in order to find the "point of diminishing returns"- the place where the cost of a round will not discourage people from playing in Wailua rather than the half a gazillion commercial golf courses- thus finding the "just right price" to optimize revenue.
Why they need to do this in executive session is anyone's guess but apparently the verbal expression of the legal situation by Castillo wasn’t enough and so tomorrow they will be:
consult(ing) with the County Attorney regarding the Council's release of the County Attorney's written legal opinion dated January 17,2012, regarding the delegation of fee setting for Wailua Golf Course and related matters.
As usual all the "good stuff" tomorrow will be done in executive session. Although the Minotaur has departed the labyrinth, "Uncle Kaipo Potter's Council Chamber of Secrets" is alive and functioning well. There's an unsubstantiated rumor going around (spread by us) that they’re working on creating a banner- costing $5,000 and to be funded in executive session- saying "Under New Management."
Perhaps they can borrow a practically brand new one from the Jailhouse Pub and Grill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
