MIA

MIA: In two days it’ll be two weeks since Mayor Bernard Carvalho pulled his little Friday afternoon press release scam to flim-flam those opposed to putting the bike path on Wailua Beach before he conveniently slipped town all to avoid answering questions about the bogus, mealy-mouth lie that the new plan will put the path on the highway and take it off the beach.

That was exacerbated the next day by the gross negligence by the local newspaper in presenting a patently false headline and a misleading article – one still not corrected or clarified- repeating the misleading words of the mayor’s press release without digging deeper to get to the truth of the matter.

It’s understandable that that ace reporter Michael Levine may have been confused at first but its inexcusable that there’s been no update to inform an ill-informed public, especially since the arbitrary “comment deadline” of Feb. 25, set by the administration, has come and gone.

Other than the “he said, she said” style quote from Judy Dalton late in the original article claiming it’s still on the beach there’s been no inkling in the paper of the fact that the path will still be on the beach, leading many of not most on the island to believe that the mayor has now miraculously given in and realigned the path to keep it off the beach.

While the on-line community has been on the story with our Steaming pile on bike path the following Monday, Joan Conrow’s visual depiction Tuesday and a widely distributed letter from Dalton on Wednesday it’s been nothing but silence from the primary news source and “newspaper of record” on the island except for a letter to the editor- one that seems unsure of itself- from Wendy Raebeck of Wailua yesterday.

But while the newspaper certainly should take some of the blame for perpetuating a lie it’s even more baffling as to what happened to the dozens of activists who brought the issue of burials to light and the hundreds if not thousands who were outraged enough to get the mayor to put out his bogus realignment announcement.

Were they similarly bamboozled? Have they just given up?

The officials in this county have shown that they will stonewall, obfuscate and even outright lie in order to get people to just go away so that they keep their corrupt little party going. And when we give up- as many apparently have in this instance- we become just another guard at the gates of the minotaur’s labyrinth.

--------

We’ll be taking a long weekend again unless something really sets our hair on fire- see ya Monday.

REAL OPTIONS

REAL OPTIONS: As our readers- and anyone who’s seen a council meeting lately- know, one of the more power-drunk county officials is often demented County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo who last week thought it was within his purview to order someone testifying before the council to remove his hat.

Castillo is the latest in line of CA’s that have acted as political hacks and stooges for the council and mayor, following in the “law is what we say it is” footsteps of Hartwell Blake, Matthew Pyun and Lani Nakazawa who is currently serving Mayor Bernard Carvalho as his own private attorney and political “advisor”.

We’ve called for a charter amendment to elect the county attorney since the current 10-year-long charter review commission (CRC) first met in 2004 but it has escaped their radar screen due partially to the fact that the post-2006 members don’t seem capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time except for regurgitating an old seven-time rejected amendment for four-year council terms and other assorted Titanic seating-chart tinkering.

Today we received an advance copy of a letter from CRC watchdog Horace Stoessel making the case for an elected CA with a particularly pithy set of choices.

Here it is.

OPTIONS

The county charter provides for the county attorney to be appointed by the mayor, with council approval, and to serve as the county’s chief legal adviser and legal representative.

The charter also mandates that the Charter Commission “study and review the operation of the county government under this charter” and propose amendments to the charter that it deems necessary or desirable.

Based on my observations of government operations and study of the charter, if the commission honors its mandate it has two options for proposing amendments regarding the county attorney’s office.

If the commission wants to bring the operations of the office into line with the charter, it should propose that the county attorney, like the prosecuting attorney, be elected for a four-year term, thereby freeing the office from having to serve not one but two political masters who are sometimes at odds with each other.

However, if the commission deems that the proper course is to bring the charter into line with current practice, it should propose adding a phrase to make the charter read, “chief legal adviser, legal representative, and political enforcer.”

For reasons too obvious to require spelling out, I favor a proposal for a four-year elected term.

Horace Stoessel

(PNN) COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST

COUNCIL CONFIRMS B&C NOMINEES WITHOUT RELEASING APPLICATIONS, REFUSES KAWAHARA DEFERRAL REQUEST

(PNN)The county council continued to flout county charter provisions and state open meeting and records laws last Wednesday in approving two more board and commission (B&C) members despite a request for deferral by Councilperson Lani Kawahara.

Kawahara said that the Office of Board and Commissions (OBC) is currently working on a process for releasing properly redacted applications of prospective B&C members awaiting confirmation but Chair Kaipo Asing refused to allow her to make a motion to defer approval until they can be made available to the public before confirmation as the Office of Information Practices (OIP) has required.

Despite detailed testimony to the contrary from Rob Abrew who has been championing the issue for the past month County Attorney Al Castillo told the council there was no problem with the process and they could go ahead and vote on the confirmations, saying the OIP “are not necessarily right all the time” citing recent court cases won by the county against the OIP.

The OIP is charged by the state with oversight of the state’s open meeting (HRS 92 Section I) and records (HRS 92F) laws.

Kawahara asked Castillo “do you believe we’ve done due diligence in providing the public the information that’s supposed to be made public within a reasonable amount of time... so the public can comment (on nominees)?”

In response Castillo continually referenced “these fine people” awaiting confirmation saying to Kawahara that no violation of law has occurred and that “nothing should give you pause to question the process”.

Agreeing that all the applicants are all “fine people” Kawahara said that wasn’t the point of questioning the process for confirming the almost two dozen applicants that have been recently processed.

“I don’t have any confidence that the public was able to get information they would have needed to make comments on those nominees” she said.

Kawahara did however leave some hope that when the final two nominees come up for confirmation in two weeks the information might be forthcoming saying “I’ve worked with the offices involved (to assure) that this procedure is much clearer in the future.

“I was requesting that we would honor what will be going on in the future” she noted adding “Give and take between the (council and the) public is how we make decisions, not in a vacuum”

Councilmember Tim Bynum said he appreciated Abrew’s work on the matter and Kawahara’s follow-up saying that “good questions were raised” and noted that B&C administrator John Isobe “has already responded” and that “going forward we will have a clarified process” for redacting phone numbers and addresses and releasing the rest of the applications to the public when the agenda is published- as OIP told the council to do back in January 2005.

That opinion led the council to move interviews with prospective B&C members out of executive session and into the public purview although they still refuse to televise those interviews.

Abrew had requested the information contained in the applications - including employment, experience and potential conflicts of interest- in writing on Jan. 12 but had not received a written response as of this morning, well exceeding the 10 day window for response to a record request under the state law.

The matter was brought to light by Abrew after noting that county charter provisions require that no B&C have more than a “bare majority” of members of any particular political party.

It is still unknown if the new process will include that information and how those memberships- or lack thereof- will be confirmed with the parties.

For more background information see previous PNN reports:

Monday, January 11, 2010(PNN) ABREW FILES WRITTEN RECORDS, CLARIFICATION REQUESTS WITH COUNTY CLERK AT OIP’S URGINGFriday, January 8, 2010(PNN) COUNCIL IGNORES, FLOUTS OIP IN CONFIRMING BOARD, COMMISSION MEMBERS

LAPPIN’ IT RIGHT UP

LAPPIN’ IT RIGHT UP: Intellectuals and philosophy mavens can spend hours in sophomoric sophistry asking each other the question “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?”.

Let us clue you in- of course it freakin’ does... what are you a freakin’ moron?” (it seems to be that kind of week).

The ease with which people are bamboozled and bewildered comes to mind because what nobody seems to want to admit in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations to flood elections with cash is that if Americans weren’t too-stupid-to-live and as easily swayed as the mythical soundless trees they wouldn’t be influenced by all the bogus, distracting advertising bought by company capital.

So which is it? Are “American voters are smart enough to see though all the nonsense” as some suck-up pols suggest? Or is it that “you can never underestimate the intelligence of the American voter.”

Only the silent tree toppling proponents could pick the former.

But what can you expect from a country that can’t tell that a “person” is a flesh and blood human being and not a piece of paper with the words “corporate charter” written on it?

Corporate personhood goes back to an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and this absurd notion is behind yesterday’s Orwellian “free speech for those who can’t speak” piece of true fascist flack.

Many in the progressive movement are busy today promoting a narrow constitutional amendment dealing with banning corporate cash in elections but a small cadre including Howard Zinn, Bill Moyer, Tom Hayden, Jim Hightower, Medea Benjamin and dozens of others have put together a “Move To Amend” web site and petition to “firmly establish... that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights”.

But then again to think that a constitutional amendment under what passes for democracy in the USA Inc. is in the realm of reality probably means joining that confederacy of dunces who debates noiseless arboreal thickets.

COMING HOME TO ROOST

COMING HOME TO ROOST: It never fails to amaze us how the level of satisfaction of a “we told you so” moment is inversely proportional to the time elapsed.

Nevertheless it’s another somewhat empty cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face victory today as "Earthjustice" is finally going to sue KIUC for it’s diligent lack of action in protecting endangered Hawaiian petrel and Newell’s shearwater, according to an article in today’s local newspaper.

As the article reports, according to a press release:

(Earthjustice attorney David) Henkin said a “series of recommendations” — such as lowering power lines, attaching lines to bridges, switching from a vertical array of wires to a “traditional” T configuration and planting trees which shield lines — provided to Kaua`i Electric in 1995 have yet to be taken up by KIUC.

And surprise-surprise- KIUC’s response has been to file for permits to continue to kill birds rather than acting on the recommendations.

But whether through the cost of complying with the law or the “$50,000... that each violation of seabird take is subject to” it’s going to cost co-op members a pretty penny.

The irksome part is that we shouldn’t have to be paying for it.

It all harkens back to the original purchase from Kaua`i Electric and the price paid which, even after it was lowered once was still quite obviously as much as twice what it was worth.

And one of the liabilities that the “nitpickers” predicted would come back to bite us in the ass was that very 1995 list of unfollowed recommendations.

As a matter of fact it was at that point that the people fighting for a reduced price were first called “nitpickers” by then Mayor Maryanne Kusaka who had been busy flip-flopping her Republican butt on the purchase because the original board was comprised of Democratic machine honchos and whatever they wanted she didn’t.

The original purchasing board and their slick-talking honcho Gregg Gardiner and his stooge Walt Barnes simply ignored the all research, facts and figures presented by the about a dozen members of the public including the “birds liability” and the facts about members’ potential liability for the cleanup of the toxic waste dump underneath the `Ele`ele power plant, as PNN reported in 2002.

Stay tuned- there are plenty of other little surprises-on-the-rug to come as KIUC continues the be the gift that keeps on taking. As some said at the time of the pig-in-a-poke, “elephant?- what elephant?” purchase, they should have paid us to take KE off their hands.

WHIPLASH

WHIPLASH: The use of tasers by police and what constitutes “excessive force” has caught our attention lately as it’s been impossible to find out what KPD’s policy was and/or is in light of a recent federal 9th Circuit Court ruling in Bryan v. McPherson which limited their use.

That’s why a Maui news headline- reprinted in the Honolulu Advertiser in place of their own neighbor island coverage- that said Maui officer's use of Taser on woman not excessive, court rules.

Seems the use is on a case by case basis with limits on both ends being established on the fly.

But it was the very last paragraph of the story that really caught our attention saying:

Former Deputy Corporation Counsel Laureen Martin argued the case. Deputies Corporation Counsel Richard B. Rost and Cheryl Tipton also represented the officers and county.

Now there’s something- in fact a couple of things- that we’d fall over backward in our chair if we read on Kaua`i.

The first is that they actually went, not just to trial but, to an appeal to the 9th Circuit “in house”- using county employees rather than hiring outside attorney’s at whopping prices as our “county attorney’s” office routinely (make that always) does.

The second is of course the “corporation counsel” system employed in every other county in the state.

It comes on the same days an another entry from seemingly blind and deaf Judge Al Laureta asking what specifically is wrong with our charter despite our treatises on the subject.

Although he asks in the context of the county manager proposal, a reorganization of the broken county attorney (CA) section of the charter is a good place to start.

One of the main problems is the inherent conflict embedded in our charter that empowers the CA to provide all legal advice to both the council and administration yet places the CA’s office within the administration giving the council little or no say- other than confirmation- in the department.

Reform of the CA’s office- whether electing the CA under the current set up or restructuring under a "corp counsel" system- seems a no brainer yet it has never been on the radar screen for the charter review commission (CRC).

The current system has been costing us millions every year to hire Honolulu law firms. It’s about time to see if the CRC can walk and chew gum at the same time and if not, instead of pouring their time into re-asking for the umpteenth time about four year council terms and fighting against putting effort into putting together an appropriate county manager proposal they might concentrate on fixing the most broken of all county departments.

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

Yesterday we inadvertently left out a link under “problems with the county’s sustainability plan” to Jan TenBruggencate’s piece on the subject, New county energy sustainability plan draft released which identifies many of the troublesome aspects much better than we could including the use of the word ridiculous and annoying word “disincentivize.”

CHASING THE BUS

CHASING THE BUS: The screamin’ meemies are out in me-me force over the county’s energy sustainability study and it’s proposed fiddy-cent a gallon gas tax, ignoring the rest of the idiotic study which pooh-poohs windmills and extols an incinerator to generate electricity despite the proven lack of enough trash to make it cost effective even if we foolishly burned all our recyclables.

The main problem with the 50c fuel tax is what they would use it for- promoting the interim technology of hybrid cars.

But apparently even those that get that the idea can be a good one in order to provide public transportation seem to be blind as to what is really necessary to get people out of their cars and onto the bus.

The newspaper article on the presentation of the plan to the council reports the expected knee-jerk politically expedient reaction of most of the councilmembers by headlining “Members criticize ‘ridiculous’ 50-cent fuel tax proposal”.

But it also reports that at least one councilmember gave it due consideration reporting

Councilwoman Lani Kawahara agreed with the goal of the fuel tax but said it is too much, too soon...

“I don’t think we’ve provided enough options besides automobile transportation for us to be able to even consider doing a 50-cent gasoline tax right now,” she said. “Unless we get a bus system that runs 24 hours or every day including Sundays, that would be something that should happen first, I would think.”

Although she didn’t make the connection of using the tax to support a “bus system that runs 24 hours or every day including Sundays” a least she’s connecting it to a “full service” bus system.

Juxtapose that with KIUC board member and founder of Apollo Kaua`i founder Ben Sullivan’s weekend letter-to-the-editor that did make the connection but also came up a bit short on thinking it through.

After pointing out that for most people, especially in this recession, “it’s gonna be quite a while before we can afford to buy a new car, especially one that carries a price premium like a hybrid or a yet-to-be-seen plug-in hybrid” he does propose an expansion of the bus saying “(o)ne suggestion that has come to the surface is to allocate a major portion of the revenue to fund dramatic improvements to the Kaua`i Bus”.

The problem is that his “vision” still has cars in it. He writes

You jump in your car in the morning (or on your bike) to drive to a nearby park and ride, and board the bus for your daily commute to work. You don’t have to worry about the schedule because it runs every 15 minutes during morning and evening rush hour. You have a bus pass through your employer’s special discount program for employees. They offer it so they can preserve valuable parking for customers, help their employees during hard times, and to get a tax break. Instead of white knuckling it through traffic, you ride in to work sipping hot coffee (with a no-spill lid) and use the on-board Wi-Fi to check your e-mail. The bus drops you off only a block from your job. Late day at the office? No problem. The last bus isn’t until 9:30 at night. Hey, you can even ride to church on Sundays with your neighbors because of new expanded weekend bus service. With a bus system like this, we might even see a return to one-car families who can save thousands of dollars annually between insurance, car payments, maintenance and, of course, gasoline.

The solution runs down the middle of Kawahara and Sullivan’s apparitions.

The only way to reduce the number of cars is to provide a level of service that will enable people to live without owning a car. It really comes down to that and that alone.

Who the heck is going to buy- or really invest in- a car and then get in it to drive a quarter mile to leave it in a parking lot all day and then take the bus?

The answer is no one. With the exception of a few who either buy into Ben’s leisurely ride concept or even fewer hardcore socially and environmentally conscious, if you own a car you’re going to drive it.

Right now, especially with the service/tourism jobs on Kaua`i that depend on shift work, people have to have a car. The bus doesn’t run 24 hours a day, seven days a week and it doesn’t serve enough residential areas.

And that’s just for work. People go out in the evening, sometimes returning late. They go out on weekends. Even if you don’t do it very often it’s reason enough to own a car.

Also people need to be able to carry packages on public transportation, another self-inflicted wound the current system has imposed for no particular reason except for the clout of the rent-a-car and taxi lobbies.

In order to make it practical to live without a vehicle the bus must run 24/7 even if it only comes once an hour after midnight. And in order to make it available to people who live in residential areas off the main highway it must expand into all of the major and even some minor feeder roads in the mostly mauka but sometime makai (such as in Kalaheo) districts.

A few years back when the legislature gave Honolulu the ability to fund public transportation via a half-a-percent excise tax we asked around among some reps and sens about giving the neighbor islands that option even though we usually eschew regressive taxes.

All said it’s a non-starter unless and until the counties ask them for it.

Unless and until that day the Kaua`i bus is going to be a useless appendage because people will be forced to own a car for the times when “da bus no more come”.

And if we own them we will use them. It’s really that simple.