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.

WATCH OUT WHERE THE HUSKIES GO

WATCH OUT WHERE THE HUSKIES GO: “Are ya gonna watch?” someone said as CNN announced “the most important debate of the year” this morning.

And although normally we’d rather drink four day old vomit than listen to Sarah Palin speak, in the same rubber-necking way we watch plane crashes and can’t look away from the Kaua`i council meetings, we’re finding it hard to resist, if for no other reason than the comic entertainment value.

But really what we are anxious to see is the next installment of the ultimate dumbing down of the once secret PR tactic of feigning outage at, first the question and then the questioner.

As a journalist you get used to it. Everyone wants more investigative reporting and tougher questions... until it’s their ox being gored. Then you’re just a mean old man asking question no one wants the answers to anyway.

It used to be that in order to exercise the ability to turn the tables on a reporter asking a question that would make you look like the dirty lyin’ dirtbag you are, you needed skill.

But then again those were times when people had critical reading and listening skills and hadn’t been completely anesthetized by Burger King commercials and Sudoku.

It used to take time to learn how to BS anyone anytime anywhere but once you mastered the skill you could work for crooks like big tobacco, “clean” coal or pharmaceutical pill-pushers... or even- if you’re really good and willing to take six showers a day to wash out the moral stank- a press secretary for the president.

But when John McCain sat down to join Palin in trying to answer Katie Couric's second round of questions last week- after Palin had done her dodge and weave the day before- it turned out Palin didn’t need McCain to help her answer substantive questions, he needed her to learn how to not answer them.

And in the end all McCain- he of the all-BS-all-the-time Straight Talk Express- could do is sit and smugly smile at his “excellent” choice of someone who simply complained and counter-attacked Couric for asking “gotcha” questions all the time (like naming one specific, in answer to any one of her questions) “just like you reporters are always doing”.

We’re used to the professional spinmeister giving BS answers and not answering questions when 60 minutes marches in and busts them.

But the secret is out and it’s the favored tactic of anyone who doesn’t want to talk about any subject.

We’ve been working on an investigative report that we hope to finish next week where getting information from the people in charge has been exercise in futility.

And every time we try to pin down the unofficial associate morons they complain that we are looking for the information they don’t want to give us.

Every time we refuse to swallow some laughable misdirection and cut through the crap, they accuse of us not reporting what they want to lie about and accuse us of instead “focusing on the bad stuff”, as if it’s our job to make stuff up to make them look good.

As we’ve gotten accustomed to saying over the years, especially during our Parxist Conspiracy” TV newsmagazine years, “oh- you have us confused with Dickie Chang”

Perhaps it’s that, especially on Kaua`i, they’re expecting what they always get from the press- a fluff story that puts their contrived convolutions and preposterous parsing into an incoherent distraction from the facts, serving to further blur the line between news and pubic relations.

Everyone has seen how it’s done so often, anyone set on serving up a crap sandwich has learned how to do it, monkey-see-monkey-do style.

It’s the song and dance of the phony-baloney. It goes “we may be stupid or we may be incompetent. But until you prove which we’ll just criticize you for not knowing.”

“We’ll just avoid the question as long as we can and once we’ve ignored it at least three times we’ll attack the person asking the question for hounding us over it.”

We bet this scene is not uncommon these days.

“Did you do your homework little Johnnie?”

“I told you yesterday I’m not answering gotcha questions mom- why are you parents so interested in my homework anyway”

“Did you do it?”

“Of course I’ve done homework.”

“Did you do it today?

“Why are you so focused on my homework- don’t you have something better to do”

“Alright tell me one specific homework assignment you did”

“I do homework all the time- why I can see my homework from this desk”

“OK- show me your homework- today’s homework- the homework you were assigned in class.”

“I look at every piece of homework that’s put in front of me. I see math homework, I see science homework, I see English homework, I see history ho...

“SHOW ME YOUR COMPLETED HOMEWORK”

“Well that’s it- I’ve had it answering questions like it’s the Spanish Inquisition. This is nothing but a witch hunt. You don’t like my answers because they don’t support you liberal parents agenda. You parents are all the same- no wonder everyone hates parents.... uh, what’s for dinner?”