REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN: We haven’t heard much about our crony-addled, bored of ethics, Board of Ethics (BOE) since local newspaper reporter Mike Levine left for a real job in journalism.
Levine’s coverage during the infamous “20.02(D)” debacle (see right rail for our three-part report) would have been nothing extraordinary in the rest of country but around here- especially lately- merely attending meetings and reporting accurately IS extraordinary by any measure.
Nowadays if it weren’t for a few dedicated “nitpicking” community watchdogs that darkest of black holes for ethical violations might go it’s merry ethically-challenged way.
Some might think that the BOE’s inability to read and apply simple ethics laws could indicate a distinct lack of literacy. For those Pollyannas, well, we have a few select scenic lookouts for sale.
The reality is that after Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s unceremonious dumping of BOE member (and current county council candidate) Rolf Bieber it became quite obvious that if you’re going to wear the king’s uniform you’d better carry the king’s sword.
So when members of the planning department decided it was okay for them to seek outside employment preparing permit applications for their fellow department employees’ to approve, instead of trying to stop the plainly unethical practice that the law forbids, Planning Director Ian Costa knew he could turn to the BOE for a some kind of tortured process whereby his underlings could continue their corrupt practices.
Horace Stoessel has been doing the job the local newspaper abandoned after Levine’s departure and today, without further comment, we present his latest report.
-------
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
I have attended meetings of the Board of Ethics for the better part of three years. I offer these comments for the information of those interested in a matter currently before the Board.
In May Planning Director Ian Costa requested an advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics regarding the outside employment of four departmental employees engaged variously in drafting, site inspection, architectural drawings, design and consultation.
Since then, in an end run around the Charter requirement that a request for advisory opinion must be answered within 30 days, the request has been withdrawn twice by mutual agreement between the Board and the Department, in each case to be resubmitted at a later date. The main reason given for the five-months-and-counting process was to allow Director Costa a chance to consult the County Attorney ’s office.
So far the County Attorney ’s office has participated in the Board’s process as follows:
In May Deputy County Attorney Mona Clark, who is regularly assigned to the Board, advised the Board that County Code Section 3-1.7(d) expresses an absolute prohibition against the activities referenced in the request for advisory opinion and told the Board that aside from enforcing the section its only option is to ask the Council to change the language of 3-1.7. The Board took no action based on her advice, arranging instead with Director Costa to withdraw the request and resubmit it later.
In July Attorney Clark volunteered to provide the Board with a (written) opinion if the Board requested it. The Board did not request it.
In August Director Costa’s request reappeared on the agenda, leading some of us in the public to believe that the way was clear for the Board to act on the request. However, County Attorney Al Castillo appeared long enough to tell the Board that Attorney Clark was in court and to apologize for his being unprepared to address the agenda item.
In July Board member Paul Weil had moved that the Board request the County Attorney to provide the Board with the same information provided to Mr. Costa. The motion was seconded by Warren Perry and unanimously adopted. That request also went unanswered in August.
In August it was agreed that Mr. Costa would resubmit the department’s request at the September 17 meeting.
Showing posts with label Rolf Bieber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rolf Bieber. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
NOT BUT WITH A WHIMPER
NOT BUT WITH A WHIMPER: As if there was any doubt as to the outcome or the specifics the council passed an even more loophole ridden version of the TVR bill yesterday with (predictably) Dickie Chang and (disappointingly but not unpredictably) Lani Kawahara joining Jay Furfaro, Darryl Kaneshiro and bill author Tim Bynum voting “yea” and Derrick Kawakami and Chair Kaipo Asing voting in the negatory.
That information comes no thanks to the lazy dullard on the government beat at the local newspaper who apparently couldn’t stay up as late enough to file a story on the all important vote but Joan Conrow who “juggled work with time in the Council Chambers to see for myself how the vote on the transient vacation rental (TVR) bill went down,” filed her post at 11:16 last night.
The added poison to the already toxic legislation says, according to Conrow:
you don’t actually have to be engaged in bonafide farming, as evidenced by tax returns, to get approval for your TVR on agricultural land. You can still get a permit if the planning commission finds intensive agriculture is prohibited by the shape, size, topography, surrounding land uses OR — and this is today’s big giveaway — for any other reason.
And as far as “Mr. Wala`au”, also predictably Joan quoted Dickie Chang as saying “(w)hether it’s right or wrong, we need to move forward” saying that apparently “that answers the question of whether his private pau hana briefing by beer-bearing county attorneys had any effect on his decision. 'Cause he was against the bill before that little meeting.”
But the big question is whether this will really be the political game changer many are predicting.
There is palpable fury over this bill among not just the usual suspects but those who ordinarily don’t give politics a second thought except for every two years in November.
Many felt that they were sold down the river when the grandfathering bill was passed but thought that the restrictions and difficulty of the process- replete with provisions for public scrutiny- would serve to phase out the existing TVRs in residential areas.
But not only did the corrupt planning department refuse to follow the guidelines but the planning commission didn’t seem to care. And now instead of seeking to strengthen the bill the council has essentially torn it up and thrown in a plum giving the most egregious illegality- those TVRs on ag- a path to legality to boot.
Other than those who stand to gain financially it’s hard to find anyone- even among those who ordinarily support the land rape of Kaua`i- who has supported the mess.
So how will this shake out- or shake up Kaua`i politics?
The questions are first, will this be the end of the political careers of Furfaro and more importantly Bynum as many have vowed to make it and on the flip side will the animosity over Asing’s reign of terror and the disappointment over the misplaced hopes some had for Kawakami last election be negated by their somewhat meaningless votes?
Furfaro’s popularity has always been an enigma. But his vote wasn’t disappointing anyone. His unflinching support for tourism development has always been a hallmark of his tenure on the council. But his growing pomposity and ego driven bombast recently has become more and more irritating, at least for those who catch it on TV.
Is the anti incumbent feeling this year enough to push him out? Don’t count on it.
Bynum is the big question mark. Before the TVR debacle his growing popularity in supporting what was seen as Kawahara’s push for openness and free-flowing information allowed him to ride her ample coattails which many predicted would lead her near or to the top of the polling this year.
But with Kawahara out of the race after being beaten to a bloody pulp by the likes of Asing, Kawakami and Kaneshiro voters may not put as much stock in the need for Bynum’s “second” to what was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the fight her “new blood” introduced into the council dynamic.
With “his” TVR bill, as well as other votes that are seen as hypocritical of his words on sustainability and land use in general, that may well be the defining issue upon which Bynum’s continued incumbency depends.
That leads to Chang who slipped in last time due to name recognition alone. But really his victory in ’08 was a numbers game- one that may again be the more important factor this November.
With two “vacancies” in ’08 there was a dearth of viable candidates to fill the two slots other than Kawahara. A virtual unknown, Kipukai Kuali`i even came close without any endorsements from the progressives that a social workers and organizer might have gotten if organizations like the Sierra Club- and admittedly observers like us- hadn’t put all their eggs in the Kawahara basket.
This year is quite the opposite. The two who created the vacancies- Mel Rapozo ad JoAnn Yukimura who both ran for mayor and lost- are back and are virtual shoo-ins for election.
But other than Nadine Nakamura- who despite having some good buzz is still is a question mark due to the wariness people have over her profession as a “planner”, which on Kaua`i may be a dirty word- and Rolf Bieber who has made a name for himself in taking on the administration and the corrupt ethics commission, viable candidates are few and far between.
Given Chang's negatives after two years of cluelessness Nakamura stands to take advantage and move into his slot.
But that may all be moot if Asing or Kawakami- or both- fall out of the top seven something that, although unlikely if you look at past elections, may be possible in a year when disgust with council incumbents has made dents in their usual bases of support.
The question for Furfaro and Bynum may not be their negatives as much as how effective a charge Bieber or Kuali`i can make and how far the once mighty have fallen.
We have few illusions. To quote John Lennon- and perhaps explain Kawahara’s decision that she’d had enough-
There’s room at the top they keep telling you still
But first you must learn to smile as you kill
A working class hero is something to be
That information comes no thanks to the lazy dullard on the government beat at the local newspaper who apparently couldn’t stay up as late enough to file a story on the all important vote but Joan Conrow who “juggled work with time in the Council Chambers to see for myself how the vote on the transient vacation rental (TVR) bill went down,” filed her post at 11:16 last night.
The added poison to the already toxic legislation says, according to Conrow:
you don’t actually have to be engaged in bonafide farming, as evidenced by tax returns, to get approval for your TVR on agricultural land. You can still get a permit if the planning commission finds intensive agriculture is prohibited by the shape, size, topography, surrounding land uses OR — and this is today’s big giveaway — for any other reason.
And as far as “Mr. Wala`au”, also predictably Joan quoted Dickie Chang as saying “(w)hether it’s right or wrong, we need to move forward” saying that apparently “that answers the question of whether his private pau hana briefing by beer-bearing county attorneys had any effect on his decision. 'Cause he was against the bill before that little meeting.”
But the big question is whether this will really be the political game changer many are predicting.
There is palpable fury over this bill among not just the usual suspects but those who ordinarily don’t give politics a second thought except for every two years in November.
Many felt that they were sold down the river when the grandfathering bill was passed but thought that the restrictions and difficulty of the process- replete with provisions for public scrutiny- would serve to phase out the existing TVRs in residential areas.
But not only did the corrupt planning department refuse to follow the guidelines but the planning commission didn’t seem to care. And now instead of seeking to strengthen the bill the council has essentially torn it up and thrown in a plum giving the most egregious illegality- those TVRs on ag- a path to legality to boot.
Other than those who stand to gain financially it’s hard to find anyone- even among those who ordinarily support the land rape of Kaua`i- who has supported the mess.
So how will this shake out- or shake up Kaua`i politics?
The questions are first, will this be the end of the political careers of Furfaro and more importantly Bynum as many have vowed to make it and on the flip side will the animosity over Asing’s reign of terror and the disappointment over the misplaced hopes some had for Kawakami last election be negated by their somewhat meaningless votes?
Furfaro’s popularity has always been an enigma. But his vote wasn’t disappointing anyone. His unflinching support for tourism development has always been a hallmark of his tenure on the council. But his growing pomposity and ego driven bombast recently has become more and more irritating, at least for those who catch it on TV.
Is the anti incumbent feeling this year enough to push him out? Don’t count on it.
Bynum is the big question mark. Before the TVR debacle his growing popularity in supporting what was seen as Kawahara’s push for openness and free-flowing information allowed him to ride her ample coattails which many predicted would lead her near or to the top of the polling this year.
But with Kawahara out of the race after being beaten to a bloody pulp by the likes of Asing, Kawakami and Kaneshiro voters may not put as much stock in the need for Bynum’s “second” to what was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the fight her “new blood” introduced into the council dynamic.
With “his” TVR bill, as well as other votes that are seen as hypocritical of his words on sustainability and land use in general, that may well be the defining issue upon which Bynum’s continued incumbency depends.
That leads to Chang who slipped in last time due to name recognition alone. But really his victory in ’08 was a numbers game- one that may again be the more important factor this November.
With two “vacancies” in ’08 there was a dearth of viable candidates to fill the two slots other than Kawahara. A virtual unknown, Kipukai Kuali`i even came close without any endorsements from the progressives that a social workers and organizer might have gotten if organizations like the Sierra Club- and admittedly observers like us- hadn’t put all their eggs in the Kawahara basket.
This year is quite the opposite. The two who created the vacancies- Mel Rapozo ad JoAnn Yukimura who both ran for mayor and lost- are back and are virtual shoo-ins for election.
But other than Nadine Nakamura- who despite having some good buzz is still is a question mark due to the wariness people have over her profession as a “planner”, which on Kaua`i may be a dirty word- and Rolf Bieber who has made a name for himself in taking on the administration and the corrupt ethics commission, viable candidates are few and far between.
Given Chang's negatives after two years of cluelessness Nakamura stands to take advantage and move into his slot.
But that may all be moot if Asing or Kawakami- or both- fall out of the top seven something that, although unlikely if you look at past elections, may be possible in a year when disgust with council incumbents has made dents in their usual bases of support.
The question for Furfaro and Bynum may not be their negatives as much as how effective a charge Bieber or Kuali`i can make and how far the once mighty have fallen.
We have few illusions. To quote John Lennon- and perhaps explain Kawahara’s decision that she’d had enough-
There’s room at the top they keep telling you still
But first you must learn to smile as you kill
A working class hero is something to be
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
JAWS OF DEFEAT/SAY IT AIN’T SO
JAWS OF DEFEAT: About a week or so back we got a thus-far-unpublished letter to the editor from Horace Stoessel, the father of the 20.02(D) controversy- the man who first had the temerity to ask the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) to enforce the charter.
In it he surprisingly said he would compromise and support the “carve out” exemption for charitable organizations when county officials appear on behalf of private interests before county boards, commissions and agencies in order to get the rest of the provision enforced.
So today’s news that the Ethics Board has (had a) change of heart and voted to uphold the law after all the silliness of the past couple of years came as something of a shock.
Even Mark Hubbard who fought the hardest to make a mockery of the law voted for it although, according to reporter Mike Levine he still has remnant schizophrenic, double-talking tendencies in refusing to admit the past rulings clearing Hubbard and others were a mistake.
And of course, as the people’s champion former BOE member Rolf Bieber told Levine the proof will be in the pudding since, as we’ve seen, just because a clear statue exists it doesn’t mean people with conflicts will do what Hubbard suggested in saying exactly what we’ve written dozens of times:
(W)ith this interpretive rule, it’s now different than we’ve voted in the past, and I would have been in error in going before the County Council. I should not do that again, or I should quit my position on the Board of Ethics. I have a choice.”
It’s certainly a black eye for the gang of administration stooges at County Attorney Alfred “E. what me worry” Castillo’s office who didn’t even bother to do enough research to turn up the state ethics commission letter that convinced the BOE that they didn’t have any cover to continue to carve out exemptions or create “absurd result” excuses for their illegal activities.
Throughout the whole debacle people have asked basically “what the heck is the difference?.. it’s not as if this will magically clean up the corrupt, old boy network of the board and commission system”.
No it won’t. They will still try to make sure that if you wear the kings uniform you carry the kings sword. We’ve spoken to four people currently serving as a mayoral appointees who confirm that board and commission chief John Isobe made sure that they “support the mayor” before getting an appointment.
But it will shake out the most conflicted- those with an obvious reason to play the “one hand washes the other”, revolving-door game.
It also gives heart to those who still believe that a small, dedicated, persistent group- in this case Bieber, Stoessel, Rob Abrew and Glenn Mickens who did what most or can’t do... show up- can effect change even if it is incremental. Their success couldn’t have come about without Levine’s detailed news coverage and others like Charley Foster and Joan Conrow whose blog posts helped keep the issue before the public.
If they’re anything like us, these people do battle with the entrenched cronies not for the rare victory like this but for the fight itself because they have trouble living with themselves if they don’t.
As the Happy Camper might say, “hats off”, “kudos” and “three cheers” for them the real service-oriented citizens of Kaua`i.
----------
SAY IT AIN’T SO: Speaking of Levine it looks like the inevitable is about to come to pass. According to John Temple, the editor of “Peer News”, the nascent online Hawai`i news venture (thanks to Ian Lind for the heads up):
I’m happy to report that we’ve now hired the editorial team that will launch our new news service for Honolulu and Hawaii...
(T)he reporter hosts at Peer News will include:
Mike Levine, currently a reporter and assistant news editor at The Garden Island newspaper on Kauai. Mike has worked as a journalist on Kauai for a couple of years, after picking lettuce and acting as a tour guide there. He also worked for Fodor’s to update the Kauai section of the 2010 Hawaii Guidebook and Kauai Guidebook 3rd Edition. Mike worked as a news desk editor and writer at NBA.com before moving to Kauai. He’s a graduate of Lehigh University and the rare reporter to have majored in journalism and minored in material science and engineering.
We’re not sure if this means Mike will be leaving the local newspaper and apparently he will still be covering Kaua`i even if he does. But a statewide news services is unlikely to cover the detail of local Kaua`i news that his reporting has provided.
---------
We’ve off for the weekend tracking how soon we’re eliminated from the basketball pool. We’ll be back with a tear-stained entry Monday.
In it he surprisingly said he would compromise and support the “carve out” exemption for charitable organizations when county officials appear on behalf of private interests before county boards, commissions and agencies in order to get the rest of the provision enforced.
So today’s news that the Ethics Board has (had a) change of heart and voted to uphold the law after all the silliness of the past couple of years came as something of a shock.
Even Mark Hubbard who fought the hardest to make a mockery of the law voted for it although, according to reporter Mike Levine he still has remnant schizophrenic, double-talking tendencies in refusing to admit the past rulings clearing Hubbard and others were a mistake.
And of course, as the people’s champion former BOE member Rolf Bieber told Levine the proof will be in the pudding since, as we’ve seen, just because a clear statue exists it doesn’t mean people with conflicts will do what Hubbard suggested in saying exactly what we’ve written dozens of times:
(W)ith this interpretive rule, it’s now different than we’ve voted in the past, and I would have been in error in going before the County Council. I should not do that again, or I should quit my position on the Board of Ethics. I have a choice.”
It’s certainly a black eye for the gang of administration stooges at County Attorney Alfred “E. what me worry” Castillo’s office who didn’t even bother to do enough research to turn up the state ethics commission letter that convinced the BOE that they didn’t have any cover to continue to carve out exemptions or create “absurd result” excuses for their illegal activities.
Throughout the whole debacle people have asked basically “what the heck is the difference?.. it’s not as if this will magically clean up the corrupt, old boy network of the board and commission system”.
No it won’t. They will still try to make sure that if you wear the kings uniform you carry the kings sword. We’ve spoken to four people currently serving as a mayoral appointees who confirm that board and commission chief John Isobe made sure that they “support the mayor” before getting an appointment.
But it will shake out the most conflicted- those with an obvious reason to play the “one hand washes the other”, revolving-door game.
It also gives heart to those who still believe that a small, dedicated, persistent group- in this case Bieber, Stoessel, Rob Abrew and Glenn Mickens who did what most or can’t do... show up- can effect change even if it is incremental. Their success couldn’t have come about without Levine’s detailed news coverage and others like Charley Foster and Joan Conrow whose blog posts helped keep the issue before the public.
If they’re anything like us, these people do battle with the entrenched cronies not for the rare victory like this but for the fight itself because they have trouble living with themselves if they don’t.
As the Happy Camper might say, “hats off”, “kudos” and “three cheers” for them the real service-oriented citizens of Kaua`i.
----------
SAY IT AIN’T SO: Speaking of Levine it looks like the inevitable is about to come to pass. According to John Temple, the editor of “Peer News”, the nascent online Hawai`i news venture (thanks to Ian Lind for the heads up):
I’m happy to report that we’ve now hired the editorial team that will launch our new news service for Honolulu and Hawaii...
(T)he reporter hosts at Peer News will include:
Mike Levine, currently a reporter and assistant news editor at The Garden Island newspaper on Kauai. Mike has worked as a journalist on Kauai for a couple of years, after picking lettuce and acting as a tour guide there. He also worked for Fodor’s to update the Kauai section of the 2010 Hawaii Guidebook and Kauai Guidebook 3rd Edition. Mike worked as a news desk editor and writer at NBA.com before moving to Kauai. He’s a graduate of Lehigh University and the rare reporter to have majored in journalism and minored in material science and engineering.
We’re not sure if this means Mike will be leaving the local newspaper and apparently he will still be covering Kaua`i even if he does. But a statewide news services is unlikely to cover the detail of local Kaua`i news that his reporting has provided.
---------
We’ve off for the weekend tracking how soon we’re eliminated from the basketball pool. We’ll be back with a tear-stained entry Monday.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
...GANG AFT AGLEY
...GANG AFT AGLEY: The dysfunctionality of the corrupt crony-riddled board and commission (B&C) system on Kaua`i is not a new issue.
Prior to 2004 members were like babes in the woods, usually flung into their positions with no idea what they were supposed to do, getting on-the-job training confined to whatever dysfunctionality the current members had adopted from their predecessors.
They were selected via a closed secretive process by the mayor and interviewed in secret by the county council before an open confirmation with the public receiving little more than the name of the prospective appointees.
Most didn’t know the sunshine law from a hole in the ground and were surprised to find out they needed agendas- much less ones published and posted six days in advance- to meet and that the public was not just allowed to attend but were to be given the opportunity to testify regarding any and all agenda items.
It was so bad that the charter review commission (CRC) of that year decided that a skilled administrator and staff was needed to bring some cohesion and sunshine to the system.
But under B&C Administrator John Isobe most observers agree that if anything the lack of transparency and independence of members has gone from bad to worse with an administrator unskilled in anything but obfuscation and public relations keeping the selection process hidden, documents unreleased or difficult to obtain- one who sees open meetings and public input as a nuisance and foists that attitude on business and development oriented B&C members all too willing to help him do his dirty work for the administration.
The charter amendment- which, along with any and all amendments from the 2006 and 2008 are unavailable at the county web site, even on the non-updated page where the charter appears- was carefully drafted by the CRC to do a few things.
One was to select someone with skills and experience in doing the job.
The amendment on the ballot read:
There shall be a boards and commissions administrator and any necessary staff. The administrator shall have such training, education or experience as shall qualify the administrator to perform the duties described in this section.
Though the qualifications are pretty general it’s hard to see how Isobe meets them. Rather, a look at his past shows him to be a PR flack and himself a crony of the past three administrations.
A UH graduate and “lifelong” Hawai`i resident Isobe first shows up in 1996 as a spokesperson for Princeville corporation during a time of conflict with the homeowners there over various issues.
Though the dates are unclear his first stint with the county was as Deputy Finance Director under the Kusaka administration and was appointed to a state community-based economic development advisory council in 2006.
He was also a member of the infamous Kaua`i Economic Development Board under disgraced head Gary Baldwin who started the business-friendly pro-development board promoting a staunch chamber of commerce agenda until Baldwin left in disgrace after it was revealed that he was a wanted for running a financial scam on the mainland.
Then having proved himself adept at defending large and powerful corporations he held a positions at Kaua`i Community College (KCC) serving as director of the Kauai Rural Development Project where he developed “F.A.R.M... a strategy to bring the Kauai business community together through education” according to the Pacific Business Journal (PBJ) article in 2001.
That led to a job as training coordinator in the Office of Continuing Education and Training at KCC where, rather than offering traditional academic courses, he was part of a push to serve “business organizations, visitor bureau, chamber of commerce and (the) work-force investment board” telling PBJ in 2003 “’We are in constant contact with people in the industry and our courses revolve around their needs’" .
How that constitutes “training, education or experience as shall qualify” him to be B&C Administrator is anyone’s guess. It certainly qualifies him to know all the pro- development cronies in the Chamber of Commerce-KEDB crowd in order to make sure the B&Cs are stacked to reflect and protect their interests.
One of the most important parts of the amendment was what the administrator was supposed to do and the CRC made sure that open governance principles were to be one of the more important functions.
The charter amendment reads in part:
The administrator shall assist in providing administrative and operational support to the various county boards and commissions. Such support shall include, but not be limited to: assisting in the recruitment, orientation, education, and training of board or commission members regarding their powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities under the charter... (and) helping to educate such members about applicable state and county ethics laws and the State Sunshine Law... (emphasis added).
But the words “sunshine law” never appear at the county web site’s B&C page. Instead here’s Isobe’s blurb at the top of the B&C page:
Kauai County's 16 boards and commissions are comprised of 116 volunteer board members and commissioners who oversee and make critical decisions about key County functions and groups. Volunteers who serve on Kauai County boards and commissions are the best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources. They give an extraordinary amount of time to serve in these roles each year and make both personal and professional sacrifices to do so. Because of this and the weight of their responsibilities to our community, they are among Kauai's treasures.
Instead of trying to recruit everyday citizens who have no preconceived notions- and especially no conflicts of interests in “their fields”- rather he seeks to find the “best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources”- a euphemism for well connected people with a lot to lose if they offend the mayor, who can be counted on to “not rock the boat”... also known as his and the mayors cronies, supporters and campaign contributors, which includes Isobe.
Want more proof? Just look at the notice posted for the first B&C training session this year, scheduled for January 29th, on the “Role Of The Board/Commission Member”.
For some incredibly tone deaf reason it is not itself “agendaed” as a government meeting but rather is printed on Kaua`i Chamber of Commerce stationary and is apparently sponsored by the business promotion organization “Leadership Kaua`i”.
Among the topics covered are:
...your duties and responsibilities as a board or commission member, tips on what resources and materials are available (i.e. charter, county and state laws), general provisions of the law, standards of ethical conduct, guidelines on effective communications (and) basic parliamentary procedure.
The importance of transparency, open meetings and records and public testimony are not to be found.
This is exactly the attitude that former Board of Ethics member Rolf Bieber spoke of, especially the attitude among B&C members that they are the elite and know better than the common rabble whose testimony should be tolerated only because it is required by law- a law they are barely aware of.
John Isobe is the exact opposite of what a B&C administrator should be and is a disgrace to democracy and good governance. His resignation and replacement with a trained manager- one experienced in facilitating communication between citizen volunteers and members of the public- can only be a positive for Kaua`i which at deserves to have the charter amendment they passed honored.
---------
We’ve gotta get outta the house tomorrow and Friday. Unless we feel especially ambitious we’ll be back Monday.
Prior to 2004 members were like babes in the woods, usually flung into their positions with no idea what they were supposed to do, getting on-the-job training confined to whatever dysfunctionality the current members had adopted from their predecessors.
They were selected via a closed secretive process by the mayor and interviewed in secret by the county council before an open confirmation with the public receiving little more than the name of the prospective appointees.
Most didn’t know the sunshine law from a hole in the ground and were surprised to find out they needed agendas- much less ones published and posted six days in advance- to meet and that the public was not just allowed to attend but were to be given the opportunity to testify regarding any and all agenda items.
It was so bad that the charter review commission (CRC) of that year decided that a skilled administrator and staff was needed to bring some cohesion and sunshine to the system.
But under B&C Administrator John Isobe most observers agree that if anything the lack of transparency and independence of members has gone from bad to worse with an administrator unskilled in anything but obfuscation and public relations keeping the selection process hidden, documents unreleased or difficult to obtain- one who sees open meetings and public input as a nuisance and foists that attitude on business and development oriented B&C members all too willing to help him do his dirty work for the administration.
The charter amendment- which, along with any and all amendments from the 2006 and 2008 are unavailable at the county web site, even on the non-updated page where the charter appears- was carefully drafted by the CRC to do a few things.
One was to select someone with skills and experience in doing the job.
The amendment on the ballot read:
There shall be a boards and commissions administrator and any necessary staff. The administrator shall have such training, education or experience as shall qualify the administrator to perform the duties described in this section.
Though the qualifications are pretty general it’s hard to see how Isobe meets them. Rather, a look at his past shows him to be a PR flack and himself a crony of the past three administrations.
A UH graduate and “lifelong” Hawai`i resident Isobe first shows up in 1996 as a spokesperson for Princeville corporation during a time of conflict with the homeowners there over various issues.
Though the dates are unclear his first stint with the county was as Deputy Finance Director under the Kusaka administration and was appointed to a state community-based economic development advisory council in 2006.
He was also a member of the infamous Kaua`i Economic Development Board under disgraced head Gary Baldwin who started the business-friendly pro-development board promoting a staunch chamber of commerce agenda until Baldwin left in disgrace after it was revealed that he was a wanted for running a financial scam on the mainland.
Then having proved himself adept at defending large and powerful corporations he held a positions at Kaua`i Community College (KCC) serving as director of the Kauai Rural Development Project where he developed “F.A.R.M... a strategy to bring the Kauai business community together through education” according to the Pacific Business Journal (PBJ) article in 2001.
That led to a job as training coordinator in the Office of Continuing Education and Training at KCC where, rather than offering traditional academic courses, he was part of a push to serve “business organizations, visitor bureau, chamber of commerce and (the) work-force investment board” telling PBJ in 2003 “’We are in constant contact with people in the industry and our courses revolve around their needs’" .
How that constitutes “training, education or experience as shall qualify” him to be B&C Administrator is anyone’s guess. It certainly qualifies him to know all the pro- development cronies in the Chamber of Commerce-KEDB crowd in order to make sure the B&Cs are stacked to reflect and protect their interests.
One of the most important parts of the amendment was what the administrator was supposed to do and the CRC made sure that open governance principles were to be one of the more important functions.
The charter amendment reads in part:
The administrator shall assist in providing administrative and operational support to the various county boards and commissions. Such support shall include, but not be limited to: assisting in the recruitment, orientation, education, and training of board or commission members regarding their powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities under the charter... (and) helping to educate such members about applicable state and county ethics laws and the State Sunshine Law... (emphasis added).
But the words “sunshine law” never appear at the county web site’s B&C page. Instead here’s Isobe’s blurb at the top of the B&C page:
Kauai County's 16 boards and commissions are comprised of 116 volunteer board members and commissioners who oversee and make critical decisions about key County functions and groups. Volunteers who serve on Kauai County boards and commissions are the best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources. They give an extraordinary amount of time to serve in these roles each year and make both personal and professional sacrifices to do so. Because of this and the weight of their responsibilities to our community, they are among Kauai's treasures.
Instead of trying to recruit everyday citizens who have no preconceived notions- and especially no conflicts of interests in “their fields”- rather he seeks to find the “best in their fields, local leaders, and valuable, knowledgeable resources”- a euphemism for well connected people with a lot to lose if they offend the mayor, who can be counted on to “not rock the boat”... also known as his and the mayors cronies, supporters and campaign contributors, which includes Isobe.
Want more proof? Just look at the notice posted for the first B&C training session this year, scheduled for January 29th, on the “Role Of The Board/Commission Member”.
For some incredibly tone deaf reason it is not itself “agendaed” as a government meeting but rather is printed on Kaua`i Chamber of Commerce stationary and is apparently sponsored by the business promotion organization “Leadership Kaua`i”.
Among the topics covered are:
...your duties and responsibilities as a board or commission member, tips on what resources and materials are available (i.e. charter, county and state laws), general provisions of the law, standards of ethical conduct, guidelines on effective communications (and) basic parliamentary procedure.
The importance of transparency, open meetings and records and public testimony are not to be found.
This is exactly the attitude that former Board of Ethics member Rolf Bieber spoke of, especially the attitude among B&C members that they are the elite and know better than the common rabble whose testimony should be tolerated only because it is required by law- a law they are barely aware of.
John Isobe is the exact opposite of what a B&C administrator should be and is a disgrace to democracy and good governance. His resignation and replacement with a trained manager- one experienced in facilitating communication between citizen volunteers and members of the public- can only be a positive for Kaua`i which at deserves to have the charter amendment they passed honored.
---------
We’ve gotta get outta the house tomorrow and Friday. Unless we feel especially ambitious we’ll be back Monday.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
UNFAIR TO MIDDLING
UNFAIR TO MIDDLING: We’d been wondering when we’d hear from Rolf Bieber himself telling the long sad story of his public service on the Board of Ethics (BOE) and his abominable treatment by just about everyone in the county administration for trying to do the job he was sworn to do- an unforgivable act on Kaua`i.
Bieber’s letter to the editor in today’s local newspaper cites his saga, chapter and verse, naming names of everyone involved from Mayor Bernard Carvalho to County Attorney Al Castillo, the rest of the BOE members, the members of the county council and assorted king’s-uniform-bedecked bureaucrats and sycophants, all carrying the kings sword.
Bieber writes that his taking of the
oath to preserve the Charter soon aligned me against BOE colleagues, mayoral appointees, the Office of Boards and Commissions (OBC), the County Attorney (CA) and apparently Mayor Carvalho himself, who inexplicably refused to reappoint me to the board for a second term.
But, although the unrivaled plodding cronyism of a politically-tone-deaf Carvalho has set the tone for this administration’s corruption as never before, it could not have been accomplished without Office Boards and Commissions (OBC) administrator John Isobe.
Bieber writes that
Mr. Isobe would on several other occasions try inappropriately to influence me — once, when I requested public documents that could expose members of the administration and commissions he asked that I not share the documents with anyone, and later calling me to meet in his office “to see how things were going” but to actually express his desire for the BOE to reach a “super-majority or unanimous-vote only for release of County Attorney opinions to the public.”
The irony in all this is that it was in fact the same good governance activists that Bieber thanks for their support at the end of the letter who were among those who helped create Isobe’s job.
When the “original” Charter Commission- the one appointed in 2004 under the “every 10 years” provision in the charter- proposed a slew of amendments for the ’06 election, one that all agreed would go a long way toward repairing the apparently broken board and commission system on Kaua`i was the creation of the OBC.
The problems the commission found were due to the lack of guidance from the administration as most newly appointed B&C members were just thrown into their position with no idea what they were doing there.
The thought was that an office of B&Cs would provide the necessary support with training and a one-stop central place for commissioners and board members to go with questions as to how to do their jobs correctly and ethically.
But, as we all find out sooner or later, you can write good legislation and charter provisions until you’re blue in the face but if corrupt-minded individuals dedicated to obedience and cronyism are elected and those elected appoint more of the same to administrative posts there’s little that will work the way it’s supposed to.
Rather than facilitating the B&C members in their quest to uphold their oath Isobe has intervened to make sure they serve the political goals of the mayor.
We can tinker with- or even fully rewrite- the Kaua`i County Charter. But if we continue to elect self-aggrandizing boobs like Carvalho with a “give the new guy a chance” and “how bad could he be” attitude we will, as Bieber says, keep finding out what we knew already... “together we can’t”
One more note- Bieber writes:
In April of 2009, Castillo told me he had meetings with Kauai Circuit Court Judge Randal Valenciano on several occasions concerning 20.02 (D)
Huh? But April of 2009 the controversy over 20.02(D) had been well underway for years with dueling “interpretations” making the matter ripe for an eventual 5th Circuit Court lawsuit.
We certainly deserve an explanation from both Castillo and Valenciano on this apparent breach of ethics.
Bieber’s letter to the editor in today’s local newspaper cites his saga, chapter and verse, naming names of everyone involved from Mayor Bernard Carvalho to County Attorney Al Castillo, the rest of the BOE members, the members of the county council and assorted king’s-uniform-bedecked bureaucrats and sycophants, all carrying the kings sword.
Bieber writes that his taking of the
oath to preserve the Charter soon aligned me against BOE colleagues, mayoral appointees, the Office of Boards and Commissions (OBC), the County Attorney (CA) and apparently Mayor Carvalho himself, who inexplicably refused to reappoint me to the board for a second term.
But, although the unrivaled plodding cronyism of a politically-tone-deaf Carvalho has set the tone for this administration’s corruption as never before, it could not have been accomplished without Office Boards and Commissions (OBC) administrator John Isobe.
Bieber writes that
Mr. Isobe would on several other occasions try inappropriately to influence me — once, when I requested public documents that could expose members of the administration and commissions he asked that I not share the documents with anyone, and later calling me to meet in his office “to see how things were going” but to actually express his desire for the BOE to reach a “super-majority or unanimous-vote only for release of County Attorney opinions to the public.”
The irony in all this is that it was in fact the same good governance activists that Bieber thanks for their support at the end of the letter who were among those who helped create Isobe’s job.
When the “original” Charter Commission- the one appointed in 2004 under the “every 10 years” provision in the charter- proposed a slew of amendments for the ’06 election, one that all agreed would go a long way toward repairing the apparently broken board and commission system on Kaua`i was the creation of the OBC.
The problems the commission found were due to the lack of guidance from the administration as most newly appointed B&C members were just thrown into their position with no idea what they were doing there.
The thought was that an office of B&Cs would provide the necessary support with training and a one-stop central place for commissioners and board members to go with questions as to how to do their jobs correctly and ethically.
But, as we all find out sooner or later, you can write good legislation and charter provisions until you’re blue in the face but if corrupt-minded individuals dedicated to obedience and cronyism are elected and those elected appoint more of the same to administrative posts there’s little that will work the way it’s supposed to.
Rather than facilitating the B&C members in their quest to uphold their oath Isobe has intervened to make sure they serve the political goals of the mayor.
We can tinker with- or even fully rewrite- the Kaua`i County Charter. But if we continue to elect self-aggrandizing boobs like Carvalho with a “give the new guy a chance” and “how bad could he be” attitude we will, as Bieber says, keep finding out what we knew already... “together we can’t”
One more note- Bieber writes:
In April of 2009, Castillo told me he had meetings with Kauai Circuit Court Judge Randal Valenciano on several occasions concerning 20.02 (D)
Huh? But April of 2009 the controversy over 20.02(D) had been well underway for years with dueling “interpretations” making the matter ripe for an eventual 5th Circuit Court lawsuit.
We certainly deserve an explanation from both Castillo and Valenciano on this apparent breach of ethics.
Friday, December 18, 2009
(PNN) BIEBER TOSSED FROM ETHICS BOARD- SAYS CARVALHO. ISOBE “AFRAID AND ANGRY BECAUSE I DIDN’T DRINK THE KOOL-AID.”
BIEBER TOSSED FROM ETHICS BOARD- SAYS CARVALHO. ISOBE “AFRAID AND ANGRY BECAUSE I DIDN’T DRINK THE KOOL-AID.”
(PNN) -- They say Diogenes’ search for an honest man came up empty because there aren’t any.
Board of Ethics member Rolf Bieber found that out in spades this week. After a year of trying to bring some ethical standards to county government he was unceremoniously dumped from the Board of Ethics (BOE) by Mayor Bernard Carvalho with little or no explanation.
Bieber say that Carvalho cryptically told him via telephone that his application for a full BOE term wouldn’t be approved and when he asked why Carvalho responded with one word: “balance”
“I asked for clarification” Bieber told us in a telephone interview this morning. “Afterall, I feel like I am the balance.”
Bieber has a Monday morning appointment to get further clarification noting Carvalho also claimed “it’s not me”.
But Bieber thinks it’s pretty apparent why his service was rejected- his attempts to get others on the BOE, to enforce county charter provision 20.02(d) which prohibits county officials from appearing on behalf of private interests before county agencies, board and/or commissions- including some who have engaged in such activities
Bieber filed complaints against BOE members Mark Hubbard and Judy Lenthall who had appeared on behalf of Kauai Action and Planning Alliance and the Food Bank respectively, hat in hand, asking for money before the county council saying he felt like that was part of the job of a BOE member.
“I took an oath of office and I honored that oath. Mark and Judy were breaking the law so what was I supposed to do?” Bieber asks.
“If I have to get fired for dong my job under this administration maybe I need to run for office again next November so they can’t fire me.”
Bieber ran unsuccessfully for mayor against Carvalho in the 2008 “special” election after the death of Mayor Bryan Baptiste.
Bieber addressed the supposed “chilling effect” enforcing the charter would have on finding people to fill the volunteer slots on the many B&Cs, as cited by Board and Commissions (B&Cs) Administrator John Isobe and others.
Bieber says that “the concept that they can’t find people to fill these boards and commissions is a myth and I’m a prime example of that.
“People were aware I wanted to continue the work on the BOE. In November I had reapplied at the Boards and Commissions office for BOE and I made public statements that I was seeking a second term.
“Here we have a person who wants to serve, who has no conflicts, who’s being rejected by the administration. They’re saying they can’t find folks without conflicts of interest and I’m one who doesn’t and who wants to continue to serve and they’re rejecting me.”
One of the most controversial issues was what Bieber and fellow BOE member Paul Weil as a "fatally flawed" advisory opinion from current County Attorney Al Castillo and his Deputy Mauna Kea Trask that, despite the fact that it was "advisory" Castillo claimed was binding on the board.
The opinion would use the “Code of Ethic” ordinance to redefine 20.02(d) virtually out of existence, violating supremacy of law principles.
So why does Bieber think he was rejected, to be replaced with another county insider, former Deputy County Attorney Warren Perry who many believe to have been one of the prime behind-the-scenes movers in the firing of ex- Police Chief KC Lum- due to a BOE decision- and the installation of his brother, KPD Chief Darryl Perry, who was “runner-up” when Lum was appointed chief?
“All I can come up with is that they’re afraid and angry because I didn’t drink the Kool-aid.” he says.
Bieber does say though that he is genuinely thankful for his original appointment that came after his endorsement of Carvalho in the waning days of last years election after Bieber was eliminated in the first round.
“I appreciate the opportunity and there’s a lot of work left to be done. I want to continue it but for some reason they don’t want me to.”
As to what specifically he sees as problematic Bieber says “there’s a certain quality of openness that’s missing among many who serve on board and commissions”.
He cites an example of how, when a county worker he knows appeared before the board he felt compelled to disclose his friendship. But when BOE member Lei Fuller, who serves on the YWCA Board, heard Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho’s testimony before the BOE about a budget rearrangements in her department that would be a windfall for the “Y” she failed to note any conflict or even feel any need to disclose any potential or even appearance of a conflict of interest.
“That’s what I’m trying to bring to the BOE- a higher standard of ethics than we have now” he says.
“Hubbard doesn’t even believe in the concept of appearance of a conflict of interest- it’s another example of my ethical standard verses those of some of the other board members”.
Bieber did note that he thinks that, at least partially through his efforts, fellow BOE member Lenthall has apparently seen how the law applies to her and has not sought another term on the BOE so she can continue her work at the Food Bank without any ethical problems.
“I hope that if nothing else I’ve been able to raise these issues and maybe in the future appointments of those with obvious conflicts will be a thing of the past.”
(PNN) -- They say Diogenes’ search for an honest man came up empty because there aren’t any.
Board of Ethics member Rolf Bieber found that out in spades this week. After a year of trying to bring some ethical standards to county government he was unceremoniously dumped from the Board of Ethics (BOE) by Mayor Bernard Carvalho with little or no explanation.
Bieber say that Carvalho cryptically told him via telephone that his application for a full BOE term wouldn’t be approved and when he asked why Carvalho responded with one word: “balance”
“I asked for clarification” Bieber told us in a telephone interview this morning. “Afterall, I feel like I am the balance.”
Bieber has a Monday morning appointment to get further clarification noting Carvalho also claimed “it’s not me”.
But Bieber thinks it’s pretty apparent why his service was rejected- his attempts to get others on the BOE, to enforce county charter provision 20.02(d) which prohibits county officials from appearing on behalf of private interests before county agencies, board and/or commissions- including some who have engaged in such activities
Bieber filed complaints against BOE members Mark Hubbard and Judy Lenthall who had appeared on behalf of Kauai Action and Planning Alliance and the Food Bank respectively, hat in hand, asking for money before the county council saying he felt like that was part of the job of a BOE member.
“I took an oath of office and I honored that oath. Mark and Judy were breaking the law so what was I supposed to do?” Bieber asks.
“If I have to get fired for dong my job under this administration maybe I need to run for office again next November so they can’t fire me.”
Bieber ran unsuccessfully for mayor against Carvalho in the 2008 “special” election after the death of Mayor Bryan Baptiste.
Bieber addressed the supposed “chilling effect” enforcing the charter would have on finding people to fill the volunteer slots on the many B&Cs, as cited by Board and Commissions (B&Cs) Administrator John Isobe and others.
Bieber says that “the concept that they can’t find people to fill these boards and commissions is a myth and I’m a prime example of that.
“People were aware I wanted to continue the work on the BOE. In November I had reapplied at the Boards and Commissions office for BOE and I made public statements that I was seeking a second term.
“Here we have a person who wants to serve, who has no conflicts, who’s being rejected by the administration. They’re saying they can’t find folks without conflicts of interest and I’m one who doesn’t and who wants to continue to serve and they’re rejecting me.”
One of the most controversial issues was what Bieber and fellow BOE member Paul Weil as a "fatally flawed" advisory opinion from current County Attorney Al Castillo and his Deputy Mauna Kea Trask that, despite the fact that it was "advisory" Castillo claimed was binding on the board.
The opinion would use the “Code of Ethic” ordinance to redefine 20.02(d) virtually out of existence, violating supremacy of law principles.
So why does Bieber think he was rejected, to be replaced with another county insider, former Deputy County Attorney Warren Perry who many believe to have been one of the prime behind-the-scenes movers in the firing of ex- Police Chief KC Lum- due to a BOE decision- and the installation of his brother, KPD Chief Darryl Perry, who was “runner-up” when Lum was appointed chief?
“All I can come up with is that they’re afraid and angry because I didn’t drink the Kool-aid.” he says.
Bieber does say though that he is genuinely thankful for his original appointment that came after his endorsement of Carvalho in the waning days of last years election after Bieber was eliminated in the first round.
“I appreciate the opportunity and there’s a lot of work left to be done. I want to continue it but for some reason they don’t want me to.”
As to what specifically he sees as problematic Bieber says “there’s a certain quality of openness that’s missing among many who serve on board and commissions”.
He cites an example of how, when a county worker he knows appeared before the board he felt compelled to disclose his friendship. But when BOE member Lei Fuller, who serves on the YWCA Board, heard Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho’s testimony before the BOE about a budget rearrangements in her department that would be a windfall for the “Y” she failed to note any conflict or even feel any need to disclose any potential or even appearance of a conflict of interest.
“That’s what I’m trying to bring to the BOE- a higher standard of ethics than we have now” he says.
“Hubbard doesn’t even believe in the concept of appearance of a conflict of interest- it’s another example of my ethical standard verses those of some of the other board members”.
Bieber did note that he thinks that, at least partially through his efforts, fellow BOE member Lenthall has apparently seen how the law applies to her and has not sought another term on the BOE so she can continue her work at the Food Bank without any ethical problems.
“I hope that if nothing else I’ve been able to raise these issues and maybe in the future appointments of those with obvious conflicts will be a thing of the past.”
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
WHERE DO THE HUSKIES GO?
WHERE DO THE HUSKIES GO?: When we first heard that former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber was appointed to the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) and heard he was seeking to clean up this town a la Marshall Dillon our world-weary, seen-it-all, smart-ass response was a decidedly satirical “good luck Chuck”.
So it’s with more than a little surprise that today the local newspaper’s Mike Levine has reported that one of the worst offenders of the charter’s ban on board and commission volunteers appearing before the county government on behalf of private interests while serving on other boards of commissions, Lorna Nishimitsu, has joined one her associates, Jonathan Chun, in resigning her Board of Review position.
It comes on the heels of course of the BOE’s decision to advise former Charter Review Commissioner (CRC) Mattie Yoshioka that she was in violation of the charter, despite a previous opinion clearing Chun who also served on the CRC.
But Nishimitsu- who has cut her teeth defending some of the more scummy developers and landowners for old boy network charter member attorney Walton Hong’s firm before moving on to Graham’s more “respectable” jerkwad-representing law corporation- had an interesting parting shot directed at the weasels on the ethics board that are also themselves in violation but have yet to resign.
After the perfunctory resignation her letter goes on to say:
“On a final note, however, please consider the irony that some of the authors of the Advisory Opinion (who, like myself, have appeared before other boards, commissions, agencies or the Council on matters unrelated to their duties as board or commission members) apparently intend to continue to serve on the Board of Ethics.”
That would be Mark Hubbard. Lei Fuller and Judy Lenthall all of whose stories have been well documented in this space.
Well, better late than never although, as with Chun, it’s a little disconcerting that their “boss” Mike Belles is a former county attorney who, by his silence in allowing them to work on cases before the county council, has also apparently been complicit in allowing the whole back-scratching county system to develop and pervade.
It’s sounding hollower and hollower each time the crony-corralling Office of Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe repeats County Attorney Al Castillo’s handwringing over, as Levine reports, some purported “chilling effect, causing a mass exodus of county volunteers” if the charter were enforced.
Are they implying that the tens of thousands of Kaua`i denizens who are unconflicted aren't “board and commission material”– and that the few hundred well connected revolving door beneficiaries apparently are- simply because they lack a rubber stamp- or more often, can’t be paid off to do the mayor’s bidding with a favorable decision by a fellow beneficiary.
But looking beyond the mucky muck and his campaign supporters would take a mayor who appoints people based on what they know, not who they know, a concept that when suggested to most people causes a short silence before rip-roaring roll-on-the-floor laughter erupts.
So it’s with more than a little surprise that today the local newspaper’s Mike Levine has reported that one of the worst offenders of the charter’s ban on board and commission volunteers appearing before the county government on behalf of private interests while serving on other boards of commissions, Lorna Nishimitsu, has joined one her associates, Jonathan Chun, in resigning her Board of Review position.
It comes on the heels of course of the BOE’s decision to advise former Charter Review Commissioner (CRC) Mattie Yoshioka that she was in violation of the charter, despite a previous opinion clearing Chun who also served on the CRC.
But Nishimitsu- who has cut her teeth defending some of the more scummy developers and landowners for old boy network charter member attorney Walton Hong’s firm before moving on to Graham’s more “respectable” jerkwad-representing law corporation- had an interesting parting shot directed at the weasels on the ethics board that are also themselves in violation but have yet to resign.
After the perfunctory resignation her letter goes on to say:
“On a final note, however, please consider the irony that some of the authors of the Advisory Opinion (who, like myself, have appeared before other boards, commissions, agencies or the Council on matters unrelated to their duties as board or commission members) apparently intend to continue to serve on the Board of Ethics.”
That would be Mark Hubbard. Lei Fuller and Judy Lenthall all of whose stories have been well documented in this space.
Well, better late than never although, as with Chun, it’s a little disconcerting that their “boss” Mike Belles is a former county attorney who, by his silence in allowing them to work on cases before the county council, has also apparently been complicit in allowing the whole back-scratching county system to develop and pervade.
It’s sounding hollower and hollower each time the crony-corralling Office of Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe repeats County Attorney Al Castillo’s handwringing over, as Levine reports, some purported “chilling effect, causing a mass exodus of county volunteers” if the charter were enforced.
Are they implying that the tens of thousands of Kaua`i denizens who are unconflicted aren't “board and commission material”– and that the few hundred well connected revolving door beneficiaries apparently are- simply because they lack a rubber stamp- or more often, can’t be paid off to do the mayor’s bidding with a favorable decision by a fellow beneficiary.
But looking beyond the mucky muck and his campaign supporters would take a mayor who appoints people based on what they know, not who they know, a concept that when suggested to most people causes a short silence before rip-roaring roll-on-the-floor laughter erupts.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
RUNNIN’ IN CIRCLES
RUNNIN’ IN CIRCLES: Anyone who thought Councilperson Jay Furfaro might be abandoning his post at the walls of the Minotaur’s labyrinth and doing a “180” by joining the transparency and open governance dissidents on the council can abandon all hope after reading his letter to the editor today spinning yet another 180 to complete a 360 like a political Baryshnikov.
Furfaro’s letter attempts “to clarify- in the interest of full transparency” the contentions, in a letter from former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber a week before.
Bieber said that there are “unacceptable levels of county government secrecy” and that his testimony was apparently deliberately withheld from at least some councilmember’s purview.
Furfaro however, in “protesting too much”, actually presents the crux of the dynamics of the lack of proper distribution of pertinent paperwork and constituent testimony that Councilperson Tim Bynum has detailed at his and Councilperson Lani Kawahara’s kauaiinfo.org web site.
Bieber describes his efforts to make sure testimony on one specific agenda item last November- the council’s discussion of a method of releasing those “secret” county attorney opinions- reached councilmembers as well as his persistence in the attempt with no less then three separate tries at making sure councilpersons got the testimony before and at the meeting along with the other materials they routinely receive.
Furfaro throws any number of excuses against the wall hoping one will stick, although it only underlines how the council did not receive the testimony as part of the official packet of communications and presumably constituent testimony.
Furfaro writes:
Mr. Bieber contends that information he sent to councilmembers — via e-mail to the county clerk on Nov. 1, 2008 — which he wished the members to consider for an item on the Nov. 6, 2008 agenda, did not reach members prior to that meeting. This assertion is false.
But the only thing that is false is Furfaro’s weasely straw man arguments and the red herrings he so disingenuously points out.
After selectively scrupulously and needlessly describing only one of the efforts of Bieber, detailing the original receipt of Bieber’s testimony by County Clerk Peter Nakamura he says:
Mr. Nakamura printed and date-stamped copies of this communication and deposited them in each of the councilmembers’ mailboxes. I still have my copy of that communication with the date stamp...
Although I don’t recall the exchange, it could very well have been me to which Mr. Bieber is referring. Because of the election and its related activities, I had not checked my council mailbox since the preceding Saturday, and would not have been familiar with the documentation placed there prior to that day.
And that is precisely the problem. First of all the fact that Furfaro received it and others apparently didn’t- as Bieber details in his letter- shows the selective distribution of testimony by the clerk- one of Bynum’s biggest gripes. But more important is the method- stuffing a paper copy into councilperson’s mailboxes instead of distributing it in the packet where testimony belongs.
This assures it will sometimes get lost along with the myriad other stuff in the mailbox and should not be the preferred method of distributing testimony. It assures that some matter will be lost in the shuffle, as happened in this case.
Electronic distribution seem to be a concept that Furfaro can’t abide, showing either he doesn’t understand the technology or seeks to ignore it.
Here’s how Bieber described what happened:
Nov. 1, 2008, I received an e-mail response from the county clerk telling me that although the office was very busy with general elections, copies of case law (Akaku v. Bennett) I sent directly to the clerk’s office for council view regarding C2008-319 would be “distributed to all council members for the Thursday, Nov. 6 meeting.”
Importantly, the County Attorney’s Office was copied in my communication to the clerk.The evening before the council meeting I decided to testify before council on C2008-319. Up until then, I assumed the Akaku e-mail to the council and county attorney was enough. For courtesy, I delivered a brief e-mail testimony to the “County of Kaua`i/ Council” making sure again the county attorney was copied. The correspondence contained two questions for the council to answer concerning the relevance of Akaku on release of county attorney opinions.
Curious is what happened next.
The following afternoon, Nov. 6, 2008, during council recess shortly before C2008-319, I asked a councilman outside chambers if he had received the Akaku case law. He said he did not. I inquired if he knew anything about my written testimony concerning the agenda item. He said no.
A moment later, before I could arrive to the entrance of council chambers, I was asked to step into a small council office room behind the chamber by the council’s “in-house” attorney. Alone, he urged me not to give testimony on C2008-319. He said it would be a waste of time, that I may embarrass myself and that the case law itself was irrelevant. I responded politely and told him I intended to testify anyway.
Five days before, the clerk told me he would distribute the case law. But then at least one council member said he knew nothing of it and shortly thereafter the council’s attorney discouraged me from giving testimony.
Something was wrong.
Events following are illustrated by council minutes of C2008-319, Nov. 6, 2008 and Ho`ike video in my possession:
Bieber to council: “Did you receive my e-mail, the .pdf file from [County Clerk], the case law?”
[Councilman whom I addressed earlier outside]: “I did not receive anything.”
At that point, the council’s attorney who discouraged my testimony began distributing the case law and written testimony around the table to the council members. Lots of uncomfortable laughter ensued. Perhaps only by coincidence did then the deputy county attorney leave chambers on his phone.
Chairman Furfaro: “May I take a moment before you start [Bieber’s] time. Just to remind everyone that often when you respond to County of Kaua`i, there is a timing issue with circulation and if you use our personal e-mails ... we are able to expedite the communication quicker.”
Finally, if you read the minutes or view video, Akaku was anything but “irrelevant” — it sparked lengthy debate amongst council members and the deputy county attorney concerning release of county attorney opinions.
Although Bieber just describes the facts it’s apparent that someone didn’t want the testimony distributed and it wasn’t.
But Furfaro’s response is especially non responsive to what Bieber actually alleged
Mr. Bieber states in his letter that, upon approaching an unnamed councilmember at the meeting on Nov. 6, he was told by that councilmember that he had not received the information e-mailed on Nov. 1...
While my colleagues and I try diligently to “do our homework” prior to all official proceedings, during election week it is especially difficult to do so. It would not surprise me if other councilmembers had arrived for that Nov. 6 meeting without fully reviewing all of the mail that had accumulated from the week before.
In my mind, there is a significant distinction between not receiving information and not having had the opportunity to review it. No such distinction was made by Mr. Bieber.
What the relevance of the opportunity to review the testimony has in relation to the charges Bieber makes is unknown to anyone by Furfaro. It’s not a distinction but it’s certainly a distraction. If anything it points out that not only wasn’t it properly distributed prior to the meeting but at it as well.
How any of this is relevant is a mystery only Furfaro can answer but his weak attempt at making excuses for the fact that the testimony did not appear on the desks of councilmembers at the meeting until it had to be pried from the hands of staff indicates precisely the problem Furfaro seeks to pooh-pooh.
Plus the fact that he didn’t check his mailbox shows just how inefficient the method of distribution is, as Bynum has detailed.
At any rate, note how Furfaro says HE received it and wants us to infer all others had too although he doesn’t state that. But selective distribution is common practice according to Bynum. Notice also how he presumes he was the one who denied having read it to distract from the fact that it could well have been someone else... or implying he’s so important his reading of it was sufficient for all members to have read it, another common Furfaro-ism.
But it’s the misdirection, irrelevant details and condescending tone in light of the lack of content that stand out. Bieber’s description of “the council’s ‘in-house’ attorney” is attacked by Furfaro who says in fact that “(t)he person to whom he refers to was not the council’s attorney. He was the council’s analyst — another important distinction”.
Another half-truth that tries to misrepresent. In fact the council’s “legislative analysts” are all attorneys who in fact are “in house” as opposed to the attorneys from the county attorney’s office- one of whom was mentioned by Bieber in the letter.
Bieber’s description is exceptionally apt, especially considering the function of at least one of them, Ricky Wantanabe who, it should be mentioned at least once, is more than likely the brains behind chair Kaipo Asing’s dictatorial reign and the whole council secrecy scheme.
Wantanbe basically runs the whole operation, as anyone who has observed the council for any amount of time can tell you. And although we don’t know for sure, we can pretty well guess is the one who pulled Bieber aside to discourage his testimony.
Not only that but the feeble excuse of it being election day doesn’t hold water. Not only isn’t this an isolated incident but getting testimony to councilpersons without citizens’ having to exhibit bulldog persistence should be de rigor no matter what else is going on.
Oh and by the way Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion is in charge of running the day to day operation of the election, not Nakamura who, although Kaua`i chief election officer by law, is really the overall administrator and troubleshooter.
But more important than anything is the fact that Furfaro is seeking to play both sides of the fence here, claiming “I’m a dissident too” as he sees that the public outrage grows over the iron fisted reign of Asing, while at the same time protecting the entrenched systematic way that the council and the administrative boards and commissions treat the public with distain and seek to protect members from their inquires and testimony unless people persist beyond all reason.
If Furfaro had any integrity he would choose a side and either stand at the gates of stonewall with Asing, Nakamura and Wantanabe or join what is now an island wide movement that is disgusted with this old boy protection racket and will presumably be demanding change in November 2010.
Bieber’s experience is, as he notes, not an isolated incident as anyone who deals with Nakamura’s council services will tell you. But Furfaro has shown his stripes and any more half hearted attempts to disassociate himself from the forces of opaque governance will be greeted with the derision it so aptly deserves.
Furfaro’s letter attempts “to clarify- in the interest of full transparency” the contentions, in a letter from former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber a week before.
Bieber said that there are “unacceptable levels of county government secrecy” and that his testimony was apparently deliberately withheld from at least some councilmember’s purview.
Furfaro however, in “protesting too much”, actually presents the crux of the dynamics of the lack of proper distribution of pertinent paperwork and constituent testimony that Councilperson Tim Bynum has detailed at his and Councilperson Lani Kawahara’s kauaiinfo.org web site.
Bieber describes his efforts to make sure testimony on one specific agenda item last November- the council’s discussion of a method of releasing those “secret” county attorney opinions- reached councilmembers as well as his persistence in the attempt with no less then three separate tries at making sure councilpersons got the testimony before and at the meeting along with the other materials they routinely receive.
Furfaro throws any number of excuses against the wall hoping one will stick, although it only underlines how the council did not receive the testimony as part of the official packet of communications and presumably constituent testimony.
Furfaro writes:
Mr. Bieber contends that information he sent to councilmembers — via e-mail to the county clerk on Nov. 1, 2008 — which he wished the members to consider for an item on the Nov. 6, 2008 agenda, did not reach members prior to that meeting. This assertion is false.
But the only thing that is false is Furfaro’s weasely straw man arguments and the red herrings he so disingenuously points out.
After selectively scrupulously and needlessly describing only one of the efforts of Bieber, detailing the original receipt of Bieber’s testimony by County Clerk Peter Nakamura he says:
Mr. Nakamura printed and date-stamped copies of this communication and deposited them in each of the councilmembers’ mailboxes. I still have my copy of that communication with the date stamp...
Although I don’t recall the exchange, it could very well have been me to which Mr. Bieber is referring. Because of the election and its related activities, I had not checked my council mailbox since the preceding Saturday, and would not have been familiar with the documentation placed there prior to that day.
And that is precisely the problem. First of all the fact that Furfaro received it and others apparently didn’t- as Bieber details in his letter- shows the selective distribution of testimony by the clerk- one of Bynum’s biggest gripes. But more important is the method- stuffing a paper copy into councilperson’s mailboxes instead of distributing it in the packet where testimony belongs.
This assures it will sometimes get lost along with the myriad other stuff in the mailbox and should not be the preferred method of distributing testimony. It assures that some matter will be lost in the shuffle, as happened in this case.
Electronic distribution seem to be a concept that Furfaro can’t abide, showing either he doesn’t understand the technology or seeks to ignore it.
Here’s how Bieber described what happened:
Nov. 1, 2008, I received an e-mail response from the county clerk telling me that although the office was very busy with general elections, copies of case law (Akaku v. Bennett) I sent directly to the clerk’s office for council view regarding C2008-319 would be “distributed to all council members for the Thursday, Nov. 6 meeting.”
Importantly, the County Attorney’s Office was copied in my communication to the clerk.The evening before the council meeting I decided to testify before council on C2008-319. Up until then, I assumed the Akaku e-mail to the council and county attorney was enough. For courtesy, I delivered a brief e-mail testimony to the “County of Kaua`i/ Council” making sure again the county attorney was copied. The correspondence contained two questions for the council to answer concerning the relevance of Akaku on release of county attorney opinions.
Curious is what happened next.
The following afternoon, Nov. 6, 2008, during council recess shortly before C2008-319, I asked a councilman outside chambers if he had received the Akaku case law. He said he did not. I inquired if he knew anything about my written testimony concerning the agenda item. He said no.
A moment later, before I could arrive to the entrance of council chambers, I was asked to step into a small council office room behind the chamber by the council’s “in-house” attorney. Alone, he urged me not to give testimony on C2008-319. He said it would be a waste of time, that I may embarrass myself and that the case law itself was irrelevant. I responded politely and told him I intended to testify anyway.
Five days before, the clerk told me he would distribute the case law. But then at least one council member said he knew nothing of it and shortly thereafter the council’s attorney discouraged me from giving testimony.
Something was wrong.
Events following are illustrated by council minutes of C2008-319, Nov. 6, 2008 and Ho`ike video in my possession:
Bieber to council: “Did you receive my e-mail, the .pdf file from [County Clerk], the case law?”
[Councilman whom I addressed earlier outside]: “I did not receive anything.”
At that point, the council’s attorney who discouraged my testimony began distributing the case law and written testimony around the table to the council members. Lots of uncomfortable laughter ensued. Perhaps only by coincidence did then the deputy county attorney leave chambers on his phone.
Chairman Furfaro: “May I take a moment before you start [Bieber’s] time. Just to remind everyone that often when you respond to County of Kaua`i, there is a timing issue with circulation and if you use our personal e-mails ... we are able to expedite the communication quicker.”
Finally, if you read the minutes or view video, Akaku was anything but “irrelevant” — it sparked lengthy debate amongst council members and the deputy county attorney concerning release of county attorney opinions.
Although Bieber just describes the facts it’s apparent that someone didn’t want the testimony distributed and it wasn’t.
But Furfaro’s response is especially non responsive to what Bieber actually alleged
Mr. Bieber states in his letter that, upon approaching an unnamed councilmember at the meeting on Nov. 6, he was told by that councilmember that he had not received the information e-mailed on Nov. 1...
While my colleagues and I try diligently to “do our homework” prior to all official proceedings, during election week it is especially difficult to do so. It would not surprise me if other councilmembers had arrived for that Nov. 6 meeting without fully reviewing all of the mail that had accumulated from the week before.
In my mind, there is a significant distinction between not receiving information and not having had the opportunity to review it. No such distinction was made by Mr. Bieber.
What the relevance of the opportunity to review the testimony has in relation to the charges Bieber makes is unknown to anyone by Furfaro. It’s not a distinction but it’s certainly a distraction. If anything it points out that not only wasn’t it properly distributed prior to the meeting but at it as well.
How any of this is relevant is a mystery only Furfaro can answer but his weak attempt at making excuses for the fact that the testimony did not appear on the desks of councilmembers at the meeting until it had to be pried from the hands of staff indicates precisely the problem Furfaro seeks to pooh-pooh.
Plus the fact that he didn’t check his mailbox shows just how inefficient the method of distribution is, as Bynum has detailed.
At any rate, note how Furfaro says HE received it and wants us to infer all others had too although he doesn’t state that. But selective distribution is common practice according to Bynum. Notice also how he presumes he was the one who denied having read it to distract from the fact that it could well have been someone else... or implying he’s so important his reading of it was sufficient for all members to have read it, another common Furfaro-ism.
But it’s the misdirection, irrelevant details and condescending tone in light of the lack of content that stand out. Bieber’s description of “the council’s ‘in-house’ attorney” is attacked by Furfaro who says in fact that “(t)he person to whom he refers to was not the council’s attorney. He was the council’s analyst — another important distinction”.
Another half-truth that tries to misrepresent. In fact the council’s “legislative analysts” are all attorneys who in fact are “in house” as opposed to the attorneys from the county attorney’s office- one of whom was mentioned by Bieber in the letter.
Bieber’s description is exceptionally apt, especially considering the function of at least one of them, Ricky Wantanabe who, it should be mentioned at least once, is more than likely the brains behind chair Kaipo Asing’s dictatorial reign and the whole council secrecy scheme.
Wantanbe basically runs the whole operation, as anyone who has observed the council for any amount of time can tell you. And although we don’t know for sure, we can pretty well guess is the one who pulled Bieber aside to discourage his testimony.
Not only that but the feeble excuse of it being election day doesn’t hold water. Not only isn’t this an isolated incident but getting testimony to councilpersons without citizens’ having to exhibit bulldog persistence should be de rigor no matter what else is going on.
Oh and by the way Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion is in charge of running the day to day operation of the election, not Nakamura who, although Kaua`i chief election officer by law, is really the overall administrator and troubleshooter.
But more important than anything is the fact that Furfaro is seeking to play both sides of the fence here, claiming “I’m a dissident too” as he sees that the public outrage grows over the iron fisted reign of Asing, while at the same time protecting the entrenched systematic way that the council and the administrative boards and commissions treat the public with distain and seek to protect members from their inquires and testimony unless people persist beyond all reason.
If Furfaro had any integrity he would choose a side and either stand at the gates of stonewall with Asing, Nakamura and Wantanabe or join what is now an island wide movement that is disgusted with this old boy protection racket and will presumably be demanding change in November 2010.
Bieber’s experience is, as he notes, not an isolated incident as anyone who deals with Nakamura’s council services will tell you. But Furfaro has shown his stripes and any more half hearted attempts to disassociate himself from the forces of opaque governance will be greeted with the derision it so aptly deserves.
Monday, June 22, 2009
(PNN) COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES TO BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED
COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES TO BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED
(PNN)-- Public disclosure of financial information required by state law of certain county officials will now be subject to public review according to a letter to all board and commission members from Executive Assistant and Administrator of the Office of Boards and Commissions, John Isobe.
The Hawai`i State Constitution’s "Code of Ethics” Article XVI states that
financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures.
That has apparently never been the case on Kaua`i where the Board of Ethics (BOE) has for decades routinely received the pubic disclosures in executive session where they have redacted whatever they consider to be sensitive and/or personal and financial information as defined in the Universal Information Practices Act’s (UIPA) section 92F-14(6).
As a matter of fact, the very financial information meant to be reviewed for violations of conflict of interest provisions by the board so they can stop the conflict from occurring appear to be the ones that have been hidden from the public so as not to embarrass those required to file.
According to the County Charter, Article XX, the “mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent” are specifically required to publicly make public financial disclosures. All others may file a confidential disclosure.
According to Isobe’s letter
At its meeting on June 4, 2009, the Board of Ethics received a ruling from the Count (sic) Attorney's Office that all Disclosure Statements required to be filed with the Board are public record and must be released if requested by a member of the public.
When releasing this information, we have been instructed to only remove your personal information such as mailing address and contact phone number. For this reason, please be advised that any financial information will NOT be protected as defined under Section 92F-14(6), Hawaii Revised Statutes. (emphasis not added).
The warning is a apparently stunning admission that previously they were not “released if requested by a member of the public” and “financial information (was) protected”.
Two witnesses independently offered that the color went out of Isobe’s shocked-expression face when the board revealed the change of opinion in open session
According to the state constitution’s Code of Ethics:
financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures... All financial disclosure statements shall include, but not be limited to, sources and amounts of income, business ownership, officer and director positions, ownership of real property, debts, creditor interests in insolvent businesses and the names of persons represented before government agencies.
The practice of not disclosing public disclosures is rooted in the county ordinance and BOE rules, both also called the Code of Ethics, which conflict with the more authoritative county charter and state constitution.
Currently the administrative rules of the BOE say
3.1 WHO TO FILE
All elected and appointed officers and employees, who are elected or appointed by officers elected pursuant to law or by County agencies and who have discretionary, executive or policy making powers and responsibilities shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to Article XX the Code of Ethics
3.2 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Disclosures filed with the Board are confidential and the Board shall not release the contents thereof except as required by law except as provided under HRS 92F-14 (6).
But a new proposed change, based in part on what the county attorney has apparently told the BOE in a June 4 executive session meeting would reverse that 180 degrees and, if passed, the rules would read
RULE 3: DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 WHO MUST FILE
The mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent (3/12/09) shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to the Code of Ethics
3.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION
Disclosures filed with the Board are public record.
The matter was brought to the attention of the board beginning in March through the efforts of a handful of public watchdogs including Horace Stoessel, Glenn Mickens, Ed Coll, Walter Lewis and, especially Rob Abrew who persisted in researching and presenting the documentation that led to the new policy after BOE member Rolf Briber insisted the board pay attention to the pubic testimony.
Abrew and the others questioned why the disclosure forms were being reviewed in executive session in the first place rather than going having them go straight to public purview.
At first members of the board listed an evolving series of seemingly innocuous reasons for the secrecy, none of which indicated any changes to the substantive financial disclosures were made by the board.
But at the April 4 BOE meeting Bieber brought the matter up and the minutes indicate that what went on in executive sessions on financial disclosures was anything but innocuous.
The minutes say:
Chair (Leila) Fuller explained that the Disclosures are reviewed in Executive Session for the purpose of checking for potential conflict of interest but in those Disclosures are personal financial information that may not want to by mistake open the door for something. After they are approved in Executive Session they become a public document so the public has access to those documents once they are approved but the confidential and private information that should not be public knowledge is redacted when a member of the public requests a copy of the disclosure,
Mr. (Paul) Weil asked if they were not public documents from the beginning, the public has access to them even before we have approved or accepted them. Chair Fuller said they have no reason to be a public document before they are accepted. Mr. Weil asked to be directed to the Code that says they are not public documents until the Board has accepted them. Attorney Clark referenced HRS 92-F 14. Staff noted it was a public document except where provided under HRS 92-F 14 (6) which lists items that would be redacted before anyone looks at them.
This was the first admission by a BOE member that financial disclosures were being changed at all much less to avoid “opening the door” by disclosing too much financial information regarding conflicts of interest.
Resistance has been high to changing the rules, first proposed earlier this year, primarily by Fuller and former Chair Mark Hubbard.
Previously reasons they offered for executive session receipt of the disclosures had included making sure they were “complete” and were not “incorrect” since, they said, filers might not realize what they are filing, despite the fact in fling they are required to notarize an “affidavit”.
The further minutes reflect a desperation to find reasons to resist complete public disclosure of the completed public disclosure forms.
Mr. Bieber said his point at minimum was they have a better relationship with the public regarding this. Chair Fuller asked Mr. Bieber how he proposed (the Board) do that. Mr. Bieber said maybe there was another way they could go over the Disclosures, perhaps a packet with Disclosures in them instead of spending time in the meeting in Executive Session doing that. Chair Fuller cautioned against that because if they were to get the Disclosures in a packet that is just that many more pieces of document that are out in the public in case their briefcase gets lost or misplaced and likened it to a State computer with sensitive information on it that got misplaced or lost.
Reached for comment Bieber, said in an email:
Change in application of Disclosure Law has been long overdue for the County employees and officers of Kauai. The Board of Ethics is finally conforming to State Law properly within its Rules.
I am proud to say this came from the public. I simply moved the Board of Ethics to continue to provide the public hearing arena to maintain open dialog. Ethics agreed.
Substantial credit for this change in important Disclosure Law application goes to the public individuals who testified to bring more sunshine into County government operation, a small yet substantial victory for much needed open government and democracy on Kauai.
According to Abrew, at the June 4 meeting after an executive session on the matter the board returned armed with a new county attorney’s opinion requiring the change in policy although he could not say which whether they met with new County Attorney Al Castillo or one of his deputies.
While the written opinion has not been released as yet, the BOE has been the only board or commission to release a county attorney’s opinion in many years and it could be released at their July meeting.
The public is still awaiting a promised new opinion on the enforcement of the prohibition of board and commission members appearing on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions, as contained in the county charter’s section 20.02(d).
For more information on the BOE read PNN’s three part investigative series Unethical culture- Government service with a personal “touch”
Read Part 1- Bored of Ethics on the Board of Ethics?Read Part 2- The Long and Winding Road to InertiaRead Part 3- Deep Thoughts- A “Handy” Diversion
(PNN)-- Public disclosure of financial information required by state law of certain county officials will now be subject to public review according to a letter to all board and commission members from Executive Assistant and Administrator of the Office of Boards and Commissions, John Isobe.
The Hawai`i State Constitution’s "Code of Ethics” Article XVI states that
financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures.
That has apparently never been the case on Kaua`i where the Board of Ethics (BOE) has for decades routinely received the pubic disclosures in executive session where they have redacted whatever they consider to be sensitive and/or personal and financial information as defined in the Universal Information Practices Act’s (UIPA) section 92F-14(6).
As a matter of fact, the very financial information meant to be reviewed for violations of conflict of interest provisions by the board so they can stop the conflict from occurring appear to be the ones that have been hidden from the public so as not to embarrass those required to file.
According to the County Charter, Article XX, the “mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent” are specifically required to publicly make public financial disclosures. All others may file a confidential disclosure.
According to Isobe’s letter
At its meeting on June 4, 2009, the Board of Ethics received a ruling from the Count (sic) Attorney's Office that all Disclosure Statements required to be filed with the Board are public record and must be released if requested by a member of the public.
When releasing this information, we have been instructed to only remove your personal information such as mailing address and contact phone number. For this reason, please be advised that any financial information will NOT be protected as defined under Section 92F-14(6), Hawaii Revised Statutes. (emphasis not added).
The warning is a apparently stunning admission that previously they were not “released if requested by a member of the public” and “financial information (was) protected”.
Two witnesses independently offered that the color went out of Isobe’s shocked-expression face when the board revealed the change of opinion in open session
According to the state constitution’s Code of Ethics:
financial disclosure provisions shall require all elected officers, all candidates for elective office and such appointed officers and employees as provided by law to make public financial disclosures... All financial disclosure statements shall include, but not be limited to, sources and amounts of income, business ownership, officer and director positions, ownership of real property, debts, creditor interests in insolvent businesses and the names of persons represented before government agencies.
The practice of not disclosing public disclosures is rooted in the county ordinance and BOE rules, both also called the Code of Ethics, which conflict with the more authoritative county charter and state constitution.
Currently the administrative rules of the BOE say
3.1 WHO TO FILE
All elected and appointed officers and employees, who are elected or appointed by officers elected pursuant to law or by County agencies and who have discretionary, executive or policy making powers and responsibilities shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to Article XX the Code of Ethics
3.2 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Disclosures filed with the Board are confidential and the Board shall not release the contents thereof except as required by law except as provided under HRS 92F-14 (6).
But a new proposed change, based in part on what the county attorney has apparently told the BOE in a June 4 executive session meeting would reverse that 180 degrees and, if passed, the rules would read
RULE 3: DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
3.1 WHO MUST FILE
The mayor, councilpersons, all department heads and deputies, members of boards and commissions and the purchasing agent (3/12/09) shall be required to file the disclosure pursuant to the Code of Ethics
3.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION
Disclosures filed with the Board are public record.
The matter was brought to the attention of the board beginning in March through the efforts of a handful of public watchdogs including Horace Stoessel, Glenn Mickens, Ed Coll, Walter Lewis and, especially Rob Abrew who persisted in researching and presenting the documentation that led to the new policy after BOE member Rolf Briber insisted the board pay attention to the pubic testimony.
Abrew and the others questioned why the disclosure forms were being reviewed in executive session in the first place rather than going having them go straight to public purview.
At first members of the board listed an evolving series of seemingly innocuous reasons for the secrecy, none of which indicated any changes to the substantive financial disclosures were made by the board.
But at the April 4 BOE meeting Bieber brought the matter up and the minutes indicate that what went on in executive sessions on financial disclosures was anything but innocuous.
The minutes say:
Chair (Leila) Fuller explained that the Disclosures are reviewed in Executive Session for the purpose of checking for potential conflict of interest but in those Disclosures are personal financial information that may not want to by mistake open the door for something. After they are approved in Executive Session they become a public document so the public has access to those documents once they are approved but the confidential and private information that should not be public knowledge is redacted when a member of the public requests a copy of the disclosure,
Mr. (Paul) Weil asked if they were not public documents from the beginning, the public has access to them even before we have approved or accepted them. Chair Fuller said they have no reason to be a public document before they are accepted. Mr. Weil asked to be directed to the Code that says they are not public documents until the Board has accepted them. Attorney Clark referenced HRS 92-F 14. Staff noted it was a public document except where provided under HRS 92-F 14 (6) which lists items that would be redacted before anyone looks at them.
This was the first admission by a BOE member that financial disclosures were being changed at all much less to avoid “opening the door” by disclosing too much financial information regarding conflicts of interest.
Resistance has been high to changing the rules, first proposed earlier this year, primarily by Fuller and former Chair Mark Hubbard.
Previously reasons they offered for executive session receipt of the disclosures had included making sure they were “complete” and were not “incorrect” since, they said, filers might not realize what they are filing, despite the fact in fling they are required to notarize an “affidavit”.
The further minutes reflect a desperation to find reasons to resist complete public disclosure of the completed public disclosure forms.
Mr. Bieber said his point at minimum was they have a better relationship with the public regarding this. Chair Fuller asked Mr. Bieber how he proposed (the Board) do that. Mr. Bieber said maybe there was another way they could go over the Disclosures, perhaps a packet with Disclosures in them instead of spending time in the meeting in Executive Session doing that. Chair Fuller cautioned against that because if they were to get the Disclosures in a packet that is just that many more pieces of document that are out in the public in case their briefcase gets lost or misplaced and likened it to a State computer with sensitive information on it that got misplaced or lost.
Reached for comment Bieber, said in an email:
Change in application of Disclosure Law has been long overdue for the County employees and officers of Kauai. The Board of Ethics is finally conforming to State Law properly within its Rules.
I am proud to say this came from the public. I simply moved the Board of Ethics to continue to provide the public hearing arena to maintain open dialog. Ethics agreed.
Substantial credit for this change in important Disclosure Law application goes to the public individuals who testified to bring more sunshine into County government operation, a small yet substantial victory for much needed open government and democracy on Kauai.
According to Abrew, at the June 4 meeting after an executive session on the matter the board returned armed with a new county attorney’s opinion requiring the change in policy although he could not say which whether they met with new County Attorney Al Castillo or one of his deputies.
While the written opinion has not been released as yet, the BOE has been the only board or commission to release a county attorney’s opinion in many years and it could be released at their July meeting.
The public is still awaiting a promised new opinion on the enforcement of the prohibition of board and commission members appearing on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions, as contained in the county charter’s section 20.02(d).
For more information on the BOE read PNN’s three part investigative series Unethical culture- Government service with a personal “touch”
Read Part 1- Bored of Ethics on the Board of Ethics?Read Part 2- The Long and Winding Road to InertiaRead Part 3- Deep Thoughts- A “Handy” Diversion
Monday, May 18, 2009
A LITTLE LIGHT DOG WAGGING
A LITTLE LIGHT DOG WAGGING: Last Thursday the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) finally and unexpectedly released the county attorney opinion that had apparently caused them to ignore the plain reading of the ethics section of the county charter in favor of the subordinate county code provisions on ethics
It confirms the suspicions we expressed in our three part series on the “Unethical Culture” (see left rail) of the BOE- that somehow, despite a strict ban in the charter on county officials- including board and commission (B&Cs) members- appearing on behalf of private interests before other B&Cs, the opinion lets the tail wag the dog by giving legitimacy to provisions of subservient law that seek to contradict the charter.
And indeed in the second paragraph of the opinion it says
Section 20.02(D) of the Charter reads: "No officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency." On its face, this language appears to be a complete prohibition, preventing any officer or employee from acting for the benefit of any private interest before a county agency, board or commission.
But the next sentence is key to the disconnect, penned by former Deputy CA Margaret Sueoka who, perhaps not so coincidentally, was recently fired by Castillo and has filed a discrimination complaint against the county over the firing.
She wrote:
The language of the Code elaborates upon the Charter provision, and identifies more specifically those types of conduct which would constitute conflicts of interest
And there lies one of the “fatal flaws” apparently cited by BOE member Paul Weil, according to Michael Levine’s article on the meeting in the local paper.
The language of the “code” or ordinance, does not “elaborate” on the charter- which is what an ordinance is supposed to do- but rather, at best is silent on the charter provision and if applied, would contradict the charter.
As we discussed on our three part series Section 3-1.7 of the county code details many specific conflict of interest situations that are strictly prohibited. But the code specifically says these are based on Charter Section 20.01 which bans acts to confer special benefits on one’s self or others among other things.
In fact the code does not even mention 20.02(D) specifically anywhere, leaving unaddressed the matters brought up by what Sueoka admitted is a strict prohibition,.
The opinion seeks to use the state constitution and out-of-state court rulings to say that the charter and code must be read together and while that is true it’s the relevant sections of each that must be read together.
It would sort of be like reading a strict charter prohibition on robbing banks and saying because it isn’t addressed in the dog leash ordinance, bank robbery is ok.
But, even of there were a confluence of the specific conflicts in the code and the strict prohibitions of the charter, just because there are specifically described “conflict of interest” prohibitions in the code does not make the code a complete list of actions banned in the charter and in fact that contention is never made in the code.
Also on Thursday the BOE called on Castillo to look at the opinion with an eye toward “withdrawing it, affirming it, or modifying it” according to Levine’s article. But it appears our hopes for an honest legal look at the provisions from Castillo might have been dashed if comments from Castillo are indicative of his intentions.
Instead of addressing the legal ramification of the plain reading of 20.02(D) and the existing CA opinion Castillo seems infatuated with the political ramifications.
He’s quoted by Levine as saying
“What does this legal mumbo jumbo mean?” Castillo said when discussing the issue less than an hour before the board released the opinion. “To me, what this means is, to read Section 20.02 by itself would give an unwarranted chilling effect to contributing members of our society who desire to volunteer their time and their expertise to help this county become a better place.”
In the interview, (BOE Member and Food Bank ED Judith)Lenthall said it was not fair that she be expected to give up the rights of a private citizen, including the right, for example, to challenge a property tax assessment.
That “right” as we said before is not being challenged by anyone. What is being challenged in a complaint filed by fellow BOE member Rolf Bieber is the privilege of sitting on a county board that may in fact sit in judgment of a county councilperson while she is also asking the council for money for the Food Bank.
“That’s where I drew the line regarding the absurdity of just sticking to 20.02,” Castillo said. “That’s why we’re saying that the County Charter and the County Code should be read in conjunction because to do otherwise would create absurd results.”
It appears that Castillo is buying into the tail “wagging the dog” interpretations by saying that because the law has results that are perhaps politically uncomfortable, it is up to him to issue a quasi-judicial “opinion” to correct that “absurdity” rather than doing it legislatively- by ordinance if possible or by changing the charter.
The reason for this attempt to hijack the political process may be that last fall the citizens were asked to exempt board and commission members from the onus of 20.02(D) but that measure was soundly defeated.
After the citing of the legal need to read the code and charter together the opinion goes on to make one of its more absurd arguments regarding “intent”.
It cites the charters of Maui and Hawai`i counties saying
as we can see from the Charters of Maui and the Big Island, the effect of reading our Charter and Code provisions together is to achieve the same basic scope as those of the Charters of these other Counties.
This is a another “fatal flaw”, coming from a 1976 letter from then CA Michael Belles as the council debated and later passed Sect. 3 of the county code.
The flaw becomes immediately apparent because it then quotes the charters of those others counties which are substantially different from ours on Kaua`i. Theirs start out with the same type of prohibitions as 20.02(D) but go on to say
An officer serving the county without compensation, however, may appear for compensation in behalf of private interests before county agencies other than the one on which the officer serves and other than those agencies that have the power to review the actions of the agency on which the officer serves or to act on the same subject matter as the agency on which the officer serves.
If the intent in the Kaua`i Charter was to do that they obviously would have done it- and could easily have done it as the other counties did. The fact that they didn’t include the language shows if anything a desire for a higher ethical standard than the other counties.
Perhaps by wrongly reading some intent that wasn’t there the council that passed the code on Kaua`i sought to make believe that provision was in the charter. But wishing doesn’t make them suddenly appear in the charter- only an illusionist can do that.
An email that arrived today from BOE watchdog Horace Stoessel states it clearly and unambiguously
He states:
Like the charters of Maui and Big Island , the Kaua’i County Charter prohibits members of government from appearing in behalf of private interests before County agencies. But whereas the other charters exempt members of boards and commissions from having to comply with the prohibition, our Charter Section 20.02D does not exempt them.
Last year the Charter Commission proposed exempting board/commission members from having to comply with 20.02D. The voters rejected the proposed charter amendment.
No matter how much Castillo- and apparently last year’s Charter Commission- wishes that the Kaua`i Charter read differently the strict prohibition remains in place today and will for at least the next year and a half.
The code addresses only specific concrete conflicts of interest that are specifically banned and then, as it states, based only on the “special favors” provisions in 20.01 of the charter. Nowhere does it say it is an exclusive list and nowhere does it address the prohibitions of 20.02(D) which are included to ensure Kaua`i officials conduct business with the highest possible level of ethics.
20.02(D) is signed to avoid even the appearance of the type of impropriety that could result in a tit-for-tat approval by a member of one B&C, of a request from a member of another B&C- who would then presumably be tempted to turn around and approve the request of a member of the first B&C.
The Kaua`i provision is specifically to remove those temptations.
County attorney options have as close to the effective weight of an actual judicial ruling as one can get. All county entities are expected to abide by them as if they were case law and indeed can lose protections against lawsuits if they don’t.
They become the de facto “law of the land” and can only be challenged by going to an actual judge or having them reversed by, most likely, a subsequent CA.
It is the responsibility of the county attorney to opine only on the law and to separate out the political considerations and notify the political entities that the have two choices- to either change or abide by the law as it stands.
It is not the bailiwick of the County Attorney to make those political decisions for elected officials by attempting to read into the law what should be or what they would like to see in the law.
That right is reserved for the political apparatus of the county- the council and mayor.
Castillo would do well to remember the fact that 99% of the residents of Kaua`i would never have the types of conflicts that people like the Bieber-complaints-cited Lenthall, Mark Hubbard and Lorna Nishimitsu because 99% of Kaua`i residents never appear “on behalf of” others before county entities and only occasionally if at all, appear as themselves.
The availability of that 99% for county service is the blind spot in Castillo’s claim that the law, as it stands, yields “absurd results”. Indeed it is the opposite of absurd- it denotes the highest of ethical standards are expected of those that serve the county.
Castillo’s “absurdity” claim is valid only if one is intent on supplanting government by the people and- more importantly OF the people- with a handful of revolving-door, paternalistic oligarchs.
It confirms the suspicions we expressed in our three part series on the “Unethical Culture” (see left rail) of the BOE- that somehow, despite a strict ban in the charter on county officials- including board and commission (B&Cs) members- appearing on behalf of private interests before other B&Cs, the opinion lets the tail wag the dog by giving legitimacy to provisions of subservient law that seek to contradict the charter.
And indeed in the second paragraph of the opinion it says
Section 20.02(D) of the Charter reads: "No officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency." On its face, this language appears to be a complete prohibition, preventing any officer or employee from acting for the benefit of any private interest before a county agency, board or commission.
But the next sentence is key to the disconnect, penned by former Deputy CA Margaret Sueoka who, perhaps not so coincidentally, was recently fired by Castillo and has filed a discrimination complaint against the county over the firing.
She wrote:
The language of the Code elaborates upon the Charter provision, and identifies more specifically those types of conduct which would constitute conflicts of interest
And there lies one of the “fatal flaws” apparently cited by BOE member Paul Weil, according to Michael Levine’s article on the meeting in the local paper.
The language of the “code” or ordinance, does not “elaborate” on the charter- which is what an ordinance is supposed to do- but rather, at best is silent on the charter provision and if applied, would contradict the charter.
As we discussed on our three part series Section 3-1.7 of the county code details many specific conflict of interest situations that are strictly prohibited. But the code specifically says these are based on Charter Section 20.01 which bans acts to confer special benefits on one’s self or others among other things.
In fact the code does not even mention 20.02(D) specifically anywhere, leaving unaddressed the matters brought up by what Sueoka admitted is a strict prohibition,.
The opinion seeks to use the state constitution and out-of-state court rulings to say that the charter and code must be read together and while that is true it’s the relevant sections of each that must be read together.
It would sort of be like reading a strict charter prohibition on robbing banks and saying because it isn’t addressed in the dog leash ordinance, bank robbery is ok.
But, even of there were a confluence of the specific conflicts in the code and the strict prohibitions of the charter, just because there are specifically described “conflict of interest” prohibitions in the code does not make the code a complete list of actions banned in the charter and in fact that contention is never made in the code.
Also on Thursday the BOE called on Castillo to look at the opinion with an eye toward “withdrawing it, affirming it, or modifying it” according to Levine’s article. But it appears our hopes for an honest legal look at the provisions from Castillo might have been dashed if comments from Castillo are indicative of his intentions.
Instead of addressing the legal ramification of the plain reading of 20.02(D) and the existing CA opinion Castillo seems infatuated with the political ramifications.
He’s quoted by Levine as saying
“What does this legal mumbo jumbo mean?” Castillo said when discussing the issue less than an hour before the board released the opinion. “To me, what this means is, to read Section 20.02 by itself would give an unwarranted chilling effect to contributing members of our society who desire to volunteer their time and their expertise to help this county become a better place.”
In the interview, (BOE Member and Food Bank ED Judith)Lenthall said it was not fair that she be expected to give up the rights of a private citizen, including the right, for example, to challenge a property tax assessment.
That “right” as we said before is not being challenged by anyone. What is being challenged in a complaint filed by fellow BOE member Rolf Bieber is the privilege of sitting on a county board that may in fact sit in judgment of a county councilperson while she is also asking the council for money for the Food Bank.
“That’s where I drew the line regarding the absurdity of just sticking to 20.02,” Castillo said. “That’s why we’re saying that the County Charter and the County Code should be read in conjunction because to do otherwise would create absurd results.”
It appears that Castillo is buying into the tail “wagging the dog” interpretations by saying that because the law has results that are perhaps politically uncomfortable, it is up to him to issue a quasi-judicial “opinion” to correct that “absurdity” rather than doing it legislatively- by ordinance if possible or by changing the charter.
The reason for this attempt to hijack the political process may be that last fall the citizens were asked to exempt board and commission members from the onus of 20.02(D) but that measure was soundly defeated.
After the citing of the legal need to read the code and charter together the opinion goes on to make one of its more absurd arguments regarding “intent”.
It cites the charters of Maui and Hawai`i counties saying
as we can see from the Charters of Maui and the Big Island, the effect of reading our Charter and Code provisions together is to achieve the same basic scope as those of the Charters of these other Counties.
This is a another “fatal flaw”, coming from a 1976 letter from then CA Michael Belles as the council debated and later passed Sect. 3 of the county code.
The flaw becomes immediately apparent because it then quotes the charters of those others counties which are substantially different from ours on Kaua`i. Theirs start out with the same type of prohibitions as 20.02(D) but go on to say
An officer serving the county without compensation, however, may appear for compensation in behalf of private interests before county agencies other than the one on which the officer serves and other than those agencies that have the power to review the actions of the agency on which the officer serves or to act on the same subject matter as the agency on which the officer serves.
If the intent in the Kaua`i Charter was to do that they obviously would have done it- and could easily have done it as the other counties did. The fact that they didn’t include the language shows if anything a desire for a higher ethical standard than the other counties.
Perhaps by wrongly reading some intent that wasn’t there the council that passed the code on Kaua`i sought to make believe that provision was in the charter. But wishing doesn’t make them suddenly appear in the charter- only an illusionist can do that.
An email that arrived today from BOE watchdog Horace Stoessel states it clearly and unambiguously
He states:
Like the charters of Maui and Big Island , the Kaua’i County Charter prohibits members of government from appearing in behalf of private interests before County agencies. But whereas the other charters exempt members of boards and commissions from having to comply with the prohibition, our Charter Section 20.02D does not exempt them.
Last year the Charter Commission proposed exempting board/commission members from having to comply with 20.02D. The voters rejected the proposed charter amendment.
No matter how much Castillo- and apparently last year’s Charter Commission- wishes that the Kaua`i Charter read differently the strict prohibition remains in place today and will for at least the next year and a half.
The code addresses only specific concrete conflicts of interest that are specifically banned and then, as it states, based only on the “special favors” provisions in 20.01 of the charter. Nowhere does it say it is an exclusive list and nowhere does it address the prohibitions of 20.02(D) which are included to ensure Kaua`i officials conduct business with the highest possible level of ethics.
20.02(D) is signed to avoid even the appearance of the type of impropriety that could result in a tit-for-tat approval by a member of one B&C, of a request from a member of another B&C- who would then presumably be tempted to turn around and approve the request of a member of the first B&C.
The Kaua`i provision is specifically to remove those temptations.
County attorney options have as close to the effective weight of an actual judicial ruling as one can get. All county entities are expected to abide by them as if they were case law and indeed can lose protections against lawsuits if they don’t.
They become the de facto “law of the land” and can only be challenged by going to an actual judge or having them reversed by, most likely, a subsequent CA.
It is the responsibility of the county attorney to opine only on the law and to separate out the political considerations and notify the political entities that the have two choices- to either change or abide by the law as it stands.
It is not the bailiwick of the County Attorney to make those political decisions for elected officials by attempting to read into the law what should be or what they would like to see in the law.
That right is reserved for the political apparatus of the county- the council and mayor.
Castillo would do well to remember the fact that 99% of the residents of Kaua`i would never have the types of conflicts that people like the Bieber-complaints-cited Lenthall, Mark Hubbard and Lorna Nishimitsu because 99% of Kaua`i residents never appear “on behalf of” others before county entities and only occasionally if at all, appear as themselves.
The availability of that 99% for county service is the blind spot in Castillo’s claim that the law, as it stands, yields “absurd results”. Indeed it is the opposite of absurd- it denotes the highest of ethical standards are expected of those that serve the county.
Castillo’s “absurdity” claim is valid only if one is intent on supplanting government by the people and- more importantly OF the people- with a handful of revolving-door, paternalistic oligarchs.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
AND SO THE POOR DOG HAD NONE
AND SO THE POOR DOG HAD NONE: Our three part series on the Unethical Culture of some members of the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) detailed the cases of three members of that board who have and continue to violate the plain reading of the county charter’s Code of Ethics which prohibits members of boards and commissions from appearing on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions, including the county council.
As we concluded. what was missing was that, in order to get the ball rolling to force them to either remove themselves from office or quit representing private interests was an actual complaint filed with the BOE.
So over the weekend, Rolf Bieber felt responsible as a BOE member to take matters into his own hands and file three complaints- two against his fellow BOE members Mark Hubbard and Judy Lenthall and one against attorney Lorna Nishimitsu who sits on the Cost Control Commission.
Bieber, who ran for mayor last fall, told us it wasn’t anything personal and that he respects the three immensely but that the board needed to move forward on the matter because, as it stands there was no enforcement whatsoever of the provision based on BOE decisions in other cases last and earlier this year.
His notarized complaints include the transcripts from the three county council meetings where the three represented private interests- Hubbard for the Kaua`i Action and Planning Alliance, Lenthall for the Kaua`i Food Bank and Nishimitsu for Kikia`ola Land Corporation.
Although none of them would comment for our series, that wasn’t the case when reporter for the local newspaper Michael Levine contacted them for comment on his story today regarding Bieber’s complaints.
And if anyone thought that perhaps Hubbard- the former Chair and now Vice Chair of the BOE- was in need of professional mental health after reading his ramblings in our article his comments to Levine certainly approximate the classic response of a paranoid schizophrenic.
There are apparently at least two Mark Hubbard’s existing nowhere but in Hubbard’s own mind depending on what covers the head that contains the various Hubbard’s.
In classic gibberish Hubbard told Levine:
“The way I read it (Section 20.02(D)) is very simple. When I was sitting there in front of the County Council, the hat I wore was Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance. I made no representation, I was not considered, not looked upon as vice chair of Ethics. It had nothing to do with Ethics even though I am on that board.
“I didn’t appear as the Ethics person, I appeared as the treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance,” Hubbard said. “The Board of Ethics person wasn’t around. The treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance was around. Yes, it happens to be the same person.”
Hats? What awesome powers do bonnets bestow? They apparently give the wearer the ability to change identity like some kind of incognito emissary in a spy movie attempting to bamboozle his enemies.
Perhaps Hubbard has a secret collection of headwear that allows him to change personas whenever he chooses, much like Superman’s glasses can convince Lois Lane he’s actually mild mannered reporter Clark Kent.
One possible explanation is that it’s the good Mark Hubbard that selflessly appears on behalf of KPPA and his evil twin that sits on the BOE.
But we can only hope Hubbard guards his chapeau collection well lest they fall into the hands of those who do us harm. Imagine the problems it would pose for the courts if the criminal element could avoid prosecution by simply making the right choice at the haberdashers.
Good thing we can trust Hubbard not to abuse his Superhero status...uh he does belong to the Legion of Justice doesn’t he?... or does he simply have a hat for that.
He must have had Tom Terrific’s magic thinking cap to come up with what Levine reported he said next
Asked about the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest if council members were to one day have to answer to the Board of Ethics, Hubbard said “there’s no such thing.”
“When people talk about the appearance of conflict of interest, to me, that has nothing to do with the Board of Ethics,” he said. “Is there a conflict of interest or isn’t there? There’s no such thing as appearance."
No such thing? Good thing the news hasn’t reached Kaua`i Mark because there 943,000 results for “appearance of a conflict of interest” at Google including the one at Wikipedia which starts off it’s “conflict of interest” entry by saying
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization... has an interest that might compromise their reliability.
A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization.
Ask yourself what you would do if appointed for a body that oversees ethics and deals with conflicts of interest. Would you not review what an appearance of conflict of interest actually is before you said it doesn’t exist?
Not our pal Mark- get this final gobbledy-gook
“There is no conflict because I went and asked the council for something. Their choice is to say yes or no. ... I could feel good about that, or bad about that, and I could act. I have some authority, I have a vote on the Board of Ethics. ... (but) I didn’t have a financial interest (in KPAA). That’s the charter and the county regs — it has to be financial.”
No financial interest? KPPA is one of the Kaua`i government’s favorite recipients of their largess, to be distributed to others for various planning projects at PPPA’s pleasure... quite the powerful position.
As a matter of fact, Levine’s article reports, Hubbard’s appearance was quite successful since an extra $14,500 appears in the supplemental budget that came after his “appearance on behalf of” KPPA.
The article also notes that Executive Director Lenthall got $20,000 more in the supplemental budget after her appearance on behalf of the Food Bank.
Lenthall for her part still clings to the inability to distinguish between a personal and private interest telling Levine:
Lenthall said it was unfair to her as an unpaid volunteer that she be expected to give up rights guaranteed to private citizens, citing as an example her right to appeal a property tax assessment, and said the language as currently written could discourage volunteers from helping the county, something she does “out of the goodness of my heart.”
What Lenthall fails to recognize is that it has nothing to do with the “goodness of her heart” and whether she wants to “help the county”. 99.9% of the residents of Kaua`i have and will never come before a board or commission asking for money or tangible considerations. The fact that a small handful of those who do populate these boards and commissions reflect the inherent moral bankruptcy and corrupt mindset of those who feed at the government trough is no coincident born of necessity.
The insinuation that Hubbard is not Hubbard at certain times or that there are multiple Hubbard’s stretches credulity to the breaking point, especially with the quasi-judicial nature of the BOE.
In any other judicial proceeding just the fact that a judge or juror even knows the defendant is cause for them to be excused from the proceedings.
The fact that Hubbard has ruled on the ethics complaints filed against member of the county council in the past makes his claim that he should be permitted to solicit funds from them the construction of an unethical if not criminal mind and one certainly not suited to sit on any county body much less the ethics board.
What are we- a bunch of freakin' idiots? You can certainly check off a big fat “yes” when it comes to what Hubbard and Lenthall think.
As we concluded. what was missing was that, in order to get the ball rolling to force them to either remove themselves from office or quit representing private interests was an actual complaint filed with the BOE.
So over the weekend, Rolf Bieber felt responsible as a BOE member to take matters into his own hands and file three complaints- two against his fellow BOE members Mark Hubbard and Judy Lenthall and one against attorney Lorna Nishimitsu who sits on the Cost Control Commission.
Bieber, who ran for mayor last fall, told us it wasn’t anything personal and that he respects the three immensely but that the board needed to move forward on the matter because, as it stands there was no enforcement whatsoever of the provision based on BOE decisions in other cases last and earlier this year.
His notarized complaints include the transcripts from the three county council meetings where the three represented private interests- Hubbard for the Kaua`i Action and Planning Alliance, Lenthall for the Kaua`i Food Bank and Nishimitsu for Kikia`ola Land Corporation.
Although none of them would comment for our series, that wasn’t the case when reporter for the local newspaper Michael Levine contacted them for comment on his story today regarding Bieber’s complaints.
And if anyone thought that perhaps Hubbard- the former Chair and now Vice Chair of the BOE- was in need of professional mental health after reading his ramblings in our article his comments to Levine certainly approximate the classic response of a paranoid schizophrenic.
There are apparently at least two Mark Hubbard’s existing nowhere but in Hubbard’s own mind depending on what covers the head that contains the various Hubbard’s.
In classic gibberish Hubbard told Levine:
“The way I read it (Section 20.02(D)) is very simple. When I was sitting there in front of the County Council, the hat I wore was Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance. I made no representation, I was not considered, not looked upon as vice chair of Ethics. It had nothing to do with Ethics even though I am on that board.
“I didn’t appear as the Ethics person, I appeared as the treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance,” Hubbard said. “The Board of Ethics person wasn’t around. The treasurer of Kaua`i Planning and Action Alliance was around. Yes, it happens to be the same person.”
Hats? What awesome powers do bonnets bestow? They apparently give the wearer the ability to change identity like some kind of incognito emissary in a spy movie attempting to bamboozle his enemies.
Perhaps Hubbard has a secret collection of headwear that allows him to change personas whenever he chooses, much like Superman’s glasses can convince Lois Lane he’s actually mild mannered reporter Clark Kent.
One possible explanation is that it’s the good Mark Hubbard that selflessly appears on behalf of KPPA and his evil twin that sits on the BOE.
But we can only hope Hubbard guards his chapeau collection well lest they fall into the hands of those who do us harm. Imagine the problems it would pose for the courts if the criminal element could avoid prosecution by simply making the right choice at the haberdashers.
Good thing we can trust Hubbard not to abuse his Superhero status...uh he does belong to the Legion of Justice doesn’t he?... or does he simply have a hat for that.
He must have had Tom Terrific’s magic thinking cap to come up with what Levine reported he said next
Asked about the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest if council members were to one day have to answer to the Board of Ethics, Hubbard said “there’s no such thing.”
“When people talk about the appearance of conflict of interest, to me, that has nothing to do with the Board of Ethics,” he said. “Is there a conflict of interest or isn’t there? There’s no such thing as appearance."
No such thing? Good thing the news hasn’t reached Kaua`i Mark because there 943,000 results for “appearance of a conflict of interest” at Google including the one at Wikipedia which starts off it’s “conflict of interest” entry by saying
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization... has an interest that might compromise their reliability.
A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization.
Ask yourself what you would do if appointed for a body that oversees ethics and deals with conflicts of interest. Would you not review what an appearance of conflict of interest actually is before you said it doesn’t exist?
Not our pal Mark- get this final gobbledy-gook
“There is no conflict because I went and asked the council for something. Their choice is to say yes or no. ... I could feel good about that, or bad about that, and I could act. I have some authority, I have a vote on the Board of Ethics. ... (but) I didn’t have a financial interest (in KPAA). That’s the charter and the county regs — it has to be financial.”
No financial interest? KPPA is one of the Kaua`i government’s favorite recipients of their largess, to be distributed to others for various planning projects at PPPA’s pleasure... quite the powerful position.
As a matter of fact, Levine’s article reports, Hubbard’s appearance was quite successful since an extra $14,500 appears in the supplemental budget that came after his “appearance on behalf of” KPPA.
The article also notes that Executive Director Lenthall got $20,000 more in the supplemental budget after her appearance on behalf of the Food Bank.
Lenthall for her part still clings to the inability to distinguish between a personal and private interest telling Levine:
Lenthall said it was unfair to her as an unpaid volunteer that she be expected to give up rights guaranteed to private citizens, citing as an example her right to appeal a property tax assessment, and said the language as currently written could discourage volunteers from helping the county, something she does “out of the goodness of my heart.”
What Lenthall fails to recognize is that it has nothing to do with the “goodness of her heart” and whether she wants to “help the county”. 99.9% of the residents of Kaua`i have and will never come before a board or commission asking for money or tangible considerations. The fact that a small handful of those who do populate these boards and commissions reflect the inherent moral bankruptcy and corrupt mindset of those who feed at the government trough is no coincident born of necessity.
The insinuation that Hubbard is not Hubbard at certain times or that there are multiple Hubbard’s stretches credulity to the breaking point, especially with the quasi-judicial nature of the BOE.
In any other judicial proceeding just the fact that a judge or juror even knows the defendant is cause for them to be excused from the proceedings.
The fact that Hubbard has ruled on the ethics complaints filed against member of the county council in the past makes his claim that he should be permitted to solicit funds from them the construction of an unethical if not criminal mind and one certainly not suited to sit on any county body much less the ethics board.
What are we- a bunch of freakin' idiots? You can certainly check off a big fat “yes” when it comes to what Hubbard and Lenthall think.
Monday, February 9, 2009
SAME LEASH. NEW LAW
SAME LEASH, NEW LAW: As we mentioned a few weeks ago former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber- an open and good governance advocate- has been appointed to the oft-criticized and apparently ethically challenged Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE).
He vows to bring a new era of openness and (gasp) lawful processing of complaints to the board which has recently refused to abide by the basic conflict-of-interest laws of the state and county even after a proposal to eliminate the county charter’s conflict laws in Section 20.02 provisions was rejected by voters last fall.
And one of the first things Bieber has done- even before his official swearing in- is to provide members of the public and PNN with a copy of the new draft administrative rules that coincidentally are on the BOE’s agenda for the meeting this Thursday at 9 a.m. in the “Liquor Conference Room” in the Mo`ikeha building in Lihu`e.
And while some of the rule changes are designed to actually bring the board’s antiquated rules into compliance with state law, some are apparently designed to befuddle the public, shut them out of the process and give the board even more discretionary, some might say arbitrary, power than they have now.
One change that is strewn all through the document is to change references to complying with “Section XX of the county charter”- the section on ethics and the board- to read, for instance,:
These rules, made pursuant to Section 20.05 B of the Charter of the County of Kaua`i, are intended to provide for the efficient administration of the declared policy of the Code of Ethics as set forth in Article XX of the Charter (addition) or Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code.
For those who don’t quite understand how laws and rules flow from one another, the charter sets the general rules and the laws, as passed by the council- in this case Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code (KCC)- flows from the Charter and must abide by it. Finally the rules are based on and must abide by both and cannot contradict them.
But often, unless challenged in court for some reason, the county code can conflict with the charter- both of which must also abide by all applicable state and federal laws which supercede anything the county enacts- even if it doesn’t mean to.
OK- stay with us. By saying Chapter XX “or” KCC Chapter 3 rather than “and” the Board can now pick and choose which provision they want to follow if they do conflict.
And then it’s up to someone aggrieved to go to court and get a ruling saying the law contradicts- or is different from- the charter.
But that’s only a preliminary problem with the proposed rules because one of the things the rules seeks to do is to seemingly give the BOE the power to actually ignore complaints solely at it’s arbitrary pleasure
First it leaves in a little know “automatic rejection” phrase that, in its current rules reads
Failure by the Board to render an advisory opinion within thirty (30) days after the filing of a request therefore shall be deemed a finding of no breach of Article XX.
That of course means that if the board doesn’t want to take up a complaint but wants to allow its target to go scott-free all they have to do is procrastinate or ignore the complaint for 30 days
The board, as a matter of fact, only meets once a month and not only is there often more than 30 days between scheduled meetings sometimes meetings are cancelled when not enough members show up to constitute a quorum.
That little provision is strengthened even further by a new proposed change that states that the BOE can just reject a complaint without any reason at all and decide not to even consider the matter. The added provision says:
Deliberation. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Board shall investigate and/or deliberate on its merits. The Board may request a meeting with the complainant to gather more information. The Board may reject such complaint at this time and so notify the complainant, or decide to investigate further by calling for an informal or formal hearing.
Notice it says “may” request a meeting, which means they don’t have to and can just reject a complaint out of hand for no reason at all.
In addition the section on “informal” hearings- which is also an option open to the BOE and which has been abused in the past to hide and reject complaints- is amended to say that
The Board reserves the right to not take witness testimony.
That means that if the Board decides on an informal hearing they can just decide not to hear from anyone- including the complainant.
This codifies a current practice of the board to adjudicate matters without the subject of the complaint even being aware of it.
The formal hearing section is also extensively amended to add a lot of specifics on how the hearings are to be conducted. Though they seem appropriate and may even improve the process by getting it to follow judicial standards we suspect devils in those details too knowing the BOE’s past actions.
Then there’s a little added paragraph toward the end is particularly open to abuse and therefore ominous. It says:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Board finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety or morals requires adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule without notice of a hearing or upon less than 30 days' notice of hearing and states in writing its reason for such finding, it may proceed without prior notice or hearing upon such abbreviated notice and hearing as it finds practicable to adopt an emergency rule to be effective for a period of not longer than one hundred twenty days without renewal.
Morals? And exactly what is the BOE adjudicating that effects public heath and safety?
Who knows- but basically if they want to, they can call it an emergency, throw the rules out the window and do whatever they damn well please... including apparently conducting secret meetings with no agenda in violation of the state sunshine (HRS 92) and freedom of information (HRS 92F) laws.
Again making rules up on the spot is something they’ve been accused of routinely doing for years but this codifies the lawlessness.
Finally one of the little known facts about these BOE complaint hearings is that if the subject of the hearing requests that the hearing be conducted in a public session they must be conducted publicly. That they are “little known” is partially because the rules now are silent but state law says otherwise since the state’s “privacy” rights are generally granted to the “accused” or subject of the complaint.
And while the new rules adds one sentence saying
Open Session. The respondent may request that the hearing be held in open session. Otherwise, the hearing shall be held in closed session,
apparently what the BOE giveth the BOE taketh away with another addition saying
A contested case hearing shall be held in closed session, unless all parties to the proceeding choose to have the hearing in open session.
giving the filer or even any witness the right to close the entire matter to public scrutiny even if the subject of the complaint asks for an open hearing.
And of course even though the right of the accused to have an open hearing exists, that doesn’t mean it’s part of the information the provided to those who are accused- an oversight” that in the past has resulted in people thinking that opening the process wasn’t even possible because no one ever told them.
Bieber says that an amendment calling for notification of the right to a public hearing will be a priority for him as well as one on the “and/or” change to the “Charter/KCC" sentences.
While it seems to be a technological challenge to actually post the full set of proposed changes (with brackets for deleted and underlines for added materials) due to the limits of formatting on this “blogger” software (the underlining won’t transfer) we will send a copy via an email attachment to anyone who wants to view it. You can request a copy from us at gotwindmills (at) gmail.com . Specify pdf or MS Word attachment.
He vows to bring a new era of openness and (gasp) lawful processing of complaints to the board which has recently refused to abide by the basic conflict-of-interest laws of the state and county even after a proposal to eliminate the county charter’s conflict laws in Section 20.02 provisions was rejected by voters last fall.
And one of the first things Bieber has done- even before his official swearing in- is to provide members of the public and PNN with a copy of the new draft administrative rules that coincidentally are on the BOE’s agenda for the meeting this Thursday at 9 a.m. in the “Liquor Conference Room” in the Mo`ikeha building in Lihu`e.
And while some of the rule changes are designed to actually bring the board’s antiquated rules into compliance with state law, some are apparently designed to befuddle the public, shut them out of the process and give the board even more discretionary, some might say arbitrary, power than they have now.
One change that is strewn all through the document is to change references to complying with “Section XX of the county charter”- the section on ethics and the board- to read, for instance,:
These rules, made pursuant to Section 20.05 B of the Charter of the County of Kaua`i, are intended to provide for the efficient administration of the declared policy of the Code of Ethics as set forth in Article XX of the Charter (addition) or Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code.
For those who don’t quite understand how laws and rules flow from one another, the charter sets the general rules and the laws, as passed by the council- in this case Chapter 3 of the Kaua`i County Code (KCC)- flows from the Charter and must abide by it. Finally the rules are based on and must abide by both and cannot contradict them.
But often, unless challenged in court for some reason, the county code can conflict with the charter- both of which must also abide by all applicable state and federal laws which supercede anything the county enacts- even if it doesn’t mean to.
OK- stay with us. By saying Chapter XX “or” KCC Chapter 3 rather than “and” the Board can now pick and choose which provision they want to follow if they do conflict.
And then it’s up to someone aggrieved to go to court and get a ruling saying the law contradicts- or is different from- the charter.
But that’s only a preliminary problem with the proposed rules because one of the things the rules seeks to do is to seemingly give the BOE the power to actually ignore complaints solely at it’s arbitrary pleasure
First it leaves in a little know “automatic rejection” phrase that, in its current rules reads
Failure by the Board to render an advisory opinion within thirty (30) days after the filing of a request therefore shall be deemed a finding of no breach of Article XX.
That of course means that if the board doesn’t want to take up a complaint but wants to allow its target to go scott-free all they have to do is procrastinate or ignore the complaint for 30 days
The board, as a matter of fact, only meets once a month and not only is there often more than 30 days between scheduled meetings sometimes meetings are cancelled when not enough members show up to constitute a quorum.
That little provision is strengthened even further by a new proposed change that states that the BOE can just reject a complaint without any reason at all and decide not to even consider the matter. The added provision says:
Deliberation. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Board shall investigate and/or deliberate on its merits. The Board may request a meeting with the complainant to gather more information. The Board may reject such complaint at this time and so notify the complainant, or decide to investigate further by calling for an informal or formal hearing.
Notice it says “may” request a meeting, which means they don’t have to and can just reject a complaint out of hand for no reason at all.
In addition the section on “informal” hearings- which is also an option open to the BOE and which has been abused in the past to hide and reject complaints- is amended to say that
The Board reserves the right to not take witness testimony.
That means that if the Board decides on an informal hearing they can just decide not to hear from anyone- including the complainant.
This codifies a current practice of the board to adjudicate matters without the subject of the complaint even being aware of it.
The formal hearing section is also extensively amended to add a lot of specifics on how the hearings are to be conducted. Though they seem appropriate and may even improve the process by getting it to follow judicial standards we suspect devils in those details too knowing the BOE’s past actions.
Then there’s a little added paragraph toward the end is particularly open to abuse and therefore ominous. It says:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Board finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety or morals requires adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule without notice of a hearing or upon less than 30 days' notice of hearing and states in writing its reason for such finding, it may proceed without prior notice or hearing upon such abbreviated notice and hearing as it finds practicable to adopt an emergency rule to be effective for a period of not longer than one hundred twenty days without renewal.
Morals? And exactly what is the BOE adjudicating that effects public heath and safety?
Who knows- but basically if they want to, they can call it an emergency, throw the rules out the window and do whatever they damn well please... including apparently conducting secret meetings with no agenda in violation of the state sunshine (HRS 92) and freedom of information (HRS 92F) laws.
Again making rules up on the spot is something they’ve been accused of routinely doing for years but this codifies the lawlessness.
Finally one of the little known facts about these BOE complaint hearings is that if the subject of the hearing requests that the hearing be conducted in a public session they must be conducted publicly. That they are “little known” is partially because the rules now are silent but state law says otherwise since the state’s “privacy” rights are generally granted to the “accused” or subject of the complaint.
And while the new rules adds one sentence saying
Open Session. The respondent may request that the hearing be held in open session. Otherwise, the hearing shall be held in closed session,
apparently what the BOE giveth the BOE taketh away with another addition saying
A contested case hearing shall be held in closed session, unless all parties to the proceeding choose to have the hearing in open session.
giving the filer or even any witness the right to close the entire matter to public scrutiny even if the subject of the complaint asks for an open hearing.
And of course even though the right of the accused to have an open hearing exists, that doesn’t mean it’s part of the information the provided to those who are accused- an oversight” that in the past has resulted in people thinking that opening the process wasn’t even possible because no one ever told them.
Bieber says that an amendment calling for notification of the right to a public hearing will be a priority for him as well as one on the “and/or” change to the “Charter/KCC" sentences.
While it seems to be a technological challenge to actually post the full set of proposed changes (with brackets for deleted and underlines for added materials) due to the limits of formatting on this “blogger” software (the underlining won’t transfer) we will send a copy via an email attachment to anyone who wants to view it. You can request a copy from us at gotwindmills (at) gmail.com . Specify pdf or MS Word attachment.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
THEY LIKE THE DARK AS DARK AS CAN BE
THEY LIKE THE DARK AS DARK AS CAN BE: Former mayoral candidate and open government advocate Rolf Bieber has been nominated to the Kaua`i Board of Ethics by Mayor Bernard Carvalho, PNN has learned.
Although in typical secretive fashion there has been no official announcement by the administration, Bieber’s name and those of eight other nominees for various boards and commissions appear on an agenda for a “special” council meeting to “interview” them, set for next Tuesday January 27.
Bieber, who has in the past testified before the council in support of enforcement by the Ethics Board of conflict of interest provisions and in opposition to executive sessions to discuss public policy, said that he is “honored to be able to serve” and thanked Carvalho for the nomination.
Bieber endorsed Carvalho’s mayoral bid in the closing days of the campaign last fall.
“Ethics in county government is an issue near and dear to me” said Bieber in a telephone interview this morning. “I ran on open and good governance and hope to take that platform to the Ethics Board.“
But while, if confirmed Bieber’s nomination might put a fresh face on the Ethics Board some of the others nominated as straight from a list of the same old faces- cronies of Carvalho’s and past Mayors Bryan Baptiste and Marianne Kusaka.
One of the most bizarre nominations is that of former County Attorney under Kusaka, Hartwell Blake, to the Planning Commission to fill the “environmental” slot.
The county charter calls for planning commission members to come from three sectors- two from business, two from labor and two from the environmental community- in addition to one “at large” slot.
It is a real head-scratchier is what Blake’s environmental credentials might be but the charter is silent on the criteria and past administrations and councils have failed to develop any criteria leaving the provision all but a joke.
Other cronies and campaign stalwarts include former civil defense coordinator under Kusaka, Cayetano “Sonny” Gerardo who served as Carvalho’s attack dog on former Mayor and again mayoral candidate Joann Yukimura during last year’s campaign.
In the closing days of the campaign Gerardo wrote a series of letters and emails in conducting a smear campaign rehashing unsubstantiated and often fabricated rumors regarding Yukimura’s actions following Hurricane ‘Iniki, alleging that she “took care of her north shore friends and ignored the west side” claiming she “bungled” the clean up.
Yukimura won national awards for her handling of the aftermath of the storm, especially her handling of the debris.
Gerardo is up for confirmation to the Board of Review, which hears property tax appeals, along with another familiar name- former prosecutor Craig DeCosta who declined to run for another term last year.
The full list of nominees and their terms includes:
BOARD OF ETHICS:
•Paul Weil – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
•Rolf Bieber – Partial Term to expire 12/31/2009
BOARD OF REVIEW:
•Cayetano “Sonny” Gerardo – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
•Craig DeCosta – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION:
•Cathy Adams – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION:
•Gary Pacheco – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
POLICE COMMISSION:
•Charles Iona – First Term to expire 12/31/2010
PLANNING COMMISSION:
•Hartwell Blake – (Environmental Designee) First Term to expire 12/31/2011
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION:
•Carol Suzawa – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
But if anyone wants to hear what questions the council asks the nominees don’t look for them to be televised.
The council has for years done all it could to keep secret these confirmation hearings- euphemistically called interviews- including refusing to fund their taping and, instead of scheduling them during regular council meetings, has used “special council meetings” to perpetuate the secrecy of the interviews after losing a battle with the Office of Information Practices (OIP) to keep them in executive session.
Back before January of 2002 the council refused to open the interviews to the public citing a provision in the county charter- part of the infamous Section 3.07(e) which was removed from the charter by voters this past fall after surreptitious wording gave the false impression that it would require the council to abide by the state sunshine law.
But after four years of testimony as to the illegal nature of the interviews and requests of OIP for enforcement of the state sunshine law by PNN, in January of 2002 a request was made by then-returning councilperson Yukimura asking the OIP if indeed they were allowed to go into executive session for the “interviews”.
The matter blew up that month when the year’s list of nominees were scheduled for interviews in executive session.
That stormy morning, despite a series of frantic phone calls from OIP forbidding the council from holding the interviews behind closed doors the council did so anyway causing an angry rebuke via fax and a subsequent written opinion from the toothless-tiger OIP.
That left the humid hallways of the historic county building full of dozens of soaking wet nominees standing around (for lack of seats) in foul weather gear, while the council sat in their air-conditioned chambers and invited them in one by one.
Since then the hearings have been technically open to the public but have been kept out of the purview of the general public as much as possible by a prohibition of televising the meetings.
Although councilmembers have cited the cost of taping and captioning meetings as a reason for keeping interviews off the air there appears to be no such concern over the endless hours of televised and captioned “awards” and “certificates”.
These little self promotional grandstanding events for councilmembers are not even part of the official agenda yet are routinely scheduled at the beginning or even during the middle of council meetings. They serve as free campaigning when members of the community are fawned over by the council before posing for the mandatory grip and grin photo to fill the local paper’s news hole.
Despite promises from candidates during the intervening years to make sure the confirmation sessions are televised the budget never seems to have enough money for them. And of course since what gets taped and doesn’t get taped is up to the famously secretive and paternalistic Council Chair Kaipo Asing, these interviews will most likely be hidden for the foreseeable future.
The public may come and testify or attempt to ask their own questions of the nominees at the 8:30 a.m. meeting and will most likely be able to testify on camera when the council confirms the nominations which, although the agenda isn’t out yet, will probably occur at the full council meeting scheduled for the next day, Wednesday January 28.
Although in typical secretive fashion there has been no official announcement by the administration, Bieber’s name and those of eight other nominees for various boards and commissions appear on an agenda for a “special” council meeting to “interview” them, set for next Tuesday January 27.
Bieber, who has in the past testified before the council in support of enforcement by the Ethics Board of conflict of interest provisions and in opposition to executive sessions to discuss public policy, said that he is “honored to be able to serve” and thanked Carvalho for the nomination.
Bieber endorsed Carvalho’s mayoral bid in the closing days of the campaign last fall.
“Ethics in county government is an issue near and dear to me” said Bieber in a telephone interview this morning. “I ran on open and good governance and hope to take that platform to the Ethics Board.“
But while, if confirmed Bieber’s nomination might put a fresh face on the Ethics Board some of the others nominated as straight from a list of the same old faces- cronies of Carvalho’s and past Mayors Bryan Baptiste and Marianne Kusaka.
One of the most bizarre nominations is that of former County Attorney under Kusaka, Hartwell Blake, to the Planning Commission to fill the “environmental” slot.
The county charter calls for planning commission members to come from three sectors- two from business, two from labor and two from the environmental community- in addition to one “at large” slot.
It is a real head-scratchier is what Blake’s environmental credentials might be but the charter is silent on the criteria and past administrations and councils have failed to develop any criteria leaving the provision all but a joke.
Other cronies and campaign stalwarts include former civil defense coordinator under Kusaka, Cayetano “Sonny” Gerardo who served as Carvalho’s attack dog on former Mayor and again mayoral candidate Joann Yukimura during last year’s campaign.
In the closing days of the campaign Gerardo wrote a series of letters and emails in conducting a smear campaign rehashing unsubstantiated and often fabricated rumors regarding Yukimura’s actions following Hurricane ‘Iniki, alleging that she “took care of her north shore friends and ignored the west side” claiming she “bungled” the clean up.
Yukimura won national awards for her handling of the aftermath of the storm, especially her handling of the debris.
Gerardo is up for confirmation to the Board of Review, which hears property tax appeals, along with another familiar name- former prosecutor Craig DeCosta who declined to run for another term last year.
The full list of nominees and their terms includes:
BOARD OF ETHICS:
•Paul Weil – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
•Rolf Bieber – Partial Term to expire 12/31/2009
BOARD OF REVIEW:
•Cayetano “Sonny” Gerardo – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
•Craig DeCosta – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION:
•Cathy Adams – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION:
•Gary Pacheco – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
POLICE COMMISSION:
•Charles Iona – First Term to expire 12/31/2010
PLANNING COMMISSION:
•Hartwell Blake – (Environmental Designee) First Term to expire 12/31/2011
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION:
•Carol Suzawa – First Term to expire 12/31/2011
But if anyone wants to hear what questions the council asks the nominees don’t look for them to be televised.
The council has for years done all it could to keep secret these confirmation hearings- euphemistically called interviews- including refusing to fund their taping and, instead of scheduling them during regular council meetings, has used “special council meetings” to perpetuate the secrecy of the interviews after losing a battle with the Office of Information Practices (OIP) to keep them in executive session.
Back before January of 2002 the council refused to open the interviews to the public citing a provision in the county charter- part of the infamous Section 3.07(e) which was removed from the charter by voters this past fall after surreptitious wording gave the false impression that it would require the council to abide by the state sunshine law.
But after four years of testimony as to the illegal nature of the interviews and requests of OIP for enforcement of the state sunshine law by PNN, in January of 2002 a request was made by then-returning councilperson Yukimura asking the OIP if indeed they were allowed to go into executive session for the “interviews”.
The matter blew up that month when the year’s list of nominees were scheduled for interviews in executive session.
That stormy morning, despite a series of frantic phone calls from OIP forbidding the council from holding the interviews behind closed doors the council did so anyway causing an angry rebuke via fax and a subsequent written opinion from the toothless-tiger OIP.
That left the humid hallways of the historic county building full of dozens of soaking wet nominees standing around (for lack of seats) in foul weather gear, while the council sat in their air-conditioned chambers and invited them in one by one.
Since then the hearings have been technically open to the public but have been kept out of the purview of the general public as much as possible by a prohibition of televising the meetings.
Although councilmembers have cited the cost of taping and captioning meetings as a reason for keeping interviews off the air there appears to be no such concern over the endless hours of televised and captioned “awards” and “certificates”.
These little self promotional grandstanding events for councilmembers are not even part of the official agenda yet are routinely scheduled at the beginning or even during the middle of council meetings. They serve as free campaigning when members of the community are fawned over by the council before posing for the mandatory grip and grin photo to fill the local paper’s news hole.
Despite promises from candidates during the intervening years to make sure the confirmation sessions are televised the budget never seems to have enough money for them. And of course since what gets taped and doesn’t get taped is up to the famously secretive and paternalistic Council Chair Kaipo Asing, these interviews will most likely be hidden for the foreseeable future.
The public may come and testify or attempt to ask their own questions of the nominees at the 8:30 a.m. meeting and will most likely be able to testify on camera when the council confirms the nominations which, although the agenda isn’t out yet, will probably occur at the full council meeting scheduled for the next day, Wednesday January 28.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
SUCKIN’ UP TO ST. BERNARD
SUCKIN’ UP TO ST. BERNARD: Mayor candidate Bernard Carvalho has effectively ducked a debate with his opponent JoAnn Yukimura that was supposed to take place tomorrow (Thursday) night.
But perplexingly the sponsor of the event, The Garden Island (TGI) newspaper, hid the announcement halfway through an interview with Carvalho in Tuesday’s paper and then said they were canceling it. rather than stating that Carvalho had refused the invitation to the event announced more than three weeks ago.
Reporter Michael Levine spent six paragraphs detailing Carvalho’s pro-forma ducking of substantive questions but in the seventh he relates the fact that
Carvalho will be attending meetings in Honolulu and unable to attend Thursday’s now-canceled political forum sponsored by The Garden Island, but said he remains open to future debates against (his opponent Councilperson JoAnn) Yukimura.
But despite the fact that Carvalho said he could or would not attend, TGI Editor Adam Harju told us that “(w)e canceled as a debate with one participant would not be in the best interest of the community”.
Reached for comment Carvalho’s campaign manager Leonard Rapozo told PNN that despite numerous articles in the newspaper beginning September 1 “they never contacted us” about the TGI forum.
Rapozo said that Carvalho ”had already scheduled something” for that day although he refused to say what or where the “event” was, when the “event” had been scheduled and whether or not they had read the announcements in the newspaper.
When asked specifically Rapozo would not confirm or deny TGI’s claim Carvalho would be at a “meeting in Honolulu”..
Harju however says that “all four candidates were invited” but has declined to provide other details.
The original newspaper announcement of the forum was published Sept 1 in TGI and read:
TGI to host political forums Sept. 25, Oct. 16
by The Garden Island
Posted: Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 - 09:56:46 pm HST
The Garden Island will host political forums for Kaua‘i’s mayoral candidates on Sept. 25 and for County Council candidates on Oct. 16 at the Kaua‘i Veterans Center on Kapule Highway.
Doors will open at 6 p.m. The forum starts at 6:30 p.m.
Light pupu and refreshments will be served at the free events.Invitations to candidates are forthcoming.
Yukimura was in county council session today and unavailable for comment according to a campaign spokesperson.
However in an even more perplexing development the Yukimura campaign said that
Both candidates will be at Duke's Kalapaki tomorrow (Thursday) at 7:30am at the Lihu`e Business Association public forum.
Although PNN has not been able to confirm it, it has been rumored all day at the council meeting that the event will not be a debate and as a matter of fact the two candidate will not even be in the same room.
Why exactly TGI buried the story then parsed their words and spun the situation by saying that they cancelled rather than saying that Carvalho refused to attend- apparently refusing at the last minute and after Saturday’s election- is not clear.
What is clear though is that Carvalho’s excuse for ducking the debate doesn’t pass the smell or laugh test, especially considering the dearth of substance in his campaign so far, which focuses solely on “leadership” and “working with the community” rather than addressing his specific plans and programs for dealing with the issues.
It’s not surprising that TGI wouldn’t report the news without tilt so as not to antagonize a campaign with a $140,000 war chest, a sizable chunk of which will be spent on newspaper advertising between now and November 4
Reached for comment former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber who was eliminated Saturday after garnering a healthy 4% of the vote said that he had cancelled a meeting with Carvalho and Rapozo scheduled for the day after the debate saying that, especially in light of Carvalho’s refusal to debate “I can’t support anyone yet”.
Bieber said he has been approached by both campaigns for their support but wants to hear more before he considers lending support or endorsement. He said that a plethora of calls from Rapozo began Saturday night even before all the results were in but after it became apparent Carvalho would not get the 50% of the vote needed to avoid a runoff with Yukimura.
Yukimura for her part approached him while both were “mahalo” sign-waiving on Sunday asking him simply if he would support her.
But perplexingly the sponsor of the event, The Garden Island (TGI) newspaper, hid the announcement halfway through an interview with Carvalho in Tuesday’s paper and then said they were canceling it. rather than stating that Carvalho had refused the invitation to the event announced more than three weeks ago.
Reporter Michael Levine spent six paragraphs detailing Carvalho’s pro-forma ducking of substantive questions but in the seventh he relates the fact that
Carvalho will be attending meetings in Honolulu and unable to attend Thursday’s now-canceled political forum sponsored by The Garden Island, but said he remains open to future debates against (his opponent Councilperson JoAnn) Yukimura.
But despite the fact that Carvalho said he could or would not attend, TGI Editor Adam Harju told us that “(w)e canceled as a debate with one participant would not be in the best interest of the community”.
Reached for comment Carvalho’s campaign manager Leonard Rapozo told PNN that despite numerous articles in the newspaper beginning September 1 “they never contacted us” about the TGI forum.
Rapozo said that Carvalho ”had already scheduled something” for that day although he refused to say what or where the “event” was, when the “event” had been scheduled and whether or not they had read the announcements in the newspaper.
When asked specifically Rapozo would not confirm or deny TGI’s claim Carvalho would be at a “meeting in Honolulu”..
Harju however says that “all four candidates were invited” but has declined to provide other details.
The original newspaper announcement of the forum was published Sept 1 in TGI and read:
TGI to host political forums Sept. 25, Oct. 16
by The Garden Island
Posted: Sunday, Aug 31, 2008 - 09:56:46 pm HST
The Garden Island will host political forums for Kaua‘i’s mayoral candidates on Sept. 25 and for County Council candidates on Oct. 16 at the Kaua‘i Veterans Center on Kapule Highway.
Doors will open at 6 p.m. The forum starts at 6:30 p.m.
Light pupu and refreshments will be served at the free events.Invitations to candidates are forthcoming.
Yukimura was in county council session today and unavailable for comment according to a campaign spokesperson.
However in an even more perplexing development the Yukimura campaign said that
Both candidates will be at Duke's Kalapaki tomorrow (Thursday) at 7:30am at the Lihu`e Business Association public forum.
Although PNN has not been able to confirm it, it has been rumored all day at the council meeting that the event will not be a debate and as a matter of fact the two candidate will not even be in the same room.
Why exactly TGI buried the story then parsed their words and spun the situation by saying that they cancelled rather than saying that Carvalho refused to attend- apparently refusing at the last minute and after Saturday’s election- is not clear.
What is clear though is that Carvalho’s excuse for ducking the debate doesn’t pass the smell or laugh test, especially considering the dearth of substance in his campaign so far, which focuses solely on “leadership” and “working with the community” rather than addressing his specific plans and programs for dealing with the issues.
It’s not surprising that TGI wouldn’t report the news without tilt so as not to antagonize a campaign with a $140,000 war chest, a sizable chunk of which will be spent on newspaper advertising between now and November 4
Reached for comment former mayoral candidate Rolf Bieber who was eliminated Saturday after garnering a healthy 4% of the vote said that he had cancelled a meeting with Carvalho and Rapozo scheduled for the day after the debate saying that, especially in light of Carvalho’s refusal to debate “I can’t support anyone yet”.
Bieber said he has been approached by both campaigns for their support but wants to hear more before he considers lending support or endorsement. He said that a plethora of calls from Rapozo began Saturday night even before all the results were in but after it became apparent Carvalho would not get the 50% of the vote needed to avoid a runoff with Yukimura.
Yukimura for her part approached him while both were “mahalo” sign-waiving on Sunday asking him simply if he would support her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
