IT'S A DIRTY JOB BUT NOBODY'S GOT TO DO IT: Sometime it's an occasion for a straight rant, usually after an unusually pathetic, yet successful injustice has been perpetrated. But sometimes things are so enraging and we find it so hard to fit into our new and improved engagingly rabid outfit that we resort to a simple news report.
So after receiving word last week that the Office of Information Practices (OIP) decided to issue an "informal opinion" saying that Former Chair Kaipo Asing conspired with former County Clerk Peter Nakamura to go behind closed doors under false pretenses three years ago, in order to contain our rage we went with the just the facts, ma’am.
We were just going to leave it at that until yesterday when Joan Conrow carefully inserted the opinion in our craw speaking about how
former County Council Chair Kaipo Asing violated the sunshine law — three years ago. Yup, that's how long it took the OIP to rule on a citizen complaint. And even then, you still would have to go to court to void any action that was taken during an improperly noticed meeting, adding many more months to the process. It seems government transparency, absent expediency, doesn't really count for much.
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. We can't get away with anything around here.
We did intentionally leave out the end of the opinion because to delve into what it truly meant would have generated enough ear-steam to power a small village.
It repeated one of the most egregious half truths in the annals of open governance. Under the title "Right to Bring Suit to Enforce Sunshine Law and to Void Board Action" it said:
Any person may file a lawsuit to require compliance with or to prevent a violation of the Sunshine Law or to determine the applicability of the Sunshine Law to discussions or decisions of a government board. The court may order payment of reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in such a lawsuit.
This bit of butt-derived garbage directly conflicts with the state Sunshine Law which, in Section §92-12 "Enforcement" says:
(a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.
(b) The circuit courts of the State shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this part by injunction or other appropriate remedy.
Pretty clear, eh? Yet not one of the hundreds of of formal and informal opinions OIP has issued since 1989- especially the dozens that essentially called the actions of various boards unlawful- has been enforced by either the attorney general or any of the county prosecuting attorneys.
But how can that be- isn't the law clear as to their responsibility?
You'd think so- but noooooo.
Although it's been a while since the last time any attorney general has responded to an inquiry- and we don't believe there is a written opinion on the subject- when we did get an answer way back when, we were referred to the rest of the "Enforcement" section. It says:
(c) Any person may commence a suit in the circuit court of the circuit in which a prohibited act occurs for the purpose of requiring compliance with or preventing violations of this part or to determine the applicability of this part to discussions or decisions of the public body.
Though the reasoning is way too tortured for the way understand logic to work the gist of the AG's contention is that, because "(a)ny person may commence a suit in the circuit court of the circuit in which a prohibited act occurs for the purpose of requiring compliance," the AG will not do a damn thing and rather, will graciously allow one of those "any persons" do the dirty work.
The problem with that is two-fold. First of all the law doesn't say the AG may enforce this part it says (s)he "shall" enforce it.
For the second problem the first thing one must do is take a look at the next part of the Sunshine Law- §92-13 Penalties.
It says:
Any person who wilfully (sic) violates any provisions of this part shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be summarily removed from the board unless otherwise provided by law.
Misdemeanors in the state of Hawai`i are punishable by not more than $1000 fine, a year in jail or both.
Yet §92-12(c) refers to the lawsuit a person files being "for the purpose of requiring compliance with or preventing violations of this part or to determine the applicability of this part to discussions or decisions of the public body. "
The problem that we're talking abut meetings where the board is about to go into what is essentially an unlawful secret meeting. So how would you stop them? With an injunction? Well, a certain conundrum is presented by the rest of §92-12. That bit of unreality says:
(d) The proceedings for review shall not stay the enforcement of any agency decisions; but the reviewing court may order a stay if the following criteria have been met:
(1) There is likelihood that the party bringing the action will prevail on the merits;
(2) Irreparable damage will result if a stay is not ordered;
(3) No irreparable damage to the public will result from the stay order; and
(4) Public interest will be served by the stay order.
As we said, it doesn't matter what the heck the likelihood is of a party prevailing, any irreparable damage or some kind of public interest because the deed will have already been done by the time a "person" files a suit... unless you have one of those Twilight Zone stop watches that can put the board meeting in suspended animation while you track down a lawyer who can track down a judge who can and will rush over to interrogate the board and issue an injunction.
Of course this is all practically moot these days because of a case called "OIP vs County of Kaua`i" which- leaving out all the juicy stuff involving the infamous ES-177, Asing, current Councilperson and former star of the book KPD Blue (see left rail) Mel Rapozo, former Finance Director and current Grove Farm Veep and Koloa Camp evictor Mike Tressler, the Kaua`i Board of Ethics, former Police Chief KC Lum and a cast of seemingly thousands- essentially defanged OIP and turned what used to be known as the best Sunshine Law in the country into a parody of open meetings laws.
Because all a person can do is file a civil suit and seek to overturn the actions. Even if this opinion wasn't three years old it doesn't seem to mean anything as far as the Penalty section is concerned.
Although in this case the opinion appears to say that the action was "willful"- especially since Asing and Nakamura refused to even respond to OIP inquiries- who exactly is there from whom to seek the criminal penalties... which, if we understand the American jurisprudence system correctly, is what is supposed to deter people from doing it again in the future, not encourage the action over and over by essentially saying the law is a joke.
Ah, crap- now we're thoroughly pissed off. Shoulda stuck with the news.
Showing posts with label Peter Nakamura. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Nakamura. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 4, 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.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
EVEN REPORTERS GET THE BLUES
EVEN REPORTERS GET THE BLUES: Mesmer never had TV but if he had he would have done well to use the county council's budget hearings to lull his patients into the half-sleep of passive compliance he sought.
So we'll excuse ourself for having such heavy eyelids after attempting to view the un-viewable and relying on- god help us- Leo Azumbuja's account of the council services budget requests session.
Of course he starts off his article with a total fabrication from who knows what recess of his imagination in referring to "County Clerk Peter Nakamura’s mayoral re-appointment and subsequent Kaua`i County Council confirmation in December."
The obviously click-challenged Azumbuja might have at least checked the county charter to find out that the mayor has nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment of the clerk.
But we'll have to rely on his account of a much more important matter- one so important he saved it for paragraph 18 (of 21) in noting that:
(Nakamura) also asked for a new position in Council Services for secretarial support. This new hire would provide support to increase web postings of council documents.
“As part of our goal of increasingthe presence of the council and council documents on the Web, the primary objective that we were given by the council chair was to obtain and upgrade our copier systems to multi-function systems,” said Nakamura, adding that the system would allow the office to begin such process at Nawiliwili and be able to transition directly to the network systems in the renovated Historic County Building.
Nakamura said the office should obtain the second multi-function copier within one month.
“Our hope is that it would be able to decrease the amount of steps that we currently have to do to convert paper documents into readable, searchable documents,” he said.
As we've noted over and over, the posting of the supporting documents for council agenda items that are given out routinely at the council services office has been ourand others' source of choice for uncovering corruption and malfeasance by both the administration and council and therefore the council has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the information age although they've been successful with foot dragging for years now.
As we revealed long ago, council services already has a fancy-schmancy super-duper "copy machine" right now that scans and then actually posts documents on their website- one they've used on things like minutes, agendas and summaries.
But while ignoring that- until now with their questionable claim that they need another one- their main claim has been that somehow they need a new "secretary" whose job we suppose will be to push the second button when they make hard copies of those supporting documents for the members of the council.
Now they need a second machine for the button pusher.
Of course now that they've told the lie about needing a new position for so long they are trapped into including it in the budget.
We can just imagine Nakamura calling up Personnel Director Malcolm Fernandez and asking for the civil service personnel code number for a button pusher. We're pretty sure civil service must have a special class of people with huge index fingers at the ready.
So we'll excuse ourself for having such heavy eyelids after attempting to view the un-viewable and relying on- god help us- Leo Azumbuja's account of the council services budget requests session.
Of course he starts off his article with a total fabrication from who knows what recess of his imagination in referring to "County Clerk Peter Nakamura’s mayoral re-appointment and subsequent Kaua`i County Council confirmation in December."
The obviously click-challenged Azumbuja might have at least checked the county charter to find out that the mayor has nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment of the clerk.
But we'll have to rely on his account of a much more important matter- one so important he saved it for paragraph 18 (of 21) in noting that:
(Nakamura) also asked for a new position in Council Services for secretarial support. This new hire would provide support to increase web postings of council documents.
“As part of our goal of increasingthe presence of the council and council documents on the Web, the primary objective that we were given by the council chair was to obtain and upgrade our copier systems to multi-function systems,” said Nakamura, adding that the system would allow the office to begin such process at Nawiliwili and be able to transition directly to the network systems in the renovated Historic County Building.
Nakamura said the office should obtain the second multi-function copier within one month.
“Our hope is that it would be able to decrease the amount of steps that we currently have to do to convert paper documents into readable, searchable documents,” he said.
As we've noted over and over, the posting of the supporting documents for council agenda items that are given out routinely at the council services office has been ourand others' source of choice for uncovering corruption and malfeasance by both the administration and council and therefore the council has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the information age although they've been successful with foot dragging for years now.
As we revealed long ago, council services already has a fancy-schmancy super-duper "copy machine" right now that scans and then actually posts documents on their website- one they've used on things like minutes, agendas and summaries.
But while ignoring that- until now with their questionable claim that they need another one- their main claim has been that somehow they need a new "secretary" whose job we suppose will be to push the second button when they make hard copies of those supporting documents for the members of the council.
Now they need a second machine for the button pusher.
Of course now that they've told the lie about needing a new position for so long they are trapped into including it in the budget.
We can just imagine Nakamura calling up Personnel Director Malcolm Fernandez and asking for the civil service personnel code number for a button pusher. We're pretty sure civil service must have a special class of people with huge index fingers at the ready.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
TIME KEEPS ON SLIPPIN', SLIPPIN'...
TIME KEEPS ON SLIPPIN', SLIPPIN'...: We've been glued to the RaptorCam where a live streaming camera has it's sights set on a couple of eagles who recently hatched a duo of chicks and are currently sitting on them and another egg- which is supposed to be ready for it's close up Mr. DeMille today or tomorrow- feeding them from the bloated corpse of what appears to be a rodent of some sort, dropping strips of flesh into the babes' upraised, open yaws.
Kind of reminds of of the budget machinations not only in Washington and Honolulu but potentially, next week here on Kaua`i with the leaders in the role of the raptors supplying we ravenous chicks the putrefied scraps of their choosing.
Here the budget may well inform the selection of our newest county council members and if past is prologue we well might see the Big Bird upchuck a a rotted piece of carrion named Darryl Kaneshiro.
It all depends of what Council Chair Jay Furfaro thinks will help solidify his long fought for power as chair.
Apparently he tried to make sure that Derek Kawakami remained on the council so as to avoid this potential appointment because word has been the the Minotaur himself- former Chair Kaipo Asing- might have the votes in a split council to make his triumphant reappearance, pushing poor Jay back to the shadows again.
If the story we've been hearing is true it's no wonder Jay tried to assure Derek would remain on the council during the legislative replacement process conducted by the Democratic Party we detailed yesterday. As it was repeated on Joan Conrow's comment board:
Jay manipulated the whole thing. He was on the nominating committee, did not speak up about the Ducker ethics thing, got Neil to throw his hat in the ring, and tried to rattle Joel with his follow up questions in the 10 minute interview. All to stick it to Mina and try to keep Derek from leaving the Council. He succeeded on sticking it to Mina, but failed on stopping the change in makeup of the Council. But, he's not done trying. Watch this Council selection process. Jay will still try to control it... Specifically, watch for Furfaro to push for Kaneshiro who headed the budget committee last year to keep Asing from going from also-ran to Chair.
Look for Mel Rapozo and Dickie Chang to put Asing forward with, as has become the norm, Nadine Nakamura as the swing vote. If her loyalty is to her brother-in-law, Asing sycophant County Clerk Peter Nakamura, it might just produce a 3-3 tie and dump the whole matter into the lap of Mayor Bernard Carvalho who would no doubt pick a crony out of left field who could be assured to do his bidding on the newly restructured council.
But that presumes that the rumor- and though it is just a rumor, we're going to repeat it in case anyone who has definitive evidence it's true might produce it for us- that Kawakami does not indeed live in the home he claims as his residence- a house in the 14th district which, it has been alleged, is owned by his wife while they actually reside in another district.
Though state law requires members of the legislature to live in their district it is unclear who makes the ultimate decision in these kinds of cases although certainly the courts would be the final arbiter.
The last time there was an opening on the council Kaneshiro slipped right in there due to his supposed "experience." But he replaced the man that is, most likely, his chief rival- Asing, who had moved into the round building upon the demise of Mayor Bryan Baptiste, giving Furfaro his first taste of the power of the gavel.
There's talk of the 8th place finisher in the last election, Kipukai Kuali`i, getting the nod but unless there's a huge outpouring of support from the public he stands about as much chance as Bob Carriffe.
The decision on the council replacement will, no doubt, come down to alliances from both the past and the present. But we may well have to wait for the egg to hatch to know for sure who be feeding us carrion for the next two years.
Kind of reminds of of the budget machinations not only in Washington and Honolulu but potentially, next week here on Kaua`i with the leaders in the role of the raptors supplying we ravenous chicks the putrefied scraps of their choosing.
Here the budget may well inform the selection of our newest county council members and if past is prologue we well might see the Big Bird upchuck a a rotted piece of carrion named Darryl Kaneshiro.
It all depends of what Council Chair Jay Furfaro thinks will help solidify his long fought for power as chair.
Apparently he tried to make sure that Derek Kawakami remained on the council so as to avoid this potential appointment because word has been the the Minotaur himself- former Chair Kaipo Asing- might have the votes in a split council to make his triumphant reappearance, pushing poor Jay back to the shadows again.
If the story we've been hearing is true it's no wonder Jay tried to assure Derek would remain on the council during the legislative replacement process conducted by the Democratic Party we detailed yesterday. As it was repeated on Joan Conrow's comment board:
Jay manipulated the whole thing. He was on the nominating committee, did not speak up about the Ducker ethics thing, got Neil to throw his hat in the ring, and tried to rattle Joel with his follow up questions in the 10 minute interview. All to stick it to Mina and try to keep Derek from leaving the Council. He succeeded on sticking it to Mina, but failed on stopping the change in makeup of the Council. But, he's not done trying. Watch this Council selection process. Jay will still try to control it... Specifically, watch for Furfaro to push for Kaneshiro who headed the budget committee last year to keep Asing from going from also-ran to Chair.
Look for Mel Rapozo and Dickie Chang to put Asing forward with, as has become the norm, Nadine Nakamura as the swing vote. If her loyalty is to her brother-in-law, Asing sycophant County Clerk Peter Nakamura, it might just produce a 3-3 tie and dump the whole matter into the lap of Mayor Bernard Carvalho who would no doubt pick a crony out of left field who could be assured to do his bidding on the newly restructured council.
But that presumes that the rumor- and though it is just a rumor, we're going to repeat it in case anyone who has definitive evidence it's true might produce it for us- that Kawakami does not indeed live in the home he claims as his residence- a house in the 14th district which, it has been alleged, is owned by his wife while they actually reside in another district.
Though state law requires members of the legislature to live in their district it is unclear who makes the ultimate decision in these kinds of cases although certainly the courts would be the final arbiter.
The last time there was an opening on the council Kaneshiro slipped right in there due to his supposed "experience." But he replaced the man that is, most likely, his chief rival- Asing, who had moved into the round building upon the demise of Mayor Bryan Baptiste, giving Furfaro his first taste of the power of the gavel.
There's talk of the 8th place finisher in the last election, Kipukai Kuali`i, getting the nod but unless there's a huge outpouring of support from the public he stands about as much chance as Bob Carriffe.
The decision on the council replacement will, no doubt, come down to alliances from both the past and the present. But we may well have to wait for the egg to hatch to know for sure who be feeding us carrion for the next two years.
Friday, August 7, 2009
ACHTUNG AHMADINASING
ACHTUNG AHMADINASING: Democracy took it’s lumps at Wednesday’s council meeting as the first real votes on specific resolutions were squelched by the now well-defined majority which used every trick in the book to avoid taking actions to resolve simplest of issues brought forward by reform Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara.
The total lack of rationality and recognition of reality was striking. The meeting served as a coming out party for good-old-boy-in-waiting Prince Derek Kawakami who, with established defender of the realm Darryl Kaneshiro, flanked-in-phalanx the besieged Chair Kaipo Asing with a feigned rhetorical “problem?... what problem” blindness topped with a flourish of “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it”.
Everyone knew there’d be trouble as soon as the resolution to form an ad hoc committee to study and propose changes to the council rules was read and Kaneshiro quickly moved to receive- meaning kill- the resolution before Bynum or Kawahara could move to approve it.
After Bynum tried to briefly detail the problems he and Kawahara have had with the rules- especially rule 10(c) pertaining to placing items on the agenda- it quickly degenerated into a series of misdirections and silly personal attacks from Kawakami, Kaneshiro and Asing himself.
Although it was the ad hoc committee resolution that was on the table Kawakami started the distractions by saying that there was no need for a clarification of 10(c) because another rule- 15(c)- allowed placement if items on the agenda by a council 2/3 vote.
Of course that had failed to be enough to do the trick when Bynum tried to get an item on the agenda on June 3.
That started the whole thing. Not only that but of course the real issue is that councilmembers should have the right to introduce any item with or without support from four other members.
Yet that was to become a rallying cry when the actual resolution to clarify rule 10(c) came up later on the agenda.
The first silliness came from the reliably clueless Councilmember Dickie Change who attacked Bynum by saying that at the June 3 meeting, when County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo stifled discussion of the non-agendaed item as a sunshine law violation, councilmember Jay Furfaro had moved to defer the matter but no one seconded it
“I was shocked no one seconded it” Chang said using hindsight to tell Bynum he had the opportunity to put it on a future agenda right there even though the motive for the request for deferral was unknown at that moment- and because a motion for deferral ends discussion.
Chang seemingly either forget or wasn’t aware that as a councilmember he could have seconded it himself.
The mouth, if not brain-engaged Chang then indicated that he was now going to oppose the resolution that he co-introduced with Furfaro saying it wasn’t really “the 360” it appeared to be, forgetting to stop ay 180 and indicating that the audience wasn’t the only one getting dizzy with all the spinning.
Then it was time for Asing to issue the first of his lip-service repetitions of a statement he made on July 22nd saying that “the chair does not have absolute power” despite the fact that he had exercised such by routinely stopping Bynum and other members from placing matters on the agenda- something Bynum has documented at his kauaiinfo.org web site with the actual memos sent to Asing.
“Pay attention to what I say, not what I do” Asing had admitted refusing to place matters on the agenda while denying it in the same breath at the 22nd – as PNN reported last week- and again later during Wednesday’s meeting.
Asing glared at Bynum and called Bynum’s well documented problems with agenda placement “manufactured problems” stating with palms raised “I don’t understand- where did it come from?”.
Next Kawahara made a statement that would be butchered, misquoted and used to attack her by Kaneshiro and Kawakami later in the meeting, saying to Asing that changes in the rules “that were actually brought up to you in the six months I’ve been here” but were not given a place on the agenda.
During the discussion of the rule change itself Kaneshiro would be adamant in heatedly accusing Kawahara over and over of lying by saying she personally had sent memos asking to introduce measures even though she said no such thing.
But the issue of the ad hoc committee was what was actually on the table and there were real problems with the idea- problems that became clear when one of the proposed members, former council chair Ron Kouchi, spoke.
After saying he might have a “perceived conflict of interest” since his employer has a bill coming up on the council’s agenda, he pointed out that the committee would need council staff time and therefore have to direct staff- something he said non-members would have all sorts of difficulty doing.
He said in the past such committees and “task forces’ always had one or two councilmembers to direct staff.
That led to some discussion by Kaneshiro and others regarding the possibility of putting a resolution on a future agenda to form a committee with up to the two councilmembers- the number sunshine law allows to communicate on council matters- to study the rules although there was no real commitment to do so.
The resolution was then "received" by a 4-3 vote with Furfaro- if not Chang- supporting his own resolution along with Bynum and Kawahara.
But the show was just beginning and after lunch the fireworks were lit when the actual rule change resolution- one to clarify that rule 10(c) couldn’t be used by the chair to keep items off the agenda indefinitely - came to the floor.
The change seemed simple and straightforward enough but again Kaneshiro quickly moved to receive and kill the resolution and it was quickly seconded by Kawakami as the script apparently called for.
Kawakami again brought up rule 15(c) repeatedly calling it an “alternative mechanism” for placing things on the agenda even though the measure would then require a 2/3 vote to go foreword.
Bynum tried to calmly explain- as if anyone could forget- all the hassle he had when he tried to get something on the agenda that way and Kawahara reiterated that a 2/3 vote certainly was a “different level” of support that needed to be met and wasn’t “equal” to the simple rule 10(c) which guarantees councilmembers the basic right of a representative in a democracy- to introduce measures for the agenda.
Then it was Kawakami’s time to shine and show his stuff to any good old boys who might have doubted his ability to get down and dirty by defending Asing and the status quo- a very important skill in their eyes and a trial by fire that many sycophants have had to endure to be accepted into the club.
He and Kaneshiro then lit into Kawahara over and over with the ‘you said you had submitted things for the agenda” which of course she didn’t say- and was of course a distraction from the self evident story that has been told over and over about Bynum’s well documented two and a half year quest for democracy... one that everyone had witnessed since June 3 when the two month plus circus of attempting to get the rule change on the agenda began.
Bynum then tried to refocus back on the issue at hand reading the rules and trying to again briefly recap the hassles he’s had even trying to get something on the agenda, even through the 2/3 vote method.
He then called for Castillo to come up so he could ask him if it’s even possible to use the 15)c) “alternative mechanism” since it was Castillo who had said everything he tried to do on June 3 violated the sunshine law because it wasn’t on the agenda- a catch-22 PNN has described in detail over the past couple of months .
Bynum asked simply “can a councilmember make a motion to put something on a future agenda”.
But Castillo hemmed and hawed and eventually refused to answer him, even reverting back to the bad old days of former CA’s who requested everything be put in writing, saying he needed a “specific set of facts” to “make a ruling”.
Then it was time for Asing to repeat his “the chair does not have absolute power” line adding “I don’t believe one person should have that power”.
And of course Kaneshiro, Kawakami and Chang agreed with that and praised Asing for saying- if not doing- it. They also agreed that there was no problem since the chair had said it so it must be true.
And why change the rule if there was no problem they reasoned, acting as if the last two months had never happened and they hadn’t read the documents or heard the testimony.
That was when Asing had his own meltdown trying to say that he had never blocked anything from the agenda at the same time as admitting it had happened quite a few times.
Some of the back and forth exchanges were priceless. At one point Bynum asked Asing “didn’t you tell me you wouldn’t put (a resolution) on the agenda”.
Asing screamed “no!” before giving an excuse as to why he didn’t put it on the agenda.
Another time Asing denied blocking Bynum’s Po`ipu Beach Erosion Study bill which, at the July 22nd meeting, Asing had admitted he had blocked.
And when Bynum finally asked Asing if he had blocked the very resolution that was on the table- the one Bynum and Kawahara had fought for two months to get placed on the agenda- Asing, after having debated for ten minutes, finally said “I’m not going to get into a debate”.
In previous meetings former councilpersons JoAnn Yukimura and Mel Rapozo had testified that they also had the experience of having bills refused agenda placement but when Bynum tried to say that, Asing yelled “that’s an accusation”- something that made no sense (of course it was) and something he’s done before when cornered.
First Asing countered the Yukimura denial by talking about a bill that she wanted to introduce that, he said, had not been “cleared by the county attorney” and admitting that he blocked the bill- vowing he’d do it again if it hadn’t been run by the CA.
But Bynum said that he had forgotten about that bill but what he was really talking about was that Yukimura had tried to introduce a resolution opposing the Superferry coming to Kaua`i without an EIS and Asing refused to put it on the agenda because it was “too controversial”.
That caused the clueless Chang to agree with Asing’s decision saying “I can see the reason why the chair would not put that on the agenda” mentioning the controversy in the community at the time and citing the convention hall debacle with the governor being shouted down.
All this of course should have been enough to indicate that the rules needed clarification but led by Kawakami the three “D’s”- Derek, Dickie and Darryl- each said they personally had never had any problem placing matters on the agenda so there didn’t seem to be any problem with the rules.
Finally, in the ultimate “are you going to believe me or your lyin’ eyes” statement, Kawakami said told the council that “nothing (in the rules) gives the chair that kind of power (to refuse agenda placement)... the rules in place, properly applied, work just fine”, completely ignoring that the rules had very apparently not been “properly applied” and the resolution sought to clarify them so they would be.
Finally to no one’s surprise despite the fact that, as Bynum said, “there has been a problem- that’s as clear as a bell”, the resolution was “received” by a 4-3 vote with Furfaro joining Bynum and Kawahara in voting against the move to kill the rule change and Kaipo and the three D’s standing together in the same majority that put Asing in the council chair last December.
In case we haven’t done a good enough job in conveying the “through the looking glass” tone of the whole meeting, we’ve taken the opportunity sum it up with a re-write of the psychedelic Carrollian favorite, “White Rabbit” by the Jefferson Airplane.
***************
One bill makes him shudder and
Another makes you bawl
And the one the chair initials
Don’t do anything at all.
Ask Peter when he’s 10 feet tall.
And if you go chasing minutes
And you see them in the hall
Tell ‘em a reso-toting Minotaur
Has told you, “you’ve got gall”
Call Dickie when he was just small,
When men who rule on ethics
Get up and tell you they don’t know
And you’ve just missed weeks of email
And your mind can’t grasp it all
Ask Kaipo- I think he’ll know
When logic and proportion
Are received and, now they’re dead
And Darryl’s shredding Roberts
And Derek’s knocking head’s
Remember what the old boys said
Stay in bed
We’re all in bed
The total lack of rationality and recognition of reality was striking. The meeting served as a coming out party for good-old-boy-in-waiting Prince Derek Kawakami who, with established defender of the realm Darryl Kaneshiro, flanked-in-phalanx the besieged Chair Kaipo Asing with a feigned rhetorical “problem?... what problem” blindness topped with a flourish of “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it”.
Everyone knew there’d be trouble as soon as the resolution to form an ad hoc committee to study and propose changes to the council rules was read and Kaneshiro quickly moved to receive- meaning kill- the resolution before Bynum or Kawahara could move to approve it.
After Bynum tried to briefly detail the problems he and Kawahara have had with the rules- especially rule 10(c) pertaining to placing items on the agenda- it quickly degenerated into a series of misdirections and silly personal attacks from Kawakami, Kaneshiro and Asing himself.
Although it was the ad hoc committee resolution that was on the table Kawakami started the distractions by saying that there was no need for a clarification of 10(c) because another rule- 15(c)- allowed placement if items on the agenda by a council 2/3 vote.
Of course that had failed to be enough to do the trick when Bynum tried to get an item on the agenda on June 3.
That started the whole thing. Not only that but of course the real issue is that councilmembers should have the right to introduce any item with or without support from four other members.
Yet that was to become a rallying cry when the actual resolution to clarify rule 10(c) came up later on the agenda.
The first silliness came from the reliably clueless Councilmember Dickie Change who attacked Bynum by saying that at the June 3 meeting, when County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo stifled discussion of the non-agendaed item as a sunshine law violation, councilmember Jay Furfaro had moved to defer the matter but no one seconded it
“I was shocked no one seconded it” Chang said using hindsight to tell Bynum he had the opportunity to put it on a future agenda right there even though the motive for the request for deferral was unknown at that moment- and because a motion for deferral ends discussion.
Chang seemingly either forget or wasn’t aware that as a councilmember he could have seconded it himself.
The mouth, if not brain-engaged Chang then indicated that he was now going to oppose the resolution that he co-introduced with Furfaro saying it wasn’t really “the 360” it appeared to be, forgetting to stop ay 180 and indicating that the audience wasn’t the only one getting dizzy with all the spinning.
Then it was time for Asing to issue the first of his lip-service repetitions of a statement he made on July 22nd saying that “the chair does not have absolute power” despite the fact that he had exercised such by routinely stopping Bynum and other members from placing matters on the agenda- something Bynum has documented at his kauaiinfo.org web site with the actual memos sent to Asing.
“Pay attention to what I say, not what I do” Asing had admitted refusing to place matters on the agenda while denying it in the same breath at the 22nd – as PNN reported last week- and again later during Wednesday’s meeting.
Asing glared at Bynum and called Bynum’s well documented problems with agenda placement “manufactured problems” stating with palms raised “I don’t understand- where did it come from?”.
Next Kawahara made a statement that would be butchered, misquoted and used to attack her by Kaneshiro and Kawakami later in the meeting, saying to Asing that changes in the rules “that were actually brought up to you in the six months I’ve been here” but were not given a place on the agenda.
During the discussion of the rule change itself Kaneshiro would be adamant in heatedly accusing Kawahara over and over of lying by saying she personally had sent memos asking to introduce measures even though she said no such thing.
But the issue of the ad hoc committee was what was actually on the table and there were real problems with the idea- problems that became clear when one of the proposed members, former council chair Ron Kouchi, spoke.
After saying he might have a “perceived conflict of interest” since his employer has a bill coming up on the council’s agenda, he pointed out that the committee would need council staff time and therefore have to direct staff- something he said non-members would have all sorts of difficulty doing.
He said in the past such committees and “task forces’ always had one or two councilmembers to direct staff.
That led to some discussion by Kaneshiro and others regarding the possibility of putting a resolution on a future agenda to form a committee with up to the two councilmembers- the number sunshine law allows to communicate on council matters- to study the rules although there was no real commitment to do so.
The resolution was then "received" by a 4-3 vote with Furfaro- if not Chang- supporting his own resolution along with Bynum and Kawahara.
But the show was just beginning and after lunch the fireworks were lit when the actual rule change resolution- one to clarify that rule 10(c) couldn’t be used by the chair to keep items off the agenda indefinitely - came to the floor.
The change seemed simple and straightforward enough but again Kaneshiro quickly moved to receive and kill the resolution and it was quickly seconded by Kawakami as the script apparently called for.
Kawakami again brought up rule 15(c) repeatedly calling it an “alternative mechanism” for placing things on the agenda even though the measure would then require a 2/3 vote to go foreword.
Bynum tried to calmly explain- as if anyone could forget- all the hassle he had when he tried to get something on the agenda that way and Kawahara reiterated that a 2/3 vote certainly was a “different level” of support that needed to be met and wasn’t “equal” to the simple rule 10(c) which guarantees councilmembers the basic right of a representative in a democracy- to introduce measures for the agenda.
Then it was Kawakami’s time to shine and show his stuff to any good old boys who might have doubted his ability to get down and dirty by defending Asing and the status quo- a very important skill in their eyes and a trial by fire that many sycophants have had to endure to be accepted into the club.
He and Kaneshiro then lit into Kawahara over and over with the ‘you said you had submitted things for the agenda” which of course she didn’t say- and was of course a distraction from the self evident story that has been told over and over about Bynum’s well documented two and a half year quest for democracy... one that everyone had witnessed since June 3 when the two month plus circus of attempting to get the rule change on the agenda began.
Bynum then tried to refocus back on the issue at hand reading the rules and trying to again briefly recap the hassles he’s had even trying to get something on the agenda, even through the 2/3 vote method.
He then called for Castillo to come up so he could ask him if it’s even possible to use the 15)c) “alternative mechanism” since it was Castillo who had said everything he tried to do on June 3 violated the sunshine law because it wasn’t on the agenda- a catch-22 PNN has described in detail over the past couple of months .
Bynum asked simply “can a councilmember make a motion to put something on a future agenda”.
But Castillo hemmed and hawed and eventually refused to answer him, even reverting back to the bad old days of former CA’s who requested everything be put in writing, saying he needed a “specific set of facts” to “make a ruling”.
Then it was time for Asing to repeat his “the chair does not have absolute power” line adding “I don’t believe one person should have that power”.
And of course Kaneshiro, Kawakami and Chang agreed with that and praised Asing for saying- if not doing- it. They also agreed that there was no problem since the chair had said it so it must be true.
And why change the rule if there was no problem they reasoned, acting as if the last two months had never happened and they hadn’t read the documents or heard the testimony.
That was when Asing had his own meltdown trying to say that he had never blocked anything from the agenda at the same time as admitting it had happened quite a few times.
Some of the back and forth exchanges were priceless. At one point Bynum asked Asing “didn’t you tell me you wouldn’t put (a resolution) on the agenda”.
Asing screamed “no!” before giving an excuse as to why he didn’t put it on the agenda.
Another time Asing denied blocking Bynum’s Po`ipu Beach Erosion Study bill which, at the July 22nd meeting, Asing had admitted he had blocked.
And when Bynum finally asked Asing if he had blocked the very resolution that was on the table- the one Bynum and Kawahara had fought for two months to get placed on the agenda- Asing, after having debated for ten minutes, finally said “I’m not going to get into a debate”.
In previous meetings former councilpersons JoAnn Yukimura and Mel Rapozo had testified that they also had the experience of having bills refused agenda placement but when Bynum tried to say that, Asing yelled “that’s an accusation”- something that made no sense (of course it was) and something he’s done before when cornered.
First Asing countered the Yukimura denial by talking about a bill that she wanted to introduce that, he said, had not been “cleared by the county attorney” and admitting that he blocked the bill- vowing he’d do it again if it hadn’t been run by the CA.
But Bynum said that he had forgotten about that bill but what he was really talking about was that Yukimura had tried to introduce a resolution opposing the Superferry coming to Kaua`i without an EIS and Asing refused to put it on the agenda because it was “too controversial”.
That caused the clueless Chang to agree with Asing’s decision saying “I can see the reason why the chair would not put that on the agenda” mentioning the controversy in the community at the time and citing the convention hall debacle with the governor being shouted down.
All this of course should have been enough to indicate that the rules needed clarification but led by Kawakami the three “D’s”- Derek, Dickie and Darryl- each said they personally had never had any problem placing matters on the agenda so there didn’t seem to be any problem with the rules.
Finally, in the ultimate “are you going to believe me or your lyin’ eyes” statement, Kawakami said told the council that “nothing (in the rules) gives the chair that kind of power (to refuse agenda placement)... the rules in place, properly applied, work just fine”, completely ignoring that the rules had very apparently not been “properly applied” and the resolution sought to clarify them so they would be.
Finally to no one’s surprise despite the fact that, as Bynum said, “there has been a problem- that’s as clear as a bell”, the resolution was “received” by a 4-3 vote with Furfaro joining Bynum and Kawahara in voting against the move to kill the rule change and Kaipo and the three D’s standing together in the same majority that put Asing in the council chair last December.
In case we haven’t done a good enough job in conveying the “through the looking glass” tone of the whole meeting, we’ve taken the opportunity sum it up with a re-write of the psychedelic Carrollian favorite, “White Rabbit” by the Jefferson Airplane.
***************
One bill makes him shudder and
Another makes you bawl
And the one the chair initials
Don’t do anything at all.
Ask Peter when he’s 10 feet tall.
And if you go chasing minutes
And you see them in the hall
Tell ‘em a reso-toting Minotaur
Has told you, “you’ve got gall”
Call Dickie when he was just small,
When men who rule on ethics
Get up and tell you they don’t know
And you’ve just missed weeks of email
And your mind can’t grasp it all
Ask Kaipo- I think he’ll know
When logic and proportion
Are received and, now they’re dead
And Darryl’s shredding Roberts
And Derek’s knocking head’s
Remember what the old boys said
Stay in bed
We’re all in bed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
