WALAGAIN: One of the problems with the "new" charter provision- passed in 2008- requiring recusals by councilmembers from matters that cause conflicts-of-interest, is that unless the councilmember acknowledges that conflict there is apparently nothing anyone can do about it.
Of course the council could pass an ordinance detailing a process by which someone- anyone- might challenge a councilmember if he or she fails to acknowledge it but for now the only process that might be used would be to go the the notoriously "Wenokea" Board of Ethics (BOE) and ask.
Of course by the time they act the council very well may have dealt with the matter.
As we reported last Monday Dickie Chang's involvement with the Kaua`i Marathon prompted his recusal from involvement with controversial Bill # 2404 which would appropriate another $150,000 for the Kauai Marathon.
But while Chang apparently sent the BOE a copy of his communication to the council stating that he would be recusing himself, it was not accompanied with a request for a ruling as to whether he indeed has a conflict.
That, according to the Code of Ethics, would set a precedent and cause Chang to look carefully at his other business relationships to all the other entities that do business with the county, likely to come before the council.
So when the marathon money bill came up for a public hearing last Wednesday although Chang indeed left the room for it, he also left a slew of questions as to whether the bill legitimately came to have a public hearing held in the first place.
When the bill came up for "first reading"- the introductory vote that starts any bill on it's way to becoming an ordinance- Chang was predictably one of the "aye" votes.
What was unusual in that vote was that, whereas first readings are generally perfunctory actions done in order to get matters before the council, Councilperson Mel Rapozo actually voted "no" saying the county is too broke to be continuing to support the event, now planning it's third race.
Other councilmembers said that, although they were inclined not to support the bill they would vote "yes" only because all bills deserve "yes" votes on first reading so that people can provide testimony and the council can give the measure "due consideration"... a "tradition" that is often ignored when it's convenient for individual councilmembers.
But Chang's vote remains an illegality- a vote for the charter-required "first reading" of a bill from which he has recused himself.
Was the vote valid? Does the council have to re-introduce the bill and have it go through its first reading without Chang?
Apparently so but no one on the council seemed concerned in the least.
And that's not all.
It was noted by a member of the public at the bill's public hearing that, in addition to the $150,000, the Kaua`i Marathon has a line item in the county's FY2011-12 budget- currently under consideration- for another $120,000.
But when the public hearing for the budget came up Wednesday there was Chang at the table despite the fact that the additional marathon money was, in part, at issue.
We tell the story just to show how positively clueless Chang is when it comes to conflicts between his close relationships with the tourism industry, his promotional "Wala`au" TV program, and his job as councilmember.
Last week we asked
does Chang truly get it?
Apparently not judging by his fast and free treatment of the line between his day job and his job as one who appropriates all monies the county spends.
Take for example one of the presumably paid advertisements that regularly appears on Wala`au from Garden Isle Disposal (GID) advertising the "Kaua`i Recycles" program, which provides those bins across the island where people can recycle their glass, plastic and newspapers.
GID doesn't just collect recyclables because out of concern for the planet or out of the goodness of their hearts- the county appropriates money to pay them for their services every year via the annual budget.
And part of the contract requires that GID provide publicity and education to let people know how, where and what to recycle.
As a graphic in the commercial notes:
The Kaua`i Recycles program is a project of the County of Kaua`i... operated by Garden Isle Disposal.
That means that, as you've probably figured out, Chang first voted to appropriate the money for the commercials and then pocketed a good chunk of it as sole proprietor of Wala`au.
Sweet deal, Dickie.
First of all, of course Chang didn't bat an eye regarding GID when the budget came up, presumably with this year's appropriation to GID's for the "Kaua`i Recycles" program.
But we were positively floored when, at the end of the meeting there was Chang listening to County Attorney Al Castillo come up to the hot seat and read off the following request for an executive session:
ES-486 Pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), and Kaua'i County Charter section 3.07(E), the purpose of this executive session is to provide Council with a briefing and request for authority to settle claim filed against the County by Garden Isle Disposal on February 23, 2011, and related matters.
So let's get this straight Dickie. Your sponsor- whose payments provide your livelihood in an amount set by you- is suing the county and you see nothing wrong with voting on whether to settle a suit that they've filed with the county.
We're not quite sure what the claim is about but it may well be connected to GID's biggest- perhaps only- involvement with the county, the contract for the Kaua`i Recycles program.
Chang's action in acknowledging the marathon conflict has apparently opened a door that he wishes would have remained closed. The question though is where are the other councilmembers?
You'd think that one of them would have said something- either to Chang privately or, if that failed, by bringing it up when the agenda item is called. That of course is in lieu of introducing some effectuating legislation giving teeth to the charter provision passed over two years ago.
Yeah right- that's gonna happen. In a town where businesses - both for and not for profit- are as corruptly intertwined and insularly governed as this one, any urge to rock the gravy boat is stifled by the incredible mess it would make on the council's dinner table.
Showing posts with label conflict of interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflict of interest. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
SLIPPIN' ON THE SLIME
SLIPPIN' ON THE SLIME: Someone who we thought would know better called to ask why new state rep Derek Kawakami didn't have to recuse himself from voting on the "plastic grocery bag fee" bill currently still alive at the legislature, as he did as a county council member with our plastic bag "ban."
There were two reason why that struck us as strange- the first being that the person didn't know that state legislators don't even have to declare conflicts-of-interest much less refrain from participating or voting on the matter, the second that, unlike many, they did know that Kaua`i voters changed our county charter to state that councilmembers with a conflict "in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter."
The only problem with the provision is that the charter does not make clear who decides whether a conflict exists and so evidently leaves it up to the conflicted member to declare they have one. All the charter says is that "(t)he mayor, the council and the board of ethics shall be responsible for the enforcement of provisions of this article."
So when we saw Bill 2404 on the council's April 6 agenda which would give a $150,000 grant to this year's Kaua`i marathon, we could not believe that not only didn't Councilmember Dickie Chang recuse himself but he actually introduced the bill and it will be heard in his Economic Development Committee.
Chang, of course, hosts the local "Wala`au" television program which has gotten hours of "content" from the past two marathons- content which is the lifeblood for any television program as it generates the advertising revenue that Chang depends on for his living.
While the bill is in trouble already with Councilmember Mel Rapozo voting a rare "no" on the first reading of the bill and others expressing doubts they would vote to give money to the marathon again this year, the fact that there is a direct financial benefit to Chang from the marathon makes his failure to declare his conflict of interest unconscionable.
The charter also says that "(a)ny violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office."
The real solution to the whole conflict of interest problem is to make the office of councilmember a full time job and eliminate outside employment. That would of course necessitate raising the salary for the position to a level equitable with that of the mayor or department heads- about double what it is now.
But those who object to the extra approximately $350,000 a year that would take would do well to note that this not-at-all-unique expenditure is 3/7ths of that in one fell swoop and, when combined with other expenditures of a similar ilk, demonstrate that we're paying way more that 350Gs on the "back end."
Those wishing to testify on Bill 2404 can send their mana`o to counciltestimony@kauai.gov .
There were two reason why that struck us as strange- the first being that the person didn't know that state legislators don't even have to declare conflicts-of-interest much less refrain from participating or voting on the matter, the second that, unlike many, they did know that Kaua`i voters changed our county charter to state that councilmembers with a conflict "in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter."
The only problem with the provision is that the charter does not make clear who decides whether a conflict exists and so evidently leaves it up to the conflicted member to declare they have one. All the charter says is that "(t)he mayor, the council and the board of ethics shall be responsible for the enforcement of provisions of this article."
So when we saw Bill 2404 on the council's April 6 agenda which would give a $150,000 grant to this year's Kaua`i marathon, we could not believe that not only didn't Councilmember Dickie Chang recuse himself but he actually introduced the bill and it will be heard in his Economic Development Committee.
Chang, of course, hosts the local "Wala`au" television program which has gotten hours of "content" from the past two marathons- content which is the lifeblood for any television program as it generates the advertising revenue that Chang depends on for his living.
While the bill is in trouble already with Councilmember Mel Rapozo voting a rare "no" on the first reading of the bill and others expressing doubts they would vote to give money to the marathon again this year, the fact that there is a direct financial benefit to Chang from the marathon makes his failure to declare his conflict of interest unconscionable.
The charter also says that "(a)ny violation of any of the provisions of this section shall constitute cause for fine, suspension or removal from office."
The real solution to the whole conflict of interest problem is to make the office of councilmember a full time job and eliminate outside employment. That would of course necessitate raising the salary for the position to a level equitable with that of the mayor or department heads- about double what it is now.
But those who object to the extra approximately $350,000 a year that would take would do well to note that this not-at-all-unique expenditure is 3/7ths of that in one fell swoop and, when combined with other expenditures of a similar ilk, demonstrate that we're paying way more that 350Gs on the "back end."
Those wishing to testify on Bill 2404 can send their mana`o to counciltestimony@kauai.gov .
Monday, April 4, 2011
MORE MONKEYS, LESS WEASELS
MORE MONKEYS, LESS WEASELS: As we first reported last Monday the magical "Recusalgate" transformation of one Foster Ducker from selector to candidate for the vacated 14th District State House Seat vacated by Mina Morita, finally got the Leo Azumbuja treatment Sunday in the local newspaper, providing a series of the usual half-assed factoids (Factoid: Did you know that a factoid is not really a fact?), unresearched pronouncements and irrelevant quotes and citations.
But one quote did catch our eye describing the prestidigitation involved in Ducker's metamorphosis:
“It came a little bit out of the left field for me,” he said. “I was sitting in the selection committee and all of a sudden I was sitting in front of the selection committee.”
Yup, he was just sitting there minding his own business and, as if in a dream, "all of a sudden" he replaced Morita's choice for replacement, Joel Guy who has been the presumed replacement.
That of course made room for the golden boy Derek Kawakami to follow his ancestral destiny. Gee, why would anyone claim that the the whole process has the smell of a backroom deal?
The problem is that when it comes to conflicts of interest it becomes hard to see the forest for your own personal tree.
For the Democratic Party it looked like a matter of their rules for recusals, according to Azumbuja's mish-mosh which quoted our friend District 14 Democratic Party Chair, Susan Wilson, as saying:
“Do you know what the rule is on the council?” she said. “The rule on the council is you just say, ‘Gosh I have a conflict of interest,’ and then you’re allowed to vote on it.”
Of course Wilson- and Azumbuja- obviously missed the 2008 County Charter amendment which modified the Code of Ethics' Section 20.04D, Disclosure, to say, in relevant part
Any elected official, appointed officer, employee, or any member of a board or commission who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority... shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.
So, we decided to drop Wilson an email setting the record straight.
But Wilson was more interested in setting the record straight on the reason why Ducker was permitted to run and vote despite the conflict of interest, since, as is the usual complaint about Azumbuja, she was haphazardly quoted.
We agreed to let Wilson have her say so here's what she wrote- in full- about the situation. See ya on the other side.
State of Hawaii Democratic Party Constitution does not require recusal, but I think at its next state convention the issue could be worth discussion again. Right away, in mid February, I posed the recusal question to the Democratic Party Central committee. An answer came back from a central committee member. In essence it was, with so few registered democratic voters coming forward to hold precinct offices all over the state it was advised precedent has been inclusion rather than the opposite. In the specifics of District 14, I welcomed that answer as I needed full district council member participation on all levels of what I hoped would be a serious process. For example there is only one precinct officer in one of district 14's biggest precincts. If he would have decided to be a candidate and recusal was required about 400 or so registered democrats in his precinct would have had no vote at the table. Likewise, at one point two district council members were considering throwing their names in the pot. Again, I looked to the Party's core value and was comfortable with precedent. All council members were in accordance, and we are a council of eight. I then took it a step further and set up a very fair leveling voting procedure. What came out of this process was a standard of civic involvement worthy of emulation. And, yes, Foster Ducker participated in the voting. And, yes, he did become one of the three names forwarded on to the governor as one of District14 Council choices for the governor to consider for appointment. Our council did not have the power of appointment. And, yes, one candidate who seemingly had considerable headwind coming in was not chosen to move forward. I have no idea who voted for who. It was a secret ballot. Three clear winners were chosen on the first ballot. And, yes, a candidate who supposedly was favored by our former Representative to take over her unfilled position, even before the process had started, did not move forward. I'd say what happened was anything but politics as usual. It was democracy in action. And, finally, grace in defeat, is a sign of maturity and leadership.
It's not like Wilson would be the first to miss what the problematic part is in your typical "conflict of interest." Certainly some of the recent appointments of Governor Neil Abercrombie have raised eyebrows when big contributors and campaign leaders received nods for various positions. And when it comes to the champion of cronyism, our own warbling Warrior, Mayor Bernard Carvalho, few can hold a candle to his penchant for promoting his pals.
What they all seem to miss is that any conflict of interest is anathema to good governance way before it ever leads to corruption.
It's the very potential for that "tit for tat" and "quid pro quo" that raises the hackles of voters leaving the perception of the opportunity for wrongdoing to appear to be the reality of illicit dealings.
The potential conflict of interest is an actual conflict of interest. Appointees should not come prepackaged with baggage that causes people to roll their eyes and shake their heads back and forth. Rather they should be like Caesar's wife... beyond reproach.
The message from the good governance community is that if your laws- or rules- allow conflicts of interest to be, not just the exception but, the norm perhaps it's time to change that rule.
But one quote did catch our eye describing the prestidigitation involved in Ducker's metamorphosis:
“It came a little bit out of the left field for me,” he said. “I was sitting in the selection committee and all of a sudden I was sitting in front of the selection committee.”
Yup, he was just sitting there minding his own business and, as if in a dream, "all of a sudden" he replaced Morita's choice for replacement, Joel Guy who has been the presumed replacement.
That of course made room for the golden boy Derek Kawakami to follow his ancestral destiny. Gee, why would anyone claim that the the whole process has the smell of a backroom deal?
The problem is that when it comes to conflicts of interest it becomes hard to see the forest for your own personal tree.
For the Democratic Party it looked like a matter of their rules for recusals, according to Azumbuja's mish-mosh which quoted our friend District 14 Democratic Party Chair, Susan Wilson, as saying:
“Do you know what the rule is on the council?” she said. “The rule on the council is you just say, ‘Gosh I have a conflict of interest,’ and then you’re allowed to vote on it.”
Of course Wilson- and Azumbuja- obviously missed the 2008 County Charter amendment which modified the Code of Ethics' Section 20.04D, Disclosure, to say, in relevant part
Any elected official, appointed officer, employee, or any member of a board or commission who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority... shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.
So, we decided to drop Wilson an email setting the record straight.
But Wilson was more interested in setting the record straight on the reason why Ducker was permitted to run and vote despite the conflict of interest, since, as is the usual complaint about Azumbuja, she was haphazardly quoted.
We agreed to let Wilson have her say so here's what she wrote- in full- about the situation. See ya on the other side.
State of Hawaii Democratic Party Constitution does not require recusal, but I think at its next state convention the issue could be worth discussion again. Right away, in mid February, I posed the recusal question to the Democratic Party Central committee. An answer came back from a central committee member. In essence it was, with so few registered democratic voters coming forward to hold precinct offices all over the state it was advised precedent has been inclusion rather than the opposite. In the specifics of District 14, I welcomed that answer as I needed full district council member participation on all levels of what I hoped would be a serious process. For example there is only one precinct officer in one of district 14's biggest precincts. If he would have decided to be a candidate and recusal was required about 400 or so registered democrats in his precinct would have had no vote at the table. Likewise, at one point two district council members were considering throwing their names in the pot. Again, I looked to the Party's core value and was comfortable with precedent. All council members were in accordance, and we are a council of eight. I then took it a step further and set up a very fair leveling voting procedure. What came out of this process was a standard of civic involvement worthy of emulation. And, yes, Foster Ducker participated in the voting. And, yes, he did become one of the three names forwarded on to the governor as one of District14 Council choices for the governor to consider for appointment. Our council did not have the power of appointment. And, yes, one candidate who seemingly had considerable headwind coming in was not chosen to move forward. I have no idea who voted for who. It was a secret ballot. Three clear winners were chosen on the first ballot. And, yes, a candidate who supposedly was favored by our former Representative to take over her unfilled position, even before the process had started, did not move forward. I'd say what happened was anything but politics as usual. It was democracy in action. And, finally, grace in defeat, is a sign of maturity and leadership.
It's not like Wilson would be the first to miss what the problematic part is in your typical "conflict of interest." Certainly some of the recent appointments of Governor Neil Abercrombie have raised eyebrows when big contributors and campaign leaders received nods for various positions. And when it comes to the champion of cronyism, our own warbling Warrior, Mayor Bernard Carvalho, few can hold a candle to his penchant for promoting his pals.
What they all seem to miss is that any conflict of interest is anathema to good governance way before it ever leads to corruption.
It's the very potential for that "tit for tat" and "quid pro quo" that raises the hackles of voters leaving the perception of the opportunity for wrongdoing to appear to be the reality of illicit dealings.
The potential conflict of interest is an actual conflict of interest. Appointees should not come prepackaged with baggage that causes people to roll their eyes and shake their heads back and forth. Rather they should be like Caesar's wife... beyond reproach.
The message from the good governance community is that if your laws- or rules- allow conflicts of interest to be, not just the exception but, the norm perhaps it's time to change that rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
