DEEP LACK OF BACKGROUND: We've learned through painful experience that rock bottom is a place that doesn't exist- there's always a longer and sharper drill bit in the pit.
So it's really no surprise that after more than a dozen regimes at the local newspaper over the past three decades- each, with brief respites of competency, worse than the last- the level of professionalism has plumbed new depths.
The general slipshod nature of the news-less wonder has irritated and generally disgusted residents island-wide. But many- notably us- have saved their ultimate wrath for the alleged skills of alleged reporter Leo Azambuja, whose biggest point of confusion is apparently whether he should bend over or get down on his knees in his dealings with elected officials.
But until now we never had any unpublished insight into what kind of warped thinking goes into the utter lack of accountability that Leo has made his hallmark.
Now, in a series of emails between Azambuja and Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho obtained by reporter Joan Conrow, Azambuja demonstrates his main concern- not informing the public but kissing up to those he covers.
Through a process she describes as tantamount to "pulling impacted wisdom teeth", Conrow requested and finally recently received some heavily redacted emails she had requested from Iseri's office regarding the testimony before the county council of former Victim-Witness counselor Erin Wilson who, according to Conrow, has won an EEOC case after being fired by Iseri.
But the Azambuja emails were not among those released and rather were obtained by Conrow through a "leak" after Iseri refused to include them in a packet.
Conrow's work on the various and sundry scandals in Iseri's office during our recent health challenges has been nothing short of essential to a community in which Azambuja's reporting has been all but non-existent.
We aren't going to go into the whole sordid tale of "Victim-Witness-Gate" here today. You can read some of our earlier coverage here
and here.
Our tale today goes back to January 10, 2012, when Wilson brought a series of charges against Iseri to the attention of the Kaua`i County Council in a letter that is part of the packet released by Iseri's office (last document in pdf).
Azambuja, and therefore the local paper, had been silent on most of Iseri's alleged misdeeds in the matter until January 14, 2012, when an article finally appeared under the headline of "Former Victim counselor fires at OPA."
Azambuja's article essentially briefly quotes Wilson's charges one by one and then quotes Iseri's extensive and detailed answers. But instead of informing readers that Iseri's response was in an email, Azambuja referred to Iseri's responses using the term "she said" over and over, never even mentioning the fact that the responses had been in writing.
That type of thing is considered a major ethical violation these days by the top news outlets like Associated Press and the NY Times. Readers should be informed and certainly should not be lied to as to the form of a response from a news subject.
But content of the leaked email shows even bigger lapses of ethical judgment on Azambuja's part.
It was apparent that Iseri's responses had been in writing and so, apparently, Wilson asked Azambuja for Iseri's full letter.
What Azambuja did next perhaps explains why no one would mistake Azambuja for a trained professional journalist.
Here's the bizarre exchange between Azambuja and Iseri. Astoundingly Azambuja tells Iseri that rather than being considered the subject of his article he was treating her as a "source" and that as such, Iseri's letter is "protected" material... and then he actually asks her if it is okay to give the letter to Wilson.
1) From Azambuja to Iseri:
Re: response to erin wilson (sic) letter Hi Shay
I got a call from Erin Wilson today and she wanted a copy of your response. I explained to her that I'm not sure if it's a public document. Her testimony was a public document but your response is just a answer sent to me through an email. I told her I would act the same if the situation was reversed out of ethics and respect. She insisted she wanted a copy so I said I told her I would ask you for permission.
No one else has seen it and no one will without your authorization. That's how reporters should treat their sources no matter who they are.
But since I told her I would ask you here goes her request.
Do you authorize me to send Eric Wilson a copy of your email
Aloha, Leo
2) From Iseri to Azambuja:
No.
Shay
3) From Azambuja to Iseri:
Ha, not a problem Shay,
See you tomorrow at council.
Aloha,
Leo
4) From Iseri to Azambuja
Thanks for the sense of humor :-)
Shay
Iseri's response certainly was a pubic document. There are no exceptions for communications with reporters in HRS 92F 13-14. Emails to constituents are virtually always public.
But the real head-shaker here is that Azambuja treats her like a "source" when what she was was the "subject" of the story. This demonstrates an amazing lack of journalistic integrity showing a basic lack of understanding of the source-reporter and subject-reporter relationships.
Azambuja's contention to Iseri that "(Wilson's) testimony was a public document but your response is just a answer sent to me through an email" shows how little understanding he has, not just of journalistic ethics but of the state's open records laws.
Anything written by a government official that pertains to their work is a public document, with some exemptions for things like privacy, working drafts and personnel matters. The fact that a reporter who covers "government beat" lack that basic understanding of a law that is an integral part of his work may go a long way toward explaining the utter lack of substance of much of Azambuja's reporting.
As a matter of fact parenthetically we can't remember ever seeing Azambuja write about making an official record request whereas his predecessor in the job created a whole section at the paper's web site regarding "freedom of information" type requests. The last entry there is by that reporter, Michael Levine, who now works at CivilBeat.com
Next Azambuja wrote "I told (Wilson) I would act the same if the situation was reversed out of ethics and respect... No one else has seen it and no one will without your authorization. That's how reporters should treat their sources no matter who they are."
Ethics? Respect? Azambuja is so devoid of ethics it's hard to know where to begin. If Leo can't tell the difference between a public document and an off-the-record remark by a source he ought not be in the profession.
In asking Iseri whether it was okay to release her response- instead of just publishing it like any journalist would normally do- he has given up control of his reporting to someone who obviously has something to hide since she refused to release the rest.
Of course, many times a reporter will have a source-reporter relationship with people he or she covers. But according to well established ethical standards it must always be with the clear understanding that when asked for an on-the-record response that person is not to be treated as a source who can go back later and say "no- you can't use what I gave you 'on the record.'"
But regardless of whether Iseri occasionally acts as a source for Azambuja he is giving up his control over the news coverage he presents. A reporter should never take a written on-the-record response and then give the subject a chance to change or refuse to release it.
Given the email exchange, the "lie" to the readers as to the written nature of Iseri's response takes on an even bigger importance. It makes one wonder whether and how this chummy relationship has influenced Azambuja's coverage in the past.
Since there is no editor at the paper there is no one to take an objective look at Azambuja's relationships with those government officials he covers. That's one of the big functions of an editor- making sure that news isn't being manipulated by the source and that any source-reporter relationship primarily benefits the reporter, the paper and the reader, not the source.
Of course unpublished materials are the possession of the reporter, and under the Hawai`i "Reporters' Shield Law," for purposes of court proceeding, many reporters will withhold their unpublished notes. Reporters should not be seen as an arm of the constabulary.
But that isn't the situation here because there isn't any "source" to protect. Azambuja has lied to his readers and then, continuing the lie, withholds materials that any reporter would be more than glad to share under just about any circumstances. While in "ink and paper" news outlets space may be a factor in publishing a document such as Iseri's reply to Wilson's allegations, on-line publications routinely post full resource documents along with an article from which quotes are extracted.
It's apparent that Azambuja lied so that he wouldn't have to release Iseri's letter due to his self-delusional, mistaken impression that she was a source, not the subject of the story.
No reporter worth a damn would even consider withholding the Iseri letter. But in the schmoozy, "please like me" world of Azambuja, relationships with elected officials (especially, as we've reported in the past, with Council Chair Jay Furfaro who has all but led Leo around by a ring though his nose) is what seems to count. As a matter of fact it appears to be the determining factor in what news the island receives regarding government and politics.
This would be a fireable offense in any legitimate news organization. With the key words here being "legitimate news organization," don't expect anything to change any time soon at the local Kaua`i newspaper.
Showing posts with label Leo Azambuja. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leo Azambuja. Show all posts
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
GOO-GOO-GA-JOOB
GOO-GOO-GA-JOOB: Apparently all is not well on the SS Minnow.
Seems the Skipper's "little buddy" went temporarily insane and deviated from the script prompting a dressing down for daring to do so on Wednesday's "episode."
It was just before lunch when the Skipper, played by Kaua`i County Council Chair Jay Furfaro, had another of his patented, blowhard, conniption fits of pomposity chiding Gilligan, played by local newspaper government reporter Leo Azambuja, for daring to write something that wasn't pre-approved by Furfaro.
Never known for his knowledge of- or adherence to- the Sunshine Law, Furfaro has continued the tradition of his predecessor, Kaipo Asing, in abusing the law to stifle discussion he doesn't like by arbitrarily and capriciously deciding that such discussions are not "sticking to the agenda item," as the law requires.
The fact that the law is supposed to be liberally construed towards openness never comes into the discussion.
So in typical fashion, Furfaro decided on Wednesday that, despite the fact that it wasn't on the agenda, he was going to discuss the appointment of long-time council "fixer," Rick Watanabe, to the position of County Clerk. And since it wasn't on the agenda he announced he was using what he calls "personal privilege"- a term invented some years ago that loosely translates to "illegal but I'm going to do it anyway" - to talk about it anyway.
Saying "I'd like to congratulate ourselves," he described a supposedly "wide search" that yielded more than 20 candidates in what he and other councilmembers praised as a process that was "historic" for its "openness," despite the fact that none of the names of the 20- nor the 5 finalists- has been or is planned on being released, making the process, for all intents and purposes, the same as always- a backroom deal discussed exclusively in closed-door executive session.
But the real howler was when, saying he had prepared a "press release" regarding the appointment, he actually chided Azambuja for having the nerve to include information that wasn't in his press release in the article in the paper announcing Watanabe's appointment.
Calling it an "editorial" Furfaro lit into "the media" saying "you should print the press release as such," and presumably no other unapproved information along with it.
Azumbuja had the nerve to point out that, before the appointment was announced, Watanabe had said he wasn't interested in the job.
Oh- and he want into a long explanation of the various salaries involved including not just Watanabe's now as County Clerk but the salary cut taken by former County Clerk Peter Nakamura who according to the article is now making $29,420 less in his new job as a "senior planner" in the planning department after he was apparently fired by the council following a series of public allegations of misconduct, a harassment lawsuit and a string of executive sessions to discuss his "job performance."
For the record Nakamura says he chose to take the new job at an almost $30,000 pay cut. Councilmembers have essentially refused to discuss the end of Nakamura's tenure saying it was a "personnel matter" and to do so would violate Nakamura's privacy.
Furfaro insisted that Watanabe had "changed his mind" about the clerk job saying "heck, even (Republican candidate for President Mitt) Romney changes his mind," chiding the media by saying he is always available for press inquires.
Furfaro has consistently refused to answer our email queries for the past three-and-a-half years.
But, being so presumptuous and pompous as to think that the press is there to be his own personal megaphone aside, the Sunshine Law violation is not just blatant but the apparent irony of Furfaro's violation in cutting off councilmembers for speaking "off agenda"- as we described above- and then claiming some kind of personal privilege to do the same, is lost on only one person- Furfaro.
In a followup to yesterdays PNN's news coverage of charges of mismanagement by and maltreatment of employees of Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, we mentioned an Office of Information Practices (OIP) ruling that, a year and a half after the incident, ruled that then Chair Kaipo Asing was wrong to have cut off Councilmember Tim Bynum when he questioned Iseri in May of 2009.
We have since been directed to OIP Memo 11-7 which says that:
To the extent that Requester’s line of questioning wouhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifld have related to whether other sources of funds existed for the VOCA program so that the grant monies did not need to be used for that program, we believe that the line of questioning would have been reasonably related to the agenda item and thus would not have violated the Sunshine Law... (B)ased upon our review of the May 6 meeting minutes we believe that the nexus that Requester subsequently drew between the agenda item and his line of questioning was sufficient under the Sunshine Law to have allowed questioning reasonably related to whether other sources of funds precluded the need to apply the grant monies to the VOCA program.
We point this out because it is archetypical of the type of thing that Furfaro- despite his protestations to the contrary- has continued to allow and even use himself to stifle discussion.
Although the extent of his abuse of the provision in the Sunshine Law that says that discussions must pertain to an agenda item hasn't risen to the heights used by Asing during his notorious 2009-10 feud with Bynum over process and rules, since becoming chair upon the electoral ouster of Asing, Furfaro has, over and over, allowed Councilmember Mel Rapozo- who, along with his political ally Iseri, is a political enemy of Bynum's- to interrupt Bynum and try to stop whatever Bynum is saying that Rapozo doesn't want said in public... especially criticism of Iseri.
It all comes down to something that, on Kaua`i, has been ignored and even apparently intentionally flouted ever since council meetings have been televised when it's convenient in order to prevent certain potentially embarrassing information from reaching the public.
The Declaration of Policy and Intent- the very first paragraph of the Sunshine Law, HRS Chapter 92-1 says, in part,
The formation and conduct of public policy - the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of governmental agencies - shall be conducted as openly as possible. To implement this policy the legislature declares that:
(1) It is the intent of this part to protect the people's right to know;
(2) The provisions requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed; and
(3) The provisions providing for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.
If we had our druthers that statement would be made into a poster and hung on the wall in the council chambers. Or perhaps tattooed on each councilmembers forehead so that they would see it every time they looked at each other.
But rather, every councilmember has at times bemoaned the existence of the Sunshine Law, especially the part that prevents more than two of them them from discussing public policy behind closed doors.
There's a reason for that provision. It's there so that members of the public are privy to discussions that lead to the laws that govern our lives.
We have yet to hear a good explanation for why we should allow this to be done in "back rooms"- smoke-filled or not- other than that it would be "easier" and that people would be more likely to speak up if they know no one is watching.
Exactly.
Listen up elected and appointed government officials. Maybe you didn't get the memo. This is not your own private little fiefdom. It is government and you are determining public policy and people deserve to hear ALL of the thoughts and reasoning that go into your decision-making so that they can determine whether you are the one they want representing them when passing the legislation that rules their lives.
They want to know that your reasons indicate you are serving for the greater good- not for your uncle's wallet. And we want to know you can articulate how you reached your decision. As your math teach used to say: show your work.
If it is "politically embarrassing" or something you'd rather people didn't hear you say, perhaps you shouldn't say it.
It's the height of hypocrisy to cut off councilmembers for speaking "off agenda" with some obviously convoluted, strict interpretation of what the agenda item is and then claim you have "personal privilege" to talk about anything you damn well please between agenda items.
When it comes to convincing our seven stranded castaways of all this, well, let's just say it's an uphill climb.
Seems the Skipper's "little buddy" went temporarily insane and deviated from the script prompting a dressing down for daring to do so on Wednesday's "episode."
It was just before lunch when the Skipper, played by Kaua`i County Council Chair Jay Furfaro, had another of his patented, blowhard, conniption fits of pomposity chiding Gilligan, played by local newspaper government reporter Leo Azambuja, for daring to write something that wasn't pre-approved by Furfaro.
Never known for his knowledge of- or adherence to- the Sunshine Law, Furfaro has continued the tradition of his predecessor, Kaipo Asing, in abusing the law to stifle discussion he doesn't like by arbitrarily and capriciously deciding that such discussions are not "sticking to the agenda item," as the law requires.
The fact that the law is supposed to be liberally construed towards openness never comes into the discussion.
So in typical fashion, Furfaro decided on Wednesday that, despite the fact that it wasn't on the agenda, he was going to discuss the appointment of long-time council "fixer," Rick Watanabe, to the position of County Clerk. And since it wasn't on the agenda he announced he was using what he calls "personal privilege"- a term invented some years ago that loosely translates to "illegal but I'm going to do it anyway" - to talk about it anyway.
Saying "I'd like to congratulate ourselves," he described a supposedly "wide search" that yielded more than 20 candidates in what he and other councilmembers praised as a process that was "historic" for its "openness," despite the fact that none of the names of the 20- nor the 5 finalists- has been or is planned on being released, making the process, for all intents and purposes, the same as always- a backroom deal discussed exclusively in closed-door executive session.
But the real howler was when, saying he had prepared a "press release" regarding the appointment, he actually chided Azambuja for having the nerve to include information that wasn't in his press release in the article in the paper announcing Watanabe's appointment.
Calling it an "editorial" Furfaro lit into "the media" saying "you should print the press release as such," and presumably no other unapproved information along with it.
Azumbuja had the nerve to point out that, before the appointment was announced, Watanabe had said he wasn't interested in the job.
Oh- and he want into a long explanation of the various salaries involved including not just Watanabe's now as County Clerk but the salary cut taken by former County Clerk Peter Nakamura who according to the article is now making $29,420 less in his new job as a "senior planner" in the planning department after he was apparently fired by the council following a series of public allegations of misconduct, a harassment lawsuit and a string of executive sessions to discuss his "job performance."
For the record Nakamura says he chose to take the new job at an almost $30,000 pay cut. Councilmembers have essentially refused to discuss the end of Nakamura's tenure saying it was a "personnel matter" and to do so would violate Nakamura's privacy.
Furfaro insisted that Watanabe had "changed his mind" about the clerk job saying "heck, even (Republican candidate for President Mitt) Romney changes his mind," chiding the media by saying he is always available for press inquires.
Furfaro has consistently refused to answer our email queries for the past three-and-a-half years.
But, being so presumptuous and pompous as to think that the press is there to be his own personal megaphone aside, the Sunshine Law violation is not just blatant but the apparent irony of Furfaro's violation in cutting off councilmembers for speaking "off agenda"- as we described above- and then claiming some kind of personal privilege to do the same, is lost on only one person- Furfaro.
In a followup to yesterdays PNN's news coverage of charges of mismanagement by and maltreatment of employees of Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, we mentioned an Office of Information Practices (OIP) ruling that, a year and a half after the incident, ruled that then Chair Kaipo Asing was wrong to have cut off Councilmember Tim Bynum when he questioned Iseri in May of 2009.
We have since been directed to OIP Memo 11-7 which says that:
To the extent that Requester’s line of questioning wouhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifld have related to whether other sources of funds existed for the VOCA program so that the grant monies did not need to be used for that program, we believe that the line of questioning would have been reasonably related to the agenda item and thus would not have violated the Sunshine Law... (B)ased upon our review of the May 6 meeting minutes we believe that the nexus that Requester subsequently drew between the agenda item and his line of questioning was sufficient under the Sunshine Law to have allowed questioning reasonably related to whether other sources of funds precluded the need to apply the grant monies to the VOCA program.
We point this out because it is archetypical of the type of thing that Furfaro- despite his protestations to the contrary- has continued to allow and even use himself to stifle discussion.
Although the extent of his abuse of the provision in the Sunshine Law that says that discussions must pertain to an agenda item hasn't risen to the heights used by Asing during his notorious 2009-10 feud with Bynum over process and rules, since becoming chair upon the electoral ouster of Asing, Furfaro has, over and over, allowed Councilmember Mel Rapozo- who, along with his political ally Iseri, is a political enemy of Bynum's- to interrupt Bynum and try to stop whatever Bynum is saying that Rapozo doesn't want said in public... especially criticism of Iseri.
It all comes down to something that, on Kaua`i, has been ignored and even apparently intentionally flouted ever since council meetings have been televised when it's convenient in order to prevent certain potentially embarrassing information from reaching the public.
The Declaration of Policy and Intent- the very first paragraph of the Sunshine Law, HRS Chapter 92-1 says, in part,
The formation and conduct of public policy - the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of governmental agencies - shall be conducted as openly as possible. To implement this policy the legislature declares that:
(1) It is the intent of this part to protect the people's right to know;
(2) The provisions requiring open meetings shall be liberally construed; and
(3) The provisions providing for exceptions to the open meeting requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.
If we had our druthers that statement would be made into a poster and hung on the wall in the council chambers. Or perhaps tattooed on each councilmembers forehead so that they would see it every time they looked at each other.
But rather, every councilmember has at times bemoaned the existence of the Sunshine Law, especially the part that prevents more than two of them them from discussing public policy behind closed doors.
There's a reason for that provision. It's there so that members of the public are privy to discussions that lead to the laws that govern our lives.
We have yet to hear a good explanation for why we should allow this to be done in "back rooms"- smoke-filled or not- other than that it would be "easier" and that people would be more likely to speak up if they know no one is watching.
Exactly.
Listen up elected and appointed government officials. Maybe you didn't get the memo. This is not your own private little fiefdom. It is government and you are determining public policy and people deserve to hear ALL of the thoughts and reasoning that go into your decision-making so that they can determine whether you are the one they want representing them when passing the legislation that rules their lives.
They want to know that your reasons indicate you are serving for the greater good- not for your uncle's wallet. And we want to know you can articulate how you reached your decision. As your math teach used to say: show your work.
If it is "politically embarrassing" or something you'd rather people didn't hear you say, perhaps you shouldn't say it.
It's the height of hypocrisy to cut off councilmembers for speaking "off agenda" with some obviously convoluted, strict interpretation of what the agenda item is and then claim you have "personal privilege" to talk about anything you damn well please between agenda items.
When it comes to convincing our seven stranded castaways of all this, well, let's just say it's an uphill climb.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
AZAMBOGUS
AZAMBOGUS: When it comes to the local Kaua`i newspaper it takes an awful lot to flabbergast us.
But today's article headlining, on the basis of one unidentified source, that "Radiation feared in Airport shutdown; Airport worker: HAZMAT team was looking for radiation" might just take the cake for the all time most irresponsible piece of "journalism" (note the quotes) we've ever seen.
"Reporter" (those quotes again) Leo Azambuja quotes a single "airport worker" who apparently was speculating him or her self for the story which, if true, would no doubt make national headlines.
Who the heck would "go with" a story like this, especially with an apparent denial from the county and a lack of confirmation from the state?
Now journalists do sometimes report items from single, unidentified sources, But it is, as it should be, rare and the exception to the rule and done only under certain very strict circumstances.
If the source is well known to the reporter, in a position to know and has been extremely reliable in the past there may be a way to present the story with consultation and confirmation with the source by an editor. But publication should come only if every effort has been made to either confirm or debunk the story, especially one that could cause a panic if published.
If the call is made to publish the reporter and editor should then make every effort to inform the reader as to the reason for the single anonymous sourcing and any other information on the source that can be revealed. The information as to why the source is being protected should be included making it very clear at every point in the story that the statement is unconfirmed.
This is what a modern 21st century policy would yield at the NY Times, Washington Post or Associated Press.
In this case it sounds to us like the source just doesn't want to be identified because the story is probably bogus and based on idiotic, uninformed speculation.
But the fact that there is an apparent denial changes circumstances. Actually we have no idea whether there really was a denial from County Spokesperson Mary Daubert because Azambuja's reporting on that is so ambiguous:
County spokeswoman Mary Daubert said the HAZMAT crew tested the center checkpoint for toxic and hazardous odors and substances and found none, and found no radiation.
It's said almost as an afterthought and who knows how or even if the question was posed. You would think for something this important there would be a quote and clarity as to what was said by the spokesperson who's in a position to know.
It's no wonder that no one has picked up on this story even though the Honolulu Star Advertiser and Associated Press commonly, by agreement, re-report local Kaua`i newspaper stories. No one in their right mind would pick up a story like this without any confirmation or at least more information or other sources.
The obvious thing here is that, were this to be some stupid innocuous story like 99% of what appears in the local paper no one would care. But this has the potential to cause panic and people- especially visitors- refusing to go anywhere near the screening area or even the airport itself. Who could blame them?
And all based on a report from "an airport worker" who, for all we know is a janitor or someone who has no connection with the screening process and may have no idea what it would look like if someone was indeed testing for radiation.
Sheesh.
But today's article headlining, on the basis of one unidentified source, that "Radiation feared in Airport shutdown; Airport worker: HAZMAT team was looking for radiation" might just take the cake for the all time most irresponsible piece of "journalism" (note the quotes) we've ever seen.
"Reporter" (those quotes again) Leo Azambuja quotes a single "airport worker" who apparently was speculating him or her self for the story which, if true, would no doubt make national headlines.
Who the heck would "go with" a story like this, especially with an apparent denial from the county and a lack of confirmation from the state?
Now journalists do sometimes report items from single, unidentified sources, But it is, as it should be, rare and the exception to the rule and done only under certain very strict circumstances.
If the source is well known to the reporter, in a position to know and has been extremely reliable in the past there may be a way to present the story with consultation and confirmation with the source by an editor. But publication should come only if every effort has been made to either confirm or debunk the story, especially one that could cause a panic if published.
If the call is made to publish the reporter and editor should then make every effort to inform the reader as to the reason for the single anonymous sourcing and any other information on the source that can be revealed. The information as to why the source is being protected should be included making it very clear at every point in the story that the statement is unconfirmed.
This is what a modern 21st century policy would yield at the NY Times, Washington Post or Associated Press.
In this case it sounds to us like the source just doesn't want to be identified because the story is probably bogus and based on idiotic, uninformed speculation.
But the fact that there is an apparent denial changes circumstances. Actually we have no idea whether there really was a denial from County Spokesperson Mary Daubert because Azambuja's reporting on that is so ambiguous:
County spokeswoman Mary Daubert said the HAZMAT crew tested the center checkpoint for toxic and hazardous odors and substances and found none, and found no radiation.
It's said almost as an afterthought and who knows how or even if the question was posed. You would think for something this important there would be a quote and clarity as to what was said by the spokesperson who's in a position to know.
It's no wonder that no one has picked up on this story even though the Honolulu Star Advertiser and Associated Press commonly, by agreement, re-report local Kaua`i newspaper stories. No one in their right mind would pick up a story like this without any confirmation or at least more information or other sources.
The obvious thing here is that, were this to be some stupid innocuous story like 99% of what appears in the local paper no one would care. But this has the potential to cause panic and people- especially visitors- refusing to go anywhere near the screening area or even the airport itself. Who could blame them?
And all based on a report from "an airport worker" who, for all we know is a janitor or someone who has no connection with the screening process and may have no idea what it would look like if someone was indeed testing for radiation.
Sheesh.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
YOU WANT IT WHEN?
YOU WANT IT WHEN?: We tried- we really did.
But once again, like clockwork, our "little buddy" Leo Azambuja, apparently watched a different county council committee meeting than we did a week ago Wednesday (October 28).
Although the agenda item was a report on the new landfill, what actually happened apparently went completely over Azambuja's head.
The acronym MRF- standing for Materials Recovery Facility- never saw the light of day in the article on the meeting. But it was the central topic of discussion after it was discovered that, despite the desperate need for a MRF to move forward on curbside recycling, the administration, as many have feared, is apparently going to wait for the process of siting the new landfill and completing an environmental impact statement to even start actually building a MRF.
That's because, according to Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura, the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho is apparently so enamored of their vision for a Resource Recovery Facility at the same location as the new landfill that they won't even consider anything else.
Rather than starting the process now separately from the landfill siting- which won't be done until at least 2020 according to the administration's presentation- there were no plans presented to indicate that the administration even considered trying to get the MRF "done yesterday" so to speak, in order to divert trash from the old, nearing-capacity landfill so as to buy time for siting a new one.
That would mean construction of an MRF won't even start until June of 2016, Yukimura indicated after looking at the administration's timeline.
Not only that but siting the MRF and other resource recovery facilities inland and near the new landfill is a numbskull idea for a number of reasons despite widespread claims that it "sounds logical."
First of all, as Yukimura and Councilperson Tim Bynum both pointed out, hauling the recyclables far inland- where the presumed new landfill site is- and then back to the harbor will increase costs immensely. But siting the MRF near the harbor would actually make sense so apparently it wasn't considered by the administration.
What no one mentioned is the massive mix of trucks going in and out will cause unneeded congestion costing time and money. And of course if the facilities are too close to the landfill itself, it would put the kibosh on expansion into the area where the facilities are sited.
The reality is that, despite the fact that a MRF was supposed to be completed this year according to the Integrated Solid Waste Program the county approved years ago- and that the "pilot" curbside recycling program had to be suspended for lack of a MRF- there is apparently still no fire under the butts of the Department of Public Works to get the process started except as part of the landfill siting process.
County Engineer Larry Dill did come forward to say that the administration was supposedly working separately on a MRF but it seems like a CYA afterthought. It came only after former County Engineer and current Environmental Services Officer Donald Fujimoto seemed incredibly befuddled by the criticism, apparently because the administration has been so stuck on the concept of putting all the trash-related stuff in one place that they didn't see the need for a MRF as being the most important solid-waste-related project for the county right now.
The whole matter will be back on the agenda soon because the discussion was continually being cut short since the subjects of the MRF and the old landfill weren't even on the agenda.
But the fact that even after the embarrassment of having to cut short the pilot curbside recycling program, even after the passage of a new zero waste resolution by the council AND administration, even though the current landfill's life apparently won't get us to the opening of a new landfill and it's filling up faster than it was supposed to and even though all those recyclables are going into the current landfill because there is no MRF, the administration is still in la-la land with their grand plan for their one-stop opala palace.
Excuse us while we look for a place to get sick.
But once again, like clockwork, our "little buddy" Leo Azambuja, apparently watched a different county council committee meeting than we did a week ago Wednesday (October 28).
Although the agenda item was a report on the new landfill, what actually happened apparently went completely over Azambuja's head.
The acronym MRF- standing for Materials Recovery Facility- never saw the light of day in the article on the meeting. But it was the central topic of discussion after it was discovered that, despite the desperate need for a MRF to move forward on curbside recycling, the administration, as many have feared, is apparently going to wait for the process of siting the new landfill and completing an environmental impact statement to even start actually building a MRF.
That's because, according to Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura, the administration of Mayor Bernard Carvalho is apparently so enamored of their vision for a Resource Recovery Facility at the same location as the new landfill that they won't even consider anything else.
Rather than starting the process now separately from the landfill siting- which won't be done until at least 2020 according to the administration's presentation- there were no plans presented to indicate that the administration even considered trying to get the MRF "done yesterday" so to speak, in order to divert trash from the old, nearing-capacity landfill so as to buy time for siting a new one.
That would mean construction of an MRF won't even start until June of 2016, Yukimura indicated after looking at the administration's timeline.
Not only that but siting the MRF and other resource recovery facilities inland and near the new landfill is a numbskull idea for a number of reasons despite widespread claims that it "sounds logical."
First of all, as Yukimura and Councilperson Tim Bynum both pointed out, hauling the recyclables far inland- where the presumed new landfill site is- and then back to the harbor will increase costs immensely. But siting the MRF near the harbor would actually make sense so apparently it wasn't considered by the administration.
What no one mentioned is the massive mix of trucks going in and out will cause unneeded congestion costing time and money. And of course if the facilities are too close to the landfill itself, it would put the kibosh on expansion into the area where the facilities are sited.
The reality is that, despite the fact that a MRF was supposed to be completed this year according to the Integrated Solid Waste Program the county approved years ago- and that the "pilot" curbside recycling program had to be suspended for lack of a MRF- there is apparently still no fire under the butts of the Department of Public Works to get the process started except as part of the landfill siting process.
County Engineer Larry Dill did come forward to say that the administration was supposedly working separately on a MRF but it seems like a CYA afterthought. It came only after former County Engineer and current Environmental Services Officer Donald Fujimoto seemed incredibly befuddled by the criticism, apparently because the administration has been so stuck on the concept of putting all the trash-related stuff in one place that they didn't see the need for a MRF as being the most important solid-waste-related project for the county right now.
The whole matter will be back on the agenda soon because the discussion was continually being cut short since the subjects of the MRF and the old landfill weren't even on the agenda.
But the fact that even after the embarrassment of having to cut short the pilot curbside recycling program, even after the passage of a new zero waste resolution by the council AND administration, even though the current landfill's life apparently won't get us to the opening of a new landfill and it's filling up faster than it was supposed to and even though all those recyclables are going into the current landfill because there is no MRF, the administration is still in la-la land with their grand plan for their one-stop opala palace.
Excuse us while we look for a place to get sick.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
PAY THE LADY
PAY THE LADY: Kaua`i County Council meetings are generally political exercises with long-winded, often well-deserved finger pointing at a stumble-bum mayor and his ever expanding cadre of appointed dimwitted cronies being the rule rather than the exception.
So it was no surprise that the subject of paying them all resulted in a few of the wilder politically-tinged sessions, with each councilmember unable to agree with any of the others on what the biggest issue was but all agreeing there's something rotten in the state of Lihu`e.
We've yet to view yesterday's finale to the latest chapter in the continuing saga regarding the most recent Salary Commission resolution where it was allowed to become law, if (always a big if) the local newspaper article is to be believed.
But anyone who has paid attention over the years knows that the debacle of political gamesmanship in every nook and cranny of Kaua`i government is the result of an ironic and iconic self-lit exploding cigar.
The subject of any legislative body's salaries is always a touchy subject. Kaua`i was no different and decades back the Salary Commission (SC) was created to take some of the pressure off the council so they could get a raise without really proposing one.
The only problem was that even with a recommendation from the SC, the council still had to ultimately vote to raise their own salaries. They tried some tinkering over the years, once to change the county charter to make any raise take effect only after the next election. But that didn't do any good because everyone knew that the incumbents were reelected over and over.
So throughout the 90's and into the 2000's, the council's, the mayor's and all other appointed officials' salaries remained the same because the council couldn’t stand the political heat associated with raising them. The council's salary for what was turning into a full time job as the island grew, was stuck at $28,000 and $32,000 for the chair. Some of their clerks were getting almost twice that.
It got to the point where civil service workers in many departments were getting paid a lot more than the department heads. In one case the salary for the County Engineer- the head of the Public Works Department- was so low he quit to take a civil service job in the behemoth department, leaving the job open for many years because no one who was qualified would take it.
Finally a solution was proposed. In an "experiment to take the politics out of the process," as it was called, the SC resolution wasn't advisory any more but would automatically take effect unless five or more members of the council voted stop it.
But really it was just an illusory change and although the smoke and mirror machines were fully engaged, people saw- or at least the council assumed the people saw, which is the same thing- that the council was still, in essence, in charge of either accepting or rejecting their own raises.
Though the first few raises went through with minimal grumbling because voters accepted the "salary inversion" excuse cited above, no one foresaw that the exponentially ballooning pay raises contained in the multiple-year resolutions would become outrageous when things like "furlough Fridays" and 5% pay cuts came about after the bottom fell out of the free enterprise system.
All of a sudden the whole process had to be reversed and the council was faced with a "yes means no and no means yes" situation where allowing the current resolution to pass would actually be giving out pay cuts and voting to reject the reso would allow raises to go into effect.
That's where the incompetence of the local newspaper comes in because none of the council members trusted reporter Leo Azambuja to correctly report the story so each councilmember, with visions of "Council Votes For Pay Raise Resolution" headlines, came up with his or her own excuse for why they were voting against the reso.
Some cited the March 15 date in the charter by which the resolution "shall" be forwarded to the council. One cited the apparent ethical violation allowing Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe to write the actual resolution lowering everyone's salary but giving himself a raise. Another claimed that the mayor directed the whole thing, charging impropriety through interference with the supposedly independent SC. Still another complained about the fact that the budget didn’t reflect the resolution even though the amounts were actually less than the salaries appropriated in the budget.
It got so wild that, in an unprecedented move, County Attorney Al Castillo took the hot seat and gave off-the-cuff verbal legal advice, trying to placate councilmembers' various phoney finaglings, with often conflicting and confusing opinions... made all the more perplexing when Castillo's deputy Mona Clarke sat in and gave even more advice, much of which was at odds with Castillo's counsel.
It's no wonder that the the council couldn’t even actively decide to "receive" the reso, essentially killing it and had to kill it via a reported tie vote which had the same effect of receiving it but without the full set of fingerprints.
Meanwhile any changes to Article XXIX of the charter regarding the Salary Commission isn't even on the radar screen of the Charter Commission which is contemplating asking voters once again to remove the prohibition on board and commission members from asking for money, favors and otherwise lobbying the council, planning commission and other boards and commissions... even though the same amendment was soundly rejected in 2010.
If campaign money is the mother's milk of politics then the actual salaries of elected officials is the meat and potatoes. But either way there's bound to a nice buffet spread to enable the expected politically-motivated food fight when next year's salary resolution hits the council floor.
So it was no surprise that the subject of paying them all resulted in a few of the wilder politically-tinged sessions, with each councilmember unable to agree with any of the others on what the biggest issue was but all agreeing there's something rotten in the state of Lihu`e.
We've yet to view yesterday's finale to the latest chapter in the continuing saga regarding the most recent Salary Commission resolution where it was allowed to become law, if (always a big if) the local newspaper article is to be believed.
But anyone who has paid attention over the years knows that the debacle of political gamesmanship in every nook and cranny of Kaua`i government is the result of an ironic and iconic self-lit exploding cigar.
The subject of any legislative body's salaries is always a touchy subject. Kaua`i was no different and decades back the Salary Commission (SC) was created to take some of the pressure off the council so they could get a raise without really proposing one.
The only problem was that even with a recommendation from the SC, the council still had to ultimately vote to raise their own salaries. They tried some tinkering over the years, once to change the county charter to make any raise take effect only after the next election. But that didn't do any good because everyone knew that the incumbents were reelected over and over.
So throughout the 90's and into the 2000's, the council's, the mayor's and all other appointed officials' salaries remained the same because the council couldn’t stand the political heat associated with raising them. The council's salary for what was turning into a full time job as the island grew, was stuck at $28,000 and $32,000 for the chair. Some of their clerks were getting almost twice that.
It got to the point where civil service workers in many departments were getting paid a lot more than the department heads. In one case the salary for the County Engineer- the head of the Public Works Department- was so low he quit to take a civil service job in the behemoth department, leaving the job open for many years because no one who was qualified would take it.
Finally a solution was proposed. In an "experiment to take the politics out of the process," as it was called, the SC resolution wasn't advisory any more but would automatically take effect unless five or more members of the council voted stop it.
But really it was just an illusory change and although the smoke and mirror machines were fully engaged, people saw- or at least the council assumed the people saw, which is the same thing- that the council was still, in essence, in charge of either accepting or rejecting their own raises.
Though the first few raises went through with minimal grumbling because voters accepted the "salary inversion" excuse cited above, no one foresaw that the exponentially ballooning pay raises contained in the multiple-year resolutions would become outrageous when things like "furlough Fridays" and 5% pay cuts came about after the bottom fell out of the free enterprise system.
All of a sudden the whole process had to be reversed and the council was faced with a "yes means no and no means yes" situation where allowing the current resolution to pass would actually be giving out pay cuts and voting to reject the reso would allow raises to go into effect.
That's where the incompetence of the local newspaper comes in because none of the council members trusted reporter Leo Azambuja to correctly report the story so each councilmember, with visions of "Council Votes For Pay Raise Resolution" headlines, came up with his or her own excuse for why they were voting against the reso.
Some cited the March 15 date in the charter by which the resolution "shall" be forwarded to the council. One cited the apparent ethical violation allowing Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe to write the actual resolution lowering everyone's salary but giving himself a raise. Another claimed that the mayor directed the whole thing, charging impropriety through interference with the supposedly independent SC. Still another complained about the fact that the budget didn’t reflect the resolution even though the amounts were actually less than the salaries appropriated in the budget.
It got so wild that, in an unprecedented move, County Attorney Al Castillo took the hot seat and gave off-the-cuff verbal legal advice, trying to placate councilmembers' various phoney finaglings, with often conflicting and confusing opinions... made all the more perplexing when Castillo's deputy Mona Clarke sat in and gave even more advice, much of which was at odds with Castillo's counsel.
It's no wonder that the the council couldn’t even actively decide to "receive" the reso, essentially killing it and had to kill it via a reported tie vote which had the same effect of receiving it but without the full set of fingerprints.
Meanwhile any changes to Article XXIX of the charter regarding the Salary Commission isn't even on the radar screen of the Charter Commission which is contemplating asking voters once again to remove the prohibition on board and commission members from asking for money, favors and otherwise lobbying the council, planning commission and other boards and commissions... even though the same amendment was soundly rejected in 2010.
If campaign money is the mother's milk of politics then the actual salaries of elected officials is the meat and potatoes. But either way there's bound to a nice buffet spread to enable the expected politically-motivated food fight when next year's salary resolution hits the council floor.
Monday, September 26, 2011
BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH
BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH: Reading the local newspaper for information is normally like drinking diet soda looking for nutrition. And when it comes to government beat reporter Leo Azambuja's dispatches, it's often as if someone slipped a Mickey in your drink.
But if a particularly complicated discussion takes place in the council chambers, readers will probably wind up with a can of dehydrated water.
Such was our little buddy's report on the Salary Commission resolution being considered by the council last Wednesday, mostly because the very basic prerequisite facts for understanding what happened were either missing, mentioned without any context or explanation, or placed at the very end of the article.
One such missing fact is that the way salaries for appointed and elected officials are designated in the Kaua`i County Charter is that our Salary Commission set "caps" for the amount and then the appointing authority in each case designates the actual salaries. And, most importantly, the council must actively reject the resolution from the commission with at least five votes or it is automatically deemed to have been passed.
Those few words might have made the article intelligible but the "automatic passage" fact was missing in action and the words "appointing authority" not only appear 1022 words into a 1330 word piece but just kind of float there like a bug in our aforementioned soft drink.
But really that's beside the point because the real news from the meeting- what should have been the "lede"- could be summed up in the headline: Rapozo Levels Ethics Charges Against Isobe In Pay Raise Flap.
In all fairness this is what did appear 217 words before the end of the article:
Rapozo said it was ironic that the person who crafted the resolution, Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe, was the only county official who would get a pay raise if the new resolution is approved. Isobe’s position is not listed in the new resolution.
Ironic? How about corrupt.
Rapozo actually detailed how, according to salary commission documents and minutes, the salary commission, under Chair Charley King of King Auto Center, decided to allow Isobe to draft the actual resolution to be sent to the council, supposedly freezing many executive salaries at a lower level than had been contained in the previous resolution.
But when the final reso showed up before the council the only one whose salary cap was actually raised rather than lowered was Isobe's.
But it got worse. In trying to deny that any funny business took place, Council Chair Jay Furfaro took the tactic of defending, not Isobe but King, saying his integrity was essentially beyond reproach.
But if Charley is cast in the role of Caesar's wife then Leo is a competent journalist.
King has been a chief Republican leader and fundraiser for decades on Kaua`i and was widely thought to be the most influential person in the administrations of former Mayors Maryanne Kusaka and Bryan Baptiste.
As to King's "ethics" one example that sticks in out mind is "Big Red Chrysler-gate."
Kusaka was known to like "nice things." When she first got elected she was discovered to be selling jewelry to people seeking favors from her- right out of her office- in order to support her own expensive habit.
But one thing she didn't have was a nice big luxury car. So when she showed up driving a big red top-of-the-line Chrysler New Yorker people started to ask questions.
Well it seems that when Kusaka took office she had suckered the council into what was called "program based budgeting." The conflicts with the prior council and then Mayor, now Councilmember, JoAnn Yukimura, were legendary. So, in those post-Rodney King "why can't we all just get along" days, she brought in Steven Covey of the infamous "7 Habits of Highly Manipulative Jerkwads" or something like that and held love fests with the legislators.
In a gesture of this spirit of Kumbaya, the council eliminated "line-item" budgeting- where every expenditure is specifically appropriated by the council- to this "program based" system where the council essentially threw a big old heap of money at each department with little or no accountability for what it was spent on.
And one of the biggest mounds of moolah was that for the mayor's office which included not only her staff's expenses and salaries but those of most of the "agencies" that aren't created by the county charter.
So, with what amounted to her own multi-million-dollar slush fund, rather than buy her own car and charge the county for official uses, Kusaka didn't just get the county to buy the car but actually leased the Chrysler at multiples of what the purchase would have cost taxpayers.
And who did she lease it from? Why of course her chief adviser and campaign contributor and bundler Charley King who also made out pretty well on the exorbitant terms of the lease.
And of course it was almost impossible to actually figure all this out because there was no real record of it- or at last none that were reported to the council which is the body responsible for overseeing the purse strings of the county. It took some loose lips in the administration and a bit of investigative work by Honolulu Star-Bulletin Bureau Chief Anthony Sommer- the author of KPD Blue (see left rail)- to break the story to the "shocked-shocked" councilmembers who promptly went back to line-item budgeting... at their earliest possible convenience.
We have to admit that the funniest part of all of this was Furfaro's Shakespearean "but Charley is an honorable man" routine. But the tragedy just may be that the Friends, Romans and Countrymen on the Ethics Board- overseen by (drum roll, please) John Isobe- will not probably be lending their ears to anything.
But if a particularly complicated discussion takes place in the council chambers, readers will probably wind up with a can of dehydrated water.
Such was our little buddy's report on the Salary Commission resolution being considered by the council last Wednesday, mostly because the very basic prerequisite facts for understanding what happened were either missing, mentioned without any context or explanation, or placed at the very end of the article.
One such missing fact is that the way salaries for appointed and elected officials are designated in the Kaua`i County Charter is that our Salary Commission set "caps" for the amount and then the appointing authority in each case designates the actual salaries. And, most importantly, the council must actively reject the resolution from the commission with at least five votes or it is automatically deemed to have been passed.
Those few words might have made the article intelligible but the "automatic passage" fact was missing in action and the words "appointing authority" not only appear 1022 words into a 1330 word piece but just kind of float there like a bug in our aforementioned soft drink.
But really that's beside the point because the real news from the meeting- what should have been the "lede"- could be summed up in the headline: Rapozo Levels Ethics Charges Against Isobe In Pay Raise Flap.
In all fairness this is what did appear 217 words before the end of the article:
Rapozo said it was ironic that the person who crafted the resolution, Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe, was the only county official who would get a pay raise if the new resolution is approved. Isobe’s position is not listed in the new resolution.
Ironic? How about corrupt.
Rapozo actually detailed how, according to salary commission documents and minutes, the salary commission, under Chair Charley King of King Auto Center, decided to allow Isobe to draft the actual resolution to be sent to the council, supposedly freezing many executive salaries at a lower level than had been contained in the previous resolution.
But when the final reso showed up before the council the only one whose salary cap was actually raised rather than lowered was Isobe's.
But it got worse. In trying to deny that any funny business took place, Council Chair Jay Furfaro took the tactic of defending, not Isobe but King, saying his integrity was essentially beyond reproach.
But if Charley is cast in the role of Caesar's wife then Leo is a competent journalist.
King has been a chief Republican leader and fundraiser for decades on Kaua`i and was widely thought to be the most influential person in the administrations of former Mayors Maryanne Kusaka and Bryan Baptiste.
As to King's "ethics" one example that sticks in out mind is "Big Red Chrysler-gate."
Kusaka was known to like "nice things." When she first got elected she was discovered to be selling jewelry to people seeking favors from her- right out of her office- in order to support her own expensive habit.
But one thing she didn't have was a nice big luxury car. So when she showed up driving a big red top-of-the-line Chrysler New Yorker people started to ask questions.
Well it seems that when Kusaka took office she had suckered the council into what was called "program based budgeting." The conflicts with the prior council and then Mayor, now Councilmember, JoAnn Yukimura, were legendary. So, in those post-Rodney King "why can't we all just get along" days, she brought in Steven Covey of the infamous "7 Habits of Highly Manipulative Jerkwads" or something like that and held love fests with the legislators.
In a gesture of this spirit of Kumbaya, the council eliminated "line-item" budgeting- where every expenditure is specifically appropriated by the council- to this "program based" system where the council essentially threw a big old heap of money at each department with little or no accountability for what it was spent on.
And one of the biggest mounds of moolah was that for the mayor's office which included not only her staff's expenses and salaries but those of most of the "agencies" that aren't created by the county charter.
So, with what amounted to her own multi-million-dollar slush fund, rather than buy her own car and charge the county for official uses, Kusaka didn't just get the county to buy the car but actually leased the Chrysler at multiples of what the purchase would have cost taxpayers.
And who did she lease it from? Why of course her chief adviser and campaign contributor and bundler Charley King who also made out pretty well on the exorbitant terms of the lease.
And of course it was almost impossible to actually figure all this out because there was no real record of it- or at last none that were reported to the council which is the body responsible for overseeing the purse strings of the county. It took some loose lips in the administration and a bit of investigative work by Honolulu Star-Bulletin Bureau Chief Anthony Sommer- the author of KPD Blue (see left rail)- to break the story to the "shocked-shocked" councilmembers who promptly went back to line-item budgeting... at their earliest possible convenience.
We have to admit that the funniest part of all of this was Furfaro's Shakespearean "but Charley is an honorable man" routine. But the tragedy just may be that the Friends, Romans and Countrymen on the Ethics Board- overseen by (drum roll, please) John Isobe- will not probably be lending their ears to anything.
Monday, September 19, 2011
MRF-FREE'S LAW
MRF-FREE'S LAW: There's a sure way to get our blood boiling- mention solid waste and Kaua`i county government in the same sentence.
Back in the early-mid 90's, when the term "zero-waste" was just a'bornin', Dr. Ray Chuan, activist extraordinaire, used to walk into the council chambers each week with stacks of papers and during the interstitial periods, start pawing through them.
Of course we couldn't resist looking over his shoulder and so much to our amazement we and eventually the rest of the "nitpickers" became experts on the last thing in which we wanted to stick our noses- literally or figuratively... trash.
It didn't take a genius to see that the costliest- and stupidest- thing that could be done was to dig a hole in the ground and bury valuable materials rather than recycle them. The solution was- and is- to make it as easy for folks to separate them out of their yucky trash, pick them up curbside and bring them to a place to separate them for shipment, as many places on the mainland were already either doing or planning to do at the time.
Now more than 15 years later and three administrations later Kaua`i not only doesn't have a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) but, according to the local newspaper- albeit buried mid-way through an article- Mayor Bernard Carvalho has no real plans to build one, making recycling as haphazard and costly as possible.
It's not like the money to plan and build a MRF hasn't been appropriated by the council at least four time we can think of since the turn of the century. Every single bond float- and restructuring of bonds- has included money for the facility which needs to be the first thing that is done in either a "zero-waste" program or the "integrated solid waste" strategy the county has embraced.
It has also been included in almost every capital improvement budget since then to no avail. If we didn't know better we'd think there was no one who knew how to both build a large warehouse and kick back money to the Department of Public Works' Solid Waste Division and the various mayors.
The article is, as usual when penned by Leo Azambuja, fairly useless in explaining why the heck a MRF is not in Carvalho's budget this year, preferring to concentrate on the reasons why the council refused to waste money by continuing to pay our state senator's brother an exorbitant rate to separate a small amount of curbside recycled materials, recovered through a now-canceled "pilot project."
It's just another textbook example of the county's "ready, fire, aim" modus operandi.
But further, the article fails to point out the massive costs of dumping most of our recyclable goods in our overflowing landfill to the point where some have suggested "mining" the old cells, not just to recover the materials discarded over the years but to open up space so as to delay for as long as decades the need to site a new one that nobody wants in their backyard anyway.
Instead Carvalho is still adamant about siting the MRF in the area in which he is proposing to put the new landfill even though planning and permitting for the dump could be a decade away. That means that in Carvalho's mind we will keep on doing what's wrong as long as we can, falling further behind the rest of the world in solid waste management.
Meanwhile the cart is not just before the horse, it's rolling down an endless hill and gathering speed with no equine activity on the horizon.
Of course if the planning and design had been done years ago the county might have even had the whole shebang paid for by the federal government when the they were looking for "shovel ready" public works projects a couple of years back- as they may be doing again next year.
Carvalho seems to have no trouble acting on a dime when it comes to hiring another suck-up crony to fill another new administration position. But when it comes to capital improvement projects the bungling seems almost intentional.
The old "is it incompetence or is in malfeasance?" question was seemingly made for the last three mayors. But the more Carvalho's administrative skills are on display, the more we have to believe it's the latter more than the former.
Back in the early-mid 90's, when the term "zero-waste" was just a'bornin', Dr. Ray Chuan, activist extraordinaire, used to walk into the council chambers each week with stacks of papers and during the interstitial periods, start pawing through them.
Of course we couldn't resist looking over his shoulder and so much to our amazement we and eventually the rest of the "nitpickers" became experts on the last thing in which we wanted to stick our noses- literally or figuratively... trash.
It didn't take a genius to see that the costliest- and stupidest- thing that could be done was to dig a hole in the ground and bury valuable materials rather than recycle them. The solution was- and is- to make it as easy for folks to separate them out of their yucky trash, pick them up curbside and bring them to a place to separate them for shipment, as many places on the mainland were already either doing or planning to do at the time.
Now more than 15 years later and three administrations later Kaua`i not only doesn't have a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) but, according to the local newspaper- albeit buried mid-way through an article- Mayor Bernard Carvalho has no real plans to build one, making recycling as haphazard and costly as possible.
It's not like the money to plan and build a MRF hasn't been appropriated by the council at least four time we can think of since the turn of the century. Every single bond float- and restructuring of bonds- has included money for the facility which needs to be the first thing that is done in either a "zero-waste" program or the "integrated solid waste" strategy the county has embraced.
It has also been included in almost every capital improvement budget since then to no avail. If we didn't know better we'd think there was no one who knew how to both build a large warehouse and kick back money to the Department of Public Works' Solid Waste Division and the various mayors.
The article is, as usual when penned by Leo Azambuja, fairly useless in explaining why the heck a MRF is not in Carvalho's budget this year, preferring to concentrate on the reasons why the council refused to waste money by continuing to pay our state senator's brother an exorbitant rate to separate a small amount of curbside recycled materials, recovered through a now-canceled "pilot project."
It's just another textbook example of the county's "ready, fire, aim" modus operandi.
But further, the article fails to point out the massive costs of dumping most of our recyclable goods in our overflowing landfill to the point where some have suggested "mining" the old cells, not just to recover the materials discarded over the years but to open up space so as to delay for as long as decades the need to site a new one that nobody wants in their backyard anyway.
Instead Carvalho is still adamant about siting the MRF in the area in which he is proposing to put the new landfill even though planning and permitting for the dump could be a decade away. That means that in Carvalho's mind we will keep on doing what's wrong as long as we can, falling further behind the rest of the world in solid waste management.
Meanwhile the cart is not just before the horse, it's rolling down an endless hill and gathering speed with no equine activity on the horizon.
Of course if the planning and design had been done years ago the county might have even had the whole shebang paid for by the federal government when the they were looking for "shovel ready" public works projects a couple of years back- as they may be doing again next year.
Carvalho seems to have no trouble acting on a dime when it comes to hiring another suck-up crony to fill another new administration position. But when it comes to capital improvement projects the bungling seems almost intentional.
The old "is it incompetence or is in malfeasance?" question was seemingly made for the last three mayors. But the more Carvalho's administrative skills are on display, the more we have to believe it's the latter more than the former.
Friday, April 15, 2011
ZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZ: We've spent a rousing week of evenings waiting for something to actually happen at the county council budget hearings, so it was another "huh" moment when today's local newspaper story by you-know-who proclaimed that "(s)parks were flying Thursday morning between County Council members during a heated discussion at the Nawiliwili Council Chambers."
What a witty lede. There was only one problem with it- the article never mentioned the "sparks" perhaps because in actuality these budget hearings have alternated between snooze-fest and schmooze fest since the festivities began.
You'd think that with the all-cronies-all-the-time nature of the department heads appointed by Mayor Bernard Carvalho the level of incompetence at the top that's been reported to us by the county's "we-bes"- as in "we be here when you got here, we be here when you're gone"- might have been an issue for councilmembers, whose job is, after all, oversight of the administration.
Instead, after the department heads' usual perfunctory reading of their "prepared remarks" councilmembers lobbed a few softballs before heaping the praise on them reminiscent of the post-secret-handshake "you're great, no you're great" declaration from the Tom Hanks Saturday Night Live "Fiver Timer" sketch.
Most of the questions that have been asked are invariably of the "what the bleep did you do with the money" nature with "anykine" answers sufficing as appointees stumbled and bumbled their way through the sessions until they finally ran out the clock. That was followed by councilmembers declarations of "I especially liked the way you listed..." whatever it was they listed and an "I love you too" from the person in the not-so-hot seat.
Apparently, we have it all wrong. There's no incompetence at the top in administrative departments- our experiences are illusory. It's just coincidence- the mayor's campaign workers and big contributors just happen to be the most qualified people to lead these departments.
So glad we cleared that up. Go back to your homes folks- nothing to see here.
What a witty lede. There was only one problem with it- the article never mentioned the "sparks" perhaps because in actuality these budget hearings have alternated between snooze-fest and schmooze fest since the festivities began.
You'd think that with the all-cronies-all-the-time nature of the department heads appointed by Mayor Bernard Carvalho the level of incompetence at the top that's been reported to us by the county's "we-bes"- as in "we be here when you got here, we be here when you're gone"- might have been an issue for councilmembers, whose job is, after all, oversight of the administration.
Instead, after the department heads' usual perfunctory reading of their "prepared remarks" councilmembers lobbed a few softballs before heaping the praise on them reminiscent of the post-secret-handshake "you're great, no you're great" declaration from the Tom Hanks Saturday Night Live "Fiver Timer" sketch.
Most of the questions that have been asked are invariably of the "what the bleep did you do with the money" nature with "anykine" answers sufficing as appointees stumbled and bumbled their way through the sessions until they finally ran out the clock. That was followed by councilmembers declarations of "I especially liked the way you listed..." whatever it was they listed and an "I love you too" from the person in the not-so-hot seat.
Apparently, we have it all wrong. There's no incompetence at the top in administrative departments- our experiences are illusory. It's just coincidence- the mayor's campaign workers and big contributors just happen to be the most qualified people to lead these departments.
So glad we cleared that up. Go back to your homes folks- nothing to see here.
Friday, April 8, 2011
AND WE WERE GOING TO TAKE THE DAY OFF
AND WE WERE GOING TO TAKE THE DAY OFF: When is news not news? When it's in our local newspaper in an article penned by journalism’s worst enemy, Leo Azumbuja.
Yes we're tired of criticizing his "work" (note the quotes)- it's too easy.
But today’s article proclaiming that the SuperFerry bill that has been hanging around the legislature is still alive is so disturbingly inaccurate that it constitutes journalistic malpractice.
If you're going to cover the legislature the first rule is to know something about the process and then look at the legislative calendar.
Because despite Azumbuja's lede proclamation that "(t)he economic crisis that refuses to leave the Hawaiian Islands has not been sufficient to sink the idea of a state-run interisland ferry system" the fact is that today is what is known as "Second Decking Deadline" when as "Civil Beat" put it today
The House and Senate must get their respective bills in final form today in order for the measures to be voted on next week and make second crossover April 14.
The deadline to get bills to the House Clerk is 10 p.m., but the Senate Clerk had not announced its deadline as of late yesterday.
Next up: conference committee, which will pretty much consume the last two weeks of the month.
If Azumbuja had bothered to look at the status he'd have noticed that on March 23 it was referred to the Senate Ways and Means (WAM) Committee where it died after failing to be scheduled for a hearing. And since hearings must be noticed 48 hours in advance the bill will not receive an okay from WAM.
He would have also noticed had HE had read the bill, as he accused 16th District Representative Dee Morikawa of failing to do- he'd have noticed that the current bill was amended by the house with a "defective date" of July 1, 2030.
Of course like any bill it can be pulled by the full body for a vote. But that virtually never happens, with last year's civil unions bill being an exception that had even long time legislative correspondents scrambling to find the last time it had happened.
Of course most anyone who really cared about the SuperFerry Bill had, most likely, received a notice from anti-SuperFerry Activist supreme Dick Meyer of Maui last week that the bill was apparently dead after not showing up on the final WAM hearing notice. But for those who rely on the Kaua`i "newspaper of record" to record the actual record it's the same sad story written by a man seemingly incapable of telling one accurately.
Yes we're tired of criticizing his "work" (note the quotes)- it's too easy.
But today’s article proclaiming that the SuperFerry bill that has been hanging around the legislature is still alive is so disturbingly inaccurate that it constitutes journalistic malpractice.
If you're going to cover the legislature the first rule is to know something about the process and then look at the legislative calendar.
Because despite Azumbuja's lede proclamation that "(t)he economic crisis that refuses to leave the Hawaiian Islands has not been sufficient to sink the idea of a state-run interisland ferry system" the fact is that today is what is known as "Second Decking Deadline" when as "Civil Beat" put it today
The House and Senate must get their respective bills in final form today in order for the measures to be voted on next week and make second crossover April 14.
The deadline to get bills to the House Clerk is 10 p.m., but the Senate Clerk had not announced its deadline as of late yesterday.
Next up: conference committee, which will pretty much consume the last two weeks of the month.
If Azumbuja had bothered to look at the status he'd have noticed that on March 23 it was referred to the Senate Ways and Means (WAM) Committee where it died after failing to be scheduled for a hearing. And since hearings must be noticed 48 hours in advance the bill will not receive an okay from WAM.
He would have also noticed had HE had read the bill, as he accused 16th District Representative Dee Morikawa of failing to do- he'd have noticed that the current bill was amended by the house with a "defective date" of July 1, 2030.
Of course like any bill it can be pulled by the full body for a vote. But that virtually never happens, with last year's civil unions bill being an exception that had even long time legislative correspondents scrambling to find the last time it had happened.
Of course most anyone who really cared about the SuperFerry Bill had, most likely, received a notice from anti-SuperFerry Activist supreme Dick Meyer of Maui last week that the bill was apparently dead after not showing up on the final WAM hearing notice. But for those who rely on the Kaua`i "newspaper of record" to record the actual record it's the same sad story written by a man seemingly incapable of telling one accurately.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
PAUL HARVEY’S REVENGE
PAUL HARVEY’S REVENGE: It feels like “Let’s All Blow Smoke Up Bruce Laymon’s Ass Week” what with Laymon getting the kid-glove treatment from our friend Joan Conrow yesterday and again much more so from out no-so-much-friend Leo Azambuja in today’s local newspaper, all over Laymon’s hatemongering and intimidation campaign at Lepeuli (Larsen’s).
From multiple reports we’ve heard, the level of fear and loathing out there has increased exponentially with reports of confrontational incidents spurred by Laymon against beach goers since he withdrew his request for a state permit recently... as those who can read between the lines of Conrow’s and the paper’s reports can tell.
But one “comment” on Conrow’s post struck us as needing further exposure, that of Lepeuli activist Richard Spacer.
While many on both sides of the issue have criticized Spacer for both his tactics and his position on some of the issues- and although we don’t necessarily agree with him on all points- we thought his rebuttal needed exposure especially regarding some of the history of prescriptive rights and the case law concerning nudity. We also think his “report” regarding the FBI’s visit to Laymon investigating possible hate crimes- which we have independently confirmed- needs more exposure.
The rest, we need to point out, we can neither confirm or refute but are lending today’s column to his side of a story that was presented so one-sidedly, especially in today’s newspaper.
The third part was originally “edited” by Conrow but we requested and received that portion from Spacer today and have included it below.
Here are his comments, all “sic.”
Seems like Bruce Laymon has got to you as well, Ms. Conrow.
The reason the public has the right to access the ala loa trail THROUGH Waioli Corporation land because under the Highways Act of 1892, passed during the reign of Queen Lililoukalani, all roads, trails, etc, at that time were guaranteed to be public forever. The trail through Lepeuli existed in 1892. There are official maps from 1878 clearly showing the trail. There is Native Hawaiian testimony. Waioli Corporation is crying foul becasue they do not like that 1892 law that Lililoukalani had the wisdom to install as she saw the changes coming, and how arrogant haole landowners would keep Hawaiians off the land. A court case on the Big Island concerning an ala loa there was resolved with maps and Native Hawaiian testimony. It is not a private property issue. That is PR spin from Waioli and Laymon becasue they do not want the public to know about the Highways Act of 1892. Google it, see for yourselves.
The same is true in next door Kaakaaniu, owned by Patricia Hanwright. DLNR's Curt Cottrell in 2007 sent her a letter essentially saying to get ready and let them in, as the state claims a coastal trail through there. Patricia Hanwright won't budge. The same stubborness as Waioli. Waioli and Patricia Hanwright are united in denying this trail exists. I have discussed this on KKCR.
The FBI investigated because the KPD has a long history of racism against Caucasians and activists feel little to no vaule will come from filing complaints against Bruce Laymon's hate speech with KPD. How coincidental was the Caucasian guys were at Laymon's home at the time of the FBI visit. Was the FBI visit scheduled in advance or did they make a surprise visit? Do you honestly think the macho he-man local boy police officer would do anything about a gay, lesbian or naturist being attacked? Whether his father is or is not Caucasian or anything else is irrelevant. Bruce Laymon's behavior stands on its own. Bruce Laymon on March 6 told Colorado beachgoer Dennis Bosio at 9:30 am that next week he was going to have 50 Hawaiians down at Larsen's and RUN the f****** haoles out. At 11:30 am the same day he told me he would have 100 Hawaiians there and said he was "taking back the beach." Whatever that is supposed to mean. Exactly HOW are the whites going to be "RUN" out of a PUBLIC beach? With guns, knives, machetes, spearguns, pit bulls?? Mr. Bosio made a notarized statement of the incident and this document is in the posession of the activists, DLNR, KPD, and attorney Colin Yost. It is publically accesible. It clearly documents Bruce Laymon's desire to drive white people out of Larsen's Beach. That means he is a bigot.
The Conservation District Use Permit (now void) granted to Bruce Laymon stated there would be no driving accross Waioli property to access the beach, unless it is NOAA or emergency vehicles. This is violated almost weekly by Filipino and Hawaiian associates of Bruce Laymon including Sherwood Iida who use Schoolhouse Road to set up camps, leave unattended fishing poles, and generally harass beachgoers. Funny how Bruce Laymon leaves that bit out.
Part 2.
The steep, un-maintained easement trail to the beach the Hawaiians mention is just that, an EASEMENT. We do not own it, Waioli does. If you read the easement document, and I assume you did because you were at county council July 7, 2010 when it was introduced, you would know Waioli reserves the right to erect walls or fencing on it. Waioli Attorney Don Wilson's theatrical on-camera denials notwithstanding, the legal document language reserves the right of Waioli to close it off.
Multiple times I have asked county spokesperson Mary Daubert to ask public works when they are going to maintain the county right-of-way trail we obtained in 1979 and the easment trail. I never get an answer as to when, and no improvement has been made to either trail in over a year. My latest request was referred to the county attorney. Why does Kauai County need to ask their lawyer before weed-whacking trails?
This "cattle ranching" project has little to do with cattle; it is all about keeping people away from Larsen's Beach that Bruce Laymon objects to. Who are those people? Bruce Laymon, Robert Schleck and Patricia Hanwright confidante and neighbor Steve Frailey have told us many times in public conversations, including October 16, 2009 at Larsen's. They use the euphemistic term "illegal behavior" to describe them. On January 19, 2011 a young lady who lives near the beach was attempting to use the gradual, lateral trail and was stopped by Bruce Laymon, busy installing 2 fence posts. She asked him who he was to stop her. He said he was the landowner. That is a fallacy. He is a lessee. She asked him WHY he was fencing. Bruce Laymon told her the fence is to keep campers, nudes, and gays from getting to the beach. In 2011 can you believe such bigoted speech is being uttered!? Campers on Waioli land is one thing. Gays and naturists on a public beach have legal protections and this hate speech against both groups is criminal and leaves Bruce Laymon and Waioli Corporation vulnerable to civil litigation. Being gay or lesbian in Hawaii is not illegal. Neither is topfree or nude sunbathing if you are not intending to affront of alarm (offend) someone on a NON-state park beach. A unanimous state supreme court ruling in 2000 settled this issue once and for all. A group called Kauai Naturists has been formed in response to recent events to document harassment of naturists, disseminate correct information, and to make certain this hate speech stops.
February 14, 2011 8:28 PM
Part 3 (note: only the final paragraph was permitted to be posted by Conrow. As noted above we received the first two paragraphs from Spacer):
Bruce Laymon is a Jehovah's Witness according to a member of that church I spoke with in Kapaa. This sect, many say cult, is well known for its intolerance of gays and lesbians. They consider it sinful and illegal. They also hate naturists. Bruce Laymon sees Larsen's as a sinful place and he is the appointed moral messenger to bring pure, "christian" values to that location, whether anyone agrees with him or not. Under Bruce Laymon's vision of Larsen's Beach, judge Sabrina Shizue McKenna, nominated by Governor Neil Abercrombie to sit on the state supreme court, would be excluded from this PUBLIC beach because she is gay. The passing of civil unions and the imminent signing into law of that legislation must be causing Bruce Laymon to lose his mind. Meanwhile, how is it that Robert Schleck, who is gay, is Bruce Laymon's boss, a man who hates gays?! What is that?
Of course, the joke is on Bruce Laymon because Waioli Corporation is using him as a pawn to "clean up" the land so it can be sold to the highest bidder for housing development. Waioli Vice President Charles Spitz told us that recently, as well as that Waioli spent over $40,000. in legal fees over this issue. So much for Waioli valuing preservation.
This issue has severely damaged Waioli's reputation. Ms. Conrow, you ask how to stop the "insanity". How to stop it is for the pro-access board members (there ARE pro-access members) to dump Robert Schleck, Bruce Laymon, and the anti-access trustees on the board NOW. Deed to the public in perpetuity and irrevocably the gradual trail from the Kaakaaniu line to the Waipake line. It is time for Waioli Corporation to say "aloha" instead of "kapu".
From multiple reports we’ve heard, the level of fear and loathing out there has increased exponentially with reports of confrontational incidents spurred by Laymon against beach goers since he withdrew his request for a state permit recently... as those who can read between the lines of Conrow’s and the paper’s reports can tell.
But one “comment” on Conrow’s post struck us as needing further exposure, that of Lepeuli activist Richard Spacer.
While many on both sides of the issue have criticized Spacer for both his tactics and his position on some of the issues- and although we don’t necessarily agree with him on all points- we thought his rebuttal needed exposure especially regarding some of the history of prescriptive rights and the case law concerning nudity. We also think his “report” regarding the FBI’s visit to Laymon investigating possible hate crimes- which we have independently confirmed- needs more exposure.
The rest, we need to point out, we can neither confirm or refute but are lending today’s column to his side of a story that was presented so one-sidedly, especially in today’s newspaper.
The third part was originally “edited” by Conrow but we requested and received that portion from Spacer today and have included it below.
Here are his comments, all “sic.”
Seems like Bruce Laymon has got to you as well, Ms. Conrow.
The reason the public has the right to access the ala loa trail THROUGH Waioli Corporation land because under the Highways Act of 1892, passed during the reign of Queen Lililoukalani, all roads, trails, etc, at that time were guaranteed to be public forever. The trail through Lepeuli existed in 1892. There are official maps from 1878 clearly showing the trail. There is Native Hawaiian testimony. Waioli Corporation is crying foul becasue they do not like that 1892 law that Lililoukalani had the wisdom to install as she saw the changes coming, and how arrogant haole landowners would keep Hawaiians off the land. A court case on the Big Island concerning an ala loa there was resolved with maps and Native Hawaiian testimony. It is not a private property issue. That is PR spin from Waioli and Laymon becasue they do not want the public to know about the Highways Act of 1892. Google it, see for yourselves.
The same is true in next door Kaakaaniu, owned by Patricia Hanwright. DLNR's Curt Cottrell in 2007 sent her a letter essentially saying to get ready and let them in, as the state claims a coastal trail through there. Patricia Hanwright won't budge. The same stubborness as Waioli. Waioli and Patricia Hanwright are united in denying this trail exists. I have discussed this on KKCR.
The FBI investigated because the KPD has a long history of racism against Caucasians and activists feel little to no vaule will come from filing complaints against Bruce Laymon's hate speech with KPD. How coincidental was the Caucasian guys were at Laymon's home at the time of the FBI visit. Was the FBI visit scheduled in advance or did they make a surprise visit? Do you honestly think the macho he-man local boy police officer would do anything about a gay, lesbian or naturist being attacked? Whether his father is or is not Caucasian or anything else is irrelevant. Bruce Laymon's behavior stands on its own. Bruce Laymon on March 6 told Colorado beachgoer Dennis Bosio at 9:30 am that next week he was going to have 50 Hawaiians down at Larsen's and RUN the f****** haoles out. At 11:30 am the same day he told me he would have 100 Hawaiians there and said he was "taking back the beach." Whatever that is supposed to mean. Exactly HOW are the whites going to be "RUN" out of a PUBLIC beach? With guns, knives, machetes, spearguns, pit bulls?? Mr. Bosio made a notarized statement of the incident and this document is in the posession of the activists, DLNR, KPD, and attorney Colin Yost. It is publically accesible. It clearly documents Bruce Laymon's desire to drive white people out of Larsen's Beach. That means he is a bigot.
The Conservation District Use Permit (now void) granted to Bruce Laymon stated there would be no driving accross Waioli property to access the beach, unless it is NOAA or emergency vehicles. This is violated almost weekly by Filipino and Hawaiian associates of Bruce Laymon including Sherwood Iida who use Schoolhouse Road to set up camps, leave unattended fishing poles, and generally harass beachgoers. Funny how Bruce Laymon leaves that bit out.
Part 2.
The steep, un-maintained easement trail to the beach the Hawaiians mention is just that, an EASEMENT. We do not own it, Waioli does. If you read the easement document, and I assume you did because you were at county council July 7, 2010 when it was introduced, you would know Waioli reserves the right to erect walls or fencing on it. Waioli Attorney Don Wilson's theatrical on-camera denials notwithstanding, the legal document language reserves the right of Waioli to close it off.
Multiple times I have asked county spokesperson Mary Daubert to ask public works when they are going to maintain the county right-of-way trail we obtained in 1979 and the easment trail. I never get an answer as to when, and no improvement has been made to either trail in over a year. My latest request was referred to the county attorney. Why does Kauai County need to ask their lawyer before weed-whacking trails?
This "cattle ranching" project has little to do with cattle; it is all about keeping people away from Larsen's Beach that Bruce Laymon objects to. Who are those people? Bruce Laymon, Robert Schleck and Patricia Hanwright confidante and neighbor Steve Frailey have told us many times in public conversations, including October 16, 2009 at Larsen's. They use the euphemistic term "illegal behavior" to describe them. On January 19, 2011 a young lady who lives near the beach was attempting to use the gradual, lateral trail and was stopped by Bruce Laymon, busy installing 2 fence posts. She asked him who he was to stop her. He said he was the landowner. That is a fallacy. He is a lessee. She asked him WHY he was fencing. Bruce Laymon told her the fence is to keep campers, nudes, and gays from getting to the beach. In 2011 can you believe such bigoted speech is being uttered!? Campers on Waioli land is one thing. Gays and naturists on a public beach have legal protections and this hate speech against both groups is criminal and leaves Bruce Laymon and Waioli Corporation vulnerable to civil litigation. Being gay or lesbian in Hawaii is not illegal. Neither is topfree or nude sunbathing if you are not intending to affront of alarm (offend) someone on a NON-state park beach. A unanimous state supreme court ruling in 2000 settled this issue once and for all. A group called Kauai Naturists has been formed in response to recent events to document harassment of naturists, disseminate correct information, and to make certain this hate speech stops.
February 14, 2011 8:28 PM
Part 3 (note: only the final paragraph was permitted to be posted by Conrow. As noted above we received the first two paragraphs from Spacer):
Bruce Laymon is a Jehovah's Witness according to a member of that church I spoke with in Kapaa. This sect, many say cult, is well known for its intolerance of gays and lesbians. They consider it sinful and illegal. They also hate naturists. Bruce Laymon sees Larsen's as a sinful place and he is the appointed moral messenger to bring pure, "christian" values to that location, whether anyone agrees with him or not. Under Bruce Laymon's vision of Larsen's Beach, judge Sabrina Shizue McKenna, nominated by Governor Neil Abercrombie to sit on the state supreme court, would be excluded from this PUBLIC beach because she is gay. The passing of civil unions and the imminent signing into law of that legislation must be causing Bruce Laymon to lose his mind. Meanwhile, how is it that Robert Schleck, who is gay, is Bruce Laymon's boss, a man who hates gays?! What is that?
Of course, the joke is on Bruce Laymon because Waioli Corporation is using him as a pawn to "clean up" the land so it can be sold to the highest bidder for housing development. Waioli Vice President Charles Spitz told us that recently, as well as that Waioli spent over $40,000. in legal fees over this issue. So much for Waioli valuing preservation.
This issue has severely damaged Waioli's reputation. Ms. Conrow, you ask how to stop the "insanity". How to stop it is for the pro-access board members (there ARE pro-access members) to dump Robert Schleck, Bruce Laymon, and the anti-access trustees on the board NOW. Deed to the public in perpetuity and irrevocably the gradual trail from the Kaakaaniu line to the Waipake line. It is time for Waioli Corporation to say "aloha" instead of "kapu".
Monday, January 10, 2011
AND HILARITY ENSUED
AND HILARITY ENSUED: Boy are we gonna have fun for the next two years if last Wednesday’s first council confab- and the local newspaper’s Leo Azambuja’s coverage of them- is any indication.
The committee meetings’ business included the long-delayed establishment of two sub-committees to review the council rules and look at human resources.
We’ll get to the personnel committee later because we have to lead off with returning babooze-in-chief Mel Rapozo and his first of what promises to be many “open mouth-insert foot” moments followed by an attempt to remove said appendage which only to wedges it in there more securely.
Rapozo was apparently taking his time in trying to make the point that the council seems have trouble following its own rules and was complaining that the rules (actually Rule 6F under Motions) say that “no member may speak longer than five minutes.”
So wise-acre Azambuja wrote:
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” said Councilman Mel Rapozo, explaining that he feels that the rules are efficient and the problem lies in the council not following its own rules.
Rapozo said the structure of the state Legislature and other county councils is “impressive.”
“We’ve left that, we’ve departed that,” he said. “I’m hoping that we can bring that back, the decorum and the professionalism that this office and these chambers deserve.”
Rapozo, however, ended breaking one of the rules by speaking for seven minutes, right after criticizing council members for breaking the same rule. The rules allow council members to speak for five minutes on a given subject.
Actually an examination of the meeting shows it was six minutes and nine seconds- but who’s counting?... oh yeah, everybody.
Anyway Rapozo decided to respond and wrote in the “comments” section of the newspaper article:
Mr. Azambuja, if you are going to report on the Council meetings, please be fair and accurate. In your article, you stated,
"Rapozo, however, ended breaking one of the rules by speaking for seven minutes, right after criticizing council members for breaking the same rule. The rules allow council members to speak for five minutes on a given subject.
"If you were paying attention, you would have known that the rules allow council members to speak for 10 minutes on any given subject, not five as you reported. This is another example of how your paper misinforms the public at the expense of others. Don't even bother putting in a correction. I think the people have come to learn that the stories in the Garden Island must be validated by independent sources.
Problem is that Azambuja apparently was paying attention- to Rapozo. The words “10 minutes” never left Rapozo’s mouth while “five minutes” was repeated over and over.
Then, 52 minutes after leaving his comment and after a couple of other comments expressing confusion- and perhaps after remembering what he had actually said at the meeting- Rapozo attempted to explain that:
The rule states that council members have two (2) opportunities to speak, at five (5) minutes each. However, the Chair can allow the member to use all 10 minutes during one presentation. Thanks for the question. Great observation. If anyone wants a copy of our Council Rules, email me at mfrapozo (at) kauai.gov and I will email you a copy of them. Thanks again.
The problem for Mr. “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is that, while the two opportunities at five minutes is sort of in the rules- they mention two opportunities but don’t say “at five minutes apiece”- the use all 10 minutes at once is not.
The actual Kauai County Council Rules state that:
No member may speak longer than five minutes, nor may a member speak more than twice on the same question without leave of the Presiding Officer, subject to an appeal to the body, unless the member is the maker of the motion or sponsor of the matter pending, in which case the member may speak in reply, but not until every other member choosing to speak has spoken.
Not only doesn’t it say that you can combine them but it doesn’t really say how long any second chance might be- an indication that the rule needs to be clarified and thus is, in fact “broken.”
The “custom” of allowing members of the public to take their two chances of three minutes as one six minute chance to speak (but only if there are few others waiting) is not a part of the rules but was a practice that Chair Kaipo Asing instituted a few years back.
Rapozo also did explain not when or how, if the five minute rule had “never been enforced” as he said, the chair might have employed this rule that doesn’t exist and was never used.
But Rapozo was adamant at the meeting that the council follow the rules- especially the “point of order” rule.
But it became apparent that Rapozo has the same misconception as many others as to what “point of order” really is or when it can be used to interrupt the proceedings.
When it was Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura’s turn to talk she mentioned that the rules call for a majority of all members to vote for something in order for it to be considered passed. But then she added something about how that should have been the case in the recent controversy over the evaluation and subsequent pay raise for the county clerk, which was done unilaterally by Asing without council approval.
That caused Rapozo to blow his top and shout “that’s a point of order” saying that “we’re talking about a resolution” implying he thought it was off subject.
But in order to call a “point of order” it must relate to a matter of parliamentary “order”- as in Roberts Rules of Order.
It means that the person is alleging that the chair or parliamentarian has erred in applying something contained in the parliamentary guidebook. It not to be used for instances when you disagree with the speaker or if you think it’s off subject- the latter being a matter of the Sunshine Law which prohibits councilmembers from speaking on matters not on the agenda... something that’s usually a judgment call of the chair.
As a matter of fact, it is a violation of “order” to yell “point of order” if, in fact, your objection is not a “point of order.”
But Rapozo wasn’t the only one that was in rare form.
Perhaps the most bizarre statement of the day came from Chair Jay Furfaro regarding finally getting council documents posted on the county’s web site, especially the bills, resolutions and communications- along with the appropriate paperwork- which now requires a weekly trip to Lihu`e to acquire... in hard copy form.
Somehow, even though the material is routinely compiled and sits in a folder behind the counter at council services- and even though, according to council services staff their current “all the bells and whistles” copying machine can scan and post documents on-line automatically, Furfaro said:
“We will have a new position, especially as it deals with the effort we’re putting into documents getting onto the web for pre-meeting information to the public. That would be a new position.”
How the heck this takes a whole new position is beyond us. The question has to be asked if this is just a big waste of money in order to justify the literally years it’s taken to get this simple matter accomplished- a justification that has been based on how hard it is to do, without detailed explanation.
The best we’ve gotten is that they must make sure that they are indeed “public” documents before posting them. But they must do the same thing now when they hand them out over the counter.
If they really think it’s going to take that much staff time perhaps it is appropriate to have the new Human Resources (HR) Subcommittee look into policy and practices even though three councilmembers- Rapozo, Derek Kawakami and another whom we couldn’t identify- objected to an amendment adding that task to the subcommittee’s charge on Wednesday.
The biggest problem with the HR subcommittee is that apparently they won’t be looking into the matter of staff allocation and the current set-up that provides zero staff for individual members and rather gives the chair total control over allotments of staff time.
It promises to be a great year; we’re planning on adding a laugh track.
The committee meetings’ business included the long-delayed establishment of two sub-committees to review the council rules and look at human resources.
We’ll get to the personnel committee later because we have to lead off with returning babooze-in-chief Mel Rapozo and his first of what promises to be many “open mouth-insert foot” moments followed by an attempt to remove said appendage which only to wedges it in there more securely.
Rapozo was apparently taking his time in trying to make the point that the council seems have trouble following its own rules and was complaining that the rules (actually Rule 6F under Motions) say that “no member may speak longer than five minutes.”
So wise-acre Azambuja wrote:
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” said Councilman Mel Rapozo, explaining that he feels that the rules are efficient and the problem lies in the council not following its own rules.
Rapozo said the structure of the state Legislature and other county councils is “impressive.”
“We’ve left that, we’ve departed that,” he said. “I’m hoping that we can bring that back, the decorum and the professionalism that this office and these chambers deserve.”
Rapozo, however, ended breaking one of the rules by speaking for seven minutes, right after criticizing council members for breaking the same rule. The rules allow council members to speak for five minutes on a given subject.
Actually an examination of the meeting shows it was six minutes and nine seconds- but who’s counting?... oh yeah, everybody.
Anyway Rapozo decided to respond and wrote in the “comments” section of the newspaper article:
Mr. Azambuja, if you are going to report on the Council meetings, please be fair and accurate. In your article, you stated,
"Rapozo, however, ended breaking one of the rules by speaking for seven minutes, right after criticizing council members for breaking the same rule. The rules allow council members to speak for five minutes on a given subject.
"If you were paying attention, you would have known that the rules allow council members to speak for 10 minutes on any given subject, not five as you reported. This is another example of how your paper misinforms the public at the expense of others. Don't even bother putting in a correction. I think the people have come to learn that the stories in the Garden Island must be validated by independent sources.
Problem is that Azambuja apparently was paying attention- to Rapozo. The words “10 minutes” never left Rapozo’s mouth while “five minutes” was repeated over and over.
Then, 52 minutes after leaving his comment and after a couple of other comments expressing confusion- and perhaps after remembering what he had actually said at the meeting- Rapozo attempted to explain that:
The rule states that council members have two (2) opportunities to speak, at five (5) minutes each. However, the Chair can allow the member to use all 10 minutes during one presentation. Thanks for the question. Great observation. If anyone wants a copy of our Council Rules, email me at mfrapozo (at) kauai.gov and I will email you a copy of them. Thanks again.
The problem for Mr. “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is that, while the two opportunities at five minutes is sort of in the rules- they mention two opportunities but don’t say “at five minutes apiece”- the use all 10 minutes at once is not.
The actual Kauai County Council Rules state that:
No member may speak longer than five minutes, nor may a member speak more than twice on the same question without leave of the Presiding Officer, subject to an appeal to the body, unless the member is the maker of the motion or sponsor of the matter pending, in which case the member may speak in reply, but not until every other member choosing to speak has spoken.
Not only doesn’t it say that you can combine them but it doesn’t really say how long any second chance might be- an indication that the rule needs to be clarified and thus is, in fact “broken.”
The “custom” of allowing members of the public to take their two chances of three minutes as one six minute chance to speak (but only if there are few others waiting) is not a part of the rules but was a practice that Chair Kaipo Asing instituted a few years back.
Rapozo also did explain not when or how, if the five minute rule had “never been enforced” as he said, the chair might have employed this rule that doesn’t exist and was never used.
But Rapozo was adamant at the meeting that the council follow the rules- especially the “point of order” rule.
But it became apparent that Rapozo has the same misconception as many others as to what “point of order” really is or when it can be used to interrupt the proceedings.
When it was Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura’s turn to talk she mentioned that the rules call for a majority of all members to vote for something in order for it to be considered passed. But then she added something about how that should have been the case in the recent controversy over the evaluation and subsequent pay raise for the county clerk, which was done unilaterally by Asing without council approval.
That caused Rapozo to blow his top and shout “that’s a point of order” saying that “we’re talking about a resolution” implying he thought it was off subject.
But in order to call a “point of order” it must relate to a matter of parliamentary “order”- as in Roberts Rules of Order.
It means that the person is alleging that the chair or parliamentarian has erred in applying something contained in the parliamentary guidebook. It not to be used for instances when you disagree with the speaker or if you think it’s off subject- the latter being a matter of the Sunshine Law which prohibits councilmembers from speaking on matters not on the agenda... something that’s usually a judgment call of the chair.
As a matter of fact, it is a violation of “order” to yell “point of order” if, in fact, your objection is not a “point of order.”
But Rapozo wasn’t the only one that was in rare form.
Perhaps the most bizarre statement of the day came from Chair Jay Furfaro regarding finally getting council documents posted on the county’s web site, especially the bills, resolutions and communications- along with the appropriate paperwork- which now requires a weekly trip to Lihu`e to acquire... in hard copy form.
Somehow, even though the material is routinely compiled and sits in a folder behind the counter at council services- and even though, according to council services staff their current “all the bells and whistles” copying machine can scan and post documents on-line automatically, Furfaro said:
“We will have a new position, especially as it deals with the effort we’re putting into documents getting onto the web for pre-meeting information to the public. That would be a new position.”
How the heck this takes a whole new position is beyond us. The question has to be asked if this is just a big waste of money in order to justify the literally years it’s taken to get this simple matter accomplished- a justification that has been based on how hard it is to do, without detailed explanation.
The best we’ve gotten is that they must make sure that they are indeed “public” documents before posting them. But they must do the same thing now when they hand them out over the counter.
If they really think it’s going to take that much staff time perhaps it is appropriate to have the new Human Resources (HR) Subcommittee look into policy and practices even though three councilmembers- Rapozo, Derek Kawakami and another whom we couldn’t identify- objected to an amendment adding that task to the subcommittee’s charge on Wednesday.
The biggest problem with the HR subcommittee is that apparently they won’t be looking into the matter of staff allocation and the current set-up that provides zero staff for individual members and rather gives the chair total control over allotments of staff time.
It promises to be a great year; we’re planning on adding a laugh track.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
OPAQUE- AND PROUD OF IT
OPAQUE- AND PROUD OF IT: We don’t know what we’d do for source material if it wasn’t for the local newspaper’s now ubiquitous Leo Azambuja whose reports today added more confusion to that caused by his recent muddled coverage.
Today was a two-fer with the primary article on the preliminary hearing in the Anahola murder case that he apparently attended, missing facts and even quotes that somehow the Honolulu Advertiser “staff” bylined article- apparently written from their offices- contain regarding future witnesses yet to testify in the continued hearing.
And when the secondary article, based on an interview with the victim’s father, gets to the meat of the article- a description of what allegedly actually occurred- it’s completely unattributed. Though many may assume it was part of the narrative from the father assumptions can always get you in trouble.
But although it’s easy to blame the newspaper and the Azambuja’s amateurism for the community’s “what the heck is going on here?” attitude toward the Anahola murder and other cases, people's ire should really be directed toward Mayor Bernard Carvalho.
We are in possession of an email from hizonnah to a constituent who, like the local newspaper and many others in the community (us included), has been focused on trying to get Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) its own public information officer (PIO) like any normal police department.
Although he has been tight lipped on the subject until now, in the email Carvalho out and out rejects the idea in favor of the current practice of controlling every bit if information that comes out of the administration through his “Communications Team”.
The email, in full, reads:
I appreciate your continued concern and support for the Kaua`i Police Department. I can assure you that the present arrangement provides the Kaua`i Police Department 24/7 access to our Communications Team, including support at the scene of an incident if that is requested by KPD. I would challenge anyone to come up with an instance where a call from KPD to one of our Communications Team members was not immediately picked up or returned within minutes of the call. This happens in the evening, on weekends, holidays and furlough days.
Information received from KPD is turned around by members of our communications team quickly in the form of a draft for review by KPD personnel. There is never a release, quote or other information relating to KPD that is not first scrutinized and approved by KPD senior personnel before being released to the media – including the quote that you reference in your email.
Again, I appreciate your concern and can only assure you that KPD is well-served by three competent, experienced, and well-trained individuals who are fully committed to serving the needs of our police department as well as satisfy the public’s need to know to the greatest extent possible.
Mahalo,
Mayor Carvalho
As most know, Carvalho’s “team” is headed by political operative Beth Tokioka who has tightly controlled the messages from the last three administrations.
It’s not about the timeliness of what is released. It’s about the amount and type and general lack of information the public receives about crimes committed on the island.
Carvalho’s rampant paranoia has not only resulted in the lack of information that normally would be released by a police department to calm the citizenry but it flouts the intent of having a police force that is supposed to be out of the normal political control of the administration- as evidenced by the fact that the Kaua`i Police Commission is solely responsible for oversight of KPD.
It’s all part of his petty-vindictive, politically-motivated, commend-and-control style of management that has become the most insulated and corrupt Kaua`i administration in memory- and that’s saying a lot.
The local newspaper can take their share of the blame for less than coherent reporting. But unless and until KPD has its own professional PIO within its ranks Kaua`i will continue to get the mushroom treatment by being kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t.
-------
Clarification: Although we can’t see how, a few people somehow got the impression yesterday that we are a part of the new “For Kaua`i” newspaper. We have not been asked and so far, are not. Sorry if we some how caused any confusion.
And the link we provided didn’t work- the correct one is here.
Today was a two-fer with the primary article on the preliminary hearing in the Anahola murder case that he apparently attended, missing facts and even quotes that somehow the Honolulu Advertiser “staff” bylined article- apparently written from their offices- contain regarding future witnesses yet to testify in the continued hearing.
And when the secondary article, based on an interview with the victim’s father, gets to the meat of the article- a description of what allegedly actually occurred- it’s completely unattributed. Though many may assume it was part of the narrative from the father assumptions can always get you in trouble.
But although it’s easy to blame the newspaper and the Azambuja’s amateurism for the community’s “what the heck is going on here?” attitude toward the Anahola murder and other cases, people's ire should really be directed toward Mayor Bernard Carvalho.
We are in possession of an email from hizonnah to a constituent who, like the local newspaper and many others in the community (us included), has been focused on trying to get Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) its own public information officer (PIO) like any normal police department.
Although he has been tight lipped on the subject until now, in the email Carvalho out and out rejects the idea in favor of the current practice of controlling every bit if information that comes out of the administration through his “Communications Team”.
The email, in full, reads:
I appreciate your continued concern and support for the Kaua`i Police Department. I can assure you that the present arrangement provides the Kaua`i Police Department 24/7 access to our Communications Team, including support at the scene of an incident if that is requested by KPD. I would challenge anyone to come up with an instance where a call from KPD to one of our Communications Team members was not immediately picked up or returned within minutes of the call. This happens in the evening, on weekends, holidays and furlough days.
Information received from KPD is turned around by members of our communications team quickly in the form of a draft for review by KPD personnel. There is never a release, quote or other information relating to KPD that is not first scrutinized and approved by KPD senior personnel before being released to the media – including the quote that you reference in your email.
Again, I appreciate your concern and can only assure you that KPD is well-served by three competent, experienced, and well-trained individuals who are fully committed to serving the needs of our police department as well as satisfy the public’s need to know to the greatest extent possible.
Mahalo,
Mayor Carvalho
As most know, Carvalho’s “team” is headed by political operative Beth Tokioka who has tightly controlled the messages from the last three administrations.
It’s not about the timeliness of what is released. It’s about the amount and type and general lack of information the public receives about crimes committed on the island.
Carvalho’s rampant paranoia has not only resulted in the lack of information that normally would be released by a police department to calm the citizenry but it flouts the intent of having a police force that is supposed to be out of the normal political control of the administration- as evidenced by the fact that the Kaua`i Police Commission is solely responsible for oversight of KPD.
It’s all part of his petty-vindictive, politically-motivated, commend-and-control style of management that has become the most insulated and corrupt Kaua`i administration in memory- and that’s saying a lot.
The local newspaper can take their share of the blame for less than coherent reporting. But unless and until KPD has its own professional PIO within its ranks Kaua`i will continue to get the mushroom treatment by being kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t.
-------
Clarification: Although we can’t see how, a few people somehow got the impression yesterday that we are a part of the new “For Kaua`i” newspaper. We have not been asked and so far, are not. Sorry if we some how caused any confusion.
And the link we provided didn’t work- the correct one is here.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
YOU’VE GOTTA BE KIDDING
YOU’VE GOTTA BE KIDDING: The departure of local newspaper “reporter” Paul Curtis- apparently for plagiarism- is a two-edged sword. While Curtis manipulated his reports to protect friends and go after enemies- and do so in the laziest manner possible- now we’re stuck with the oft unintelligible Leo Azambuja on the cops and courts beat.
Today’s attempt to clarify the facts surrounding the recent alleged murder of Aureo Arick Moore did anything but, demonstrating that our student Leo is ready for lesson two in his on the job j-school.
After you’ve learned the 5 W’s and determining and writing a “lead”- or lede as it’s spelled on the inside- you need to be able to, as editors across the world ask their reporters to do, “tell me a story.”
But instead, today’s hodge-podge of fact and fiction was more like a spaghetti cooking contest with a pasta-splattered wall attesting to the “toss it all and see what sticks” methodology of journalism Azambuja prefers.
One thing that beginners fail to recognize is that sometimes, when your hunch turns out to lead nowhere you don’t need to tell the story of how hard you tried to track down the immaterial facts.
Seems that, according to the article,
On Dec. 19, Carrie Ann Robson, 39, of Kilauea, was arrested and charged at 11:30 p.m. with second-degree attempted murder. Her bail was set at $100,000.
But when Azambuja finally clarified with Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri Carvalho that the case had nothing to do with the Moore murder, rather than moving on he insisted on including a lengthy explanation of how much work he did to find out that it was irrelevant to the story.
He also seemed compelled to lay out his confusion over the dribs and drabs of information released by the county. But rather than clarify it all in a narrative it’s simply laid out in a chronology with little or no explanation of the relevancy.
But the inability to tell a story- combined with the inability to “find the lede”- make for an exercise in incomprehensibility.
Toward the end of the article he tries to delve into the relationship between the alleged October robbery of Moore where a shot or shots were allegedly fired and the upcoming trial of Kyle Akau, 24, of Anahola who is accused of firing the shot(s) and robbing Moore of cash and drugs.
Way down at the bottom- 2184 words into the 2660 word piece- we finally get some information on why alleged killer Vicente "Vinnie" Hilario might have murdered Moore.
After discussing the various charges and reports on the Safeway robbery of Moore we read:
The coconut wireless over the latest murder case on Kaua`i has inundated blogs and Internet discussion forums with many rumors.
Some have claimed Moore was set up by an unidentified woman. Others allege he was murdered because he was dating Hilario’s mother. There were drug connections spread all over the Internet. Moore was also said to have been killed for being a witness in a court case.
While most of these are purely rumors, the prosecution was able to add the more serious first-degree murder charge because the crime involved the killing of an officer or a witness related to a crime.
Iseri-Carvalho said the prosecution added the first-degree murder because Moore was a witness to a court case pending against Hilario.
Huh? What “court case pending against Hilario”? Charges were in fact dropped against Hilario after he was arrested with Akau in the Safeway robbery of Moore.
As we speculated the day Hilario’s name was released it appeared Hilario might have killed Moore because he was a witness in Akau’s trial which had been scheduled for Dec 27 at the time of the murder.
Our conjecture was based on past newspaper reports that said that Hilario was one of the two who were released after being arrested in connection with the robbery.
But while for some reason Azambuja was reluctant to report that two plus two equals four- instead telling us that it equaled a number somewhere between three and five- the Honolulu Start Advertiser didn’t mince any words.
In a “corrections” in today’s edition they write:
Prosecutors charged Vicente "Vinnie" Hilario with first-degree murder involving the shooting death of Aureo Arick Moore. Prosecutors allege the fatal shooting was related to Moore's status as a witness against Hilario and another man involving a robbery case. Prosecutors had amended their complaint to add the first-degree murder charge. A B2 story that ran on Friday reported Hilario was charged with second-degree murder.
That is the story today- not the thousands of words about what KPD, the prosecutor and the public information officer put Azambuja through in trying to track down the facts.
Not only was the lede buried toward the end of the article it wasn’t even written in a plain straightforward manner but rather, like we’re playing a game of 20 Questions where we’ve used up 19 and have to guess what the news is with our 20th.
Today’s attempt to clarify the facts surrounding the recent alleged murder of Aureo Arick Moore did anything but, demonstrating that our student Leo is ready for lesson two in his on the job j-school.
After you’ve learned the 5 W’s and determining and writing a “lead”- or lede as it’s spelled on the inside- you need to be able to, as editors across the world ask their reporters to do, “tell me a story.”
But instead, today’s hodge-podge of fact and fiction was more like a spaghetti cooking contest with a pasta-splattered wall attesting to the “toss it all and see what sticks” methodology of journalism Azambuja prefers.
One thing that beginners fail to recognize is that sometimes, when your hunch turns out to lead nowhere you don’t need to tell the story of how hard you tried to track down the immaterial facts.
Seems that, according to the article,
On Dec. 19, Carrie Ann Robson, 39, of Kilauea, was arrested and charged at 11:30 p.m. with second-degree attempted murder. Her bail was set at $100,000.
But when Azambuja finally clarified with Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri Carvalho that the case had nothing to do with the Moore murder, rather than moving on he insisted on including a lengthy explanation of how much work he did to find out that it was irrelevant to the story.
He also seemed compelled to lay out his confusion over the dribs and drabs of information released by the county. But rather than clarify it all in a narrative it’s simply laid out in a chronology with little or no explanation of the relevancy.
But the inability to tell a story- combined with the inability to “find the lede”- make for an exercise in incomprehensibility.
Toward the end of the article he tries to delve into the relationship between the alleged October robbery of Moore where a shot or shots were allegedly fired and the upcoming trial of Kyle Akau, 24, of Anahola who is accused of firing the shot(s) and robbing Moore of cash and drugs.
Way down at the bottom- 2184 words into the 2660 word piece- we finally get some information on why alleged killer Vicente "Vinnie" Hilario might have murdered Moore.
After discussing the various charges and reports on the Safeway robbery of Moore we read:
The coconut wireless over the latest murder case on Kaua`i has inundated blogs and Internet discussion forums with many rumors.
Some have claimed Moore was set up by an unidentified woman. Others allege he was murdered because he was dating Hilario’s mother. There were drug connections spread all over the Internet. Moore was also said to have been killed for being a witness in a court case.
While most of these are purely rumors, the prosecution was able to add the more serious first-degree murder charge because the crime involved the killing of an officer or a witness related to a crime.
Iseri-Carvalho said the prosecution added the first-degree murder because Moore was a witness to a court case pending against Hilario.
Huh? What “court case pending against Hilario”? Charges were in fact dropped against Hilario after he was arrested with Akau in the Safeway robbery of Moore.
As we speculated the day Hilario’s name was released it appeared Hilario might have killed Moore because he was a witness in Akau’s trial which had been scheduled for Dec 27 at the time of the murder.
Our conjecture was based on past newspaper reports that said that Hilario was one of the two who were released after being arrested in connection with the robbery.
But while for some reason Azambuja was reluctant to report that two plus two equals four- instead telling us that it equaled a number somewhere between three and five- the Honolulu Start Advertiser didn’t mince any words.
In a “corrections” in today’s edition they write:
Prosecutors charged Vicente "Vinnie" Hilario with first-degree murder involving the shooting death of Aureo Arick Moore. Prosecutors allege the fatal shooting was related to Moore's status as a witness against Hilario and another man involving a robbery case. Prosecutors had amended their complaint to add the first-degree murder charge. A B2 story that ran on Friday reported Hilario was charged with second-degree murder.
That is the story today- not the thousands of words about what KPD, the prosecutor and the public information officer put Azambuja through in trying to track down the facts.
Not only was the lede buried toward the end of the article it wasn’t even written in a plain straightforward manner but rather, like we’re playing a game of 20 Questions where we’ve used up 19 and have to guess what the news is with our 20th.
Monday, December 6, 2010
BRASS TACKS
BRASS TACKS: Much like eggs eaten three days ago making their reappearance in an unanticipated belch, local newspaper reporter Leo Azambuja is back and filing disjointed “day late and a dollar short” stories, not the least of which is Sunday’s attempt to make up for saying that Councilpersons Tim Bynum and JoAnn Yukimura "gave no reason” for asking that County Clerk Peter Nakamura not be reappointed at the inaugural meeting.
But in light of the elephant in the room- Nakamura’s harassment of former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson which apparently cost the county $250,000 in settling an EEOC case- one line in the story speaks volumes:
Repeated attempts to reach Nakamura for comment failed prior to press time. Phone messages and a message left in person at the council services office in Nawiliwili Friday were not returned.
Though we’ve been attacked for reporting the story no one else will touch, the dearth of denials goes a long way toward corroboration.
Although the actual documents are “confidential” the reports continue to roll in from people who tell of the workplace harassment of Hanson after she and Nakamura broke off their “relationship”... although many-even most- say that the allegation made by some of physical violence on Nakamura’s part may be incorrect.
The quarter-million-dollar settlement by the county is apparently what’s at the unspoken heart of the two memos sent out by Bynum and Yukimura in an attempt to start a professional search for a county clerk.
Another quote in the newspaper story from Yukimura seems to confirm something that doesn’t meet the eye is up:
(Yukimura) also said she didn’t have access to the county’s legal or human-resources advice and counsel.
“The county attorney (Al Castillo) opined that I could not have access to the information or counsel until I became an officer of the county by being sworn in,” she said.
Because of the short time to review those documents, Yukimura said she did not have enough time to perform the required due diligence before voting for the clerk.
The obvious question this raises is why are the other four councilmembers so apparently unconcerned?
We’ll get to that analysis another day but suffice to say Nakamura has shown his ability to protect councilmembers from themselves through selective release of documents and other manipulations from which each, as charter members of “the club,” intend to benefit or have benefited.
Today, since no one else has, we’re going to concentrate on the serious charges made in Bynum’s memo going over our experiences with Nakamura and county procedures and laws in that context.
Bynum’s letter (in full) is in italics.
After long and serious consideration of the issues, I have decided that I will not be voting for Peter Nakamura to be reappointed as County Clerk this term. At a prior meeting I recommended that the Council appoint one of our capable current staff as an interim County Clerk and conduct an open search for the best-qualified candidate available to lead Council Services. Had we gone this route, Mr. Nakamura could have applied as a candidate in the search process.
While I recognize Mr. Nakamura’s talents, contributions and strong work ethic, there are, in my opinion, unresolved issues. The following are among those that led to my decision.
UIPA
The Uniform Information Practices Act is State law and requires that an agency provide a response to requests for public documents within ten business days. The Clerk has repeatedly failed to respond as required by law in the required time frame and, in a number of instances, has completely ignored the request and not responded at all. For example, a UIPA request for documents was made by Council members on May 26, 2009 and no response was received until July 8, 2009, and then only after follow-up memos from the Council members and an admonition from the County Attorney.
We’ve submitted no less than a dozen official documents requests that were fully ignored by Nakamura. While council services staff are usually forthcoming with regular public documents many times they are not under instructions from Nakamura.
At first we were unaware of the process for dealing with being ignored. Eventually we found out that the government official in charge of the record has 10 days by law to respond to a written request.
But if the official decides to ignore you your only option is to go to the toothless tiger of the Offices of Information Practices (OIP), which will usually fire off a letter to the denying official. Then, when that’s ignored another letter... and another... and another... until everyone just gives up.
Even when he does finally respond Nakamura has become a master of stonewalling giving excuse after excuse often dragging out cases for years.
Bynum then asks a question we asked a few months back- what ever happened to documents the local newspaper’s ace reporter Mike Levine requested which were similarly ignored during his Levine’s all-too-short stint here and, of course, once he left.
As another example, The Garden Island on their web site (http://thegardenisland.com/app/sunshine ) lists records requests made to various County departments, all of which were responded to within the timeline required by State law, except for those requests filed with the County Clerk. The requests made to Council Services were all ignored and not responded to at all. Other members of the public have informed me that their UIPA request for documents have gone unanswered.
That last sentence the understatement of the year.
Records
The Kaua`i County Charter requires the Clerk to “take charge of, safely keep and dispose of all books, papers and records which may properly be filed in his office and keep in separate files all ordinances, resolutions and regulations and cumulative indices of the same, or exact copies thereof, enacted or adopted by the council.”
One of the Clerk’s important responsibilities is to keep the County Code up-to-date. One can do a Google search of any Hawai`i county, except Kaua`i, and easily find an updated code. Not only can the public not find the Kaua`i County Code online, an up-to-date codified version has not been available in any form since 2006.
If we had a nickel for every time we’ve written about this, it wouldn’t amount to as much as we would have if we had one for every time we’ve had to tell someone shocked neophyte that there is not only no on-line version of our local county code- the laws of the island- but that it’s virtually impossible to get hard copies of them at the clerks office, since you have to ask for them by number and there’s no way to find out the number since there’s no available index.
Ordinances passed since 2006 are simply shoved loose in the back of the file so the actual pre-2006 code is incorrect unless it’s cross-referenced with every “loose” ordinance
We’re not surprised at all that there hasn’t been a codified version available since 2006, especially since there wasn’t even a codified version of the county charter available for many years until it was recently compiled, apparently by the county attorney’s office since the clerk- who is responsible for doing it- couldn’t seem to get it together.
If you requested a copy of the charter since 2002 the amendments were - yup - shoved in loose at the end, often unnumbered and in a different font.
When Council members sought electronic minutes of Council meetings, the Clerk informed Council members in writing that he “had difficulty locating electronic copies of Council meeting minutes” and that “extensive agency efforts have been required to search for and prepare the records for copying.” This response and other instances related to key Council records have raised alarms about the integrity of Council records and led to the submission to the Clerk of the following written inquiry in July 2009: “Is it the case then that our key public documents exist only on paper in the Historic County building? Is it the case that our office documents are not backed up on the County network? Is it the case that we are not availing ourselves of the backup capabilities provided by the County IT department? Does this not leave an unacceptable risk that these key public documents could be lost completely?” There has been, to this date, no response to this written inquiry and my concerns about the integrity of County records remain.
It’s simply unbelievable that this kind of thing has been going on. Yet it’s also our experience and that of many others we’ve spoken to. It’s apparently why there was such blowback when it became time to put all this stuff on-line last summer.
What Bynum leaves out is that according to Eric Knutzen, the county’s IT director, he’s been ready to go, literally for years, saying it’s a matter of will on the part of the clerk and council.
That’s why the mutual admiration society of Nakamura and former Chair Kaipo Asing functioned so well- each had an interest in keeping the public in the dark.
But as to the Nakamura salary issues rather than reading the newspaper version or other recent charicterizations, you may want to read what Bynum actually wrote to understand why some were calling it illegally done.
Salary Issues
The County Charter requires that department head salaries be determined by the Salary Commission. The County Clerk is a Department head. By Salary Commission resolution, requirements for department head raises include: 1) “employee’s completed performance evaluation evidencing that the appointee has met or exceeds job requirements” and 2) “the appointing authority’s recommendation on whether a proposed increase should be granted”.
Although neither criterion was met, the County Clerk received a pay raise in December 2009.
Other department heads and the mayor did not receive a salary increase in December 2009 due to economic conditions. This has led to a situation where the clerk’s current salary at $114,848.00 is higher than that of the Mayor’s.
The key here is that, while the salary commission okays a raise it only authorizes a range of salary. The actual salary is awarded based on the recommendation of the appointing authority, based on their evaluation.
But with the council-clerk relationship the council serves two different functions. First, they have a bite at the apple of the salary commission’s recommendation which they can either reject or, through inaction, implicitly approve without really approving.
But then they are also the “appointing authority” so they are responsible for going through the evaluation process to set the actual salary. That’s what never happened, yet Nakamura got his raise- one to the highest level of the “range” set by the commission- anyway.
Then there’s the kicker.
Over the last several years, without the knowledge of the Council body, the Clerk accepted and was paid unused vacation time. This is contrary to the County’s policy and practice with other County employees. Unused vacation time pay paid to the clerk is in the neighborhood of $50,000.00. The funds were apparently available without a separate appropriation because of salary surpluses in the Council Services budget resulting from vacancies. (Positions have remained unfilled for extended periods of time. Example: In the FY06-07 budget, a clerk typist position was added by a unanimous vote of the Council. Despite repeated Council requests and promises from the Clerk made in each budget cycle, the position remains unfilled four years later.)
We know many county employees who would love to have gotten this kind of deal. Many have also accumulated a huge bundle of vacation time and were forced to take it or lose it. One way around it has been to “use” it right before they retire so in essence the last “X” number of weeks- or, more usually, months- of employment are actually vacations.
But we’ve never heard of a county employee being allowed to just take the money and run. And certainly not without authorization of their boss... in this case, the council
Bynum’s letter concludes:
The Garden Island opined in November of this year, “When the council goes to organize itself, we also hope the members do their due diligence to ensure the current county clerk and the individuals holding other key positions are still the most appropriate choices for those jobs.”
This position I am taking and observations I have made are a result of my process of due diligence and the belief that this course of action is in the best interest of the County and its citizens.
Finally, since there’s been so much written about Yukimura’s “motion” to conduct an executive search, we will post her memo below in full.
PROPOSAL RE SELECTION OF THE COUNTY CLERK
TO: Kaua`i County Councilmembers-elect
FROM: Councilmember-elect JoAnn A. Yukimura
DATE: November 22, 2010
Motion: That the Council secure the assistance of an Executive Search firm and with such assistance, create and follow an executive search process for selecting the County Clerk that clearly defines the leadership and management skills, knowledge and qualities required and preferred for the position of County Clerk, solicits applications and evaluates the candidates for ultimate selection by the Council.
Background: By job description, the Clerk is equivalent of a Department Head. Department Heads constitute the highest level of administration in the County, next to the Mayor and Managing Director. Department heads are extremely important to the quality of operations and performance of any corporation, whether private or public. If our goal as County leaders is to support the “highest standards of government performance and service,” we have a responsibility to select the best possible candidate for the position of County Clerk.
Rationale:
1. An executive search is a business “best practice” that will increase the chances of finding the best qualified person. It will minimize the “politics” and focus instead on qualifications.
2. As an open, competitive process, it will provide the best choices available.
3. It will increase accountability.
4. By adopting such a process, the Council will demonstrate its commitment to the highest standards of government performance and service.
5. The Council will be using a process used successfully by the Police Commission; it produced a Police Chief, who, most people agree, is a capable leader and manager.
6. It will help to professionalize the County, which means it could enable the County to achieve some of the goals of a County Manager system within the existing “strong mayor” form of government.
7. An executive search process will be fair to the existing County Clerk. The executive search will not remove him from his position because his current position ends at noon on December 1, 2010. The process will allow him to apply for the new position, and if he chooses to apply he will arguably have an advantage by having served in previous years. If he is selected as the best of the candidates, the process will still be worthwhile in bringing greater clarity between the Council and the Clerk as to expectations, goals and the evaluation process to be followed. There will also likely be a greater appreciation and awareness of the qualifications and gifts that the present County Clerk has to offer because of the process he would have gone through.
But in light of the elephant in the room- Nakamura’s harassment of former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson which apparently cost the county $250,000 in settling an EEOC case- one line in the story speaks volumes:
Repeated attempts to reach Nakamura for comment failed prior to press time. Phone messages and a message left in person at the council services office in Nawiliwili Friday were not returned.
Though we’ve been attacked for reporting the story no one else will touch, the dearth of denials goes a long way toward corroboration.
Although the actual documents are “confidential” the reports continue to roll in from people who tell of the workplace harassment of Hanson after she and Nakamura broke off their “relationship”... although many-even most- say that the allegation made by some of physical violence on Nakamura’s part may be incorrect.
The quarter-million-dollar settlement by the county is apparently what’s at the unspoken heart of the two memos sent out by Bynum and Yukimura in an attempt to start a professional search for a county clerk.
Another quote in the newspaper story from Yukimura seems to confirm something that doesn’t meet the eye is up:
(Yukimura) also said she didn’t have access to the county’s legal or human-resources advice and counsel.
“The county attorney (Al Castillo) opined that I could not have access to the information or counsel until I became an officer of the county by being sworn in,” she said.
Because of the short time to review those documents, Yukimura said she did not have enough time to perform the required due diligence before voting for the clerk.
The obvious question this raises is why are the other four councilmembers so apparently unconcerned?
We’ll get to that analysis another day but suffice to say Nakamura has shown his ability to protect councilmembers from themselves through selective release of documents and other manipulations from which each, as charter members of “the club,” intend to benefit or have benefited.
Today, since no one else has, we’re going to concentrate on the serious charges made in Bynum’s memo going over our experiences with Nakamura and county procedures and laws in that context.
Bynum’s letter (in full) is in italics.
After long and serious consideration of the issues, I have decided that I will not be voting for Peter Nakamura to be reappointed as County Clerk this term. At a prior meeting I recommended that the Council appoint one of our capable current staff as an interim County Clerk and conduct an open search for the best-qualified candidate available to lead Council Services. Had we gone this route, Mr. Nakamura could have applied as a candidate in the search process.
While I recognize Mr. Nakamura’s talents, contributions and strong work ethic, there are, in my opinion, unresolved issues. The following are among those that led to my decision.
UIPA
The Uniform Information Practices Act is State law and requires that an agency provide a response to requests for public documents within ten business days. The Clerk has repeatedly failed to respond as required by law in the required time frame and, in a number of instances, has completely ignored the request and not responded at all. For example, a UIPA request for documents was made by Council members on May 26, 2009 and no response was received until July 8, 2009, and then only after follow-up memos from the Council members and an admonition from the County Attorney.
We’ve submitted no less than a dozen official documents requests that were fully ignored by Nakamura. While council services staff are usually forthcoming with regular public documents many times they are not under instructions from Nakamura.
At first we were unaware of the process for dealing with being ignored. Eventually we found out that the government official in charge of the record has 10 days by law to respond to a written request.
But if the official decides to ignore you your only option is to go to the toothless tiger of the Offices of Information Practices (OIP), which will usually fire off a letter to the denying official. Then, when that’s ignored another letter... and another... and another... until everyone just gives up.
Even when he does finally respond Nakamura has become a master of stonewalling giving excuse after excuse often dragging out cases for years.
Bynum then asks a question we asked a few months back- what ever happened to documents the local newspaper’s ace reporter Mike Levine requested which were similarly ignored during his Levine’s all-too-short stint here and, of course, once he left.
As another example, The Garden Island on their web site (http://thegardenisland.com/app/sunshine ) lists records requests made to various County departments, all of which were responded to within the timeline required by State law, except for those requests filed with the County Clerk. The requests made to Council Services were all ignored and not responded to at all. Other members of the public have informed me that their UIPA request for documents have gone unanswered.
That last sentence the understatement of the year.
Records
The Kaua`i County Charter requires the Clerk to “take charge of, safely keep and dispose of all books, papers and records which may properly be filed in his office and keep in separate files all ordinances, resolutions and regulations and cumulative indices of the same, or exact copies thereof, enacted or adopted by the council.”
One of the Clerk’s important responsibilities is to keep the County Code up-to-date. One can do a Google search of any Hawai`i county, except Kaua`i, and easily find an updated code. Not only can the public not find the Kaua`i County Code online, an up-to-date codified version has not been available in any form since 2006.
If we had a nickel for every time we’ve written about this, it wouldn’t amount to as much as we would have if we had one for every time we’ve had to tell someone shocked neophyte that there is not only no on-line version of our local county code- the laws of the island- but that it’s virtually impossible to get hard copies of them at the clerks office, since you have to ask for them by number and there’s no way to find out the number since there’s no available index.
Ordinances passed since 2006 are simply shoved loose in the back of the file so the actual pre-2006 code is incorrect unless it’s cross-referenced with every “loose” ordinance
We’re not surprised at all that there hasn’t been a codified version available since 2006, especially since there wasn’t even a codified version of the county charter available for many years until it was recently compiled, apparently by the county attorney’s office since the clerk- who is responsible for doing it- couldn’t seem to get it together.
If you requested a copy of the charter since 2002 the amendments were - yup - shoved in loose at the end, often unnumbered and in a different font.
When Council members sought electronic minutes of Council meetings, the Clerk informed Council members in writing that he “had difficulty locating electronic copies of Council meeting minutes” and that “extensive agency efforts have been required to search for and prepare the records for copying.” This response and other instances related to key Council records have raised alarms about the integrity of Council records and led to the submission to the Clerk of the following written inquiry in July 2009: “Is it the case then that our key public documents exist only on paper in the Historic County building? Is it the case that our office documents are not backed up on the County network? Is it the case that we are not availing ourselves of the backup capabilities provided by the County IT department? Does this not leave an unacceptable risk that these key public documents could be lost completely?” There has been, to this date, no response to this written inquiry and my concerns about the integrity of County records remain.
It’s simply unbelievable that this kind of thing has been going on. Yet it’s also our experience and that of many others we’ve spoken to. It’s apparently why there was such blowback when it became time to put all this stuff on-line last summer.
What Bynum leaves out is that according to Eric Knutzen, the county’s IT director, he’s been ready to go, literally for years, saying it’s a matter of will on the part of the clerk and council.
That’s why the mutual admiration society of Nakamura and former Chair Kaipo Asing functioned so well- each had an interest in keeping the public in the dark.
But as to the Nakamura salary issues rather than reading the newspaper version or other recent charicterizations, you may want to read what Bynum actually wrote to understand why some were calling it illegally done.
Salary Issues
The County Charter requires that department head salaries be determined by the Salary Commission. The County Clerk is a Department head. By Salary Commission resolution, requirements for department head raises include: 1) “employee’s completed performance evaluation evidencing that the appointee has met or exceeds job requirements” and 2) “the appointing authority’s recommendation on whether a proposed increase should be granted”.
Although neither criterion was met, the County Clerk received a pay raise in December 2009.
Other department heads and the mayor did not receive a salary increase in December 2009 due to economic conditions. This has led to a situation where the clerk’s current salary at $114,848.00 is higher than that of the Mayor’s.
The key here is that, while the salary commission okays a raise it only authorizes a range of salary. The actual salary is awarded based on the recommendation of the appointing authority, based on their evaluation.
But with the council-clerk relationship the council serves two different functions. First, they have a bite at the apple of the salary commission’s recommendation which they can either reject or, through inaction, implicitly approve without really approving.
But then they are also the “appointing authority” so they are responsible for going through the evaluation process to set the actual salary. That’s what never happened, yet Nakamura got his raise- one to the highest level of the “range” set by the commission- anyway.
Then there’s the kicker.
Over the last several years, without the knowledge of the Council body, the Clerk accepted and was paid unused vacation time. This is contrary to the County’s policy and practice with other County employees. Unused vacation time pay paid to the clerk is in the neighborhood of $50,000.00. The funds were apparently available without a separate appropriation because of salary surpluses in the Council Services budget resulting from vacancies. (Positions have remained unfilled for extended periods of time. Example: In the FY06-07 budget, a clerk typist position was added by a unanimous vote of the Council. Despite repeated Council requests and promises from the Clerk made in each budget cycle, the position remains unfilled four years later.)
We know many county employees who would love to have gotten this kind of deal. Many have also accumulated a huge bundle of vacation time and were forced to take it or lose it. One way around it has been to “use” it right before they retire so in essence the last “X” number of weeks- or, more usually, months- of employment are actually vacations.
But we’ve never heard of a county employee being allowed to just take the money and run. And certainly not without authorization of their boss... in this case, the council
Bynum’s letter concludes:
The Garden Island opined in November of this year, “When the council goes to organize itself, we also hope the members do their due diligence to ensure the current county clerk and the individuals holding other key positions are still the most appropriate choices for those jobs.”
This position I am taking and observations I have made are a result of my process of due diligence and the belief that this course of action is in the best interest of the County and its citizens.
Finally, since there’s been so much written about Yukimura’s “motion” to conduct an executive search, we will post her memo below in full.
PROPOSAL RE SELECTION OF THE COUNTY CLERK
TO: Kaua`i County Councilmembers-elect
FROM: Councilmember-elect JoAnn A. Yukimura
DATE: November 22, 2010
Motion: That the Council secure the assistance of an Executive Search firm and with such assistance, create and follow an executive search process for selecting the County Clerk that clearly defines the leadership and management skills, knowledge and qualities required and preferred for the position of County Clerk, solicits applications and evaluates the candidates for ultimate selection by the Council.
Background: By job description, the Clerk is equivalent of a Department Head. Department Heads constitute the highest level of administration in the County, next to the Mayor and Managing Director. Department heads are extremely important to the quality of operations and performance of any corporation, whether private or public. If our goal as County leaders is to support the “highest standards of government performance and service,” we have a responsibility to select the best possible candidate for the position of County Clerk.
Rationale:
1. An executive search is a business “best practice” that will increase the chances of finding the best qualified person. It will minimize the “politics” and focus instead on qualifications.
2. As an open, competitive process, it will provide the best choices available.
3. It will increase accountability.
4. By adopting such a process, the Council will demonstrate its commitment to the highest standards of government performance and service.
5. The Council will be using a process used successfully by the Police Commission; it produced a Police Chief, who, most people agree, is a capable leader and manager.
6. It will help to professionalize the County, which means it could enable the County to achieve some of the goals of a County Manager system within the existing “strong mayor” form of government.
7. An executive search process will be fair to the existing County Clerk. The executive search will not remove him from his position because his current position ends at noon on December 1, 2010. The process will allow him to apply for the new position, and if he chooses to apply he will arguably have an advantage by having served in previous years. If he is selected as the best of the candidates, the process will still be worthwhile in bringing greater clarity between the Council and the Clerk as to expectations, goals and the evaluation process to be followed. There will also likely be a greater appreciation and awareness of the qualifications and gifts that the present County Clerk has to offer because of the process he would have gone through.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN
EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN: We’re still counting our blessings that the local newspaper’s Editor Nathan Eagle has taken an “if you want something done right, do it yourself” attitude toward covering county government- a fear-struck moment of seeing Leo Azambuja’s name on an article yesterday notwithstanding.
Although it’s a bit ambiguous, his rewrite of a county press release on the hiring of former Planning Director Dee Crowell as new Director Mike Dahilig’s deputy contained this tidbit the county release left out.
Crowell will replace current Deputy Planning Director Imai Aiu.
We’re not sure whether that’s just a good assumption on Eagle’s part- since the deputy job is non civil service and there’s only one “deputy director” budgeted in planning- or whether the other shoe has actually dropped due to the FBI probe of former Director Ian Costa and Aiu which we reported Monday and so is confirmation that Aiu is actually out of a job too.
It’s not unheard of on Kaua`i to see a former appointee who was forced out to be hired in a civil service position in the same department as happened with County Engineer Cesar Portugal during the Kusaka administration.
But Eagle’s by-lined article was even more revelatory, reporting that the Kaua`i County Council “met behind closed doors” yesterday to discuss the fate of County Clerk Peter Nakamura who apparently cost the county a quarter million dollars in a recently settled EEOC case.
Eagle fails to mention that the meeting was apparently not duly agendaed, as it does not appear on the county council web site, perhaps not trying to toot his own horn in ferreting out the secret confab.
But Eagle’s main story is one he’s been championing since last week- including in a weekend editorial- regarding whether the council should hire an executive search team to look for a county clerk, writing”
Community members have voiced their concerns over the cost of an executive search while others have said such a process is necessary in this instance.
But the question for the council may not be a matter of best practices vs. cost but a matter of fear and necessity.
In the wake of Police Commission Chair Michael Ching’s ethics case- where Ching was unceremoniously dumped for merely stating his preference for former Chief KC Lum during the process of the commission’s deliberations on hiring a new chief- local boards who hire and fire department heads are apparently scared bleepless to do the job themselves.
When the police commission hired a chief after Lum’s departure they indeed got the council to appropriate money for a professional search for a new chief even though they had apparently already decided to hire current Chief Darryl Perry, who had come in second in the process of hiring Lum.
Since then there have been no other hirings or firings by boards or commissions- the heads of the Fire, Liquor, and Personnel Departments remain on the job- although now of course the planning commission will be hiring a new permanent planning director too.
Any taint of favoritism of one candidate over another during the hiring process will naturally be seen as an ethics violation based on the precedent of the Ching case- which is, according to the county charter, binding on future cases until and unless it’s overturned by the Board of Ethics (BOE).
And indeed what the council does will also be seen as a precedent for the planning commission who will either take a hiring of a county clerk without a search as a green light for a simple selection process or take the hiring of professional search consultant as a signal they had better follow suit.
Though of course it’s silly to think that hiring a consultant is now going to be mandatory for all county boards and commissions that hire their department heads, so was the ethics case against Ching who was essential skewered for doing what he was supposed to do- picking one candidate and convincing the others that the person is the best one for the job.
The political repercussions of spending money on a search may be minor compared to those of going through a process of another trumped up ethics case based on the political persecutions of the past.
But of course the Ching case was a bed made by a past council- one that included the two new council returnees- and one in which the current members will have to lay.
Although it’s a bit ambiguous, his rewrite of a county press release on the hiring of former Planning Director Dee Crowell as new Director Mike Dahilig’s deputy contained this tidbit the county release left out.
Crowell will replace current Deputy Planning Director Imai Aiu.
We’re not sure whether that’s just a good assumption on Eagle’s part- since the deputy job is non civil service and there’s only one “deputy director” budgeted in planning- or whether the other shoe has actually dropped due to the FBI probe of former Director Ian Costa and Aiu which we reported Monday and so is confirmation that Aiu is actually out of a job too.
It’s not unheard of on Kaua`i to see a former appointee who was forced out to be hired in a civil service position in the same department as happened with County Engineer Cesar Portugal during the Kusaka administration.
But Eagle’s by-lined article was even more revelatory, reporting that the Kaua`i County Council “met behind closed doors” yesterday to discuss the fate of County Clerk Peter Nakamura who apparently cost the county a quarter million dollars in a recently settled EEOC case.
Eagle fails to mention that the meeting was apparently not duly agendaed, as it does not appear on the county council web site, perhaps not trying to toot his own horn in ferreting out the secret confab.
But Eagle’s main story is one he’s been championing since last week- including in a weekend editorial- regarding whether the council should hire an executive search team to look for a county clerk, writing”
Community members have voiced their concerns over the cost of an executive search while others have said such a process is necessary in this instance.
But the question for the council may not be a matter of best practices vs. cost but a matter of fear and necessity.
In the wake of Police Commission Chair Michael Ching’s ethics case- where Ching was unceremoniously dumped for merely stating his preference for former Chief KC Lum during the process of the commission’s deliberations on hiring a new chief- local boards who hire and fire department heads are apparently scared bleepless to do the job themselves.
When the police commission hired a chief after Lum’s departure they indeed got the council to appropriate money for a professional search for a new chief even though they had apparently already decided to hire current Chief Darryl Perry, who had come in second in the process of hiring Lum.
Since then there have been no other hirings or firings by boards or commissions- the heads of the Fire, Liquor, and Personnel Departments remain on the job- although now of course the planning commission will be hiring a new permanent planning director too.
Any taint of favoritism of one candidate over another during the hiring process will naturally be seen as an ethics violation based on the precedent of the Ching case- which is, according to the county charter, binding on future cases until and unless it’s overturned by the Board of Ethics (BOE).
And indeed what the council does will also be seen as a precedent for the planning commission who will either take a hiring of a county clerk without a search as a green light for a simple selection process or take the hiring of professional search consultant as a signal they had better follow suit.
Though of course it’s silly to think that hiring a consultant is now going to be mandatory for all county boards and commissions that hire their department heads, so was the ethics case against Ching who was essential skewered for doing what he was supposed to do- picking one candidate and convincing the others that the person is the best one for the job.
The political repercussions of spending money on a search may be minor compared to those of going through a process of another trumped up ethics case based on the political persecutions of the past.
But of course the Ching case was a bed made by a past council- one that included the two new council returnees- and one in which the current members will have to lay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
