WHEN DARRYL COMES MARCHIN’ HOME: Prominent Kaua`i attorney Warren Perry is suing his brother, Kaua`i Police chief Darryl Perry for defamation in a real head-scratchier for those who followed Perry’s path to the top cop job according to an article in today’s Honolulu Advertiser.
Seems that, according to Warren’s lawsuit in 5th Circuit court on Kaua`i
Darryl Perry, Eugene Perry, Antone Perez Perry and others filed a groundless complaint with the Hawai`i Office of Disciplinary Council accusing him of concealing the fact that he used insurance settlement money to make repairs to a Perry family estate home in Lawai, Kaua`i, that was damaged by Hurricane Iwa in 1982 and Hurricane Iniki in 1992.
In his lawsuit against Darryl and the other Perry brothers, Warren Perry claimed the "frivolous ODC" complaint was leaked to the Kaua`i County Council in 2007, ruining his chances of becoming Kaua'i's (sic) county attorney.
Warren Perry said he had to decline a second offer, in 2008, to become county attorney because of the allegations contained in the ODC complaint.
The lawsuit came to light when Allstate Insurance Co. filed a case in U.S. District Court saying “that it should not have to pay the legal costs of Kaua`i Police Chief Darryl D. Perry in defending himself in a defamation lawsuit” according to the article.
During the KPD scandals in the early to mid ‘00’s--
...from Darryl Perry’s bitter defeat by KC Lum for the Chief’s job, opened up specifically for Perry when Mayor Marianne Kusaka forced Chief George Freitas out by buying him off with a huge “settlement” after he beat her trumped up charges,
...through the attempted and failed removal of Police Commissioner Leon “Angus” Gonsalves for making racist remarks about Lum (calling him “Hop Sing”), a feigned attempt forced by public pressure upon the late Mayor Bryan Baptiste and the county council,
...through the Ethics Board “trials”- many say on Perry’s behalf- of Police Commission Chair Michael Ching and Co-Chair Carol Furtado on phony charges of favoritism toward Lum, with allegations filed by Council Chair Kaipo Asing, who, although he filed the complaint on county council letterhead avoided a “trial” of his own on ethics charges by claiming he made a “mistake” in using council stationary and was actually filing as a private citizen,
...to the hiring of Perry after Ching and Furtado were gone from the commission and Lum was forced to resign to keep his pension when County Director of Finance- now Grove Farm VP in charge of lobbying the county- Mike Tressler threatened to illegally withdraw Lum’s contract,
-- Warren Perry was reportedly and observably one of the main operatives pulling the behind-the-scenes strings locally to insure his brother got, not just the job but revenge on those who opposed him.
Much of this is described in detail in the book KPD Blue, serialized here at Parx News Daily (linked on the right rail).
So it seems odd that Warren would be suing Darryl or that Darryl would have filed a disciplinary action against Warren after Warren had apparently been one of his main benefactors in obtaining the job of KPD Chief.
The only clue, if true, might come from an unsubstantial claim made in the comments section of the article.
And it’s a big “if”.
“LocalKineStyle”- who like others making comments on the article supporting Perry “registered” to comment at the Advertiser site only today- said in “fake pidgin”:
One thing else. Da chief neva file the ODC the complaint, one of ths sistas when do that.
How the commenter would know that if he or she isn’t party to the suit is unclear since OCA complaints are confidential unless and until a disciplinary action is taken..
Warren Perry is a long-time active member of the Republican Party, and a long time leader in the Royal Society of Kamehameha who served in the county attorney’s (CA) office more than a decade ago. New CA Al Castillo, a Democrat, was hired this year by the current all-Democratic mayor and council.
Warren’s name did not come up publicly either this year or when former Judge Matthew Pyun replaced Lani Nakazawa as the CA after Baptiste- a Republican- was re-elected and while two Republicans- both since turned Democrats (Jimmy Tokioka and Jay Furfaro)- served on the council.
It is not stated in the article exactly who “leaked” the OCA complaint to the council or if the council actually saw the document or were simply “informed” of it but, although it was never done publicly, it was presumably Darryl and/or one of the others named in Warren’s lawsuit who “told” them.
PNN will try to get hold of the lawsuit filings and, if possible, find out more about the ODC complaint but for now it certainly seems to indicate a falling out between Darryl and his family- to whom, he stated, he wanted to be closer when giving reasons for returning to Kaua`i... and whom he would seemingly be abandoning by moving back to Honolulu to take the Chief position at HPD, a job for which he applied a week or so back.
It remains speculative as to whether the suit has anything directly to do with Darryl Perry’s sudden “jilting of Kaua`i” after publicly indicating upon taking the Kaua`i job that he was home to stay until his retirement.
Showing posts with label Matthew Pyun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew Pyun. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
SAME OLD DOG, SAME OLD TRICK:
SAME OLD DOG, SAME OLD TRICK: Many in the community are finally opening their eyes to the abuses of open government principles involved in a quest by the two dissident councilperson’s of late.
But if they are shocked at how both the public and even some of those they elected are given the mushroom treatment, while we’ve got their attention all we can do is quote Al Jolson- “you ain’t seen nothing yet”.
The matters that Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara forced onto a future council agenda on Tuesday are but minor “first steps” toward cleaning up at least seven years of a concerted effort by Council Chair Kaipo Asing to evade, flout and pervert the Sunshine Law in order to avoid public scrutiny in matters of public affairs.
Bynum has complained bitterly in the past about one of the main vehicles for hiding what the council is doing- the “secret” official county attorney (CA) pubic policy opinions. That issue as received notice not just here but in the local newspaper and those that follow council doings are all too familiar with the practice.
It reeks of Star Chamber methodology whereby the council tells the public the council is compelled to do something baffling because they have a county attorney’s opinion... an opinion that they “can’t” reveal.
But although related, far worse is the practice of meeting in executive session (ES) to discuss prospective legislation and even bills that are on the table.
Just this past week the council met in secret by saying
(T)he purpose of this executive session is to consult with the Council’s attorney regarding the charter amendments adopted in the 2008 General Election and other related matters.
Pretty outrageous, eh? And this isn’t the first time.
These ES’s, as revealed for the first time this past Tuesday, are ostensibly to discuss the implementation of the “General Plan” charter amendment passed this past November- a matter of public policy if there ever was one.
You would think the drafters of the amendment who worked so hard to pass it would be up in arms. But you’d be wrong because not one has objected at any of the ES’s.
You would also think that this practice would be forbidden. In fact the very first provision of the Sunshine Law, §92-1 Declaration Of Policy And Intent, reads, in part
Opening up the governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. Therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that 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.
There are of course legitimate reasons for holding closed meeting- lawsuits, personnel matters and the like. They’re addressed in 8 exceptions in §92-5(a)
But one of those exceptions, #4, contains a provision that has been abused so as to obliterate any pretense of following these principles, It reads:
§92-5 A board may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to section 92-4 for one or more of the following purposes:...
(4) To consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities.
Now obviously this is supposed to be read along with the principles and the rest of the law. If it weren’t then as long as “the board’s attorney” is in the room and speaks and they discuss “the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities”- which covers just about everything the council does, including pubic policy- all meetings could be conducted behind closed doors in their entirety.
Despite the absurd result of interpreting the law this way, that is just what the county started to do gradually when Mayor Bryan Baptiste appointed County Attorney Lani Nakazawa who developed both the “secret opinion” and the principle that allowed 92-5(a)4 to be interpreted to cover anything she said it did- especially any possible “future litigation” as well as holding that the council’s “powers, duties and privileges” include discussing and drafting legislation... the very thing that’s supposed to be done in public.
But isn’t there an Office of Information Practices (OIP) to make sure this doesn’t happen?
You would think so, at least in theory. But in actuality what has happened is that any complaint, if it’s accepted by OIP and gets that far, is subject to what’s called an “in camera” review whereby the OIP can look at the ES minutes and decide if they are to be released.
And that’s exactly what happened in January of 2003 when, in the infamous “ES-177”, new councilmember Mel Rapozo apparently went ballistic and attacked the Kaua`i Police Department as the first volley in his campaign to remove newly appointed Chief KC Lum.
The OIP asked for the minutes, examined them and ordered them released. But the county then sued OIP and years later Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Wantanabe- a former Kaua`i deputy county attorney- ruled that the releasable parts of the minutes were “inexorably intertwined” with the legitimately discussed items and so nothing could be released.
At the time OIP was headed by a real open government crusader, director Les Kondo who was willing to go to the hilt to defend the Sunshine Law. But by the time the case came up the OIP had a new director though an appeal was promised its status is apparently “on hold”.
The council, under the tutelage of Asing, Nakazawa and the next CA Matthew Pyun, used this as a signal that they could pretty much allow the council to meet in ES on any subject they desired with impunity, including pending legislation as happened over and over during the contentious “Transient Vacation Rental Bill” passed last summer as well as with other matters.
It should be noted that the “charter amendment” ES’s have been held with unanimous votes, including Bynum’s and Kawahara’s. Bynum did on Tuesday protest the immense amount of money spent on “outside counsel” so far (up to $150,000) without what he characterized as a sufficient work product before being cut off by new County Attorney Al Castillo.
But if they are shocked at how both the public and even some of those they elected are given the mushroom treatment, while we’ve got their attention all we can do is quote Al Jolson- “you ain’t seen nothing yet”.
The matters that Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara forced onto a future council agenda on Tuesday are but minor “first steps” toward cleaning up at least seven years of a concerted effort by Council Chair Kaipo Asing to evade, flout and pervert the Sunshine Law in order to avoid public scrutiny in matters of public affairs.
Bynum has complained bitterly in the past about one of the main vehicles for hiding what the council is doing- the “secret” official county attorney (CA) pubic policy opinions. That issue as received notice not just here but in the local newspaper and those that follow council doings are all too familiar with the practice.
It reeks of Star Chamber methodology whereby the council tells the public the council is compelled to do something baffling because they have a county attorney’s opinion... an opinion that they “can’t” reveal.
But although related, far worse is the practice of meeting in executive session (ES) to discuss prospective legislation and even bills that are on the table.
Just this past week the council met in secret by saying
(T)he purpose of this executive session is to consult with the Council’s attorney regarding the charter amendments adopted in the 2008 General Election and other related matters.
Pretty outrageous, eh? And this isn’t the first time.
These ES’s, as revealed for the first time this past Tuesday, are ostensibly to discuss the implementation of the “General Plan” charter amendment passed this past November- a matter of public policy if there ever was one.
You would think the drafters of the amendment who worked so hard to pass it would be up in arms. But you’d be wrong because not one has objected at any of the ES’s.
You would also think that this practice would be forbidden. In fact the very first provision of the Sunshine Law, §92-1 Declaration Of Policy And Intent, reads, in part
Opening up the governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. Therefore, the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that 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.
There are of course legitimate reasons for holding closed meeting- lawsuits, personnel matters and the like. They’re addressed in 8 exceptions in §92-5(a)
But one of those exceptions, #4, contains a provision that has been abused so as to obliterate any pretense of following these principles, It reads:
§92-5 A board may hold a meeting closed to the public pursuant to section 92-4 for one or more of the following purposes:...
(4) To consult with the board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities.
Now obviously this is supposed to be read along with the principles and the rest of the law. If it weren’t then as long as “the board’s attorney” is in the room and speaks and they discuss “the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities”- which covers just about everything the council does, including pubic policy- all meetings could be conducted behind closed doors in their entirety.
Despite the absurd result of interpreting the law this way, that is just what the county started to do gradually when Mayor Bryan Baptiste appointed County Attorney Lani Nakazawa who developed both the “secret opinion” and the principle that allowed 92-5(a)4 to be interpreted to cover anything she said it did- especially any possible “future litigation” as well as holding that the council’s “powers, duties and privileges” include discussing and drafting legislation... the very thing that’s supposed to be done in public.
But isn’t there an Office of Information Practices (OIP) to make sure this doesn’t happen?
You would think so, at least in theory. But in actuality what has happened is that any complaint, if it’s accepted by OIP and gets that far, is subject to what’s called an “in camera” review whereby the OIP can look at the ES minutes and decide if they are to be released.
And that’s exactly what happened in January of 2003 when, in the infamous “ES-177”, new councilmember Mel Rapozo apparently went ballistic and attacked the Kaua`i Police Department as the first volley in his campaign to remove newly appointed Chief KC Lum.
The OIP asked for the minutes, examined them and ordered them released. But the county then sued OIP and years later Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Wantanabe- a former Kaua`i deputy county attorney- ruled that the releasable parts of the minutes were “inexorably intertwined” with the legitimately discussed items and so nothing could be released.
At the time OIP was headed by a real open government crusader, director Les Kondo who was willing to go to the hilt to defend the Sunshine Law. But by the time the case came up the OIP had a new director though an appeal was promised its status is apparently “on hold”.
The council, under the tutelage of Asing, Nakazawa and the next CA Matthew Pyun, used this as a signal that they could pretty much allow the council to meet in ES on any subject they desired with impunity, including pending legislation as happened over and over during the contentious “Transient Vacation Rental Bill” passed last summer as well as with other matters.
It should be noted that the “charter amendment” ES’s have been held with unanimous votes, including Bynum’s and Kawahara’s. Bynum did on Tuesday protest the immense amount of money spent on “outside counsel” so far (up to $150,000) without what he characterized as a sufficient work product before being cut off by new County Attorney Al Castillo.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
(PNN) COUNCIL TO SPEND $50,000 TO DEFEND SUEOKA EEOC CHARGE
Former long time Deputy County Attorney Margaret Sueoka has filed an EEOC complaint that has resulted in a case against the county that is apparently serious enough that the county attorney’s office is asking the council for 50,000 to defend the charge.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has substantiated the claim to the extent that they have filed a “charge” and given the case a number (486-2009-00268) but any detailed information is “not available to anyone except to parties” of the case according to an EEOC intake representative and, at least preliminarily, the state according to Amy Esaki current First Deputy CA for the county.
Esaki said after briefly checking with the state Office of Information Practices (OIP) the county’s position is that any further information is, at least for now, protected at the state level by HRS section 92F-14, claiming that the privacy issues involved outweigh the public interest in releasing the charges made by Sueoka.
PNN was unable to contact Sueoka and there is no number listed for her name.
Sueoka was apparently fired sometime during the change of administration and resultant change in county attorneys presumably by either Esaki, who was interim CA, or by current CA Al Castillo. Sueoka was sworn in on December 1 with the rest of the deputy CA’s.
Esaki said she couldn’t comment or provide any details surrounding the firing. even the fact that Sueoka was terminated, although the EEOC charge apparently verifies that.
It is unknown what the basis of the charge is although usually the EEOC deals with cases of discrimination against a “protected class” such as in race, gender or age bias.
Though no information on the specifics exist, some political insiders have speculated that Sueoka was fired due to the various controversial opinions she wrote, advice she gave and cases she pursued when she worked for former CA’s Lani Nakazawa and Matthew Pyun.
Nakazawa and Pyun initiated a widely criticized and unprecedented era of secrecy in the CA’s office as PNN has detailed in past reports, claiming that the CA’s only function was to serve the administration and council and that all official opinions rendered were the sole possession of those to whom they were issued and that only those so advised could release them to the public.
Previously, although county law is silent on the matter, most CA written opinions were considered public record, as state law requires of attorneys general’s opinions.
It has been revealed in various public session of boards and commissions including those of the council, that Sueoka, along with Nakazawa, had written the opinion that bans public release by the CA’s office and removed any public component to the CA office’s duties.
In addition, it has been revealed at meetings that she penned many of the advisory opinions that seemed to fly in the face of exiting laws and regulations. But since they were secret, no one could challenge them on the particulars.
Sueoka was instrumental in the apparent railroading of former police chief KC Lum by the Board of Ethics (BOE)- at the council and mayor’s behest- serving as the long time legal advisor of the beleaguered BOE. She also apparently wrote the still-secret opinion that allowed violations of the prohibitions in section 20.02(D) of the county charter that PNN’s investigatory three part series detailed this and last week.
Based on some of Castillo’s words and actions at various meetings over the past month or so he has been in office it is thought – or at least hoped- by many county government observers that he will be reversing many of Sueoka’s, Pyun’s and Nakazawa’s opinions.
Castillo has been observed with shocked expressions, eye rolling and head shaking upon observing the consequences of the apparent misconceptions of law, as stated by members of the various bodies (including the county council and BOE), based on Sueoka’s legal advice.
He has also given verbal indications that a potential change in policy is in the works at some of those meetings.
Both Esaki and Castillo are new to the CA’s office, Castillo coming from private practice after a stint in the prosecutor’s office in the 90’s and Esaki coming from council services where she served as a legal analyst for many years.
Both are considered to be “straight shooters” by various sources who have worked with them over the years although it cannot be verified if any of this was in any way behind the firing of Sueoka.
According to sources both are primed to clean up the CA’s office and repair its severely tarnished reputation, built through the years by issuing opinions that served the reported paternalistic and secretive efforts of Kaua`i County Council Chair Kaipo Asing and the administration of former Mayor Bryan Baptiste.
The CA’s office has also been under fire for the inordinate number of cases referred to “special counsel”- a small cabal of outside Honolulu attorneys who seem to most political observers and government watchdogs almost incapable of winning a case
That has cost the county millions in attorneys’ fees and more in settlements, much to councilmembers’ vocal chagrin.
Though the particulars of the Sueoka case are confidential to non-parties according to the EEOC itself, the public interest vs. private concerns may be less inviolable if it can be shown that there is a great public interest in releasing the details of the case.
Esaki said she presented the specific case to the OIP- the body that administrates the Uniform Information Practices Act or UIPA (HRS 92F) and the Sunshine Law (HRS 92 Section 1)- but attorney Linden Joesting of OIP, who spoke to Esaki, said that her counsel was just “advice over the phone” based on “preliminary information” and was not to be taken as a formal ruling as to whether the public interest in this case might outweigh Sueoka’s privacy interest of.
Joesting said she had not seen anything in writing but said that if we made a formal written request for the record of the case from the county and were denied she would be able to make, if not a formal ruling at least more than a preliminary one.
PNN will be filing that request tomorrow with the CA’s office and has been promised the denial will be expedited.
Joesting also indicated that it all might depend on EEOC rules on releasing the case file about which she didn’t have enough information to determine if there were strict or situational-dependent prohibitions against public release of the documents regarding the case.
This is not the first recent case of an EEOC charge. As PNN reported in December Kaua`i Bus driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin has filed suit against the Kaua`i Department of Transportation- specifically Executive on Transportation Janine Rapozo- for gender discrimination after the county refused to answer or even, according to her suit, investigate an EEOC complaint. The council also appropriated $50,000 at the time to defend that case.
Rapozo, a holdover from the Baptiste administration, is the wife of now Parks and Recreation Department head Lenny Rapozo who served as current Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s campaign manager in the fall 2008 campaign for mayor.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has substantiated the claim to the extent that they have filed a “charge” and given the case a number (486-2009-00268) but any detailed information is “not available to anyone except to parties” of the case according to an EEOC intake representative and, at least preliminarily, the state according to Amy Esaki current First Deputy CA for the county.
Esaki said after briefly checking with the state Office of Information Practices (OIP) the county’s position is that any further information is, at least for now, protected at the state level by HRS section 92F-14, claiming that the privacy issues involved outweigh the public interest in releasing the charges made by Sueoka.
PNN was unable to contact Sueoka and there is no number listed for her name.
Sueoka was apparently fired sometime during the change of administration and resultant change in county attorneys presumably by either Esaki, who was interim CA, or by current CA Al Castillo. Sueoka was sworn in on December 1 with the rest of the deputy CA’s.
Esaki said she couldn’t comment or provide any details surrounding the firing. even the fact that Sueoka was terminated, although the EEOC charge apparently verifies that.
It is unknown what the basis of the charge is although usually the EEOC deals with cases of discrimination against a “protected class” such as in race, gender or age bias.
Though no information on the specifics exist, some political insiders have speculated that Sueoka was fired due to the various controversial opinions she wrote, advice she gave and cases she pursued when she worked for former CA’s Lani Nakazawa and Matthew Pyun.
Nakazawa and Pyun initiated a widely criticized and unprecedented era of secrecy in the CA’s office as PNN has detailed in past reports, claiming that the CA’s only function was to serve the administration and council and that all official opinions rendered were the sole possession of those to whom they were issued and that only those so advised could release them to the public.
Previously, although county law is silent on the matter, most CA written opinions were considered public record, as state law requires of attorneys general’s opinions.
It has been revealed in various public session of boards and commissions including those of the council, that Sueoka, along with Nakazawa, had written the opinion that bans public release by the CA’s office and removed any public component to the CA office’s duties.
In addition, it has been revealed at meetings that she penned many of the advisory opinions that seemed to fly in the face of exiting laws and regulations. But since they were secret, no one could challenge them on the particulars.
Sueoka was instrumental in the apparent railroading of former police chief KC Lum by the Board of Ethics (BOE)- at the council and mayor’s behest- serving as the long time legal advisor of the beleaguered BOE. She also apparently wrote the still-secret opinion that allowed violations of the prohibitions in section 20.02(D) of the county charter that PNN’s investigatory three part series detailed this and last week.
Based on some of Castillo’s words and actions at various meetings over the past month or so he has been in office it is thought – or at least hoped- by many county government observers that he will be reversing many of Sueoka’s, Pyun’s and Nakazawa’s opinions.
Castillo has been observed with shocked expressions, eye rolling and head shaking upon observing the consequences of the apparent misconceptions of law, as stated by members of the various bodies (including the county council and BOE), based on Sueoka’s legal advice.
He has also given verbal indications that a potential change in policy is in the works at some of those meetings.
Both Esaki and Castillo are new to the CA’s office, Castillo coming from private practice after a stint in the prosecutor’s office in the 90’s and Esaki coming from council services where she served as a legal analyst for many years.
Both are considered to be “straight shooters” by various sources who have worked with them over the years although it cannot be verified if any of this was in any way behind the firing of Sueoka.
According to sources both are primed to clean up the CA’s office and repair its severely tarnished reputation, built through the years by issuing opinions that served the reported paternalistic and secretive efforts of Kaua`i County Council Chair Kaipo Asing and the administration of former Mayor Bryan Baptiste.
The CA’s office has also been under fire for the inordinate number of cases referred to “special counsel”- a small cabal of outside Honolulu attorneys who seem to most political observers and government watchdogs almost incapable of winning a case
That has cost the county millions in attorneys’ fees and more in settlements, much to councilmembers’ vocal chagrin.
Though the particulars of the Sueoka case are confidential to non-parties according to the EEOC itself, the public interest vs. private concerns may be less inviolable if it can be shown that there is a great public interest in releasing the details of the case.
Esaki said she presented the specific case to the OIP- the body that administrates the Uniform Information Practices Act or UIPA (HRS 92F) and the Sunshine Law (HRS 92 Section 1)- but attorney Linden Joesting of OIP, who spoke to Esaki, said that her counsel was just “advice over the phone” based on “preliminary information” and was not to be taken as a formal ruling as to whether the public interest in this case might outweigh Sueoka’s privacy interest of.
Joesting said she had not seen anything in writing but said that if we made a formal written request for the record of the case from the county and were denied she would be able to make, if not a formal ruling at least more than a preliminary one.
PNN will be filing that request tomorrow with the CA’s office and has been promised the denial will be expedited.
Joesting also indicated that it all might depend on EEOC rules on releasing the case file about which she didn’t have enough information to determine if there were strict or situational-dependent prohibitions against public release of the documents regarding the case.
This is not the first recent case of an EEOC charge. As PNN reported in December Kaua`i Bus driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin has filed suit against the Kaua`i Department of Transportation- specifically Executive on Transportation Janine Rapozo- for gender discrimination after the county refused to answer or even, according to her suit, investigate an EEOC complaint. The council also appropriated $50,000 at the time to defend that case.
Rapozo, a holdover from the Baptiste administration, is the wife of now Parks and Recreation Department head Lenny Rapozo who served as current Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s campaign manager in the fall 2008 campaign for mayor.
Friday, February 6, 2009
KIBBLE AND BITS
KIBBLE AND BITS: Former County Attorney (CA) Matthew Pyun couldn’t run fast enough to escape the morass of the bizarro-world of Kaua`i County’s through-the-looking-glass view of law when administrations changed.
And we’ve been trying to figure out what exactly is going on with the county council’s confirmation of previously rumored and sort-of announced CA appointee, former deputy prosecutor and now defense attorney Al Castillo.
We were kind of taken aback by the selection since he apparently has no experience in governmental law and comes from the criminal law community but chalked it up to more of the same from Mayor Bernard “You (can go to hell) and Me (I’ll pay off my supporters) Together (we’ll steal you blind)” Carvalho.
Almost two months have gone by with no confirmation from the council as is required by the county charter- and no word as to why.
But at the last full council meeting our ears perked up when deputy CA Darren “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” Suzuki introduced himself as the “acting CA” while he was not answering a question, as is apparently part of the CA’s job description these days.
Now, silently and stealthily, it appears that another appointment has been made.
Former deputy county attorney and county council legal analyst Amy Esaki’s name appears on this week’s council agenda, with Carvalho requesting council confirmation for her to lead the office of the county attorney.
Now of course you’re expecting the usual tirade and excoriation along with the requisite exposition of another revolving-door hack and crony, listing the misdeeds and sneaky crap the nominee has pulled over the years.
But apparently Carvalho was asleep at the wheel of his patronage-addled office because Esaki would be on our short list of who we would pick if we had the ability to do so.
Esaki is one of those attorneys who hasn’t been through that revolving door except for the time when she apparently quit the CA’s office under the widely reviled Lani Nakazawa to work for the council, writing and reading legislation.
She’s actually one of the most straightforward and seemingly honest, diligent and even (gasp) helpful lawyers ever employed by the county.
We have nothing but good things to say about her and can only hope against hope that she will bring a new era of openness and professionalism that’s been lacking in the office for a long time.
-----------
With the legislature doing it’s biannual dance-of-the-headless-chicken over the budget and its projected shortfalls, we’ve heard about of a lot of cockamamie bills containing schemes ranging from the brainless to the downright dangerous..
It’s the time of year when un-enterprising reporters can sit at a desk, riffle though the stack of introduced bills, stop anywhere and find something that causes heads to shake back and forth and eyes to roll..
But we have to wonder why none of them have seen one little ditty that has thus far gone unreported, whereby the state would steal the county’s share of the Transient Accommodation Tax (TAT) for the next six years.
Although to the relief of all the state’s mayors and councils it hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing, House Bill 1744 (Status) would “(s)uspend... for 6 years from 07/01/2009 to 06/30/2015 the distribution of transient accommodations tax revenues to the counties.”
The measure, introduced under the radar by House Speaker Calvin Say, has passed first reading and been referred to the Finance Committee.
It amends HRS 237D-6.5 by adding a section at the end that reads:
Subsection (b)(3), with regard to transfer of revenues to the counties, and subsection (c), with regard to computation and payment to the counties, shall not be operative from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2015. During the period that subsection (b)(3) is not operative, the remainder of the revenues collected shall be deposited into the state general fund."
Subsection (b)3 reads:
44.8 per cent of the revenues collected under this chapter shall be transferred as follows: Kauai county shall receive 14.5 per cent, Hawaii county shall receive 18.6 per cent, city and county of Honolulu shall receive 44.1 per cent, and Maui county shall receive 22.8 per cent.
The TAT is collected, as one might expect from the name, from people staying at tourist accommodations. The counties’ shares were originally included as a way to mitigate the impact of tourism on the counties’ budgets by giving them a share rather than allowing them to have their own taxation power (perish the thought), as had been proposed before the measure was enacted.
But now, rather than keeping their grubby paws to themselves they’ve got a bill handy to either rob Peter to pay Paul or use in some kind of extortion scheme to balance their budget by sloughing off their politically untenable choices- like actually taxing their precious campaign contributing faux hi-tech companies, land-raping developers and bottom-feeding military contractors- on the county level pols.
The measure would cost Kaua`i an estimated $15 million a year in revenue- more than 10% of the island’s operating budget- on top of the 10% across the board cuts ordered by Mayor Bernard Carvalho for the upcoming ’09-10 fiscal year.
---------
And finally an update- and a happy one for those following the HUD non-discrimination bill in the Senate that we reported on again yesterday.
After a flurry of emails and phone calls yesterday from many people to Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Roz Baker, SB 456 is now set for a hearing on Friday February 13 at 8:30 a.m..
Testimony may be emailed, if it’s less than 5 pages in length, to the Committee at CPNTestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov Indicate it’s “Testimony for SB 456 for the 2/13/09 8:30 a.m. hearing” in the subject line.
And we’ve been trying to figure out what exactly is going on with the county council’s confirmation of previously rumored and sort-of announced CA appointee, former deputy prosecutor and now defense attorney Al Castillo.
We were kind of taken aback by the selection since he apparently has no experience in governmental law and comes from the criminal law community but chalked it up to more of the same from Mayor Bernard “You (can go to hell) and Me (I’ll pay off my supporters) Together (we’ll steal you blind)” Carvalho.
Almost two months have gone by with no confirmation from the council as is required by the county charter- and no word as to why.
But at the last full council meeting our ears perked up when deputy CA Darren “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” Suzuki introduced himself as the “acting CA” while he was not answering a question, as is apparently part of the CA’s job description these days.
Now, silently and stealthily, it appears that another appointment has been made.
Former deputy county attorney and county council legal analyst Amy Esaki’s name appears on this week’s council agenda, with Carvalho requesting council confirmation for her to lead the office of the county attorney.
Now of course you’re expecting the usual tirade and excoriation along with the requisite exposition of another revolving-door hack and crony, listing the misdeeds and sneaky crap the nominee has pulled over the years.
But apparently Carvalho was asleep at the wheel of his patronage-addled office because Esaki would be on our short list of who we would pick if we had the ability to do so.
Esaki is one of those attorneys who hasn’t been through that revolving door except for the time when she apparently quit the CA’s office under the widely reviled Lani Nakazawa to work for the council, writing and reading legislation.
She’s actually one of the most straightforward and seemingly honest, diligent and even (gasp) helpful lawyers ever employed by the county.
We have nothing but good things to say about her and can only hope against hope that she will bring a new era of openness and professionalism that’s been lacking in the office for a long time.
-----------
With the legislature doing it’s biannual dance-of-the-headless-chicken over the budget and its projected shortfalls, we’ve heard about of a lot of cockamamie bills containing schemes ranging from the brainless to the downright dangerous..
It’s the time of year when un-enterprising reporters can sit at a desk, riffle though the stack of introduced bills, stop anywhere and find something that causes heads to shake back and forth and eyes to roll..
But we have to wonder why none of them have seen one little ditty that has thus far gone unreported, whereby the state would steal the county’s share of the Transient Accommodation Tax (TAT) for the next six years.
Although to the relief of all the state’s mayors and councils it hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing, House Bill 1744 (Status) would “(s)uspend... for 6 years from 07/01/2009 to 06/30/2015 the distribution of transient accommodations tax revenues to the counties.”
The measure, introduced under the radar by House Speaker Calvin Say, has passed first reading and been referred to the Finance Committee.
It amends HRS 237D-6.5 by adding a section at the end that reads:
Subsection (b)(3), with regard to transfer of revenues to the counties, and subsection (c), with regard to computation and payment to the counties, shall not be operative from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2015. During the period that subsection (b)(3) is not operative, the remainder of the revenues collected shall be deposited into the state general fund."
Subsection (b)3 reads:
44.8 per cent of the revenues collected under this chapter shall be transferred as follows: Kauai county shall receive 14.5 per cent, Hawaii county shall receive 18.6 per cent, city and county of Honolulu shall receive 44.1 per cent, and Maui county shall receive 22.8 per cent.
The TAT is collected, as one might expect from the name, from people staying at tourist accommodations. The counties’ shares were originally included as a way to mitigate the impact of tourism on the counties’ budgets by giving them a share rather than allowing them to have their own taxation power (perish the thought), as had been proposed before the measure was enacted.
But now, rather than keeping their grubby paws to themselves they’ve got a bill handy to either rob Peter to pay Paul or use in some kind of extortion scheme to balance their budget by sloughing off their politically untenable choices- like actually taxing their precious campaign contributing faux hi-tech companies, land-raping developers and bottom-feeding military contractors- on the county level pols.
The measure would cost Kaua`i an estimated $15 million a year in revenue- more than 10% of the island’s operating budget- on top of the 10% across the board cuts ordered by Mayor Bernard Carvalho for the upcoming ’09-10 fiscal year.
---------
And finally an update- and a happy one for those following the HUD non-discrimination bill in the Senate that we reported on again yesterday.
After a flurry of emails and phone calls yesterday from many people to Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Roz Baker, SB 456 is now set for a hearing on Friday February 13 at 8:30 a.m..
Testimony may be emailed, if it’s less than 5 pages in length, to the Committee at CPNTestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov Indicate it’s “Testimony for SB 456 for the 2/13/09 8:30 a.m. hearing” in the subject line.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
THE LABRADOR’S LABYRINTH
THE LABRADOR’S LABYRINTH: We now have a new administration on Kaua`i and though it was probably illegal for once and future Council Chair and current fleeting Mayor Kaipo Asing to delay taking office there is one thing that there’s no disputing if you read the Kaua`i County charter.
Kaua`i was without a Mayor for the 11 days between when Asing was “appointed” mayor and the day he took his oath of office.
While Administrative Assistant Gary Heu legally took office after the death of Mayor Bryan Baptiste, the Charter is clear on one thing- he ceased to be mayor when Asing was selected, no matter when Asing thinks he took office.
Section 7.06 of the Kaua`i County Charter states:
(I)n case of a vacancy in the office of the mayor, until a new mayor is appointed or elected, the administrative assistant shall act as mayor.
As we harped upon a few weeks back Asing and the County Attorney he carries around in his pocket gave some mumbo jumbo about the resignation from the council and swearing-in allowing him to apparently be both Council Chair and Mayor.
The charter makes it quite apparent that the new appointee becomes mayor upon the selection or “appointment” by the council but it does not state this in so many words
So of course when Kaipo “so sue me” Asing and his fellow Minotaur “Judge”- County Attorney Matthew Pyun saw that they could make up some cockamamie excuse to hold onto power long enough to allow Asing to pass legislation as a Council member and then sign it as mayor, they punched a hole in the wall, called it a loophole and dragged the county through it.
Apparently, according to Pyun’s First Deputy Harrison Kawate the Charter doesn’t count because “general practice” calls for something different than that which is described under the actual law.
The only excuse they didn’t use is that the Charter didn’t specifically require him to ask “mother may I’ before he took his baby steps between appointment and ceremonial inauguration before taking the giant one from the council chambers across the street into the dark recesses of the Round Building.
We did however hear a rumor that the decision was based on the lack a “Simon Says” provision in the Charter.
Even assuming this perversion of justice in the name of paternalism- Kaipo’s singular obsession- is legal or even moot now that the deed is done, the Charter is extremely clear that Hue ceased to be Mayor when Asing was appointed not when the appointee took office. It says “the administrative assistant shall act as mayor... until a new mayor is appointed”.
Unless Webster’s and our understanding of the word “until” is inaccurate the concept creates a timeline when something ceases to be true- in this case Hue’s `okole’s placement in the mayor’s seat.
So what? “What” is that any action by Heu during those 11 days is null and void for official purposes. And anyone effected by any official documents he might have signed may now consider them to be invalid.
The traditional secrecy and incompetence of the administration on Kaua`i may prevent us from ever finding out what official actions were taken in the last 11 days of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Heu administration but we will be reporting on our request for the information.
We’ll leave you with the apparent anthem of Kaua`i County Government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69b2Fcd4m5A
The Minotaur Song
by the Incredible String Band
Straight from the shoulder
I think like a soldier
I know what's right and what's wrong
He knows what's right and what's wrong.
I'm the original discriminating buffalo man
And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can
He'll do what's wrong as long as he can
I live in a labyrinth under the sea
Down in the dark as dark as can be
I like the dark as dark as can be
He likes the dark as dark as can be
I'll even attack you or eat you whole
Down in the dark my bone mills roll
Porridge for my porridge bowl
Porridge for his porridge bowl
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
Moo
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
A minotaur gets very sore
His features they are such a bore
His habits are predicta-bull
Aggressively relia-bull, bull, bull
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
I'm the original discriminating buffalo man
And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can
He'll do what's wrong as long as he can
Kaua`i was without a Mayor for the 11 days between when Asing was “appointed” mayor and the day he took his oath of office.
While Administrative Assistant Gary Heu legally took office after the death of Mayor Bryan Baptiste, the Charter is clear on one thing- he ceased to be mayor when Asing was selected, no matter when Asing thinks he took office.
Section 7.06 of the Kaua`i County Charter states:
(I)n case of a vacancy in the office of the mayor, until a new mayor is appointed or elected, the administrative assistant shall act as mayor.
As we harped upon a few weeks back Asing and the County Attorney he carries around in his pocket gave some mumbo jumbo about the resignation from the council and swearing-in allowing him to apparently be both Council Chair and Mayor.
The charter makes it quite apparent that the new appointee becomes mayor upon the selection or “appointment” by the council but it does not state this in so many words
So of course when Kaipo “so sue me” Asing and his fellow Minotaur “Judge”- County Attorney Matthew Pyun saw that they could make up some cockamamie excuse to hold onto power long enough to allow Asing to pass legislation as a Council member and then sign it as mayor, they punched a hole in the wall, called it a loophole and dragged the county through it.
Apparently, according to Pyun’s First Deputy Harrison Kawate the Charter doesn’t count because “general practice” calls for something different than that which is described under the actual law.
The only excuse they didn’t use is that the Charter didn’t specifically require him to ask “mother may I’ before he took his baby steps between appointment and ceremonial inauguration before taking the giant one from the council chambers across the street into the dark recesses of the Round Building.
We did however hear a rumor that the decision was based on the lack a “Simon Says” provision in the Charter.
Even assuming this perversion of justice in the name of paternalism- Kaipo’s singular obsession- is legal or even moot now that the deed is done, the Charter is extremely clear that Hue ceased to be Mayor when Asing was appointed not when the appointee took office. It says “the administrative assistant shall act as mayor... until a new mayor is appointed”.
Unless Webster’s and our understanding of the word “until” is inaccurate the concept creates a timeline when something ceases to be true- in this case Hue’s `okole’s placement in the mayor’s seat.
So what? “What” is that any action by Heu during those 11 days is null and void for official purposes. And anyone effected by any official documents he might have signed may now consider them to be invalid.
The traditional secrecy and incompetence of the administration on Kaua`i may prevent us from ever finding out what official actions were taken in the last 11 days of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Heu administration but we will be reporting on our request for the information.
We’ll leave you with the apparent anthem of Kaua`i County Government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69b2Fcd4m5A
The Minotaur Song
by the Incredible String Band
Straight from the shoulder
I think like a soldier
I know what's right and what's wrong
He knows what's right and what's wrong.
I'm the original discriminating buffalo man
And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can
He'll do what's wrong as long as he can
I live in a labyrinth under the sea
Down in the dark as dark as can be
I like the dark as dark as can be
He likes the dark as dark as can be
I'll even attack you or eat you whole
Down in the dark my bone mills roll
Porridge for my porridge bowl
Porridge for his porridge bowl
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
Moo
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
A minotaur gets very sore
His features they are such a bore
His habits are predicta-bull
Aggressively relia-bull, bull, bull
I'm strong as the earth from which I'm born
He's strong as the earth from which he's born
I can't dream well because of my horns
He can't dream well because of his horns
I'm the original discriminating buffalo man
And I'll do what's wrong as long as I can
He'll do what's wrong as long as he can
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
