TIME

TIME: Normally when Kaua`i Councilmember Mel Rapozo goes on a crusade it's like watching the proverbial broken clock that's right twice a day.

That's usually because of the babooze factor that addles Rapozo, making his penchant for political expediency obvious to all.

So when, according to the local newspaper, he decided to go to court to show that the word "shall" always means "must" when it appears in legislation no one expected him to be right.

For those who have missed the seemingly idiotic argument last month, the county charter specifies that that Salary Commission's resolutions setting administration salaries "shall be adopted by resolution of the commission and forwarded to the mayor and the council on or before March 15."

Although the charter doesn't say so in so many words, it's apparent that the provision is there is in order for the salaries to be set when the yearly budget process begins.

But when the commission tried to present a supplemental resolution to cut administrative salaries this past August Rapozo tried to nix the reso because, he said "shall means shall."

But County Attorney Al Castillo, always one to make sure Mayor Bernard Carvalho- at whose behest the Salary Commission submitted the resolution- gets his way, told the council that the word "shall" can mean "may" when it is used in a "directory" manner.

Now our first thought was that the whole matter was really stupid because the fact is that it's always before March 15- in this case March 15 of 2012. But we also suspected that Castillo, who shares a case of "broken clock syndrome" with Rapozo, might be pulling a fast one because with two broken clocks the odds are increased that something is going to be amiss.

Yesterday, upon the news that Rapozo was going to go to court, attorney-blogger Charley Foster sought to clarify the fact that yes indeed the word "shall" could be used in a discretionary manner, according to previous court rulings.

The problem for Castillo- who certainly has access to the same law books as Foster does- is that in order for "shall" to be used in a non-mandatory way it must meet a "three pronged test" according to the courts.

The term three (or any number really) pronged test means that the subject must meet all three conditions to be true. And apparently the passage in question doesn't meet any of them.

Citing State v. Shannon, 185 P.3d 200 (Haw. 2008), Forster noted that the Hawaii Supreme Court listed the three conditions, saying:

First, “shall” can be read in a non-mandatory sense when a statute’s purpose “confute[s] the probability of a compulsory statutory design.” [Id.] at 676, 619 P.2d at 102. Second, “shall” will not be read as mandatory when “unjust consequences” result. Id. Finally, “the word `shall’ may be held to be merely directory, when no advantage is lost, when no right is destroyed, when no benefit is sacrificed, either to the public or to the individual, by giving it that construction.

The word confute means "to prove to be false, invalid, or defective; disprove." So the first means that basically it would have to make the whole passage contradictory to interpret it as "must." That doesn't seem to be the case here because it is clear that the deadline anticipates the budget process when the salaries are to be appropriated.

So already it doesn't meet the three prong test.

The second certainly isn't true- there is no injustice in submitting the reso before March 15. It many thwart the mayor's political will but that's not part of the test here.

Finally there is certainly a "benefit sacrificed." The benefit of "salaries" is being altered so the last test isn't met either.

As happens on occasion, even though Rapozo is just playing political games here, he is baled out by an equally politically motivated Castillo who pulled the "directory" ploy out of his butt and thought Rapozo would just go away when he brought out the legal mumbo jumbo.

It's doubtful that Rapozo was aware of the three prong test and just lucked out in that, when he goes to court, he will now be armed with Foster's little side research project.

But then you never know who's gonna win out when the battle of the tiny-yet-devious brains pits two such evenly matched opponents.

UNSUFFOCATINGABLE

UNSUFFOCATINGABLE:Babooze-In-Chief Mel Rapozo's attempt to reverse the so-called "plastic bag ban" has gone down to its inevitable defeat but after sitting through hours- nay months- of yammering it was both refreshing and, at the same time, distressing to have seen those who weren't going to vote for a change in the first place just sit there and say nothing as disinformation flowed like a beer keg at a toga party.

Not once was the fact that we don't really have any "ban" on Kaua`i mentioned in debate.

As we wrote in February when the bill was first introduced

(Rapozo's) bill strikes the definition of a plastic checkout grocery bag that, in Ordinance 885 made for a “de facto” ban by requiring, not just that they are compostable or biodegradable but that they not contain any fossil fuel polymers, since no such bag currently exists. Unlike the outright ban on Maui our bill allows the bags if and when a bag that meets this requirement becomes available.

So the bill simply changes the definition removing the “fossil fuel polymers” part.

And, as we wrote the day before after an nation-wide investigation by our friend Brad Parsons- later confirmed by the Department of Public Works (DPW)- although material exist that would meet the standard no one is making bags out of it.

It was like sitting through one of those horror movies and wanting to scream "look out" as the knife wielding villain sneaks up on the protagonist from behind, as the plastic bag industry lobbyist- who failed to declare that fact in each of his appearances despite council rules requiring that disclosure- told the council that the only problem with the bill was that silly inconsequential "no fossil fuel polymers" provision, which he asked to be removed so his "new science" plastic could be sold.

Of course this had nothing to do with "food safety" as Rapozo claimed was the sole purpose of the bill. As a matter of fact the words "food safety" barely left anyone’s lips after the first couple of times the bill was on the council's agenda.

Also unmentioned was the fact that any allowance for establishments that purveyed hot food would have allowed any supermarket with a deli- which includes almost every one on the island- to again provide plastic bags.

The expected attempt from "the compromiser," rookie Councilperson Nadine Nakamura to amend the bill also reflected facts missing from the week upon week long gab-fest.

Although we're reluctant to accept as fact anything written by Leo Azumbuja in the local newspaper he wrote

Nakamura introduced an amendment Wednesday in an attempt to offer a compromise between an “outright ban on biodegradable bags” and Rapozo’s proposal.

She said her amendment, which tightened the broad definition of “biodegradable bags” in Rapozo’s amendment, would have required ready-to-eat food establishments to use compostable bags that meet specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics D6400.
“Progressive cities like San Francisco and Santa Monica use this standard in defining biodegradable bags,” she said.

The problem is that these bags don't really biodegrade like organic materials but rather break into itsy-bitsy little pieces which still litter the roads, are swallowed by birds and turtles and generally don’t break down into their component chemicals for a bazillion years.

Unbelievably, rather than spend all that time asking those we identified in February as having materials that are made without fossil fuel polymers to produce plastic bags that fulfill our unique ordinance, councilmembers all sat there like bumps on a log and allowed Rapozo to hijack the staff, the viewing public and the public access camera time for a self-aggrandizing appeal to idiocy filling the room and everyone's ears with utter bullsh*t.

And when one did do some "research" she came up with a totally unacceptable change.

Yes Rapozo is a boob. But to allow him to spout his drivel without any corrections for almost three months doesn't speak well of the others who had already decided how they would vote the day the bill hit the table.

COME HELL OR HIGH BONG WATER

COME HELL OR HIGH BONG WATER: No one seems to know for sure what will happen this afternoon when the appointed time for Councilmember Mel Rapozo’s and County Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho’s anti-marijuana rally comes around.

But only two things seem certain at press time- a bunch of counter demonstrators will likely show up and so will Mel Rapozo.

The rest is a subject for the Babooze Comedy Hour starring the Keystone Cops.

The curtain opened with Act 1 this morning at 10:36 when the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) issued the following fishy sounding press release.

Anti-drug rally cancelled

LĪHU'E – An anti-drug rally that was scheduled at 4 pm this afternoon in front of the Historic County Building has been cancelled due to the threat of flash flooding for Kaua`i County.

A flash watch is in effect for Kaua`i and Ni`ihau through tomorrow morning.

The rally was planned to raise awareness and inform the community of the pending marijuana legislation now being considered by the state Legislature.

It’s not clear if anyone bought that excuse after our article yesterday exposed the use of county resources to plan the rally and an order from Iseri that attendance was “mandatory” for her staff attorneys and, ahem, strongly encouraged for the rest of the staff... with a suggestion that they “rearrange” their “schedule” to attend.

But in Act 2, at 12:23 p.m.- less than couple of hours after the first release- it disappeared from the county’s press release page, replaced with the following release, this one from the office of County Attorney Al Castillo:

Update on anti-drug rally

LĪHU'E – County officials said this morning that they received a complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regarding the anti-drug rally that was scheduled at 4 pm this afternoon in front of the Historic County Building.

“We are in receipt of the ACLU complaint and my office is reviewing it,” said County Attorney Alfred Castillo.

The rally was cancelled due to the complaint and for safety concerns due to the threat of flash flooding for Kaua`i County.

A flash watch is in effect for Kaua`i and Ni`ihau through tomorrow morning.

The rally was planned to raise awareness and inform the community of the pending marijuana legislation now being considered by the state Legislature.

Oh to be a fly on the wall to witness all that went into that release.

But Act 3 was on it’s way and at 1 p.m. a “Breaking News” update appeared at the local newspaper’s web site from new cops and court reporter Jessica Musicar with a headline of “Rapozo: Anti-drug rally still a go”

Musicar wrote:

Is it canceled or isn't it?

Whether an anti-drug rally will be held at 4 p.m. remains unclear, as the county and a member of its council have indicated conflicting answers.

Kaua`i County Council member Mel Rapozo, who said he originally scheduled the rally, plans to show up at the historic County Building with other participants, regardless of the county's notice of cancellation. The rally was intended to raise awareness and inform the community about pending marijuana legislation under consideration by the state Legislature.

This morning, however, the county canceled the rally, citing a weather warning. It later noted this afternoon in a press release that the cancellation is also tied to a complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rapozo said he is upset that the county was hiding behind the weather.

"To use the weather as an excuse is unacceptable," Rapozo said. "The reason for the cancellation wasn't the weather. It was the ACLU's concerns."

Although the county has not specified the nature of the complaint, stating only that County Attorney Alfred Castillo is reviewing it, Rapozo said the organization took issue with the county using public resources to host the rally.

Acting as a citizen of the county, rather than a councilman, Rapozo added he will be at the rally with church and youth groups...

We can see it now. Since county employees and any solicited attendees- like the island’s pastors and their minions who Rapozo urged to attend- most likely had heard about the “official” cancellation and the counter demonstrators- especially those who read the local newspaper on-line where, in the comments column, the protest was originally organized- probably either haven’t heard or heard Rapozo will be there, we expect to see Mel facing down a group of pissed off citizens.
.
But in all seriousness canceling the anti-pot-party after a complaint from the ACLU cannot be allowed to be where this ends. We urge a full investigation by at least the attorney general’s office if not the FBI- since of course KPD and the prosecutor are the alleged “perps”- as well as ethics complaints against Chief Darryl Perry whose underlings organized the KPD’s involvement, Councilmember Rapozo and, especially, Prosecuting Attorney Iseri... all of whom are or should be well aware of the laws.

It’s high time to take a page from the prosecutor’s playbook and make an example of those involved so that this type of thing never happens again.

ONE OF THESE DAYS...

ONE OF THESE DAYS...: The motto of the true babooze is “don’t confuse me with the facts.”

For our purposes it doesn’t really matter whether he’s merely too lazy to look at Ordinance 885 and read the record or hell bent on misrepresenting his effort to gut the plastic bag ban.

Either way Councilmember Mel Rapozo’s efforts are an affront to rationality.

After yesterday’s first reading the bill now heads to a public hearing where Rapozo’s “amendment”- which doesn’t seem to be posted at the county’s web site- will no doubt be further ridiculed.

And sensing he’s fighting a losing battle, it’s apparent that Rapozo is going to try to use lies and obfuscation to essentially end the ban.

In a comment on the article in the newspaper Rapozo wrote:

This article failed to mention the most important component of the amendment. Food service establishments will be required to use biodegradable/compostable plastic bags. These bags will help to protect the environment while addressing the issue of food safety.

Bullsh*t Mel.

First of all, if he had bothered to read the ordinance and the record he’d have found out that we don’t really ban plastic bags. But we have a stricter standard than simply “biodegradable” which is a nebulous terms that has allowed bags that are not really “biodegradable” to be used in other jurisdictions where bans on non-biodegradable bags are in effect.

Our ordinance requires two things of any plastic grocery bags. As we wrote last October as part of our extensive coverage of the development and passage of the ordinance:

The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; (emphasis added) and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”

And, as we detailed, that type of bag is not yet being produced anywhere in the world, according to both researcher Brad Parsons- who spent a week on the phone ascertaining this fact and also the Department of Public Works (DPW) which therefore currently has zero acceptable bags on their “list.”

This leaves a “de facto” ban unless and until someone begins selling non-fossil-fuel-containing bags- which is possible since, as Parsons found, there are materials out there that could serve the purpose only no one is currently manufacturing them into bags.

So either one of two things are true.

Either the amendment doesn’t do anything at all and keeps the current definition of ‘biodegradable bag” and, in essence continues the effective ban or, more than likely (as we said the bill isn’t posted anywhere) it changes the definition of biodegradable to mean those bags that actually aren’t.

What passes for biodegradable bags these days are bags made with fossil fuels that simply break up into little pieces. They still don’t truly “biodegrade” for thousands of years. The only difference is that they are broken into tiny specks of plastic which many say is even worse for sea life which is now more likely to wind up with a clump in their belly with bite-size pieces floating around.

So either Rapozo is actually trying to change the definition, which would effectively lift the “ban,” or he’s not changing anything and the ban will continue- the latter of which is unlikely.

We'll have more after viewing the meeting but either way this whole thing is a waste of time and energy and the product of a regressive mind where Rapozo thinks he is not just entitled to his own opinion but his own facts.

GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GERMS

GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GERMS: A characteristic trait of the true babooze is the reluctance to let facts get in the way of a good babble.

So now that we’ve dispensed with the preliminaries we can get down the real idiocy behind Babooze-In-Chief Mel Rapozo’s demagoguing of the plastic grocery bag ban.

Because had Rapozo actually tried to find out whether the claims that reusable bags carry pathogens that can cause disease are true he would have found that they were “just baloney.”

At least according to the respected independent publication Consumer Reports’ “Safety Blog,”

Turns out that media hysteria over bad bugs in reusable bags came from a study conducted with funding from- you’ve probably guessed already- the plastic bag industry.

“Which is why” said the article,

“we’re not so swayed by a recent report about reusable grocery bags and their potential to make you sick.

The report came out of the University of Arizona, Tucson and Loma Linda University in California. Smack on page one is this note: “The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the American Chemistry Council for providing funding to support this study.”

The American Chemistry Council is the trade group that advocates on behalf of plastic-bag manufacturers. Now why would the folks who make plastic grocery bags want to cast doubts on the safety of reusable grocery bags? Oh, right.”

After pointing out that the study was based on a grand total of 84 bags the article says that:

The researchers tested for pathogenic bacteria Salmonella and Listeria, but didn’t find any, nor did they find strains of E. coli that could make one sick. They only found bacteria that don’t normally cause disease, but do cause disease in people with weakened immune systems.

Our food-safety experts were underwhelmed as well. “A person eating an average bag of salad greens gets more exposure to these bacteria than if they had licked the insides of the dirtiest bag from this study,” says Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at Consumers Union. “These bacteria can be found lots of places, so no need to go overboard.”

But Hansen notes that there are some reminders to take away from the study. It’s easy to spread bacteria from meat, fish, or poultry to other foods – in your kitchen or in your grocery bags. So we do think it’s wise to carry those items in disposable bags. Reusable bags are fine for most everything else, but it’s a good idea to wash them occasionally.

And of course the current ordinance on Kaua`i specifically exempts the bags used for vegetables and meats anyway.

We’re not suggesting that campaign contributions from places like Safeway Inc., the Kauai Beverage & Ice Cream Co., Ltd or Randall Francisco, the head of the Chamber of Commerce- which was the only entity that strenuously opposed the bill- influenced Rapozo’s decision to reverse the ban... but they couldn’t have hurt.

The fact is that the “amendment,” as currently written, would allow every single supermarket on the island to go back to those white plastic grocery bags when, first the original bill provided for bags for individual items like meats and produce and second, if people use common sense and wash out their reusable bags when they spill stuff in them there’s no health or sanitation issue.

Are we a bunch of baboozes who don’t have the smarts to know how to keep our food safe?

Well, apparently it takes one to know one.