MORE MONKEYS, LESS WEASELS: As we first reported last Monday the magical "Recusalgate" transformation of one Foster Ducker from selector to candidate for the vacated 14th District State House Seat vacated by Mina Morita, finally got the Leo Azumbuja treatment Sunday in the local newspaper, providing a series of the usual half-assed factoids (Factoid: Did you know that a factoid is not really a fact?), unresearched pronouncements and irrelevant quotes and citations.
But one quote did catch our eye describing the prestidigitation involved in Ducker's metamorphosis:
“It came a little bit out of the left field for me,” he said. “I was sitting in the selection committee and all of a sudden I was sitting in front of the selection committee.”
Yup, he was just sitting there minding his own business and, as if in a dream, "all of a sudden" he replaced Morita's choice for replacement, Joel Guy who has been the presumed replacement.
That of course made room for the golden boy Derek Kawakami to follow his ancestral destiny. Gee, why would anyone claim that the the whole process has the smell of a backroom deal?
The problem is that when it comes to conflicts of interest it becomes hard to see the forest for your own personal tree.
For the Democratic Party it looked like a matter of their rules for recusals, according to Azumbuja's mish-mosh which quoted our friend District 14 Democratic Party Chair, Susan Wilson, as saying:
“Do you know what the rule is on the council?” she said. “The rule on the council is you just say, ‘Gosh I have a conflict of interest,’ and then you’re allowed to vote on it.”
Of course Wilson- and Azumbuja- obviously missed the 2008 County Charter amendment which modified the Code of Ethics' Section 20.04D, Disclosure, to say, in relevant part
Any elected official, appointed officer, employee, or any member of a board or commission who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority... shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.
So, we decided to drop Wilson an email setting the record straight.
But Wilson was more interested in setting the record straight on the reason why Ducker was permitted to run and vote despite the conflict of interest, since, as is the usual complaint about Azumbuja, she was haphazardly quoted.
We agreed to let Wilson have her say so here's what she wrote- in full- about the situation. See ya on the other side.
State of Hawaii Democratic Party Constitution does not require recusal, but I think at its next state convention the issue could be worth discussion again. Right away, in mid February, I posed the recusal question to the Democratic Party Central committee. An answer came back from a central committee member. In essence it was, with so few registered democratic voters coming forward to hold precinct offices all over the state it was advised precedent has been inclusion rather than the opposite. In the specifics of District 14, I welcomed that answer as I needed full district council member participation on all levels of what I hoped would be a serious process. For example there is only one precinct officer in one of district 14's biggest precincts. If he would have decided to be a candidate and recusal was required about 400 or so registered democrats in his precinct would have had no vote at the table. Likewise, at one point two district council members were considering throwing their names in the pot. Again, I looked to the Party's core value and was comfortable with precedent. All council members were in accordance, and we are a council of eight. I then took it a step further and set up a very fair leveling voting procedure. What came out of this process was a standard of civic involvement worthy of emulation. And, yes, Foster Ducker participated in the voting. And, yes, he did become one of the three names forwarded on to the governor as one of District14 Council choices for the governor to consider for appointment. Our council did not have the power of appointment. And, yes, one candidate who seemingly had considerable headwind coming in was not chosen to move forward. I have no idea who voted for who. It was a secret ballot. Three clear winners were chosen on the first ballot. And, yes, a candidate who supposedly was favored by our former Representative to take over her unfilled position, even before the process had started, did not move forward. I'd say what happened was anything but politics as usual. It was democracy in action. And, finally, grace in defeat, is a sign of maturity and leadership.
It's not like Wilson would be the first to miss what the problematic part is in your typical "conflict of interest." Certainly some of the recent appointments of Governor Neil Abercrombie have raised eyebrows when big contributors and campaign leaders received nods for various positions. And when it comes to the champion of cronyism, our own warbling Warrior, Mayor Bernard Carvalho, few can hold a candle to his penchant for promoting his pals.
What they all seem to miss is that any conflict of interest is anathema to good governance way before it ever leads to corruption.
It's the very potential for that "tit for tat" and "quid pro quo" that raises the hackles of voters leaving the perception of the opportunity for wrongdoing to appear to be the reality of illicit dealings.
The potential conflict of interest is an actual conflict of interest. Appointees should not come prepackaged with baggage that causes people to roll their eyes and shake their heads back and forth. Rather they should be like Caesar's wife... beyond reproach.
The message from the good governance community is that if your laws- or rules- allow conflicts of interest to be, not just the exception but, the norm perhaps it's time to change that rule.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, April 4, 2011
Saturday, June 21, 2008
MARKING THEIR TERRITORY
MARKING THEIR TERRITORY: Even from a sick bed Mayor Bryan Baptiste never forgets that his prime directive is to grease the skids of cronyism and maintain and bolster Grove Farm’s positioning within County government.
The utter lack of any ethics on the Kaua`i Ethics Board has been a well- mined cesspool for months ever since Grove Farm honcho Mark Hubbard and other clueless Board members decided that no one has to follow the ethics laws anymore because it would make it hard for Hubbard and others on the Board to personally violate the clear laws that forbid them from representing their company before the County while serving on a board or commission.
Chair Hubbard’s Board actually cleared Attorney Jonathan Chun of double-dealing, influence-peddling, conflict-of-interest type charges after Chun successfully lobbied for months before the Council for the Board of Realtors while Chairing the Charter Commission.
Now at Hubbard’s request the quid pro quo is working it’s magic as the Charter Commission is considering chucking the ethics laws in the ocean if Chun can slip it by first the Commissions and then the unsuspecting voters this November.
For those who might have missed it we’ve covered one two three four five times in the past six months the shameless ways Board members have refused with impunity to enforce the laws because the only remedy to the Ethics Board members’ own ethics violations is, quite conveniently, to go before the Ethics Board. We’ve highlighted the take by the local newspaper’s last columnist standing Walter Lewis, and government watchdog extraordinaire Horace Stoessel through essays published printed here and in the paper.
And we covered the revolving door and pick a pack of pickled posers hierarchy of the corrupt corporate revolving door.
Now this week we get news that Baptiste has submitted the name of a potential new member of the Ethics Board which is up which is for Council approval. And guess what? It’s just happens to be the wife of a former Finance Department Director who took a ride half-way through the County’s revolving door to become a Grove Farm Vice President a while back.
Toward the end of the agenda for next Wednesday’s Council meeting is this little tidbit.
Resolution No. 2008-29, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS (Christiane Nakea-Tresler-First Term)
For those who may not recognize the name she is the wife of former Finance Director Mike Tressler who turned five years of government work into essentially a lobbying job as Grove Farm’s VP in charge of development.
Tressler- the “other” football star in Baptiste’s hui of half-wits and hubris- was a key sycophant in some of the shady book cooking that led to charges of overspending at KPD and was the one who conveniently used a provision allowing him as Finance Director, to nullify contracts, to cancel the employment contract of former Police Chief KC Lum while he was under fire from all sides for not being Darryl Perry.
And he did it despite the fact that the law specifically excludes personnel contracts from his purview. Tressler was also a key supporter and campaign worker on Baptiste’s first run for Mayor.
Did we expect anything else from Baptiste?. Certainly not. Nor do we expect anyone to show up to object when the Council approves her without a peep? Yeah, right.
Even if they hold an interview it won’t be televised because they have to leave more grip and grin time to give all those awards and certificates to every sewing circle, book review and timing association and embarrass every kid on every team that ever came in higher than eight place in a nine team league and cablecast it all with full captioning... all the while putting the kibosh on TV for prospective commissioners and board members and budget hearing every year... a problem that was not apparently remedied in this year’s budget despite promises to the contrary.
After having all their solicitors and supplicants cleared of ethics violations the Council and Mayor know who butters their bread and if they can stack the Ethics Board with those who won’t find their abominable ethics unacceptable they’ve got a get out of jail free card to play plantation monopoly and make sure they’re allowed to slip Grove Farm’s new development plan into the County’s General Plan, as they’ve planned.
Come on guys- at least make a genuine attempt to obscure what you’re doing- make our work a little more challenging.
The utter lack of any ethics on the Kaua`i Ethics Board has been a well- mined cesspool for months ever since Grove Farm honcho Mark Hubbard and other clueless Board members decided that no one has to follow the ethics laws anymore because it would make it hard for Hubbard and others on the Board to personally violate the clear laws that forbid them from representing their company before the County while serving on a board or commission.
Chair Hubbard’s Board actually cleared Attorney Jonathan Chun of double-dealing, influence-peddling, conflict-of-interest type charges after Chun successfully lobbied for months before the Council for the Board of Realtors while Chairing the Charter Commission.
Now at Hubbard’s request the quid pro quo is working it’s magic as the Charter Commission is considering chucking the ethics laws in the ocean if Chun can slip it by first the Commissions and then the unsuspecting voters this November.
For those who might have missed it we’ve covered one two three four five times in the past six months the shameless ways Board members have refused with impunity to enforce the laws because the only remedy to the Ethics Board members’ own ethics violations is, quite conveniently, to go before the Ethics Board. We’ve highlighted the take by the local newspaper’s last columnist standing Walter Lewis, and government watchdog extraordinaire Horace Stoessel through essays published printed here and in the paper.
And we covered the revolving door and pick a pack of pickled posers hierarchy of the corrupt corporate revolving door.
Now this week we get news that Baptiste has submitted the name of a potential new member of the Ethics Board which is up which is for Council approval. And guess what? It’s just happens to be the wife of a former Finance Department Director who took a ride half-way through the County’s revolving door to become a Grove Farm Vice President a while back.
Toward the end of the agenda for next Wednesday’s Council meeting is this little tidbit.
Resolution No. 2008-29, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS (Christiane Nakea-Tresler-First Term)
For those who may not recognize the name she is the wife of former Finance Director Mike Tressler who turned five years of government work into essentially a lobbying job as Grove Farm’s VP in charge of development.
Tressler- the “other” football star in Baptiste’s hui of half-wits and hubris- was a key sycophant in some of the shady book cooking that led to charges of overspending at KPD and was the one who conveniently used a provision allowing him as Finance Director, to nullify contracts, to cancel the employment contract of former Police Chief KC Lum while he was under fire from all sides for not being Darryl Perry.
And he did it despite the fact that the law specifically excludes personnel contracts from his purview. Tressler was also a key supporter and campaign worker on Baptiste’s first run for Mayor.
Did we expect anything else from Baptiste?. Certainly not. Nor do we expect anyone to show up to object when the Council approves her without a peep? Yeah, right.
Even if they hold an interview it won’t be televised because they have to leave more grip and grin time to give all those awards and certificates to every sewing circle, book review and timing association and embarrass every kid on every team that ever came in higher than eight place in a nine team league and cablecast it all with full captioning... all the while putting the kibosh on TV for prospective commissioners and board members and budget hearing every year... a problem that was not apparently remedied in this year’s budget despite promises to the contrary.
After having all their solicitors and supplicants cleared of ethics violations the Council and Mayor know who butters their bread and if they can stack the Ethics Board with those who won’t find their abominable ethics unacceptable they’ve got a get out of jail free card to play plantation monopoly and make sure they’re allowed to slip Grove Farm’s new development plan into the County’s General Plan, as they’ve planned.
Come on guys- at least make a genuine attempt to obscure what you’re doing- make our work a little more challenging.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
DAWG, YOU GOTTA CARRY THAT WEIGHT
DAWG, YOU GOTTA CARRY THAT WEIGHT: One has to wonder whether this is now being done on purpose or whether Tom Iannucci is just lacks all judgment and discretion.
Another rant from the head of the Police Commission appears in today’s paper replete with a similar tone to, and the type of ridicule you’d expect from, some crazy rabid reporter but not from the top civilian official in the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD).
Whatever one thinks of Juan Wilson’s research or the points he makes in trying to get KPD to consider community policing policies and possibly get officers out of their cars, Iannucci seemingly doesn’t want to discuss anything. Apparently his new “style” is to just ridicule Wilson personally rather than actually argue the points of community policing and it’s applicability to Kaua`i.
Iannucci seems to have fun trying to make his points by using condescending and patronizing ridicule of Wilson personally with such ditties as:
“I appreciate your attempt to”,
“Nice attempt, but it just doesn’t work.”.
“So which Kansas City were you relating us to?”
“That’s why they have the little blue lights on the tops of their cars, with the little “woo woo” sound”,
“Look, here is the reality”
ending with
“It seems like you just got a problem with KPD and this is the real issue. After all the fuss, Wilson, I hope you are driving in an electric cart, or riding a horse yourself. That would only be right.”
But even when it comes to the subject at hand he argues against getting officers out on foot, bike, horse or even Segway by ridiculing anyone he can who would suggest that this is even possible in what he claims is a totally rural area.
His silly, non-analogous, un-visionary professings include such drivel as
Hey, I’m all for the Mayberry RFD lifestyle, where you, me, Barney Fife and Sheriff Andy are strolling down Rice Street talking about the Friday night football game and we stop by Aunt Bee’s house for some apple pie, or Portuguese bean soup. Where the biggest problem the town is facing is that Opey is cutting class to go fishing and they have a town drunk. I want that, Wilson, but the reality is, it’s not where we are at, nor does anyone believe we’re at that place either.
and
Your “Harvard” sociologist police officer, who wrote a book, is just one of over 800,000 officers across our country. Writing a book and going to Harvard does not make one an “expert” by any means.
Iannucci’s “can’t do” attitude seem to preclude all use of non-vehicular policing. His only true argument that addresses the issue is this:
Kaua‘i is a rural and very spread out island. We simply don’t have the manpower or the finances to support one or two officers per neighborhood, per shift, per week, island-wide with substations and equipment. But you’re more than welcome to petition the mayor or the County Council about your request.
Either Iannucci is the most disingenuous person on the island or he doesn’t get out much. Maybe he’s never been to the strip malls and towns, the shopping complexes and beach areas where bikes or horses might be appropriate since, looking that the police blotter, half of the crime seems to takes place in these areas.
How about putting a little thought into it Tom? Are you telling us it’s impossible to include bikes and electric cart patrols in our core areas? Are you saying it’s impractical to have daytime patrols in the makai areas say between Kawaihau Road and Lydgate Park patrolling the streets and beaches rather than doing the current drive-bys? How about the Lihu`e area from the hospital down to the airport up Rice Street and maybe over to Kukui Grove?
Only an idiot would think that we need to have a walking patrol up and down Papalina and Waha and over to Kua road in Kalaheo or put someone on a Segway up Olohena across Kamalu and down to Wailua.
But guess what- to conflate the idea of doing it where people congregate daily with putting an officer on foot atop Wai`ale`ale is just as idiotic- and besides making up such wild misrepresentational projections is OUR job Tom.
In dismissing the getting-out-of-the-car idea entirely, Iannucci has us laughing at him, not Wilson by putting up any straw man in a storm rather than trying to look at the places where community policing might make sense- yes Tom, like through Hanapepe town and down to Salt Pond up to ‘Ele`ele and down to Port Allen.
The Password today Tom is Disingenuity- when you say you’re
“wondering if the beat cop can make it from Salt Pond to Hanapepe Heights in time to stop a fight or a robbery”
you don’t mention of course that the same officer in a patrol car could be in Waimea when he gets the call and take even longer.
Or that the officer could be actually sitting there witnessing the car break-in or mugging without drawing attention to himself through the presence his police cruiser. Those examinations of the logistics of patrolling are the same whether you’re on foot on bike or in a car in that each has advantages and disadvantages.
But it is obviously easier to make up absurdities based on the worst way to distribute resources such as riding a Segway up the Hanapepe- Ele`ele hill instead of thinking about innovative ways to make better use of our policing resources.
Would it take that much to equip some patrol cars to carry bikes and get officers out of them when they’re not responding to calls from the boonies? Or is that too hard to imagine Tom- does it huwt yaw widdle bwane to try to figure out how to do it?
You apparently strained your neurons to the breaking point to figure out all the misrepresentations and excuses in the world for not even considering where community policing might be appropriate. It might not be appropriate.
But you’d never know due to your rejection of the concept out of hand which is even more dismaying than the dismissive, pejorative and downright disrespectful attitude you display in dealing with the suggestions from someone you are supposed to represent in sitting on the Police Commission..
People expect broad brush spoofing derision, scorn and mirth out of this mangy mutt. But we don’t expect either the attitude nor the disingenuous distractions and misrepresentation from the top civilian official in our the paramilitary operation of our police force.
I hear they’re selling clues down in town Tom - maybe you need to get out of your car, climb in the bathroom window and trade in some of that Viagra for one. Or quit the police department and get yourself a steady job... like blogging.
Another rant from the head of the Police Commission appears in today’s paper replete with a similar tone to, and the type of ridicule you’d expect from, some crazy rabid reporter but not from the top civilian official in the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD).
Whatever one thinks of Juan Wilson’s research or the points he makes in trying to get KPD to consider community policing policies and possibly get officers out of their cars, Iannucci seemingly doesn’t want to discuss anything. Apparently his new “style” is to just ridicule Wilson personally rather than actually argue the points of community policing and it’s applicability to Kaua`i.
Iannucci seems to have fun trying to make his points by using condescending and patronizing ridicule of Wilson personally with such ditties as:
“I appreciate your attempt to”,
“Nice attempt, but it just doesn’t work.”.
“So which Kansas City were you relating us to?”
“That’s why they have the little blue lights on the tops of their cars, with the little “woo woo” sound”,
“Look, here is the reality”
ending with
“It seems like you just got a problem with KPD and this is the real issue. After all the fuss, Wilson, I hope you are driving in an electric cart, or riding a horse yourself. That would only be right.”
But even when it comes to the subject at hand he argues against getting officers out on foot, bike, horse or even Segway by ridiculing anyone he can who would suggest that this is even possible in what he claims is a totally rural area.
His silly, non-analogous, un-visionary professings include such drivel as
Hey, I’m all for the Mayberry RFD lifestyle, where you, me, Barney Fife and Sheriff Andy are strolling down Rice Street talking about the Friday night football game and we stop by Aunt Bee’s house for some apple pie, or Portuguese bean soup. Where the biggest problem the town is facing is that Opey is cutting class to go fishing and they have a town drunk. I want that, Wilson, but the reality is, it’s not where we are at, nor does anyone believe we’re at that place either.
and
Your “Harvard” sociologist police officer, who wrote a book, is just one of over 800,000 officers across our country. Writing a book and going to Harvard does not make one an “expert” by any means.
Iannucci’s “can’t do” attitude seem to preclude all use of non-vehicular policing. His only true argument that addresses the issue is this:
Kaua‘i is a rural and very spread out island. We simply don’t have the manpower or the finances to support one or two officers per neighborhood, per shift, per week, island-wide with substations and equipment. But you’re more than welcome to petition the mayor or the County Council about your request.
Either Iannucci is the most disingenuous person on the island or he doesn’t get out much. Maybe he’s never been to the strip malls and towns, the shopping complexes and beach areas where bikes or horses might be appropriate since, looking that the police blotter, half of the crime seems to takes place in these areas.
How about putting a little thought into it Tom? Are you telling us it’s impossible to include bikes and electric cart patrols in our core areas? Are you saying it’s impractical to have daytime patrols in the makai areas say between Kawaihau Road and Lydgate Park patrolling the streets and beaches rather than doing the current drive-bys? How about the Lihu`e area from the hospital down to the airport up Rice Street and maybe over to Kukui Grove?
Only an idiot would think that we need to have a walking patrol up and down Papalina and Waha and over to Kua road in Kalaheo or put someone on a Segway up Olohena across Kamalu and down to Wailua.
But guess what- to conflate the idea of doing it where people congregate daily with putting an officer on foot atop Wai`ale`ale is just as idiotic- and besides making up such wild misrepresentational projections is OUR job Tom.
In dismissing the getting-out-of-the-car idea entirely, Iannucci has us laughing at him, not Wilson by putting up any straw man in a storm rather than trying to look at the places where community policing might make sense- yes Tom, like through Hanapepe town and down to Salt Pond up to ‘Ele`ele and down to Port Allen.
The Password today Tom is Disingenuity- when you say you’re
“wondering if the beat cop can make it from Salt Pond to Hanapepe Heights in time to stop a fight or a robbery”
you don’t mention of course that the same officer in a patrol car could be in Waimea when he gets the call and take even longer.
Or that the officer could be actually sitting there witnessing the car break-in or mugging without drawing attention to himself through the presence his police cruiser. Those examinations of the logistics of patrolling are the same whether you’re on foot on bike or in a car in that each has advantages and disadvantages.
But it is obviously easier to make up absurdities based on the worst way to distribute resources such as riding a Segway up the Hanapepe- Ele`ele hill instead of thinking about innovative ways to make better use of our policing resources.
Would it take that much to equip some patrol cars to carry bikes and get officers out of them when they’re not responding to calls from the boonies? Or is that too hard to imagine Tom- does it huwt yaw widdle bwane to try to figure out how to do it?
You apparently strained your neurons to the breaking point to figure out all the misrepresentations and excuses in the world for not even considering where community policing might be appropriate. It might not be appropriate.
But you’d never know due to your rejection of the concept out of hand which is even more dismaying than the dismissive, pejorative and downright disrespectful attitude you display in dealing with the suggestions from someone you are supposed to represent in sitting on the Police Commission..
People expect broad brush spoofing derision, scorn and mirth out of this mangy mutt. But we don’t expect either the attitude nor the disingenuous distractions and misrepresentation from the top civilian official in our the paramilitary operation of our police force.
I hear they’re selling clues down in town Tom - maybe you need to get out of your car, climb in the bathroom window and trade in some of that Viagra for one. Or quit the police department and get yourself a steady job... like blogging.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
DUCK HUNTER
DUCK HUNTER: Perhaps we should be listening to the sunrise symphony every morning instead of rolling over because today Joan Conrow heard one of those little birdies and reports that we can look forward to another dot-connecting report from Derrick DePledge in case any spatially challenged among us hasn’t been able to draw the smoking gun in the Lingle-Bennett cover-up of illegal deeds and political shenanigans in the ramming of the Hawai`i Superferry up- er, down- our throats.
The focus is on the public release of public legal opinions from attorney General Mark Bennett which despite an Office of Information Practices (OIP) opinion dating back 17 years requiring them to be released, are still being withheld using an absurdly inapplicable umbrella of “attorney-client privilege” to flout the law- a law that, according to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) the Attorney General is supposed to enforce.
The fact is that there are dual functions performed by government attorneys by definition. The first is to give government officials advice on public policy. The other is to advise them on personal liability for their actions in the case of potential malfeasance, malpractice and the like.
(Parenthetically there is also the function of advising them on lawsuits and the like where the official must hear confidential matter involving litigation, usually in executive session for legislators. But that is a separate category where there is an “exemption” to open meeting requirements, along with a list of seven more exempt circumstances under HRS 92-5[a] [1-8]).
When a government official needs an opinion on public policy from their lawyer- in the case of Kaua`i, the County Attorney’s (CA) office but on other islands from their “Corporation Consul” and in the state’s case the AG- they ask and if they’re lucky they receive that opinion.
But recently there has been a trend- one picked up upon by the apparently shyster Bennett- to call into the mix this “attorney-client” privilege.
Believe it or not this lawyerly convolution came from little dumb Kaua`i County although, as one might expect it was devised by a shrewd Honolulu attorney hired to be the Kaua`i County Attorney in 2002, Lani Nakazawa.
Seems that new Council Chair at the time Kaipo Asing was getting fed up with being questioned as to his performance as a long time council-person and worse, people were using “his” (in his eyes) own CA’s opinions to point out what dumb and even illegal decisions he and he council were making.
“Even your own attorney says you are a _______ (fill-in the blank with schmuck, crook, idiot or worse)” the pubic screamed in the newspapers and on TV to councilmembers’ faces at Council meetings.
But the Sunshine law was and is quite clear in it’s intent saying public policy is to be conducted publicly and that was always to be construed toward openness in the most liberal way possible.
So Nakazawa realized a couple of things
The first was that that the OIP is a toothless tiger and it doesn’t matter what it opines, we can do whatever we want and there is no mechanism for them to enforce their opinions.
And two that just because previously no one- including the law itself- ever contemplated that anyone would try to essentially say there was no such thing as public policy and so everything imaginable could be a secret, it didn’t mean she couldn’t contemplate it.
And so she made a bizarre legal claim, one no previous CA had ever contemplated according to two of them, Mike Belles who would never do it on an ethical basis and even Hartwell Blake who probably would have done it if he were bright enough to think of it.
She claimed that the attorney-client privilege we’ve all heard of applied to every interaction between a government official and the CA’s office, with the government official being the client.
This ignores of course that problem that if the public official is making an inquiry as regards public policy it is the PUBLIC that is the ultimate client. Otherwise it would be the politician part of the official not the public policy decisions maker that wanted the advice and that is clearly an abuse of power and the retaining of a special privilege in violation of all ethics laws since their campaign should pay for that- or in the case of an administration official, a part of their job-seeking and retention expenses.
But ethics is not a popular word in Asing’s dictionary. If it’s used at all it’s in toeing, ignoring or, if necessary, obliterating the ethical line.
And that was apparently true of his chief ally on this issue the two faced JoAnn Yukimura who constantly claims to be a champion of open government but has bought this little legal turd as divinely inspired to negate any questions of how a council member reached a decision in any controversial case.
What a boon for those who have to make the public happy in order to get reelected. “I had to make the decision I made but I can’t tell you why because that would violate attorney client privilege.”
It’s all very Star-Chamber stuff . But on Kaua`i Asing and Yukimura pass for the intelligencia and many, especially the press like Lester Chang bought the gobbledy gook and regurgitated it to the public in the local paper..
Except for the fact that, if you do buy this cock and bull, you have to question whether,. since it’s the “client” whose “privilege” is covered why doesn’t the client just release it?
It took months for them to come up with this one, as people like Glenn Mickens and Ken Taylor and Walter Lewis asked it to no response.
But when dumb-as-a-rock Councilmember Tim Bynum – like the idiot child who asked why the Emperor had no clothes- said he wanted to release them they told him he couldn’t because it was the whole Council who was now the client.
And when he tried to get the Council to release the opinions they told him they couldn’t because they had no “process” in place to release them- this despite the fact that they had voted to release some of them when it suited them politically since this scheme had been imagineered by Nakazawa and Asing.
According to the sunshine law all it would take would be to file a case in 5th Circuit Court to end this nonsense. But as of now no one can even get an opinion from the OIP to appeal since they fired firebrand Les Kondo as Director because he was working on this very case and replaced him with the usual gang of foot-and-knuckle-draggers afraid of their shadows .
And the problems with going to Court are multifaceted, not the least of which being finding a lawyer on Kaua`i who would take the case and risk pissing off the Council which rules on development issues... since all Kaua`i attorneys either work for or want to work for Wanton Hong or Max Graham who split up all the development shilling on the island. Or they might want to work for the government and of course suing the government wouldn’t do much for their résumé in that case either.
Plus going to court means that everything stops and the whole matter is placed on the interminable civil case calendar, typically taking years to even come before a judge for a decision.
But you would think that, since court costs are guaranteed in these “Sunshine” cases by law if you win the case, there would be an industrious lawyer making a cottage industry out of lawyering OIP and CA opinions.
But it turns out it’s like the old joke about the farmer and the hunter and the duck. The hunter shoots the duck and it lands in the farmer’s yard. They argue over whose duck it is for a while and the farmer proposes that they take turns kicking each other in the crotch until one of them gives up. The farmer goes first since he’s holding the duck and after the hunter spends a ten minutes on the ground writhing in pain he gets up and says “OK- it’s my turn”.
To which the farmer say “that’s ok- you can have the duck”.
And that’s been the situation with winning Sunshine law cases in court. What anyone who has tried that has found out is that you can spend months, even years, trying to get a document or some minutes and by the time the judge is ready to rule, the information sought has become so moot or outdated that the morning of the trial the County comes in and says “ok- you can have the duck” and hands over the document.
Then the now useless document technically wasn’t given to you because you “won” the case, they gave it up voluntarily. So the lawyer doesn’t get paid for hundreds of hours of work..
No one ever heard this of this business of applying attorney client privilege to public policy opinions before and maybe Bennett and his cohorts- even Lingle herself- figured this out this scam on their own. But our hearts swell with pride in thinking that this scam originated on stumble-bum Kaua`i, giving us hicks some prestige in having our big city cousins adopt a method of screwing the public that we came up with.
The focus is on the public release of public legal opinions from attorney General Mark Bennett which despite an Office of Information Practices (OIP) opinion dating back 17 years requiring them to be released, are still being withheld using an absurdly inapplicable umbrella of “attorney-client privilege” to flout the law- a law that, according to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) the Attorney General is supposed to enforce.
The fact is that there are dual functions performed by government attorneys by definition. The first is to give government officials advice on public policy. The other is to advise them on personal liability for their actions in the case of potential malfeasance, malpractice and the like.
(Parenthetically there is also the function of advising them on lawsuits and the like where the official must hear confidential matter involving litigation, usually in executive session for legislators. But that is a separate category where there is an “exemption” to open meeting requirements, along with a list of seven more exempt circumstances under HRS 92-5[a] [1-8]).
When a government official needs an opinion on public policy from their lawyer- in the case of Kaua`i, the County Attorney’s (CA) office but on other islands from their “Corporation Consul” and in the state’s case the AG- they ask and if they’re lucky they receive that opinion.
But recently there has been a trend- one picked up upon by the apparently shyster Bennett- to call into the mix this “attorney-client” privilege.
Believe it or not this lawyerly convolution came from little dumb Kaua`i County although, as one might expect it was devised by a shrewd Honolulu attorney hired to be the Kaua`i County Attorney in 2002, Lani Nakazawa.
Seems that new Council Chair at the time Kaipo Asing was getting fed up with being questioned as to his performance as a long time council-person and worse, people were using “his” (in his eyes) own CA’s opinions to point out what dumb and even illegal decisions he and he council were making.
“Even your own attorney says you are a _______ (fill-in the blank with schmuck, crook, idiot or worse)” the pubic screamed in the newspapers and on TV to councilmembers’ faces at Council meetings.
But the Sunshine law was and is quite clear in it’s intent saying public policy is to be conducted publicly and that was always to be construed toward openness in the most liberal way possible.
So Nakazawa realized a couple of things
The first was that that the OIP is a toothless tiger and it doesn’t matter what it opines, we can do whatever we want and there is no mechanism for them to enforce their opinions.
And two that just because previously no one- including the law itself- ever contemplated that anyone would try to essentially say there was no such thing as public policy and so everything imaginable could be a secret, it didn’t mean she couldn’t contemplate it.
And so she made a bizarre legal claim, one no previous CA had ever contemplated according to two of them, Mike Belles who would never do it on an ethical basis and even Hartwell Blake who probably would have done it if he were bright enough to think of it.
She claimed that the attorney-client privilege we’ve all heard of applied to every interaction between a government official and the CA’s office, with the government official being the client.
This ignores of course that problem that if the public official is making an inquiry as regards public policy it is the PUBLIC that is the ultimate client. Otherwise it would be the politician part of the official not the public policy decisions maker that wanted the advice and that is clearly an abuse of power and the retaining of a special privilege in violation of all ethics laws since their campaign should pay for that- or in the case of an administration official, a part of their job-seeking and retention expenses.
But ethics is not a popular word in Asing’s dictionary. If it’s used at all it’s in toeing, ignoring or, if necessary, obliterating the ethical line.
And that was apparently true of his chief ally on this issue the two faced JoAnn Yukimura who constantly claims to be a champion of open government but has bought this little legal turd as divinely inspired to negate any questions of how a council member reached a decision in any controversial case.
What a boon for those who have to make the public happy in order to get reelected. “I had to make the decision I made but I can’t tell you why because that would violate attorney client privilege.”
It’s all very Star-Chamber stuff . But on Kaua`i Asing and Yukimura pass for the intelligencia and many, especially the press like Lester Chang bought the gobbledy gook and regurgitated it to the public in the local paper..
Except for the fact that, if you do buy this cock and bull, you have to question whether,. since it’s the “client” whose “privilege” is covered why doesn’t the client just release it?
It took months for them to come up with this one, as people like Glenn Mickens and Ken Taylor and Walter Lewis asked it to no response.
But when dumb-as-a-rock Councilmember Tim Bynum – like the idiot child who asked why the Emperor had no clothes- said he wanted to release them they told him he couldn’t because it was the whole Council who was now the client.
And when he tried to get the Council to release the opinions they told him they couldn’t because they had no “process” in place to release them- this despite the fact that they had voted to release some of them when it suited them politically since this scheme had been imagineered by Nakazawa and Asing.
According to the sunshine law all it would take would be to file a case in 5th Circuit Court to end this nonsense. But as of now no one can even get an opinion from the OIP to appeal since they fired firebrand Les Kondo as Director because he was working on this very case and replaced him with the usual gang of foot-and-knuckle-draggers afraid of their shadows .
And the problems with going to Court are multifaceted, not the least of which being finding a lawyer on Kaua`i who would take the case and risk pissing off the Council which rules on development issues... since all Kaua`i attorneys either work for or want to work for Wanton Hong or Max Graham who split up all the development shilling on the island. Or they might want to work for the government and of course suing the government wouldn’t do much for their résumé in that case either.
Plus going to court means that everything stops and the whole matter is placed on the interminable civil case calendar, typically taking years to even come before a judge for a decision.
But you would think that, since court costs are guaranteed in these “Sunshine” cases by law if you win the case, there would be an industrious lawyer making a cottage industry out of lawyering OIP and CA opinions.
But it turns out it’s like the old joke about the farmer and the hunter and the duck. The hunter shoots the duck and it lands in the farmer’s yard. They argue over whose duck it is for a while and the farmer proposes that they take turns kicking each other in the crotch until one of them gives up. The farmer goes first since he’s holding the duck and after the hunter spends a ten minutes on the ground writhing in pain he gets up and says “OK- it’s my turn”.
To which the farmer say “that’s ok- you can have the duck”.
And that’s been the situation with winning Sunshine law cases in court. What anyone who has tried that has found out is that you can spend months, even years, trying to get a document or some minutes and by the time the judge is ready to rule, the information sought has become so moot or outdated that the morning of the trial the County comes in and says “ok- you can have the duck” and hands over the document.
Then the now useless document technically wasn’t given to you because you “won” the case, they gave it up voluntarily. So the lawyer doesn’t get paid for hundreds of hours of work..
No one ever heard this of this business of applying attorney client privilege to public policy opinions before and maybe Bennett and his cohorts- even Lingle herself- figured this out this scam on their own. But our hearts swell with pride in thinking that this scam originated on stumble-bum Kaua`i, giving us hicks some prestige in having our big city cousins adopt a method of screwing the public that we came up with.
Friday, May 23, 2008
'TIL THE LAST YELLOW DOG DIES
'TIL THE LAST YELLOW DOG DIES: The bullets continue to fly over the disastrous Republicans’ Convention last weekend but you wouldn’t know it to read the Honolulu newspapers.
In addition to the scathing back and forth between party activist and bosses we reported on the other day, new ballistic bombardments and sieve-like shields are still being posted at the Republican’s best and worst friend Malia Zimmerman’s Hawai`i Reporter news service.
Now there’s some new and improved coverage of the debacle with even a video of some of the scripted authoritarian event where the Ron Paul supporters were shut out of the process causing even some of the McCainiac party regulars to swear to never participate again after their leadership ran rough-shod over everyone, abusing not just the process but apparently the delegates themselves.
But the Honolulu Advertiser’s purveyor of the politically obvious Jerry Burris either doesn’t read or research very much- or maybe he wrote the piece before the convention. He certainly didn’t ask anyone who was there in writing in his regular Wednesday column:
And, from those we’ve talked to and what we’ve read , it sure sounds like a similar meltdown might be in store as the Democrats turn to self-destruct in its normal manner at their State Convention this weekend.
It remains to be seen whether the Obamanics will smother dissents from Shrillary Hillary supporters who see misogyny in everyone that doesn’t live in their sound=-proof booth.
According to reports there are still three party bosses- er, Superdelegates- at stake and their appointment goes along with newly elected party leadership positions.
The only question is whether the Dems will allow a battle royale and thus disintegrate into the usual melee they have been famous for or will take a repressive page out of the Republican Convention Playbook thus disillusioning all those wide-eyed new members that came in on Obama’s caucus coattails.
And, surprise- this year there are also some platform issues for Democrats to “discuss”, always a fun time for observers from the other party. This year they come replete with a contentious plank on the one issue that is bound to piss everyone off – Israel and Palestine- with AIPAC throwing their weight around in try to defeat a popular resolution that is none too complementary to the Zionists.
Even nationally pundits seem to have their heads so far up the butts of party leadership that when Howard Dean speaks you can see Richard Cohen’s face between his teeth. They are never talking to the rank and file or even the lower level activists yielding the kind of drivel that drives the horse race coverage and the conventional wisdom- a catch all meaning lazy insular analysis.
Nowhere do you hear the realities of the Democratic race- things like how if there is even a race with the Republican in the fall it is the turnout of new voters and people motivated to vote that will decide the race and that the Obama campaign has done the most incredible grassroots job of precinct by precinct bottom up organizing ever seen.
They brought in community organizers and Democratic Party wannabes last summer and fall and sent them to campaign schools, teaching the basics of “do it on your own” neighborhood organizing.
Then, months later found that, in many states, there were Obama campaign headquarters springing up unbeknownst to the national campaign. The locals were already there when they came to town to campaign in the primaries and caucuses.
That more than anything explains his successes where the corporate pundits had eliminated him early on- something they still haven’t caught onto.
No one sees how the right-wing-despised Hillary Clinton came into the race with electability inside the base of the Democratic constituency.
And, because they only talk to the insiders, none of them talk about how she destroyed any advantage she might have had by creating more hatred on the left than existed for her and Bill on the right by copying Rovian-Atwater-style campaign tactics when she fell behind after Iowa.
It has nothing to do with her being a woman. And as a matter of fact the desirability of tempering the usual masculine aspect guiding our war mongering, male-dominated, power-as-an-aphrodesiac Congress with the feminist aspect and viewpoint is one of the strongest arguments for electing females. . and it’s one that Clinton quite apparently fought hard to dissipate by trying to out-macho the men with her votes in the Senate.
We don’t believe Obama is any different than Clinton- or McCain for that matter- with his opposition of single payer, non corporate, universal health care, his votes for every war funding bill and the new Patriot act, his opposition to impeachment, his support for coal and innumerable untenable positions for true progressives.
But elections are not decided on issues- they are decided on who you’d rather have dinner or a beer with. And Hillary has sickened many on the left, especially among the young and previously disenfranchised, via the campaigning style she has adopted over the past few months.
Will there be a free for all this weekend or can the Hawai`i Democratic “leadership” head it off? And if they head it off will there be acrimony over the process? The one thing that could cut those new 37,000 membership numbers down to a new handful of activists and cause 36,500 that don’t even remember they joined the party would be to make them feel like the “old boys” didn’t give everyone there a fair hearing.
Whatever happens, will it be reported in the newspapers rather than just light up the on-line alternative press and blogs? Doubt it.
The bland penchant-for-the-obvious for political columnists at the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin and their lack of understanding of politics notwithstanding not pissing off the losers is the art of insider party politics.
And it ain’t as easy as it sounds in both cases – last week with the R’s and this week with the D’s- you have a forgone winner and a doomed loser. And a platform debate that will be bound to turn people away if it is allowed but will probably be a lot worse if it’s stifled.
Whatever happens the big question is, if something happens in Hawai`i politics and neither Jerry Burris or the equally lackluster and pedestrianly-mediocre Richard Borroca report it in the corporate newspapers does it make a policy sound?
In addition to the scathing back and forth between party activist and bosses we reported on the other day, new ballistic bombardments and sieve-like shields are still being posted at the Republican’s best and worst friend Malia Zimmerman’s Hawai`i Reporter news service.
Now there’s some new and improved coverage of the debacle with even a video of some of the scripted authoritarian event where the Ron Paul supporters were shut out of the process causing even some of the McCainiac party regulars to swear to never participate again after their leadership ran rough-shod over everyone, abusing not just the process but apparently the delegates themselves.
But the Honolulu Advertiser’s purveyor of the politically obvious Jerry Burris either doesn’t read or research very much- or maybe he wrote the piece before the convention. He certainly didn’t ask anyone who was there in writing in his regular Wednesday column:
“The Republicans ended their convention upbeat and enthused. That's what conventions are for. But the reality is that despite the sparkling individual success of Gov. Linda Lingle, the Hawai'i GOP has yet to find its voice or its home in contemporary local politics.”
And, from those we’ve talked to and what we’ve read , it sure sounds like a similar meltdown might be in store as the Democrats turn to self-destruct in its normal manner at their State Convention this weekend.
It remains to be seen whether the Obamanics will smother dissents from Shrillary Hillary supporters who see misogyny in everyone that doesn’t live in their sound=-proof booth.
According to reports there are still three party bosses- er, Superdelegates- at stake and their appointment goes along with newly elected party leadership positions.
The only question is whether the Dems will allow a battle royale and thus disintegrate into the usual melee they have been famous for or will take a repressive page out of the Republican Convention Playbook thus disillusioning all those wide-eyed new members that came in on Obama’s caucus coattails.
And, surprise- this year there are also some platform issues for Democrats to “discuss”, always a fun time for observers from the other party. This year they come replete with a contentious plank on the one issue that is bound to piss everyone off – Israel and Palestine- with AIPAC throwing their weight around in try to defeat a popular resolution that is none too complementary to the Zionists.
Even nationally pundits seem to have their heads so far up the butts of party leadership that when Howard Dean speaks you can see Richard Cohen’s face between his teeth. They are never talking to the rank and file or even the lower level activists yielding the kind of drivel that drives the horse race coverage and the conventional wisdom- a catch all meaning lazy insular analysis.
Nowhere do you hear the realities of the Democratic race- things like how if there is even a race with the Republican in the fall it is the turnout of new voters and people motivated to vote that will decide the race and that the Obama campaign has done the most incredible grassroots job of precinct by precinct bottom up organizing ever seen.
They brought in community organizers and Democratic Party wannabes last summer and fall and sent them to campaign schools, teaching the basics of “do it on your own” neighborhood organizing.
Then, months later found that, in many states, there were Obama campaign headquarters springing up unbeknownst to the national campaign. The locals were already there when they came to town to campaign in the primaries and caucuses.
That more than anything explains his successes where the corporate pundits had eliminated him early on- something they still haven’t caught onto.
No one sees how the right-wing-despised Hillary Clinton came into the race with electability inside the base of the Democratic constituency.
And, because they only talk to the insiders, none of them talk about how she destroyed any advantage she might have had by creating more hatred on the left than existed for her and Bill on the right by copying Rovian-Atwater-style campaign tactics when she fell behind after Iowa.
It has nothing to do with her being a woman. And as a matter of fact the desirability of tempering the usual masculine aspect guiding our war mongering, male-dominated, power-as-an-aphrodesiac Congress with the feminist aspect and viewpoint is one of the strongest arguments for electing females. . and it’s one that Clinton quite apparently fought hard to dissipate by trying to out-macho the men with her votes in the Senate.
We don’t believe Obama is any different than Clinton- or McCain for that matter- with his opposition of single payer, non corporate, universal health care, his votes for every war funding bill and the new Patriot act, his opposition to impeachment, his support for coal and innumerable untenable positions for true progressives.
But elections are not decided on issues- they are decided on who you’d rather have dinner or a beer with. And Hillary has sickened many on the left, especially among the young and previously disenfranchised, via the campaigning style she has adopted over the past few months.
Will there be a free for all this weekend or can the Hawai`i Democratic “leadership” head it off? And if they head it off will there be acrimony over the process? The one thing that could cut those new 37,000 membership numbers down to a new handful of activists and cause 36,500 that don’t even remember they joined the party would be to make them feel like the “old boys” didn’t give everyone there a fair hearing.
Whatever happens, will it be reported in the newspapers rather than just light up the on-line alternative press and blogs? Doubt it.
The bland penchant-for-the-obvious for political columnists at the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin and their lack of understanding of politics notwithstanding not pissing off the losers is the art of insider party politics.
And it ain’t as easy as it sounds in both cases – last week with the R’s and this week with the D’s- you have a forgone winner and a doomed loser. And a platform debate that will be bound to turn people away if it is allowed but will probably be a lot worse if it’s stifled.
Whatever happens the big question is, if something happens in Hawai`i politics and neither Jerry Burris or the equally lackluster and pedestrianly-mediocre Richard Borroca report it in the corporate newspapers does it make a policy sound?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
