WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU

WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU: We’re still not ready to support- or oppose for that matter- any “county manager” proposal but one thing that was said at the televised “meeting on wheels” of the Charter Review Commission’s Special Committee on County Governance held in Hanalei recently caused us to go back to the drawing board- not only ours but theirs.

That’s because it made us question the legality of the “current” document.

We had received a copy of the latest iteration penned by retired Princeville attorney Walter Lewis- who still refuses to disclose his involvement in the drafting of the proposed charter amendment in his columns in the local paper on the subject- and were all ready to declare it not ready for prime time due to, if nothing else, its legally sloppy nature, leaving many “new” sections in conflict with the remaining portions of the charter

But that may not matter because according a statement made at the meeting by our friend, one of the three committee members, Jan Tenbruggencate:

“We as a committee sat down after receiving the proposed document from the ad hoc committee and we reviewed the charter from beginning to end and made numerous changes to what was proposed.”

Other than causing us to have to go back and read the “new” proposal
before we open our trap it brings up a matter we’d have thought Jan would have considered before, as a duly selected member of a government board, he and the committee apparently went behind closed doors to do the work of the committee.

Although the section of the web site dedicated to the committee doesn’t list agendas for open meetings of the committee we’re pretty sure that the confab where this work was done was not open to the public.

And that would make it a blatant violation of the state open meetings or “sunshine” law.

According to HRS 92-2.5 Permitted Interactions Of Members

(b) Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum for the board, may be assigned to:
(1) Investigate a matter relating to the official business of their board; provided that:
(A) The scope of the investigation and the scope of each member's authority are defined at a meeting of the board;
(B) All resulting findings and recommendations are presented to the board at a meeting of the board

So far so good. The committee is permitted to do this kind of fact finding. But the next provisions looks bad for compliance with the sunshine law

(C) Deliberation and decisionmaking on the matter investigated, if any, occurs only at a duly noticed meeting of the board held subsequent to the meeting at which the findings and recommendations of the investigation were presented to the board

Any meeting of a board in the state or county must be open to the public with the exception of matters listed under eight provisions under HRS 92-5. But drafting a proposed document- even if by an “advisory” board- is not included in those exemptions.

One person can do it- arguably two. But not three.

The “last” charter commission- the one that in 2006 proposed a list of amendments as part of the “every 10 years” provision in the charter, including one creating the current semi-permanent commission lasting 10 years- did all their work at meetings open to the public.

They had a special appropriation from the council that allowed them to hire an attorney specifically to write up any proposed charter amendments and then they deliberated upon those in open session.

We’d have though Tenbruggencate would know better having been a staunch defender of the sunshine law throughout his career as the Kaua`i Bureau Chief of the Honolulu Advertiser. And perhaps somehow we missed it and the meeting at which they drafted the ‘new” proposal- which we will read and review soon- was duly agendaed and open to the public.

But we suspect that this was a well intentioned oversight that will have to be remedied to be in compliance with state law.

--------

We’ll be traveling into the belly of the beast tomorrow and actually be appearing on “community radio” station KKCR on Jonathan Jay’s program at 4 p.m. as part of a series of interviews he’s been doing on media on Kaua`i.

We have been assured that we will be allowed to discuss anything we want to including, in that context, our thoughts on KKCR itself although we don’t expect to dwell on it.

We’ll be taking calls so if anyone has questions as to local media or county government and issues before the council and/or administration- as well as the history behind them- we’ll be glad to answer them- assuming we know.

We may get to post tomorrow but will not on Friday. If we get busy tomorrow with other things, we’ll see ya Monday.

PAWED AND FLAWED AGAIN

PAWED AND FLAWED AGAIN: While sitting around kibitzing and kvetching in the council chambers with our pal Tony Sommer, former Honolulu Star- Bulletin Kauai Bureau Chief and author of “KPD Blue” he used to routinely pronounce judgment on the foibles and folly with one of his favorite sayings- “when you work for the king you carry the king’s sword”.

And that’s apparently the case with Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask’s newly released opinion on the proposed county manager system, obtained by the local paper’s ace reporter Mike Levine and posted on line to accompany his article on the document.

We’ll have a more detailed analysis as soon as we get a hold of an “OCA” text copy so quoting it isn’t a chore, but on first blush it appears that Trask simply self-selected his own bowling pins, set them up and knocked them down in a string of straw-man arguments replete with out-of-context suppositions and red herrings in order to declare the concept of a county manager system generally illegal in Hawai`i and maybe the country.

After glossing over the fact that the opinion is proposal specific- based on the unbelievably flawed document authored by Walter Lewis in an attempt to exact revenge for the county’s supreme court victory in declaring his “’Ohana” property tax charter amendment null and void (as we detailed last month)- he then attempts to use a broad brush and questionable interpretations of a passage in state law to argue that any CM system would be illegal, not just in Hawai`i but in the country in general.

Two examples stand out for their disingenuousness.

Unbelievably, after quoting case law requiring those interpreting state law to take the plain meaning at face value and not try to read something into it, Levine accurately reports

Section 46-1.5 of the Hawai`i Revised Statutes states that each county’s charter “shall establish the county executive, administrative and legislative structure and organization,” a phrase that “is interpreted by the County Attorney’s office to require each county within the state to have specific separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, which the proposed council-county manager system form would not have.”

If that isn’t reading into the words “county executive, administrative and legislative structure and organization,” that there must be a certain structure including a mayor and council it’s hard to imagine what would be.

The other we’ll discuss today- because it’s refereed to not just in the article but in a post by attorney-blogger Charley Foster who also apparently misses the point in Trask’s completely out of context use of one contention that accompanies the specific proposal.

As Foster writes:

Beyond the legal analysis, the county attorney goes on to strenuously argue against the county manager proposal on policy grounds, proposing answers to a number of criticisms of the current mayoral system. I especially like the attorney's response to what really is the most clueless of the criticisms:

The current exectutive branch of government interferes with the council's ability to enact public policy laws and investigate subjects for which it is responsible.

To which the attorney correctly replies –

This criticism misses the whole point of the American form of representative democracy that utilizes a system of checks and balances.

The problem is that if one actually read the passage in the proposal it specifically and uniquely refers not to general policy but to the main problem that has spurred some to support the CM system- the fact that the council has no ability to compel administrative personnel to come before the council to explain anything without an official investigation and subpoena, including on matters that the council must decide.

This was illustrated last year when the last council questioned the methodology- reported exclusively here, here and here- that the Department of Personnel uses to “reallocate” jobs- some say in order to manipulate the civil service system to place a mayor’s favored but unskilled choice in a job in place of a appropriately skilled and experienced hire.

But when the council tried to ask Personnel Services Division Malcolm “Mel” Fernandez to come before the council and explain himself, he actually refused.

But really what do you expect? We’ve been ambivalent from the start of a CM form of government and many of Trask’s political and policy arguments and criticisms are well founded- although what they’re doing in a legal analysis is a mystery.

They come from not just the overstated benefits contained in Lewis’s proposal- as drawn up and submitted by former charter commission member, the late Walter Briant- but from the actual piss-poor proposal which was apparently hastily drawn up by substituting the words “county manager” for the word mayor in the county charter and then adding a brief description of the method of appointment.

We’ve recommended from the start that the proponents slow down and properly study all relevant matters including the state constitution and laws, the political culture on Kaua`i, the real world way our system currently works- and doesn’t work- and an examination of the literally hundreds of different CM set-ups in use around the country (which certainly belies Trask’s contention that they violate the national constitution and national laws) and draw up a well considered specific proposal... something Trask even admits might pass legal muster before he contradicts himself.

We’ll have more when we get the OCA version and go over it but on first blush, as with another Trask penned option, it appears this one is also “fatally flawed”.

‘TWERN’T SHE

‘TWERN’T SHE: Carol Ann Davis wants to make one thing perfectly clear- she was not the one who provided Walter Lewis with a nine page opinion “letter” from Deputy County Attorney Mauna Kea Trask to the charter review commission (CRC) regarding the county manager proposal.

“I’d swear on a stack of bibles it wasn’t me” she told us in a telephone interview yesterday, despite the veiled implication in Lewis’ two part column in the local newspaper last weekend that it came from her

Davis, as a member of the CRC did receive the letter at a meeting of the CRC but said she cannot discuss specifics. She did say that it read like "a lesson in Poly Sci 101" not a legal opinion, something she said she told the commission in open session.

She said she tried to have the letter released but was thwarted by the rest of the commission.

For Davis or anyone to release the letter could be a misdemeanor in violation of Charter Section 20.02B.

Our column last Friday also alleged that the true “writer” of the proposed amendment originally submitted to the CRC by then- CRC member, Davis’ late husband, Walter Briant. was indeed Lewis not Briant and Lewis claimed.

By way of explanation regarding the question of who “wrote” the draft, although according to Davis, Briant was the one who actually went through the county charter by hand and changed all the references to “mayor” to “county manager” (CM) and Davis was the one who typed it up in the proper format, we stand by our statement that according to Briant and another Kaua`i `Ohana member familiar with the process it was Lewis that conceived of and in that sense “wrote”- meaning “authored” rather than scribed”- the draft by instructing Briant precisely what to pen.

Davis admits that the draft was ridiculously inadequate in that all it did was eliminate all references to the post of mayor and substitute the words “county manager”, leaving other details unaddressed.

As far as Lewis is concerned he has refused to speak to the issues on the record writing to us that:

I value my privacy... My personal role is not relevant.

A number of your statements were inaccurate. I expect that you may already know some of them. If you wish, though, I will provide a few corrections and comments for your private information if you will agree to refrain from any publication or distribution of them without my permission.

Though normally we speak to many people “off the record” in this case due to past dealings with Lewis we have chosen to tell him that if he has any corrections of fact and wishes to have them noted in this space we would be glad to check them out and if verified we will publish a correction.

We respect Lewis’ right to publish – and in fact encourage in publishing- factual information contained in the letter while refusing to state who gave it to him. The question of whatever Lewis is a journalist aside, journalists are protected by the new Hawai`i Shield Law which protects them from revealing anonymous sources

Lewis has apparently refused to tell anyone how he obtained the letter including his editor at the local newspaper which published his column.

Upon our inquiry Editor Michael Levine said he did check with the county attorney’s office and

While I don’t love the fact that our columnist is quoting a letter that we haven’t gotten our hands on yet, I do have every reason to believe that it exists and that it says what he says it does. I’ve just gotten off the phone with someone in the Office of the County Attorney who tells me there are no major factual inaccuracies in the column to speak of and that their reading of it was that it was comprised mostly of opinion and not of fact.

And on a final somewhat related note, a comment on Friday’s post took issue with our characterization of the `"Ohana" property tax charter amendment passed “by a huge margin”, saying that blank votes are counted as no votes. While that is true for state constitutional amendments due to the “majority of (total) ballots cast” language in the constitution, our charter provides for yes vs. no vote be counted for a majority in local charter amendments.

In the future if we deem inaccuracies of consequence to be the intentional result of sniping and trolling we will delete the post rather than just ignore the troll as we do now. We don’t care if you want to show everyone what an jerk-wad ass-wipe you are or attack our integrity or hygiene. But we will not allow directed misinformation to appear in this space.

For the record we correct all errors of fact when verified as such. If in the future you see a comment making a claim of error and don’t see a correction it means we stand by our original reporting.

A TALE OF TWO WALTERS

A TALE OF TWO WALTERS: Every fortnight readers of the local newspaper are presented with the words of their only regular columnist, Walter Lewis from Princeville.

And this week, as usual, it’s chock full of disingenuity and in fact complete falsifications.

The problem is that we usually– though not always- generally agree with the “opinion” portion of his column but when it comes to presenting facts, Walter seems challenged especially when it comes to being able to disclose his own part in the events he reports upon.

This week’s two part entry would have you believe that Walter Lewis, the observer, is simply reporting and giving his opinion upon on the proposed “county manager” (CM) efforts of the later Walter Briant and his wife Carol Ann Davis-Briant who took over his spot on the charter review commission (CRC) when Walter passed away.

But in fact Lewis not only was the one who first proposed the change to a CM system but actually wrote the proposed amendment that he claims was written by Briant.

Lewis writes that “(b)eginning in 2005, citizens have thus sought support of the charter commission for the manager program” but fails to fully inform the public that in fact the one who originally “sought” it was Walter himself, seeking revenge after his “`Ohana” property tax proposal was struck down by the Hawai`i Supreme Court at the behest of the county council and mayor.

For those who forgot or weren’t around at the time- or didn’t follow the events- Lewis has started a small tight knit group that tried to instituted a California-style “Proposition 13” type property tax reform on Kaua`i, limiting property tax increases to a certain percent a year.

The timing was right. Lewis and his small group managed to not only get the measure on the ballot but have it passed by a huge margin by people who, at the time, were experiencing runaway yearly property tax increases that the council seemed unable or politically unwilling to deal with.

When the council and mayor filed suit to strike down the ballot measure and won in the Hawai`i Supreme Court Walter’s next move was to try to stick it to the electeds by changing the whole system.

Throughout the whole time the CM system was before the prior charter review commission PNN kept asking for a specific proposal since CM systems vary to the point where there are literally a hundred different ways to set one up and an equal number of details that would have to fit into the state system that provides a legal framework into which local jurisdictions must fit their system of governance.

Finally with Briant’s appointment we contacted him and asked for a specific plan and sure enough he produced one. We prodded and prodded and finally, after ascertaining through other knowledgeable sources inside Lewis’ “`Ohana" that it was in fact Lewis who had written the proposed amendment, Davis reluctantly admitted that it was indeed Lewis’ work.

(Note- Although our conversation with Briant was not for attribution at the time, Briant’s death ethically releases us from that obligation)

But Lewis, in his first installment Friday said:

“of the seven-member commission, only one member, Walter Briant, was willing to work for a manager proposal and to develop the details required for its consideration....

(H)e tried without any assistance from governmental or other commission personnel to structure a report on the subject that included a draft proposal containing his suggestions for issues necessarily involved in the proposal.”

Was Lewis intimating that this was Briant’s work, we wondered? Well it certainly was vague enough even though full disclosure on Lewis’ part should have included the author, especially since it was him.

But Saturday’s installment left no doubt Lewis was lying about who the author was, saying

It should be noted that the proposal to which the “opinion” was addressed was an initial draft by Walter Briant in which the “mayor” was to be chosen from among the council members. (emphasis added).

The rest of the Saturday’s “part 2” of the article seemed to center around a 9 page “letter” from the county attorney (CA) replete with Lewis’s lengthy characterizations of the letter. The problem is there is absolutely no reference to how Lewis obtained the letter, how he knows it was genuine or any link to the letter itself. As a matter of fact there wasn’t an actual relevant quote from it, just Lewis’ interpretation of what it said.

Given Lewis’s descriptions of the events in the first part- a combination of half truths and misrepresentations- it has to make you wonder what the letter actually said and if it made some good points about the challenges of instituting a CM system.

We’re not especially for or against a CM system on Kaua`i. While the fact that the prospect of having a professionally run administrative branch would be something that is not just exciting but would be new, it could be worse by consolidating power in the council and eliminating the check on their power.

It certainly could make things worse with the currently corrupt county council appointing some crony who happens to meet the qualifications - no matter how stringent- written into the law. Just look at their appointment from within of long time Deputy County Attorney Ernie Passion as the new County Auditor if you want an inkling of how they would operate if forced to select a “true professional manager”, as proponents would have people believe would certainly happen.

And that would be done in the absence of a potentially counterbalancing mayor.

It’s could just be a matter of “if your eye offends, you pluck it out”.

Of course, presuming parts of Lewis’ characterization of the CA letter are accurate, the CA has no business delving into the politics of the proposal when asked for the legality. But just because the CA is full of it doesn’t mean Lewis isn’t.

When we first read Walter Lewis’- not Bryant’s- draft we did a quick check of the state constitution and Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS). While the word mayor does not appear in the constitution we found no less than 13 references to county mayors- a post eliminated in Lewis’ current working draft upon which the CA was commenting.

Most of them are provisions that envision the person of the individual mayors of the counties as having the power of a mayor as the county systems are currently structured. Just look at the “approval” needed from mayors in the current state employee labor negotiations.

Seems the first thing needed to pass a CM system on Kaua`i is to convince the legislature to change the laws to allow for it.

The real problem in the CM system may be the proponents on Kaua`i. They have been seeking to rush through “anykine” CM proposal and every time anyone legitimately asks to slow down and look at it they are asked “why do you oppose the CM system?”- much as those who question the war are asked “why do you hate America?”.

There may well be a concerted effort to defeat the CM proposal by the CA, the council, the mayor and their sycophants on the charter review commission. But by ignoring the real concerns and screaming “conspiracy” the proponents have become their own worst enemy.

And they make it worse still by misrepresenting their own intimate involvement in the project by trying to appear the casual observer with an opinion.

Rather than trying to separate the legitimate questions and deal with them they try to lump all concerns together and characterize them as obstructive.

If the CM cheerleaders keep it up and allow Lewis to disingenuously be their passive aggressive and less then truthful spokesperson there may no one- not even potential fellow opponents- who will back up the efforts.

AND HAST THOU SLAIN THE JABBERWOCK?

AND HAST THOU SLAIN THE JABBERWOCK?: When the local paper’s former editor Adam Harju left for Cambodia many in the community clinked Champaign glasses and happily warned him against letting the egress barrier strike him in the posterior upon his way out.

And why not? Like most others he came here “on the circuit”- a loose web of small newspapers around the country where journalists float from job to job for short periods until they wear out their welcome or have a chance to “move up” to either a larger newspaper or an editorial or management position.

Many chortled at Harju’s oft-stated concern for the community and his vow to stick around (as long as the surf was good). It was nothing we hadn’t heard from the others and won’t hear again.

And although Harju was originally gung ho for the idea of regular local columnists he was soon set straight by Publisher Mark Lewis as to what was and wasn’t acceptable to the advertisers and local power elite.

Though many- us included- sought a regular column only two scribes made the grade. The first, Juan Wilson, was soon hastily dispatched when he submitted an article critical of the local constabulary’s militaristic buildup.

And that left one- retired Princeville attorney Walter Lewis whose prose graces the lowest circulation day’s opinion page every other week.

Lewis’ columns are generally repetitive, plodding , bland and, though many have criticized the county council and other boards and commissions for their penchant for secrecy, pretty innocuous.

But although his subject matter has been limited, his factual claims have generally been on target... until now.

The problem with Walter is- as anyone who has tried to work with him on any issue soon finds out- he is never wrong, never makes a mistake and won’t listen to anyone. If any idea isn’t Walter’s it not only goes in one ear and out the other but is dismissed through the kind of smug and disingenuous obtuseness only Walter can muster.

And so it was no surprise this week that, when we found a major error in the main premise of his column on property tax appeals this past Saturday, even when faced with the irrefutable error in fact, his final word on the matter was essentially “that’s my story and I’m sticking with it”.

Lewis’s offending paragraph read as follows:

The property tax law contains a serious flaw affecting whether taxpayers must accept an unjust assessment of their property. Under the tax code a taxpayer may not appeal an assessment made unless the assessment amount is more than 20 percent higher than the prior annual assessment. In our present climate even continuing the 2008 year opening value may be a serious overassessment but a taxpayer would have no right to appeal it. Elementary justice requires that this be changed.

Problem is that this just plain wrong. Nowhere in the law does it even mention anything about “prior annual assessments” or anything like it.

Having followed the public hearing at which both Lewis and North Shore Realtor Mike Dyer testified we though we heard Walter say the same thing in testimony only to be contradicted by Dyer and by what we had understood to be the process for many years.

In fact the “20%”- which is a figure subject to a reduction to 10% in a bill on the agenda at next Wednesday’s council Finance Committee meeting- refers to the difference between what the county assessor claims is the value of your house or property and what the Board of Review finds to be the actual “market value”.

The language in Section 5A-12.3(a) is as follows:

"No owner shall be deemed aggrieved by an assessment, nor shall an assessment be lowered ... unless there is shown: (1) Assessment of the property exceeds by more than twenty per cent (20%) the assessment of market value used by the Director as the real property tax base".

So we spent the last week emailing both Lewis and Dyer to straighten it out and give Lewis a chance to simply recognize his error and correct it. We all make mistakes and it’s something one would think any responsible journalist with a regular column in the newspaper would welcome the chance to do.

Ah but not Lewis who stated to the council he had never actually filed an appeal while Dyer, who owns a lot of property on the island, said he usually files one or more almost every year.

In an email to PNN Dyer explained the way it actually works, the same way he did when he testified before the council in favor of not just lowering the difference to 10% but advocating for an arbitrator type system to replace the current method used- a determination by the Board of Review (the only county board that pays its members) using some set of secretive almost magical soothsaying machinations to find out whether the assessor’s valuation is off by more than 20% and what the correct value should be.

In an email Dyer explained:

The "Taxpayer's Notice of Real Property Tax Appeal" form requires that the taxpayer state what his assessed value should be. The value stated must be 20% lower than the assessed value provided to the taxpayer "on or before March 15th preceding the tax year" by the assessor's office. The form only includes one check box option for " ... grounds of objection to the assessment per Section 5A-12.3 ...": " The assessed value of the property exceeds by more than twenty percent (20%) the ratio of assessment to market value." If you submit an appeal claiming a market value that is not at least 20% lower than the assessor's valuation you won't be scheduled for an appeal hearing.

The language in Section 5A-12.3(a) is as follows: "No owner shall be deemed aggrieved by an assessment, nor shall an assessment be lowered ..., unless there is shown: (1) Assessment of the property exceeds by more than twenty per cent (20%) the assessment of market value used by the Director as the real property tax base, ...". I have no idea what the last phrase means. However, my experience has been that you must contend that the assessor is too high by at least 20% or you don't even get to play.

In actual appeals it has been my experience that the Board of Review can be fickle. I have seen them grant adjustments of less than 20% and I have seen them uphold the assessor's valuation because the taxpayer didn't convince them in an amount which quite reached the 20% threshold ... losing even though you win.

Dyer’s email was addressed to Lewis too and we thought that surly with the ordinance being cited- a law that Lewis presumably has seen since he was observed reading from the entire current ordinance as he testified- that Lewis would act to correct himself.

But suddenly Lewis became obtuse and unresponsive until we persisted in finding out whether he wanted to make his own statement rather than having us correct it for him.

If the misstatement was left to stand there’s no telling how many homeowners might be wrongly dissuaded from thinking that could even file an appeal.

That’s when he told us it was only our “opinion” as to what the ordinance said and that he would not be correcting anything.

This is typical Lewis, the father of the infamous “Ohana” Prop.13-type tax measure approved by voters and struck down by the Hawai`i Supreme Court, exemplifying his modus operandi.

At the time, when the idea was in it’s infancy, the notion of capping the annual growth of the actual tax paid by the home-owner/occupant at 2% a year and rolling the “base” back to the time before assessments started to sky-rocket, seemed a decent one to many.

Horror tales abounded especially those whose taxes went from a few hundred to many thousands a year, including retired people on fixed incomes and others whose valuations increased exponentially due to sales of neighboring properties to rich off-island speculators during the housing bubble.

But as in uffish thought they stood, many said “hey wait a minute”. The measure was designed to accommodate those who had no intention of selling their homes and just wanted to live in their now million dollar houses for which they paid maybe $50,000 or less... or even inherited.

So one provision was suggested to Lewis, eventually even by Ohana co-founders Ray Chuan and Glenn Mickens as well as then Council Chair Ron Kouchi.

To get more support for his “charter amendment” and perhaps get the council on board or even put it in an ordinance, they simply asked that when and if the house was sold, the taxes saved over the years should be paid back to the county.

But Walter wouldn’t listen and so when the council sued- and the courts struck it down saying only the council could determine taxes- homeowners were left with no real cap except one that the council passed without the rollback to the pre-bubble prices- after the horse was out of the barn.

And because of that, many lost their homes or are still paying inflated taxes today.

Iconoclastic is often a nice way of saying pig-headed and never did that apply more than in the odd case of this oddly pompous man, Walter Lewis.

LOOSEN THAT COLLAR WILL YA?:

LOOSEN THAT COLLAR WILL YA?: The myth of the benefits of a garbage-to-energy incinerator we wrote about yesterday were further debunked today by energy advocate Ben Sullivan in a letter in today’s paper.

Sullivan, who lost the election to the Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC) board and was later rejected by the board to fill a vacant spot, apparently got a different answer from Walter Lewis than that the one which appeared in Lewis’s column in the paper Saturday as to the energy available in incineration of our garbage..

Upon questioning Lewis about his statement that “the benefits would be dramatic.”

Sullivan reports that Lewis privately told him instead that

“No reliable assessment can be made as to the user savings that might occur if a WRE supply contract were made. The variables include: the time when WRE output would commence; the price of oil at the time; the scope and terms of the WRE contract; and the accounting changes for KIUC if it ceases to be primarily a power generating utility. However, some range estimates could be permissible. Since the saving could be material, the public ought to be informed.”

Sullivan goes on to say:

As this is an opinion page, and we are certainly in need of solutions, I would like to offer one.

It is not solar, or wind, or biomass (although I do like the potential of hemp as a fuel). It is not the Small Wind Ordinance being proposed by Councilman Tim Bynum (although that’s certainly a good step in the right direction).

I would assert that we should all be capable of reducing our own electricity usage, through conservation and efficiency, by 50 percent. Now that would be a “silver bullet,” and would allow us to practice both discipline and action. I’m not there yet myself so I’m off to get to work on it.

While conservation is a must, one problem is that both Sullivan and Lewis- and anyone else who has had their ears and minds bent by the KIUC still-corporate spiel - apparently still buy into the for-profit model of an electricity utility.- one that says “we sell electricity to you.”

This KIUC mind-set was never more apparent than in the recent news that co-op members had topped out KIUC’s “net metering” percentage and now, anyone who now starts to generate their own electricity at home will not be able to take advantage of a program that allows them to “run the meter backward” at the same rate- or even a reasonable difference in rate- going in as coming out.

Not only that but the voice of KIUC is notable for it’s absence in trying to help its “customers” in moving away from their dependence on the co-op’s product by encouraging consumers to make their own electricity at home.

The KIUC party line goes that wind and solar are “intermittent” sources and therefore unreliable so will never be able to substitute for a system of selling electricity to you- electricity presumably generated by burning stuff whether fossil fuel or some other carbon and pollution spewing materials.

But the real problem is the way that, even though KIUC should be putting the consumers first, they are still looking at their business as that of selling enough electricity to maintain a corporate structure – a structure identical to the for-profit model only they refund the “profits” to the co-op members instead of shareholders.

Providing people with a way to actually decrease they bills is not just not job #1 it’s not on any list except for the one in the lip-service file.

The fact is that their prime objective is not to lower the costs of electricity to co-op members- something that, though it is more complicated than the current model, is achievable.

If every home generated it’s own electricity it could equal or even surpass Sullivan’s conservation in terms of savings. Solar roofs- not just solar panels but roofs that are made of solar harvesting materials- are common on the mainland where sun isn’t even as good a source as it is here.

And a windmill in every yard would decrease our bills further. The new ones make no noise at all.

And a revolving fund to finance loans that will be paid off in time with the savings needs only to be set up, modeled on the solar water heater programs.

That leaves the cooperative to use the current and developing technology to develop the models that will accommodate those cloudy days and times when the wind doesn’t blow as much by generating more at those times and less at others- not to throw up their hands and say “it’s too hard” as our company honchos have convinced the KIUC board is the case.

Today’s computer monitored “smart-grids” and modern use-sensitive generation units accommodate changes in demand all the time but for some reason Kaua`i seems incapable of innovation especially with the prospect of selling less electricity.

The decrease in the need for investment in new generation capability would be significant with a lot of little generation spots that add up to a lot. And utilities across the country are already experimenting- and having great success with electric rates that are higher when demand is higher and lower when it’s more available, a system that could, if structured to account for that availability at times of high sun and wind, allow consumers to use electricity when it’s available at a lower rate.

But instead all we hear from KIUC is “nope- trust us, it can’t be done”.

The main thing we need is the will to move away from the model that says when the going gets complicated and innovation is involved we throw up our hands and just revert to the safe and expensive for-profit model of selling energy to the consumer and stop doing what we can to empower the users to purchase less energy if not attain total energy independence.

Yes “we” paid way too much for Kaua`i Electric and that is what is costing us a bundle today in higher rates so we can pay back the loan.

And Kaua`i ratepayers- not the stock holders at Citizen’s Electric who took the risk of being uninsured- got stuck paying the entire cost of the Hurricane Iniki costs where money was essentially thrown at the repairs and cost wasn’t a factor until we got the bill...a bill we’re still getting every month.

But even working what we are unfortunately stuck with doesn’t mean that we have to be stuck with the same lazy thinkers that populate the board and high level staff at KIUC that got us into this mess.

We can elect people to the board who will shift their fiduciary responsibility from “the company” to the “members” but only if we chuck the for-profit model and put the consumer first by starting to think of how we can allow individuals the degree of energy independence that is technologically available today...the one members of a collectively owned co-op deserve.

--------------#-------------



But when you ask for the engineering particulars of why generation can’t just fill the gap at the times needed they go amazingly silent.

And that’s because the technology is here today to do it through a computerized modern generation system that measures needs and generation based on

A HOLE IS NOT TO DIG

A HOLE IS NOT TO DIG: One of the results of the defeat of JoAnn Yukimura in the mayoral election is that the idea of a garbage-to-electricity incinerator remains on the table at least as far as the administration of Mayor-Elect Bernard Carvalho is concerned.

But whether that sits well with the new county council- who will make the final decision- is up for grabs.

The council still hasn’t signed off on the R.W,. Beck study that recommends a waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerator-as we discussed in June- but that hasn’t stopped Carvalho from declaring “we have a plan and we need to follow it”.

The Beck report doesn’t make clear how the competing schemes it now contains will work. Originally the plan called for the incinerator only. But the council asked Beck to go back and include a plan for a massive recycling effort including curbside pickup and moreover a “MERF”- Materials Recovery Facility- where the whole trash stream goes through a sorting process to remove the recyclable and reusable materials.

The problem is that it really is a one or the other situation especially because it’s doubtful the waste stream on Kaua`i is really big enough to support a “waste- to energy” facility even with the whole trash stream, including recyclables.

It especially doesn’t make economic sense when viewed with an eye toward “economies of scale”. Unlike say, Honolulu we just don’t create enough trash to make the costly pollution spewing facility work here- and even more so after ¾ of the stream is taken out for recycling and reuse..

Those issues are unaddressed in Walter Lewis’ column in the local paper this Saturday which attempts to start fabricating the bandwagon leading to an incinerator.

He couches the issue of the facility as one of that “would result in significantly lower electric rates on Kaua`i.” but ignores the cost of the facility itself and how we would feed the beast.

And in today’s paper is a letter from another Princeville resident seemingly ready to jump aboard Lewis’ bandwagon- destination: Fool’s Paradise.

Well who can blame them? Because it’s doubtful that Princeville is on the list of possible sites for the plant. Which raises the question of just where would this monstrosity- which has a price tag some have estimated at more than $125 million- be situated?

Given the fact that Kaua`i county has been trying to find a place for a new landfill for the last 20 years without success the real question is whether there is going to be one community saying “give us the dump” and another town that will “accept” an incinerator- even if we start paying them off like we’re doing in Kekaha, as we discussed last month.

The article in last Friday’s newspaper hardly did justice to the breadth of the issue in covering last week’s contentious council meeting regarding the $650,000 bribe to Kekaha to get them to stop complaining about the dump that’s being expanded there

Although it pointed out how the county and the community had apparently settled their differences over the county trying to control the process for deciding how to spend the money, what it left out was the fact that the $.65 million was a low-ball figure according to outgoing Councilmember Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho.

“We originally wanted to start at a million” and that wasn’t even “nearly enough” she told those gathered for last week’s council meeting saying a million dollars was a low-end figure that the council had asked be included in the mayor’s budget. But when the Baptiste administration only offered $100,000 she said the $650,000 figure was “a compromise... for now”.

She said the payment is just a start and only for this year. She said it didn’t make up for 50 years of “putting up with” the landfill nor did it pay for “inconveniences” over the next who-knows-how-many years until a new dump is opened and the Kekaha one goes through the 30-year EPA mandated process of closing a landfill.

And of course this is just for a dump that already exists. The real question is how much “hush” money taxpayers are going to have to come up with to get a community to put a new one in their midst and what the yearly payments for that one will be.

And of course the same can be said about an even more disgusting incinerator because although trucks rumble up to each one, the rubbish stays in one place with a dump while an incinerator spews poisons all over the place.... and yes, even the new “EPA approved” WTE incinerators do that.

How many millions- or perhaps tens of millions- are we talking about? And for how many years? And in how many places?... once the trend starts what other types of facilities like power plants – or even windmills or solar farms- will require pay-offs.

The issue of payments aside and concentrating just on the cost, the whole WTE idea makes little sense. Our only hope might be something Carvalho- in his inimitable “I’ll lead the people by doing whatever they say they want me to do” way- said during the statewide TV debate.

“Maybe we’ll even ship it out” he told viewers when challenged as to the whole landfill siting, recycling waste-to-energy/incinerator debate.. right after he committed to the WTE in the Beck “plan”.

And although he was grasping at political straws, even a broken clock is right twice a day and Carvalho verbally stumbled onto the only sensible cost effective way there is to deal with our waste as we detailed last June.

Using a Zero-Waste program’s principles we can require curb-side recycling, set up a MERF to separate the rest and ship the last small amount- estimated to be a high of 30% but a low of less than 10% of our waste stream- and ship it to any one of a number of landfills in the mainland-northwest that are ready, willing, able and in fact eager to take it off our hands.... all at a comparable cost to what we are paying today

For a small island to ship-in virtually all of it’s consumer goods and then, when we’re done with them, bury them in the ground is insanity and unsustainable.

Though there is a line of thought that sending a community’s trash to a far away place is ecologically irresponsible- as former Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura has stated- that is a concept that might be appropriate where regional landfills are widely available and goods are grown and manufactured nearby, not on an island that imports all it’s “stuff” from 2000 miles away..

To throw that stuff in a hole in the ground makes the least ecological sense of all.

“Ship it in-ship it out” has got to be our garbage future. And apparently if we all demand it, the broken-clock-born program will be instituted before the one that’s ticking on our solid waste crisis strikes midnight and we’re overrun by mice and rotten pumpkins.

FROM THE DOG’S MOUTH/ AIN’T THAT DOG DEAD YET?

FROM THE DOG’S MOUTH: “Everybody knows me as ‘Mr. Wala`au’”.

That’s what county council candidate Dickie Chang told PNN in an exclusive interview this morning in discussing why his name appears on the November ballot with the “trademarked” name of his business listed as a nickname.

The television host of the Wala`au television program said “it’s just like ‘Kaipo’ Asing“

“He’s Bill ‘Kaipo’ Asing. I’m Dickie ‘Wala`au’ Chang. All the kids call me Wala`au” he said in defending why he included it on the ballot.

Chang said “it wasn’t my idea- I wasn’t the one who said how to put my name on the ballot”, although he declined to say who did.

“I just filled out all the papers they told me to” at the elections office, he said.

Administrative Rules (HAR) §2-52-4 say that:

If a candidate seeks to have a name other than the candidate's legal name, its commonly recognized equivalent, or maiden name, appear on the ballot, the candidate, at the time of filing nomination papers shall also file a notarized affidavit in which the candidate attests to the fact that the name to appear on the ballot is the name by which the candidate is most commonly known throughout the district from which the candidate seeks election.

Slogans shall not be printed on the ballot.

And when told of the rule Chang asserted that is exactly what his listing does- list the nickname by which he is most commonly known on the island.

“I never thought it was wrong” Chang said via telephone saying he “can’t remember” being told of the specifics of the law.

“I signed and notarized whatever they told me to” he said.

As to what exactly he signed and notarized we still, as we reported yesterday, cannot get an answer out of County Clerk Peter Nakamura who again was “not in his office” whenever we called again today.

We did leave a detailed message with Nakamura’s council services staff requesting inspection and/or a copy of any sworn notarized affidavit Chang filed pertaining to the listing of his name on the ballot.

The head of Kaua`i elections, Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion who would normally handle such requests, has referred PNN and others who have inquired to his boss Nakamura.

Chang says wherever he goes people call him “Wala`au” so he never thought twice about it being not just the name of his business but his nickname as well, adding that he commonly refers to himself as “Mr. Wala`au” on his long-running, popular, local television program.

PNN has received inquires from more than a dozen people over the past two months as to the ballot listing, of whom three told us they had made inquires with the county but had been either ignored or rebuffed with unreturned phone calls.

--------------

AIN’T THAT DOG DEAD YET?: And since that horse “no stay make already yet” we were again astonished that after yesterday’s excoriation of Juan Wilson’s “no critical reading necessary” bungling of his endorsement of a charter amendment to ease conflict of interest recusal rules in county government, he has not just refused to read it correctly but found another way to mis-read it.
.
In a posting yesterday at his Island Breath web site he writes

COUNTY PROPOSAL NO. 4
RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
Shall an elected or appointed officer or employee, or member of a board or commission not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them where the member or any member of his immediate family has a personal financial interest?

Island Breath recommendation-- Vote YES

This is a simple conflict of interest issue that has been deceptively worded to require a YES vote to be against conflicts of interest.

As we tried to tell Wilson, the law as it appears now- and as is listed in the “material to be deleted” at the county’s web site– already requires subject individuals to “not be allowed to participate in matters pending before them”

The underlining of “not” was Wilson’s emphasis, not the county’s but apparently indicates that he thinks this is a trick wording, making it some kind of double negative.

But in fact the “trick” is that the description contained in the question is one that perfectly depicts the current law.

As we detailed in a column last Wed.- where you can read both the portions of the charter to be deleted and added as well as our complete analysis- during the 2006 election the charter was changed to require that a conflict of interest would required conflicted individuals to recuse themselves from discussing and voting upon the matter in question.

The current proposal keeps the recusal provisions but seeks to water that down by circumscribing a limited set of what constitutes a conflict- proposing to change the definition that has been in the Charter since it’s inception.

The definitions never bothered councilpersons in the past since all they had to do was “declare” a conflict of interest and then do nothing about it. Not only that but the de facto method of doing that was to simply send a “communication” to the council “informing” them of the conflict..

But those were not “communications for approval” but to “inform” the council. This meant that when the communication regarding the potential conflict came up for discussion at the council meetings the communications were “received for the record” along with a weekly laundry list of “communications for receipt” and rarely if ever read aloud for the TV viewing public.

But once the new law required non-participation, all of a sudden it was “too severe” as councilpersons discussed and agreed upon unanimously this past summer.

Though the new law keeps the recusal provisions it restricts conflicts to those who are certain officers of a company or organization and restricts subject family members to only certain ones and not others.

This means that under current law, for instance, a councilperson’s sister-in-law who works as a manager at Grove Farm would not cause a conflict under the proposed law if Grove Farm were applying for some resort zoning or some other slurp at the county trough. Her positions in both the family and the business would exclude her from causing a potential conflict of interest under the proposed charter amendment.

And for the record although, as we said yesterday, Walter Lewis’ column on this charter amendment said it “seem(s) to offer (a) reasonable reform” he also said “I do not have any firm recommendations as to the proposal... relating to disclosure of interests” which we did not report. We regret any confusion this might have caused.

CHECK THEIR PERIGEES/DOGGEDLY DETERMINED

CHECK THEIR PERIGEES: Kaua`i has a distinct lack of government watchdogs.

While there are hundreds of- if not a thousand- community activists and advocates the number who follow the minutia of the machinations of our mayor and county council can be counted on our fingers with maybe a toe or two on an occasional basis.

Many rely on us to pull the curtain back and reveal the great and powerful wizard’s smoke and mirrors so when they err it can misinform a community.

But, as erring is human, all it takes is a “my bad” and a correction to send Dorothy back to Kansas safe and sound. No shame... unless the mistake remains uncorrected.

On Wednesday as part of our week long series of articles on this year’s proposed Kaua`i charter amendments, we detailed how a proposal that deceptively claims to institute stronger conflict of interest laws and require recusals- something the charter already does- actually waters them down and severely restricts the circumstances under which they would apply.

But two usually astute scrutinizers of Kaua`i government are apparently determined to remain pre-enlightenment scarecrows and are compounding their lack of critical information processing by refusing to re-read the amendment and let people know of their errors.

This week both Walter Lewis’ in his column this Saturday in the local newspaper and Juan Wilson of Island Breath in his recommendations made Oct. 12 appear to have been duped into endorsing the Charter Amendment that loosens conflicts of interest

The worst, if only for it’s visibility, is Walter Lewis’ “yes” recommendation. Though his analysis of the other four proposed amendments set for a vote on November 4 is spot on it’s obvious he gave this one short shrift

After reviewing the rest, almost as an afterthought Lewis wrote

“The two proposals offered by the County Council to require disclosure of conflicts and to establish an office for an auditor to review county operations, although inadequately described by the ballot questions, seem to offer reasonable reforms.”

Seem to offer “reasonable reforms”? The charter already requires “disclosure of conflicts”.

Lewis’ wording and conclusion make it apparent that he- an astute attorney who has led the fight for property tax caps and to enforce the county’s open meetings provisions in the infamous “3.07(e)”- never read the actual changes being proposed. Rather he took the word of the county clerk, even though, as he noted in his article, the clerk had misled people in the same manner in trying to repeal 3.07(e).

And Wilson too, although less prominently at his informative web site, asked for a “yes” vote after similarly analyzing the other proposals.

Apparently, with the same lack of critical reading of the actual changes in the conflict of interest proposal as Lewis exhibits, his “yes” recommendation indicates a quick insufficient perusal of the matter of, as he calls it, “no financial interests”

He wrote simply

Island Breath recommendation--
Vote YESThis looks like a simple conflict of interest issue.

Looks like? Looks like Wilson’s is exactly the kind of quick reading the council hoped for. We’re sure the lack of analysis is appreciated

This weekend we fully notified both Lewis and, more than once, Wilson and his co-Editor Jonathan Jay as to our reading from last Wed. and both have refused to respond and really read the deceptive way the proposal is presented to the public.

We need more people who keep an eye on the county, not less. But anyone who has watched the county council meetings this summer and fall knew about this “little turd”, as we called it and should have been on the lookout for it.

But even more important, government watchdogs must remain vigilant against the dirty tricks Kaua`i is famous for,. especially this council.

And perhaps most important of all, if you don’t know or didn’t do your homework at least don’t share your lack of acumen with others.

And if you do and you find out you made a mistake, when someone tells you about it correct it before people start voting, not after.

No telling how many saw these two recommendations and will trust the sources enough to vote for them. No telling how many would even see a retraction and correction.

But every day that goes by without rectification is a voting day for absentees. If the council gets away with this, we’ll know who’s in part responsible.

.----------

DOGGEDLY DETERMINED We’ve been on the phone all day trying to get a copy of county council candidate Dickie Chang’s affidavit that was required by law (as we reported Friday) in order to use anything but his legal name on the ballot which lists the name of his business, Wala`au, in parentheses after his name.

But not only have we not gotten a copy, we could not even get verification from elections chief and Deputy County Clerk Ernie Pasion that indeed an affidavit was filed.

Pasion, who has in the past found affidavits of election filing over the phone for us, refused to deny or confirm the existence of an affidavit.

He referred us to County Clerk Peter Nakamura who, though were told he was “in the building” has not returned multiple persistent phone calls as of press time.

NEW TWIST TO AN OLD TRICK

NEW TWIST TO AN OLD TRICK: Shhhhhhhhhh.

It’s practically been the motto the Kaua`i County Council and past two administrations. And if one proposed County Charter amendment passes it might well be engraved on the county seal.

But you’d never know it from reading the wording of a question that will appear on the ballot November 4.

The change seeks to eliminate a provision in the Kaua`i Charter http://www.kauai.gov/portals/0/county_attorney/kauai_county_charter.pdf that makes it harder for the Kaua`i Council to go into secret “executive session” meetings than the state Sunshine Law.

But the actual question that will appear on the ballot makes it sound like it is a provision to stop council secrecy and enforce the state Sunshine Law regarding open meetings- something the council has infamously fought tooth and nail for a decade and more

The question asks

Should the Kauai County Charter be amended to conform to state law requiring that all meetings of the County Council be open to the public unless allowed to be closed under the State Sunshine, Law Hawaii Revised Statues (HRS) 92
.
Anyone who is dismayed by the council’s well known penchant for secrecy would upon reading that vote “yes” thinking “finally all this secrecy will end- they will have to comply with the Sunshine law”

But not so fast- a careful read will reveal the words are "conform to” not “comply with”. And although most people would interpret the two to mean essentially the same thing under most circumstances it’s not true here.

The Sunshine Law actually calls for all meeting of boards and commissions in Hawai`i to be open to the public unless they are closed for one of eight specific reasons 92-5(a)1-8.

And while it’s true the change would cause the Charter to “conform to state law” it would do so by removing a Charter provision, 3.07e that would keep more meetings open- all those that are not “consultations with the county attorney on claims”.

Laws and rules of a higher “level” of government in America take precedence over laws a lower subdivision of government unless otherwise specifically stated in the “higher” law.

They are said to “trump” the lower jurisdiction’s laws. State laws cannot violate federal laws or the Constitution. And a county’s laws cannot violate a state law.... unless there’s a specific provision in the controlling authority’s law that gives the lower one that power.

And that’s exactly what state law HRS 92-71 does for the Sunshine Law. It allows counties to have “more stringent” provisions than those in 92-5(a)1-8.

But the council has spent the last year and a half stonewalling enforcement of the charter law claiming to have another of those secret county attorney’s opinions- as we reported upon earlier- that allows them ignore the Charter and go into secret “executive session” (ES) when they need to even if there’s no way the subject matter can be said to be “on claims”.

A year and a half ago Attorney Walter Lewis was reading through HRS Chapter 92, “Part I” of which constituted the “Sunshine “Law”. But 92 goes to other parts after 92.1-13 although they aren’t listed at the Sunshine Law page at the web site of the state Office of Information Practices (OIP) a state office set up to opine upon the Sunshine Law.

There he found HRS 92-71 which says the following

Political subdivision of the State; applicability. The provisions contained in this chapter shall apply to all political subdivisions of the State. Provided, however, in the event that any political subdivision of the State shall provide by charter, ordinance or otherwise, more stringent requirements relating to mandating the openness of meetings, the more stringent provisions of said charter, ordinance, or otherwise, shall apply.

Last August Lewis told Kaua`i government watchdog and “nitpicker” Glenn Mickens about what’s been called the “secret Sunshine Law” even though the provision isn’t actually part of the “Open Meetings provisions”- the real name for what is commonly called the Sunshine Law although the term is never used in the actual law- which is limited to Part 1 of HRS 92.

Almost every week for a year Mickens has testified on any ES’s on the agenda, starting out asking for compliance to what the law apparently says.- no ES’s except for “claims”

But though the law is obvious the council has remained oblivious. Other than adding 3.07e to the ES agendas they did nothing to actually comply with the new provision.

In addition even though the term “claim” has its own section in the Charter defining what a claim is, the council has tried to maintain that “claims” has a broader definition in law dictionaries - while at the same time saying they weren’t bound by it.

But a Hawai`i Supreme Court ruling in 1989, Kam v Noh, makes it plain that when a word is defined in a body of law such as the Charter, that is the definition to be used throughout that body of law, not some extraneous definition.

Finally a letter from OIP clarified the matter somewhat but the Council managed to twist that too.

OIP sent a letter last month saying that 3.07(e) was to be read “in addition” to the eight provisions for closing meetings. It says in part

Section 92-71, HRS, allows the County to provide more stringent meeting standards without being in conflict with the Sunshine Law. Any more stringent county provisions, however, would be in addition to the requirements the Council must comply with under the Sunshine Law. Thus, a county board may only meet in an executive meeting for a purpose authorized under section 92-5 of the Sunshine Law and must always provide notice in compliance with the Sunshine Law.

That means that since OIP has no jurisdiction over 3.07e- or really 92-71 for that matter- they can’t tell the county what to do about it even if it is “more stringent”- something that it had acknowledged in a previous latter last January.

They essentially told the council that no matter what they did about their charter provision, they still had to abide by state law..

For instance if the Council- in it’s usual bizarre way of doing its ES business- decided they wanted to go into ES to investigate the “claim” that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are real they would still be subject to the provisions in 92-5(a)1-8.

Mickens has sought to get them to say that since the charter provision was more stringent than the charter that the eight reasons were moot for purposes of open meetings on Kaua`i.

But the OIP said no- they still also controlled ES’ presumably for cases like the one cited above.

Rather than interpreting the letter to say that “in addition” meant that the two provisions had to be read together, the council decided that it meant that there were apparently now nine reasons to close meetings- the eight in the Sunshine Law and, “in addition”, the one in the charter- “claims”..

The council has unanimously taken this position with all seven members a one time or another defending their refusal to follow the three laws taken together- HRS 92 Part I (the Sunshine Law) HRS 92-71 (the more stringent provision in state law) and Kaua`i Charter 3.07(e)- as read together.

And the OIP said that, since it involved areas over which it has no jurisdiction, the only other remedy would be to go to 5th Circuit Court to sort it out.

And now the council, through a request to the Charter Commission, is seeking to get out from under the law – a law it says they’re not bound by- by changing it in a dishonest underhanded “trick question” manner.

This has resulted in the attempt to change the Charter through trickery, using a ruse to deceive people into thinking they are actually voting to require the council to follow the Sunshine Law- by “conforming” to it when they are actually trying to weaken the current open meetings law that applies to Kaua`i

An honest question would ask something like

“Should the Charter be amended to remove the provision limiting closed sessions of the county council to those involving “consultations with the county attorney on claims”

The only way to stop this measure from appearing on the ballot with it’s current deceptive language would be to find a pro bono attorney who is willing to try to get a restraining order. But at this late date that may be almost impossible because the harm wouldn’t be irreversible since the case could be adjudicated after the election.

But recent Hawai`i and Kaua`i case law- in the “Ohana” 2% property tax cap charter amendment- shows that if a case regarding a charter amendment is not filed before the election it is a lot harder if not impossible to file after the election if it seeks to invalidate the vote.

So anyone waiting for the results to file a case might find themselves out of luck

As a voter our job is to not fall for it. PNN asks people to vote no on this offensive attempt to further erode the laws against closed meetings and secrecy in Kaua`i government.

And when you’re voting in the council election remember who was responsible for this before voting for any of the five incumbents.