ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTIONS: We fully expected the brief, clueless presentation by the Department of Public Works (DPW) at last Wednesday’s council Public Works and Energy Committee meeting on the plastic bag ban ordinance 885 which we predicted over the past two weeks.
But the council’s equally befuddled response to both the lack of due diligence by the DPW and the incompetence of County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo in maintaining his quest to hold the legally required public hearing on the administrative rules after the ban takes effect, was both predictable and incomprehensibly blind to irregularities and outright chicanery.
The always incompetent DPW Solid Waste Division Director Troy Tanegawa’s “Power Point” presentation contained exactly one sentence in claiming that in fact there were no bags that meet the standards for use but offered no evidence that he had even checked with anyone, nor did he present any report on the subject.
The fact is that according to researcher Brad Parsons- who as we said last week spent a few days looking into the subject- although no one is presently making bags that are both “compostable” and “contain no fossil fuel polymers” there are companies that make material that could be used to manufacture them if there was a demand for them.
That of course means that if Tanigawa and his division had bothered to look into it as the official government representative of a jurisdiction that wanted bags to fit our unique ordinance - and do so when the ordinance was passed last October- they might have them available by now.
But we would have been shocked to actually find him doing his job at this point in time- he hasn’t shown any ability or initiative in the past 15 years so why would he start now?
And the fact that the council just sat there and bought his brief claim to have looked and found nothing isn’t much of a surprise either- why would they start actually doing their oversight job now?
But the real outrage was this absurdity- courtesy of CA Castillo- of holding the official public hearing on January 11, 2011 the date the ban goes into effect- and, even worse, the way the council went along with it.
Castillo first went into his “say no more-I can say no more” routine regarding the reason claiming it had something to do with a provision in the Hawai`i Revised Statues Chapter 91 which governs administrative (ad) rules, apparently trying to say that he couldn’t have the hearing until the law want into effect but not citing any provision.... perhaps because there isn’t one.
This of course despite the fact that the Maui plastic bag ban law’s ad rules have already gone through their public hearing in August for an ordinance with an effective date of, not so coincidentally, January 11, 2011.
But the real debacle was the fact that the “informational meetings” that the county has announced they will hold on Oct 25 and Nov. 5th & 8th from 10-11 a.m. are apparently being offered in lieu of the legally required official public hearings.
And of course no one on the council had any problem with that.
So why should you?
Maybe its because there’s nothing required of “informational meetings”- where Tanigawa assured the council they would “take testimony”- while there are 1767 words in §91-3 alone regarding “Procedure for adoption, amendment, or repeal of rules”.
Whereas nothing has to occur at an “informational meeting”- and no information obtained must be considered- under an official Chapter 91 public hearing on ad rules.
(2) Afford all interested persons opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or in writing. The agency shall fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule. The agency may make its decision at the public hearing or announce then the date when it intends to make its decision. Upon adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule, the agency, if requested to do so by an interested person, shall issue a concise statement of the principal reasons for and against its determination.(emphasis added).
Not only that but while the county can just plop a “notice” of an unofficial informational meeting on their web site in order to give the notice for a public hearing the agency promulgating the rules must
(1) Give at least thirty days' notice for a public hearing. The notice shall include:
(A) A statement of the topic of the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal or a general description of the subjects involved; and
(B) A statement that a copy of the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed will be mailed to any interested person who requests a copy, pays the required fees for the copy and the postage, if any, together with a description of where and how the requests may be made;
(C) A statement of when, where, and during what times the proposed rule to be adopted, the proposed rule amendment, or the rule proposed to be repealed may be reviewed in person; and
(D The date, time, and place where the public hearing will be held and where interested persons may be heard on the proposed rule adoption, amendment, or repeal.
But here’s the kicker:
The notice shall be mailed to all persons who have made a timely written request of the agency for advance notice of its rulemaking proceedings, given at least once statewide for state agencies and in the county for county agencies. Proposed state agency rules shall also be posted on the Internet as provided in section 91-2.6
The whole purpose of this process is to allow the greatest public input and scrutiny possible to these “rules” which, after all, have the effect of law. What’s supposed to happen is that since they are required to “fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rule”- and of course demonstrate that they have- once that input is given, if it is substantive they are supposed to go back and rewrite the rules.
If that happens, according to the case note 50 H. 156, 434 P.2d 516 on §91-3:
Changes may be made in a rule between the original proposed and presented at a public hearing and as finally adopted. Substantial change in a rule after a public hearing may require another public hearing.
But leave it to a befuddled DPW, a twit of a CA, an Ainokea council and an administration that is so addicted to secrecy and dedicated to keeping incompetent appointees that they would rather ignore the laws in favor of minimizing public participation in public processes, to think their little mid-morning hour-long schmooze session can suffice for official state procedures, as expressed in law.
This whole business is of course a result of the way the council went about “banning” plastic bags in the first place.
Rather than just ban them outright as Maui and other jurisdictions have done, they decided to kiss the butts of the stores that insist on packing our landfill and polluting our roads and waters with these poison products by trying to carve out an “allowable” plastic bag... and then depend on the administration to actually do it’s due diligence in creating a set of rules for the two prong test they set out.
Because there are so few places with bans, in the first to set a reasonable standard that assures petroleum-free biodegradability, the Kaua`i standard would be able to be used by other jurisdictions when manufacturers actually produced them because there was now a market for them.
But our lazy DPW dunderheads had a year to work with manufacturers to use available materials to actually produce the type of bag that local merchants would buy- or at least attempt to do so- and instead sat on their collective `okole protecting their clicking and dialing fingers to they could show us all the middle one.
Then, to make this an archetypical tale of Kaua`i-style incompetence and illegalities, they have decided to supplant the rule making process with a secretive process designed to make sure the public has the least input into the rules possible.
The one mistake the council made was thinking Kaua`i could ever do anything innovative or even new.
And that might have caused Castillo’s, Tanegawa’s and Mayor Carvalho’s heads to explode.... not that that would make any difference...
Monday, October 11, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
VOTE FOR MINA MORITA FOR 14TH HOUSE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE
VOTE FOR MINA MORITA FOR 14TH HOUSE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE: It’s our extreme honor and pleasure to enthusiastically support Mina Morita’s bid for a 8th term representing the 14th District in the Hawai`i House of Representatives.
Mina is not only the greatest officeholders anywhere but one of the finest and smartest people we’ve ever met.
As long time Chair of the House Energy & Environmental Protection Committee she has been instrumental in setting the most progressive renewable energy portfolio in the nation, with results that match the vision.
She has led the way in fighting off efforts to weaken our environmental laws and despoil our environment, protecting agricultural lands, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting hydrogen technology.
We are grateful and humbled that she has chosen to serve our home district again and can’t imagine that anyone exists whom we would rather vote for.
Please give Mina Morita your vote on November 2.
Mina is not only the greatest officeholders anywhere but one of the finest and smartest people we’ve ever met.
As long time Chair of the House Energy & Environmental Protection Committee she has been instrumental in setting the most progressive renewable energy portfolio in the nation, with results that match the vision.
She has led the way in fighting off efforts to weaken our environmental laws and despoil our environment, protecting agricultural lands, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting hydrogen technology.
We are grateful and humbled that she has chosen to serve our home district again and can’t imagine that anyone exists whom we would rather vote for.
Please give Mina Morita your vote on November 2.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
ON AND ON, ON AND ON, ON AND ON
ON AND ON, ON AND ON, ON AND ON: On average we field at least half a dozen or more calls and emails a week from readers that are either flummoxed or flabbergasted at the total lack of ability and professionalism at the local newspaper these days-perhaps the worst it’s ever been and that’s says volumes in and of itself.
The latest sh*tstorm is over an October 3rd article finally covering the Kristan C. Hirakawa-Suniga sexual harassment lawsuit against the county, a matter we started covering in December of 2009- with more revelations in June, culminating in a August report on the $450,000 settlement.
You might think that the calls and letters we got on this matter were about the many other outstanding EEOC complaints and sexual harassment suits that went unnamed in the article which instead had an interview with our half-assed County Attorney Al Castillo who claimed the age of harassment of women is in the past despite current outstanding suits that were exacerbated and even initiated by the actions and inaction of his office after he was appointed.
One of those EEOC complaints was filed by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson over her firing by Castillo himself when he came into office although the type of discrimination has not been revealed... and neither has any settlement.
There’s also the outstanding case of “Kaua`i Bus” driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin which may or may not have been settled during a recent executive session as we reported in June.
In all of these cases, rather than settling when he came into office Castillo requested money from the county council to fight these suits.
So much for his attempt to turn around the way the county treats sexual harassment, as the article contends.
But no they weren’t about that. All of the callers and emailers wanted to talk about the impression given in the article that Hirakawa’s harasser was her new husband Sonny Suniga whom she recently married and with whom she recently had a child.
Nothing of course could be farther from the truth. The name of her harasser- which was conveniently (and typically) left out of the article is Dexter Shimatsu as we also reported in the original article on Hirakawa-Suniga.
But after describing the suit and settlement- all on the basis of an interview with Suniga’s attorney Daniel Hempey and obviously without reading the suit or it’s second filing, the two- count ‘em, two- writers of the story (yes it took two people to write this mess) Paul Curtis and Leo Azambuja first described some of the story.
Hirakawa was paid $100,000 in county funds in 2003 in a worker’s-compensation settlement while she was a dispatcher, a civilian position within the Kaua`i Police Department.
She filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2002 that accused former KPD Lt. Alvin Seto of coercing her into filing a harassment complaint against fellow dispatcher Nelson Gabriel.
Gabriel is now a uniformed KPD officer.
Gabriel was charged with six counts of harassment, one count of harassment by stalking, in 2001 after he was reassigned to dispatch after being accused of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. He was found not guilty of the sex-assault charges.
Part of the settlement in the dispatch case mandated county officials to identify other county jobs Hirakawa might be qualified to fill, and she was hired at the Department of Liquor Control, said Hempey.
But then, out of the blue and appropriate of nothing but seemingly explanatory of something, they wrote:
Hirakawa in November 2009 was granted a temporary restraining order against Sonny Suniga, for a period of six months wherein Suniga also agreed to attend a domestic-violence workshop, state court records show.
Less than a month later, Hirakawa asked for the TRO to be dissolved, and Fifth Circuit Family Court Judge Calvin Murashige granted that request.
On Sept. 8, Mr. and Mrs. Sonny Suniga greeted their first child, a girl, Tianny Brandi Namiko Suniga, weighing 7 pounds, 1.7 ounces, at Kaua`i Veterans Memorial Hospital in Waimea.
Of course people thought Suniga was the harasser- why else would they mention it?
Comments on the article in the on-line version certainly thought so.
Here’s some examples:
truthislaw said on: October 3, 2010, 7:41 am
Am reading this right?
Hirakawa makes claims against Suniga for harassment, sues the county, wins the suit, then marries her harasser and has a baby?
John_Brown said on: October 3, 2010, 10:39 am
Woah... The first settlement appeared to be totally legit but the second one where she ended up marrying the guy and having his kid? That's harassment? That appears to be COURTSHIP. It appears she realized there was money to be made in this harassment thing... And why settle for $100K? Get a better lawyer and go for the big money! And at some point they were unwanted advances and that all changed once the litigation began? Something seems very fishy about this entire situation and what's sad is that the county still paid. Lastly, 'waiting' at home for the settlements must have been tough duty. I guess with all that free time... BABY from the 'abuser'. LOL
payback said on: October 3, 2010, 3:39 pm
As a taxpayer I would not object to spending the money to prosecute thus Bonnie and Clyde to deter others from this scheme. When the “advances” were no longer “unwanted” (assuming they ever were) a stop should be put on her check.
As a rule in journalism and libel law if you are going to bring up a fact about the subject of an article- especially someone who is not a public figure- it’s supposed to be “germane” to the article and. of course, the context that makes it germane should be made apparent.
In addition to the obvious journalistic reason of not showing bias or even malice, the “rule” is made for exactly this circumstance- so that people do not relate the unrelated fact to what is being reported and get the wrong impression.
Doing this kind of thing can lead to a libel suit. Hirakawa, despite the lawsuit, is not a public figure so there is no “absence of malice” standard, only a preponderance of the evidence is needed to show she was harmed by the publication of false material even if it was unintentional.
So far, despite the comments and outrage in the community cause by their false and unethical reporting, there has been no correction forthcoming from the newspaper.
It’s about time someone sued this rag. Maybe then they would wake up to all the angst and wild false rumors that they create across the island and about which we field these calls and letter.
If we were the Suniga’s we’d be calling Hempey right about now.
The latest sh*tstorm is over an October 3rd article finally covering the Kristan C. Hirakawa-Suniga sexual harassment lawsuit against the county, a matter we started covering in December of 2009- with more revelations in June, culminating in a August report on the $450,000 settlement.
You might think that the calls and letters we got on this matter were about the many other outstanding EEOC complaints and sexual harassment suits that went unnamed in the article which instead had an interview with our half-assed County Attorney Al Castillo who claimed the age of harassment of women is in the past despite current outstanding suits that were exacerbated and even initiated by the actions and inaction of his office after he was appointed.
One of those EEOC complaints was filed by former Deputy County Attorney Margaret Hanson over her firing by Castillo himself when he came into office although the type of discrimination has not been revealed... and neither has any settlement.
There’s also the outstanding case of “Kaua`i Bus” driver Kathleen M. Ah Quin which may or may not have been settled during a recent executive session as we reported in June.
In all of these cases, rather than settling when he came into office Castillo requested money from the county council to fight these suits.
So much for his attempt to turn around the way the county treats sexual harassment, as the article contends.
But no they weren’t about that. All of the callers and emailers wanted to talk about the impression given in the article that Hirakawa’s harasser was her new husband Sonny Suniga whom she recently married and with whom she recently had a child.
Nothing of course could be farther from the truth. The name of her harasser- which was conveniently (and typically) left out of the article is Dexter Shimatsu as we also reported in the original article on Hirakawa-Suniga.
But after describing the suit and settlement- all on the basis of an interview with Suniga’s attorney Daniel Hempey and obviously without reading the suit or it’s second filing, the two- count ‘em, two- writers of the story (yes it took two people to write this mess) Paul Curtis and Leo Azambuja first described some of the story.
Hirakawa was paid $100,000 in county funds in 2003 in a worker’s-compensation settlement while she was a dispatcher, a civilian position within the Kaua`i Police Department.
She filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2002 that accused former KPD Lt. Alvin Seto of coercing her into filing a harassment complaint against fellow dispatcher Nelson Gabriel.
Gabriel is now a uniformed KPD officer.
Gabriel was charged with six counts of harassment, one count of harassment by stalking, in 2001 after he was reassigned to dispatch after being accused of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. He was found not guilty of the sex-assault charges.
Part of the settlement in the dispatch case mandated county officials to identify other county jobs Hirakawa might be qualified to fill, and she was hired at the Department of Liquor Control, said Hempey.
But then, out of the blue and appropriate of nothing but seemingly explanatory of something, they wrote:
Hirakawa in November 2009 was granted a temporary restraining order against Sonny Suniga, for a period of six months wherein Suniga also agreed to attend a domestic-violence workshop, state court records show.
Less than a month later, Hirakawa asked for the TRO to be dissolved, and Fifth Circuit Family Court Judge Calvin Murashige granted that request.
On Sept. 8, Mr. and Mrs. Sonny Suniga greeted their first child, a girl, Tianny Brandi Namiko Suniga, weighing 7 pounds, 1.7 ounces, at Kaua`i Veterans Memorial Hospital in Waimea.
Of course people thought Suniga was the harasser- why else would they mention it?
Comments on the article in the on-line version certainly thought so.
Here’s some examples:
truthislaw said on: October 3, 2010, 7:41 am
Am reading this right?
Hirakawa makes claims against Suniga for harassment, sues the county, wins the suit, then marries her harasser and has a baby?
John_Brown said on: October 3, 2010, 10:39 am
Woah... The first settlement appeared to be totally legit but the second one where she ended up marrying the guy and having his kid? That's harassment? That appears to be COURTSHIP. It appears she realized there was money to be made in this harassment thing... And why settle for $100K? Get a better lawyer and go for the big money! And at some point they were unwanted advances and that all changed once the litigation began? Something seems very fishy about this entire situation and what's sad is that the county still paid. Lastly, 'waiting' at home for the settlements must have been tough duty. I guess with all that free time... BABY from the 'abuser'. LOL
payback said on: October 3, 2010, 3:39 pm
As a taxpayer I would not object to spending the money to prosecute thus Bonnie and Clyde to deter others from this scheme. When the “advances” were no longer “unwanted” (assuming they ever were) a stop should be put on her check.
As a rule in journalism and libel law if you are going to bring up a fact about the subject of an article- especially someone who is not a public figure- it’s supposed to be “germane” to the article and. of course, the context that makes it germane should be made apparent.
In addition to the obvious journalistic reason of not showing bias or even malice, the “rule” is made for exactly this circumstance- so that people do not relate the unrelated fact to what is being reported and get the wrong impression.
Doing this kind of thing can lead to a libel suit. Hirakawa, despite the lawsuit, is not a public figure so there is no “absence of malice” standard, only a preponderance of the evidence is needed to show she was harmed by the publication of false material even if it was unintentional.
So far, despite the comments and outrage in the community cause by their false and unethical reporting, there has been no correction forthcoming from the newspaper.
It’s about time someone sued this rag. Maybe then they would wake up to all the angst and wild false rumors that they create across the island and about which we field these calls and letter.
If we were the Suniga’s we’d be calling Hempey right about now.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
SUFFOCATED
SUFFOCATED: One thing we might not have made clear in our three prior posts on apparent efforts to undermine Kaua`i Ordinance 885 restricting the use of plastic grocery bags is that there is a two prong test for acceptable “plastic” bags.
The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”
The second is important too because any bags that merchants use must be certified to meet both standards.
As we said Monday researcher Brad Parsons has been diligently doing the job the Department of Public Works should be doing and will present the following testimony today. Keep the two prong test in mind as you read what he found out. See ya on the other side.
--------
Aloha Councilmembers:
Over the past week, since the last Council meeting regarding Ordinance 885, I have spent probably 50 hours researching the plastic bag issue. I may not get a chance to say or write everything I found, but here are a few notes, and I will try to write up everything I found after today and submit it to you.
First, after almost literally scouring the planet, I did NOT definitively find a poly bag for sale on the market that meets both of Ordinance 885's requirements, those being that it have no fossil fuel polymers (equivalent to ASTM D 6866 industry standard) and that it be compostable at a natural rate as with paper, leaves, and food waste (equivalent to ASTM D 6400 industry standard). I also heavily research the two industry standards, NOT national standards referenced in the prior sentence. The compostable standard ASTM D 6400 is what is used only in San Francisco, California state law, and Minnesota state law for poly bags. It is used in those two states only regarding poly bags. There are many bags on the market that meet the compostable standard ASTM D 6400. The limiting industry standard of the two is ASTM D 6866 the renewable content standard. Of the 19 other jurisdictions in the U.S. with some form of a poly bag ban, I did not find one other jurisdiction that specifically mentions a legal standard of allowing poly bags with no fossil fuel content.
What I did find is at least two bioresins out there that are 100% biobased (that is the term under D 6866 for a polymer that has no fossil fuel content) made by 1) The company Braskem out of Brazil made 100% from sugarcane called green polyethylene. Braskem is in a JV with Proctor & Gamble to distribute products from this, and 2) the company NatureWorks LLC out of Minnesota who's Ingeo biopolymer is 100% biobased from corn. NatureWorks did refer me to two bag makers that they supply. Of those two, there is the possibility that one of them, Indaco of Canada makes a bag called "Bag to Nature" (about 11 cents per bag) that MIGHT be compostable AND 100% biobased. Indaco starts with a bioresin from NatureWorks LLC that is 100% biobased, but if they add their own polymers that have fossil fuel content, then even their "Bag to Nature" would not be 100% biobased and not meet Ordinance 885's unique requirements. I did also come across one other interesting poly bag maker in Minnesota, in Northern Technologies Natur-Tec "Natur-Bag". The "Natur-Bag" is compostable but not 100% biobased, but I did have a chance to have a long conversation with a Rick Lombardo of Northern Tech this morning that was very helpful and will pass on his contact information in my full written testimony to you in the next few days. Lastly, I did come across 2 Chinese companies who's claims are not tested, but which may have a bioresin approaching 100% biobased by Wuhan Huali in a corn-based resin, and Tianan Biologic Material Co. in a bioresin apparently derived from bacteria.
In the course of this search I did also make contact with the only Biodegradable Products Institute approved ASTM D 6400 testing lab on the West Coast, Soil Control Lab, and exchanged a number of useful emails with their lab director Mike Galloway and also made contact and exchanged email and phone conversations with the only lab in the U.S., Beta Analytic, based out of Florida and Europe, that does systematic testing for ASTM D 6866. The useful feedback and documentation they have provided to me, I will include in my next writeup on this.
There are a number of other details that I will try to mention in my testimony or include in my follow-up writing.
----
Today’s council meeting should be a real doozie as the DPW will be forced to explain why they spent a few days short of a full year futzing around and coming up with nothing while Brad spent a few days doing their job for them.
But one thing we will probably not find out today is exactly who approached County Attorney Al Castillo to try to go behind closed doors apparently to sabotage the ordinance’s implementation.
Castillo has refused to say who it was but we sure would like to ask if might have been a certain councilmember who has recused himself due to a conflict of interest due to his employment with Big Save Markets,.
A number of readers have suggested and even alleged this is true but none could provide definitive evidence as to whether Mr. Kawakami used his position as a councilperson to influence the county attorney to put a monkey wrench in the works- which might be seen as a use his position to further a private interest in violation of the county’s code of ethics.
We’re certainly not saying we have any knowledge that it was Kawakami who brought the matter to Castillo’s attention but we’d love to have the both of them answer the question as to whether they have discussed implementation of the bill, especially given Kawakami’s recusal on the matter.
The ordinance allows only "biodegradable bags" which according to the ordinance “means a bag that (1) contains no polymers derived from fossil fuels; and (2) is intended for single use and will decompose in a natural setting at a rate comparable to other biodegradable materials such as paper, leaves, and food waste.”
The second is important too because any bags that merchants use must be certified to meet both standards.
As we said Monday researcher Brad Parsons has been diligently doing the job the Department of Public Works should be doing and will present the following testimony today. Keep the two prong test in mind as you read what he found out. See ya on the other side.
--------
Aloha Councilmembers:
Over the past week, since the last Council meeting regarding Ordinance 885, I have spent probably 50 hours researching the plastic bag issue. I may not get a chance to say or write everything I found, but here are a few notes, and I will try to write up everything I found after today and submit it to you.
First, after almost literally scouring the planet, I did NOT definitively find a poly bag for sale on the market that meets both of Ordinance 885's requirements, those being that it have no fossil fuel polymers (equivalent to ASTM D 6866 industry standard) and that it be compostable at a natural rate as with paper, leaves, and food waste (equivalent to ASTM D 6400 industry standard). I also heavily research the two industry standards, NOT national standards referenced in the prior sentence. The compostable standard ASTM D 6400 is what is used only in San Francisco, California state law, and Minnesota state law for poly bags. It is used in those two states only regarding poly bags. There are many bags on the market that meet the compostable standard ASTM D 6400. The limiting industry standard of the two is ASTM D 6866 the renewable content standard. Of the 19 other jurisdictions in the U.S. with some form of a poly bag ban, I did not find one other jurisdiction that specifically mentions a legal standard of allowing poly bags with no fossil fuel content.
What I did find is at least two bioresins out there that are 100% biobased (that is the term under D 6866 for a polymer that has no fossil fuel content) made by 1) The company Braskem out of Brazil made 100% from sugarcane called green polyethylene. Braskem is in a JV with Proctor & Gamble to distribute products from this, and 2) the company NatureWorks LLC out of Minnesota who's Ingeo biopolymer is 100% biobased from corn. NatureWorks did refer me to two bag makers that they supply. Of those two, there is the possibility that one of them, Indaco of Canada makes a bag called "Bag to Nature" (about 11 cents per bag) that MIGHT be compostable AND 100% biobased. Indaco starts with a bioresin from NatureWorks LLC that is 100% biobased, but if they add their own polymers that have fossil fuel content, then even their "Bag to Nature" would not be 100% biobased and not meet Ordinance 885's unique requirements. I did also come across one other interesting poly bag maker in Minnesota, in Northern Technologies Natur-Tec "Natur-Bag". The "Natur-Bag" is compostable but not 100% biobased, but I did have a chance to have a long conversation with a Rick Lombardo of Northern Tech this morning that was very helpful and will pass on his contact information in my full written testimony to you in the next few days. Lastly, I did come across 2 Chinese companies who's claims are not tested, but which may have a bioresin approaching 100% biobased by Wuhan Huali in a corn-based resin, and Tianan Biologic Material Co. in a bioresin apparently derived from bacteria.
In the course of this search I did also make contact with the only Biodegradable Products Institute approved ASTM D 6400 testing lab on the West Coast, Soil Control Lab, and exchanged a number of useful emails with their lab director Mike Galloway and also made contact and exchanged email and phone conversations with the only lab in the U.S., Beta Analytic, based out of Florida and Europe, that does systematic testing for ASTM D 6866. The useful feedback and documentation they have provided to me, I will include in my next writeup on this.
There are a number of other details that I will try to mention in my testimony or include in my follow-up writing.
----
Today’s council meeting should be a real doozie as the DPW will be forced to explain why they spent a few days short of a full year futzing around and coming up with nothing while Brad spent a few days doing their job for them.
But one thing we will probably not find out today is exactly who approached County Attorney Al Castillo to try to go behind closed doors apparently to sabotage the ordinance’s implementation.
Castillo has refused to say who it was but we sure would like to ask if might have been a certain councilmember who has recused himself due to a conflict of interest due to his employment with Big Save Markets,.
A number of readers have suggested and even alleged this is true but none could provide definitive evidence as to whether Mr. Kawakami used his position as a councilperson to influence the county attorney to put a monkey wrench in the works- which might be seen as a use his position to further a private interest in violation of the county’s code of ethics.
We’re certainly not saying we have any knowledge that it was Kawakami who brought the matter to Castillo’s attention but we’d love to have the both of them answer the question as to whether they have discussed implementation of the bill, especially given Kawakami’s recusal on the matter.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
IF I LISTEN LONG ENOUGH TO YOU
IF I LISTEN LONG ENOUGH TO YOU: A couple of decades ago Chryslers were the laughing stock of the car industry with people swearing off ownership and sales and stock prices plummeting.
That was followed by Lee Iacocca’s introduction of infamous “K car” and ads claiming that this year’s Chryslers had a “100% increase in quality”, causing us to wonder how you’d feel if you’d just bought last year’s model.
And recently Domino’s admitted that their pizza used to taste like cardboard and claims that now it didn’t.
Chrysler remains in third place and no one is rushing out to buy a pizza whose biggest selling point is that it doesn’t taste like cardboard anymore.
But the old adage that “saying it doesn’t make it so” was never more appropriate than when applied to the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD).
Despite the ubiquitous claims that, under new KPD Chief Darryl Perry, there’s been a 100% increase in quality of services we’re left with a distinctly nasty taste in our mouths over the foul tasting crap we’re being fed today in the local newspaper, coming out of the Investigative Services Bureau regarding the recent murder of Amber Jackson and connection to the alleged “west side serial killer”.
Despite the fact that women on this island are terrorized to go out alone and rumors fly like UFOs it seems that all they can say is “trust us we know what we’re doing”.
The question is how can you trust them when all they will say is:
“There is no circumstantial or physical evidence, testimony or suggestion or even suspicion that a connection (between the Jackson and west side murders) exists,” police officials said in an e-mail response to several recent questions. “To further expand would reveal intimate details of both cases that cannot be disclosed. If we did we would jeopardize the investigations.”
Compounding the problem of trusting they are competent to do their jobs is the revelation that Jackson’s nephew says that he “found out via a KPD e-mail that DNA evidence was sent out for analysis some two months after the discovery of Jackson’s dead body.”
The Keystone Kops nature of the “old” KPD was well established in the book KPD Blue (see left rail) which includes a chapter on the west side serial killer. And, as we reported, according to the mayor’s Administrative Assistant, the suspect in those cases was reported to be on the island.
Yet despite the fact that according to our records many thousands of people on Kaua`i read our news article last month on the matter, still no mention of suspect Waldorf “Wally” Wilson’s whereabouts by either KPD or the local newspaper.
Rather than give us some details and evidence that he isn’t here the chief only gave an interview to journalist Joan Conrow claiming that Wilson was never here and, again, he wanted us to “trust him”.
Now despite the apparent incompetence that led to a two month delay in getting the DNA evidence to the lab we’re again to trust them that they are “on the case”.
In addition they haven’t done anything to quell fears over the death of Nola Thompson who was found dead up by Loop Road, refusing to even give a suspected cause of death and again saying “trust us” there was no “apparent” foul play.
People have got to question if they would recognize foul play if they saw it.
All people are asking for is reassurance that they can believe- a few details that make sense- as to why they see no connection between the Jackson and west side murders and what went on up at Loop Road and how Thompson died.
If anything this “say no more- I can say no more” cloak and dagger amateurism coming out of KPD has increased the fear level in the community rather than lowered it.
The responsibility for this kind of stumbling and bumbling their way through their investigative and PR efforts falls on the doorstep of the chief no matter how often he asks us to trust him.
It’s time for Chief Perry to give us at least a couple of reasons to believe.
That was followed by Lee Iacocca’s introduction of infamous “K car” and ads claiming that this year’s Chryslers had a “100% increase in quality”, causing us to wonder how you’d feel if you’d just bought last year’s model.
And recently Domino’s admitted that their pizza used to taste like cardboard and claims that now it didn’t.
Chrysler remains in third place and no one is rushing out to buy a pizza whose biggest selling point is that it doesn’t taste like cardboard anymore.
But the old adage that “saying it doesn’t make it so” was never more appropriate than when applied to the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD).
Despite the ubiquitous claims that, under new KPD Chief Darryl Perry, there’s been a 100% increase in quality of services we’re left with a distinctly nasty taste in our mouths over the foul tasting crap we’re being fed today in the local newspaper, coming out of the Investigative Services Bureau regarding the recent murder of Amber Jackson and connection to the alleged “west side serial killer”.
Despite the fact that women on this island are terrorized to go out alone and rumors fly like UFOs it seems that all they can say is “trust us we know what we’re doing”.
The question is how can you trust them when all they will say is:
“There is no circumstantial or physical evidence, testimony or suggestion or even suspicion that a connection (between the Jackson and west side murders) exists,” police officials said in an e-mail response to several recent questions. “To further expand would reveal intimate details of both cases that cannot be disclosed. If we did we would jeopardize the investigations.”
Compounding the problem of trusting they are competent to do their jobs is the revelation that Jackson’s nephew says that he “found out via a KPD e-mail that DNA evidence was sent out for analysis some two months after the discovery of Jackson’s dead body.”
The Keystone Kops nature of the “old” KPD was well established in the book KPD Blue (see left rail) which includes a chapter on the west side serial killer. And, as we reported, according to the mayor’s Administrative Assistant, the suspect in those cases was reported to be on the island.
Yet despite the fact that according to our records many thousands of people on Kaua`i read our news article last month on the matter, still no mention of suspect Waldorf “Wally” Wilson’s whereabouts by either KPD or the local newspaper.
Rather than give us some details and evidence that he isn’t here the chief only gave an interview to journalist Joan Conrow claiming that Wilson was never here and, again, he wanted us to “trust him”.
Now despite the apparent incompetence that led to a two month delay in getting the DNA evidence to the lab we’re again to trust them that they are “on the case”.
In addition they haven’t done anything to quell fears over the death of Nola Thompson who was found dead up by Loop Road, refusing to even give a suspected cause of death and again saying “trust us” there was no “apparent” foul play.
People have got to question if they would recognize foul play if they saw it.
All people are asking for is reassurance that they can believe- a few details that make sense- as to why they see no connection between the Jackson and west side murders and what went on up at Loop Road and how Thompson died.
If anything this “say no more- I can say no more” cloak and dagger amateurism coming out of KPD has increased the fear level in the community rather than lowered it.
The responsibility for this kind of stumbling and bumbling their way through their investigative and PR efforts falls on the doorstep of the chief no matter how often he asks us to trust him.
It’s time for Chief Perry to give us at least a couple of reasons to believe.
Monday, October 4, 2010
PANTS ON FIRE
PANTS ON FIRE: In the wake of County Attorney Al Castillo’s performance in requesting the council go into executive session to discuss the ordinance banning plastic bags last Wednesday things have became curiouser and curiouser over the weekend.
As we noted last week on Wednesday and Friday Castillo told the council that, despite the fact that the ordinance had been passed about a year ago, the Department of Public Works (DPW) had not even begun to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules (ad rules) because they- and he- were confused about the “intent” of the ordinance.
He also told them apparently after doing their due diligence the DPW found there were no bags in existence that fit the requirements that “no fossil fuel polymers” be used in manufacturing them.
But late Friday, an email showed up in the inbox of one of those most active in the passage of the bill with a brand new informational county web page containing a draft of those very rules which were supposedly nonexistent.
Brad Parson, who worked diligently with others to pass the bill last year, said he had run into Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s assistant Beth Tokioka after the council meeting and asked about the rules and apparently, in response, she sent him a link to the brand new country web page containing a copy of the ordinance, the ad rules and the public hearing notice for the bill.
The rules were either done in one night by Menehunes or more likely existed despite Castillo’s assurance they didn’t exist.
The rules do contain a “list” of acceptable plastic bags under which is printed the word “none”. They also have a section describing a process for submission by merchants of bags for testing to see if they comply.
But the contention that there are no bags being made today that do not contain fossil fuel polymers and in fact that they had checked, seemed a little too pat an answer for Parsons who got busy over the weekend to see if it was true.
It didn’t take him long to find at least one called the “Naturtech Nature Bag” from Northern Technologies Industrial Corp (NTIC) out of Minnesota that thus far appears meets the standard in addition to others that may.
Parsons, a meticulous researcher, is still on the case today to verify the claims made by NTIC as well as others.
But one thing was becoming apparent to Parsons as he did his inquiry- that no one else had asked questions of these manufacturers that he found on-line.
As anyone who has done any research knows- especially in the on-line age- when you start nosing around you will find the fingerprints of anyone who did the same research before you. But Parsons says that so far he seems to be asking questions of the various manufacturers that haven’t been asked before, possibly due to the unique nature of the Kaua`i ordinance.
Another problem with the administration’s whole approach to the implementation is that the notice of public hearing for the rules is being held the very day Ordinance 885 goes into effect, January 11, 2011. That apparently “builds in” a delay in implementation between when the old bags become illegal and when stores can know what bags to use, if any- or even worse, submit one for testing and wait until the results come back- and then order and receive them.
And, in typical “fire ready aim” county manner, they have scheduled a series of three “public information meetings” on October 25 and November 4 and 8, however they are all being held from 10:00 am to 11:00 am for some reason.
The answer to the question as to what “information” is to be disseminated if the rules have yet to be finalized through a public hearing isn’t apparent... unless of course the public hearing is actually superfluous and it doesn’t really matter to them what the public says.
The whole thing is up for discussion this Wednesday at the meeting of the council’s Public Works and Energy Committee where Chair Tim Bynum is “requesting the Administration's presence to discuss Ordinance No. 885, relating to Plastic Bag Reduction.”
In addition there is another request on the agenda from Castillo to go behind closed doors to discuss some kind of “liability” with the council.
Whatever the outcome, one extremely troublesome issue with Castillo’s approach is in his contention that without knowing the council’s “intent” it is impossible to know what to put into the ad rules.
This isn’t the first time that Kaua`i CAs have decided that they need to “interpret” ordinances rather than relying on the plain reading of the law. The same has happened in the Board of Ethics brouhaha over the plain reading of the charter and how it conflicts with the rules of the BOE because someone decided to “interpret” the plain meaning of the charter... interpreting the plain reading out of existence, as it were.
The ordinance is plain- if a bag that meets the criteria exists, it is permissible, If not it isn’t and people must use paper or preferable reusable canvas bags, as is stated in the “purpose” section of the bill that became Ordinance 885.
The reality is that there are only 18 jurisdictions that have any plastic bag bills and the one on Kaua`i is unique in allowing only those that contain no petroleum products. In doing so we are leading the way in providing the industry with the impetus to manufacture them so that other jurisdictions will be able follow in our steps.
But apparently there are bags that meet out standards if the DPW gets off their butts and looks for them.
As we noted last week on Wednesday and Friday Castillo told the council that, despite the fact that the ordinance had been passed about a year ago, the Department of Public Works (DPW) had not even begun to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules (ad rules) because they- and he- were confused about the “intent” of the ordinance.
He also told them apparently after doing their due diligence the DPW found there were no bags in existence that fit the requirements that “no fossil fuel polymers” be used in manufacturing them.
But late Friday, an email showed up in the inbox of one of those most active in the passage of the bill with a brand new informational county web page containing a draft of those very rules which were supposedly nonexistent.
Brad Parson, who worked diligently with others to pass the bill last year, said he had run into Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s assistant Beth Tokioka after the council meeting and asked about the rules and apparently, in response, she sent him a link to the brand new country web page containing a copy of the ordinance, the ad rules and the public hearing notice for the bill.
The rules were either done in one night by Menehunes or more likely existed despite Castillo’s assurance they didn’t exist.
The rules do contain a “list” of acceptable plastic bags under which is printed the word “none”. They also have a section describing a process for submission by merchants of bags for testing to see if they comply.
But the contention that there are no bags being made today that do not contain fossil fuel polymers and in fact that they had checked, seemed a little too pat an answer for Parsons who got busy over the weekend to see if it was true.
It didn’t take him long to find at least one called the “Naturtech Nature Bag” from Northern Technologies Industrial Corp (NTIC) out of Minnesota that thus far appears meets the standard in addition to others that may.
Parsons, a meticulous researcher, is still on the case today to verify the claims made by NTIC as well as others.
But one thing was becoming apparent to Parsons as he did his inquiry- that no one else had asked questions of these manufacturers that he found on-line.
As anyone who has done any research knows- especially in the on-line age- when you start nosing around you will find the fingerprints of anyone who did the same research before you. But Parsons says that so far he seems to be asking questions of the various manufacturers that haven’t been asked before, possibly due to the unique nature of the Kaua`i ordinance.
Another problem with the administration’s whole approach to the implementation is that the notice of public hearing for the rules is being held the very day Ordinance 885 goes into effect, January 11, 2011. That apparently “builds in” a delay in implementation between when the old bags become illegal and when stores can know what bags to use, if any- or even worse, submit one for testing and wait until the results come back- and then order and receive them.
And, in typical “fire ready aim” county manner, they have scheduled a series of three “public information meetings” on October 25 and November 4 and 8, however they are all being held from 10:00 am to 11:00 am for some reason.
The answer to the question as to what “information” is to be disseminated if the rules have yet to be finalized through a public hearing isn’t apparent... unless of course the public hearing is actually superfluous and it doesn’t really matter to them what the public says.
The whole thing is up for discussion this Wednesday at the meeting of the council’s Public Works and Energy Committee where Chair Tim Bynum is “requesting the Administration's presence to discuss Ordinance No. 885, relating to Plastic Bag Reduction.”
In addition there is another request on the agenda from Castillo to go behind closed doors to discuss some kind of “liability” with the council.
Whatever the outcome, one extremely troublesome issue with Castillo’s approach is in his contention that without knowing the council’s “intent” it is impossible to know what to put into the ad rules.
This isn’t the first time that Kaua`i CAs have decided that they need to “interpret” ordinances rather than relying on the plain reading of the law. The same has happened in the Board of Ethics brouhaha over the plain reading of the charter and how it conflicts with the rules of the BOE because someone decided to “interpret” the plain meaning of the charter... interpreting the plain reading out of existence, as it were.
The ordinance is plain- if a bag that meets the criteria exists, it is permissible, If not it isn’t and people must use paper or preferable reusable canvas bags, as is stated in the “purpose” section of the bill that became Ordinance 885.
The reality is that there are only 18 jurisdictions that have any plastic bag bills and the one on Kaua`i is unique in allowing only those that contain no petroleum products. In doing so we are leading the way in providing the industry with the impetus to manufacture them so that other jurisdictions will be able follow in our steps.
But apparently there are bags that meet out standards if the DPW gets off their butts and looks for them.
Friday, October 1, 2010
SNIPE HUNT
SNIPE HUNT: When it comes to playing the middle ground in the old “corruption vs. incompetence” game, the Kaua`i Department of Public Works (DPW) has had years of practical experience in befuddling the naturally befuddled county council.
If we had a dollar every time we had to ask of the county engineer and his underlings “are you crooked or just stupid” we’d be able to afford a new computer to replace the 2001 dinosaur on which we do our daily hunt and peck.
So it comes as no surprise that request for the scheduled executive session (ES) on the plastic bag ban ordinance that we wrote about Wednesday was a result of the usual inability of the DPW to do their job.
Although County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo was his usual cryptic self Wednesday in requesting an ES to tell the council about some sort of imagined liability contained in the current ordinance, the council, amazingly enough- refused to go behind closed doors to discuss what most called pubic policy.
But through questioning the reason Castillo was there in the first place became obvious- despite having a year and a half to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules to flesh out the details of the ban, the DPW hadn’t even begun the process and were now arguing about what the “intent” of the bill was instead of just reading and implementing it.
Actually, as member of the public pointed out, the intent of the ordinance was actually written into the bill which say it’s designed to move people to use cloth bags.
The council ended up “requesting the presence” of a DPW representative at next week’s pubic works committee meeting to explain why they haven’t begun the process that usually takes a few months, considering that the ordinance takes effect next January.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that rather than banning plastic bags entirely the ordinance was designed allow “biodegradable” plastic bags specifically banning ones that contain “polymers derived from fossil fuels”.
But, in fact, as it stands today nobody makes plastic bags that don’t contain fossil fuel polymers. And there is no standard as to what a “biodegradable plastic bag” is anyway which is why the council came up with their own definition of what they were banning.
We suspect that Castillo’s “liability” problem is that while the bill allows the use of certain plastic bags it makes it impossible to obtain bags that meet the standard.
It would be like allowing the use of cell phones while driving but only if they were made on the moon. Although someday there may be some moon-manufactured cell phone it ain’t gonna happen an time soon.
We also suspect that this was precisely why the supermarkets and the Chamber of Commerce lobbied so hard- and successfully- to allow for “biodegradable plastic”, knowing that there was no such thing and that they could come back close to the deadline and threaten a lawsuit with a CA that’s always doing everything he can to influence pubic policy when someone comes up with some cockamamie legal argument.
But, as we said, the fault really lies with the DPW which has shunned promulgating “ad rules” for years... sometimes decades.
We’re still waiting for the regulations for the infamous grubbing and grading (G&G) rules to flesh out the way they handle violations of the ordinance that was passed following the extensive “Developers Gone Wild” hearings in the late 90’s and early ’00’s.
At the time it became apparent to an astonished council that there was no official process for enforcing G&G violations and decisions were being made arbitrarily and capriciously... or not at all.
One of the problems in that was that DPW officials claimed they were unable to check out complaints of violations of the ordinance that was in place at the time. That conveniently allowed them to ignore violations at the instructions of then Mayor Maryann Kusaka who has been extensively alleged to have instructed the DPW to ignore violations by the likes of “friends of Maryanne” Jimmy Pflueger and Tom McCloskey.
Of course that led to the Ka Loko dam break and the county’s multi-million dollar settlement apparently for ignoring violations that led to it.
But guess what? Although the council included many things in the G&G bill itself that would normally be done through administrative rules they couldn’t really be expected to do it all,
They got guarantees from DPW that the rules would be done in six months from passage. And the last time we checked there still aren’t any.
The DPW was actually scheduled for a management audit more than once. In fact prior to that there was an aborted attempt at a charter section 3.17 council official investigation of the massive department.
Those half-hearted efforts- done only in response to public political pressure- eventually led to the establishment of the new Office of the County Auditor where, many hoped, the first order of business would be to look into the incompetence (or is it corruption?) of the DPW.
But as yet, it doesn’t even seem to appear on the radar screen of former Deputy County clerk and now Auditor, Ernie Passion.
The problem seems to come down to this attitude on the council that once they pass a new law they not only expect but are confident that the administration will, actually enforce it.
The fact that that is rarely the case has gotta make you ask whether the council too is corrupt or just incompetent in their administrative oversight role.
Either way it’s the public that has to suffer through it.
If we had a dollar every time we had to ask of the county engineer and his underlings “are you crooked or just stupid” we’d be able to afford a new computer to replace the 2001 dinosaur on which we do our daily hunt and peck.
So it comes as no surprise that request for the scheduled executive session (ES) on the plastic bag ban ordinance that we wrote about Wednesday was a result of the usual inability of the DPW to do their job.
Although County Attorney (CA) Al Castillo was his usual cryptic self Wednesday in requesting an ES to tell the council about some sort of imagined liability contained in the current ordinance, the council, amazingly enough- refused to go behind closed doors to discuss what most called pubic policy.
But through questioning the reason Castillo was there in the first place became obvious- despite having a year and a half to promulgate Chapter 91 administrative rules to flesh out the details of the ban, the DPW hadn’t even begun the process and were now arguing about what the “intent” of the bill was instead of just reading and implementing it.
Actually, as member of the public pointed out, the intent of the ordinance was actually written into the bill which say it’s designed to move people to use cloth bags.
The council ended up “requesting the presence” of a DPW representative at next week’s pubic works committee meeting to explain why they haven’t begun the process that usually takes a few months, considering that the ordinance takes effect next January.
Part of the problem comes from the fact that rather than banning plastic bags entirely the ordinance was designed allow “biodegradable” plastic bags specifically banning ones that contain “polymers derived from fossil fuels”.
But, in fact, as it stands today nobody makes plastic bags that don’t contain fossil fuel polymers. And there is no standard as to what a “biodegradable plastic bag” is anyway which is why the council came up with their own definition of what they were banning.
We suspect that Castillo’s “liability” problem is that while the bill allows the use of certain plastic bags it makes it impossible to obtain bags that meet the standard.
It would be like allowing the use of cell phones while driving but only if they were made on the moon. Although someday there may be some moon-manufactured cell phone it ain’t gonna happen an time soon.
We also suspect that this was precisely why the supermarkets and the Chamber of Commerce lobbied so hard- and successfully- to allow for “biodegradable plastic”, knowing that there was no such thing and that they could come back close to the deadline and threaten a lawsuit with a CA that’s always doing everything he can to influence pubic policy when someone comes up with some cockamamie legal argument.
But, as we said, the fault really lies with the DPW which has shunned promulgating “ad rules” for years... sometimes decades.
We’re still waiting for the regulations for the infamous grubbing and grading (G&G) rules to flesh out the way they handle violations of the ordinance that was passed following the extensive “Developers Gone Wild” hearings in the late 90’s and early ’00’s.
At the time it became apparent to an astonished council that there was no official process for enforcing G&G violations and decisions were being made arbitrarily and capriciously... or not at all.
One of the problems in that was that DPW officials claimed they were unable to check out complaints of violations of the ordinance that was in place at the time. That conveniently allowed them to ignore violations at the instructions of then Mayor Maryann Kusaka who has been extensively alleged to have instructed the DPW to ignore violations by the likes of “friends of Maryanne” Jimmy Pflueger and Tom McCloskey.
Of course that led to the Ka Loko dam break and the county’s multi-million dollar settlement apparently for ignoring violations that led to it.
But guess what? Although the council included many things in the G&G bill itself that would normally be done through administrative rules they couldn’t really be expected to do it all,
They got guarantees from DPW that the rules would be done in six months from passage. And the last time we checked there still aren’t any.
The DPW was actually scheduled for a management audit more than once. In fact prior to that there was an aborted attempt at a charter section 3.17 council official investigation of the massive department.
Those half-hearted efforts- done only in response to public political pressure- eventually led to the establishment of the new Office of the County Auditor where, many hoped, the first order of business would be to look into the incompetence (or is it corruption?) of the DPW.
But as yet, it doesn’t even seem to appear on the radar screen of former Deputy County clerk and now Auditor, Ernie Passion.
The problem seems to come down to this attitude on the council that once they pass a new law they not only expect but are confident that the administration will, actually enforce it.
The fact that that is rarely the case has gotta make you ask whether the council too is corrupt or just incompetent in their administrative oversight role.
Either way it’s the public that has to suffer through it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
