ROOM AT THE TOP: When former County Clerk Peter Nakamura was fired- or, according to some, quit amidst council executive-session-protected investigations of various and sundry allegations of wrong doing- we didn't really expect to hear anything until the decision on a new clerk was a "done deal."
So when our sources at council services told us that ads were placed in both the local and Honolulu newspapers soliciting applications and that there were a significant number of applicants- even from the mainland- though it was nice to think that there might be a little public scrutiny of the list, we didn't hold out much hope.
And we haven't been disappointed in our pessimism.
The job description of the position of clerk is not just "the council's lackey" even though Nakamura's stint under former Chair Kaipo Asing might have given that impressions. He- or she (yeah- that'll happen)- is also the county's chief elections officer and has numerous other important public duties and responsibilities.
But of course the process- and the names of the applicants- has been a tightly held secret with closed-to-the-public, executive sessions the order of the day for review of those seeking the job.
But given the brouhaha over the release of the judicial appointment list and the Office of Information Practices' (OIP) original stance that the names should have been made public- with which a circuit court judge agreed before the judicial selection committee decided was the best policy on their part after all- we wondered if there might be enough of a public interest in release of the names of county clerk applicants to overcome the privacy concerns in the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), HRS Chapter 92F.
Silly wabbit.
We gave a call to the attorney of the day at OIP and got an interesting if negatory answer. Staff Attorney Carlotta Amerino wrote:
This email responds to your telephone call to the Office of Information Practices (OIP) on November 17, 2011. You explained that the Kauai County Council is in the process of filling a vacant county clerk position and would be meeting on this matter on November 21. You asked whether you may know the names of all the applicants.
The Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), Chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (UIPA) requires generally that government records are available to the public. HRS section 92F-11. However, the UIPA does not require disclosure of records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. HRS section 92F-13(1). Applications for government positions carry significant privacy interests under HRS section 92F-14(b)(4), which, when balanced against the public interest in disclosure, have often outweighed the public interest. See OIP Ltrs. No 90-14, 91-8, and 95-2. In Opinion 03-03, OIP found that a list of judicial nominees could be disclosed publicly, but that opinion was based in part upon the fact that judges have a great impact upon the public.
The UIPA also allows government agencies to withhold information if disclosure would cause the frustration of a legitimate government function. HRS section 92F-13(3). While OIP has not been asked to issue a formal opinion on your specific question, and has not discussed this matter with the County Council, it would not unreasonable for the Council to invoke the "frustration" exception if it feels that qualified applicants would not apply for government jobs if that fact is made public even for the unsuccessful applicants.
I hope this information is helpful.
Carlotta Amerino
Staff Attorney
Basically it's not really an answer because although the judicial selection process is cited, that process is detailed in both the Hawai`i State Constitution and in law and administrative rules whereas the county clerk simply serves "at the pleasure" of the council
That leaves what Amerino refers to as the "frustration" exception which says that things may be kept secret if revealing them would "frustrate a legitimate government function."
In the case of the judicial nominees, Governor Neil Abercrombie claimed the frustration clause in that it would have a "chilling effect" on attorneys causing many to decline to apply. But even that doesn't seem to be the case with the county attorney position any more than any other job where one might not want their current employer to know they were seeking another job. And, of course, in any event, the court struck down such an exception in the judicial selection case.
We haven't formally requested the list of applicants mostly because it would take at least a few weeks just to get an answer from the council- which we know would be "no" anyway- and then we would have to submit that refusal to the OIP for disposition and they are so "busy" and toothless these days we'd be lucky to get a "formal opinion" at all and if we did it could take months if not years.
And by then, most likely we'll have a new clerk.
It may be best to wait for the appointment and then ask for the list- we might have more of a chance then because there would be no way the release could effect the outcome due to political pressures, which Amerino suggested to us on the phone might be applicable in this situation.
It's been noted in national surveys that Hawai`i has one of the best sunshine/open records laws in the country- and one of the worst records for actually keeping meetings open and releasing records.
The minotaur thinks the labyrinth is working just the way it's been designed, thank you very much.
Showing posts with label UIPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UIPA. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
OXYMORONICALLY SPEAKING
OXYMORONICALLY SPEAKING: Little kids and we old futs have something in common- we both refuse to fall for BS conundrums.
While sophomoric angst-ridden teens may obsess over questions like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does make a sound " any wise-ass seven year old will suggest using a tape recorder to show it does and the crotchety crowd will just say "of course it does- what are you an idiot?".
But today that very question- or an approximation thereof- presents itself by asking "if a newspaper that has a 'paywall' sues the the governor's for his refusal to release the list of judicial nominees, does anyone hear about it?".
The answer is only if you find out through "'Civil Beath'" which, though similarly paywalled, offers as many free one-month subscriptions as you have email addresses.
That's a long way to go to say that the news itself is certainly welcome in that the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (S-A) is dipping into it's monopolistically-engorged pockets to do what they should have done the first time Governor Neil Abercrombie decided to flout tradition- and an Office of Information Practices (OIP) opinion- by refusing to release the list (after state senate approval).
The suit itself- provided in copy-protected form by Civil Beat which has come under fire for copy-protecting other public documents- attempts to refute the governor's claim that to release the list would, as the law says, "frustrate a legitimate government function"- that of appointing judges from a list provided by a judicial selection committee.
But strangely enough the suit fails to try to refute Abercrombie's contention other than essentially saying "no it doesn't."
Are we to assume the hearing will feature ten year old attorneys alternately screaming "yes it does... no it doesn't... yes it does... no it doesn't." until one grabs the others hair and the other bites the first one on the leg?
Abercrombie claims is that attorneys will be less willing to submit their names to the selection committee because they risk the ire of their employers, partners or even clients- both current and future- by letting them know they might be leaving.
But the S-A suit simply ignores the argument itself by refusing to address either of the two issues- first, whether a public announcement will in fact cause problems for the applicant and two, if that's true- whether it rise to the level of "frustration of a legitimate government function."
Now we're normally an unqualified supporter of the preamble to the Sunshine Law which presumes that government documents are to be made public unless they are specifically exempted by law- and that the law should be "liberally applied."
But we've got to admit that, after talking about this with five different attorneys over the past few months, we have come around to the governor's thinking. All five said that the fact that their names would become public has colored their decisions as to whether or not to apply for a judgeship.
The five include lawyers, who both work with partners and without, are in the government's employ and in private practice and do both criminal and civil law. And all said that the release of their names is a consideration and some said that indeed it has influenced their decision not to apply.
That means that- our admittedly small sample notwithstanding- the only question is whether, assuming the "fact" that what Abercrombie claims is true, does it actually "frustrate a legitimate government function?".
Whenever we've seen these kinds of determinations the "function" is stated. In this case it would be "the appointment of judges by the governor."
But the problem for the governor is that the law does not state that his job is to appoint judges from the widest possible pool, just that he pick from a list provided by the selection committee.
Attorneys will make the decision as to whether to seek a judgeship for any number of reasons. Certainly the usual drop in pay is a consideration so should the law require the state to make up the difference to widen the pool? Suppose the appointment requires a move from a neighbor island to Honolulu and the attorney has children who are in an excellent public school? Should he or she be compensated for having to put them in a private school if there is no comparable public school available?
Of course not. The legitimate government function is to provide a list, not to insure that the list includes every attorney in the state who otherwise would consider a judicial appointment.
The governor's claim regarding the release of the names of attorneys who aren't selected may be true. But it is for all intent and purpose it is irrelevant because unless the attorney general comes up with a heretofore unspoken rationale to say that this actually frustrates a legitimate government function Abercrombie's claim doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
While sophomoric angst-ridden teens may obsess over questions like "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does make a sound " any wise-ass seven year old will suggest using a tape recorder to show it does and the crotchety crowd will just say "of course it does- what are you an idiot?".
But today that very question- or an approximation thereof- presents itself by asking "if a newspaper that has a 'paywall' sues the the governor's for his refusal to release the list of judicial nominees, does anyone hear about it?".
The answer is only if you find out through "'Civil Beath'" which, though similarly paywalled, offers as many free one-month subscriptions as you have email addresses.
That's a long way to go to say that the news itself is certainly welcome in that the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (S-A) is dipping into it's monopolistically-engorged pockets to do what they should have done the first time Governor Neil Abercrombie decided to flout tradition- and an Office of Information Practices (OIP) opinion- by refusing to release the list (after state senate approval).
The suit itself- provided in copy-protected form by Civil Beat which has come under fire for copy-protecting other public documents- attempts to refute the governor's claim that to release the list would, as the law says, "frustrate a legitimate government function"- that of appointing judges from a list provided by a judicial selection committee.
But strangely enough the suit fails to try to refute Abercrombie's contention other than essentially saying "no it doesn't."
Are we to assume the hearing will feature ten year old attorneys alternately screaming "yes it does... no it doesn't... yes it does... no it doesn't." until one grabs the others hair and the other bites the first one on the leg?
Abercrombie claims is that attorneys will be less willing to submit their names to the selection committee because they risk the ire of their employers, partners or even clients- both current and future- by letting them know they might be leaving.
But the S-A suit simply ignores the argument itself by refusing to address either of the two issues- first, whether a public announcement will in fact cause problems for the applicant and two, if that's true- whether it rise to the level of "frustration of a legitimate government function."
Now we're normally an unqualified supporter of the preamble to the Sunshine Law which presumes that government documents are to be made public unless they are specifically exempted by law- and that the law should be "liberally applied."
But we've got to admit that, after talking about this with five different attorneys over the past few months, we have come around to the governor's thinking. All five said that the fact that their names would become public has colored their decisions as to whether or not to apply for a judgeship.
The five include lawyers, who both work with partners and without, are in the government's employ and in private practice and do both criminal and civil law. And all said that the release of their names is a consideration and some said that indeed it has influenced their decision not to apply.
That means that- our admittedly small sample notwithstanding- the only question is whether, assuming the "fact" that what Abercrombie claims is true, does it actually "frustrate a legitimate government function?".
Whenever we've seen these kinds of determinations the "function" is stated. In this case it would be "the appointment of judges by the governor."
But the problem for the governor is that the law does not state that his job is to appoint judges from the widest possible pool, just that he pick from a list provided by the selection committee.
Attorneys will make the decision as to whether to seek a judgeship for any number of reasons. Certainly the usual drop in pay is a consideration so should the law require the state to make up the difference to widen the pool? Suppose the appointment requires a move from a neighbor island to Honolulu and the attorney has children who are in an excellent public school? Should he or she be compensated for having to put them in a private school if there is no comparable public school available?
Of course not. The legitimate government function is to provide a list, not to insure that the list includes every attorney in the state who otherwise would consider a judicial appointment.
The governor's claim regarding the release of the names of attorneys who aren't selected may be true. But it is for all intent and purpose it is irrelevant because unless the attorney general comes up with a heretofore unspoken rationale to say that this actually frustrates a legitimate government function Abercrombie's claim doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
INFORMATION TAR-TAR
INFORMATION TAR-TAR: Ever since the Office of Information Practices (OIP) lost the infamous ES-177 case- wherein the County of Kaua`i went to court to avoid releasing the minutes of an executive session despite apparent legislative intent to give OIP ultimate authority and ban such court action- we've kind of felt like the guy in the movies screaming in futility while spinning through the vacuum of space.
But recent attention has been paid by Civil Beat Editor John Temple prompting the OIP to defend itself- in a letter from the current director entitled "The Raw Truth"- for refusing to, as they see it, waste their time trying to claim their "teeth" that the court took away.
We're not going to try to rehash the long and winding road of ES-177 and CofK vs OIP again here but today Temple does point out a new wrinkle that puts OIP's finger-pointing at the legislature in a new light saying that under:
sections 92F-15.5 and 92F-28 of Hawaii Revised Statutes that the OIP has authority to hear and make binding decisions in appeals if it exercises its rule-making authority.
Apparently OIP has never bothered to promulgate Chapter 91 Administrative Rules to set up an appeals process for agencies who disagree with their Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) rulings to follow- one of Kaua`i County's major gripes in their suit having been the denial of "due process."
In addition today, another open records and meetings junkie, blogger/journalist Ian Lind takes a shot at OIP's defense by noting that in CofK vs OIP the court actually distinguished it from another case where OIP's authority was upheld, noting that "board meeting minutes are specifically covered by HRS Chapter 92, whereas development proposals, such as the ones at issue" in the other case, are not.
Of course the only reason the ES-177 case is finally getting statewide attention is that Governor Neil Abercrombie refused to adhere to an OIP decision on releasing the names of candidates for the Hawaii Supreme Court and then refused to reappoint the OIP director who made the decision.
But one thing that again occurs to us today, has bothered us since the first day the CofK decided to file suit.
Why exactly did the county bother to sue and not just ignore the OIP?
By filing suit they risked losing but by ignoring the OIP- as many are doing today, they apparently would have risked nothing. That's because of something that neither Temple nor Lind nor OIP itself has mentioned- something that really exposed the weak link in all of this.
According to the Sunshine Law under §92-12 Enforcement,
(a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.
The fact is that, because the law also says that anyone who doesn't agree with an OIP directive can sue in circuit court, attorneys general have consistently said that one must go to court first and so, they have refused to enforce OIP's opinions.
Thus the root of the claim that OIP is a "toothless tiger" is that the AG refuses to enforce its decisions.
That is why Abercrombie can get away with thumbing his nose at the OIP- not because the legislature hasn't been clear enough, as Temple points out today in citing the 1989 conference committee report for the sunshine law, as the OIP did in it's arguments in CofK vs. OIP.
Seems that "The Raw Truth" is that OIP does have options- options that you can bet the always-reticent-to-act legislature will be sure to iterate next year when they consider the OIP's request for tooth sharpening.
But recent attention has been paid by Civil Beat Editor John Temple prompting the OIP to defend itself- in a letter from the current director entitled "The Raw Truth"- for refusing to, as they see it, waste their time trying to claim their "teeth" that the court took away.
We're not going to try to rehash the long and winding road of ES-177 and CofK vs OIP again here but today Temple does point out a new wrinkle that puts OIP's finger-pointing at the legislature in a new light saying that under:
sections 92F-15.5 and 92F-28 of Hawaii Revised Statutes that the OIP has authority to hear and make binding decisions in appeals if it exercises its rule-making authority.
Apparently OIP has never bothered to promulgate Chapter 91 Administrative Rules to set up an appeals process for agencies who disagree with their Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) rulings to follow- one of Kaua`i County's major gripes in their suit having been the denial of "due process."
In addition today, another open records and meetings junkie, blogger/journalist Ian Lind takes a shot at OIP's defense by noting that in CofK vs OIP the court actually distinguished it from another case where OIP's authority was upheld, noting that "board meeting minutes are specifically covered by HRS Chapter 92, whereas development proposals, such as the ones at issue" in the other case, are not.
Of course the only reason the ES-177 case is finally getting statewide attention is that Governor Neil Abercrombie refused to adhere to an OIP decision on releasing the names of candidates for the Hawaii Supreme Court and then refused to reappoint the OIP director who made the decision.
But one thing that again occurs to us today, has bothered us since the first day the CofK decided to file suit.
Why exactly did the county bother to sue and not just ignore the OIP?
By filing suit they risked losing but by ignoring the OIP- as many are doing today, they apparently would have risked nothing. That's because of something that neither Temple nor Lind nor OIP itself has mentioned- something that really exposed the weak link in all of this.
According to the Sunshine Law under §92-12 Enforcement,
(a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.
The fact is that, because the law also says that anyone who doesn't agree with an OIP directive can sue in circuit court, attorneys general have consistently said that one must go to court first and so, they have refused to enforce OIP's opinions.
Thus the root of the claim that OIP is a "toothless tiger" is that the AG refuses to enforce its decisions.
That is why Abercrombie can get away with thumbing his nose at the OIP- not because the legislature hasn't been clear enough, as Temple points out today in citing the 1989 conference committee report for the sunshine law, as the OIP did in it's arguments in CofK vs. OIP.
Seems that "The Raw Truth" is that OIP does have options- options that you can bet the always-reticent-to-act legislature will be sure to iterate next year when they consider the OIP's request for tooth sharpening.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
LOOKIN' LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR BRAINS ON THE GROUND
LOOKIN' LIKE A FOOL WITH YOUR BRAINS ON THE GROUND: Mom always said that the only reason to keep banging your head against the wall is that it feels so good when you stop.
But sometimes it feels a little better when someone comes along and and joins in by banging theirs.
We've concussed more times than we care to remember over the "paper tiger" status of the state's Office of Information Practices (OIP) that resulted from the infamous "ES-177" case in which the County of Kaua`i sued the OIP rather than give up the minutes to an "executive session (ES)" in 2005.
But today we gained a banging-mate in the person of John Temple of the on-line news source Civil Beat who, in bemoaning the fact that new OIP chief Cheryl Kakazu Park called "futile," any effort to force either Governor Neil Abercrombie or the Honolulu Police Department to release records that, despite OIP orders to "give 'em up," remain ferreted away in some filing cabinet.
Temple actually figured out why, despite a clear law backed up by legislative intent documents, OIP lost it's sole authority to determine when documents must be made public by the state and its political subdivisions, actually citing the ES-177 case, albeit through a link.
In County of Kaua`i vs Office of Information Practices the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the county could in fact go to circuit court to overturn an OIP directive.
According to the decision:
OIP maintained that HRS § 92F-15.5(b) (1993) did not provide County "the right to appeal or otherwise contest an OIP determination that a record must be disclosed under the [Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)]." OIP cited to Conference Committee Report No. 17 on Senate Bill No. 1799, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 763-64, which stated that "a government agency dissatisfied with an administrative ruling by the OIP does not have the right to bring an action in circuit court to contest the OIP ruling." OIP also cited to HRS § 632-1, which provided, inter alia, that "[w]here . . . a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy shall be followed."
But despite the fact that the original request was for the minutes- clearly a document- the court ruled that the real intent somehow dealt with HRS 92, the open meetings or Sunshine law, over which OIP does not have sole discretion.
We're certainly gratified to have someone with a bigger megaphone take up the cause and couldn't agree more with Temple who concluded today's first of two columns by saying that the language in HRS 92F-15.5:
clearly gives the OIP the power to order government agencies to make records available. Yet, that power isn't being wielded today, at least in part because of a 2009 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decision. That case involved not just the UIPA but also the open meetings law, known as the Sunshine law, which doesn't give the OIP the same strong powers as the open records law.
The result of the appeals court decision appears to be confusion — and a weakened OIP.
Cheryl Kakazu Park, OIP's director, defends her office, but says she's going to seek clarification of its powers from the Legislature next year. She says she sees agencies voluntarily comply with OIP advice.
"For the most part, they have wanted to comply," she told me.
Maybe.
But it was Park who wrote that it would be "futile" for her to rule on an appeal of the governor's rejection of requests for the names of judicial nominees.
Futile. Even though the language of the statute clearly says what should happen when OIP rules on appeal that a document should be public: "The agency shall make the record available."
Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
It's a two edged sword. Even though the open meetings and records laws in Hawai`i are broken, anyone who has seen the legislature in action know that they are just as libel to make things worse as they are to remedy the situation once they get a bill on the table.
But perhaps the sound of other headbangers will force the legislature to give the OIP the authority that they were supposedly given when the law was passed.
But sometimes it feels a little better when someone comes along and and joins in by banging theirs.
We've concussed more times than we care to remember over the "paper tiger" status of the state's Office of Information Practices (OIP) that resulted from the infamous "ES-177" case in which the County of Kaua`i sued the OIP rather than give up the minutes to an "executive session (ES)" in 2005.
But today we gained a banging-mate in the person of John Temple of the on-line news source Civil Beat who, in bemoaning the fact that new OIP chief Cheryl Kakazu Park called "futile," any effort to force either Governor Neil Abercrombie or the Honolulu Police Department to release records that, despite OIP orders to "give 'em up," remain ferreted away in some filing cabinet.
Temple actually figured out why, despite a clear law backed up by legislative intent documents, OIP lost it's sole authority to determine when documents must be made public by the state and its political subdivisions, actually citing the ES-177 case, albeit through a link.
In County of Kaua`i vs Office of Information Practices the Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the county could in fact go to circuit court to overturn an OIP directive.
According to the decision:
OIP maintained that HRS § 92F-15.5(b) (1993) did not provide County "the right to appeal or otherwise contest an OIP determination that a record must be disclosed under the [Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)]." OIP cited to Conference Committee Report No. 17 on Senate Bill No. 1799, in 1989 Senate Journal, at 763-64, which stated that "a government agency dissatisfied with an administrative ruling by the OIP does not have the right to bring an action in circuit court to contest the OIP ruling." OIP also cited to HRS § 632-1, which provided, inter alia, that "[w]here . . . a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case, that statutory remedy shall be followed."
But despite the fact that the original request was for the minutes- clearly a document- the court ruled that the real intent somehow dealt with HRS 92, the open meetings or Sunshine law, over which OIP does not have sole discretion.
We're certainly gratified to have someone with a bigger megaphone take up the cause and couldn't agree more with Temple who concluded today's first of two columns by saying that the language in HRS 92F-15.5:
clearly gives the OIP the power to order government agencies to make records available. Yet, that power isn't being wielded today, at least in part because of a 2009 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals decision. That case involved not just the UIPA but also the open meetings law, known as the Sunshine law, which doesn't give the OIP the same strong powers as the open records law.
The result of the appeals court decision appears to be confusion — and a weakened OIP.
Cheryl Kakazu Park, OIP's director, defends her office, but says she's going to seek clarification of its powers from the Legislature next year. She says she sees agencies voluntarily comply with OIP advice.
"For the most part, they have wanted to comply," she told me.
Maybe.
But it was Park who wrote that it would be "futile" for her to rule on an appeal of the governor's rejection of requests for the names of judicial nominees.
Futile. Even though the language of the statute clearly says what should happen when OIP rules on appeal that a document should be public: "The agency shall make the record available."
Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
It's a two edged sword. Even though the open meetings and records laws in Hawai`i are broken, anyone who has seen the legislature in action know that they are just as libel to make things worse as they are to remedy the situation once they get a bill on the table.
But perhaps the sound of other headbangers will force the legislature to give the OIP the authority that they were supposedly given when the law was passed.
Monday, March 21, 2011
(PNN)AGREEMENT SHOWS COUNTY PAID SUNRISE SHRIMP FARM $250G TO MITIGATE SPREAD OF "WHITE SPOT" DISEASE FROM LANDFILL
AGREEMENT SHOWS COUNTY PAID SUNRISE SHRIMP FARM $250G TO MITIGATE SPREAD OF "WHITE SPOT" DISEASE FROM LANDFILL
(PNN) -- The County of Kaua`i paid the Kekaha shrimp farm $250,000 in Oct. 2009 to settle a claim that birds were libel to spread the "white spot" virus from the county landfill to the adjacent aquaculture project, according to a settlement agreement released by the county late last week.
The disease shut down a prior attempt at shrimp farming at that location but the landfill was never identified as the source of the virus.
The agreement between farm owners Sunrise Capitol and the county contained a stipulation that the settlement remain confidential unless the information release was prompted by a request under HRS 92F, the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)- a request that was filed by community watchdogs Glenn Mickens and Ken Taylor last week.
The settlement came after "Sunrise Capital, requested a contested case hearing with the Hawaii Department of Health relating to the application filed by the county for a Solid Waste Management Permit for the Kekaha Landfill" and sought "the imposition of permit conditions on the basis of risks to Sunrise’s shrimp farm" according to the agreement.
Under the settlement the county recognized "the immense economic and community benefit that the aquacultural industry provides to the Kekaha area, the Island of Kaua`i, and the State of Hawai`i as a whole" and "the need for support toward securing agricultural and aquacultural activities on Kaua'i."
It goes on to state that:
In conjunction with the termination of the contested case hearing against county, and in consideration of Sunrise's other agreements herein, the Agreement Between Sunrise Capital, hie. and County of Kaua`i County shall provide and pay to Sunrise the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars And No/100 ($250,000.00) by way of reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred by Sunrise In risk mitigation measures to protect its shrimp farm from shrimp diseases.
The $250,000 is a cap to liability under the agreement meaning Sunrise cannot extract any more money from the county due to contamination from the landfill. Sunrise also had to provide the county with documentation and receipts to prove that the money was indeed spent for mitigation however no receipts were provided along with the settlement agreement released by a county council attorney, Legislative Analyst Peter Morimoto.
The agreement stipulated that:
Preliminary to the execution of this Agreement by the county and Sunrise, Sunrise has provided to the county documentation and studies related to the spread and outbreak of the white spot syndrome virus in shrimp. Sunrise has further represented to the county that Sunrise believes that the risk mitigation measures that Sunrise plans to undertake are appropriate given concerns with the expansion of the Kekaha Landfill and will help promote the security of Sunrise's shrimp aquaculture activities in Kekaha.
The settlement also calls for "an ordinance to ban commercial and nonresidential raw, uncooked shrimp from the Kekaha Landfill and landfills operated by the county concern with potential contamination."
An ordinance was passed shortly after the agreement was signed with that provision buried in an otherwise unremarkable bill dealing with the landfill and the county's Solid Waste Division under the Department of Public Works.
The agreement calls for the county to:
instruct its site controllers at the Kekaha Landfill and transfer stations to inspect and spot for incoming loads of raw, uncooked shrimp. Before disposal thereof, county site controllers will strongly urge a disposer to boil the raw, uncooked shrimp. Should a disposer decline, the site controllers will order a disposer to place the raw, uncooked shrimp in sealed containers and double bag them before it is accepted into the landfill. This process is similar to what county site controllers require for the disposal of asbestos, dead animals, and offal.
The county has however never publicized the disposal procedures or announced any "ban" on raw shrimp from the landfill.
The confidentiality section states that:
Unless disclosure is required by HRS Chapter 92F or other applicable law, the Parties agree and hereby acknowledge that the alleged facts and circumstances giving rise to any and all Claims being released herein and the fact that the Parties have agreed to forever resolve and compromise a dispute between them, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall, except as otherwise provided in this Paragraph 12, remain strictly confidential.
As to other information pursuant to the Mickens/Taylor request, "Council Services will be providing you with a written response within ten business days as required by 92F," according to an email from Morimoto accompanying the settlement.
The release of the document came last month after Taylor noticed a small blurb in the paperwork for a money bill, unrelated for the most part to the settlement that referred to the $250,000 "extracted" from the county using the word settlement, as reported (here here and here) by PNN over the past two weeks.
Taylor had to go to Lihu`e to retrieve the paperwork because, despite promises to the contrary by the county council, they still do not post the paperwork for agenda items on-line and rather require an in-person visit to obtain a paper copy.
(PNN) -- The County of Kaua`i paid the Kekaha shrimp farm $250,000 in Oct. 2009 to settle a claim that birds were libel to spread the "white spot" virus from the county landfill to the adjacent aquaculture project, according to a settlement agreement released by the county late last week.
The disease shut down a prior attempt at shrimp farming at that location but the landfill was never identified as the source of the virus.
The agreement between farm owners Sunrise Capitol and the county contained a stipulation that the settlement remain confidential unless the information release was prompted by a request under HRS 92F, the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)- a request that was filed by community watchdogs Glenn Mickens and Ken Taylor last week.
The settlement came after "Sunrise Capital, requested a contested case hearing with the Hawaii Department of Health relating to the application filed by the county for a Solid Waste Management Permit for the Kekaha Landfill" and sought "the imposition of permit conditions on the basis of risks to Sunrise’s shrimp farm" according to the agreement.
Under the settlement the county recognized "the immense economic and community benefit that the aquacultural industry provides to the Kekaha area, the Island of Kaua`i, and the State of Hawai`i as a whole" and "the need for support toward securing agricultural and aquacultural activities on Kaua'i."
It goes on to state that:
In conjunction with the termination of the contested case hearing against county, and in consideration of Sunrise's other agreements herein, the Agreement Between Sunrise Capital, hie. and County of Kaua`i County shall provide and pay to Sunrise the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars And No/100 ($250,000.00) by way of reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred by Sunrise In risk mitigation measures to protect its shrimp farm from shrimp diseases.
The $250,000 is a cap to liability under the agreement meaning Sunrise cannot extract any more money from the county due to contamination from the landfill. Sunrise also had to provide the county with documentation and receipts to prove that the money was indeed spent for mitigation however no receipts were provided along with the settlement agreement released by a county council attorney, Legislative Analyst Peter Morimoto.
The agreement stipulated that:
Preliminary to the execution of this Agreement by the county and Sunrise, Sunrise has provided to the county documentation and studies related to the spread and outbreak of the white spot syndrome virus in shrimp. Sunrise has further represented to the county that Sunrise believes that the risk mitigation measures that Sunrise plans to undertake are appropriate given concerns with the expansion of the Kekaha Landfill and will help promote the security of Sunrise's shrimp aquaculture activities in Kekaha.
The settlement also calls for "an ordinance to ban commercial and nonresidential raw, uncooked shrimp from the Kekaha Landfill and landfills operated by the county concern with potential contamination."
An ordinance was passed shortly after the agreement was signed with that provision buried in an otherwise unremarkable bill dealing with the landfill and the county's Solid Waste Division under the Department of Public Works.
The agreement calls for the county to:
instruct its site controllers at the Kekaha Landfill and transfer stations to inspect and spot for incoming loads of raw, uncooked shrimp. Before disposal thereof, county site controllers will strongly urge a disposer to boil the raw, uncooked shrimp. Should a disposer decline, the site controllers will order a disposer to place the raw, uncooked shrimp in sealed containers and double bag them before it is accepted into the landfill. This process is similar to what county site controllers require for the disposal of asbestos, dead animals, and offal.
The county has however never publicized the disposal procedures or announced any "ban" on raw shrimp from the landfill.
The confidentiality section states that:
Unless disclosure is required by HRS Chapter 92F or other applicable law, the Parties agree and hereby acknowledge that the alleged facts and circumstances giving rise to any and all Claims being released herein and the fact that the Parties have agreed to forever resolve and compromise a dispute between them, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall, except as otherwise provided in this Paragraph 12, remain strictly confidential.
As to other information pursuant to the Mickens/Taylor request, "Council Services will be providing you with a written response within ten business days as required by 92F," according to an email from Morimoto accompanying the settlement.
The release of the document came last month after Taylor noticed a small blurb in the paperwork for a money bill, unrelated for the most part to the settlement that referred to the $250,000 "extracted" from the county using the word settlement, as reported (here here and here) by PNN over the past two weeks.
Taylor had to go to Lihu`e to retrieve the paperwork because, despite promises to the contrary by the county council, they still do not post the paperwork for agenda items on-line and rather require an in-person visit to obtain a paper copy.
Monday, December 6, 2010
BRASS TACKS
BRASS TACKS: Much like eggs eaten three days ago making their reappearance in an unanticipated belch, local newspaper reporter Leo Azambuja is back and filing disjointed “day late and a dollar short” stories, not the least of which is Sunday’s attempt to make up for saying that Councilpersons Tim Bynum and JoAnn Yukimura "gave no reason” for asking that County Clerk Peter Nakamura not be reappointed at the inaugural meeting.
But in light of the elephant in the room- Nakamura’s harassment of former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson which apparently cost the county $250,000 in settling an EEOC case- one line in the story speaks volumes:
Repeated attempts to reach Nakamura for comment failed prior to press time. Phone messages and a message left in person at the council services office in Nawiliwili Friday were not returned.
Though we’ve been attacked for reporting the story no one else will touch, the dearth of denials goes a long way toward corroboration.
Although the actual documents are “confidential” the reports continue to roll in from people who tell of the workplace harassment of Hanson after she and Nakamura broke off their “relationship”... although many-even most- say that the allegation made by some of physical violence on Nakamura’s part may be incorrect.
The quarter-million-dollar settlement by the county is apparently what’s at the unspoken heart of the two memos sent out by Bynum and Yukimura in an attempt to start a professional search for a county clerk.
Another quote in the newspaper story from Yukimura seems to confirm something that doesn’t meet the eye is up:
(Yukimura) also said she didn’t have access to the county’s legal or human-resources advice and counsel.
“The county attorney (Al Castillo) opined that I could not have access to the information or counsel until I became an officer of the county by being sworn in,” she said.
Because of the short time to review those documents, Yukimura said she did not have enough time to perform the required due diligence before voting for the clerk.
The obvious question this raises is why are the other four councilmembers so apparently unconcerned?
We’ll get to that analysis another day but suffice to say Nakamura has shown his ability to protect councilmembers from themselves through selective release of documents and other manipulations from which each, as charter members of “the club,” intend to benefit or have benefited.
Today, since no one else has, we’re going to concentrate on the serious charges made in Bynum’s memo going over our experiences with Nakamura and county procedures and laws in that context.
Bynum’s letter (in full) is in italics.
After long and serious consideration of the issues, I have decided that I will not be voting for Peter Nakamura to be reappointed as County Clerk this term. At a prior meeting I recommended that the Council appoint one of our capable current staff as an interim County Clerk and conduct an open search for the best-qualified candidate available to lead Council Services. Had we gone this route, Mr. Nakamura could have applied as a candidate in the search process.
While I recognize Mr. Nakamura’s talents, contributions and strong work ethic, there are, in my opinion, unresolved issues. The following are among those that led to my decision.
UIPA
The Uniform Information Practices Act is State law and requires that an agency provide a response to requests for public documents within ten business days. The Clerk has repeatedly failed to respond as required by law in the required time frame and, in a number of instances, has completely ignored the request and not responded at all. For example, a UIPA request for documents was made by Council members on May 26, 2009 and no response was received until July 8, 2009, and then only after follow-up memos from the Council members and an admonition from the County Attorney.
We’ve submitted no less than a dozen official documents requests that were fully ignored by Nakamura. While council services staff are usually forthcoming with regular public documents many times they are not under instructions from Nakamura.
At first we were unaware of the process for dealing with being ignored. Eventually we found out that the government official in charge of the record has 10 days by law to respond to a written request.
But if the official decides to ignore you your only option is to go to the toothless tiger of the Offices of Information Practices (OIP), which will usually fire off a letter to the denying official. Then, when that’s ignored another letter... and another... and another... until everyone just gives up.
Even when he does finally respond Nakamura has become a master of stonewalling giving excuse after excuse often dragging out cases for years.
Bynum then asks a question we asked a few months back- what ever happened to documents the local newspaper’s ace reporter Mike Levine requested which were similarly ignored during his Levine’s all-too-short stint here and, of course, once he left.
As another example, The Garden Island on their web site (http://thegardenisland.com/app/sunshine ) lists records requests made to various County departments, all of which were responded to within the timeline required by State law, except for those requests filed with the County Clerk. The requests made to Council Services were all ignored and not responded to at all. Other members of the public have informed me that their UIPA request for documents have gone unanswered.
That last sentence the understatement of the year.
Records
The Kaua`i County Charter requires the Clerk to “take charge of, safely keep and dispose of all books, papers and records which may properly be filed in his office and keep in separate files all ordinances, resolutions and regulations and cumulative indices of the same, or exact copies thereof, enacted or adopted by the council.”
One of the Clerk’s important responsibilities is to keep the County Code up-to-date. One can do a Google search of any Hawai`i county, except Kaua`i, and easily find an updated code. Not only can the public not find the Kaua`i County Code online, an up-to-date codified version has not been available in any form since 2006.
If we had a nickel for every time we’ve written about this, it wouldn’t amount to as much as we would have if we had one for every time we’ve had to tell someone shocked neophyte that there is not only no on-line version of our local county code- the laws of the island- but that it’s virtually impossible to get hard copies of them at the clerks office, since you have to ask for them by number and there’s no way to find out the number since there’s no available index.
Ordinances passed since 2006 are simply shoved loose in the back of the file so the actual pre-2006 code is incorrect unless it’s cross-referenced with every “loose” ordinance
We’re not surprised at all that there hasn’t been a codified version available since 2006, especially since there wasn’t even a codified version of the county charter available for many years until it was recently compiled, apparently by the county attorney’s office since the clerk- who is responsible for doing it- couldn’t seem to get it together.
If you requested a copy of the charter since 2002 the amendments were - yup - shoved in loose at the end, often unnumbered and in a different font.
When Council members sought electronic minutes of Council meetings, the Clerk informed Council members in writing that he “had difficulty locating electronic copies of Council meeting minutes” and that “extensive agency efforts have been required to search for and prepare the records for copying.” This response and other instances related to key Council records have raised alarms about the integrity of Council records and led to the submission to the Clerk of the following written inquiry in July 2009: “Is it the case then that our key public documents exist only on paper in the Historic County building? Is it the case that our office documents are not backed up on the County network? Is it the case that we are not availing ourselves of the backup capabilities provided by the County IT department? Does this not leave an unacceptable risk that these key public documents could be lost completely?” There has been, to this date, no response to this written inquiry and my concerns about the integrity of County records remain.
It’s simply unbelievable that this kind of thing has been going on. Yet it’s also our experience and that of many others we’ve spoken to. It’s apparently why there was such blowback when it became time to put all this stuff on-line last summer.
What Bynum leaves out is that according to Eric Knutzen, the county’s IT director, he’s been ready to go, literally for years, saying it’s a matter of will on the part of the clerk and council.
That’s why the mutual admiration society of Nakamura and former Chair Kaipo Asing functioned so well- each had an interest in keeping the public in the dark.
But as to the Nakamura salary issues rather than reading the newspaper version or other recent charicterizations, you may want to read what Bynum actually wrote to understand why some were calling it illegally done.
Salary Issues
The County Charter requires that department head salaries be determined by the Salary Commission. The County Clerk is a Department head. By Salary Commission resolution, requirements for department head raises include: 1) “employee’s completed performance evaluation evidencing that the appointee has met or exceeds job requirements” and 2) “the appointing authority’s recommendation on whether a proposed increase should be granted”.
Although neither criterion was met, the County Clerk received a pay raise in December 2009.
Other department heads and the mayor did not receive a salary increase in December 2009 due to economic conditions. This has led to a situation where the clerk’s current salary at $114,848.00 is higher than that of the Mayor’s.
The key here is that, while the salary commission okays a raise it only authorizes a range of salary. The actual salary is awarded based on the recommendation of the appointing authority, based on their evaluation.
But with the council-clerk relationship the council serves two different functions. First, they have a bite at the apple of the salary commission’s recommendation which they can either reject or, through inaction, implicitly approve without really approving.
But then they are also the “appointing authority” so they are responsible for going through the evaluation process to set the actual salary. That’s what never happened, yet Nakamura got his raise- one to the highest level of the “range” set by the commission- anyway.
Then there’s the kicker.
Over the last several years, without the knowledge of the Council body, the Clerk accepted and was paid unused vacation time. This is contrary to the County’s policy and practice with other County employees. Unused vacation time pay paid to the clerk is in the neighborhood of $50,000.00. The funds were apparently available without a separate appropriation because of salary surpluses in the Council Services budget resulting from vacancies. (Positions have remained unfilled for extended periods of time. Example: In the FY06-07 budget, a clerk typist position was added by a unanimous vote of the Council. Despite repeated Council requests and promises from the Clerk made in each budget cycle, the position remains unfilled four years later.)
We know many county employees who would love to have gotten this kind of deal. Many have also accumulated a huge bundle of vacation time and were forced to take it or lose it. One way around it has been to “use” it right before they retire so in essence the last “X” number of weeks- or, more usually, months- of employment are actually vacations.
But we’ve never heard of a county employee being allowed to just take the money and run. And certainly not without authorization of their boss... in this case, the council
Bynum’s letter concludes:
The Garden Island opined in November of this year, “When the council goes to organize itself, we also hope the members do their due diligence to ensure the current county clerk and the individuals holding other key positions are still the most appropriate choices for those jobs.”
This position I am taking and observations I have made are a result of my process of due diligence and the belief that this course of action is in the best interest of the County and its citizens.
Finally, since there’s been so much written about Yukimura’s “motion” to conduct an executive search, we will post her memo below in full.
PROPOSAL RE SELECTION OF THE COUNTY CLERK
TO: Kaua`i County Councilmembers-elect
FROM: Councilmember-elect JoAnn A. Yukimura
DATE: November 22, 2010
Motion: That the Council secure the assistance of an Executive Search firm and with such assistance, create and follow an executive search process for selecting the County Clerk that clearly defines the leadership and management skills, knowledge and qualities required and preferred for the position of County Clerk, solicits applications and evaluates the candidates for ultimate selection by the Council.
Background: By job description, the Clerk is equivalent of a Department Head. Department Heads constitute the highest level of administration in the County, next to the Mayor and Managing Director. Department heads are extremely important to the quality of operations and performance of any corporation, whether private or public. If our goal as County leaders is to support the “highest standards of government performance and service,” we have a responsibility to select the best possible candidate for the position of County Clerk.
Rationale:
1. An executive search is a business “best practice” that will increase the chances of finding the best qualified person. It will minimize the “politics” and focus instead on qualifications.
2. As an open, competitive process, it will provide the best choices available.
3. It will increase accountability.
4. By adopting such a process, the Council will demonstrate its commitment to the highest standards of government performance and service.
5. The Council will be using a process used successfully by the Police Commission; it produced a Police Chief, who, most people agree, is a capable leader and manager.
6. It will help to professionalize the County, which means it could enable the County to achieve some of the goals of a County Manager system within the existing “strong mayor” form of government.
7. An executive search process will be fair to the existing County Clerk. The executive search will not remove him from his position because his current position ends at noon on December 1, 2010. The process will allow him to apply for the new position, and if he chooses to apply he will arguably have an advantage by having served in previous years. If he is selected as the best of the candidates, the process will still be worthwhile in bringing greater clarity between the Council and the Clerk as to expectations, goals and the evaluation process to be followed. There will also likely be a greater appreciation and awareness of the qualifications and gifts that the present County Clerk has to offer because of the process he would have gone through.
But in light of the elephant in the room- Nakamura’s harassment of former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson which apparently cost the county $250,000 in settling an EEOC case- one line in the story speaks volumes:
Repeated attempts to reach Nakamura for comment failed prior to press time. Phone messages and a message left in person at the council services office in Nawiliwili Friday were not returned.
Though we’ve been attacked for reporting the story no one else will touch, the dearth of denials goes a long way toward corroboration.
Although the actual documents are “confidential” the reports continue to roll in from people who tell of the workplace harassment of Hanson after she and Nakamura broke off their “relationship”... although many-even most- say that the allegation made by some of physical violence on Nakamura’s part may be incorrect.
The quarter-million-dollar settlement by the county is apparently what’s at the unspoken heart of the two memos sent out by Bynum and Yukimura in an attempt to start a professional search for a county clerk.
Another quote in the newspaper story from Yukimura seems to confirm something that doesn’t meet the eye is up:
(Yukimura) also said she didn’t have access to the county’s legal or human-resources advice and counsel.
“The county attorney (Al Castillo) opined that I could not have access to the information or counsel until I became an officer of the county by being sworn in,” she said.
Because of the short time to review those documents, Yukimura said she did not have enough time to perform the required due diligence before voting for the clerk.
The obvious question this raises is why are the other four councilmembers so apparently unconcerned?
We’ll get to that analysis another day but suffice to say Nakamura has shown his ability to protect councilmembers from themselves through selective release of documents and other manipulations from which each, as charter members of “the club,” intend to benefit or have benefited.
Today, since no one else has, we’re going to concentrate on the serious charges made in Bynum’s memo going over our experiences with Nakamura and county procedures and laws in that context.
Bynum’s letter (in full) is in italics.
After long and serious consideration of the issues, I have decided that I will not be voting for Peter Nakamura to be reappointed as County Clerk this term. At a prior meeting I recommended that the Council appoint one of our capable current staff as an interim County Clerk and conduct an open search for the best-qualified candidate available to lead Council Services. Had we gone this route, Mr. Nakamura could have applied as a candidate in the search process.
While I recognize Mr. Nakamura’s talents, contributions and strong work ethic, there are, in my opinion, unresolved issues. The following are among those that led to my decision.
UIPA
The Uniform Information Practices Act is State law and requires that an agency provide a response to requests for public documents within ten business days. The Clerk has repeatedly failed to respond as required by law in the required time frame and, in a number of instances, has completely ignored the request and not responded at all. For example, a UIPA request for documents was made by Council members on May 26, 2009 and no response was received until July 8, 2009, and then only after follow-up memos from the Council members and an admonition from the County Attorney.
We’ve submitted no less than a dozen official documents requests that were fully ignored by Nakamura. While council services staff are usually forthcoming with regular public documents many times they are not under instructions from Nakamura.
At first we were unaware of the process for dealing with being ignored. Eventually we found out that the government official in charge of the record has 10 days by law to respond to a written request.
But if the official decides to ignore you your only option is to go to the toothless tiger of the Offices of Information Practices (OIP), which will usually fire off a letter to the denying official. Then, when that’s ignored another letter... and another... and another... until everyone just gives up.
Even when he does finally respond Nakamura has become a master of stonewalling giving excuse after excuse often dragging out cases for years.
Bynum then asks a question we asked a few months back- what ever happened to documents the local newspaper’s ace reporter Mike Levine requested which were similarly ignored during his Levine’s all-too-short stint here and, of course, once he left.
As another example, The Garden Island on their web site (http://thegardenisland.com/app/sunshine ) lists records requests made to various County departments, all of which were responded to within the timeline required by State law, except for those requests filed with the County Clerk. The requests made to Council Services were all ignored and not responded to at all. Other members of the public have informed me that their UIPA request for documents have gone unanswered.
That last sentence the understatement of the year.
Records
The Kaua`i County Charter requires the Clerk to “take charge of, safely keep and dispose of all books, papers and records which may properly be filed in his office and keep in separate files all ordinances, resolutions and regulations and cumulative indices of the same, or exact copies thereof, enacted or adopted by the council.”
One of the Clerk’s important responsibilities is to keep the County Code up-to-date. One can do a Google search of any Hawai`i county, except Kaua`i, and easily find an updated code. Not only can the public not find the Kaua`i County Code online, an up-to-date codified version has not been available in any form since 2006.
If we had a nickel for every time we’ve written about this, it wouldn’t amount to as much as we would have if we had one for every time we’ve had to tell someone shocked neophyte that there is not only no on-line version of our local county code- the laws of the island- but that it’s virtually impossible to get hard copies of them at the clerks office, since you have to ask for them by number and there’s no way to find out the number since there’s no available index.
Ordinances passed since 2006 are simply shoved loose in the back of the file so the actual pre-2006 code is incorrect unless it’s cross-referenced with every “loose” ordinance
We’re not surprised at all that there hasn’t been a codified version available since 2006, especially since there wasn’t even a codified version of the county charter available for many years until it was recently compiled, apparently by the county attorney’s office since the clerk- who is responsible for doing it- couldn’t seem to get it together.
If you requested a copy of the charter since 2002 the amendments were - yup - shoved in loose at the end, often unnumbered and in a different font.
When Council members sought electronic minutes of Council meetings, the Clerk informed Council members in writing that he “had difficulty locating electronic copies of Council meeting minutes” and that “extensive agency efforts have been required to search for and prepare the records for copying.” This response and other instances related to key Council records have raised alarms about the integrity of Council records and led to the submission to the Clerk of the following written inquiry in July 2009: “Is it the case then that our key public documents exist only on paper in the Historic County building? Is it the case that our office documents are not backed up on the County network? Is it the case that we are not availing ourselves of the backup capabilities provided by the County IT department? Does this not leave an unacceptable risk that these key public documents could be lost completely?” There has been, to this date, no response to this written inquiry and my concerns about the integrity of County records remain.
It’s simply unbelievable that this kind of thing has been going on. Yet it’s also our experience and that of many others we’ve spoken to. It’s apparently why there was such blowback when it became time to put all this stuff on-line last summer.
What Bynum leaves out is that according to Eric Knutzen, the county’s IT director, he’s been ready to go, literally for years, saying it’s a matter of will on the part of the clerk and council.
That’s why the mutual admiration society of Nakamura and former Chair Kaipo Asing functioned so well- each had an interest in keeping the public in the dark.
But as to the Nakamura salary issues rather than reading the newspaper version or other recent charicterizations, you may want to read what Bynum actually wrote to understand why some were calling it illegally done.
Salary Issues
The County Charter requires that department head salaries be determined by the Salary Commission. The County Clerk is a Department head. By Salary Commission resolution, requirements for department head raises include: 1) “employee’s completed performance evaluation evidencing that the appointee has met or exceeds job requirements” and 2) “the appointing authority’s recommendation on whether a proposed increase should be granted”.
Although neither criterion was met, the County Clerk received a pay raise in December 2009.
Other department heads and the mayor did not receive a salary increase in December 2009 due to economic conditions. This has led to a situation where the clerk’s current salary at $114,848.00 is higher than that of the Mayor’s.
The key here is that, while the salary commission okays a raise it only authorizes a range of salary. The actual salary is awarded based on the recommendation of the appointing authority, based on their evaluation.
But with the council-clerk relationship the council serves two different functions. First, they have a bite at the apple of the salary commission’s recommendation which they can either reject or, through inaction, implicitly approve without really approving.
But then they are also the “appointing authority” so they are responsible for going through the evaluation process to set the actual salary. That’s what never happened, yet Nakamura got his raise- one to the highest level of the “range” set by the commission- anyway.
Then there’s the kicker.
Over the last several years, without the knowledge of the Council body, the Clerk accepted and was paid unused vacation time. This is contrary to the County’s policy and practice with other County employees. Unused vacation time pay paid to the clerk is in the neighborhood of $50,000.00. The funds were apparently available without a separate appropriation because of salary surpluses in the Council Services budget resulting from vacancies. (Positions have remained unfilled for extended periods of time. Example: In the FY06-07 budget, a clerk typist position was added by a unanimous vote of the Council. Despite repeated Council requests and promises from the Clerk made in each budget cycle, the position remains unfilled four years later.)
We know many county employees who would love to have gotten this kind of deal. Many have also accumulated a huge bundle of vacation time and were forced to take it or lose it. One way around it has been to “use” it right before they retire so in essence the last “X” number of weeks- or, more usually, months- of employment are actually vacations.
But we’ve never heard of a county employee being allowed to just take the money and run. And certainly not without authorization of their boss... in this case, the council
Bynum’s letter concludes:
The Garden Island opined in November of this year, “When the council goes to organize itself, we also hope the members do their due diligence to ensure the current county clerk and the individuals holding other key positions are still the most appropriate choices for those jobs.”
This position I am taking and observations I have made are a result of my process of due diligence and the belief that this course of action is in the best interest of the County and its citizens.
Finally, since there’s been so much written about Yukimura’s “motion” to conduct an executive search, we will post her memo below in full.
PROPOSAL RE SELECTION OF THE COUNTY CLERK
TO: Kaua`i County Councilmembers-elect
FROM: Councilmember-elect JoAnn A. Yukimura
DATE: November 22, 2010
Motion: That the Council secure the assistance of an Executive Search firm and with such assistance, create and follow an executive search process for selecting the County Clerk that clearly defines the leadership and management skills, knowledge and qualities required and preferred for the position of County Clerk, solicits applications and evaluates the candidates for ultimate selection by the Council.
Background: By job description, the Clerk is equivalent of a Department Head. Department Heads constitute the highest level of administration in the County, next to the Mayor and Managing Director. Department heads are extremely important to the quality of operations and performance of any corporation, whether private or public. If our goal as County leaders is to support the “highest standards of government performance and service,” we have a responsibility to select the best possible candidate for the position of County Clerk.
Rationale:
1. An executive search is a business “best practice” that will increase the chances of finding the best qualified person. It will minimize the “politics” and focus instead on qualifications.
2. As an open, competitive process, it will provide the best choices available.
3. It will increase accountability.
4. By adopting such a process, the Council will demonstrate its commitment to the highest standards of government performance and service.
5. The Council will be using a process used successfully by the Police Commission; it produced a Police Chief, who, most people agree, is a capable leader and manager.
6. It will help to professionalize the County, which means it could enable the County to achieve some of the goals of a County Manager system within the existing “strong mayor” form of government.
7. An executive search process will be fair to the existing County Clerk. The executive search will not remove him from his position because his current position ends at noon on December 1, 2010. The process will allow him to apply for the new position, and if he chooses to apply he will arguably have an advantage by having served in previous years. If he is selected as the best of the candidates, the process will still be worthwhile in bringing greater clarity between the Council and the Clerk as to expectations, goals and the evaluation process to be followed. There will also likely be a greater appreciation and awareness of the qualifications and gifts that the present County Clerk has to offer because of the process he would have gone through.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
ALL EARS
ALL EARS: The case of the release of the minutes of the infamous ES 177 Kauai County Council meeting was heard by the Supreme Court of Hawai`i on August 10. We’re still looking for the transcript but for your weekend listening pleasure you may now listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format.
The ruling is apparently still pending.
For a detailed analysis of and links to the OIP brief see our July 1 post.
Here’s some background from the state judicary web site.
ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
NO. 29059 - Monday, August 10, 2009 - 11 a.m.
COUNTY OF KAUAI, KAUAI COUNTY COUNCIL; BILL "KAIPO" ASING, JAMES KUNANE TOKIOKA, JAY FURFARO, SHAYLENE ISERI-CARVALHO, DARYL W. KANESHIRO, MEL RAPOZO, JOANN A. YUKIMURA, and PETER A. NAKAMURA, in their official capacities, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES, STATE OF HAWAII; and the Director of the Office of Information Practices, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants.(Declaratory Judgment)
Attorney(s) for Petitioners-Defendants-Appellant(s)Paul T. Tsukiyama, Cathy L. Takase and Jennifer Z. Brooks, Office of Information Practices, and Gail Y. Cosgrove and Kunio Kuwabe (Hisaka Yoshida & Cosgrove)
Attorney(s) for Respondents-Plaintiffs-Appellee(s)Honorable Matthew S. K. Pyun, Jr., County Attorney, County of Kauai, and David J. Minkin and Becky T. Chestnut (McCorristion Miller Mukai MacKinnon)
NOTE: Certificate of Recusal by Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 5/15/09.
NOTE: Order assigning Judge Glenn Hara in place of Recktenwald, recused, filed 5/18/09.
NOTE: Oral argument rescheduled from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
COURT: RTYM, CJ; PAN, SRA & JED, JJ, and Circuit Judge Glenn Hara in place of Recktenwald, recused.
Brief description:
Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Office of Information Practices, State of Hawai`i (OIP) and the Director of OIP, in his official capacity (collectively “OIP”) filed an application for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA’s) February 19, 2009 judgment on appeal in support of its January 30, 2009 opinion. The ICA’s opinion affirmed the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents-Plaintiffs-Appellees County of Kaua`i, Kaua`i County Council, and Bill “Kaipo” Asing, James Kunane Tokioka, Jay Furfaro, Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, Daryl W. Kaneshiro, Mel Rapozo, Joann A. Yukimura, and Peter A. Nakamura in their official capacities (collectively “the County”) and ordered that the minutes from a meeting conducted by the Kaua`i County Council on January 20, 2005, identified as Executive Session 177 (ES-177), shall not be disclosed. In its application for writ of certiorari before this court, OIP asserts that the ICA gravely erred in (1) affirming the circuit court’s jurisdiction to hear the Council’s original action under the Sunshine Law, Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 92, without then limiting its review to determining the applicability of that chapter; (2) not giving effect to the Kauai County Charter’s more restrictive standard for closing a counsel meeting; (3) failing to consider the legislative history indicating that the Legislature intentionally narrowed the attorney-client executive meeting purpose provided by HRS § 92-5(a)(4); and (4) failing to defer to OIP’s interpretation of Sunshine Law provisions under the palpably erroneous standard.
The ruling is apparently still pending.
For a detailed analysis of and links to the OIP brief see our July 1 post.
Here’s some background from the state judicary web site.
ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
NO. 29059 - Monday, August 10, 2009 - 11 a.m.
COUNTY OF KAUAI, KAUAI COUNTY COUNCIL; BILL "KAIPO" ASING, JAMES KUNANE TOKIOKA, JAY FURFARO, SHAYLENE ISERI-CARVALHO, DARYL W. KANESHIRO, MEL RAPOZO, JOANN A. YUKIMURA, and PETER A. NAKAMURA, in their official capacities, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES, STATE OF HAWAII; and the Director of the Office of Information Practices, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants.(Declaratory Judgment)
Attorney(s) for Petitioners-Defendants-Appellant(s)Paul T. Tsukiyama, Cathy L. Takase and Jennifer Z. Brooks, Office of Information Practices, and Gail Y. Cosgrove and Kunio Kuwabe (Hisaka Yoshida & Cosgrove)
Attorney(s) for Respondents-Plaintiffs-Appellee(s)Honorable Matthew S. K. Pyun, Jr., County Attorney, County of Kauai, and David J. Minkin and Becky T. Chestnut (McCorristion Miller Mukai MacKinnon)
NOTE: Certificate of Recusal by Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 5/15/09.
NOTE: Order assigning Judge Glenn Hara in place of Recktenwald, recused, filed 5/18/09.
NOTE: Oral argument rescheduled from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
COURT: RTYM, CJ; PAN, SRA & JED, JJ, and Circuit Judge Glenn Hara in place of Recktenwald, recused.
Brief description:
Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Office of Information Practices, State of Hawai`i (OIP) and the Director of OIP, in his official capacity (collectively “OIP”) filed an application for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA’s) February 19, 2009 judgment on appeal in support of its January 30, 2009 opinion. The ICA’s opinion affirmed the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents-Plaintiffs-Appellees County of Kaua`i, Kaua`i County Council, and Bill “Kaipo” Asing, James Kunane Tokioka, Jay Furfaro, Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, Daryl W. Kaneshiro, Mel Rapozo, Joann A. Yukimura, and Peter A. Nakamura in their official capacities (collectively “the County”) and ordered that the minutes from a meeting conducted by the Kaua`i County Council on January 20, 2005, identified as Executive Session 177 (ES-177), shall not be disclosed. In its application for writ of certiorari before this court, OIP asserts that the ICA gravely erred in (1) affirming the circuit court’s jurisdiction to hear the Council’s original action under the Sunshine Law, Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 92, without then limiting its review to determining the applicability of that chapter; (2) not giving effect to the Kauai County Charter’s more restrictive standard for closing a counsel meeting; (3) failing to consider the legislative history indicating that the Legislature intentionally narrowed the attorney-client executive meeting purpose provided by HRS § 92-5(a)(4); and (4) failing to defer to OIP’s interpretation of Sunshine Law provisions under the palpably erroneous standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
