LASSIE’S LAMENT: Has anyone wondered what the deal is after seeing the listing as it appears on the ballot for council candidate Dickie Chang.
In parentheses it lists his business’ name, Wala`au, after his name- a blatant violation of Hawai`i law and administrative rules.
HRS: §12-3 states specifically
Nomination paper; format; limitations. (a) No candidate's name shall be printed upon any official ballot to be used at any primary, special primary or special election unless a nomination paper was filed in the candidate's behalf and in the name by which the candidate is commonly known.(emphasis added)
The nomination paper shall be in a form prescribed and provided by the chief election officer containing substantially the following information:
(4) The legal name of the candidate, the name by which the candidate is commonly known, if different, the office for which the candidate is running, and the candidate's party affiliation or nonpartisanship; all of which are to be placed on the nomination paper by the chief election officer or the clerk prior to releasing the form to the candidate.
Is there someone who actually calls our good friend Dickie Wala`au? If not, it is illegal to have included it on the ballot.
And if there’s any doubt, Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR) §2-52-4 make it clear by saying
Nomination papers; candidate name on ballot.
(a) A candidate's name, including the Hawaiian or English equivalent or nickname, shall be limited to twenty-seven characters; provided that the twenty-seven characters shall include punctuation and blank spaces, and shall be set on one line.
(b) The name of the candidate appearing on the ballot may be the candidate's legal name or the name by which the candidate is most commonly known. 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. .(emphasis added)
(e) Slogans shall not be printed on the ballot.
Not only doesn’t anyone call Dickie “Wala`au”- the name of his television program- it certainly is not the name by which he is most commonly known throughout the island.
Dickie may be the nicest guy you would want to meet but not only is he out of step with his pro-uncontrolled-growth “never met a tourism business or hotel he didn’t like” positions but he obviously has little regard for the law either when it comes to shameless promotion- something at which few haven’t cringed in the past
Swearing a false affidavit is a crime in Hawai`i.
-----------------
QUESTIONS FOR QUEENIE: Ask Fido:When we reported twice how Bernard Carvalho was apparently ducking a “forum” with his opponent JoAnn Yukimura last month it wasn’t as if there weren’t any other forums with the two.
The difference was that the one that was “cancelled” at the time was the one sponsored by the local newspaper The Garbage- er Garden Island.
Imagine our relief when we were able to report not only had it had been rescheduled, this time it was billed as an actual debate
At last- some professionally-developed, well-structured questions with specificity and follow-ups asked to provoke answers on the issues not just the “what are you going to do about” or “tell us your thoughts on” type of questions which generally do little but provoke the candidatures to give their standard pre-packaged stump speech.
But this being Kaua`i and the newspaper being the rag it is- staffed by a malahini editor and publisher and reporters similarly unfamiliar with Kaua`i history, culture and issues - we should have known better.
Perhaps the most inane nonsensical misinformed questions were asked of the candidates by Adam Harju, a mainland transplant who, along with his well meaning and skilled staff have no idea what they’re doing and obviously never prepared debate questions before, much less ones pertinent to Kaua`i voters.
The first one was a doozy, to the point where they had to be asked to repeat it because it was so long convoluted – not to mention presumptuous and baffling as to intent and content.
Even reading it now it’s no wonder the candidates didn’t bother trying to answer it. It asked
The Kauai County Charter has been described as lacking the depth for a strict interpretation of its intent. If the charter does in fact allow for flexibility in interpreting the powers bestowed upon the office of mayor, is that flexibility a good thing and how will you use that flexibility to carry out your duties?
What? Who described it that way? And what the heck does that first sentence even mean? What exactly does the phrase “strict interpretation of it’s intent”. Is intent interpretable?. By definition, no. And what “flexibility” does it have? Perhaps ambiguity is the word you were looking for Adam.
Certainly the Kaua`i charter is short on specific nuts and bolts but so are most constitutional documents- look at the US Constitution the national equivalent of our county charter.
Charters -and constitutions- rely on setting out the inviolable basics to be detailed by ordinances by the legislative body, the council and effectuated by the administrative branch- the mayor.
If anything the question shows a distinct lack of understanding of how government works. Didn’t the author ever take a civics class? Or was this just an attempt to sound smart?
But out of the frying pan into the fire. The rest of the questions were so broad it was basically just an invitation to tell us anything at all and some were downright hilarious attempts to do that.
The so called follow-up to the charter question was even more vacuous. He asked
“So what role does the charter play in the day-to-day functioning of the mayor's office?”
Day to day? Probably none since there are ordinances and administrative rules that are in place based on the Charter that are the real day to day concerns. And what is this- high school. Are they candidates or teachers?
Here some more fluffy softballs lobbed
What is your interpretation of supporting the local economy?
What specifically are you going to do to help the small businesses on Kauai?
What's the first issue you would tackle in office?
But these snoozers are nothing compared to the silliness of others such as
What does the Kauai County General Plan have to do with anything?
Well if you have to ask maybe you should read the General Plan and read the Charter, (which has a whole section that answers this question) something that obviously wasn’t done... along with first gaining an understanding of what “planning” is in the governance context since every community across the state and most throughout the county’s have a general development plan?
One of the screwiest was this
How do you determine where the state's fiscal responsibility ends and the county's begins?
Although there are some gray areas - such as some roads that were established as “government roads” before statehood- for the most part, due to the centralized structure that resulted from statehood for a territory with well established law, the state, through its constitution, laws and regulations pretty much determines what the state’s and counties’ responsibilities are. Anything unaddressed is delegated to the counties by default.
At this point it seems more like the Harju was asking the candidate to give him a class in civics and governance and explain the minutia Hawai`i laws and regulations
And on others it seemed as if Harju hadn’t read his own paper. He asked
Would you relocate the Salt Pond treatment facility from the old humane society buildings?
Guess what? That plan was ditched years ago. It made headlines statewide.
Though a facility is sorely needed and he could have asked what they were going to do to get one built- or better, in whose neighborhood they would put one- he asked about reviving the Hanapepe plans– another debacle of the Baptiste administration.
He obviously didn’t get the “news” that protests put the kibosh on putting troubled teens in the old dog pound and pollute the nearby ancient salt pans with sewage and run-off..
Actually the best questions came from the audience who seemed to have at least more of a handle on the real issues and even a better ability to pinpoint the questions to elicit specific answers. Questions like
What targets would you set to reduce our dependancy (sic) on oil imports and your specific actions to achieve those targets?
and, although strangely worded, this one
How are you handling NIMBY (not in my backyard) for locating a new landfill?
and especially this one
What is your plan of action for increasing sustainable commerce on Kauai. With tourism on the decline, Poipu destroyed, developers stopping construction, now laying people off, how will you turn this around so Kauai can withstand this declining economy?
While not perfect at least they go to the heart of the issues and amount to more than TGI’s “what pabulum have you come to spoon-feed us tonight?” queries.
This seemingly leaves unasked that one question we always seem to be asking of our county government, the business community and the press : “Can’t anyone here play this game?”
------
AUDIT THE AIREDALE: And to round out our charter amendment analyses there’s one to establish the long needed County Auditor.
The council has hemmed and hawed and threatened investigations of the administration for 15 years even appropriating money in an aborted effort to establish an auditor’s office under the council’s control.
This amendment will establish an office, supposedly independently, to perform management audits of the administrative departments and agencies. It is long overdue. Vote yes- twice if you can.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A SPANIEL ON THE JERKS
A SPANIEL ON THE JERKS: When John Lennon named his second book “A Spaniard in the Works” in the 60’s the joke was lost on many across the pond until the Money Wretch Gang was published a decade later.
It advocates the “use of sabotage to protest environmentally damaging activities” by using a spanner or monkey wrench against the fully corrupt organizational machinery of oppression genocide and fascism in general.
And it’s not a bad strategy for fighting those entrenched in government or even an organization when the people involved are so corrupted that reform is impossible.
And so we are proud to reverse our “no” position on the Citizens’ Charter Amendment to restrict growth to what is permitted by law.
As a matter of fact, we love it.
The Planning Department in the person of Ian Costa has refused to enforce the law called the General Plan so the people have devised a clever way to force them to do it through the same kind of intimidation and bullying that they have used to put a hotel on every shore and a vacation rental in every garage.
Under this proposed charter amendment, if the council doesn’t limit growth to the amount determined to be optimal under the General Plan, they would be required to basically create a whole new planning department under the authority of the council
Under the amendment any time someone wants a “zoning, use, subdivision or variance permit for more than one accommodation unit”- something the planning commission does now- the power to do so “shall be vested in and exercisable exclusively by (a 2/3 vote of) the council”..
This means that, after the council has already passed a law providing the zoning, they would have to also do all the minutia needed for issuing a “zoning permit”.
And they would need to do it separately from the planning department which does all the work now making sure the applicant meets the numerous and sometimes contentious “conditions” in the permit
According to the Charter the “administrative” branch of the county government under the mayor is fully independent from the legislative branch so the planning department doesn’t work for and isn’t answerable to the council.
But wait- the amendment provides a way out of this absurd dilemma that could cripple the county and cost many millions of dollars.
All they have to do is pass a law to require the planning department and commission to abide by a
“rate of growth ordinance that limits the rate of increase in the number of transient accommodation units in the county to no greater than one-and-one-half percent (1.5%) per annum on a multi-year average basis, or such growth rate that is within the planning growth range of a future general plan”.
We used to object to the fact that this should be done though an “initiative”- a citizen petition to change the law at the ballot box- not by amending the Charter which is a constitution-like document for the county, informing and broadly proscribing the actual laws the council considers.
And if the council doesn’t “cooperate” and “take the easy way out” it would be a crisis of epic proporions.
“Ya got a nice county here councilor- lotsa boids, twees, watahfalls ...families. It’d be a shame to see anythin' happen to ‘em. And all ya gotta do is pass this law that youz and ya people says ya wants anyway”.
It’s simple extortion. And as much as we try to advance good governance and support good systems when bad people take them over- so as not to throw out the pot with the bongwater- sometimes the monkey wrench philosophy is more than appropriate- it’s crucial, vital and indispensable..
Though a law would have been much more appropriate if the goal was ultimately to pass a law- even in a Rube Goldberg way- perhaps it’s appropriate that we do it this way, especially since we’d have to wait two years toget the law on the ballot.
Stick it to the man. Vote yes on the people’s charter amendment.
And keep you spanner handy. With all but one of the current crop of council and mayoral probables it may come in handy to at least twist their, ah, ear lobes for the next two years.
It advocates the “use of sabotage to protest environmentally damaging activities” by using a spanner or monkey wrench against the fully corrupt organizational machinery of oppression genocide and fascism in general.
And it’s not a bad strategy for fighting those entrenched in government or even an organization when the people involved are so corrupted that reform is impossible.
And so we are proud to reverse our “no” position on the Citizens’ Charter Amendment to restrict growth to what is permitted by law.
As a matter of fact, we love it.
The Planning Department in the person of Ian Costa has refused to enforce the law called the General Plan so the people have devised a clever way to force them to do it through the same kind of intimidation and bullying that they have used to put a hotel on every shore and a vacation rental in every garage.
Under this proposed charter amendment, if the council doesn’t limit growth to the amount determined to be optimal under the General Plan, they would be required to basically create a whole new planning department under the authority of the council
Under the amendment any time someone wants a “zoning, use, subdivision or variance permit for more than one accommodation unit”- something the planning commission does now- the power to do so “shall be vested in and exercisable exclusively by (a 2/3 vote of) the council”..
This means that, after the council has already passed a law providing the zoning, they would have to also do all the minutia needed for issuing a “zoning permit”.
And they would need to do it separately from the planning department which does all the work now making sure the applicant meets the numerous and sometimes contentious “conditions” in the permit
According to the Charter the “administrative” branch of the county government under the mayor is fully independent from the legislative branch so the planning department doesn’t work for and isn’t answerable to the council.
But wait- the amendment provides a way out of this absurd dilemma that could cripple the county and cost many millions of dollars.
All they have to do is pass a law to require the planning department and commission to abide by a
“rate of growth ordinance that limits the rate of increase in the number of transient accommodation units in the county to no greater than one-and-one-half percent (1.5%) per annum on a multi-year average basis, or such growth rate that is within the planning growth range of a future general plan”.
We used to object to the fact that this should be done though an “initiative”- a citizen petition to change the law at the ballot box- not by amending the Charter which is a constitution-like document for the county, informing and broadly proscribing the actual laws the council considers.
And if the council doesn’t “cooperate” and “take the easy way out” it would be a crisis of epic proporions.
“Ya got a nice county here councilor- lotsa boids, twees, watahfalls ...families. It’d be a shame to see anythin' happen to ‘em. And all ya gotta do is pass this law that youz and ya people says ya wants anyway”.
It’s simple extortion. And as much as we try to advance good governance and support good systems when bad people take them over- so as not to throw out the pot with the bongwater- sometimes the monkey wrench philosophy is more than appropriate- it’s crucial, vital and indispensable..
Though a law would have been much more appropriate if the goal was ultimately to pass a law- even in a Rube Goldberg way- perhaps it’s appropriate that we do it this way, especially since we’d have to wait two years toget the law on the ballot.
Stick it to the man. Vote yes on the people’s charter amendment.
And keep you spanner handy. With all but one of the current crop of council and mayoral probables it may come in handy to at least twist their, ah, ear lobes for the next two years.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A SWIFT KICK IN THE CANINES
A SWIFT KICK IN THE CANINES: There’s another little turd of trickery for Kaua`i to swallow on this November’s ballot, this one courtesy of the ethically challenged county council and designed to blow a gaping hole in our conflict-of-interest laws.
Kaua`i always had a toothless tiger of a conflict law in our charter in Section 20.04.. Though it required “(a)ny elected official, appointed officer, employee, or any member of a board or commission” to declare conflicts of interest, once they declared them, the member of a board could deliberate and vote on the matter.
This led to beaucoup scandals- some going back to the pre-statehood days involving literally hundreds of self-serving votes. The charter allowed the crook involved to claim “I did noting wrong- I broke no laws” when they approved their own legislation to benefit themselves, their families, their businesses or organizations.
Two years ago the people gave the law, not just dentures but tooth implants by forcing the conflicted members to recuse themselves from deliberating and voting upon those matters.
The council though has been in a tizzy since then in trying to not to meet the terms after years of personal and professional enrichment, even getting one of those secret county attorney opinions on how to avoid complying with the new law.
And now after finding out they couldn’t get around it- and knew they couldn’t reverse the new dentition in an open and forthright way- they’re trying to restrict the actual definition of a conflict out of existence
The council has decided the rules are too strict and seeks to weaken them but, as was done with the executive session proposal we discussed Monday, they have made it appear they are actually strengthening the law.
The question you’ll see on the ballot says:
.
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 or an organization in which they occupy a leadership position has a direct financial interest?
That actually is a pretty good description of what the current law does. But what is actually being changed- and is hidden from the voting pubic- is the definitions of “immediate family” and “leadership”.
The current Charter provisions says
Any elected or appointed officer or employee who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority shall make a full disclosure to his appointing authority, to the council, in the case of a member of the council, or to the board or commission on which he serves at any time such conflict becomes apparent.
Any member of the council or any board or commission who knows he or any member of his immediate family has direct financial interest, or that he or any member of his immediate family occupies a position of leadership in an organization which has a direct or no financial interest in any proposal pending before the body of which he is a member shall disclose such interest to such body.
But the proposed wording deletes that and substitutes this:
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, or who is an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization, or whose member of his immediate family, which includes parents, siblings, spouse or children, is an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.
The current law is broad so as to cover all circumstances of conflict and already includes members of the subject’s “immediate family”
But the new law would limit the definition of “immediate family” to “parents, siblings, spouse or children” only- no grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles or even in-laws or those who are hanai (raised by but not necessarily legally adopted), who are many times defined as part of immediate families, especially on Kaua`i and in Hawai`i
And the words “leadership of an organization” are actually in the current law as to the applicability of what relationships and connection constitute a conflict.
The new law restricts that to “an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization”. only.
Glaringly missing is the word “employee”
This actually means that if you work for someone about to get money from the council you can still vote and now you don’t even have to declare a conflict of interest, even if the grant directly pays your salary.
And the same apparently goes for the conflicts of your in-laws and your beloved tutu. And, if you’re not legally married it apparently excludes your “significant other”
This sneaky little diminution of applicability may be directly as a result of a scandal, reported here earlier this year, where Councilman Mel Rapozo’s business was awarded a county contract to serve outstanding warrants..
Rapozo actually voted to appropriate the money for the contract. It was a “bid” contract and since he was the only bidder, everyone was “shocked, shocked” he got the gig.
But although the fact that he bid on the contract was certainly a disincentive for anyone to bid against him, the ethically challenged Kaua`i Ethics Board, some of whose shenanigans we recapped on Monday, cleared him of charges of a conflict of interest.
This proposal would allow them to not just give money to their businesses but their pet organizations if they avoid the owner/director designation. If the amendment passes, a person who raises money for, let’s say, the Chamber of Commerce or a trade organization who is not one of the forbidden could appropriate money or designate grants to themselves.
And if the organization designates their top paid managerial post as a “general manager” or some other label like “chief cook and bottle washer”- in fact any title that is not “executive director”- they aren’t apparently included either.
It also does not include past officers/directors, allowing a councilperson to step down from their conflicted interest for a month or so while a bill winds it way through the council only to return to the organization when the bill passes.
And again the wording of the question is deceptive- just like the amendment that would actually allow the council to have more secret meetings while trying to make it seem like they will “conform with” the state Sunshine Law.
Instead of specifying the new looser restriction it actually depicts the current law in a deceptive and in fact fraudulent attempt to trick people into voting for it.
Anyone reading this conflict-of interest amendment on the ballot- or even some trying to read the convoluted MEGO (my eyes glaze over) explanation and pros and cons that were drawn up by the council and their employee, the County Clerk, would think a yes vote would mean strengthening the conflict of interest provisions, not watering them down as it actually does.
It took many citizens many years- and it took a “people’s” Charter Commission in ’06 as opposed to the current crony-stacked crop- to finally put the teeth into the county’s conflict of interest law.
Don’t let this sucker punch by the council knock most of them out. Vote no. As a famous fool said, “fool me twice, well you don’t get fooled again.”.
Kaua`i always had a toothless tiger of a conflict law in our charter in Section 20.04.. Though it required “(a)ny elected official, appointed officer, employee, or any member of a board or commission” to declare conflicts of interest, once they declared them, the member of a board could deliberate and vote on the matter.
This led to beaucoup scandals- some going back to the pre-statehood days involving literally hundreds of self-serving votes. The charter allowed the crook involved to claim “I did noting wrong- I broke no laws” when they approved their own legislation to benefit themselves, their families, their businesses or organizations.
Two years ago the people gave the law, not just dentures but tooth implants by forcing the conflicted members to recuse themselves from deliberating and voting upon those matters.
The council though has been in a tizzy since then in trying to not to meet the terms after years of personal and professional enrichment, even getting one of those secret county attorney opinions on how to avoid complying with the new law.
And now after finding out they couldn’t get around it- and knew they couldn’t reverse the new dentition in an open and forthright way- they’re trying to restrict the actual definition of a conflict out of existence
The council has decided the rules are too strict and seeks to weaken them but, as was done with the executive session proposal we discussed Monday, they have made it appear they are actually strengthening the law.
The question you’ll see on the ballot says:
.
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 or an organization in which they occupy a leadership position has a direct financial interest?
That actually is a pretty good description of what the current law does. But what is actually being changed- and is hidden from the voting pubic- is the definitions of “immediate family” and “leadership”.
The current Charter provisions says
Any elected or appointed officer or employee who possesses or acquires such interest as might reasonably tend to create a conflict with his duties or authority shall make a full disclosure to his appointing authority, to the council, in the case of a member of the council, or to the board or commission on which he serves at any time such conflict becomes apparent.
Any member of the council or any board or commission who knows he or any member of his immediate family has direct financial interest, or that he or any member of his immediate family occupies a position of leadership in an organization which has a direct or no financial interest in any proposal pending before the body of which he is a member shall disclose such interest to such body.
But the proposed wording deletes that and substitutes this:
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, or who is an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization, or whose member of his immediate family, which includes parents, siblings, spouse or children, is an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization in any matter pending before him shall make full disclosure of the conflict of interest and shall not participate in said matter.
The current law is broad so as to cover all circumstances of conflict and already includes members of the subject’s “immediate family”
But the new law would limit the definition of “immediate family” to “parents, siblings, spouse or children” only- no grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles or even in-laws or those who are hanai (raised by but not necessarily legally adopted), who are many times defined as part of immediate families, especially on Kaua`i and in Hawai`i
And the words “leadership of an organization” are actually in the current law as to the applicability of what relationships and connection constitute a conflict.
The new law restricts that to “an owner, officer, executive director or director of an organization”. only.
Glaringly missing is the word “employee”
This actually means that if you work for someone about to get money from the council you can still vote and now you don’t even have to declare a conflict of interest, even if the grant directly pays your salary.
And the same apparently goes for the conflicts of your in-laws and your beloved tutu. And, if you’re not legally married it apparently excludes your “significant other”
This sneaky little diminution of applicability may be directly as a result of a scandal, reported here earlier this year, where Councilman Mel Rapozo’s business was awarded a county contract to serve outstanding warrants..
Rapozo actually voted to appropriate the money for the contract. It was a “bid” contract and since he was the only bidder, everyone was “shocked, shocked” he got the gig.
But although the fact that he bid on the contract was certainly a disincentive for anyone to bid against him, the ethically challenged Kaua`i Ethics Board, some of whose shenanigans we recapped on Monday, cleared him of charges of a conflict of interest.
This proposal would allow them to not just give money to their businesses but their pet organizations if they avoid the owner/director designation. If the amendment passes, a person who raises money for, let’s say, the Chamber of Commerce or a trade organization who is not one of the forbidden could appropriate money or designate grants to themselves.
And if the organization designates their top paid managerial post as a “general manager” or some other label like “chief cook and bottle washer”- in fact any title that is not “executive director”- they aren’t apparently included either.
It also does not include past officers/directors, allowing a councilperson to step down from their conflicted interest for a month or so while a bill winds it way through the council only to return to the organization when the bill passes.
And again the wording of the question is deceptive- just like the amendment that would actually allow the council to have more secret meetings while trying to make it seem like they will “conform with” the state Sunshine Law.
Instead of specifying the new looser restriction it actually depicts the current law in a deceptive and in fact fraudulent attempt to trick people into voting for it.
Anyone reading this conflict-of interest amendment on the ballot- or even some trying to read the convoluted MEGO (my eyes glaze over) explanation and pros and cons that were drawn up by the council and their employee, the County Clerk, would think a yes vote would mean strengthening the conflict of interest provisions, not watering them down as it actually does.
It took many citizens many years- and it took a “people’s” Charter Commission in ’06 as opposed to the current crony-stacked crop- to finally put the teeth into the county’s conflict of interest law.
Don’t let this sucker punch by the council knock most of them out. Vote no. As a famous fool said, “fool me twice, well you don’t get fooled again.”.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
HOW MUCH IS THAT CRONY IN THE WINDOW?- REDUX
HOW MUCH IS THAT CRONY IN THE WINDOW?- REDUX : After yesterday’s analysis of the ridiculous attempt to trick voters into allowing the county council to change the law and exclude the public from public meetings you would think nothing could top that for Minotaur, “do what’s wrong as long as he can”, depravity.
But if so, you wouldn’t have read another doozy- one that would remove standard ethics restrictions for those serving on local boards and commissions.
At least the question on this one is pretty straight forward it asks
Should the Kauai County Charter be amended to expressly permit county board and commission members to appear on behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency except the board or commission on which they serve?
We detailed the story at least one two three four five six times going back to February about how the Ethics Board and its Chair Mark Hubbard refused to enforce the county charter provision that says “no officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency.”
But since Hubbard does this all the time as a vice president of the huge, land-rich Grove Farm Corporation he decided that the law was “absurd” and refused to enforce it against attorney Jonathan Chun.
The Ethics Board cleared Chun of charges that he quite obviously violated the ethics provision by appearing before the county council representing the Board of Realtors during the recent approval of an ordinance regarding vacation rental while at the time serving as chair of a county commission.
And what commission would that be? Why the Charter Commission who put this piece of garbage on the ballot.
So let’s get this straight- Hubbard’s Ethics Board clears Chun for some ungodly reason and then Chun turns around and tries to get the voters to remove the ethics law and allow himself, Hubbard and others to lobby the people who appointed them..
You can read some of Hubbard’s convoluted reasoning in refusing to enforce the ethics laws in some our past articles and by following the links there to some local newspaper accounts, especially How much is that crony in the window? and On the gravy train:
They also describe why this kind of ubiquitous ethics provision is standard stuff everywhere else but here on ethically-challenged Kaua`i.
And while you’re at it you can follow some of Hubbard’s and his cronies’ corruption-laced connections in Ah, The Smell Of Plantation Lunas in The Morning
And then vote no and send a message that these corporate crooks can’t use their revolving door positions to screw us considerably more than they can now.
----------
The next Charter amendment we’ll look at today is an interesting one..
It asks
Should the Kauai County Charter be amended to require that the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election for the office of the mayor and prosecuting attorney, regardless of whether a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast at the primary election, run in the general election?
On the surface the “50% plus 1 run-off” system Kaua`i has now seems to be a fair and democratic enough way to determine the winner if we are going to use a “two separate run-off elections” system to begin with
Actually the best of all systems is “Instant Runoff Voting” where you vote only once, rank all the opponents and the lowest vote getters are eliminated round by round and their second, third, fourth (and so on).choice is counted until someone gets 50%. It’s used all over the country and is gaining popularity all the time.
But pols locally are generally living in the mid-20th century when it comes to elections so we have to settle for a 50 some-odd year old “innovation”- the non-partisan, two-round runoff with the two top vote getting candidates in September’s “primary” going on to November.
Under the current law if a candidate gets “50% plus one” votes in the primary the election is complete, as happened by two votes when Bryan Baptiste won the mayor’s race in September of 2006.
The problem is that statistics show that voter turnout in these primaries is dismally lower than- often not even half- the turnout in November . Here in Hawai`i the top of the ticket in November is always either a presidential or gubernatorial election- along with legislative races- which draw many more people to the polls.
This change would make it so that no matter how many votes they get in the primaries the “top two” would go on to the November election.
Although theoretically it shouldn’t matter, in realty it does. And the argument that having only one election would “save money” doesn’t hold water since it doesn’t eliminate an entire election it just eliminates one race from a ballot that is being printed anyway, containing partisan state and national races
If you agree that the elections gain legitimacy when more people are voting, this one is a no-brainer “yes” and “top two” is a change for the better.
But if so, you wouldn’t have read another doozy- one that would remove standard ethics restrictions for those serving on local boards and commissions.
At least the question on this one is pretty straight forward it asks
Should the Kauai County Charter be amended to expressly permit county board and commission members to appear on behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency except the board or commission on which they serve?
We detailed the story at least one two three four five six times going back to February about how the Ethics Board and its Chair Mark Hubbard refused to enforce the county charter provision that says “no officer or employee of the county shall appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency.”
But since Hubbard does this all the time as a vice president of the huge, land-rich Grove Farm Corporation he decided that the law was “absurd” and refused to enforce it against attorney Jonathan Chun.
The Ethics Board cleared Chun of charges that he quite obviously violated the ethics provision by appearing before the county council representing the Board of Realtors during the recent approval of an ordinance regarding vacation rental while at the time serving as chair of a county commission.
And what commission would that be? Why the Charter Commission who put this piece of garbage on the ballot.
So let’s get this straight- Hubbard’s Ethics Board clears Chun for some ungodly reason and then Chun turns around and tries to get the voters to remove the ethics law and allow himself, Hubbard and others to lobby the people who appointed them..
You can read some of Hubbard’s convoluted reasoning in refusing to enforce the ethics laws in some our past articles and by following the links there to some local newspaper accounts, especially How much is that crony in the window? and On the gravy train:
They also describe why this kind of ubiquitous ethics provision is standard stuff everywhere else but here on ethically-challenged Kaua`i.
And while you’re at it you can follow some of Hubbard’s and his cronies’ corruption-laced connections in Ah, The Smell Of Plantation Lunas in The Morning
And then vote no and send a message that these corporate crooks can’t use their revolving door positions to screw us considerably more than they can now.
----------
The next Charter amendment we’ll look at today is an interesting one..
It asks
Should the Kauai County Charter be amended to require that the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election for the office of the mayor and prosecuting attorney, regardless of whether a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast at the primary election, run in the general election?
On the surface the “50% plus 1 run-off” system Kaua`i has now seems to be a fair and democratic enough way to determine the winner if we are going to use a “two separate run-off elections” system to begin with
Actually the best of all systems is “Instant Runoff Voting” where you vote only once, rank all the opponents and the lowest vote getters are eliminated round by round and their second, third, fourth (and so on).choice is counted until someone gets 50%. It’s used all over the country and is gaining popularity all the time.
But pols locally are generally living in the mid-20th century when it comes to elections so we have to settle for a 50 some-odd year old “innovation”- the non-partisan, two-round runoff with the two top vote getting candidates in September’s “primary” going on to November.
Under the current law if a candidate gets “50% plus one” votes in the primary the election is complete, as happened by two votes when Bryan Baptiste won the mayor’s race in September of 2006.
The problem is that statistics show that voter turnout in these primaries is dismally lower than- often not even half- the turnout in November . Here in Hawai`i the top of the ticket in November is always either a presidential or gubernatorial election- along with legislative races- which draw many more people to the polls.
This change would make it so that no matter how many votes they get in the primaries the “top two” would go on to the November election.
Although theoretically it shouldn’t matter, in realty it does. And the argument that having only one election would “save money” doesn’t hold water since it doesn’t eliminate an entire election it just eliminates one race from a ballot that is being printed anyway, containing partisan state and national races
If you agree that the elections gain legitimacy when more people are voting, this one is a no-brainer “yes” and “top two” is a change for the better.
Monday, October 13, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
KPD Blue: Chapter 10 : George Freitas
(Our post yesterday about Chief Darryl Perry’s recent comments on whether he was the one who “got a raw deal” in long process of becoming KPD’s Chief provides the background- or perhaps foreground- of Chapter 10 of Sommer’s book.
It tells the story of former Chief George Freitas, graphically and accurately describing what faced both KC Lum and Chief and Police Commissioner Michael Ching when they were first appointed.)
KPD Blue
by Anthony Sommer
Chapter 10 : George Freitas
Mayor Maryanne Kusaka liked to portray herself as a kindly retired school teacher, which she certainly is, although many former students will dispute how kindly she was. For those not familiar with government in Hawaii, there is no city government, only county government. There are four counties: Hawaii, Maui, Oahu and Kauai.
All of the counties have a “strong mayor” system in which the mayor is the chief executive and runs the administrative branch of the government in a manner similar to the federal government and most state governments. The mayor has veto power and the Council may override the mayor’s vetoes.
In most jurisdictions of similar size on the mainland, there is a Council-Manager (or Weak Mayor) form of government in which a professional manager runs the administration and the mayor presides at council meetings and cuts ribbons. So, a mayor in Hawaii has considerably more power than most mainland mayors.
Another major difference is the Kauai County Charter. Most city charters on the mainland are the size of a metropolitan phone book and spell out in great detail the powers, duties and limitations of every official. Each procedure for each agency is outlined. The Charter is a “Government for Dummies” manual for city employees.
The Kauai County Charter is barely more than a pamphlet. The wording is purposely general and purposely vague. The County Attorney’s Office enjoys more than ample wiggle room to interpret it in a way guaranteed to please the incumbent mayor and County Council.
“I like a county charter without a lot of detail. The charter we have gives me a lot of flexibility,” said Bryan Baptiste (Kusaka’s protégé who replaced her as mayor).
It certainly does. Although a few holes in the charter were patched in the 2006 elections, the whole document is in need of a complete rewrite and major expansion.
Among the many vague sections of the Kauai County Charter is the part covering the removal of the police chief. It’s quite clear the chief is hired and fired by the Police Commission, which is appointed by the mayor.
In short, the mayor is not the police chief’s boss. The Police Commission is. And that is a galling fact to an insecure mayor (like both Kusaka and Baptiste) who insists on absolute control of all facets of government.
One of the many things unclear in the Kauai County Charter is a provision that states the police chief only can be removed “for cause.”
The Charter never defines the term “cause.”
Does “cause” mean commission of a felony? Commission of a misdemeanor? Giving his girlfriend a ride in his police car?
The Kauai Charter doesn’t say. The charters of all the other counties do.
The definition of “cause” is left entirely up to the county attorney, who is appointed by the mayor, and who, first and foremost, is a hired gun for the mayor.
The county attorney always says what the mayor does is legal, even if it’s not.
So, ultimately, the mayor decides.
This brings us to Kauai Police Chief George Freitas, the first police chief in the history of Kauai who was not born and raised on Kauai.
It is impossible to overstate how important it is in Kauai culture to be a native of the island. Anyone who comes from the outside is considered by locals to be taking a job that should have gone to a native Kauaian (even if no one from Kauai is qualified for the job).
Whether Freitas saw the trap he was walking into when he took the job is not clear. But, certainly, Freitas appeared on the scene as an outsider in the wrong time and the wrong place.
He was appointed by a lame duck Police Commission (the police commissioners’ terms in office are staggered and overlap the term of the mayor) in 1995, Kusaka’s first year in office. The majority of the Police Commission that hired Freitas had been appointed by Mayor JoAnn Yukimura, a liberal and reformer, who had been defeated for re-election in 1994.
(picture)
George Freitas, an Oahu native who had spent his entire police career in a California police department was hired by the Kauai Police Commision as KPD chief in the wake of a discrimination lawsuit against former Chief Cal Fujita. He never had the support of either the mayor or the Kauai County Council. Mayor Maryanne Kusaka attempted to force Freitas out but failed. Her protege, Mayor Bryan Baptiste finally forced Freitas to resign when the chief finally ran out of money to hire lawyers to fight the county.
George Freitas was hired by a lame duck Police Commission entirely different from the political culture Kusaka brought back to the mayor’s office.
Freitas was doomed to failure the first day he pinned on his KPD badge.
Freitas was an outsider who didn’t bow down to the mayor.
She hadn’t hired him, she couldn’t fire him. He didn’t work for her, and he didn’t much like her.
The loathing was mutual. She had no use for him. By the time her second (and last due to term limits) term began in 1999, there had been considerable grumbling among the locals in the KPD who comprised middle and upper management and who were not at all keen on being “modernized” by Freitas.
More important in Kusaka’s scheme to keep a tight rein on the KPD, the majority of police commissioners were now Kusaka appointees. Freitas’s bosses now were Kusaka’s cronies.
Freitas had been hired as a reform chief to reverse the racist hiring policies of previous chiefs.
Problem was, both Kusaka and the KPD old guard feared diversity. They weren’t anxious for change at all.
Freitas’ record, particularly regarding sexual discrimination, was less than spectacular, as pointed out in previous chapters.
What is interesting is that Kusaka did not go after Freitas on that issue, even though he was highly vulnerable.
Perhaps Kusaka didn’t recognize discrimination as an issue she could use to rid herself of her less-than-obedient police chief.
Freitas’ efforts in adding diversity to the KPD were impressive, especially since Kusaka had pretty much limited Freitas to recruiting only on Kauai.
By 1999, Freitas had recruited a considerable number of Filipinos and even a few white officers and a few women to the KPD. The monopoly of the Hawaiian and Japanese men on the force was beginning to erode.
The power struggle between the chief and at least some of his subordinate supervisors already was underway by the beginning of Kusaka’s second term.
Enter Lt. Alvin Seto and Inspector Mel Morris.
When the County Prosecutor’s Office refused to press charges on Seto’s claim that Freitas had “hindered prosecution” in the Nelson Gabriel case, Seto and his boss, Inspector Mel Morris, began shopping around for a more sympathetic ear.
In late July, 2001, they found an ally in Mayor Maryanne Kusaka. They handed Auntie Maryanne what she believed was the “cause” to get rid of her unwanted haole police chief. She took it straight to her handpicked gang of police commissioners.
It is instructive to note that, from that day forward, with only one exception, Kusaka used her “ex officio” status to attend all of the Police Commission meetings, something she never did before or would do afterward.
In a secret meeting on Aug. 10, the Kauai Police Commission—with Kusaka present—voted to place Freitas on involuntary leave with pay.
Freitas was off island that day. He didn’t have a chance to answer the charges. He never would.
Later, Freitas said he probably could have answered all of the Commission’s questions if he had been invited to their meeting.
But Kusaka had an ambush in mind.
This was going to be Kusaka’s most glorious moment in ethnically cleansing Kauai government of outsiders. Although it later was brought to her attention that the FBI is the agency with the jurisdiction to investigate state and local government corruption cases, Kusaka’s staff said she never considered that option.
Kusaka has no control over the FBI but the police commissioners all were her loyal and grateful appointees, as was the county attorney who was advising the commission.
A month after suspending Freitas, Kauai “borrowed” John Ko, an investigator, from the Honolulu Police Commission. At taxpayer expense, Ko for two months lived at one of Kauai’s most posh resorts, drove an unmarked Kauai police car and interviewed more than 150 KPD officers and civilian employees—pretty much the entire department.
Many of those interviewed said privately that the questions asked by Ko were mostly open-ended and not about specific incidents.
Clearly, Ko was looking for additional charges against Freitas. Just as clearly, he was on a very expensive (to Kauai taxpayers) fishing expedition. Judging from subsequent events, he never even got a nibble.
The county has refused numerous requests to release the files covering the cost to taxpayers of Ko’s stay on Kauai. As usual, the state’s news organizations would not pony up for a lawyer to try to pry what should have been public record out of Kauai. Challenging the government and fighting for open meetings and public records is not in the tradition of Hawaii journalism.
Ko produced a report that found nothing new, but he appended to it an enormous stack of interview transcripts that obviously had nothing incriminating in any of them.
Although it really was nothing more than a stage prop for the island-wide television audience, Ko’s gigantic but meaningless report sat on the conference table at every Police Commission meeting about Freitas.
It never was opened. No one ever quoted it. But its sheer mass was quite impressive and proof (or at least a hint) that there had been a thorough investigation, even if it found nothing.
Ko’s masterpiece also never has been made public despite repeated requests. Hawaii state public records law says the documents related to any investigation are public record once the case is concluded.
Even more amazing, the Police Commission refused to give Freitas a copy of Ko’s report or state in writing the charges against him. And that was a violation of the County Charter.
On Nov. 23, 2001, more than three months after he was suspended (a term Kusaka’s people repeatedly objected to—“placed on involuntary leave” was what they wanted to see in the newspapers), the Police Commission for the first time publicly unveiled the charges against Freitas and even voted to toss some of them out.
The most serious charge was the “hindering prosecution” complaint involving Gabriel, which in the end proved to be totally bogus.
A lot of jaws dropped in the room when the rest of the list was read aloud:
• That Freitas violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when he brought up a medical condition of an officer (Seto) during a private departmental meeting on officer assignments.
• That Freitas showed disrespect toward an officer (again, Seto) when he hung up on him during a telephone conversation.
• That Freitas improperly transported a civilian (his girlfriend and later wife Elizabeth Goynes, a retired California police officer) in his unmarked police car for non-police purposes on July 21, 2001.
• That Freitas and Goynes used the unmarked KPD car to house hunt on that date and that, while looking at houses, he parked illegally.
• That on Aug. 2, 2001, a few days after Seto and Morris had filed the complaint against Freitas but before he was suspended, Freitas allegedly had yelled at Morris during a private meeting in Freitas’ office, causing Morris to suffer a “nervous breakdown” that required him to take several days off of work.
• That in the same meeting, Freitas had violated Morris’s rights by ordering him to keep what they discussed in the meeting confidential.
That was it.
After two months of questioning everyone in the department, that was all Seto and Morris and John Ko and Maryanne Kusaka could come up with.
But, again, there is no definition of “cause” in the County Charter and Kusaka figured she had enough to convince the Police Commission to fire Freitas.
In the meanwhile, Freitas had hired Margery Bronster as his attorney.
During her tenure as Hawaii attorney general, Bronster had prosecuted members of the board of trustees of the Bishop Trust (the richest trust fund in the world, which was established to educate Native Hawaiians) for fraud. She ranks among Hawaii’s “superstar” lawyers.
One of the Kauai Police Commission (aided and abetted, of course, by the County Attorney’s Office) tactics was to refuse to announce when Freitas’ case was on its agenda for an executive session. State law requires the subject of executive sessions be clearly stated.
This agenda camouflage began to be applied after Freitas waived his right to privacy in Commission proceedings involving him. He wanted the public and press to witness the Commission at work.
But if his name didn’t appear on an agenda and no one knew if or when Freitas would be discussed, the public didn’t show up.
Reporters, Freitas and Bronster spent a lot of time together in the hallway outside the locked Commission door waiting.
“Is it always like this in Kauai government?” Bronster asked the first time the Commission pulled this stunt. “Every day,” a reporter told her.
Bronster immediately filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming Kauai County violated Freitas’ civil rights (and his rights clearly guaranteed in the County Charter) by suspending him without providing any written charges to him and by failing to conduct a hearing at which he could face his accusers, Seto and Morris.
In his lawsuit, Freitas denied all the accusations against him except one: He admitted he had given Goynes a ride in his police car but denied they had ever used the county car to go shopping for a house.
U.S. District Judge Susan Mollway asked the attorneys for both Freitas and Kauai County for more detailed briefs.
The judge also blocked a hearing the Police Commission had scheduled for Dec. 28 at which Freitas was scheduled to be the only witness. None of his accusers was to testify. The Police Commission still met, it just didn’t conduct a hearing. As usual, Mayor Maryanne Kusaka attended the lengthy executive session. She remained for the public session but did not speak.
At that meeting, the Police Commission voted to drop the charges against Freitas involving allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, hanging up on Seto, telling Morris to keep the subject of his meeting with Freitas confidential, and illegally parking his police car.
That left the hindering prosecution charge, the giving his fiancé a ride in his police car charge, and the yelling at Morris charge.
Then, on Jan. 2, 2002, Deputy County Attorney Laurel Loo wrote Freitas advising he could return to work the following Monday, even though three charges against him were still pending before the Police Commission.
The Police Commission, which is the only entity that can, under the County Charter, hire and fire and suspend and reinstate a police chief, did not vote to put Freitas back to work. The County Attorney’s Office reinstated Freitas without a vote of the Police Commission.
In fact, the commission refused at its previous meeting to consider a request from Freitas that he be allowed to return to work until the case was resolved.
It never has been made clear who made that decision but clearly it was blessed by Kusaka and, just as clearly, the mayor was beginning her retreat.
Freitas went back to work.
Meanwhile, back in federal court, Judge Mollway on Jan. 18, 2002, turned down a request from Kauai County to dismiss Freitas’s lawsuit.
The judge took a shot at lawyer Loo’s somewhat diminished skills at writing legal briefs and reasoning: “Defendants appear to be asserting (less than clearly) that counties and county officials acting in their official capacities are not ‘persons’…and therefore cannot be held liable for claims. That assertion is wrong.”
The judge also raised questions about the confidentiality of information in the case: “They (Kauai County’s lawyers) do not explain what state or federal law, or what court order, requires them to keep information regarding the charge against Freitas confidential.”
In effect, the judge kicked the door open on Kauai’s efforts to keep both documents and meetings out of the public eye.
The tiny Kauai press corps cheered the judge’s ruling. But their editors just hunkered further down behind their desks.
Once again, no news organization would spend the money to hire a lawyer to pursue the court’s favorable inclination.
On Jan. 24, 2002, Judge Masuoka announced his decision that Nelson Gabriel was innocent on all 22 felony counts against him.
Five days later, the Kauai Police Commission resolved all the remaining charges against Freitas.
Masuoka repeatedly had said he would not rule on the Gabriel case until the Police Commission concluded the investigation of Freitas.
When Masuoka ruled a few days before the Police Commission acted, it was a clear indication the outcome of the Freitas probe had been decided before the Commission met for a formal vote. There can be no doubt Masuoka was told beforehand what the Commission would decide. Most important, the Police Commission absolved Freitas of the hindering prosecution charge.
The Commission found Freitas had violated department policy by giving Goynes a ride in his police car and was disrespectful to Inspector Morris (who, along with Seto, had by this time retired from the KPD) by yelling at him during a private meeting in Freitas’ office.
The Commission voted to send Freitas two letters of reprimand on the two policy violations.
Freitas, however, was fuming.
The County Charter guarantees a Kauai police chief be given a written statement of the charges against him and receive a hearing before the Police Commission votes. Freitas had received neither the statement nor the hearing.
“I’d still like to know exactly what I’m supposed to have done so I can answer the complaint,” Freitas said. “More than 150 interviews (by investigator John Ko) and this is the best we can do?”
Freitas said the whole matter could have been resolved the previous summer if the Police Commission “had the courage” to show him the complaint and discuss it with him at the outset.
“Who drove this thing?” Freitas asked. “I have no idea.” Of course, Freitas knew. The whole island knew. Not by accident, this was the only meeting of the Police Commission that Mayor Maryanne Kusaka did not attend since the Freitas affair began.
Clearly, the outcome had been decided before the commissioners ever voted and Kusaka didn’t want to be around to witness (or be interviewed by the press about) her own defeat.
Because he was reinstated and lost no pay, Freitas’ lawsuit against Kauai County became moot. But it had served its purpose.
Bronster said she was convinced the filing of the lawsuit in federal court by Freitas was the only reason he kept his job. She said she believed the commission records, which still were being kept secret, would “reveal that the plan from the outset was to hunt for an excuse to fire him.”
The commission records remain sealed. The news media would not pay for a lawyer to go to court to force Kauai County to make them public.
It tells the story of former Chief George Freitas, graphically and accurately describing what faced both KC Lum and Chief and Police Commissioner Michael Ching when they were first appointed.)
KPD Blue
by Anthony Sommer
Chapter 10 : George Freitas
Mayor Maryanne Kusaka liked to portray herself as a kindly retired school teacher, which she certainly is, although many former students will dispute how kindly she was. For those not familiar with government in Hawaii, there is no city government, only county government. There are four counties: Hawaii, Maui, Oahu and Kauai.
All of the counties have a “strong mayor” system in which the mayor is the chief executive and runs the administrative branch of the government in a manner similar to the federal government and most state governments. The mayor has veto power and the Council may override the mayor’s vetoes.
In most jurisdictions of similar size on the mainland, there is a Council-Manager (or Weak Mayor) form of government in which a professional manager runs the administration and the mayor presides at council meetings and cuts ribbons. So, a mayor in Hawaii has considerably more power than most mainland mayors.
Another major difference is the Kauai County Charter. Most city charters on the mainland are the size of a metropolitan phone book and spell out in great detail the powers, duties and limitations of every official. Each procedure for each agency is outlined. The Charter is a “Government for Dummies” manual for city employees.
The Kauai County Charter is barely more than a pamphlet. The wording is purposely general and purposely vague. The County Attorney’s Office enjoys more than ample wiggle room to interpret it in a way guaranteed to please the incumbent mayor and County Council.
“I like a county charter without a lot of detail. The charter we have gives me a lot of flexibility,” said Bryan Baptiste (Kusaka’s protégé who replaced her as mayor).
It certainly does. Although a few holes in the charter were patched in the 2006 elections, the whole document is in need of a complete rewrite and major expansion.
Among the many vague sections of the Kauai County Charter is the part covering the removal of the police chief. It’s quite clear the chief is hired and fired by the Police Commission, which is appointed by the mayor.
In short, the mayor is not the police chief’s boss. The Police Commission is. And that is a galling fact to an insecure mayor (like both Kusaka and Baptiste) who insists on absolute control of all facets of government.
One of the many things unclear in the Kauai County Charter is a provision that states the police chief only can be removed “for cause.”
The Charter never defines the term “cause.”
Does “cause” mean commission of a felony? Commission of a misdemeanor? Giving his girlfriend a ride in his police car?
The Kauai Charter doesn’t say. The charters of all the other counties do.
The definition of “cause” is left entirely up to the county attorney, who is appointed by the mayor, and who, first and foremost, is a hired gun for the mayor.
The county attorney always says what the mayor does is legal, even if it’s not.
So, ultimately, the mayor decides.
This brings us to Kauai Police Chief George Freitas, the first police chief in the history of Kauai who was not born and raised on Kauai.
It is impossible to overstate how important it is in Kauai culture to be a native of the island. Anyone who comes from the outside is considered by locals to be taking a job that should have gone to a native Kauaian (even if no one from Kauai is qualified for the job).
Whether Freitas saw the trap he was walking into when he took the job is not clear. But, certainly, Freitas appeared on the scene as an outsider in the wrong time and the wrong place.
He was appointed by a lame duck Police Commission (the police commissioners’ terms in office are staggered and overlap the term of the mayor) in 1995, Kusaka’s first year in office. The majority of the Police Commission that hired Freitas had been appointed by Mayor JoAnn Yukimura, a liberal and reformer, who had been defeated for re-election in 1994.
(picture)
George Freitas, an Oahu native who had spent his entire police career in a California police department was hired by the Kauai Police Commision as KPD chief in the wake of a discrimination lawsuit against former Chief Cal Fujita. He never had the support of either the mayor or the Kauai County Council. Mayor Maryanne Kusaka attempted to force Freitas out but failed. Her protege, Mayor Bryan Baptiste finally forced Freitas to resign when the chief finally ran out of money to hire lawyers to fight the county.
George Freitas was hired by a lame duck Police Commission entirely different from the political culture Kusaka brought back to the mayor’s office.
Freitas was doomed to failure the first day he pinned on his KPD badge.
Freitas was an outsider who didn’t bow down to the mayor.
She hadn’t hired him, she couldn’t fire him. He didn’t work for her, and he didn’t much like her.
The loathing was mutual. She had no use for him. By the time her second (and last due to term limits) term began in 1999, there had been considerable grumbling among the locals in the KPD who comprised middle and upper management and who were not at all keen on being “modernized” by Freitas.
More important in Kusaka’s scheme to keep a tight rein on the KPD, the majority of police commissioners were now Kusaka appointees. Freitas’s bosses now were Kusaka’s cronies.
Freitas had been hired as a reform chief to reverse the racist hiring policies of previous chiefs.
Problem was, both Kusaka and the KPD old guard feared diversity. They weren’t anxious for change at all.
Freitas’ record, particularly regarding sexual discrimination, was less than spectacular, as pointed out in previous chapters.
What is interesting is that Kusaka did not go after Freitas on that issue, even though he was highly vulnerable.
Perhaps Kusaka didn’t recognize discrimination as an issue she could use to rid herself of her less-than-obedient police chief.
Freitas’ efforts in adding diversity to the KPD were impressive, especially since Kusaka had pretty much limited Freitas to recruiting only on Kauai.
By 1999, Freitas had recruited a considerable number of Filipinos and even a few white officers and a few women to the KPD. The monopoly of the Hawaiian and Japanese men on the force was beginning to erode.
The power struggle between the chief and at least some of his subordinate supervisors already was underway by the beginning of Kusaka’s second term.
Enter Lt. Alvin Seto and Inspector Mel Morris.
When the County Prosecutor’s Office refused to press charges on Seto’s claim that Freitas had “hindered prosecution” in the Nelson Gabriel case, Seto and his boss, Inspector Mel Morris, began shopping around for a more sympathetic ear.
In late July, 2001, they found an ally in Mayor Maryanne Kusaka. They handed Auntie Maryanne what she believed was the “cause” to get rid of her unwanted haole police chief. She took it straight to her handpicked gang of police commissioners.
It is instructive to note that, from that day forward, with only one exception, Kusaka used her “ex officio” status to attend all of the Police Commission meetings, something she never did before or would do afterward.
In a secret meeting on Aug. 10, the Kauai Police Commission—with Kusaka present—voted to place Freitas on involuntary leave with pay.
Freitas was off island that day. He didn’t have a chance to answer the charges. He never would.
Later, Freitas said he probably could have answered all of the Commission’s questions if he had been invited to their meeting.
But Kusaka had an ambush in mind.
This was going to be Kusaka’s most glorious moment in ethnically cleansing Kauai government of outsiders. Although it later was brought to her attention that the FBI is the agency with the jurisdiction to investigate state and local government corruption cases, Kusaka’s staff said she never considered that option.
Kusaka has no control over the FBI but the police commissioners all were her loyal and grateful appointees, as was the county attorney who was advising the commission.
A month after suspending Freitas, Kauai “borrowed” John Ko, an investigator, from the Honolulu Police Commission. At taxpayer expense, Ko for two months lived at one of Kauai’s most posh resorts, drove an unmarked Kauai police car and interviewed more than 150 KPD officers and civilian employees—pretty much the entire department.
Many of those interviewed said privately that the questions asked by Ko were mostly open-ended and not about specific incidents.
Clearly, Ko was looking for additional charges against Freitas. Just as clearly, he was on a very expensive (to Kauai taxpayers) fishing expedition. Judging from subsequent events, he never even got a nibble.
The county has refused numerous requests to release the files covering the cost to taxpayers of Ko’s stay on Kauai. As usual, the state’s news organizations would not pony up for a lawyer to try to pry what should have been public record out of Kauai. Challenging the government and fighting for open meetings and public records is not in the tradition of Hawaii journalism.
Ko produced a report that found nothing new, but he appended to it an enormous stack of interview transcripts that obviously had nothing incriminating in any of them.
Although it really was nothing more than a stage prop for the island-wide television audience, Ko’s gigantic but meaningless report sat on the conference table at every Police Commission meeting about Freitas.
It never was opened. No one ever quoted it. But its sheer mass was quite impressive and proof (or at least a hint) that there had been a thorough investigation, even if it found nothing.
Ko’s masterpiece also never has been made public despite repeated requests. Hawaii state public records law says the documents related to any investigation are public record once the case is concluded.
Even more amazing, the Police Commission refused to give Freitas a copy of Ko’s report or state in writing the charges against him. And that was a violation of the County Charter.
On Nov. 23, 2001, more than three months after he was suspended (a term Kusaka’s people repeatedly objected to—“placed on involuntary leave” was what they wanted to see in the newspapers), the Police Commission for the first time publicly unveiled the charges against Freitas and even voted to toss some of them out.
The most serious charge was the “hindering prosecution” complaint involving Gabriel, which in the end proved to be totally bogus.
A lot of jaws dropped in the room when the rest of the list was read aloud:
• That Freitas violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when he brought up a medical condition of an officer (Seto) during a private departmental meeting on officer assignments.
• That Freitas showed disrespect toward an officer (again, Seto) when he hung up on him during a telephone conversation.
• That Freitas improperly transported a civilian (his girlfriend and later wife Elizabeth Goynes, a retired California police officer) in his unmarked police car for non-police purposes on July 21, 2001.
• That Freitas and Goynes used the unmarked KPD car to house hunt on that date and that, while looking at houses, he parked illegally.
• That on Aug. 2, 2001, a few days after Seto and Morris had filed the complaint against Freitas but before he was suspended, Freitas allegedly had yelled at Morris during a private meeting in Freitas’ office, causing Morris to suffer a “nervous breakdown” that required him to take several days off of work.
• That in the same meeting, Freitas had violated Morris’s rights by ordering him to keep what they discussed in the meeting confidential.
That was it.
After two months of questioning everyone in the department, that was all Seto and Morris and John Ko and Maryanne Kusaka could come up with.
But, again, there is no definition of “cause” in the County Charter and Kusaka figured she had enough to convince the Police Commission to fire Freitas.
In the meanwhile, Freitas had hired Margery Bronster as his attorney.
During her tenure as Hawaii attorney general, Bronster had prosecuted members of the board of trustees of the Bishop Trust (the richest trust fund in the world, which was established to educate Native Hawaiians) for fraud. She ranks among Hawaii’s “superstar” lawyers.
One of the Kauai Police Commission (aided and abetted, of course, by the County Attorney’s Office) tactics was to refuse to announce when Freitas’ case was on its agenda for an executive session. State law requires the subject of executive sessions be clearly stated.
This agenda camouflage began to be applied after Freitas waived his right to privacy in Commission proceedings involving him. He wanted the public and press to witness the Commission at work.
But if his name didn’t appear on an agenda and no one knew if or when Freitas would be discussed, the public didn’t show up.
Reporters, Freitas and Bronster spent a lot of time together in the hallway outside the locked Commission door waiting.
“Is it always like this in Kauai government?” Bronster asked the first time the Commission pulled this stunt. “Every day,” a reporter told her.
Bronster immediately filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming Kauai County violated Freitas’ civil rights (and his rights clearly guaranteed in the County Charter) by suspending him without providing any written charges to him and by failing to conduct a hearing at which he could face his accusers, Seto and Morris.
In his lawsuit, Freitas denied all the accusations against him except one: He admitted he had given Goynes a ride in his police car but denied they had ever used the county car to go shopping for a house.
U.S. District Judge Susan Mollway asked the attorneys for both Freitas and Kauai County for more detailed briefs.
The judge also blocked a hearing the Police Commission had scheduled for Dec. 28 at which Freitas was scheduled to be the only witness. None of his accusers was to testify. The Police Commission still met, it just didn’t conduct a hearing. As usual, Mayor Maryanne Kusaka attended the lengthy executive session. She remained for the public session but did not speak.
At that meeting, the Police Commission voted to drop the charges against Freitas involving allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, hanging up on Seto, telling Morris to keep the subject of his meeting with Freitas confidential, and illegally parking his police car.
That left the hindering prosecution charge, the giving his fiancé a ride in his police car charge, and the yelling at Morris charge.
Then, on Jan. 2, 2002, Deputy County Attorney Laurel Loo wrote Freitas advising he could return to work the following Monday, even though three charges against him were still pending before the Police Commission.
The Police Commission, which is the only entity that can, under the County Charter, hire and fire and suspend and reinstate a police chief, did not vote to put Freitas back to work. The County Attorney’s Office reinstated Freitas without a vote of the Police Commission.
In fact, the commission refused at its previous meeting to consider a request from Freitas that he be allowed to return to work until the case was resolved.
It never has been made clear who made that decision but clearly it was blessed by Kusaka and, just as clearly, the mayor was beginning her retreat.
Freitas went back to work.
Meanwhile, back in federal court, Judge Mollway on Jan. 18, 2002, turned down a request from Kauai County to dismiss Freitas’s lawsuit.
The judge took a shot at lawyer Loo’s somewhat diminished skills at writing legal briefs and reasoning: “Defendants appear to be asserting (less than clearly) that counties and county officials acting in their official capacities are not ‘persons’…and therefore cannot be held liable for claims. That assertion is wrong.”
The judge also raised questions about the confidentiality of information in the case: “They (Kauai County’s lawyers) do not explain what state or federal law, or what court order, requires them to keep information regarding the charge against Freitas confidential.”
In effect, the judge kicked the door open on Kauai’s efforts to keep both documents and meetings out of the public eye.
The tiny Kauai press corps cheered the judge’s ruling. But their editors just hunkered further down behind their desks.
Once again, no news organization would spend the money to hire a lawyer to pursue the court’s favorable inclination.
On Jan. 24, 2002, Judge Masuoka announced his decision that Nelson Gabriel was innocent on all 22 felony counts against him.
Five days later, the Kauai Police Commission resolved all the remaining charges against Freitas.
Masuoka repeatedly had said he would not rule on the Gabriel case until the Police Commission concluded the investigation of Freitas.
When Masuoka ruled a few days before the Police Commission acted, it was a clear indication the outcome of the Freitas probe had been decided before the Commission met for a formal vote. There can be no doubt Masuoka was told beforehand what the Commission would decide. Most important, the Police Commission absolved Freitas of the hindering prosecution charge.
The Commission found Freitas had violated department policy by giving Goynes a ride in his police car and was disrespectful to Inspector Morris (who, along with Seto, had by this time retired from the KPD) by yelling at him during a private meeting in Freitas’ office.
The Commission voted to send Freitas two letters of reprimand on the two policy violations.
Freitas, however, was fuming.
The County Charter guarantees a Kauai police chief be given a written statement of the charges against him and receive a hearing before the Police Commission votes. Freitas had received neither the statement nor the hearing.
“I’d still like to know exactly what I’m supposed to have done so I can answer the complaint,” Freitas said. “More than 150 interviews (by investigator John Ko) and this is the best we can do?”
Freitas said the whole matter could have been resolved the previous summer if the Police Commission “had the courage” to show him the complaint and discuss it with him at the outset.
“Who drove this thing?” Freitas asked. “I have no idea.” Of course, Freitas knew. The whole island knew. Not by accident, this was the only meeting of the Police Commission that Mayor Maryanne Kusaka did not attend since the Freitas affair began.
Clearly, the outcome had been decided before the commissioners ever voted and Kusaka didn’t want to be around to witness (or be interviewed by the press about) her own defeat.
Because he was reinstated and lost no pay, Freitas’ lawsuit against Kauai County became moot. But it had served its purpose.
Bronster said she was convinced the filing of the lawsuit in federal court by Freitas was the only reason he kept his job. She said she believed the commission records, which still were being kept secret, would “reveal that the plan from the outset was to hunt for an excuse to fire him.”
The commission records remain sealed. The news media would not pay for a lawyer to go to court to force Kauai County to make them public.
Friday, October 10, 2008
A TALE OF TWO DOG POUNDS
A TALE OF TWO DOG POUNDS: This weekend’s installment of KPD Blue- “Chapter 10- George Freitas”- beings the long and winding chronology of three police chiefs and, according to Sommer’s narrative the process by which the old boy network, through persistence, secrecy and race-based cronyism finally got their man into office in the person of current Chief Darryl Perry who was “supposed to” get the job when Freitas- an outsider- was forced out.
The book tells the story of how Freitas was replaced by KC Lum- also a mainland outsider, although a KPD lieutenant- who, in a series of machination involving the county council, the police commission and the ethics board, was drummed out on trumped up charges along with the head of the police commission Michael Ching.
Yet unless you’ve read the book you’d never know how, through suppression of documents and illegal secret meetings- and a complicitous press that refused to look at the real documentation- Perry was finally hired as Chief.
Sommer’s documented tale stands as the true story of what happened, as anyone of the “nitpickers” who attended the sessions and saw all the documents leading to Lum’s ouster can attest to.
At one point the council didn’t want to see the real documents from an administrative judge’s determination in the Ching case so much that when nitpicker Richard Stauber tried to give the documents he had obtained to the council to make them part of the record, Chair Kaipo Asing actually demand Stauber take them back. When Stauber refused Asing then purged them from the public record.
The complete set of documents show how the ethics board cherry picked the judges determinations in order to find that Ching exhibited undue favoritism in the commission’s selection of Lum as chief
But Perry’s supporters still cling to the “official” story that somehow he was the one who wronged in the whole process.
Despite the availability of KPD Blue- which can be purchased through Amazon.com and will soon be available at Border’s book store in Lihu`e (watch this space for an announcement when it’s “in”)- this little tidbit appeared in the local newspaper under the regular “Ask the Chief” banner.
Here’s what the Chief had to say in answer to a supposed unsolicited question, presumably from a member of the public unconnected with the force
Q: It’s been almost a year now that you’ve been in office. How have things been going? Was the transition difficult getting back in the groove? And how do you like being back home?
It was obvious to me that you got the raw end of the deal the first time around. Has anyone apologized to you for what the old police commission did?
Jason, Lihue
Apologized? Although there is no evidence that Perry personally had anything to do with the corrupt ouster of Lum, he certainly did nothing to stop it, even as his brother Warren aced as a surrogate in support of Leon Gonsalves during the infamous ”Hop Sing” incident.
Here’s what Perry had to say last Saturday:
KPD long on goals during chief’s first year
A: Things are going as well as can be expected. The first part of your question is easy, the other question touches on very sensitive areas that some individuals would like to forget.
But history is a great teacher, and if we don’t learn from our past, then we will probably repeat it. So I’ll touch a little on the second part but not too much....
After detailing some of his plans for the department, with apparent false modesty Perry passive-aggressively “answered” the second part if “Jason’s” question".
In regards to the second part of your question, concerning the prior selection process and me getting the raw end of deal, I really haven’t given it much thought since being appointed. It appears from individuals who I’ve spoken to on a personal basis that they felt something wasn’t right with the first selection process and that I was not treated fairly.
And the other part of your question: Has anyone apologized to me? No one representing the county of Kaua`i has ever stated publicly or given my family a written apology.
Although I invested a great deal of time, effort and expense in preparing and interviewing for the position, I’m really not sure if I deserve any apology.
When someone applies for a position there is an understanding that he or she may not get selected. So you work hard to prepare, do the best you can, and hope that the process is fair. You can only control what you do; you can’t control what others may do.
Whether the process was tainted is a matter of debate. For my family it’s something we don’t dwell on. We are moving forward toward a brighter future; besides, it’s great to be home, so I don’t have any complaints.
In closing, and it’s only my opinion, if any apology should be had, it should be made to the citizens of the county of Kaua`i and the Kaua`i Police Department, not to me. I’ll leave it at that.
Why the Chief felt the need to re-open and rub salt in the wounds is anyone's guess- perhaps it’s a preemptive strike against the contests of Sommer’s book.
But Sommer and those who are in the know won’t be “leaving it at that” because, if the Chief isn’t sure of he got a raw deal other are sure- and have the documentation to show- that the Lum and Ching got the short end of the stick.
And we predict anyone who reads the facts in KPD Blue won’t leave it at that either..
Sommer’s book follows the story through document and eyewitness accounts. We’ll leave you with a paragraph from the narrative just after Freitas walked away with a generous severance package after agreeing not to lead the parade to court that followed.
Perry was the candidate of the KPD old guard. Lum never was accused of any misconduct in office. Try as they might, Baptiste and the County Council could find nothing to use against him at the Police Commission. But he was forced—by Mayor Baptiste and the County Council (not the Police Commission, the only entity with the legal authority to fire a police chief on Kauai)—to retire on June 7, 2006, with more than three years remaining on his contract.
The book tells the story of how Freitas was replaced by KC Lum- also a mainland outsider, although a KPD lieutenant- who, in a series of machination involving the county council, the police commission and the ethics board, was drummed out on trumped up charges along with the head of the police commission Michael Ching.
Yet unless you’ve read the book you’d never know how, through suppression of documents and illegal secret meetings- and a complicitous press that refused to look at the real documentation- Perry was finally hired as Chief.
Sommer’s documented tale stands as the true story of what happened, as anyone of the “nitpickers” who attended the sessions and saw all the documents leading to Lum’s ouster can attest to.
At one point the council didn’t want to see the real documents from an administrative judge’s determination in the Ching case so much that when nitpicker Richard Stauber tried to give the documents he had obtained to the council to make them part of the record, Chair Kaipo Asing actually demand Stauber take them back. When Stauber refused Asing then purged them from the public record.
The complete set of documents show how the ethics board cherry picked the judges determinations in order to find that Ching exhibited undue favoritism in the commission’s selection of Lum as chief
But Perry’s supporters still cling to the “official” story that somehow he was the one who wronged in the whole process.
Despite the availability of KPD Blue- which can be purchased through Amazon.com and will soon be available at Border’s book store in Lihu`e (watch this space for an announcement when it’s “in”)- this little tidbit appeared in the local newspaper under the regular “Ask the Chief” banner.
Here’s what the Chief had to say in answer to a supposed unsolicited question, presumably from a member of the public unconnected with the force
Q: It’s been almost a year now that you’ve been in office. How have things been going? Was the transition difficult getting back in the groove? And how do you like being back home?
It was obvious to me that you got the raw end of the deal the first time around. Has anyone apologized to you for what the old police commission did?
Jason, Lihue
Apologized? Although there is no evidence that Perry personally had anything to do with the corrupt ouster of Lum, he certainly did nothing to stop it, even as his brother Warren aced as a surrogate in support of Leon Gonsalves during the infamous ”Hop Sing” incident.
Here’s what Perry had to say last Saturday:
KPD long on goals during chief’s first year
A: Things are going as well as can be expected. The first part of your question is easy, the other question touches on very sensitive areas that some individuals would like to forget.
But history is a great teacher, and if we don’t learn from our past, then we will probably repeat it. So I’ll touch a little on the second part but not too much....
After detailing some of his plans for the department, with apparent false modesty Perry passive-aggressively “answered” the second part if “Jason’s” question".
In regards to the second part of your question, concerning the prior selection process and me getting the raw end of deal, I really haven’t given it much thought since being appointed. It appears from individuals who I’ve spoken to on a personal basis that they felt something wasn’t right with the first selection process and that I was not treated fairly.
And the other part of your question: Has anyone apologized to me? No one representing the county of Kaua`i has ever stated publicly or given my family a written apology.
Although I invested a great deal of time, effort and expense in preparing and interviewing for the position, I’m really not sure if I deserve any apology.
When someone applies for a position there is an understanding that he or she may not get selected. So you work hard to prepare, do the best you can, and hope that the process is fair. You can only control what you do; you can’t control what others may do.
Whether the process was tainted is a matter of debate. For my family it’s something we don’t dwell on. We are moving forward toward a brighter future; besides, it’s great to be home, so I don’t have any complaints.
In closing, and it’s only my opinion, if any apology should be had, it should be made to the citizens of the county of Kaua`i and the Kaua`i Police Department, not to me. I’ll leave it at that.
Why the Chief felt the need to re-open and rub salt in the wounds is anyone's guess- perhaps it’s a preemptive strike against the contests of Sommer’s book.
But Sommer and those who are in the know won’t be “leaving it at that” because, if the Chief isn’t sure of he got a raw deal other are sure- and have the documentation to show- that the Lum and Ching got the short end of the stick.
And we predict anyone who reads the facts in KPD Blue won’t leave it at that either..
Sommer’s book follows the story through document and eyewitness accounts. We’ll leave you with a paragraph from the narrative just after Freitas walked away with a generous severance package after agreeing not to lead the parade to court that followed.
Perry was the candidate of the KPD old guard. Lum never was accused of any misconduct in office. Try as they might, Baptiste and the County Council could find nothing to use against him at the Police Commission. But he was forced—by Mayor Baptiste and the County Council (not the Police Commission, the only entity with the legal authority to fire a police chief on Kauai)—to retire on June 7, 2006, with more than three years remaining on his contract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
