(PNN) In a move by new Chair Mel Rapozo that removes the rights of
councilmember to introduce legislation, move bills out of committee
to a final vote by the full council, initiate workshops and even cuts
the amount of time allotted for them to speak on measures on the
agenda by half, the new Kaua`i County Council majority rammed through
wholesale changes to longstanding rules at Monday's usually inaugural
meeting of the Kaua`i County Council.
The rights of the public were also severely curtailed by cutting
the mandatory length for public testimony in half, removing the
right to petition the council, severely restricting exchanges between
councilmembers and testifiers and forcing the public to one again
wait for hours to testify.
The County Charter requires adoption of the rules at the usually
pro-forma first meeting which turned into a protracted, almost four
hour long losing battle to protect the rights of councilmembers and
the public after Rapozo attempted to sneak
new
rules past due consideration by the council by circulating them
unformatted, without using the standard "Ramseyer" format
that shows changes to legislation. That way a quick glance made those
reading them think there were no changes at all.
A
PNN
article on Saturday which detailed a small handful of the
proposed changes apparently alarmed Councilmember Gary Hooser who
then "shared" the article on Facebook. That
spurred
an email from Rapozo sent only to those who had contacted him after
seeing the article, attempting unsuccessfully to play down and in
fact misrepresent the changes. That email itself was followed by a
detailed point-by-point Facebook post refuting Rapozo's email from
Hooser who was outraged over the not just the rules themselves but
the attempt to dupe the council into adopting changes.
Among the changes is one previously unreported provision that
would allow committees and their chairs to prevent the full council
from taking a final vote on a bill or resolution by holding the bill
in committee permanently, thus killing it.
While giving chairs this kind of power is common at the federal
and state level it is rarely part of the rules for local
jurisdictions. Kaua`i is the first county in Hawai`i to pass a rule
like this, although Hawai`i Island briefly
considered
and quickly rejected a similar measure this week after their
chair attempted a similar secret maneuver.
According to Roberts Rules of Order which governs parliamentary
procedure, only the full body can determine the ultimate fate of any
measure with a majority or more (depending on the type of measure) of
the full body carrying the outcome. But under the Rule-a-la-Rapozo a
"receipt for the record" or in fact any vote other than
approval by a five-voting-member committee of the seven member
council would cause the measure to remain in committee until the
chair allows it to come up again- conceivably not at all. That would
allow three votes- or even less depending on how many are in
attendance for the vote- to essentially kill a bill or resolution.
The new rules also:
-Cut the time the public is given by law to testify on an agenda
item from a total of six to three minutes. It would leave granting a
second three minutes to the discretion of the chair, replacing the
old four additional minutes under the chair's purview. It's
interesting to note that when the matter came up for discussion
Councilmember Kipukai Kuali`i showed how even he- a member of the new
majority who was the most vocal about how it was "disrespectful"
to challenge the new rules- insisted this was not true, personally
attacking Hooser over his contention that it was. It took an
insistence from Hooser that the record reflect the truth for Kuali`i-
obviously worried enough about how his performance would look to the
electorate to later apologize and claim he was not attacking Hooser
personally- to acknowledge his error demonstrating definitively that
he hadn't understood or possibly even read one of the most glaring
changes. The "total of six minutes" rule had been in effect
on Kaua`i for decades;
-Removed the right of councilmember to have proposed legislation-
or any matter- placed on the council agenda within 120 days of
submittal. This provision was added a couple of years back after
Rapozo's stated "mentor," former Chair Kaipo Asing, abused
the requirement requiring the council chair to "initial"
matters in order for them to appear on the agenda. to block
legislation he disfavored from ever appearing on the agenda;
-Eliminate the right of members to hold "workshops"
unless the matter is on the council agenda. Workshops are used to
gather facts, input from experts. members of the administration and
the community to contribute to the preparation of legislation without
violating the state Sunshine Law which requires six-day notice and
public testimony whenever a majority of the council gathers to deal
with actual or projected council business;
-Cut from 10 to five minutes the time councilmembers may speak on
an agenda item without permission from the chair;
-Eliminated the right of citizens to petition the council to
consider legislation;
-Eliminated a recent rule change that had allowed members of the
public to testify on any single agenda item for three minutes at the
very beginning of a meeting rather than having to sit around all day-
sometimes into the night- in order to testify, thus forcing them to,
once again, take a full day off to speak their mind rather than just
an hour or so at 9 a.m.
Rapozo claimed many of the substantive changes were merely
"housekeeping" measures and that all were done with intent
of "expediency (and) efficiency" and as "cost saving"
measures, even suggesting much of the council's proceeding-
apparently including public and council input- were "a waste of
time (and) money" presenting an unsubstantiated a figure of
$250 an hour to record, caption and web-cast meetings.
For the record, at one point during the meeting Rapozo personally
chided PNN Publisher, Editor and Chief Correspondent Andy Parx by
name over what he thought he had read in PNN's first (Saturday 11/29)
article on the rules. Rapozo mockingly claimed that Parx wrote that
a rule regarding "intemperate" or "abusive"
language was new. However a critical-reading of the paragraph shows
that the reference to "new" was made regarding the section
on "Public Testimony" in which the passage is contained,
not the passage itself. PNN welcomes a retraction and apology from
Rapozo considering how adverse he is to litigation.
The meeting began with a... ah screw this "news" format-
the rest calls for a lot less "just the facts ma’am" and
a lot more Rabid Reporter bombast.
The power grab by "King Louis-Mel "I am the County"
XIV, The "Blotting out the Sun(shine) King" started with a
"hurry up and just pass the damn rules" push during the
usually pre-fake-swearing-in snooze-fest where the gaggle of
governance takes the actual oath of office while the audience swears
a different kind of under-their-breath-oath. That is usually
punctuated by selection of the new chair, vice chair, clerk and
deputy and finally pretty much the same old rules as the last term
are adopted. At least that's been the case for the at least the last
25-plus years with any substantive rule changes taking place at
regular meetings throughout the term.
As the clocked ticked down to the official unofficial hour
assigned to re-perform the swearing-in ceremonially in the auditorium
next door approached, the new council majority became panicked when
it became apparent that the minority were not happy about the
elimination of their and the public's rights as Councilmember JoAnn
Yukimura announced she had prepared nine amendments for the most
egregious of the measures to consolidate MachiaMelli's powers.
" Hurry... only a few minutes to go" shouted
dumber-than-the-usual-bear Ross "Boo-Boo" Kagawa to Yogi
the Chair as the clock ticked down. "Let's just pass them and be
done with it" said perennial also ran,
first-time-actually-elected Rapozo-sycophant Kipukai Kuali`i who
seemed outraged-to-tears (if that's possible) that someone would
challenge the rights of Il Douche-A, to run roughshod over the
minority.
It was only when, with mere minutes to go, Yukimura shouted "Move
to amend" and a split-second later Hooser said "second"
that the
lap-dancer-fondling
chair thought better of not recognizing the motion at the
almost-didn't-happen delayed-on-line-streaming of the event and they
all proceeded next door for the banal fake-coronation and insipid
oratories from Hizzonah and Ghengis Mel, saving the fireworks for
after the show.
Despite the opposition from the majority- which includes a
long-sought seat for big Kaua`i landowner Grove Farm in the form of
Silver-Spoon-Fed legacy "Missing-D," Arryl Kaneshiro (whose
election, many say, was due to confusion with his father,
long-serving ex-Councilmember, Darryl)- Yukimura charged on with her
amendments with "seconds" from Hooser and loose support
from the other member of the progressive minority Mason Chock who,
with Yukimura, voted for the final rules with only Hooser voting in
opposition.
The worst of the worst of the really offensive "how dare you
challenge
The
Prince" rhetoric came from Kuali`i who had gotten the votes
of many progressives in the last election despite his demonstrated
support for the Rapozo, Asing and former councilmember and disgraced
former County Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho.
Iseri and Kuali`i were accused of colluding to throw
Victim-Witness Program monies to Kualii's employer, the YWCA, with
Iseri firing the V-V program employees she had just hired (causing a
wrongful termination EEOC filing which the county settled) in the
prosecutors office... where the program had always been housed since
its inception.
This, say council-watchers guaranteed Kualii's allegiance to the
Iseri/Rapozo alliance during the often bitter battles over Asing's
secretive and paternalistic reign as Chair after having served nobly
for years as the champion of the people in the '80's '90's and early
'00's.
Of the nine amendments only one passed and that with an amendment
to the amendment. But that was was perhaps the most perplexing of all
because the "new" rule was the same as the old rule housed
in that previously mentioned section on Public Hearings.
The council rules certainly did need some actual housekeeping
measures including use of archaic language, anachronistic provisions
and misogynist phrasings. But one of the most glaring had always been
that there was no section regarding the rules for Public Testimony.
Those rules had always been housed under "Public Hearings"
which are required by charter but separate from common public
testimony which is required on every agenda item at every meeting by
the
Hawai`i
State Sunshine (open meetings) Law. The Public Hearing rules have
always been treated as applying to both.
Apparently when staff pointed this out to Benito Rapozo he decided
to use the opportunity to make the council train run on time.
The one and only provision that differed was that during actual
Public Hearings, the council has been restricted from asking
questions and having exchanges with those testifying. It had always
been pretty strictly adhered to until recently when, although former
Chair Jay Furfaro would often remind councilmembers of the rule, he
in fact was a little lackadaisical about enforcing it.
Yet here was an amendment from Yukimura apparently seeking to
allow it that during Public Hearings. Now it should be pointed out
that at this juncture that although the council appeared to be
working from, if not a formal Ramseyer copy of the new rules at least
one that indicated changes, still neither has not been made available
to the public.
And as a matter of fact one of those "housekeeping"
rules made it even harder to know what the heck is going on at
meetings by allowing the chair to dispense with the actual verbal
reading of measures. We've tried for years to get them to read actual
amendments when they're introduced- or at least before they are
passed- to no avail.
Parenthetically, as a matter of fact- and we should have
anticipated this- council service is traditionally about as fast as a
molasses-surfing turtle when it comes to getting things posted on the
county web site. Yet the new rules were posted so fast it made our
head do an Exorcist and now the old rules are apparently lost to the
ages.
Not so parenthetically, in some ways we were sympathetic to the
impetus (if not the lack of thought) behind a few of what can only be
called the new"Yukimura Rules."
There isn't one person we know who hasn't rolled their eyes and
even walked out of the room asking those remaining to "let me
know when she's done" after sitting through one of her
interminable "thinking out loud" sessions, usually during
Q&A with someone testifying. The smirks when councilmembers made
veiled references to it during the debate were not as veiled as the
references themselves.
So back to the actual amendment that apparently amended nothing,
Yukimura's amendment seemed to seek to allow exchanges during Pubic
Hearings. That would have been a change from what we remember the old
rules said:
"Public hearings are held to receive testimony from the
public. Councilmembers shall reserve their opinions, questions, and
arguments for the appropriate Council or Committee meeting."
So after much wrangling and Yukimura's pleas that members be able
to "clarify" what those speaking at Public Hearings were
saying, the following was added:
";except that Councilmembers may ask clarifying questions
that enable the Council to better understand the point or position of
the speaker."
And THAT passed unanimously. Big whoop. It's probably the one
change we would have opposed.
The afternoon session session began with His Melness attempting
to run down the list of changes, often mumbling "housekeeping
changes made by staff"- until it turned out they weren't- or
otherwise glossing over or misrepresenting them. Then Yukimura's
amendments rejected at breakneck speed, with the the Greek Chorus
responding to Sophoclapozo's "I wont abuse my power" with
a refrain of "No he won't abuse his power" followed by some
HMS Pinafore-like
What Never?
No Never
What Never?
Well... hardly every
Hardly ever abuses Ruuuules.
Hardly ever sick at Council meetings? We suspect that for the next
two year the response will be "yes always."
