OIP RULES ASING HELD '09 EXECUTIVE SESSION ILLEGALLY; MEETING WAS KEY IN CHALLENGE TO ABUSE OF POWER CHARGES AGAINST FORMER CHAIR WHICH LED TO HIS OUSTER.
(PNN) A key Kaua`i County Council Executive Session (ES) held more than two years ago was not "allowed under the Sunshine Law," according to a "Memorandum Opinion" issued by the Office of Information Practices (OIP) on Friday (June 29, 2012).
The June 4, 2009 ES was a major skirmish in the war between former Council Chair Kaipo Asing and Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara over Asing's secrecy and dictatorial rule- a war which led eventually to the end of Asing's decades long political career when he was unseated in the 2010 election.
The opinion stated that:
In appropriate circumstances, a board may go into an unanticipated executive session with its attorney to discuss its ability to add an item to its agenda, so long as the board does not discuss the underlying item proposed to be added. See HRS § 92-5(a)(4) (Supp. 2011).
However, given the length of the executive session and the fact that the County Attorney publicly announced his advice on whether the proposed item could be added to the agenda by vote, OIP infers that the discussion was not limited to advice on that legal question. Because the Council failed to rebut that inference by explaining what discussion occurred during the executive session and why it properly fell within an executive session purpose, and failed to provide any evidence or arguments to meet its burden to justify the executive session, OIP cannot find that the executive session was allowed under the Sunshine Law.
As PNN reported on June 5 2009 the OIP had previously warned that holding such an ES would be a violation of the state open meetings or "Sunshine Law" (HRS 92). In the article PNN also detailed issues over Asing's abuses of power according to essays by Bynum and Kawahara. The essays were posted at their kauaiinfo.org web site which the two used to post documents and information on Asing's penchant for secrecy and, in the dust-up at hand, his use of ambiguous council rules to block Bynum from introducing measures before the council.
The opinion itself says that:
Requester (Bra Parsons) asked for an investigation into whether the Kauai County Council (Council) violated the Sunshine Law by holding an executive session to discuss a motion to add an item to the agenda for its meeting held on June 3, 2009 (the Meeting). Unless otherwise indicated, this opinion is based solely upon the facts presented in Requester’s e mail correspondence dated June 4, 2009 and attached materials. Although OIP requested the Council’s position on Requester’s complaint, including a detailed explanation of the events in question, in letters dated June 5 and December 2, 2009, the Council did not submit its position or any factual explanation of the events. OIP thus takes the factual accounts in materials submitted by Requester, and any reasonable inference therefrom, as uncontested. Requester relied primarily on the facts presented in an article in The Garden Island newspaper: Michael Levine, Following the Rules.
Levine's article, upon which OIP attorney Jennifer Brooks said she based most of the opinion, describes the meeting, saying:
With the only two avenues of adding an item to the agenda — with Asing’s initial or through a floor motion — effectively closed off, Asing, who finished fourth in voting in November’s election behind Vice Chair Jay Furfaro, newcomer Derek Kawakami and Bynum, has essentially vested in himself a preemptive veto power even surpassing that held by Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. in that Asing’s decisions cannot be overridden by a supermajority vote and that his decisions are shielded from public view.
After Bynum made the motion at the outset of Wednesday’s meeting, Asing moved the discussion to the end of the agenda.
Five hours later, after dealing with the six-page agenda, Asing said Section 92-7(d) of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes precluded the council from voting on or even discussing Bynum’s resolution because it is of “reasonably major importance and action thereon by the board will affect a significant number of persons.”
Bynum provided to his fellow council members and the public a May 15 e-mail correspondence between himself and state Office of Information Practices staff attorney Jennifer Brooks in which she told him his proposed resolution “does not appear to be of reasonably major importance or to affect a significant number of people” and “appears suitable to be added to the agenda by a 2/3 vote, and the council would be acting in good faith in so adding it.”
Castillo said the unanticipated matter should be discussed in executive session to protect the council from potential liability. After a 5-2 vote approving the secret session — Bynum and Lani Kawahara dissented — the council closed its doors for about an hour.
When it reconvened, Castillo told the council “the proposed resolution encroaches upon the duties of the chairman as the presiding officer of the council. Therefore it is of reasonably major importance. The way that the council is run affects all of the people in this county.”
“The people of Kaua‘i did not have an opportunity to know what was placed on the agenda. That’s the reason for the Sunshine Law,”Castillo said, adding that there are rules in place to govern how much time must elapse between the public posting of the agenda and the meeting to which it applies.
After Asing called the meeting back to order and ended discussion by quickly adjourning it to comply with Castillo’s advice, the chair was asked if there were plans to include Bynum’s resolution on the agenda for the next meeting.
“No,” he said.
When asked if there was any reason why it would not be, as there is now enough time to bring the council into compliance with the Sunshine Law by posting the agenda item in advance of the June 16 meeting, Asing said, “Nothing especially.”
“I am just following the rules of the council,” he said.
Readers can access additional PNN coverage of the matter via Parx News Daily archives from 2009. Some key posts include:
Tuesday, June 9, 2009: (PNN) OIP OPENS INVESTIGATION OF COUNCIL’S EXECUTIVE SESSION ON DENYING AGENDA ACCESS TO COUNCILMEMBERS
Wednesday, June 10, 2009: DON’T LET GO, DON’T LET GO
Thursday, June 11, 2009: DARKNESS, DARKNESS
Friday, June 12, 2009: ON AND ON, ON AND ON, ON AND ON
Monday, June 15, 2009: A DAY AT THE RACES
Wednesday, June 17, 2009: (PNN) KAWAHARA, BYNUM OUTMANEUVER ASING, NAKAMURA; DISCUSSION OF RULE CHANGES PUT ON FUTURE AGENDA.
Thursday, June 18, 2009: SAME OLD DOG, SAME OLD TRICK:
Because the OIP opinion is not (yet) available on line we are posting the entire "Statement of Reasons for Opinion" below:
Requester asked for an investigation and enforcement action against the Kauai County Council based on various news reports of the Meeting. Specifically, Requester questioned whether the Council’s executive session held to discuss a motion to add an item to its agenda was proper under the Sunshine Law.
At the time of the Meeting, the Council’s Rule 10 allowed any member to introduce any bill or resolution, but required bills and resolutions to be initialed by the Council Chair before being placed on an agenda. Certain members complained that the Council’s then-Chair would not initial bills and resolutions they requested, thus preventing those items from being placed on the Council’s agenda. One of the members thus affected, Tim Bynum, brought a motion during the Meeting to add to the Meeting’s agenda a resolution to amend Rule 10 to clarify that the Council Chair could not use the initialing requirement to indefinitely postpone hearing bills or resolutions requested by a Council member. The Chair moved discussion on Mr. Bynum’s pending motion to the end of the Meeting’s agenda.
When the Council reached the end of its agenda five hours later, the Chair, supported by County Attorney Al Castillo (County Attorney), stated that Mr. Bynum’s motion to add a resolution clarifying Rule 10 to the agenda could not be voted on because the issue was of reasonably major importance and action thereon would affect a significant number of persons. Mr. Bynum responded by sharing an e-mail dated May 15, 2009, from OIP Staff Attorney Jennifer Brooks, which advised that the proposed resolution did “not appear to be of reasonably major importance or to affect a significant number of people,” that it “appear[ed] suitable to be added to the agenda by a 2/3 vote,” and that the Council “would be acting in good faith in so adding it.”
The County Attorney then advised the Council, which still had not voted on the motion to add an item to its agenda, to discuss the motion in executive session to protect the Council from potential liability. The Council voted 5-2 in favor of going into executive session, apparently for the purpose of consulting with its attorney, and then went into a closed session for about an hour. When the public meeting reconvened, the County Attorney announced that “the proposed resolution encroaches upon the duties of the Chairman as the presiding officer of the Council. Therefore it is of reasonably major importance. The way that the council is run affects all of the people in this County.” The meeting was adjourned shortly thereafter, with no vote having been taken on the motion. As an initial matter, OIP notes that the e-mail setting forth OIP’s advice did not put the Council under any obligation to add the item to its agenda. An item may be added to a filed agenda only with “a two-thirds recorded vote of all members to which the board is entitled; provided that no item shall be added to the agenda if it is of reasonably major importance and action thereon by the board will affect a significant number of persons.” HRS § 92-7(b) (Supp. 2011). Thus, even if an item was qualified to be added to a Council agenda because it was not of reasonably major importance and action on it would not affect a significant number of persons, the Council’s failure to add the item to its agenda would not violate the Sunshine Law because it was up to the board to decide whether to add the item, and there was no vote to do so. OIP further notes that the c-mailed advice given to Mr. Bynum is consistent with the informal advice OIP has given in other situations regarding a board’s ability to add an alteration to the board’s internal procedures to an agenda by vote: the persons affected by a change to the Council’s rules regarding a member’s ability to place an item on the agenda would be only the nine Council members, who do not represent a significant number of persons when compared to the Council’s entire constituency.
Requester argues that the Council’s filed agenda stated that the Council can hold an unanticipated executive session “on any agenda item,” and based on that, Requester questions whether the executive session was proper when the issue being discussed was not an agenda item itself but instead was whether the Council could place an item on the agenda. The Sunshine Law anticipates that items may be added to an agenda and that an executive session not anticipated in advance need not be listed on a board’s agenda. $HRS § 92-7 (providing that notice of an executive session necessary only “when anticipated in advance” and explaining the requirements for adding an item to an agenda that has already been filed). Moreover, while section 92-5(b), HRS, bars a board from discussing matters not directly related to purposes listed in section 92-5(a), HRS, one of the permitted purposes for an executive session is “[t]o consult with the board’s attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities.” HRS § 92-5(a) (5). OIP therefore believes that in appropriate circumstances, a board may go into an unanticipated executive session with its attorney to discuss its ability to add an item to its agenda, so long as the board does not discuss the underlying item proposed to be added.
The question remaining to be resolved is whether the Council’s executive session discussion was, in fact, limited to consultation with the County Attorney regarding the Council’s ability to add the proposed item to its agenda by vote. As mentioned above, despite having been asked to provide its position on the complaint, including a detailed explanation, the Council did not provide any explanation of what it actually discussed during the executive session. OIP is required to receive and resolve complaints under the Sunshine Law, and in doing so to strictly construe the exceptions to the open meeting requirement against closed meetings. HRS §S 92-1 and 92F-42(18) (Supp. 2011). Thus, when a member of the public complains to OIP that a Council executive session was not in compliance with the Sunshine Law, the Council has the burden to justify that executive session to OIP. See id. In this case, the Council failed to meet its burden when it provided no response to OIP.
Additionally, the facts presented by Requester raise a reasonable inference that the executive session discussion was not limited to the apparent topic for which it was called, which was consultation with the County Attorney regarding the Council’s ability to add a proposed item by vote. In the public portion of the meeting, the Chair and County Attorney had already announced their conclusions on the question the board was supposedly considering, when they stated that Mr. Bynum’s motion to add a resolution clarifying Rule 10 to the agenda could not be voted on and the proposed resolution could not be added to the agenda because the issue was of reasonably major importance and action thereon would affect a significant number of persons. The County Attorney repeated his opinion when the Council emerged from the executive session, which suggests that neither the Council nor the County Attorney was primarily concerned with protecting the County Attorney’s advice on the question of whether the Council could add the proposed item to its agenda by vote. The length of the executive session, approximately an hour, also suggests that the Council’s discussion was not limited to that fairly straightforward legal question.
From the length of the session and the fact that the County Attorney’s advice was publicly announced, OIP infers that the Council’s discussion was not limited to consultation with the County Attorney regarding the Council’s ability to add the proposed item to its agenda by vote. Because the Council failed to rebut this inference by explaining what discussion occurred during the executive session and why it properly fell within an executive session purpose, and did not in any way attempt to meet its burden to justify the executive session, OIP cannot conclude that the executive session was allowed under the Sunshine Law.
Showing posts with label Lani Kawahara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lani Kawahara. Show all posts
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
HORSESH*T OF A DIFFERENT COLOR
HORSESH*T OF A DIFFERENT COLOR: Stumblebums, troglodytes and mental midgets- oh my.
Those are just some of the words that come to mind over Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s "Goo-goo-ga-joob" response to charges he had no authority to place Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry on leave yesterday- an action reportedly taken after Assistant Chief Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan were the subject of a "creating a hostile work environment" complaint from- guess who- Officer Darla Abbatiello-Higa.
"Creating a hostile work environment" has cost the county millions and these guys are apparently still at it.
"Un-freakin'-believable," as one former Kaua`i official repeatedly yelled into the phone last night.
Perhaps the best line we heard yesterday came from "KPD Blue" author Anthony Sommer who wrote, regarding Carvalho, "maybe he just wants to keep the tradition of 'every Kauai mayor gets to fire one police chief' alive."
But if Asher and Quibilan are Neanderthals, it pales in comparison to Carvalho's "I am the Eggman, They are the Eggmen, I am the Walrus" statement that somehow the county charter gives him the right to place Chief Perry on leave.
Though he cites charter section 7.05, that section has 13 different provisions in it. But assuming the first one is the one to which he refers, it plainly begins with the phrase "unless otherwise provided" which, although Carvalho and real mayor Beth Tokioka disingenuously and conveniently chose not to read this part, means that the operable section, 11.04 supersedes 7.05(A). That's the section that says the police commission is the body empowered to hire and fire the chief and therefore apparently to whom he is responsible.
But not only is Carvalho tone deaf to the limits of his own authority, he apparently hasn't read the sunshine law either.
In his "statement" he explained that he contacted the chair and vice chair of the police commission and apparently discussed the matter with them. Since the mayor sits as a non-voting "ex-officio" member of all boards and commissions, this is a blatant violation of prohibitions on more than two members of a board discussing matters that are before that board, outside of a duly agendaed meeting.
The matter is on the police commission's agenda for a special "executive session" meeting next Tuesday.
Oh- and one last thing. Though the county has been tight-lipped about the type of leave Perry and the two assistant chiefs have been forced to take, one report may indicate it's not just some routine, non-disciplinary type.
Today's pay-walled Honolulu Star Advertiser reports that "(a)ll three were ordered to turn in their equipment."
You don't take away an officer's- or especially a chief's- gun and badge without some serious wrong-doing behind the action.
Another question that comes up is why if, as reported, the complaint against Asher was filed last October 24, it did not show up on the October, November, December or January police commission meeting agendas. It just goes to show how seriously the county continues to take charges like this.
We haven't been directly privy to the information that apparently came from either Abbatiello-Higa or Perry or both but it certainly wouldn’t be being spread by almost every media outlet in the state unless the source was unimpeachably "close to Abbatiello-Higa" or "has direct knowledge of the investigation" as they have characterized their source.
But the real issue is that even after efforts by current Councilmember Tim Bynum and former Councilperson Lani Kawahara to put an end to the sexual harassment that pervades the county offices, it continues.
A letter from the two dated October 13, 2010 states that the county "has repeatedly failed to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment."
Yet the Carvalho administration hasn't done a thing other than have a few "training sessions." Many of the harassers- even some of those that cost the county big bucks- are still on the job in positions that actually ARE under the direct supervision of the mayor. Funny how he's willing to butt in where he's apparently forbidden by law to do so but when it comes to his own hand-picked cronies it's a "hand-off" policy that pervades.
If we didn't know better, we might think there was some kind of corruption going on in the administration.
Those are just some of the words that come to mind over Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.'s "Goo-goo-ga-joob" response to charges he had no authority to place Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) Chief Darryl Perry on leave yesterday- an action reportedly taken after Assistant Chief Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan were the subject of a "creating a hostile work environment" complaint from- guess who- Officer Darla Abbatiello-Higa.
"Creating a hostile work environment" has cost the county millions and these guys are apparently still at it.
"Un-freakin'-believable," as one former Kaua`i official repeatedly yelled into the phone last night.
Perhaps the best line we heard yesterday came from "KPD Blue" author Anthony Sommer who wrote, regarding Carvalho, "maybe he just wants to keep the tradition of 'every Kauai mayor gets to fire one police chief' alive."
But if Asher and Quibilan are Neanderthals, it pales in comparison to Carvalho's "I am the Eggman, They are the Eggmen, I am the Walrus" statement that somehow the county charter gives him the right to place Chief Perry on leave.
Though he cites charter section 7.05, that section has 13 different provisions in it. But assuming the first one is the one to which he refers, it plainly begins with the phrase "unless otherwise provided" which, although Carvalho and real mayor Beth Tokioka disingenuously and conveniently chose not to read this part, means that the operable section, 11.04 supersedes 7.05(A). That's the section that says the police commission is the body empowered to hire and fire the chief and therefore apparently to whom he is responsible.
But not only is Carvalho tone deaf to the limits of his own authority, he apparently hasn't read the sunshine law either.
In his "statement" he explained that he contacted the chair and vice chair of the police commission and apparently discussed the matter with them. Since the mayor sits as a non-voting "ex-officio" member of all boards and commissions, this is a blatant violation of prohibitions on more than two members of a board discussing matters that are before that board, outside of a duly agendaed meeting.
The matter is on the police commission's agenda for a special "executive session" meeting next Tuesday.
Oh- and one last thing. Though the county has been tight-lipped about the type of leave Perry and the two assistant chiefs have been forced to take, one report may indicate it's not just some routine, non-disciplinary type.
Today's pay-walled Honolulu Star Advertiser reports that "(a)ll three were ordered to turn in their equipment."
You don't take away an officer's- or especially a chief's- gun and badge without some serious wrong-doing behind the action.
Another question that comes up is why if, as reported, the complaint against Asher was filed last October 24, it did not show up on the October, November, December or January police commission meeting agendas. It just goes to show how seriously the county continues to take charges like this.
We haven't been directly privy to the information that apparently came from either Abbatiello-Higa or Perry or both but it certainly wouldn’t be being spread by almost every media outlet in the state unless the source was unimpeachably "close to Abbatiello-Higa" or "has direct knowledge of the investigation" as they have characterized their source.
But the real issue is that even after efforts by current Councilmember Tim Bynum and former Councilperson Lani Kawahara to put an end to the sexual harassment that pervades the county offices, it continues.
A letter from the two dated October 13, 2010 states that the county "has repeatedly failed to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment."
Yet the Carvalho administration hasn't done a thing other than have a few "training sessions." Many of the harassers- even some of those that cost the county big bucks- are still on the job in positions that actually ARE under the direct supervision of the mayor. Funny how he's willing to butt in where he's apparently forbidden by law to do so but when it comes to his own hand-picked cronies it's a "hand-off" policy that pervades.
If we didn't know better, we might think there was some kind of corruption going on in the administration.
Monday, January 24, 2011
MR. GREEN AND MR. BROWN
MR. GREEN AND MR. BROWN: The trap-door to the rat hole opened wide again at last Wednesday’s council committee meetings as the latest in a series of what we like to call “gush and flush” sessions found the council doing the gushing over the Kaua`i Visitor’s Bureau’s (KVB) proposed flushing of $200,000 into the cesspool of unaccountable tourism promotion.
But if you thought the council was giddy over the last two-part million dollar money toss- as we discussed here, here, here and here- this time, with the departure of former Councilperson Lani Kawahara, the council unanimously managed to fall over each other to praise KVB’s Sue Kanoho and the county’s Director of Economic Development George Costa, despite the fact that there was no mechanism for any check on whether any more tourists came as a result of the spending.
Things were off to a bad start when it was revealed that the way this worked was not with Kanoho coming to Mayor Bernard Carvalho- who proposed the bill- and asking for certain amounts for certain “programs” but rather the mayor telling her we had $200,000 to spend and asking her to come up with ways to spend it, according to Costa.
And astonishingly enough expenditures for the six “programs” added up to $200,000.
One of the most bizarre was $20,000 for a thinly explained plan to latch onto something called the “American Girl” dolls fad, an uber-high-end giant Barbie complete with clothes and, in the case of the latest model, a Hawaiian “Kanani” model replete with a paddle and paddle board (items sold separately) as well as a fake newspaper “The Hawaiian Breeze" which apparently mentions Kaua`i along with our mythical town of “Waipuna”.
There was a plan to go to some stores and “enhance” in-stores displays but no mention of how there would be any tourists who come here because of the expenditure- as opposed to the doll itself- although Councilperson Nadine Nakamura said she was “very excited” about it because her daughter went though the craze and so, she suspected, it would induce “upscale” visitors to come.
Yup that’s what we elected her for- basing spending decisions on personal anecdotes.
The other five programs were all proposed with no absolutely no way to check whether they attracted even one visitor and not one councilperson asked about how they knew their money was being “well spent”- a phrase repeated ad nauseum.
We say “proposed with” because Kanoho and Costa had one worry- even though they had apparently been assured that no one on the council had any qualms about the effect of the expenditure, the last time out their presentation had been ruined, not just by the now-departed Kawahara but by “nitpickers” Glenn Mickens and Ken Taylor.
So they set up a special meeting with them to get them to go along with the program.
And that seemingly worked because Mickens, seemingly in exchange for his support, insisted on some feedback.
According to Kanoho, “because of Glenn Mickens- and solely because of Glenn Mickens” in the KVB “surveys” that you see being given at the airports by clip-board bearing minions, they will now ask if they came due to the “American Girl” doll or due to seeing a movie shot on Kaua`i ($10,000 was budgeted for “film promotion press trip")... although there was no direct connection between that and the money spent.
But the real topper came when Councilperson Mel Rapozo- who also failed to ask about feedback or any way to rate the success of the six programs- brought up the horror of visitor complaints, especially ones that go viral like what he described as a “Facebook video” (which we couldn’t find- anyone got a link to this?) on the horrendous condition of the boarded up, cesspool overflowing bathrooms at Salt Pond.
That elicited defensive spiels by Costa and Kanoho about how whenever a complaint comes up that threatens to get spread either by word of mouth or online, they take the time to follow-up by- get this- making sure the tourist at least gets an explanation or apology or some kind of as, er, ring kissing.
Yes, they reiterated we do “follow-up.”
But the council, sensing an opportunity to look like they were doing their jobs, did pick up on this one and started asking the two if they actually followed up with the appropriate administration department- usually public works- to make sure that these complaints-waiting-to-happen were fixed in a timely manner... like with the Salt Pond cesspool that took weeks to pump whereas anyone else gets theirs pumped the next day.
After a series of back and forths with the council asking if they “followed up with the administration” and the two saying “yes, we followed up” with another story about calling or emailing the person who complained, Council Chair Jay Furfaro- never one to miss an opportunity to make it look like a good idea was his- directed Costa to “make that phone call” to the administration next time he gets a complaint.
With committee passage the council’s hand is now poised on the lever and this Wednesday they will complete the flush when, to no one’s surprise, they pass the bill without even ascertaining if anyone actually came due to the million dollars of taxpayer money they threw away last year.
The bigger question of course is why the hotels, the airlines, the resort developers and the rest of the tourism industry that takes literally billions off island can’t do they own spending or give KVB the money and why KVB has to beg the council for cash from the county’s coffers.
We’re not holding our breath for that- although it would be nice to breathe clean air without having to flush $200,000 down the crapper to cover the stench of these KVB-served and council-swallowed turds.
But if you thought the council was giddy over the last two-part million dollar money toss- as we discussed here, here, here and here- this time, with the departure of former Councilperson Lani Kawahara, the council unanimously managed to fall over each other to praise KVB’s Sue Kanoho and the county’s Director of Economic Development George Costa, despite the fact that there was no mechanism for any check on whether any more tourists came as a result of the spending.
Things were off to a bad start when it was revealed that the way this worked was not with Kanoho coming to Mayor Bernard Carvalho- who proposed the bill- and asking for certain amounts for certain “programs” but rather the mayor telling her we had $200,000 to spend and asking her to come up with ways to spend it, according to Costa.
And astonishingly enough expenditures for the six “programs” added up to $200,000.
One of the most bizarre was $20,000 for a thinly explained plan to latch onto something called the “American Girl” dolls fad, an uber-high-end giant Barbie complete with clothes and, in the case of the latest model, a Hawaiian “Kanani” model replete with a paddle and paddle board (items sold separately) as well as a fake newspaper “The Hawaiian Breeze" which apparently mentions Kaua`i along with our mythical town of “Waipuna”.
There was a plan to go to some stores and “enhance” in-stores displays but no mention of how there would be any tourists who come here because of the expenditure- as opposed to the doll itself- although Councilperson Nadine Nakamura said she was “very excited” about it because her daughter went though the craze and so, she suspected, it would induce “upscale” visitors to come.
Yup that’s what we elected her for- basing spending decisions on personal anecdotes.
The other five programs were all proposed with no absolutely no way to check whether they attracted even one visitor and not one councilperson asked about how they knew their money was being “well spent”- a phrase repeated ad nauseum.
We say “proposed with” because Kanoho and Costa had one worry- even though they had apparently been assured that no one on the council had any qualms about the effect of the expenditure, the last time out their presentation had been ruined, not just by the now-departed Kawahara but by “nitpickers” Glenn Mickens and Ken Taylor.
So they set up a special meeting with them to get them to go along with the program.
And that seemingly worked because Mickens, seemingly in exchange for his support, insisted on some feedback.
According to Kanoho, “because of Glenn Mickens- and solely because of Glenn Mickens” in the KVB “surveys” that you see being given at the airports by clip-board bearing minions, they will now ask if they came due to the “American Girl” doll or due to seeing a movie shot on Kaua`i ($10,000 was budgeted for “film promotion press trip")... although there was no direct connection between that and the money spent.
But the real topper came when Councilperson Mel Rapozo- who also failed to ask about feedback or any way to rate the success of the six programs- brought up the horror of visitor complaints, especially ones that go viral like what he described as a “Facebook video” (which we couldn’t find- anyone got a link to this?) on the horrendous condition of the boarded up, cesspool overflowing bathrooms at Salt Pond.
That elicited defensive spiels by Costa and Kanoho about how whenever a complaint comes up that threatens to get spread either by word of mouth or online, they take the time to follow-up by- get this- making sure the tourist at least gets an explanation or apology or some kind of as, er, ring kissing.
Yes, they reiterated we do “follow-up.”
But the council, sensing an opportunity to look like they were doing their jobs, did pick up on this one and started asking the two if they actually followed up with the appropriate administration department- usually public works- to make sure that these complaints-waiting-to-happen were fixed in a timely manner... like with the Salt Pond cesspool that took weeks to pump whereas anyone else gets theirs pumped the next day.
After a series of back and forths with the council asking if they “followed up with the administration” and the two saying “yes, we followed up” with another story about calling or emailing the person who complained, Council Chair Jay Furfaro- never one to miss an opportunity to make it look like a good idea was his- directed Costa to “make that phone call” to the administration next time he gets a complaint.
With committee passage the council’s hand is now poised on the lever and this Wednesday they will complete the flush when, to no one’s surprise, they pass the bill without even ascertaining if anyone actually came due to the million dollars of taxpayer money they threw away last year.
The bigger question of course is why the hotels, the airlines, the resort developers and the rest of the tourism industry that takes literally billions off island can’t do they own spending or give KVB the money and why KVB has to beg the council for cash from the county’s coffers.
We’re not holding our breath for that- although it would be nice to breathe clean air without having to flush $200,000 down the crapper to cover the stench of these KVB-served and council-swallowed turds.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
CONFIRMATION
CONFIRMATION: One thing reporters for the local newspaper can do that we have trouble doing is compelling newsmakers to answer questions for fear that their spin will be left out of whatever is written on a given subject.
And today’s article on the illegal pay raise County Clerk Peter Nakamura received- as we’ve detailed the past two Mondays - confirms our speculation that indeed former Chair Kaipo Asing successfully circumvented the law in getting the raise approved.
After a lot of irrelevant “that’s my story and I’m sticking too it” hoo-ha from current Council Chair Jay Furfaro regarding his contention that the original vote on the salary commission’s pay raise resolution for all department heads should have sufficed for the fully separate process of the full council’s action as the appointing authority for the clerk- and a listing of the three required evaluation related documents from the appointing authority (the council in the case of the clerk) to the personnel director to effectuate any raise, the article reveals that:
On Dec. 14, 2009, two weeks after Nakamura’s pay increase took effect, Asing sent Fernandez a one-paragraph memo stating that Nakamura had met or exceeded job requirements for the position of county clerk.
“I understand that you will transmit the results of his evaluation to the Salary Commission,” Asing said in his memo to (Personnel Director Malcolm) Fernandez, almost four months after the commission submitted its resolution to the council and almost three months after the council unanimously received it.
The only person copied on the memo was Nakamura. The memo does not indicate that there was any attachment that could contain the evaluation required by the rules. County spokeswoman Beth Tokioka confirmed Wednesday that there was no evaluation attached to the memo.
“He sent that over there without any council approval, on his own, unilaterally,” (former Councilperson Lani) Kawahara said of the memo Asing sent to Fernandez, adding that the chair can not act alone as the appointing authority.
“It needs to be presented to the full body,” she said. “That memo was sent without the body’s authority.”
Even though that crux of the story was buried after a lot of irrelevant silliness about Bynum seconding the original salary commission resolution and other blather the story does reveal that, although at one point Asing handed out evaluation forms to council members there was never a meeting where the evaluation was approved meaning Asing did act on his own, using his position to give a special privilege to Nakamura in violation of the Kaua`i County Charter’s Code of Ethics (20.02E).
Just as interesting are some of the quotes regarding Asing’s action and the lack of documentation in Nakamura’s file:
Furfaro said that on Sept. 23, 2009, Asing circulated evaluation forms prepared by Personnel Director Malcolm Fernandez.
All seven council members serving on the legislative body at the time confirmed they completed the evaluation form.
Because it is a personnel matter, Furfaro said he could not disclose the contents of the evaluation.
“I am confident that Mr. Nakamura met the requirements for his raise,” he said in a statement.
Bynum, however, said there is no evaluation in Nakamura’s personnel files.
“How could the Salary Commission or the personnel director have an evaluation when it doesn’t exist in his file?” Bynum said.
Though some might question the propriety of revealing something in Nakamura’s personnel file it appears that those quoted are rather, revealing the lack of anything in the file.
The real violation of privacy might just be that of mayoral assistant Beth Tokioka who apparently provided whatever Asing sent to Fernandez- who also apparently violated the law by okaying the raise without the required evaluation forms from the council, rather substituting the one-paragraph memo from Asing.
That said the state’s open records laws (UIPA-HRS 92F- 12-13) say that the decision to reveal matters covered by privacy of personnel files has to balance the need for that privacy and the public interest in opening those records to scrutiny. In addition, if a crime has been committed, whistleblower provisions might protect anyone that reveals confidential information.
It appears that Furfaro’s “new style” of leadership is going to be an extension of the same old “stonewall, distract and deny” approach of his predecessor and that some of his supporters are willing to use rose-colored glasses to ignore his evasions and outright violations of law in the name of paternalism.
The issue is not Clerk Nakamura any more than the issue was former Chief of Police KC Lum, who was the victim of a deceitful determination of the similar ethics case that wrongfully chided then Police Commission Chair Michael Ching. Though Nakamura, was the recipient of the special favor on Asing’s part the blame is with Asing and Fernandez for failing to follow the law.
But if people are unwilling to publicly say “enough” due to past vendetta’s and political alliances we can expect more of the same from this “new era” of the Kaua`i County Council.
----
We’ll be taking a long weekend. Be back Monday.
And today’s article on the illegal pay raise County Clerk Peter Nakamura received- as we’ve detailed the past two Mondays - confirms our speculation that indeed former Chair Kaipo Asing successfully circumvented the law in getting the raise approved.
After a lot of irrelevant “that’s my story and I’m sticking too it” hoo-ha from current Council Chair Jay Furfaro regarding his contention that the original vote on the salary commission’s pay raise resolution for all department heads should have sufficed for the fully separate process of the full council’s action as the appointing authority for the clerk- and a listing of the three required evaluation related documents from the appointing authority (the council in the case of the clerk) to the personnel director to effectuate any raise, the article reveals that:
On Dec. 14, 2009, two weeks after Nakamura’s pay increase took effect, Asing sent Fernandez a one-paragraph memo stating that Nakamura had met or exceeded job requirements for the position of county clerk.
“I understand that you will transmit the results of his evaluation to the Salary Commission,” Asing said in his memo to (Personnel Director Malcolm) Fernandez, almost four months after the commission submitted its resolution to the council and almost three months after the council unanimously received it.
The only person copied on the memo was Nakamura. The memo does not indicate that there was any attachment that could contain the evaluation required by the rules. County spokeswoman Beth Tokioka confirmed Wednesday that there was no evaluation attached to the memo.
“He sent that over there without any council approval, on his own, unilaterally,” (former Councilperson Lani) Kawahara said of the memo Asing sent to Fernandez, adding that the chair can not act alone as the appointing authority.
“It needs to be presented to the full body,” she said. “That memo was sent without the body’s authority.”
Even though that crux of the story was buried after a lot of irrelevant silliness about Bynum seconding the original salary commission resolution and other blather the story does reveal that, although at one point Asing handed out evaluation forms to council members there was never a meeting where the evaluation was approved meaning Asing did act on his own, using his position to give a special privilege to Nakamura in violation of the Kaua`i County Charter’s Code of Ethics (20.02E).
Just as interesting are some of the quotes regarding Asing’s action and the lack of documentation in Nakamura’s file:
Furfaro said that on Sept. 23, 2009, Asing circulated evaluation forms prepared by Personnel Director Malcolm Fernandez.
All seven council members serving on the legislative body at the time confirmed they completed the evaluation form.
Because it is a personnel matter, Furfaro said he could not disclose the contents of the evaluation.
“I am confident that Mr. Nakamura met the requirements for his raise,” he said in a statement.
Bynum, however, said there is no evaluation in Nakamura’s personnel files.
“How could the Salary Commission or the personnel director have an evaluation when it doesn’t exist in his file?” Bynum said.
Though some might question the propriety of revealing something in Nakamura’s personnel file it appears that those quoted are rather, revealing the lack of anything in the file.
The real violation of privacy might just be that of mayoral assistant Beth Tokioka who apparently provided whatever Asing sent to Fernandez- who also apparently violated the law by okaying the raise without the required evaluation forms from the council, rather substituting the one-paragraph memo from Asing.
That said the state’s open records laws (UIPA-HRS 92F- 12-13) say that the decision to reveal matters covered by privacy of personnel files has to balance the need for that privacy and the public interest in opening those records to scrutiny. In addition, if a crime has been committed, whistleblower provisions might protect anyone that reveals confidential information.
It appears that Furfaro’s “new style” of leadership is going to be an extension of the same old “stonewall, distract and deny” approach of his predecessor and that some of his supporters are willing to use rose-colored glasses to ignore his evasions and outright violations of law in the name of paternalism.
The issue is not Clerk Nakamura any more than the issue was former Chief of Police KC Lum, who was the victim of a deceitful determination of the similar ethics case that wrongfully chided then Police Commission Chair Michael Ching. Though Nakamura, was the recipient of the special favor on Asing’s part the blame is with Asing and Fernandez for failing to follow the law.
But if people are unwilling to publicly say “enough” due to past vendetta’s and political alliances we can expect more of the same from this “new era” of the Kaua`i County Council.
----
We’ll be taking a long weekend. Be back Monday.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
HOW MANY TIMES CAN A MAN TURN HIS HEAD?
HOW MANY TIMES CAN A MAN TURN HIS HEAD?: With a change at the top of the Kaua`i County Council many are looking forward to a change in the way the council treats the open meetings and access to documents demanded in the state’s Sunshine Law now that Kaipo Asing isn’t a barrier of impediment any more.
But while Asing apparently understood the law and was crafty and cunning enough to evade compliance, as we’ve demonstrated over and over in this space new Chair Jay Furfaro appears to be completely befuddled by it.
For those awaiting the reforms that transparency and Sunshine advocates Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum fought for last year it may be a long wait as the December deadline for getting live streaming of council meetings up on line without any apparent changes at the county’s web site.
And don’t hold your breath that once the stated mid-December deadline for dealing with firing up the already paid for, fancy-schmancy “all access” page that will apparently include attached public record documents for agenda items with links, item by item, to appropriate segments of the archived video.
But one issue pushed by current Councilperson Bynum and the departed Kawahara- a review of the antiquated council rules that Asing used to block items proposed by councilmembers from the agenda- is apparently underway, according a statement by Furfaro at the inaugural meeting, with the institution of a rules review committee in the offing.
The first problem is that the Sunshine challenged Furfaro wants to be what he termed one of two permitted councilmembers on that committee.
And as if to show his inability to decipher the simple concepts and specifics in the Sunshine Law, at the meeting he proposed a change in the way the chair will treat communications, bills and resolutions proposed by individual councilpersons.
But rather than adding a clarifying statement to the rules simply eliminating the chair’s ability to use the need for his or her “initialing” of agenda items to block legislation, Furfaro proposed that it there be at least two councilmembers to get a matter on the agenda.
Furfaro explained that since two people can discuss a matter before it is taken up at an official meeting it should be easy enough for one member to find someone else to request an item be placed on the table.
But again, Furfaro’s inability to understand the “prohibited interactions” section of HRS 92- which include a ban on using “serial communications” to get around the prohibitions- has resulted in a proposal that promotes violations of, not just the spirit but, the letter of the law.
Stating it simply, if a member approaches another member to sign on to support the measure, that is in and of itself a violation of the prohibition of a commitment to- or solicitation of- a vote no matter how many people are involved.
But, while that may it a gray area as to what a commitment to vote actually means, even more absurd is the fact that, if the second person refuses to support placing the matter on the agenda, the proposer is s**t outta luck because he or she has used up the “one person” with whom the matter can be discussed.
The simple way to deal with all this as a councilperson is of course to stop discussing matters with other councilmembers before they hit the council floor. That’s the overriding concept in the Sunshine Law that Furfaro either refuses to acknowledge or simply can’t comprehend for some reason.
Furfaro’s bafflement at the concept is rooted in the same kind of paternalism and need for secrecy to avoid political embarrassment that former Chair Asing used as an excuse to maintain the opaque system of back room deals that has been the signature of Kaua`i council politics for generations.
Though Furfaro’s confusion has seemed genuine and at times quaintly funny in the past, with his ascension to chair “pretending he just doesn’t see” is getting really old, really fast and, with time, has gotten to be tedious and, more and more, a disingenuous juvenile response to being told that he can’t keep playing with that toy that way any more.
But while Asing apparently understood the law and was crafty and cunning enough to evade compliance, as we’ve demonstrated over and over in this space new Chair Jay Furfaro appears to be completely befuddled by it.
For those awaiting the reforms that transparency and Sunshine advocates Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum fought for last year it may be a long wait as the December deadline for getting live streaming of council meetings up on line without any apparent changes at the county’s web site.
And don’t hold your breath that once the stated mid-December deadline for dealing with firing up the already paid for, fancy-schmancy “all access” page that will apparently include attached public record documents for agenda items with links, item by item, to appropriate segments of the archived video.
But one issue pushed by current Councilperson Bynum and the departed Kawahara- a review of the antiquated council rules that Asing used to block items proposed by councilmembers from the agenda- is apparently underway, according a statement by Furfaro at the inaugural meeting, with the institution of a rules review committee in the offing.
The first problem is that the Sunshine challenged Furfaro wants to be what he termed one of two permitted councilmembers on that committee.
And as if to show his inability to decipher the simple concepts and specifics in the Sunshine Law, at the meeting he proposed a change in the way the chair will treat communications, bills and resolutions proposed by individual councilpersons.
But rather than adding a clarifying statement to the rules simply eliminating the chair’s ability to use the need for his or her “initialing” of agenda items to block legislation, Furfaro proposed that it there be at least two councilmembers to get a matter on the agenda.
Furfaro explained that since two people can discuss a matter before it is taken up at an official meeting it should be easy enough for one member to find someone else to request an item be placed on the table.
But again, Furfaro’s inability to understand the “prohibited interactions” section of HRS 92- which include a ban on using “serial communications” to get around the prohibitions- has resulted in a proposal that promotes violations of, not just the spirit but, the letter of the law.
Stating it simply, if a member approaches another member to sign on to support the measure, that is in and of itself a violation of the prohibition of a commitment to- or solicitation of- a vote no matter how many people are involved.
But, while that may it a gray area as to what a commitment to vote actually means, even more absurd is the fact that, if the second person refuses to support placing the matter on the agenda, the proposer is s**t outta luck because he or she has used up the “one person” with whom the matter can be discussed.
The simple way to deal with all this as a councilperson is of course to stop discussing matters with other councilmembers before they hit the council floor. That’s the overriding concept in the Sunshine Law that Furfaro either refuses to acknowledge or simply can’t comprehend for some reason.
Furfaro’s bafflement at the concept is rooted in the same kind of paternalism and need for secrecy to avoid political embarrassment that former Chair Asing used as an excuse to maintain the opaque system of back room deals that has been the signature of Kaua`i council politics for generations.
Though Furfaro’s confusion has seemed genuine and at times quaintly funny in the past, with his ascension to chair “pretending he just doesn’t see” is getting really old, really fast and, with time, has gotten to be tedious and, more and more, a disingenuous juvenile response to being told that he can’t keep playing with that toy that way any more.
Friday, November 12, 2010
A FINAL SHOT IN THE CHAMBER POT
A FINAL SHOT IN THE CHAMBER POT: The final “gift” from outgoing Council Chair Kaipo Asing was presented during his final meeting Wednesday.
Unfortunately it was a gift for the developers of Kaua`i Lagoons not people seeking promised affordable housing, who were left holding nothing but a bag of steaming turds.
Along with returning Councilmembers Derek Kawakami, Dickie Chang and presumptive new chair Jay Furfaro, they simply gave away at least 41 of the 82 Waipouli Courtyards affordable housing units, which can now even become transient vacation rentals (TVRs) should the developers so choose.
Outgoing Councilperson Lani Kawahara put it best saying “I can say this because I’m gonna leave- sometimes I feel like I’m sitting at a Chamber of Commerce meeting not necessarily the chamber of the people,” after a failed attempt to at least delay the measure which came as a legal document rather than an amendment to the zoning ordinance- the normal way to alter conditions.
Of course “Mr. Big Save” Kawakami said of Kawahara’s statement “I take that as a compliment”.
An ordinance change would have taken at least four weeks under normal procedure. A deferral would have seen the next council, which takes office December 1, vote on the matter.
The developers brought on the crocodile tears saying they couldn’t rent the units that were to be rented to people making up to $67,000 a year (120% of median income), so not only do they get to rent out the units at market prices to all comers- no matter what income and no matter where they currently live- but they were able to get the council to vote to chuck the whole “10- year affordability” clause.
The project is in a Visitor Destination Area (VDA) where TVRs are permitted, unaffected by the recent TVR grandfathering and ban in non-VDA areas.
Another simply astounding revelation came from the once and future, incoming Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who urged deferral so that the council could do their “due diligence”- which was apparently extensive.
The shocker was that, despite the fact that 41 of the units are supposed to be rented to people who qualify for HUD Section 8 rental vouchers by making 80% or less of the median income, Waipouli Courtyards has been refusing to rent to Section 8 clients due to a dispute with the County Housing Agency over energy allowances for HUD clients.
The measure- which came from Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s office rather than county housing- was pushed on through by a 4-2 margin with councilperson Tim Bynum joining Kawahara in seeking to refer the measure to the Housing Committee for further due diligence, with lame duck Asing casting the all important fourth vote at his final meeting.
The most objectionable part was that all the councilmembers seemed to buy the developers argument that the affordable housing project- which was given to the county in exchange for the developers being allowed to develop Kaua`i Lagoons- was unable to turn a profit or at least break even “in this economy” so they should be let out of their commitment.
The fact that the Kaua`i Lagoons project as a whole is going to be immensely profitable and that “success” of the affordable housing component should, by all rights, be measured in combination with the resort development, was lost on everybody.
The fact that Waipouli Courtyards is one of the only low income rental housing givebacks the council has ever required (most are for sale) was not even considered, of course.
And just like the recent removal of an affordable housing requirement for Kukui`ula, it went way beyond what the developer had asked for- in this case, according to testimony, the removal of the 10-year buy back.
There was lots of discussion of how the county has first right of refusal should the project go up for sale and a lot of talk about buying it. But of course with the lifting of the condition, the value of the project and therefore the price to the county will soar, doubly screwing the county if and when that happens.
It wasn’t the first time a lame duck screwed the people and it won’t be the last. Voted-out Billy Swain cast the deciding vote in November 2002 for a General Plan update after he and lame ducks Ron Kouchi and Randall Valenciano amended it to put his bosses’ “Princeville Mauka development” on the official development map.
But as for Derek, Dickie and Jay, that’s what you voted for and that’s what you’ve got for the next two years- a developers dream team. All they need is one more vote and that shouldn’t be too hard to find.
Unfortunately it was a gift for the developers of Kaua`i Lagoons not people seeking promised affordable housing, who were left holding nothing but a bag of steaming turds.
Along with returning Councilmembers Derek Kawakami, Dickie Chang and presumptive new chair Jay Furfaro, they simply gave away at least 41 of the 82 Waipouli Courtyards affordable housing units, which can now even become transient vacation rentals (TVRs) should the developers so choose.
Outgoing Councilperson Lani Kawahara put it best saying “I can say this because I’m gonna leave- sometimes I feel like I’m sitting at a Chamber of Commerce meeting not necessarily the chamber of the people,” after a failed attempt to at least delay the measure which came as a legal document rather than an amendment to the zoning ordinance- the normal way to alter conditions.
Of course “Mr. Big Save” Kawakami said of Kawahara’s statement “I take that as a compliment”.
An ordinance change would have taken at least four weeks under normal procedure. A deferral would have seen the next council, which takes office December 1, vote on the matter.
The developers brought on the crocodile tears saying they couldn’t rent the units that were to be rented to people making up to $67,000 a year (120% of median income), so not only do they get to rent out the units at market prices to all comers- no matter what income and no matter where they currently live- but they were able to get the council to vote to chuck the whole “10- year affordability” clause.
The project is in a Visitor Destination Area (VDA) where TVRs are permitted, unaffected by the recent TVR grandfathering and ban in non-VDA areas.
Another simply astounding revelation came from the once and future, incoming Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who urged deferral so that the council could do their “due diligence”- which was apparently extensive.
The shocker was that, despite the fact that 41 of the units are supposed to be rented to people who qualify for HUD Section 8 rental vouchers by making 80% or less of the median income, Waipouli Courtyards has been refusing to rent to Section 8 clients due to a dispute with the County Housing Agency over energy allowances for HUD clients.
The measure- which came from Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s office rather than county housing- was pushed on through by a 4-2 margin with councilperson Tim Bynum joining Kawahara in seeking to refer the measure to the Housing Committee for further due diligence, with lame duck Asing casting the all important fourth vote at his final meeting.
The most objectionable part was that all the councilmembers seemed to buy the developers argument that the affordable housing project- which was given to the county in exchange for the developers being allowed to develop Kaua`i Lagoons- was unable to turn a profit or at least break even “in this economy” so they should be let out of their commitment.
The fact that the Kaua`i Lagoons project as a whole is going to be immensely profitable and that “success” of the affordable housing component should, by all rights, be measured in combination with the resort development, was lost on everybody.
The fact that Waipouli Courtyards is one of the only low income rental housing givebacks the council has ever required (most are for sale) was not even considered, of course.
And just like the recent removal of an affordable housing requirement for Kukui`ula, it went way beyond what the developer had asked for- in this case, according to testimony, the removal of the 10-year buy back.
There was lots of discussion of how the county has first right of refusal should the project go up for sale and a lot of talk about buying it. But of course with the lifting of the condition, the value of the project and therefore the price to the county will soar, doubly screwing the county if and when that happens.
It wasn’t the first time a lame duck screwed the people and it won’t be the last. Voted-out Billy Swain cast the deciding vote in November 2002 for a General Plan update after he and lame ducks Ron Kouchi and Randall Valenciano amended it to put his bosses’ “Princeville Mauka development” on the official development map.
But as for Derek, Dickie and Jay, that’s what you voted for and that’s what you’ve got for the next two years- a developers dream team. All they need is one more vote and that shouldn’t be too hard to find.
Monday, October 18, 2010
(PNN) $250,000 SETTLEMENT IN “DOE V COK” EEOC CASE BEGAN WITH ALLEGED ‘02 ASSAULT BY COUNTY CLERK NAKAMURA UPON COUNCIL’S DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
$250,000 SETTLEMENT IN “DOE V COK” EEOC CASE BEGAN WITH ALLEGED ‘02 ASSAULT BY COUNTY CLERK NAKAMURA UPON COUNCIL’S DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
“DOE” ILLEGALLY IDED AS HANSON-SUEOKA BY CA CASTILLO, WHO FIRED HER IN ‘08
by Andy Parx
(PNN) -- The $250,000 settlement of a “hostile/violent work environment” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint identified only as “Jane Doe vs. County of Kaua`i” was actually a complaint filed by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson-Sueoka according to records illegally revealed by County Attorney Al Castillo.
The case apparently goes back to early 2002 during the waning days of Mayor Maryanne Kusaka’s administration but the precipitating incident occurred, not in administration offices where the county attorney’s offices are housed but in the “workplace” of council services.
According to numerous council services employees, past reporters and “regulars” at council meetings at the time, then and present County Clerk Peter Nakamura allegedly “beat up” Hanson-Sueoka, who was at the time his “girlfriend”, causing Hanson to seek a restraining order against Nakamura.
Though some alleged that at the time Nakamura was actually arrested others claim that he was not, with some of those saying that this was due to his position and Hanson-Sueoka’s refusal to press charges due to fear of repercussions on her job situation. Almost all however agreed in maintaining that Hanson had obtained a protective restraining order against Nakamura after telling people she was assaulted by him.
Although the county clerk heads the “council services” office and runs every aspect of council doings including hiring and firing of personnel, technically Hanson-Sueoka’s boss was the county attorney although the attorney assigned to the council often works closely and under the supervision of the county clerk.
But EEOC law also covers those that, while technically are not “superiors, but those that act as such.
An examination of county records and newspaper articles indicates Hanson-Sueoka was soon terminated from her plum assignment as attorney for the council and, when the Bryan Baptiste administration took over in December of 2002, she was retained as a deputy in new CA Lani Nakazawa’s office but assigned to attend various long and often boring and routine board and commission meetings to provide attorney advice.
Hanson-Sueoka remained with the office when Nakazawa left and was replaced by CA Matthew Pyun, and was the main county attorney involved in the infamous removal from office of Police Commission Chair Michael Ching- as well as the cover-up of the hearing judge’s full report exonerating Ching- and the resulting politically motivated firing of Police Chief KC Lum.
But when Bernard Carvalho was elected as mayor in 2008 and appointed Castillo, Hanson was fired for no stated reason, although her EEOC case presumably maintains it was retaliatory for whistle-blowing for past the incidents.
The EEOC complaint was filed after Hanson-Sueoka’s firing by Castillo and confirmation of the $250,000 award- along with the confirmation that it was a hostile/violent workplace compliant- came at least week’s council meeting as part of a presentation by Councilpersons Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum on the pervasive disregard for sexual harassment and hostile work environment laws by the county.
At the meeting the pair cited the “Jane Doe” case and that of Kristan Hirakawa- a case detailed by PNN over the past year- saying cases against the county are rarely if ever even investigated and that harassers are apparently never disciplined much less fired even after judgments against the county.
The incident in 2002 was the talk of the county building at the time including among councilmembers who were called into executive session to discuss personnel issues within council services although none would confirm publicly that the subject was Nakamura who remains on the job today despite the settlement.
Though the incident occurred during the time when then Councilperson Ron Kouchi was the chair of the council after the 2002 election- where he ran and lost in a bid to be mayor- current Chair Kaipo Asing took over and has remained chair ever since okaying, along with the rest of the council, various settlements for harassment of county employees as well as reappointing Nakamura as county clerk every two years.
Though EEOC cases are, by federal law, to be kept confidential, after firing Hanson-Sueoka Castillo twice revealed that indeed she was the EEOC plaintiff, the first time on the council agenda for April 22, 2009 where he requested executive session (ES) 382 which read in part,
the Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to provide the Council a briefing on Margaret H. Sueoka v. County of Kaua`i, EEOC Charge No. 486-2009-00268 and/or related matters and/or subsequent legal proceedings resulting in any way from this matter.
Then, even after a rejected request from PNN to examine the EEOC case files- where we were told by the CA’s office that federal law maintains strict confidentiality for EEOC complaints, superseding the state sunshine law- in a local newspaper article on August 28, 2009 about the $3 million that has been spent on outside counsel to defend lawsuits against the county, reporter Michael Levine wrote:
“Since I’ve been here, the only (lawsuit) that is mine is the Sueoka case, and that’s one where we really didn’t have a choice,” Castillo said, in reference to an equal employment opportunity claim filed against the county by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Sueoka. He said having a staff attorney handle the case could constitute a conflict of interest.
But recently all references on council agendas to the Hanson-Sueoka case were noted as “Jane Doe vs. County of Kaua`i” although both the recent postings and the one for April of 2009 referred to the same “Charge number”, 486-2009-00268.
Talk regarding the original incident when Nakamura was alleged to have “beat up” Hanson- who has since married and changed her name to Sueoka- was pervasive at the county building in 2002 when PNN was actively covering weekly council meetings and, while more than a dozen people repeated the story about Nakamura and Hanson, PNN has not been able to confirm the incidents through documentation.
It should be noted that this report was compiled after speaking to many knowledgeable sources both in 2002 and this week and after a review of our notes from that era. It is the best available rendering of the truth of what has occurred in this case. All undocumented allegation are just that- undocumented allegations.
“DOE” ILLEGALLY IDED AS HANSON-SUEOKA BY CA CASTILLO, WHO FIRED HER IN ‘08
by Andy Parx
(PNN) -- The $250,000 settlement of a “hostile/violent work environment” Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint identified only as “Jane Doe vs. County of Kaua`i” was actually a complaint filed by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson-Sueoka according to records illegally revealed by County Attorney Al Castillo.
The case apparently goes back to early 2002 during the waning days of Mayor Maryanne Kusaka’s administration but the precipitating incident occurred, not in administration offices where the county attorney’s offices are housed but in the “workplace” of council services.
According to numerous council services employees, past reporters and “regulars” at council meetings at the time, then and present County Clerk Peter Nakamura allegedly “beat up” Hanson-Sueoka, who was at the time his “girlfriend”, causing Hanson to seek a restraining order against Nakamura.
Though some alleged that at the time Nakamura was actually arrested others claim that he was not, with some of those saying that this was due to his position and Hanson-Sueoka’s refusal to press charges due to fear of repercussions on her job situation. Almost all however agreed in maintaining that Hanson had obtained a protective restraining order against Nakamura after telling people she was assaulted by him.
Although the county clerk heads the “council services” office and runs every aspect of council doings including hiring and firing of personnel, technically Hanson-Sueoka’s boss was the county attorney although the attorney assigned to the council often works closely and under the supervision of the county clerk.
But EEOC law also covers those that, while technically are not “superiors, but those that act as such.
An examination of county records and newspaper articles indicates Hanson-Sueoka was soon terminated from her plum assignment as attorney for the council and, when the Bryan Baptiste administration took over in December of 2002, she was retained as a deputy in new CA Lani Nakazawa’s office but assigned to attend various long and often boring and routine board and commission meetings to provide attorney advice.
Hanson-Sueoka remained with the office when Nakazawa left and was replaced by CA Matthew Pyun, and was the main county attorney involved in the infamous removal from office of Police Commission Chair Michael Ching- as well as the cover-up of the hearing judge’s full report exonerating Ching- and the resulting politically motivated firing of Police Chief KC Lum.
But when Bernard Carvalho was elected as mayor in 2008 and appointed Castillo, Hanson was fired for no stated reason, although her EEOC case presumably maintains it was retaliatory for whistle-blowing for past the incidents.
The EEOC complaint was filed after Hanson-Sueoka’s firing by Castillo and confirmation of the $250,000 award- along with the confirmation that it was a hostile/violent workplace compliant- came at least week’s council meeting as part of a presentation by Councilpersons Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum on the pervasive disregard for sexual harassment and hostile work environment laws by the county.
At the meeting the pair cited the “Jane Doe” case and that of Kristan Hirakawa- a case detailed by PNN over the past year- saying cases against the county are rarely if ever even investigated and that harassers are apparently never disciplined much less fired even after judgments against the county.
The incident in 2002 was the talk of the county building at the time including among councilmembers who were called into executive session to discuss personnel issues within council services although none would confirm publicly that the subject was Nakamura who remains on the job today despite the settlement.
Though the incident occurred during the time when then Councilperson Ron Kouchi was the chair of the council after the 2002 election- where he ran and lost in a bid to be mayor- current Chair Kaipo Asing took over and has remained chair ever since okaying, along with the rest of the council, various settlements for harassment of county employees as well as reappointing Nakamura as county clerk every two years.
Though EEOC cases are, by federal law, to be kept confidential, after firing Hanson-Sueoka Castillo twice revealed that indeed she was the EEOC plaintiff, the first time on the council agenda for April 22, 2009 where he requested executive session (ES) 382 which read in part,
the Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to provide the Council a briefing on Margaret H. Sueoka v. County of Kaua`i, EEOC Charge No. 486-2009-00268 and/or related matters and/or subsequent legal proceedings resulting in any way from this matter.
Then, even after a rejected request from PNN to examine the EEOC case files- where we were told by the CA’s office that federal law maintains strict confidentiality for EEOC complaints, superseding the state sunshine law- in a local newspaper article on August 28, 2009 about the $3 million that has been spent on outside counsel to defend lawsuits against the county, reporter Michael Levine wrote:
“Since I’ve been here, the only (lawsuit) that is mine is the Sueoka case, and that’s one where we really didn’t have a choice,” Castillo said, in reference to an equal employment opportunity claim filed against the county by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Sueoka. He said having a staff attorney handle the case could constitute a conflict of interest.
But recently all references on council agendas to the Hanson-Sueoka case were noted as “Jane Doe vs. County of Kaua`i” although both the recent postings and the one for April of 2009 referred to the same “Charge number”, 486-2009-00268.
Talk regarding the original incident when Nakamura was alleged to have “beat up” Hanson- who has since married and changed her name to Sueoka- was pervasive at the county building in 2002 when PNN was actively covering weekly council meetings and, while more than a dozen people repeated the story about Nakamura and Hanson, PNN has not been able to confirm the incidents through documentation.
It should be noted that this report was compiled after speaking to many knowledgeable sources both in 2002 and this week and after a review of our notes from that era. It is the best available rendering of the truth of what has occurred in this case. All undocumented allegation are just that- undocumented allegations.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
SMELLS LIKE GREEN SPIRIT
SMELLS LIKE GREEN SPIRIT: Early in a PolySci 100 class the professor presents you with an interesting question. Are those big donors- the special interests we all denigrate- simply giving money to the politician because the candidates have generally shown themselves to support measures that benefit the donor or is the money intended to either influence a vote or reward it?
In recent the case of Alexander and Baldwin (A&B) and their recent successful effort to get out from under a “workforce housing” requirement for their Kukui`ula project in Po`ipu the trail of money and votes of county councilmembers tell a story that makes the latter a distinct possibility.
When A&B got re-zoning of their Kukui`ula project a few years back, then Council Planning Committee Chair JoAnn Yukimura, who as a private citizen had fought the project, did a 180 and helped grease the wheels to change the project from an affordable housing venture to one of luxury homes for off-islanders.
She says that because she didn’t have the votes to actually stop the project she made sure that the conditions and “give backs”- things to benefit the community like housing, roads or schools- were severe and sometimes unique, including the 99 year buy back condition on a sizable chunk of the “affordable” so-called “gap” housing.
So when A&B asked to not just reduce the time line but dump the administration of the program into the county’s lap, Yukimura, now again a private citizen after an unsuccessful run for mayor in ’08, screamed bloody murder.
Needless to say, it was “no soup for you JoAnn” when A&B started handing out the checks.
But not so for former Councilperson Mel Rapozo who was one of those who was predisposed to voting for the original rezoning. Rapozo, also out of office after a mayoral run, has been a vocal populist and activist, testifying and providing documents on many land use issues this year. He’s considered a shoo-in this November in his bid to return to the council.
But on the Kukui`ula housing bill Rapozo remained silent. And if he had any ideas of opposing the bill, right before the it was introduced Rapozo got a $500 check from A&B on April 23, reminding him of their previous support.
Also receiving an April check- this one on the 27th- was first-time candidate Nadine Nakamura who got $300. Nakamura a “planner” by trade is a good investment for A&B since her day job is essentially to help developers like A&B push through their developments. More on her later.
As the bill was being placed on the table A&B decided to spread some “love” around to remind their most likely supporters who was buttering their bread.
Councilperson Dickie Chang- a man who never met a development he didn’t like- was the first and on June 14 he got $500.
At this point it was anyone’s guess how the council vote would shake out. Recent battles over transient vacation rentals and use of ag lands had sharpened the edges of the council factions and Chang, who was in Chair Kaipo Asing’s “gang” would be looking to Asing for a cue and Asing could have done anything here.
There was one more worry for A&B- the man at the top. Would Mayor Bernard Carvalho use his still-in-the-original-packaging veto pen if community outrage got out of hand? Another $1000- check for a total of $3000 this election cycle- served as reminder that A&B had another favor to ask.
That left Councilpersons Derek Kawakami and Jay Furfaro as the swing votes as it started to become clear that Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara- the real leaders of the dissident faction- were lining up to oppose passage of the bill.
Though Furfaro, vice chair of the council and chair of the planning committee, was the outward leader of the dissidents he remained non-committal though much of the back and forth in committee. So did Kawakami until Asing showed his hand by saying that, since the county had now passed affordable housing standards that were much lower than the Kukui`ula numbers it wouldn’t be “fair” to A&B to keep the 99 year buy back.
The bill passed on August 11 with Bynum and Kawahara voting “no”.
And on August 13 Kawakami received his reward- a check for $1000 courtesy of A&B.
And a few weeks later, on September 3- the final day for of the reporting period- A&B cut checks to Furfaro for $1,000.00, Chang for another $500.00 for a total of $1,000.00 and Rapozo, who kept his mouth shut on the bill, for another $500 totaling $1000.
Also receiving a September 3 check was Nakamura who got $700 for a total of $1000.
Missing from the largess was Yukimura who showed up at every committee meeting to reiterate how A&B had agreed to all these give backs and how it was part of a “package” and shouldn’t be changed.
Asing doesn’t take campaign contributions.
Nakamura has been thought by many to be some kind of bright star on the horizon, especially in the controlled growth community. But A&B doesn’t give money to just anyone and they know what many don’t- that the view of someone who is trained and working as a “planner” is one amenable to development.
So were these “bribes”? Certainly not as far as the law is concerned. In order for a campaign contribution to be a bribe there would have to be unimpeachable evidence- a recorded conversation or a written note- explicitly saying that the money was given in exchange for a vote.
But until corporations are banned from giving directly to politicians’ election campaigns these legal bribes will continue to corrupt American politics at every level of government.
-----
We have “stuff” tomorrow. See ya Monday.
In recent the case of Alexander and Baldwin (A&B) and their recent successful effort to get out from under a “workforce housing” requirement for their Kukui`ula project in Po`ipu the trail of money and votes of county councilmembers tell a story that makes the latter a distinct possibility.
When A&B got re-zoning of their Kukui`ula project a few years back, then Council Planning Committee Chair JoAnn Yukimura, who as a private citizen had fought the project, did a 180 and helped grease the wheels to change the project from an affordable housing venture to one of luxury homes for off-islanders.
She says that because she didn’t have the votes to actually stop the project she made sure that the conditions and “give backs”- things to benefit the community like housing, roads or schools- were severe and sometimes unique, including the 99 year buy back condition on a sizable chunk of the “affordable” so-called “gap” housing.
So when A&B asked to not just reduce the time line but dump the administration of the program into the county’s lap, Yukimura, now again a private citizen after an unsuccessful run for mayor in ’08, screamed bloody murder.
Needless to say, it was “no soup for you JoAnn” when A&B started handing out the checks.
But not so for former Councilperson Mel Rapozo who was one of those who was predisposed to voting for the original rezoning. Rapozo, also out of office after a mayoral run, has been a vocal populist and activist, testifying and providing documents on many land use issues this year. He’s considered a shoo-in this November in his bid to return to the council.
But on the Kukui`ula housing bill Rapozo remained silent. And if he had any ideas of opposing the bill, right before the it was introduced Rapozo got a $500 check from A&B on April 23, reminding him of their previous support.
Also receiving an April check- this one on the 27th- was first-time candidate Nadine Nakamura who got $300. Nakamura a “planner” by trade is a good investment for A&B since her day job is essentially to help developers like A&B push through their developments. More on her later.
As the bill was being placed on the table A&B decided to spread some “love” around to remind their most likely supporters who was buttering their bread.
Councilperson Dickie Chang- a man who never met a development he didn’t like- was the first and on June 14 he got $500.
At this point it was anyone’s guess how the council vote would shake out. Recent battles over transient vacation rentals and use of ag lands had sharpened the edges of the council factions and Chang, who was in Chair Kaipo Asing’s “gang” would be looking to Asing for a cue and Asing could have done anything here.
There was one more worry for A&B- the man at the top. Would Mayor Bernard Carvalho use his still-in-the-original-packaging veto pen if community outrage got out of hand? Another $1000- check for a total of $3000 this election cycle- served as reminder that A&B had another favor to ask.
That left Councilpersons Derek Kawakami and Jay Furfaro as the swing votes as it started to become clear that Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara- the real leaders of the dissident faction- were lining up to oppose passage of the bill.
Though Furfaro, vice chair of the council and chair of the planning committee, was the outward leader of the dissidents he remained non-committal though much of the back and forth in committee. So did Kawakami until Asing showed his hand by saying that, since the county had now passed affordable housing standards that were much lower than the Kukui`ula numbers it wouldn’t be “fair” to A&B to keep the 99 year buy back.
The bill passed on August 11 with Bynum and Kawahara voting “no”.
And on August 13 Kawakami received his reward- a check for $1000 courtesy of A&B.
And a few weeks later, on September 3- the final day for of the reporting period- A&B cut checks to Furfaro for $1,000.00, Chang for another $500.00 for a total of $1,000.00 and Rapozo, who kept his mouth shut on the bill, for another $500 totaling $1000.
Also receiving a September 3 check was Nakamura who got $700 for a total of $1000.
Missing from the largess was Yukimura who showed up at every committee meeting to reiterate how A&B had agreed to all these give backs and how it was part of a “package” and shouldn’t be changed.
Asing doesn’t take campaign contributions.
Nakamura has been thought by many to be some kind of bright star on the horizon, especially in the controlled growth community. But A&B doesn’t give money to just anyone and they know what many don’t- that the view of someone who is trained and working as a “planner” is one amenable to development.
So were these “bribes”? Certainly not as far as the law is concerned. In order for a campaign contribution to be a bribe there would have to be unimpeachable evidence- a recorded conversation or a written note- explicitly saying that the money was given in exchange for a vote.
But until corporations are banned from giving directly to politicians’ election campaigns these legal bribes will continue to corrupt American politics at every level of government.
-----
We have “stuff” tomorrow. See ya Monday.
Monday, August 30, 2010
EIGHTY SEVEN STRIKES AND YOU’RE STILL NOT OUT
EIGHTY SEVEN STRIKES AND YOU’RE STILL NOT OUT: You’d think that after battling against the recent gutting of the transient vacation rental ordinance, Council Chair Kaipo Asing and his right hand man- or left hand as it goes at the table- Derek Kawakami would be champing at the bit to finally close some of the biggest loopholes in Kaua`i agricultural land use law.
Maybe so... if you just arrived from Mars yesterday and had missed the Gordian knot of hypocrisy and deceit that has dominated their actions and along with those of fellow gatekeepers of the Minotaur’s labyrinth, Councilmembers Darryl Kaneshiro and Dickie Chang, for the past almost two years.
So when the four of them voted down three “no brainer” bills to stop some of the biggest abuses of ag land on “first reading” you only had to look at who introduced them to figure out why.
Councilmember Tim Bynum’s bills would have:
- stopped the semi secretive way vast tracts of ag land have been chopped into tiny little pieces by requiring a public hearing before the planning commission for all ag land subdivisions;
- limited the size of “farm dwellings” to 2500 feet without planning commission approval and;
- lowered the “density”- the number of acres per farm dwelling- on ag land to the standards used on the other neighbor islands.
But what was almost astonishing was that neither Bynum or Kawahara- nor anyone from the public- said anything about Kaneshiro’s hysterical, fist-pounding, emotionally high-pitched tirade about how the bill would personally effect him due to his ownership and/or control of vast tracts of agricultural lands where he runs his ranching operations, complaining how the bills would limit his ability to subdivide his own ag lands for housing for his children, grandchildren and presumably the generations a-comin’.
Presumably they all had temporary amnesia as to a recent county charter amendment to the “Code of Ethics” under section 20,04B: Disclosure, which says that:
(a)ny elected official... who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority... in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.
What the heck was Kaneshiro doing even speaking on the subject much less literally screaming about how the bills would directly effect him?
That charter does however list the penalties for violations of the code under 20.04C, Penalties.
(1) Any violation of any of the provisions of this section shall, at the option of the director of finance, render forfeit and void the contract, work, business, sale or transaction affected.
(2) Any violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office or employment.
Presumably that means it would take action by the Director of Finance to nullify the vote to receive the three bills. Good luck with that, especially because it would take an action from the moribund, sycophantic Board of Ethics (BOE) to get him to do it..
It’s hard to say what the bigger outrage is- a first ever (that we can recall, and that goes back almost 30 years) “receipt” of a bill for first reading due to objectionable content or the fact that Kaneshiro was not only permitted to speak on the subject but to cast the deciding vote, with one Councilmember, Jay Furfaro (a supposed member of Bynum and Kawahara’s minority faction) absent and not voting.
Maybe it was the way Kawakami tried to turn it into a flag waving “protect the American Dream” matter to allow people to build huge mansions and subdivide their land while failing to mention that the bills dealt with agricultural lands
Maybe it was the way Asing seemed to have a deer-in-the-headlights look in his eyes saying absolutely nothing while his henchmen made a farce of his recent strenuous defense of preservation of agricultural lands, even to the point of forbidding farm worker housing with a bazillion restrictions.
Maybe it was, as usual, Chang's clueless political lockstep with the majority and inability to think for himself .
Maybe it was the attempt by Asing to try to blame it all on the “county attorney’s concerns” about the bills only to have the CA call bullsh*t on him by saying that he would have concerns about ALL land use bills.
No, the biggest outrage of all is that these three measures to protect what’s left of our agricultural lands are dead for the immediate future.
Maybe so... if you just arrived from Mars yesterday and had missed the Gordian knot of hypocrisy and deceit that has dominated their actions and along with those of fellow gatekeepers of the Minotaur’s labyrinth, Councilmembers Darryl Kaneshiro and Dickie Chang, for the past almost two years.
So when the four of them voted down three “no brainer” bills to stop some of the biggest abuses of ag land on “first reading” you only had to look at who introduced them to figure out why.
Councilmember Tim Bynum’s bills would have:
- stopped the semi secretive way vast tracts of ag land have been chopped into tiny little pieces by requiring a public hearing before the planning commission for all ag land subdivisions;
- limited the size of “farm dwellings” to 2500 feet without planning commission approval and;
- lowered the “density”- the number of acres per farm dwelling- on ag land to the standards used on the other neighbor islands.
But what was almost astonishing was that neither Bynum or Kawahara- nor anyone from the public- said anything about Kaneshiro’s hysterical, fist-pounding, emotionally high-pitched tirade about how the bill would personally effect him due to his ownership and/or control of vast tracts of agricultural lands where he runs his ranching operations, complaining how the bills would limit his ability to subdivide his own ag lands for housing for his children, grandchildren and presumably the generations a-comin’.
Presumably they all had temporary amnesia as to a recent county charter amendment to the “Code of Ethics” under section 20,04B: Disclosure, which says that:
(a)ny elected official... who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority... in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.
What the heck was Kaneshiro doing even speaking on the subject much less literally screaming about how the bills would directly effect him?
That charter does however list the penalties for violations of the code under 20.04C, Penalties.
(1) Any violation of any of the provisions of this section shall, at the option of the director of finance, render forfeit and void the contract, work, business, sale or transaction affected.
(2) Any violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office or employment.
Presumably that means it would take action by the Director of Finance to nullify the vote to receive the three bills. Good luck with that, especially because it would take an action from the moribund, sycophantic Board of Ethics (BOE) to get him to do it..
It’s hard to say what the bigger outrage is- a first ever (that we can recall, and that goes back almost 30 years) “receipt” of a bill for first reading due to objectionable content or the fact that Kaneshiro was not only permitted to speak on the subject but to cast the deciding vote, with one Councilmember, Jay Furfaro (a supposed member of Bynum and Kawahara’s minority faction) absent and not voting.
Maybe it was the way Kawakami tried to turn it into a flag waving “protect the American Dream” matter to allow people to build huge mansions and subdivide their land while failing to mention that the bills dealt with agricultural lands
Maybe it was the way Asing seemed to have a deer-in-the-headlights look in his eyes saying absolutely nothing while his henchmen made a farce of his recent strenuous defense of preservation of agricultural lands, even to the point of forbidding farm worker housing with a bazillion restrictions.
Maybe it was, as usual, Chang's clueless political lockstep with the majority and inability to think for himself .
Maybe it was the attempt by Asing to try to blame it all on the “county attorney’s concerns” about the bills only to have the CA call bullsh*t on him by saying that he would have concerns about ALL land use bills.
No, the biggest outrage of all is that these three measures to protect what’s left of our agricultural lands are dead for the immediate future.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
WHY WOULD YOU?
WHY WOULD YOU?: While Will Rogers said he never met a man he didn’t like, in a political sense he might have meant that he never met a man he didn’t agree with- at least once.
So like the pre-digital broken clock that’s right twice a day we weren’t surprised when the now infamous email from Ed Case showed up in our inbox (apparently he got hold of a Maui Superferry list a while back) calling Mufi Hannemann the “most dangerous politician in a generation” and the “clear choice of a political machine (which has) practiced the politics of division, exploiting rather than healing differences of race, origin and economic status”.
Case himself has been turning stomachs for his own Mufi-like outsized ego for years now but we couldn’t have put it more succinctly.
But what it reminds us is just how few candidates there are this year that we can actually consider voting for much less endorsing.
Our ruminations over the past few weeks have left us with the worst taste in our mouth in years when we look down the list of wannbes whether for our local Kaua`i County Council race, our state senate and two of the three house races or the statewide races- not to mention the U.S. congressional choices.
With the exception of Gary Hooser in his race for Lt. Governor and Mina Morita’s run for re-election to the state house we can’t think of any candidates to actually vote “for” while the list of those to vote “against” is extensive.
It’s particularly disappointing when someone like Councilperson Lani Kawahara gives up on politics after one term because of the personal toll of dealing with the slings and arrows of elected office. It sends a signal to those considering throwing their hat in the ring to, as the large letter above the steep steps at the entrance to the county building equivocally say, “Watch Your Step”.
Maybe it should say “Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here”
With voters’ “gimme-gimme-gimme services but don’t tax me and while you’re at it pay yourself a pittance” attitude toward those we expect to solve all our problems it’s no wonder we’re stuck with the traditional “lesser of two evils” after creating an enclave where only the evil dare to tread.
So like the pre-digital broken clock that’s right twice a day we weren’t surprised when the now infamous email from Ed Case showed up in our inbox (apparently he got hold of a Maui Superferry list a while back) calling Mufi Hannemann the “most dangerous politician in a generation” and the “clear choice of a political machine (which has) practiced the politics of division, exploiting rather than healing differences of race, origin and economic status”.
Case himself has been turning stomachs for his own Mufi-like outsized ego for years now but we couldn’t have put it more succinctly.
But what it reminds us is just how few candidates there are this year that we can actually consider voting for much less endorsing.
Our ruminations over the past few weeks have left us with the worst taste in our mouth in years when we look down the list of wannbes whether for our local Kaua`i County Council race, our state senate and two of the three house races or the statewide races- not to mention the U.S. congressional choices.
With the exception of Gary Hooser in his race for Lt. Governor and Mina Morita’s run for re-election to the state house we can’t think of any candidates to actually vote “for” while the list of those to vote “against” is extensive.
It’s particularly disappointing when someone like Councilperson Lani Kawahara gives up on politics after one term because of the personal toll of dealing with the slings and arrows of elected office. It sends a signal to those considering throwing their hat in the ring to, as the large letter above the steep steps at the entrance to the county building equivocally say, “Watch Your Step”.
Maybe it should say “Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here”
With voters’ “gimme-gimme-gimme services but don’t tax me and while you’re at it pay yourself a pittance” attitude toward those we expect to solve all our problems it’s no wonder we’re stuck with the traditional “lesser of two evils” after creating an enclave where only the evil dare to tread.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
NOT BUT WITH A WHIMPER
NOT BUT WITH A WHIMPER: As if there was any doubt as to the outcome or the specifics the council passed an even more loophole ridden version of the TVR bill yesterday with (predictably) Dickie Chang and (disappointingly but not unpredictably) Lani Kawahara joining Jay Furfaro, Darryl Kaneshiro and bill author Tim Bynum voting “yea” and Derrick Kawakami and Chair Kaipo Asing voting in the negatory.
That information comes no thanks to the lazy dullard on the government beat at the local newspaper who apparently couldn’t stay up as late enough to file a story on the all important vote but Joan Conrow who “juggled work with time in the Council Chambers to see for myself how the vote on the transient vacation rental (TVR) bill went down,” filed her post at 11:16 last night.
The added poison to the already toxic legislation says, according to Conrow:
you don’t actually have to be engaged in bonafide farming, as evidenced by tax returns, to get approval for your TVR on agricultural land. You can still get a permit if the planning commission finds intensive agriculture is prohibited by the shape, size, topography, surrounding land uses OR — and this is today’s big giveaway — for any other reason.
And as far as “Mr. Wala`au”, also predictably Joan quoted Dickie Chang as saying “(w)hether it’s right or wrong, we need to move forward” saying that apparently “that answers the question of whether his private pau hana briefing by beer-bearing county attorneys had any effect on his decision. 'Cause he was against the bill before that little meeting.”
But the big question is whether this will really be the political game changer many are predicting.
There is palpable fury over this bill among not just the usual suspects but those who ordinarily don’t give politics a second thought except for every two years in November.
Many felt that they were sold down the river when the grandfathering bill was passed but thought that the restrictions and difficulty of the process- replete with provisions for public scrutiny- would serve to phase out the existing TVRs in residential areas.
But not only did the corrupt planning department refuse to follow the guidelines but the planning commission didn’t seem to care. And now instead of seeking to strengthen the bill the council has essentially torn it up and thrown in a plum giving the most egregious illegality- those TVRs on ag- a path to legality to boot.
Other than those who stand to gain financially it’s hard to find anyone- even among those who ordinarily support the land rape of Kaua`i- who has supported the mess.
So how will this shake out- or shake up Kaua`i politics?
The questions are first, will this be the end of the political careers of Furfaro and more importantly Bynum as many have vowed to make it and on the flip side will the animosity over Asing’s reign of terror and the disappointment over the misplaced hopes some had for Kawakami last election be negated by their somewhat meaningless votes?
Furfaro’s popularity has always been an enigma. But his vote wasn’t disappointing anyone. His unflinching support for tourism development has always been a hallmark of his tenure on the council. But his growing pomposity and ego driven bombast recently has become more and more irritating, at least for those who catch it on TV.
Is the anti incumbent feeling this year enough to push him out? Don’t count on it.
Bynum is the big question mark. Before the TVR debacle his growing popularity in supporting what was seen as Kawahara’s push for openness and free-flowing information allowed him to ride her ample coattails which many predicted would lead her near or to the top of the polling this year.
But with Kawahara out of the race after being beaten to a bloody pulp by the likes of Asing, Kawakami and Kaneshiro voters may not put as much stock in the need for Bynum’s “second” to what was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the fight her “new blood” introduced into the council dynamic.
With “his” TVR bill, as well as other votes that are seen as hypocritical of his words on sustainability and land use in general, that may well be the defining issue upon which Bynum’s continued incumbency depends.
That leads to Chang who slipped in last time due to name recognition alone. But really his victory in ’08 was a numbers game- one that may again be the more important factor this November.
With two “vacancies” in ’08 there was a dearth of viable candidates to fill the two slots other than Kawahara. A virtual unknown, Kipukai Kuali`i even came close without any endorsements from the progressives that a social workers and organizer might have gotten if organizations like the Sierra Club- and admittedly observers like us- hadn’t put all their eggs in the Kawahara basket.
This year is quite the opposite. The two who created the vacancies- Mel Rapozo ad JoAnn Yukimura who both ran for mayor and lost- are back and are virtual shoo-ins for election.
But other than Nadine Nakamura- who despite having some good buzz is still is a question mark due to the wariness people have over her profession as a “planner”, which on Kaua`i may be a dirty word- and Rolf Bieber who has made a name for himself in taking on the administration and the corrupt ethics commission, viable candidates are few and far between.
Given Chang's negatives after two years of cluelessness Nakamura stands to take advantage and move into his slot.
But that may all be moot if Asing or Kawakami- or both- fall out of the top seven something that, although unlikely if you look at past elections, may be possible in a year when disgust with council incumbents has made dents in their usual bases of support.
The question for Furfaro and Bynum may not be their negatives as much as how effective a charge Bieber or Kuali`i can make and how far the once mighty have fallen.
We have few illusions. To quote John Lennon- and perhaps explain Kawahara’s decision that she’d had enough-
There’s room at the top they keep telling you still
But first you must learn to smile as you kill
A working class hero is something to be
That information comes no thanks to the lazy dullard on the government beat at the local newspaper who apparently couldn’t stay up as late enough to file a story on the all important vote but Joan Conrow who “juggled work with time in the Council Chambers to see for myself how the vote on the transient vacation rental (TVR) bill went down,” filed her post at 11:16 last night.
The added poison to the already toxic legislation says, according to Conrow:
you don’t actually have to be engaged in bonafide farming, as evidenced by tax returns, to get approval for your TVR on agricultural land. You can still get a permit if the planning commission finds intensive agriculture is prohibited by the shape, size, topography, surrounding land uses OR — and this is today’s big giveaway — for any other reason.
And as far as “Mr. Wala`au”, also predictably Joan quoted Dickie Chang as saying “(w)hether it’s right or wrong, we need to move forward” saying that apparently “that answers the question of whether his private pau hana briefing by beer-bearing county attorneys had any effect on his decision. 'Cause he was against the bill before that little meeting.”
But the big question is whether this will really be the political game changer many are predicting.
There is palpable fury over this bill among not just the usual suspects but those who ordinarily don’t give politics a second thought except for every two years in November.
Many felt that they were sold down the river when the grandfathering bill was passed but thought that the restrictions and difficulty of the process- replete with provisions for public scrutiny- would serve to phase out the existing TVRs in residential areas.
But not only did the corrupt planning department refuse to follow the guidelines but the planning commission didn’t seem to care. And now instead of seeking to strengthen the bill the council has essentially torn it up and thrown in a plum giving the most egregious illegality- those TVRs on ag- a path to legality to boot.
Other than those who stand to gain financially it’s hard to find anyone- even among those who ordinarily support the land rape of Kaua`i- who has supported the mess.
So how will this shake out- or shake up Kaua`i politics?
The questions are first, will this be the end of the political careers of Furfaro and more importantly Bynum as many have vowed to make it and on the flip side will the animosity over Asing’s reign of terror and the disappointment over the misplaced hopes some had for Kawakami last election be negated by their somewhat meaningless votes?
Furfaro’s popularity has always been an enigma. But his vote wasn’t disappointing anyone. His unflinching support for tourism development has always been a hallmark of his tenure on the council. But his growing pomposity and ego driven bombast recently has become more and more irritating, at least for those who catch it on TV.
Is the anti incumbent feeling this year enough to push him out? Don’t count on it.
Bynum is the big question mark. Before the TVR debacle his growing popularity in supporting what was seen as Kawahara’s push for openness and free-flowing information allowed him to ride her ample coattails which many predicted would lead her near or to the top of the polling this year.
But with Kawahara out of the race after being beaten to a bloody pulp by the likes of Asing, Kawakami and Kaneshiro voters may not put as much stock in the need for Bynum’s “second” to what was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the fight her “new blood” introduced into the council dynamic.
With “his” TVR bill, as well as other votes that are seen as hypocritical of his words on sustainability and land use in general, that may well be the defining issue upon which Bynum’s continued incumbency depends.
That leads to Chang who slipped in last time due to name recognition alone. But really his victory in ’08 was a numbers game- one that may again be the more important factor this November.
With two “vacancies” in ’08 there was a dearth of viable candidates to fill the two slots other than Kawahara. A virtual unknown, Kipukai Kuali`i even came close without any endorsements from the progressives that a social workers and organizer might have gotten if organizations like the Sierra Club- and admittedly observers like us- hadn’t put all their eggs in the Kawahara basket.
This year is quite the opposite. The two who created the vacancies- Mel Rapozo ad JoAnn Yukimura who both ran for mayor and lost- are back and are virtual shoo-ins for election.
But other than Nadine Nakamura- who despite having some good buzz is still is a question mark due to the wariness people have over her profession as a “planner”, which on Kaua`i may be a dirty word- and Rolf Bieber who has made a name for himself in taking on the administration and the corrupt ethics commission, viable candidates are few and far between.
Given Chang's negatives after two years of cluelessness Nakamura stands to take advantage and move into his slot.
But that may all be moot if Asing or Kawakami- or both- fall out of the top seven something that, although unlikely if you look at past elections, may be possible in a year when disgust with council incumbents has made dents in their usual bases of support.
The question for Furfaro and Bynum may not be their negatives as much as how effective a charge Bieber or Kuali`i can make and how far the once mighty have fallen.
We have few illusions. To quote John Lennon- and perhaps explain Kawahara’s decision that she’d had enough-
There’s room at the top they keep telling you still
But first you must learn to smile as you kill
A working class hero is something to be
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
FOOT FAULT
FOOT FAULT: It’s not like we hadn’t heard the rumors over the past few months but seeing it in black and white (as it were) last night and reading Lani Kawahara’s aloha letter in today’s newspaper was still a kick in the gut.
Personally, though her decision is understandable, it’s still hard to take the fact that we’ll be going through another two years period of writing about self-serving blowhards without any breath of fresh air with which to compare and contrast it.
Despite what many think we have a lot of emotional investment in local government and politics so learning that the first real public- as opposed to self- servant on our council since Gary Hooser had indeed decided she couldn’t negotiate keeping her job as the Head Librarian at Kapa`a Library and her council seat.
There’s more than meets the eye in her statement that:
At this point in my life, I have decided to resume my service to the community as a librarian, facilitating access to information and lifelong learning. This was a very difficult decision to make.
The fact remains that what it came down to was choosing one or the other, especially after budget cuts and then furloughs caused the library to be short staffed.
We’ve taken on all the idiotic free-lunch wing-nuts who insist that elected officials- both statewide in the legislature and locally on our council- should be actually taking pay cuts rather than, as we’ve maintained, be given full time positions with salaries that are commensurate with the job.
There’s reasons aplenty for leaving- or not even venturing into the political arena but it shouldn’t have to be a decision as to whether one can afford to do so.
And there’s reason’s aplenty for paying for full-time legislators and chucking this part time scheme under which we’ve been laboring.
First ethically it is always a conflict of interest when someone in office has to take an “outside” job. Most- or we would venture to say all- must have an incredibly supportive boss to take off the time required to do the part time job. For state legislators that’s about four months straight and for councilmembers it’s at minimum a couple-a-three days a week- and weeks on end during budget times.
And no one in business is doing that for nothing.
That leaves the jobs to either the idle rich or those whose bosses gain an advantage from their employee’s status- just look at how many work as “consultants”, especially in the state legislature.
It also means that anyone else must make a choice often having to consider giving up a career in which they have invested decades in order to get a job that runs for two years at a stretch.
And do so at a severe cut in salary.
What that does is encourage the despised “career politician” because once you give up your job it’s often impossible to reclaim it.
We look down the list of council candidates and see either the same old faces that have failed us in the past or unknowns who are most likely clueless wanna-bes and can only think “you get what you pay for”.
The one notable exception is Rolf Bieber who, because he has a job that permits him to make his own hours, is the exception that proves the rule.
The literally poverty wages offered to our councilmembers and state legislators is responsible for the corrupt, ethics-free government we all bemoan.
Ain’t that a kick in an area just a little lower than the gut.
Personally, though her decision is understandable, it’s still hard to take the fact that we’ll be going through another two years period of writing about self-serving blowhards without any breath of fresh air with which to compare and contrast it.
Despite what many think we have a lot of emotional investment in local government and politics so learning that the first real public- as opposed to self- servant on our council since Gary Hooser had indeed decided she couldn’t negotiate keeping her job as the Head Librarian at Kapa`a Library and her council seat.
There’s more than meets the eye in her statement that:
At this point in my life, I have decided to resume my service to the community as a librarian, facilitating access to information and lifelong learning. This was a very difficult decision to make.
The fact remains that what it came down to was choosing one or the other, especially after budget cuts and then furloughs caused the library to be short staffed.
We’ve taken on all the idiotic free-lunch wing-nuts who insist that elected officials- both statewide in the legislature and locally on our council- should be actually taking pay cuts rather than, as we’ve maintained, be given full time positions with salaries that are commensurate with the job.
There’s reasons aplenty for leaving- or not even venturing into the political arena but it shouldn’t have to be a decision as to whether one can afford to do so.
And there’s reason’s aplenty for paying for full-time legislators and chucking this part time scheme under which we’ve been laboring.
First ethically it is always a conflict of interest when someone in office has to take an “outside” job. Most- or we would venture to say all- must have an incredibly supportive boss to take off the time required to do the part time job. For state legislators that’s about four months straight and for councilmembers it’s at minimum a couple-a-three days a week- and weeks on end during budget times.
And no one in business is doing that for nothing.
That leaves the jobs to either the idle rich or those whose bosses gain an advantage from their employee’s status- just look at how many work as “consultants”, especially in the state legislature.
It also means that anyone else must make a choice often having to consider giving up a career in which they have invested decades in order to get a job that runs for two years at a stretch.
And do so at a severe cut in salary.
What that does is encourage the despised “career politician” because once you give up your job it’s often impossible to reclaim it.
We look down the list of council candidates and see either the same old faces that have failed us in the past or unknowns who are most likely clueless wanna-bes and can only think “you get what you pay for”.
The one notable exception is Rolf Bieber who, because he has a job that permits him to make his own hours, is the exception that proves the rule.
The literally poverty wages offered to our councilmembers and state legislators is responsible for the corrupt, ethics-free government we all bemoan.
Ain’t that a kick in an area just a little lower than the gut.
Monday, July 19, 2010
ONLY HALF BULL?
ONLY HALF BULL?: Deep in the darkest recesses of the Minotaur’s labyrinth when the light of day threatens to expose all, his minions scurry to defend the perimeters at every parry of the knights of illumination.
And last Wednesday, the news that that of death of the Minotaur was premature being still unknown, his minotaur-in-waiting performed his own dance of darkness as if to prove his worthiness to ascend to the throne
Council Chair Kaipo Asing indeed filed to run for another term last Thursday despite statements in 2008 that this term would be his last.
His filing came on the heels of another slaying of the oft promised and always delayed on-line, live streaming of meetings and posting of video and agenda-related documents.
The six month deferment was accomplished through the complicity of his always rely-a-bull 3-D’s who were joined by the clueless would-be king, Jay Furfaro, whose continued confusion over how the sunshine law actually works gave the excuse for essentially the defeat of another attempt by Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara to get everyone to move off the dime and “git ’r done”
And though the local paper not only ran an article but an editorial each was, as usual, equally clueless as to the back story and Furfaro’s apparently inability to understand the basics of the state’s open meetings “sunshine” laws.
Furfaro’s confusion goes back to December of 2008 when we filed a complaint with the Office of Information Practices (OIP) after he was caught Red-Handed sending a letter to fellow councilpersons not just describing the then-new original bill calling for “non-enforcement agreements” for vacation rentals on ag land, but soliciting their support which is forbidden under any and all circumstances by law.
OIP opened a case, as we reported in Jan. of 2009 but rather than admit his blatant violation of the law Furfaro has been fighting it ever since, even somehow spending, as he said Wednesday, $1700 to do so.
The law is actually very simple. Pay attention Jay.
Councilmembers cannot discuss any matter either on an agenda or that might be on a future agenda with more than one other councilmember. And even then they cannot solicit or commit to a vote.
And, they can’t get around that by “serial one-on-one communications” or by going through a third party to do so.
The correct way to introduce anything they want to discuss is to put it on the agenda as either a communication or a bill or resolution. Otherwise it is forbidden to discuss it with more than one other member.
Once it is on the agenda the way to discuss it is to wait for the item to come up on the agenda and then say and do anything you want including introducing or even “floating” amendments to a bill.
But somehow Furfaro remains obstinate in his refusal to learn these simple procedures as evidenced by the fact that at this very meeting, during this very agenda item where he brought up his confusion in order to ask for the deferral, he referred to a 19 page letter he had sent to the Civil Service Commission regarding his thoughts on county furloughs- which the council has set for December discussion- and actually sent a copy of that letter to the rest of the council without putting it on the agenda.
All he would have had to do was send a communication with the 19 page letter to the council, have it placed on the agenda and it would have been legal. But as if to re-iterate his inability to understand a simple concept that all other council, boards and commissions in the state seem to have no trouble understanding, he just distributed it to councilmembers by placing it in their mailboxes.
Furfaro has even devised another attempted by-pass of the law lately calling for the “floating” of amendments to a bill at one committee meeting to be taken up at the next one but making them available only to the councilmembers and not to the public, according to discussion at Wednesday’s meeting.
Just as absurd were some of the other excuses used to delay implementation of the system- for which the contract has been signed and apparently all the protests have now been resolved.
What the resolution calls for in the posting of all the accompanying paperwork for all agenda items- not just the actual communications, bills and resolutions but the background documents pertaining to the item.
Right now “hard copies”- on paper- of all those are available to the public at council services as soon as the agenda is officially filed. And copies of each are made for councilpersons as part of their “packet” which they also receive when the agenda is filed.
According to sources at council services the copying machine there isn’t just some $39.99 Wal Mart special. It’s a fancy schmancy piece of work that not only makes copies but makes digital copies of each and can, with the push of a button can- drum roll please- even post them on line automatically.
But you would think that they needed a Manhattan project to figure out how to post them and then have to hire three more employees to push that bottom from the way Furfaro, Asing and Councilpersons Dickie Chang, Darryl Kaneshiro and Derrick Kawakami jumped at the chance to defer posting the documents- via the system which IT Division Chief Erik Knutzen told us a year and a half ago was ready to go- until they resolve the “county furloughs” issue and meet with staff to figure out how to push the button.... something they’ve had four years to do.
But there are no buttons at door to the labyrinth and distribution of information remains for now on a need-to-know basis.
And last Wednesday, the news that that of death of the Minotaur was premature being still unknown, his minotaur-in-waiting performed his own dance of darkness as if to prove his worthiness to ascend to the throne
Council Chair Kaipo Asing indeed filed to run for another term last Thursday despite statements in 2008 that this term would be his last.
His filing came on the heels of another slaying of the oft promised and always delayed on-line, live streaming of meetings and posting of video and agenda-related documents.
The six month deferment was accomplished through the complicity of his always rely-a-bull 3-D’s who were joined by the clueless would-be king, Jay Furfaro, whose continued confusion over how the sunshine law actually works gave the excuse for essentially the defeat of another attempt by Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara to get everyone to move off the dime and “git ’r done”
And though the local paper not only ran an article but an editorial each was, as usual, equally clueless as to the back story and Furfaro’s apparently inability to understand the basics of the state’s open meetings “sunshine” laws.
Furfaro’s confusion goes back to December of 2008 when we filed a complaint with the Office of Information Practices (OIP) after he was caught Red-Handed sending a letter to fellow councilpersons not just describing the then-new original bill calling for “non-enforcement agreements” for vacation rentals on ag land, but soliciting their support which is forbidden under any and all circumstances by law.
OIP opened a case, as we reported in Jan. of 2009 but rather than admit his blatant violation of the law Furfaro has been fighting it ever since, even somehow spending, as he said Wednesday, $1700 to do so.
The law is actually very simple. Pay attention Jay.
Councilmembers cannot discuss any matter either on an agenda or that might be on a future agenda with more than one other councilmember. And even then they cannot solicit or commit to a vote.
And, they can’t get around that by “serial one-on-one communications” or by going through a third party to do so.
The correct way to introduce anything they want to discuss is to put it on the agenda as either a communication or a bill or resolution. Otherwise it is forbidden to discuss it with more than one other member.
Once it is on the agenda the way to discuss it is to wait for the item to come up on the agenda and then say and do anything you want including introducing or even “floating” amendments to a bill.
But somehow Furfaro remains obstinate in his refusal to learn these simple procedures as evidenced by the fact that at this very meeting, during this very agenda item where he brought up his confusion in order to ask for the deferral, he referred to a 19 page letter he had sent to the Civil Service Commission regarding his thoughts on county furloughs- which the council has set for December discussion- and actually sent a copy of that letter to the rest of the council without putting it on the agenda.
All he would have had to do was send a communication with the 19 page letter to the council, have it placed on the agenda and it would have been legal. But as if to re-iterate his inability to understand a simple concept that all other council, boards and commissions in the state seem to have no trouble understanding, he just distributed it to councilmembers by placing it in their mailboxes.
Furfaro has even devised another attempted by-pass of the law lately calling for the “floating” of amendments to a bill at one committee meeting to be taken up at the next one but making them available only to the councilmembers and not to the public, according to discussion at Wednesday’s meeting.
Just as absurd were some of the other excuses used to delay implementation of the system- for which the contract has been signed and apparently all the protests have now been resolved.
What the resolution calls for in the posting of all the accompanying paperwork for all agenda items- not just the actual communications, bills and resolutions but the background documents pertaining to the item.
Right now “hard copies”- on paper- of all those are available to the public at council services as soon as the agenda is officially filed. And copies of each are made for councilpersons as part of their “packet” which they also receive when the agenda is filed.
According to sources at council services the copying machine there isn’t just some $39.99 Wal Mart special. It’s a fancy schmancy piece of work that not only makes copies but makes digital copies of each and can, with the push of a button can- drum roll please- even post them on line automatically.
But you would think that they needed a Manhattan project to figure out how to post them and then have to hire three more employees to push that bottom from the way Furfaro, Asing and Councilpersons Dickie Chang, Darryl Kaneshiro and Derrick Kawakami jumped at the chance to defer posting the documents- via the system which IT Division Chief Erik Knutzen told us a year and a half ago was ready to go- until they resolve the “county furloughs” issue and meet with staff to figure out how to push the button.... something they’ve had four years to do.
But there are no buttons at door to the labyrinth and distribution of information remains for now on a need-to-know basis.
Monday, July 12, 2010
YOU’D BETTER HURRY ‘CAUSE IT’S GOING FAST
YOU’D BETTER HURRY ‘CAUSE IT’S GOING FAST: Like the contents of Fibber Mcgee’s closet the Lepe`uli (Larsen’s) Beach Controversy spilled into its first recorded public forum at last Wednesday’s council meeting replete with hidden agendas, denials of racism, land grabs and lawyerly gaffs.
It all began suddenly when Mayor Bernard Carvalho conspired with the owner that’s been blocking access to the portion of the alaloa- a Hawaiian language word meaning “highway, main road, belt road around an island, along road” not the name of a trail itself as the newspaper reported- where it runs above the beach at Lepe`uli.
In seeking to throw a monkey wrench in owner Waioli Corporation’s lessee Bruce Laymon’s plans to cut off access to the alaloa and limit access to the beach Carvalho and Waioli Attorney Don Wilson sprung a “new access” easement agreement on the council just before the long July 4th/furlough Friday, four-day weekend and then tried to ram it though the council the following Wednesday.
The battle has finally gotten traction at the state level with a Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) investigation of the whole matter including bogus claims by another Waioli attorney Lorna Nishimitsu and Laymon himself, first as to whether there is even a traditional trail portion from Anahola to Kilauea and later as to it’s location (see previous reports linked above).
But it became obvious that Waioli was trying to “donate” an easement via a trail that isn’t the official but overgrown county owned access at the south end of the beach but is right next to it, in order to convince the DLNR that there is access to the beach so it’s ok to block that portion of the alaloa, which has been in use “since time immemorial” according to everyone not associated with either Waioli or Laymon and his ranching operation.
The fear that the DLNR will soon find that the alaloa is a “prescriptive use” access has apparently struck so much fear in Waioli that they replaced Nishimitsu with Wilson, whose stammering, often contradictory and occasionally high pitched testimony before the council only served to make matters worse for Waioli
Wilson tried at times to deny the existence of the alaloa and later to perpetuate the confusion as to where it was before admitting under questioning by Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara that yes, the alaloa did exist but echoing Laymon’s desire to stop access due to what’s been characterized as “nude campers leaving trash” at the beach- a characterization that has been taken by many to mean “haoles” especially after a slew of reports of rants by Laymon using that term pejoratively .
This is not the first attack on the alaloa. In the 90’s developer of Kealia Kai Tom McCloskey, whose Moloa`a Bay Ranch encompasses another portion of the trail just north of Moloa`a lost his battle to relocate the trail to the rocks below and the alaloa became a candidate for preservation by the state Na Ala Hele Commission before the state withdrew support and funding for the group and it fell apart.
At first Wilson tried to give the impression that the offer might go away if it wasn’t accepted by the council last Wednesday although later, after a break, he admitted that wasn’t the case.
Coincidentally the last time we remember anyone trying to rush through a Trojan Horse gift like this- one with a one day “take it now or lose it” rider- was McCloskey’s gift of the area above the area of the bike path north of Kealia which would have become a private beach with limited access had the deed been accepted "as is" the day it was introduced and set for fast tracking by then Mayor Maryanne Kusaka and then Councilperson Bryan Baptiste.
Then, as on Wednesday, the matter was deferred after some on the council smelled a rat.
Those records left by Na Ala Hele were apparently a taking off point Bynum and Kawahara used to show where the trail runs and the prior attempts to preserve it.
But what stood out was this bizarre argument by Laymon and Wilson along with one of Laymon’s employees that the gently sloping alaloa with it’s many easy side trials to the beach would somehow encourage the “trash” in the area, presumably left by these so-called naked campers even though much of the trash Laymon cleaned up in a beach clean up recently had been there for many decades.
The thinly veiled race card hung over the room as did Laymon’s apparent homophobic rage over clothing optional nature of the secluded beach- where his employees have been accused by witnesses of using binoculars to ogle naked women- as he ranted in code about maintaining access for “local people” while keeping others out, intimating that somehow local people including kupuna could and would navigate the steep new access while others would not.
But, as revered kupuna Richard and Linda Sproat’s daughter, attorney and UH Professor of Hawaiian Studies Kapua Sproat told the council the alaloa is legally protected under state laws as a prescriptive access for all that’s been in continual use as long as anyone can remember.
The DLNR investigation was initiated after the Office of Hawaiian Affairs responded to citizen’s complaints over Laymon’s Conservation District Area Use permit, especially complaints by the Kaua`i Group of the Sierra Club which has been trying to protect the alaloa segment for more than a decade as we’ve detailed during the past year.
What Waioli is doing backing Laymon in this is the one of the more baffling things about the whole matter. You would think they’d take advantage of the terroristic threatening he’s been accused of along with his historic utter disregard for grubbing and grading laws to try to revoke his lease and give it to someone sensitive to the community’s concerns.
Laymon still doesn’t get it. He tried to tell a story complaining that recently he was ready to just illegally bulldoze the old overgrown county owned access without a permit in a sensitive special management area and conservation district but was “threatened” with being reported to the authorities by those trying to preserve the area to somehow say he is being prevented from “helping”.
For the record Laymon denied being “a racist”
The area at Lepe`uli contains not just documented burials but documented evidence of a “ancient” Hawaiian village which have been disturbed by his ranching and fencing operations without a cultural study of the area.
Wilson wondered aloud why the alaloa is even part of the discussion complaining that this is “going on and on and on” for Waioli. But didn’t seem to notice the irony that it’s been their actions in allowing Laymon to garner community enmity by blocking access and perpetuating the race-baiting conflicts that has made put the issue before the council.
Waioli Corp used to have a good name in the community through it’s historic preservation mission and actions. Now that has seemingly gone out the window due to the blind spot they have for Laymon and Lepe`uli and the disregard for the historic and cultural nature of the alaloa and Lepe`uli in general.
If they had decided to say “ok- we’ll move our fence back and the pubic can have the alaloa and beach access- it would have cost them less in blood and treasure than this fight which now may not end for the community until the whole area becomes an historic and cultural preserve.
The question remains for Laymon and Waioli Corp– are “illegal activities” at Larson’s beach such as littering enough to block access? Even if so is the answer blocking access or enforcing the law? And if so, should we block access to all beaches where litter is found?
The public awaits answers to those questions and more as the council awaits the DLNR report and will take up the matter again on August 23.
It all began suddenly when Mayor Bernard Carvalho conspired with the owner that’s been blocking access to the portion of the alaloa- a Hawaiian language word meaning “highway, main road, belt road around an island, along road” not the name of a trail itself as the newspaper reported- where it runs above the beach at Lepe`uli.
In seeking to throw a monkey wrench in owner Waioli Corporation’s lessee Bruce Laymon’s plans to cut off access to the alaloa and limit access to the beach Carvalho and Waioli Attorney Don Wilson sprung a “new access” easement agreement on the council just before the long July 4th/furlough Friday, four-day weekend and then tried to ram it though the council the following Wednesday.
The battle has finally gotten traction at the state level with a Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) investigation of the whole matter including bogus claims by another Waioli attorney Lorna Nishimitsu and Laymon himself, first as to whether there is even a traditional trail portion from Anahola to Kilauea and later as to it’s location (see previous reports linked above).
But it became obvious that Waioli was trying to “donate” an easement via a trail that isn’t the official but overgrown county owned access at the south end of the beach but is right next to it, in order to convince the DLNR that there is access to the beach so it’s ok to block that portion of the alaloa, which has been in use “since time immemorial” according to everyone not associated with either Waioli or Laymon and his ranching operation.
The fear that the DLNR will soon find that the alaloa is a “prescriptive use” access has apparently struck so much fear in Waioli that they replaced Nishimitsu with Wilson, whose stammering, often contradictory and occasionally high pitched testimony before the council only served to make matters worse for Waioli
Wilson tried at times to deny the existence of the alaloa and later to perpetuate the confusion as to where it was before admitting under questioning by Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara that yes, the alaloa did exist but echoing Laymon’s desire to stop access due to what’s been characterized as “nude campers leaving trash” at the beach- a characterization that has been taken by many to mean “haoles” especially after a slew of reports of rants by Laymon using that term pejoratively .
This is not the first attack on the alaloa. In the 90’s developer of Kealia Kai Tom McCloskey, whose Moloa`a Bay Ranch encompasses another portion of the trail just north of Moloa`a lost his battle to relocate the trail to the rocks below and the alaloa became a candidate for preservation by the state Na Ala Hele Commission before the state withdrew support and funding for the group and it fell apart.
At first Wilson tried to give the impression that the offer might go away if it wasn’t accepted by the council last Wednesday although later, after a break, he admitted that wasn’t the case.
Coincidentally the last time we remember anyone trying to rush through a Trojan Horse gift like this- one with a one day “take it now or lose it” rider- was McCloskey’s gift of the area above the area of the bike path north of Kealia which would have become a private beach with limited access had the deed been accepted "as is" the day it was introduced and set for fast tracking by then Mayor Maryanne Kusaka and then Councilperson Bryan Baptiste.
Then, as on Wednesday, the matter was deferred after some on the council smelled a rat.
Those records left by Na Ala Hele were apparently a taking off point Bynum and Kawahara used to show where the trail runs and the prior attempts to preserve it.
But what stood out was this bizarre argument by Laymon and Wilson along with one of Laymon’s employees that the gently sloping alaloa with it’s many easy side trials to the beach would somehow encourage the “trash” in the area, presumably left by these so-called naked campers even though much of the trash Laymon cleaned up in a beach clean up recently had been there for many decades.
The thinly veiled race card hung over the room as did Laymon’s apparent homophobic rage over clothing optional nature of the secluded beach- where his employees have been accused by witnesses of using binoculars to ogle naked women- as he ranted in code about maintaining access for “local people” while keeping others out, intimating that somehow local people including kupuna could and would navigate the steep new access while others would not.
But, as revered kupuna Richard and Linda Sproat’s daughter, attorney and UH Professor of Hawaiian Studies Kapua Sproat told the council the alaloa is legally protected under state laws as a prescriptive access for all that’s been in continual use as long as anyone can remember.
The DLNR investigation was initiated after the Office of Hawaiian Affairs responded to citizen’s complaints over Laymon’s Conservation District Area Use permit, especially complaints by the Kaua`i Group of the Sierra Club which has been trying to protect the alaloa segment for more than a decade as we’ve detailed during the past year.
What Waioli is doing backing Laymon in this is the one of the more baffling things about the whole matter. You would think they’d take advantage of the terroristic threatening he’s been accused of along with his historic utter disregard for grubbing and grading laws to try to revoke his lease and give it to someone sensitive to the community’s concerns.
Laymon still doesn’t get it. He tried to tell a story complaining that recently he was ready to just illegally bulldoze the old overgrown county owned access without a permit in a sensitive special management area and conservation district but was “threatened” with being reported to the authorities by those trying to preserve the area to somehow say he is being prevented from “helping”.
For the record Laymon denied being “a racist”
The area at Lepe`uli contains not just documented burials but documented evidence of a “ancient” Hawaiian village which have been disturbed by his ranching and fencing operations without a cultural study of the area.
Wilson wondered aloud why the alaloa is even part of the discussion complaining that this is “going on and on and on” for Waioli. But didn’t seem to notice the irony that it’s been their actions in allowing Laymon to garner community enmity by blocking access and perpetuating the race-baiting conflicts that has made put the issue before the council.
Waioli Corp used to have a good name in the community through it’s historic preservation mission and actions. Now that has seemingly gone out the window due to the blind spot they have for Laymon and Lepe`uli and the disregard for the historic and cultural nature of the alaloa and Lepe`uli in general.
If they had decided to say “ok- we’ll move our fence back and the pubic can have the alaloa and beach access- it would have cost them less in blood and treasure than this fight which now may not end for the community until the whole area becomes an historic and cultural preserve.
The question remains for Laymon and Waioli Corp– are “illegal activities” at Larson’s beach such as littering enough to block access? Even if so is the answer blocking access or enforcing the law? And if so, should we block access to all beaches where litter is found?
The public awaits answers to those questions and more as the council awaits the DLNR report and will take up the matter again on August 23.
Monday, June 14, 2010
A BLESSING ON YOUR HEAD, MAZEL TOV, MAZEL TOV
A BLESSING ON YOUR HEAD, MAZEL TOV, MAZEL TOV: No one ever said Councilperson Derrick Kawakami was an idiot.
As a scion of the two-headed Kawakami political family no one ever said he lacked political acumen to read the political winds.
And as a scion of the Kawakami “Big Save” family no one ever said he couldn’t take care of business when he had to
But who knew he was an thespian?
Not that he had to be a Brando to deliver his “I had a Dream speech” at last Wednesday’s council meeting given that his target audience was all too willing to believe any performance that led to the result they were looking for.
But this one had to be a humdinger.
With November just around the corner Kawakami looked into the abyss and saw what could be a difficult row to hoe in the coming months. And anything less than a top-two or three result just wouldn’t do for his plans for a life as a professional politician.
A loss would be a disaster. With two former councilmembers and an up and comer already in the race and none of the other six running for anything else, the math looked iffy- especially based on the demographics that put him into office in ’08.
Back then Kawakami didn’t just cash in on the local cache of the Kawakami name but took advantage of a dearth of progressive candidate endorsements to garner a large chunk of the slow-growth “Keep Kaua`i Kaua`i” crowd that was willing to “give him a chance”.
But his vehement defense of Chair Kaipo Asing and attacks on progressive darlings Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum had put him in a position where cries of “well I won’t make that mistake again” were making it almost impossible to garner a wide swath of that portion of the electorate again.
Beginning in the spring the pandering began in earnest with his early and unwavering support for the “I own a dog and I vote” crowd. But although that politically wise move assured the votes of some single-issue voters there was a blow back brewing. Not being an idiot, he could see that there were many out there who, though comparatively silent, saw the naked political ploy as another indication of pandering “hack-dom”.
He needed something meaty- a real issue that was uniting many leaders of the “sustainability” wing of the island’s progressives. But as luck would have it he had tried the same “get out front early” strategy that worked on the “dog path” but it was boomeranging on the farm worker’s housing bill.
When the bill first came before the council it appeared that the issue of abuse of ag land and the resulting sprawl- especially on the north shore- was causing widespread opposition to the bill. There were just too many ways to take advantage of the added density and, based on past abuses of well-meaning ag land measures, the smart growth/sustainability crowd and even most akamai farmers were lining up to oppose the measure.
Kawakami’s attempt to get out front looked like a good political move and also kept him in lock step with the Asing majority- seemingly a win-win for him when and if the issue became a winner for the majority faction.
That fell apart when the farmers and the three minority faction councilmembers in favor of the bill- minority leader Jay Furfaro (who did most of the negotiating), Bynum and Kawahara- spent almost a year negotiating a laundry list of restrictions which, although they made the bill useless to 99% of the island’s farmers, assuaged the concerns of those lining up to oppose the original bill.
All of a sudden Kawakami found himself not just not making headway with some of his ’08 constituency but actually being seen as the main reason why the now reasonable compromise would be defeated.
No doubt this did cause “sleepless nights” as Kawakami said. And there was just one way out- reverse his formerly staunch opposition to the bill which was approaching a final vote last Wednesday.
But what kind of cockamamie story could he come up with as to why he was flip-flopping at the last minute?
The reality is that Derrick is for one thing and one thing only... Derrick. And actually admitting he was changing his mind to win in November wasn’t something a smart politician would do.
Not only did the story have to be minimally convincing for those whose votes he was seeking- at least enough to just have them enjoy the victory and assure they wouldn’t ask (or care) why he changed his mind- but he would have to have a bone to throw to his base whose support came from his support of Asing and the good old boys network and whose votes he had worked so hard to put in his pocket.
Could he pull it off? He had to try.
He knew that all he had to do was convince the all-too-willing-to-believe crowd in the council chambers to take his story all at face value and that if they did he could expect another hook line and sinker job- this time swallowing the rod and reel too- by the wide mouth bass on the government beat at the local newspaper.
Spinning a phony-baloney tall tale of a beloved deceased relative coming to one in a dream in order to explain a change of one’s mind and get someone to now agree with the new position, goes at least back to author Shalom Aleichem, as immortalized in the Tevye’s Dream sequence in the Broadway play “Fiddler on the Roof”.
But mixing in the tales of old plantation days for the old boys along with support for ag on Kaua`i was pure Kawakami.
As a scion of the two-headed Kawakami political family no one ever said he lacked political acumen to read the political winds.
And as a scion of the Kawakami “Big Save” family no one ever said he couldn’t take care of business when he had to
But who knew he was an thespian?
Not that he had to be a Brando to deliver his “I had a Dream speech” at last Wednesday’s council meeting given that his target audience was all too willing to believe any performance that led to the result they were looking for.
But this one had to be a humdinger.
With November just around the corner Kawakami looked into the abyss and saw what could be a difficult row to hoe in the coming months. And anything less than a top-two or three result just wouldn’t do for his plans for a life as a professional politician.
A loss would be a disaster. With two former councilmembers and an up and comer already in the race and none of the other six running for anything else, the math looked iffy- especially based on the demographics that put him into office in ’08.
Back then Kawakami didn’t just cash in on the local cache of the Kawakami name but took advantage of a dearth of progressive candidate endorsements to garner a large chunk of the slow-growth “Keep Kaua`i Kaua`i” crowd that was willing to “give him a chance”.
But his vehement defense of Chair Kaipo Asing and attacks on progressive darlings Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum had put him in a position where cries of “well I won’t make that mistake again” were making it almost impossible to garner a wide swath of that portion of the electorate again.
Beginning in the spring the pandering began in earnest with his early and unwavering support for the “I own a dog and I vote” crowd. But although that politically wise move assured the votes of some single-issue voters there was a blow back brewing. Not being an idiot, he could see that there were many out there who, though comparatively silent, saw the naked political ploy as another indication of pandering “hack-dom”.
He needed something meaty- a real issue that was uniting many leaders of the “sustainability” wing of the island’s progressives. But as luck would have it he had tried the same “get out front early” strategy that worked on the “dog path” but it was boomeranging on the farm worker’s housing bill.
When the bill first came before the council it appeared that the issue of abuse of ag land and the resulting sprawl- especially on the north shore- was causing widespread opposition to the bill. There were just too many ways to take advantage of the added density and, based on past abuses of well-meaning ag land measures, the smart growth/sustainability crowd and even most akamai farmers were lining up to oppose the measure.
Kawakami’s attempt to get out front looked like a good political move and also kept him in lock step with the Asing majority- seemingly a win-win for him when and if the issue became a winner for the majority faction.
That fell apart when the farmers and the three minority faction councilmembers in favor of the bill- minority leader Jay Furfaro (who did most of the negotiating), Bynum and Kawahara- spent almost a year negotiating a laundry list of restrictions which, although they made the bill useless to 99% of the island’s farmers, assuaged the concerns of those lining up to oppose the original bill.
All of a sudden Kawakami found himself not just not making headway with some of his ’08 constituency but actually being seen as the main reason why the now reasonable compromise would be defeated.
No doubt this did cause “sleepless nights” as Kawakami said. And there was just one way out- reverse his formerly staunch opposition to the bill which was approaching a final vote last Wednesday.
But what kind of cockamamie story could he come up with as to why he was flip-flopping at the last minute?
The reality is that Derrick is for one thing and one thing only... Derrick. And actually admitting he was changing his mind to win in November wasn’t something a smart politician would do.
Not only did the story have to be minimally convincing for those whose votes he was seeking- at least enough to just have them enjoy the victory and assure they wouldn’t ask (or care) why he changed his mind- but he would have to have a bone to throw to his base whose support came from his support of Asing and the good old boys network and whose votes he had worked so hard to put in his pocket.
Could he pull it off? He had to try.
He knew that all he had to do was convince the all-too-willing-to-believe crowd in the council chambers to take his story all at face value and that if they did he could expect another hook line and sinker job- this time swallowing the rod and reel too- by the wide mouth bass on the government beat at the local newspaper.
Spinning a phony-baloney tall tale of a beloved deceased relative coming to one in a dream in order to explain a change of one’s mind and get someone to now agree with the new position, goes at least back to author Shalom Aleichem, as immortalized in the Tevye’s Dream sequence in the Broadway play “Fiddler on the Roof”.
But mixing in the tales of old plantation days for the old boys along with support for ag on Kaua`i was pure Kawakami.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
COPY!
COPY!: After twenty-five years plus of providing unending targets for ridicule it was a bit uncomfortable for us to gush over anything remotely related to our joke-of-a-local-newspaper during the brief period that saw reporter Mike Levine waste his talents on Kaua`i.
But if it’s possible, with Mike’s departure, the paper might just be the worst it’s been in at least a decade or more with the addition of Leo Azambuja who has quite apparently never seen the inside of a basic newswriting textbook.
As if the flighty fluffmeister “Business Editor” Coco Zickos and the always incomprehensible “police and courts reporter” Paul Curtis weren’t bad enough, Azambuja seems totally baffled after being hired to cover the all important “government beat”.
A new article is supposed to have what’s called a lead- or lede as it’s spelled in the trade. A good reporter sits down to file a story and takes a breath to come up with the most important thing that that happened and put it at the top- all in 25 words or less.
The rest of the story follows what’s called the “inverted triangle” and tells a story- another important element- with the more important information nearer the top and the less important depth and background to follow.
It’s kind of the opposite of normal writing and a writer who is not a journalist must unlearn everything he or she knows in order to be a good reporter.
In covering a meeting the one thing you don’t want to see is a chronological regurgitation of what happened and a lede something like “A meeting of the county council was held yesterday at 9 a.m. in the council chambers at the county building”.
But apparently Azambuja either missed that day’s lesson or never attended a class.
Take his wrap-up of the budget hearings- which individually were a minute by minute recap with no context or narrative. Here’s his lede:
NAWILIWILI — Kaua‘i County Council members have been keeping busy since April 9, reviewing Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.’s proposed $146.29 million operating budget for Fiscal Year 2011, which starts July 1.
Classic. It the type of thing that a frst day student might turn in- one who hadn’t bothered to do the reading or pay attention in class.
Another skill is deciding the most important story to report if there’s more than one. But today. while Azambuja was filing a somewhat disjointed report from yesterday’s planning commission meeting about an ongoing, weeks-old story about an art gallery permit in Hanalei, Joan Conrow was reporting about the Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) bill that was passed out of the planning commission- a bill will basically ditches all the restrictions the council placed on TVRs last year and could, if passed by the council, have repercussions for decades to come.
Perhaps the most egregious thing one can do is to “bury the lede”, waiting until halfway through the article until you report the most important thing.
Azambuja’s story last Thursday on the “dog path” bill started with the end, calling the deferral of the bill to allow dogs on the entire bike path a “surprise” and regurgitating much the testimony of the “dog ladies”.
Finally 634 words into an 874 word story in the 22nd paragraph of a 27 paragraph report he writes that
The Parks and Recreation new plan suggests leashed dogs be allowed from Kealia lookout to the north end of Kuna Beach, popularly known as Donkey Beach.
United Public Workers Business Agent Trina Horner said the union supports leashed dogs on the portion of the path proposed by Rapozo, because allowing them on the entire path would put an extra burden on maintenance workers.
And that was it- no other reference to the administration’s official recommendation that dogs be allowed only on the extreme northern section of the path rather than the entire path as the bill currently calls for. There was no reference at all to an all important grievance filed by the union that could make the use of the entire path as a dog walk difficult without a resolution to the filing.
Seems that the workers are willing to perform the added maintenance duties on the northern portion for now as a compromise. They could have said no to any additions since new job descriptions cannot, by law, be imposed on them unilaterally and must be negotiated.... especially, apparently, the job of picking up dog poop.
But you’d never know that from the story which only mentions the administration’s position in passing as if it had no consequence when in actuality it very well could cause the first veto of Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s administration.
Though the story ranted on and on about the survey there was no mention that it was as nonscientific as could be or that the information was gathered by dogs-on-the-path zealots and so predictably found that “everyone” wants dogs on the path- apparently including those who have been bitten or harassed by or just don’t like being around huge unpredictable animals.
Which leads us to the “surprise” deferral- one that was, as Parks and Transportation Committee Chair Lani Kawahara said, done to allow for the committee to decide on an amendment to give the administrations proposal it’s due consideration and then either accept or reject it... and do so in committee where council’s “work” is supposed to be done.
These are just a few examples of the piss-poor job being done by the one person who this community relies upon to inform the public of governmental doings via the self-proclaimed “newspaper of record”.
There’s no shortage of excellent reporters in the state and even the island and a slew more out-of-work journalists to come with today’s announcement that the merger of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star Bulletin will proceed, initiating mass layoffs as the two staffs combine into one.
But hiring one of them would entail actually paying them a living wage, something the local paper avoids at all costs according to many past employees.
We don’t like denying anyone their job. But the tracking of the doings of government for the community is too important to be left to amateurs.
But if it’s possible, with Mike’s departure, the paper might just be the worst it’s been in at least a decade or more with the addition of Leo Azambuja who has quite apparently never seen the inside of a basic newswriting textbook.
As if the flighty fluffmeister “Business Editor” Coco Zickos and the always incomprehensible “police and courts reporter” Paul Curtis weren’t bad enough, Azambuja seems totally baffled after being hired to cover the all important “government beat”.
A new article is supposed to have what’s called a lead- or lede as it’s spelled in the trade. A good reporter sits down to file a story and takes a breath to come up with the most important thing that that happened and put it at the top- all in 25 words or less.
The rest of the story follows what’s called the “inverted triangle” and tells a story- another important element- with the more important information nearer the top and the less important depth and background to follow.
It’s kind of the opposite of normal writing and a writer who is not a journalist must unlearn everything he or she knows in order to be a good reporter.
In covering a meeting the one thing you don’t want to see is a chronological regurgitation of what happened and a lede something like “A meeting of the county council was held yesterday at 9 a.m. in the council chambers at the county building”.
But apparently Azambuja either missed that day’s lesson or never attended a class.
Take his wrap-up of the budget hearings- which individually were a minute by minute recap with no context or narrative. Here’s his lede:
NAWILIWILI — Kaua‘i County Council members have been keeping busy since April 9, reviewing Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr.’s proposed $146.29 million operating budget for Fiscal Year 2011, which starts July 1.
Classic. It the type of thing that a frst day student might turn in- one who hadn’t bothered to do the reading or pay attention in class.
Another skill is deciding the most important story to report if there’s more than one. But today. while Azambuja was filing a somewhat disjointed report from yesterday’s planning commission meeting about an ongoing, weeks-old story about an art gallery permit in Hanalei, Joan Conrow was reporting about the Transient Vacation Rental (TVR) bill that was passed out of the planning commission- a bill will basically ditches all the restrictions the council placed on TVRs last year and could, if passed by the council, have repercussions for decades to come.
Perhaps the most egregious thing one can do is to “bury the lede”, waiting until halfway through the article until you report the most important thing.
Azambuja’s story last Thursday on the “dog path” bill started with the end, calling the deferral of the bill to allow dogs on the entire bike path a “surprise” and regurgitating much the testimony of the “dog ladies”.
Finally 634 words into an 874 word story in the 22nd paragraph of a 27 paragraph report he writes that
The Parks and Recreation new plan suggests leashed dogs be allowed from Kealia lookout to the north end of Kuna Beach, popularly known as Donkey Beach.
United Public Workers Business Agent Trina Horner said the union supports leashed dogs on the portion of the path proposed by Rapozo, because allowing them on the entire path would put an extra burden on maintenance workers.
And that was it- no other reference to the administration’s official recommendation that dogs be allowed only on the extreme northern section of the path rather than the entire path as the bill currently calls for. There was no reference at all to an all important grievance filed by the union that could make the use of the entire path as a dog walk difficult without a resolution to the filing.
Seems that the workers are willing to perform the added maintenance duties on the northern portion for now as a compromise. They could have said no to any additions since new job descriptions cannot, by law, be imposed on them unilaterally and must be negotiated.... especially, apparently, the job of picking up dog poop.
But you’d never know that from the story which only mentions the administration’s position in passing as if it had no consequence when in actuality it very well could cause the first veto of Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s administration.
Though the story ranted on and on about the survey there was no mention that it was as nonscientific as could be or that the information was gathered by dogs-on-the-path zealots and so predictably found that “everyone” wants dogs on the path- apparently including those who have been bitten or harassed by or just don’t like being around huge unpredictable animals.
Which leads us to the “surprise” deferral- one that was, as Parks and Transportation Committee Chair Lani Kawahara said, done to allow for the committee to decide on an amendment to give the administrations proposal it’s due consideration and then either accept or reject it... and do so in committee where council’s “work” is supposed to be done.
These are just a few examples of the piss-poor job being done by the one person who this community relies upon to inform the public of governmental doings via the self-proclaimed “newspaper of record”.
There’s no shortage of excellent reporters in the state and even the island and a slew more out-of-work journalists to come with today’s announcement that the merger of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star Bulletin will proceed, initiating mass layoffs as the two staffs combine into one.
But hiring one of them would entail actually paying them a living wage, something the local paper avoids at all costs according to many past employees.
We don’t like denying anyone their job. But the tracking of the doings of government for the community is too important to be left to amateurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
