PORRIDGE FOR HIS PORRIDGE BOWL: The headline in the local paper today says it all: Council kills proposed rule changes.
But did anyone expect anything different?
As we sit here watching the unfolding debacle on the next-day airing of the meeting- another symbol of the Minotaur’s labyrinth that keeps the dark as dark as can be- as Ed Coll detailed in a letter to the editor in today’s local paper- we’re amazed that anyone thought there would be a different outcome, one we foresaw yesterday.
As Joan Conrow remarked today:
But who, really, besides the politically naïve, imagined that things would be significantly different after the recent brouhaha, or that “reform” was ever going to be an item on the Council’s agenda?
Who? We’ll certainly the formerly outraged malihini among us such as blogger Brad Parsons who wrote at his Aloha Analytics site today.
I think the public is ready to move on and hoping that Kaipo is a man of his word, per his statements to keep the agenda open to all Council members.
With all due respect, Parsons- who since he arrived here last year after years of activism on Maui and has done a great job of assimilating some of the political absurdities and Catch-22’s of Kaua`i government and informing other community members- apparently doesn’t seem to have a sense of the pent up rage that has exploded locally, not just among the north shore progressive “settler” community- as our friend Katy Rose is fond of calling them- but among the dismayed and indeed fed up local community across the island.
Because much to the contrary of the “white man’s burden” mentality of those settlers, those who know all too well the history of oppression aren’t stupid and are feeling less and less cowed and more and more pissed-off over the past couple of months now that they actually have at least two if not three members of the council willing to attest to the nudity of the emperor Asing and his sycophantic palace guard.
They’ve seen the issue plastered all over the local newspaper- where today, we’re sure, reporter extraordinaire Michael Levine did as good a job as possible in describing yesterday’s slap in the face of reform given the space he had to report it.
And while it’s likely they will be not among those who will be “lighting up” the letters to the editor page- as Parsons reported one councilmember predicted- it is likely they have long memories of the type of plantation-mentality paternalism that comes with the suppression of democracy the council majority has exhibited.
And yesterday’s actions only cemented the building rage.
As Joan said:
It brings to mind a conversation I had with a relative newcomer to the island who approached me on Tuesday saying, “Isn’t it great that the Council is going to be more open?” And that prompted me to reply, “I don’t think anything is really going to change,” to which he responded, grudgingly, “Well, maybe not, but at least it’s all out on the table.”
Perhaps the recent events will serve to more thoroughly inform some of the newbies of just how Kauai politics work, and how deeply entrenched the system is, so they can drop their dreamy-eyed vision that a) any one of them has a prayer of getting elected and b) any sort of meaningful change or progressive movement will come from that body, at least so long as the voting majority continues to elect the people they do.
The positive in all this is that not just the locals who know what the score is but Joan’s “newbies” can’t avert their gaze from which side of the labyrinth gate the remaining councilmembers are on.
Anyone who thought that Derek Kawakami or Dickie Chang were anything but hacks and shills for the Minotaur are certainly no longer so deluded. And Council minority “leader” Jay Furfaro’s reported support can’t be a bad sign although his past wavering leave any predictions about the future still in flux.
Some will wait for leadership from Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara in maintaining the fight for democracy, open government and transparency. Others will wait for the other shoe to drop when, not if, the rights of the public and even councilmembers are trampled upon once again.
But the coals are still glowing hot and tinderbox is getting drier every day.
Though elections might seem a long way off, Joan’s dreary observations notwithstanding anyone who has the gumption to stand, sword drawn and enter the domain of the half man/half bull would be well served to start preparing for November 2010 so we can turn that 3-4 into at least a 4-3.
We’ll have more on the particulars once we have a chance to witness the debacle for ourselves but for now, if the past two weeks are any indication, the outrage and backlash against the majority is what will inform the story yet to be told and that can’t help but build after yesterday’s repudiation of the rights of the people of Kaua`i.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
SOMEONE LEFT THE RULES OUT IN THE RAIN
SOMEONE LEFT THE RULES OUT IN THE RAIN: Anyone reading yesterday’s (Tuesday 8/4) letter to the editor in the local newspaper from Council reformers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara might think it’s time to do the happy dance
After all, they said:
There is good news. Chair Asing has now initiated new policies at Council Services that allow for all council members to see all the correspondence addressed to them in a timely manner. New e-mail addresses have been established that forward e-mail electronically to all council members without being screened or delayed. Council meeting minutes are beginning to be posted on the county’s Web site.
We are pleased at this turn of events and appreciate Chair Asing allowing these changes to occur.
And indeed the agenda contains some items that could portend well.
Finally up for discussion and a vote is Resolution 2009-50 – the one that Bynum tried to introduce on June 3 that would
amend Rule 10(c) by clarifying that the placement of any proposed bill or resolution on the agenda is not a matter of discretion with the Chair or Vice Chair to grant or deny, but merely administrative in nature.
This time though it is introduced by Kawahara for reasons that we’ll try to shed some light on later.
Although some are still suspicious about the ad hoc committee resolution to study and make recommendations regarding council rules- one that was deferred at the marathon showdown during the last council meeting on July 22- Bynum has said he will support it with amendments, one to make sure the committee has three more members who are more amenable to open governance and transparency and another to assure the committee will come under the sunshine law, although it is hard to see how it could avoid such as a duly appointed governmental committee.
But also on the agenda are two items that might raise an eyebrow or two.
As we reported last week there have been some changes promised and indeed instituted by Chair Kaipo Asing and they are actually on the agenda for a “presentation” by Asing.
Asing has been anything but a willing adherent to the dismantling of his autocratic regime that has stifled debate and instituted an era of secrecy that has had even his former supporters seething, so expect it to be anything but straightforward.
Agenda communication C 2009-274
request(s) agenda time to inform Councilmembers on recent changes made in the following areas of Council procedures:
1) Councilmembers' access to the agenda.
2) Placement of public documents, (including meeting minutes) on the County's website.
3) Timely circulation of Council documents; and
4) Access to information by the public and Councilmembers
Though it smells like capitulation we’ve never been ones to underestimate the ability of Asing and his chief strategist County Clerk Peter Nakamura to give with one hand what they take away with the other. We’ll bet dollars to donuts that the strings attached to any beneficence in his presentations attach to a cure that contains the viral seeds of new loopholes to allow them to maintain elements of control.
Because despite the fact that Bynum and Kawahara have, as they said in their letter Tuesday, “remained focused on three issues and have attempted to avoid personalities” Asing has exhibited a ferocity and personal vindictiveness seldom seen in the council chambers if the July 22 meeting is any example.
As if to continue the attempts to vilify his nemeses, there’s this little item placed on the agenda by Asing:
C 2009-267 Communication (07/16/2009) from Councilmember Tim Bynum, requesting Council Chair's rationale for denying his travel request.
Seems that Asing is going to continue to abuse his discretion as chair, not just in punishing Bynum by denying routine travel expenses but is going to try to take the council’s time with some outrageous slings and arrows directed at Bynum, possibly because Bynum has dared to mention his dismay at the $175,000 the council was asked to approve to apparently mount a legal challenge to the citizen’s general plan enforcement charter amendment passed last November.
The travel reimbursement request- made in an internal memo to Asing and not intended for the council’s agenda- was for travel to Honolulu to meet personally with the council’s outside attorney on the matter, David Minkins.
He has apparently been advising the council on how to fight the amendment, as we’ve speculated in the past based on the fact that the total $220,000 appropriated so far wouldn’t be needed if the council were simply going to implement the amendment.
Since the matter itself has been discussed only in executive session- where according to Bynum’s communication to Asing he did not get to really ask Minkins what the heck all that money was for- Asing is probably going to use the letter to accuse Bynum of violating the confidentiality of executive session.
This of course is absurd since Bynum simply publicly mentioned and questioned the amount of money appropriated , not anything that specifically happened in executive session.
But Asing is so used to hiding public policy behind closed doors, his current tin ear for politics has led him to the delusional conclusion that this will somehow resonate with the viewing public which has become all too attenuated to his shenanigans.
The amount of money is in fact pubic information. The Office of Information Practices has ruled that actual appropriations must be done in open session in an opinion issued to get the Kaua`i council to stop hiding how much money they were paying outside attorneys.
That may be why Kawahara is now introducing the “10(c)” rule change since by the time that comes up on the agenda Asing’s bitterness at Bynum will have spilled over onto the council floor.
Kawahara, for her part, is still mum on why she apparently called the police at the July 22 meeting although speculation has been rampant. Despite many interviews with attendees PNN still cannot conclusively confirm why three police cars showed up to talk to Kawahara during a recess.
Despite the projections by some that the meeting will be a series of Kumbaya sessions and Hallmark moments, “someone’s feeling threatened m’lord” so look for Asing to continue the backbiting and petty vindictiveness.
And, stay tune to find out if Councilperson Derek Kawakami- who ducked out of the last meeting without commenting on the fireworks- is being a wise guy in his resolution “to honor ‘Uncle’ Macarthur Dela Cruz, who recently passed away, by naming the Kekaha beach park ‘Macarthur Park’” or is just too young to remember Richard Harris’ ‘60’s attempt to become a pop music icon.
With rule changes in the air and new document availability, perhaps Harris’ words are appropriate for what Asing sees happening to his decades-in-the-making formula for dictatorial success:
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!
After all, they said:
There is good news. Chair Asing has now initiated new policies at Council Services that allow for all council members to see all the correspondence addressed to them in a timely manner. New e-mail addresses have been established that forward e-mail electronically to all council members without being screened or delayed. Council meeting minutes are beginning to be posted on the county’s Web site.
We are pleased at this turn of events and appreciate Chair Asing allowing these changes to occur.
And indeed the agenda contains some items that could portend well.
Finally up for discussion and a vote is Resolution 2009-50 – the one that Bynum tried to introduce on June 3 that would
amend Rule 10(c) by clarifying that the placement of any proposed bill or resolution on the agenda is not a matter of discretion with the Chair or Vice Chair to grant or deny, but merely administrative in nature.
This time though it is introduced by Kawahara for reasons that we’ll try to shed some light on later.
Although some are still suspicious about the ad hoc committee resolution to study and make recommendations regarding council rules- one that was deferred at the marathon showdown during the last council meeting on July 22- Bynum has said he will support it with amendments, one to make sure the committee has three more members who are more amenable to open governance and transparency and another to assure the committee will come under the sunshine law, although it is hard to see how it could avoid such as a duly appointed governmental committee.
But also on the agenda are two items that might raise an eyebrow or two.
As we reported last week there have been some changes promised and indeed instituted by Chair Kaipo Asing and they are actually on the agenda for a “presentation” by Asing.
Asing has been anything but a willing adherent to the dismantling of his autocratic regime that has stifled debate and instituted an era of secrecy that has had even his former supporters seething, so expect it to be anything but straightforward.
Agenda communication C 2009-274
request(s) agenda time to inform Councilmembers on recent changes made in the following areas of Council procedures:
1) Councilmembers' access to the agenda.
2) Placement of public documents, (including meeting minutes) on the County's website.
3) Timely circulation of Council documents; and
4) Access to information by the public and Councilmembers
Though it smells like capitulation we’ve never been ones to underestimate the ability of Asing and his chief strategist County Clerk Peter Nakamura to give with one hand what they take away with the other. We’ll bet dollars to donuts that the strings attached to any beneficence in his presentations attach to a cure that contains the viral seeds of new loopholes to allow them to maintain elements of control.
Because despite the fact that Bynum and Kawahara have, as they said in their letter Tuesday, “remained focused on three issues and have attempted to avoid personalities” Asing has exhibited a ferocity and personal vindictiveness seldom seen in the council chambers if the July 22 meeting is any example.
As if to continue the attempts to vilify his nemeses, there’s this little item placed on the agenda by Asing:
C 2009-267 Communication (07/16/2009) from Councilmember Tim Bynum, requesting Council Chair's rationale for denying his travel request.
Seems that Asing is going to continue to abuse his discretion as chair, not just in punishing Bynum by denying routine travel expenses but is going to try to take the council’s time with some outrageous slings and arrows directed at Bynum, possibly because Bynum has dared to mention his dismay at the $175,000 the council was asked to approve to apparently mount a legal challenge to the citizen’s general plan enforcement charter amendment passed last November.
The travel reimbursement request- made in an internal memo to Asing and not intended for the council’s agenda- was for travel to Honolulu to meet personally with the council’s outside attorney on the matter, David Minkins.
He has apparently been advising the council on how to fight the amendment, as we’ve speculated in the past based on the fact that the total $220,000 appropriated so far wouldn’t be needed if the council were simply going to implement the amendment.
Since the matter itself has been discussed only in executive session- where according to Bynum’s communication to Asing he did not get to really ask Minkins what the heck all that money was for- Asing is probably going to use the letter to accuse Bynum of violating the confidentiality of executive session.
This of course is absurd since Bynum simply publicly mentioned and questioned the amount of money appropriated , not anything that specifically happened in executive session.
But Asing is so used to hiding public policy behind closed doors, his current tin ear for politics has led him to the delusional conclusion that this will somehow resonate with the viewing public which has become all too attenuated to his shenanigans.
The amount of money is in fact pubic information. The Office of Information Practices has ruled that actual appropriations must be done in open session in an opinion issued to get the Kaua`i council to stop hiding how much money they were paying outside attorneys.
That may be why Kawahara is now introducing the “10(c)” rule change since by the time that comes up on the agenda Asing’s bitterness at Bynum will have spilled over onto the council floor.
Kawahara, for her part, is still mum on why she apparently called the police at the July 22 meeting although speculation has been rampant. Despite many interviews with attendees PNN still cannot conclusively confirm why three police cars showed up to talk to Kawahara during a recess.
Despite the projections by some that the meeting will be a series of Kumbaya sessions and Hallmark moments, “someone’s feeling threatened m’lord” so look for Asing to continue the backbiting and petty vindictiveness.
And, stay tune to find out if Councilperson Derek Kawakami- who ducked out of the last meeting without commenting on the fireworks- is being a wise guy in his resolution “to honor ‘Uncle’ Macarthur Dela Cruz, who recently passed away, by naming the Kekaha beach park ‘Macarthur Park’” or is just too young to remember Richard Harris’ ‘60’s attempt to become a pop music icon.
With rule changes in the air and new document availability, perhaps Harris’ words are appropriate for what Asing sees happening to his decades-in-the-making formula for dictatorial success:
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh, no!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
NEW DOG, SAME TIRED OLD TRICK
NEW DOG, SAME TIRED OLD TRICK: While many- especially the Honolulu press- seem to think that the slap on the wrist that University of Hawai`i (UH) football coach Greg McMackin received for referring to a Notre Dame team’s “little faggot dance” makes the incident “over” it certainly isn’t for long-memoried fans who miss their UH Rainbows.
They know this isn’t the first incident in the long standing- and still apparently rampant- homophobia in the UH football program that is not just tolerated but apparently promulgated from the top down by UH coaches.
Many of us remember well the early pre-brain damage years of Coach June Jones and his wink-nod elbow-in-the-ribs childishness in banishment of the beloved team name “Rainbows” because, he said, mainland teams “teased” his supposedly adult players because the rainbow was also the adopted symbol of the gay rights movement.
That was the day when many of we UH system alumni refused to financially support the UH football program any more.
We’re proud to say we haven’t purchased any of that ugly Warrior merchandise with big “H for Homophobia” as many of us call it and we still wear our old Rainbow gear proudly.
McMackin’s remarks indicate that, despite strides in society- some actuarial- that have resulted in a majority tolerance if not the embracing of those of a different gender identity, the perpetuation of the immature attitudes that tend to become imbedded in male sports programs without intervention of an older wiser and more enlightened coach, are alive and well at UH.
As co-chairs of the Family Equality Coalition Paul Gracie and Tambry Young are quoted as saying in Derrick DePledge’s blog today:
No one would have laughed (as reported did at McMackin’s remark) if he had used a slur against a race, religion or gender," said Tambry Young, Family Equality Coalition Co-Chair. "It is common with our young people -- especially on the athletic field - to shout 'faggot,' 'sissy' and 'you hit like a girl.' These are hurtful, shameful, verbal assaults that can no longer be accepted in silence.
Our 12 year old grandson started Pop Warner football yesterday and these kids certainly look up to the UH players and coaches, especially McMackin who just appeared last month at a local “clinic” for the same kids who play.
It’s hard enough to instill good values in our kids without loudmouth bigots in positions they look up to.
What message does it give that McMackin’s punishment- a fine and supposedly a forced pubic service announcement to come- has no apparent nexus with any modification of the behavior McMackin has obviously been engaging in, unless one accepts the disingenuous premise that this was some kind of isolated incident or a slip of the tongue.
It would be easy to called for any end to the McMackin era at UH. But a better outcome might be to say that if there is to be any change in the UH football program a good beginning might be a strong rejection of the attitude that led to the removal of the Rainbow logo under Jones and a proud reinstatement of the logo.
Though it would only be a start it would certainly go a long way toward rectifying the anachronistic playground taunts and attitudes that Gracie and Young point to- ones that apparently still permeate McMackin’s football program.
They know this isn’t the first incident in the long standing- and still apparently rampant- homophobia in the UH football program that is not just tolerated but apparently promulgated from the top down by UH coaches.
Many of us remember well the early pre-brain damage years of Coach June Jones and his wink-nod elbow-in-the-ribs childishness in banishment of the beloved team name “Rainbows” because, he said, mainland teams “teased” his supposedly adult players because the rainbow was also the adopted symbol of the gay rights movement.
That was the day when many of we UH system alumni refused to financially support the UH football program any more.
We’re proud to say we haven’t purchased any of that ugly Warrior merchandise with big “H for Homophobia” as many of us call it and we still wear our old Rainbow gear proudly.
McMackin’s remarks indicate that, despite strides in society- some actuarial- that have resulted in a majority tolerance if not the embracing of those of a different gender identity, the perpetuation of the immature attitudes that tend to become imbedded in male sports programs without intervention of an older wiser and more enlightened coach, are alive and well at UH.
As co-chairs of the Family Equality Coalition Paul Gracie and Tambry Young are quoted as saying in Derrick DePledge’s blog today:
No one would have laughed (as reported did at McMackin’s remark) if he had used a slur against a race, religion or gender," said Tambry Young, Family Equality Coalition Co-Chair. "It is common with our young people -- especially on the athletic field - to shout 'faggot,' 'sissy' and 'you hit like a girl.' These are hurtful, shameful, verbal assaults that can no longer be accepted in silence.
Our 12 year old grandson started Pop Warner football yesterday and these kids certainly look up to the UH players and coaches, especially McMackin who just appeared last month at a local “clinic” for the same kids who play.
It’s hard enough to instill good values in our kids without loudmouth bigots in positions they look up to.
What message does it give that McMackin’s punishment- a fine and supposedly a forced pubic service announcement to come- has no apparent nexus with any modification of the behavior McMackin has obviously been engaging in, unless one accepts the disingenuous premise that this was some kind of isolated incident or a slip of the tongue.
It would be easy to called for any end to the McMackin era at UH. But a better outcome might be to say that if there is to be any change in the UH football program a good beginning might be a strong rejection of the attitude that led to the removal of the Rainbow logo under Jones and a proud reinstatement of the logo.
Though it would only be a start it would certainly go a long way toward rectifying the anachronistic playground taunts and attitudes that Gracie and Young point to- ones that apparently still permeate McMackin’s football program.
Monday, August 3, 2009
HERE A WOOF, THERE A WOOF, EVERYWHERE A WOOF WOOF
HERE A WOOF, THERE A WOOF, EVERYWHERE A WOOF WOOF: You’d have to search long and hard to find someone who opposes “sustainability” and then you’d probably come up empty anyway.
That may be because there is an almost unlimited number of categories of sustainability and within each of them there are as many definitions as there are people giving them.
Here on Kaua`i where we have a preponderance of agriculturally state-districted, county-zoned land, most think first about growing food- and nowadays biofuels too- for the day when “the boat no more come”.
That’s led to a budding small farm movement- for the most part organic- on the north shore where the area of Moloa`a to Kilauea has become what one councilperson called “our breadbasket”.
But the planning department decided recently that, although they scream about being so short staffed that they can’t even properly enforce the new restrictions on transient vacation rentals in residential areas, they’ll make the time to crack down on “illegal” farm worker housing, especially in Moloa`a.
So to save the day the Kaua`i County Council is now considering a bill (#2318) to create a special use permitting process to allow farm worker housing where the legitimate farm that has “used up” it’s allowable density- the number of dwelling units permitted on the land- can house for their workers.
Sounds good, eh? Well maybe. But if the bill goes through in its current “original” form it could well be the last nail in the coffin of diversified agriculture.
Though the bill would seemingly allow extra worker housing on a handful of actual working farms it would also allow the hobby and gentleman farms- which have left us on, what most agree is, the precipice of the end of agriculture on Kaua`i- to also add to their now-limited density on their already subdivided and further condominiumized lots as well.
Let’s back up a little to the claim in the “findings and purpose” of the bill”
(F)arm labor is an essential component of farming... Despite the numerous benefits bestowed on the community by the agriculture industry, however, agricultural work is strenuous and historically low paying... Finding and keeping labor is thus one of the biggest challenges for agricultural businesses. This can make the difference between survival and failure, struggle and success, in an agricultural enterprise.
Many claim that there’s just nobody left that wants to do the “strenuous and historically low paying” work and say that is what is killing farmers in our increasingly office-work oriented society and the laziness of “these kids today”.
But overall there is one factor on Kaua`i that is not just distinctively unique but is the real reason why farming is out of the question for any young person who tries to obtain land and devote their lives to farming it- the cost of the land.
We would, well, “bet the farm”, that there isn’t a farmer on Kaua`i whose business plan included taking out a loan to buy the land and repaying it out of the income derived from the farm.
Every single farmer we’ve seen succeed somehow had the resources to obtain the land before they decided to farm it and that “investment” is not something they have to worry about in determining if they are to be, to use that word again, “sustainable”.
Why is that? It doesn’t take a land use genius to know that since Benji Garfinkle and his Kilauea area land-baron friends discovered the applicability of the state condominium laws to agricultural lands, the ban on multiple “subdivisions” of ag land became a joke.
Though we’ve gotten laughs from mainland denizens by mentioning our “agricultural condominiums” they are primarily responsible for the proliferation of sliced and diced ag parcels with residential houses that magically became “farm dwellings” when they put in a mango tree or bought a horse.
There isn’t anyone who will disagree that this de facto rezoning from ag to residential- usually at a land and house price that is just out of the reach of working people- has been the prime factor in making farm land unavailable to farmers at a price they can afford to incorporate into their business plan.
And no matter how you slice and dice it, this bill will undoubtedly make it worse.
Although there are some so-called “circulated amendments” proposed to try to close some of the “loopholes”- ones that will most likely be introduced at the planning committee meeting a week from Wednesday (Aug 12)- all of them will at best simply tinker around the edges and some of will even lower the threshold for what makes a farm a real farm as opposed to a “fake farm”.
The problem is that almost all of the amendments fall into the latter category They include lowing by a third or even eliminating the “gross income” that represents a farm from $35,000 per acre, lowering the number of hours a farm worker must work per week from 19 to 12 and trying to devise a precise “crop-to-land coverage” formula to supplant the income requirement entirely so that it will suffice for long term “crops” like hardwood or fruit trees, while nixing the fake farmer’s application.
Each one of the watering-down requests from small farmers have the land sharks drooling at the prospect of putting up an unlimited number of houses on their now single density- or even no density- ag condos.
One of the scariest things is some of the statements from some councilmembers amounting to “whatever we do we will make mistakes and leave big loophole but that this is so important to the future of ag if we have to give the fake farmers a break too, that’s ok.”
Given the fact that (to pull a number out of nowhere but observation- it’s actually probably more) 90% of the ag condos are purely residential or fake farms when you do the math on the pressure to expand that use and therefore jack up the price of “ag land”, the question is, will it be likely to generate more food and fuel sustainability or simply contribute to the land rush that has already destroyed the viability of ag on that 90% forever.
The problem as we see it does have a solution, one rooted in the purpose of the bill- to provide for assistance on farms that really need worker housing.
There has to be a direct nexus between the farm worker and work that the farm requires.
And it should apply only to full time workers on that farm.
Some of the testimony before the council from the people who are doing things like growing hardwoods and even fruit trees implied that they should be included in the bill because they have to have labor to plant and harvest the trees. But where’s the actual work?
In the hardwoods case it may take a few months to plant them and then what? Do they need a full time worker to watch them grow? And the fruit grower needs intensive labor at harvest time- usually once a year- and virtually none at other times... and in the case of things like mangos or avocados none for at least seven years.
So if someone owns one house on their parcel all they need to do is pay someone to put in a bunch of baby trees and they get to build another house, something that might cost $50-100,000... a low price to pay for that otherwise unavailable-at-any-cost density.
Of course working papaya or banana farms might qualify but that’s the point- there must be a nexus between the actual work and the need for a permanent dwelling for bone-fide workers on the land. Even though the bill calls for removal of the dwelling if farming ends or they no longer adhere to the “farm plan” that presupposes that the need was established by the “plan” which need not be the case under the bill.
Supposedly the bill is not for hobby farmers or even subsistence farming which is presumably- perhaps by definition- a family operation. But the worker at 12 hours a week as a popular amendment requires- or even 19 as the current bill calls for- make the farm worker into essentially a hobbyist who presumably has another job.
A full time employee is easy to document too- they would be filing taxes and have the farm job as their prime if not sole source of income. Not so the 12 hour a week worker who could well be a family member who occasionally helps out on ag condo farm where the density has run out and. Is that the purpose of the bill?
That brings up another amendment being proposed- one that would allow farm worker units where the density of the parcel is not “used up” yet.
We actually heard ag condo owners who have a density of two houses testify that they don’t want to use the second density because they are saving that for when their children grow up so they can build their house there.
The fact is that by saying such they are almost admitting that they are breaking the law because to build a house on ag land, according to state law, it must be a “farm dwelling’ and have a direct nexus to the “farm” upon which it sits.
Then there’s an amendment to say that if someone has an ag condo and they bought it without any density at all, they should be allowed to build “worker housing” because they have “no control” over the density that was given to the other condo owners when the bigger parcel was “condominiumized”. Some even want it to be applied to themselves so they can build a house on their farm.
The bill as it stands now would not allow farm worker houses to be built until the density of the whole parcel was used up- in other words only if all the other condo owners had built all the houses they were permitted.
The fact is that they could go back and try to negotiate with other owners for that density. But the real issue is that the fact that their parcel didn’t have density led to a much lower price paid for that no-density condo.
Imagine someone who has an ag parcel with a five house density. That means they usually set up five condo units if the size of the original is big enough, and give one house to each. Sometimes if the “parcel” is big enough they may not just have five condos with houses but some additional “land-only” or “remnant parcel” condos.
Now, under the amendments, they could simply make one condo unit with five houses and sell however many zero density lots they can and those that buy them will have de facto density if they set up a farm that fits the criteria.
That’s just one scenario but there are dozens that would fit under the bill as written that have real estate moguls rubbing their greedy little hands with glee.
Some councilmembers have said they want to pass the law with vague generalities, loopholes or not, and hope that the planning department works out the bugs in the administrative rules they will have to promulgate to grant and enforce the “use permits”.
Well the “loopholes and all” factor aside, who is it that trusts the planning department to do that job?- the same planning department that seems incapable of enforcing, as we said, the transient vacation rental law and also many other ordinances where the administrative rules are inadequate- like the definition of a farm dwelling itself- or when their enforcement team is overworked and understaffed (always).
We haven’t heard a good reason why part time workers should be accommodated- this isn’t a density giveaway although some fake farmers seem to think it is. We can’t think of a real farm that really needs housing for full time employees that would object to it covering full time workers only.
Then finding the nexus between the actual work that needs to be done by hired hands would be all that’s left- something that should be no problem for a real farm but poses nothing but headaches for fake ones.
The fact that farms need farm workers is a given. And the fact that farm wages do not provide enough income for market price housing on Kaua`i is too.
Homes for fulltime workers at real farms are what we need to provide. But if we just open the floodgates and hope for the best we’re providing what may be the final “et tu Brute” stab in the back of any sustainability we might envision.
That may be because there is an almost unlimited number of categories of sustainability and within each of them there are as many definitions as there are people giving them.
Here on Kaua`i where we have a preponderance of agriculturally state-districted, county-zoned land, most think first about growing food- and nowadays biofuels too- for the day when “the boat no more come”.
That’s led to a budding small farm movement- for the most part organic- on the north shore where the area of Moloa`a to Kilauea has become what one councilperson called “our breadbasket”.
But the planning department decided recently that, although they scream about being so short staffed that they can’t even properly enforce the new restrictions on transient vacation rentals in residential areas, they’ll make the time to crack down on “illegal” farm worker housing, especially in Moloa`a.
So to save the day the Kaua`i County Council is now considering a bill (#2318) to create a special use permitting process to allow farm worker housing where the legitimate farm that has “used up” it’s allowable density- the number of dwelling units permitted on the land- can house for their workers.
Sounds good, eh? Well maybe. But if the bill goes through in its current “original” form it could well be the last nail in the coffin of diversified agriculture.
Though the bill would seemingly allow extra worker housing on a handful of actual working farms it would also allow the hobby and gentleman farms- which have left us on, what most agree is, the precipice of the end of agriculture on Kaua`i- to also add to their now-limited density on their already subdivided and further condominiumized lots as well.
Let’s back up a little to the claim in the “findings and purpose” of the bill”
(F)arm labor is an essential component of farming... Despite the numerous benefits bestowed on the community by the agriculture industry, however, agricultural work is strenuous and historically low paying... Finding and keeping labor is thus one of the biggest challenges for agricultural businesses. This can make the difference between survival and failure, struggle and success, in an agricultural enterprise.
Many claim that there’s just nobody left that wants to do the “strenuous and historically low paying” work and say that is what is killing farmers in our increasingly office-work oriented society and the laziness of “these kids today”.
But overall there is one factor on Kaua`i that is not just distinctively unique but is the real reason why farming is out of the question for any young person who tries to obtain land and devote their lives to farming it- the cost of the land.
We would, well, “bet the farm”, that there isn’t a farmer on Kaua`i whose business plan included taking out a loan to buy the land and repaying it out of the income derived from the farm.
Every single farmer we’ve seen succeed somehow had the resources to obtain the land before they decided to farm it and that “investment” is not something they have to worry about in determining if they are to be, to use that word again, “sustainable”.
Why is that? It doesn’t take a land use genius to know that since Benji Garfinkle and his Kilauea area land-baron friends discovered the applicability of the state condominium laws to agricultural lands, the ban on multiple “subdivisions” of ag land became a joke.
Though we’ve gotten laughs from mainland denizens by mentioning our “agricultural condominiums” they are primarily responsible for the proliferation of sliced and diced ag parcels with residential houses that magically became “farm dwellings” when they put in a mango tree or bought a horse.
There isn’t anyone who will disagree that this de facto rezoning from ag to residential- usually at a land and house price that is just out of the reach of working people- has been the prime factor in making farm land unavailable to farmers at a price they can afford to incorporate into their business plan.
And no matter how you slice and dice it, this bill will undoubtedly make it worse.
Although there are some so-called “circulated amendments” proposed to try to close some of the “loopholes”- ones that will most likely be introduced at the planning committee meeting a week from Wednesday (Aug 12)- all of them will at best simply tinker around the edges and some of will even lower the threshold for what makes a farm a real farm as opposed to a “fake farm”.
The problem is that almost all of the amendments fall into the latter category They include lowing by a third or even eliminating the “gross income” that represents a farm from $35,000 per acre, lowering the number of hours a farm worker must work per week from 19 to 12 and trying to devise a precise “crop-to-land coverage” formula to supplant the income requirement entirely so that it will suffice for long term “crops” like hardwood or fruit trees, while nixing the fake farmer’s application.
Each one of the watering-down requests from small farmers have the land sharks drooling at the prospect of putting up an unlimited number of houses on their now single density- or even no density- ag condos.
One of the scariest things is some of the statements from some councilmembers amounting to “whatever we do we will make mistakes and leave big loophole but that this is so important to the future of ag if we have to give the fake farmers a break too, that’s ok.”
Given the fact that (to pull a number out of nowhere but observation- it’s actually probably more) 90% of the ag condos are purely residential or fake farms when you do the math on the pressure to expand that use and therefore jack up the price of “ag land”, the question is, will it be likely to generate more food and fuel sustainability or simply contribute to the land rush that has already destroyed the viability of ag on that 90% forever.
The problem as we see it does have a solution, one rooted in the purpose of the bill- to provide for assistance on farms that really need worker housing.
There has to be a direct nexus between the farm worker and work that the farm requires.
And it should apply only to full time workers on that farm.
Some of the testimony before the council from the people who are doing things like growing hardwoods and even fruit trees implied that they should be included in the bill because they have to have labor to plant and harvest the trees. But where’s the actual work?
In the hardwoods case it may take a few months to plant them and then what? Do they need a full time worker to watch them grow? And the fruit grower needs intensive labor at harvest time- usually once a year- and virtually none at other times... and in the case of things like mangos or avocados none for at least seven years.
So if someone owns one house on their parcel all they need to do is pay someone to put in a bunch of baby trees and they get to build another house, something that might cost $50-100,000... a low price to pay for that otherwise unavailable-at-any-cost density.
Of course working papaya or banana farms might qualify but that’s the point- there must be a nexus between the actual work and the need for a permanent dwelling for bone-fide workers on the land. Even though the bill calls for removal of the dwelling if farming ends or they no longer adhere to the “farm plan” that presupposes that the need was established by the “plan” which need not be the case under the bill.
Supposedly the bill is not for hobby farmers or even subsistence farming which is presumably- perhaps by definition- a family operation. But the worker at 12 hours a week as a popular amendment requires- or even 19 as the current bill calls for- make the farm worker into essentially a hobbyist who presumably has another job.
A full time employee is easy to document too- they would be filing taxes and have the farm job as their prime if not sole source of income. Not so the 12 hour a week worker who could well be a family member who occasionally helps out on ag condo farm where the density has run out and. Is that the purpose of the bill?
That brings up another amendment being proposed- one that would allow farm worker units where the density of the parcel is not “used up” yet.
We actually heard ag condo owners who have a density of two houses testify that they don’t want to use the second density because they are saving that for when their children grow up so they can build their house there.
The fact is that by saying such they are almost admitting that they are breaking the law because to build a house on ag land, according to state law, it must be a “farm dwelling’ and have a direct nexus to the “farm” upon which it sits.
Then there’s an amendment to say that if someone has an ag condo and they bought it without any density at all, they should be allowed to build “worker housing” because they have “no control” over the density that was given to the other condo owners when the bigger parcel was “condominiumized”. Some even want it to be applied to themselves so they can build a house on their farm.
The bill as it stands now would not allow farm worker houses to be built until the density of the whole parcel was used up- in other words only if all the other condo owners had built all the houses they were permitted.
The fact is that they could go back and try to negotiate with other owners for that density. But the real issue is that the fact that their parcel didn’t have density led to a much lower price paid for that no-density condo.
Imagine someone who has an ag parcel with a five house density. That means they usually set up five condo units if the size of the original is big enough, and give one house to each. Sometimes if the “parcel” is big enough they may not just have five condos with houses but some additional “land-only” or “remnant parcel” condos.
Now, under the amendments, they could simply make one condo unit with five houses and sell however many zero density lots they can and those that buy them will have de facto density if they set up a farm that fits the criteria.
That’s just one scenario but there are dozens that would fit under the bill as written that have real estate moguls rubbing their greedy little hands with glee.
Some councilmembers have said they want to pass the law with vague generalities, loopholes or not, and hope that the planning department works out the bugs in the administrative rules they will have to promulgate to grant and enforce the “use permits”.
Well the “loopholes and all” factor aside, who is it that trusts the planning department to do that job?- the same planning department that seems incapable of enforcing, as we said, the transient vacation rental law and also many other ordinances where the administrative rules are inadequate- like the definition of a farm dwelling itself- or when their enforcement team is overworked and understaffed (always).
We haven’t heard a good reason why part time workers should be accommodated- this isn’t a density giveaway although some fake farmers seem to think it is. We can’t think of a real farm that really needs housing for full time employees that would object to it covering full time workers only.
Then finding the nexus between the actual work that needs to be done by hired hands would be all that’s left- something that should be no problem for a real farm but poses nothing but headaches for fake ones.
The fact that farms need farm workers is a given. And the fact that farm wages do not provide enough income for market price housing on Kaua`i is too.
Homes for fulltime workers at real farms are what we need to provide. But if we just open the floodgates and hope for the best we’re providing what may be the final “et tu Brute” stab in the back of any sustainability we might envision.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
PNN EDITORIAL: STEP DOWN NOW CHIEF PERRY
PNN EDITORIAL: STEP DOWN NOW CHIEF PERRY
Kauai Police Chief Darryl Perry’s announcement that he is seeking to leave the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) after only a couple of years and become the Honolulu Department Chief is an outrageous slap in the face of everyone on the island, citizens and officers alike.
While we have never been a fan of Perry’s heavy handed abandonment of the “community policing” programs instituted by the two prior chiefs, his main accomplishment- improving the so-called “morale” of officers- is so severely undermined by his announcement that there is only one thing he can do to insure a well functioning KPD- resign immediately.
Despite some convoluted head-scratching rationale (as reported in the local Kaua`i newspaper) that somehow he will be helping KPD by heading up HPD and that he seeks to depart only reluctantly, his leaving makes it abundantly clear that he never had any intention other than to use Kaua`i as a stepping stone to the HPD job since without the “experience” as KPD Chief he would have never met the qualifications needed for consideration there.
But even more unsettling is the political upheaval his relentless pursuit of the job perpetrated upon the political apparatus of the county.
Perry’s supporters were relentless in their push to give him the job of KPD chief. They and he have caused Kaua`i to be torn apart by things like:
-racist slurs from a police commissioner and the lack of action by the appointing mayor and council;
-witch hunts against the two prior chiefs by two mayors and a handful of councilmembers who supported Perry and plotted revenge against former Chief KC Lum and the two commissioners who dared to support him rather than give Perry the job;
-a resulting unethical hatchet job by the ethics board, and when all else failed
-an threat to illegally cancel Lum’s contract by the finance director who was apparently rewarded with a cushy private sector job for his action.
All of these were very transparently either directed by Perry or at least done in his name after he was denied the job when former Chief George Freitas was chased out of office and Lum was hired.
To leave after only two years of a three year contract after pledging that he was “coming home” for good and sought to continue as chief until his retirement is bound to have many severe repercussions on the psyche of KPD employees.
Officers are bound to be left feeling hurt and confused after putting away many of their long standing grievances to rally around Perry in the hope that the once fractured and divided department could be made whole again under his reign.
The fact that he pledged to rebuild KPD through an effort to finally obtain the accreditation that all the other islands’ departments have and bring the number of sworn officers up to appropriated levels- and is now abandoning that pledge- makes his effectiveness a thing of the past.
As such he has but one choice if he is indeed acting in the best interest of Kaua`i – to step down now, save everyone months of uncertainty and perhaps animosity and allow someone who is a person of his or her word- someone who is actually committed to serving KPD and the people of Kaua`i and not just to perpetuating his or her own career- to take over the reigns as soon as possible.
We’ve never been a supporter of Perry after the scandalous way the last two chiefs were harassed out of office in order to place Perry at the helm, as described in the book KPD Blue by former Honolulu Star-Bulletin Kaua`i Bureau Chief Anthony Sommer (see right rail to read the book).
We’ve objected , among other things, to his rigid anachronistic stance opposing medical and general marijuana law reform and to his apparent complicity in the actions of officers who stepped over the thin blue line in reported incidents of excessive force, especially many involving kanaka maoli (“native Hawaiian”) sovereignty advocates.
On the other hand we have had to respect the way many officers have apparently rallied around him and resolved- or at least suppressed- many long standing intradepartmental animosities and disputes.
But this action in announcing that we were never anything but a means to an end for him makes it doubtful that he can still function effectively at the helm and do the one thing he has done well in uniting KPD officers.
Step down now chief and save us more pain on top of that which you’ve already inflicted in jilting us.
Kauai Police Chief Darryl Perry’s announcement that he is seeking to leave the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) after only a couple of years and become the Honolulu Department Chief is an outrageous slap in the face of everyone on the island, citizens and officers alike.
While we have never been a fan of Perry’s heavy handed abandonment of the “community policing” programs instituted by the two prior chiefs, his main accomplishment- improving the so-called “morale” of officers- is so severely undermined by his announcement that there is only one thing he can do to insure a well functioning KPD- resign immediately.
Despite some convoluted head-scratching rationale (as reported in the local Kaua`i newspaper) that somehow he will be helping KPD by heading up HPD and that he seeks to depart only reluctantly, his leaving makes it abundantly clear that he never had any intention other than to use Kaua`i as a stepping stone to the HPD job since without the “experience” as KPD Chief he would have never met the qualifications needed for consideration there.
But even more unsettling is the political upheaval his relentless pursuit of the job perpetrated upon the political apparatus of the county.
Perry’s supporters were relentless in their push to give him the job of KPD chief. They and he have caused Kaua`i to be torn apart by things like:
-racist slurs from a police commissioner and the lack of action by the appointing mayor and council;
-witch hunts against the two prior chiefs by two mayors and a handful of councilmembers who supported Perry and plotted revenge against former Chief KC Lum and the two commissioners who dared to support him rather than give Perry the job;
-a resulting unethical hatchet job by the ethics board, and when all else failed
-an threat to illegally cancel Lum’s contract by the finance director who was apparently rewarded with a cushy private sector job for his action.
All of these were very transparently either directed by Perry or at least done in his name after he was denied the job when former Chief George Freitas was chased out of office and Lum was hired.
To leave after only two years of a three year contract after pledging that he was “coming home” for good and sought to continue as chief until his retirement is bound to have many severe repercussions on the psyche of KPD employees.
Officers are bound to be left feeling hurt and confused after putting away many of their long standing grievances to rally around Perry in the hope that the once fractured and divided department could be made whole again under his reign.
The fact that he pledged to rebuild KPD through an effort to finally obtain the accreditation that all the other islands’ departments have and bring the number of sworn officers up to appropriated levels- and is now abandoning that pledge- makes his effectiveness a thing of the past.
As such he has but one choice if he is indeed acting in the best interest of Kaua`i – to step down now, save everyone months of uncertainty and perhaps animosity and allow someone who is a person of his or her word- someone who is actually committed to serving KPD and the people of Kaua`i and not just to perpetuating his or her own career- to take over the reigns as soon as possible.
We’ve never been a supporter of Perry after the scandalous way the last two chiefs were harassed out of office in order to place Perry at the helm, as described in the book KPD Blue by former Honolulu Star-Bulletin Kaua`i Bureau Chief Anthony Sommer (see right rail to read the book).
We’ve objected , among other things, to his rigid anachronistic stance opposing medical and general marijuana law reform and to his apparent complicity in the actions of officers who stepped over the thin blue line in reported incidents of excessive force, especially many involving kanaka maoli (“native Hawaiian”) sovereignty advocates.
On the other hand we have had to respect the way many officers have apparently rallied around him and resolved- or at least suppressed- many long standing intradepartmental animosities and disputes.
But this action in announcing that we were never anything but a means to an end for him makes it doubtful that he can still function effectively at the helm and do the one thing he has done well in uniting KPD officers.
Step down now chief and save us more pain on top of that which you’ve already inflicted in jilting us.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
(PNN) NAKAMURA LOSES ORIGINAL “ELECTRONIC”COPIES OF ALL COUNCIL MINUTES PRIOR TO MAY 20
NAKAMURA LOSES ORIGINAL “ELECTRONIC”COPIES OF ALL COUNCIL MINUTES PRIOR TO MAY 20
(PNN) -- All original electronic versions of the minutes of meetings of the Kaua`i County Council prior to May 20, 2008 have apparently been lost according to a July 6 response by County Clerk Peter Nakamura to a May 20 records request from Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara.
Nakamura said he had “difficulty locating electronic copies of council (and committee) meeting minutes prior to 2008 at this time” in a late response to the request for the original electronically created documents.
Though Nakamura blamed “changes in council services personnel assigned to council meetings prior to 2008 and physical workstations replacement and upgrades” he did not say what happened to the meeting minutes from 2008 until May 20 although they are also apparently lost.
The response from Nakamura violated the State Uniform information Practices Act (UIPA) HRS 92F provisions requiring a response to record requests within 10 days, a common complaint of community members, as noted in a response from Bynum and Kawahara to the news that only paper copies of the crucial public documents exist.
After receiving no answer within 10 days of the May 20 request the two also filed a follow-up request on June 10 noting the missed deadline.
That was also ignored until a month and a half after the original request by Nakamura who said he is still looking for the original electronic versions but was making non-searchable, non-text versions scanned from the paper records available in a PDF format.
A July 20 response to Nakamura’s memo informing them of the lost records shows Bynum and Kawahara were, first of all, less than pleased at Nakamura’s response time.
They wrote:
We are in receipt of your memo dated July 6, 2009 (received July 8, 2009) in response to our request for access to public documents submitted on May 26, 2009 pursuant to the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA). Although we appreciate that you have begun and are in partial compliance with the legal requirements of the UIPA, your memo raises a number of very significant concerns.
As you are aware, the UIPA disclosure provision requires: “Within ten business days of receipt of a request, the agency must respond to the requester. Depending upon the circumstances, the agency must: A. Make the record available; OR B. Provide a “Notice to Requester” or an “Acknowledgment to Requester”. Your response was received on July 8th, a full 31 business days after the initial request.
We have also heard from constituents that other requests for information pursuant to the UIPA are not being responded to in the time frame required by law or not at all. We are aware of a request made in June that is apparently being ignored. We are not making a judgment about the appropriateness of any request but we are requesting that you have the courtesy to acknowledge our community members’ requests as required by law.
But if the violation of a UIPA mandated deadline- the same kind PNN has experienced many times under Nakamura- was offensive to the two, the loss of these primary documents was a fully unacceptable dereliction of one of his primary responsibilities under the county charter: maintaining the council’s records.
And, they said, the records should be able to be recovered if Nakamura really wanted to produce them.
The memo continues:
We are also troubled by your statement that you have “have had difficulty locating electronic copies of Council meeting minutes” and other documents. This revelation has significant implications. Is it the case then that our key public documents exist only on paper in the Historic County building? Is it the case that our office documents are not backed up on the county network? Is it the case that we are not availing ourselves of the backup capabilities provided by the County IT department. Does this not leave an unacceptable risk that these key public documents could be lost completely?
As a result of the apparent lost files you have supplied us with documents scanned from hard paper copies which result in very large files (up to 130MB) that contain scanning errors and are difficult for persons with disabilities to appropriately access. Your statement that compliance is incremental and delayed by “voluminous nature of the request” only makes any sense if all of these documents are indeed lost. We have asked that these documents be made routinely available to all council members on the County intranet network which is secure and backed up offsite. Please make every effort to find the lost documents and release them to the public and to us in the appropriate electronic format. This process should consume less than an hour and not constitute an “unreasonable interference with (your) other duties and functions.”
Sincerely, LANI KAWAHARA, Councilmember; TIM BYNUM Councilmember
The missing records were mentioned briefly during the marathon July 22 council meeting during discussion of many matters related to council rules and policies but that mere mention elicited a warning from County Attorney Al Castillo to stop talking about it in public.
This might explain an item listed on the meeting agenda that called for an Executive Session (ES-392) “to consider the evaluation of officers and/or employees where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved and associated matters”.
In the “confusion” of the meeting, the ES was never held or even “announced” by Nakamura who serves as parliamentarian and agenda manager for Chair Kaipo Asing at all council meetings.
In response to some of the discussions at the meeting and promises by Asing that things would change “on Monday” (as detailed here in the four posts prior to this one) one small change was instituted Monday, July 27.
According to a memo from Asing to all council members, from now on “copies of incoming council documents will be placed in a binder that will be on the council’s ‘break room” table”.
Although they are not in the electronic form in which they were presumably created and the fact that “(d)ocuments over 30 days old will be removed from the binder” in the past delivery of these documents addressed to all councilmembers were usually delayed and sometimes never delivered at all.
The following day July 28 another new policy was announced, this one by Nakamura, saying that for the first time draft minutes- those for the July 22 pubic hearing on bill 2319- are now available electronically to council members for review prior to their approval at the Aug 8 meeting. This is a first since previously, as with all other documents, copies of the minutes- whether draft or approved- were only available in paper format.
The lack of electronic records is a long standing problem for councilmembers, which is apparent when one visits any councilperson’s office and has to find a place to sit amongst the stacks of paper.
Unlike every county in the state and almost all jurisdictions of equal size population nationwide, councilmembers on Kaua`i have no personal staff for simple duties like filing documents and sorting correspondence, much less for drafting legislation.
All staff time is delegated by Nakamura at Asing’s instructions.
Bynum and Kawahara were apparently pleased nonetheless by the half-measures, posting notes at their kauaiinfo web site, one linking to the two memos and another saying:
Following the landmark Council meeting held July 22, 2009 in which Council Chair Kaipo Asing stated “I am willing as chair to work with you to solve the problems" changes asked for over two years ago are indeed starting to happen. (see below). We are very pleased at this turn of events and appreciate Mr. Asing's decision to allow the changes.
--------------------
Note: We’ll be taking a long weekend. See ya Monday.
(PNN) -- All original electronic versions of the minutes of meetings of the Kaua`i County Council prior to May 20, 2008 have apparently been lost according to a July 6 response by County Clerk Peter Nakamura to a May 20 records request from Councilpersons Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara.
Nakamura said he had “difficulty locating electronic copies of council (and committee) meeting minutes prior to 2008 at this time” in a late response to the request for the original electronically created documents.
Though Nakamura blamed “changes in council services personnel assigned to council meetings prior to 2008 and physical workstations replacement and upgrades” he did not say what happened to the meeting minutes from 2008 until May 20 although they are also apparently lost.
The response from Nakamura violated the State Uniform information Practices Act (UIPA) HRS 92F provisions requiring a response to record requests within 10 days, a common complaint of community members, as noted in a response from Bynum and Kawahara to the news that only paper copies of the crucial public documents exist.
After receiving no answer within 10 days of the May 20 request the two also filed a follow-up request on June 10 noting the missed deadline.
That was also ignored until a month and a half after the original request by Nakamura who said he is still looking for the original electronic versions but was making non-searchable, non-text versions scanned from the paper records available in a PDF format.
A July 20 response to Nakamura’s memo informing them of the lost records shows Bynum and Kawahara were, first of all, less than pleased at Nakamura’s response time.
They wrote:
We are in receipt of your memo dated July 6, 2009 (received July 8, 2009) in response to our request for access to public documents submitted on May 26, 2009 pursuant to the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA). Although we appreciate that you have begun and are in partial compliance with the legal requirements of the UIPA, your memo raises a number of very significant concerns.
As you are aware, the UIPA disclosure provision requires: “Within ten business days of receipt of a request, the agency must respond to the requester. Depending upon the circumstances, the agency must: A. Make the record available; OR B. Provide a “Notice to Requester” or an “Acknowledgment to Requester”. Your response was received on July 8th, a full 31 business days after the initial request.
We have also heard from constituents that other requests for information pursuant to the UIPA are not being responded to in the time frame required by law or not at all. We are aware of a request made in June that is apparently being ignored. We are not making a judgment about the appropriateness of any request but we are requesting that you have the courtesy to acknowledge our community members’ requests as required by law.
But if the violation of a UIPA mandated deadline- the same kind PNN has experienced many times under Nakamura- was offensive to the two, the loss of these primary documents was a fully unacceptable dereliction of one of his primary responsibilities under the county charter: maintaining the council’s records.
And, they said, the records should be able to be recovered if Nakamura really wanted to produce them.
The memo continues:
We are also troubled by your statement that you have “have had difficulty locating electronic copies of Council meeting minutes” and other documents. This revelation has significant implications. Is it the case then that our key public documents exist only on paper in the Historic County building? Is it the case that our office documents are not backed up on the county network? Is it the case that we are not availing ourselves of the backup capabilities provided by the County IT department. Does this not leave an unacceptable risk that these key public documents could be lost completely?
As a result of the apparent lost files you have supplied us with documents scanned from hard paper copies which result in very large files (up to 130MB) that contain scanning errors and are difficult for persons with disabilities to appropriately access. Your statement that compliance is incremental and delayed by “voluminous nature of the request” only makes any sense if all of these documents are indeed lost. We have asked that these documents be made routinely available to all council members on the County intranet network which is secure and backed up offsite. Please make every effort to find the lost documents and release them to the public and to us in the appropriate electronic format. This process should consume less than an hour and not constitute an “unreasonable interference with (your) other duties and functions.”
Sincerely, LANI KAWAHARA, Councilmember; TIM BYNUM Councilmember
The missing records were mentioned briefly during the marathon July 22 council meeting during discussion of many matters related to council rules and policies but that mere mention elicited a warning from County Attorney Al Castillo to stop talking about it in public.
This might explain an item listed on the meeting agenda that called for an Executive Session (ES-392) “to consider the evaluation of officers and/or employees where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved and associated matters”.
In the “confusion” of the meeting, the ES was never held or even “announced” by Nakamura who serves as parliamentarian and agenda manager for Chair Kaipo Asing at all council meetings.
In response to some of the discussions at the meeting and promises by Asing that things would change “on Monday” (as detailed here in the four posts prior to this one) one small change was instituted Monday, July 27.
According to a memo from Asing to all council members, from now on “copies of incoming council documents will be placed in a binder that will be on the council’s ‘break room” table”.
Although they are not in the electronic form in which they were presumably created and the fact that “(d)ocuments over 30 days old will be removed from the binder” in the past delivery of these documents addressed to all councilmembers were usually delayed and sometimes never delivered at all.
The following day July 28 another new policy was announced, this one by Nakamura, saying that for the first time draft minutes- those for the July 22 pubic hearing on bill 2319- are now available electronically to council members for review prior to their approval at the Aug 8 meeting. This is a first since previously, as with all other documents, copies of the minutes- whether draft or approved- were only available in paper format.
The lack of electronic records is a long standing problem for councilmembers, which is apparent when one visits any councilperson’s office and has to find a place to sit amongst the stacks of paper.
Unlike every county in the state and almost all jurisdictions of equal size population nationwide, councilmembers on Kaua`i have no personal staff for simple duties like filing documents and sorting correspondence, much less for drafting legislation.
All staff time is delegated by Nakamura at Asing’s instructions.
Bynum and Kawahara were apparently pleased nonetheless by the half-measures, posting notes at their kauaiinfo web site, one linking to the two memos and another saying:
Following the landmark Council meeting held July 22, 2009 in which Council Chair Kaipo Asing stated “I am willing as chair to work with you to solve the problems" changes asked for over two years ago are indeed starting to happen. (see below). We are very pleased at this turn of events and appreciate Mr. Asing's decision to allow the changes.
--------------------
Note: We’ll be taking a long weekend. See ya Monday.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
PITCAIRN HERE WE COME
PITCAIRN HERE WE COME: By the time councilpersons Jay Furfaro’s and Dickie Chang’s resolution to appoint an advisory committee to review the council’s rules came up on last Wednesday’s council agenda the room had becomes a jangle of exposed nerves, frayed to the bone from the contentiousness of the previous 12 plus hours of political wrangling.
The “sub committee” as it was referred to- despite the fact that is was “sub” to nothing, having no council members- was apparently Furfaro’s attempt to play both sides against the muddle by delaying any real change and putting it in the hands of three status quo supporting good old boys: Former Judge Spike Masunaga, Former council chair Ron Kouchi and former everything-to-everyone in power Phil Tachbin.
As we wrote last week it was transparently a way to put any discussion of the changes requested by open governance advocates, Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara, behind closed doors and discussed by people who had been anything but sunshine advocates over their careers.
That was certainly the public perception going in. Furfaro’s latest attempt to say “I’m a dissident too”- while at the same time not outwardly opposing Chair Kaipo Asing’s ever-tenuous grasp on ultimate power and also maintaining his famous paternalism- was certainly going to be put to another test.
Furfaro started out the discussion trying to paint the “ad hoc’ committee as his attempt to make sure that the council’s rules- the key subject of the day’s discussions- were going to be reviewed completely by respected members of the community, experienced in the function of organizations.
Chang. a co-introducer, went next and said essentially the same thing. He co-introduced the reso with Furfaro thinking it to be a measure in support of Kawahara and Bynum. Both were surprised that there was opposition immediately when activists all over the island looked askew at the effort.
Neither made mention of the absurdity of having a secret cabal of non-council members meet behind closed doors without public input to decide what needed to be done to improve both the council’s and the public’s access to public documents and make sure that open meetings are the norm, both of which are a dubious propositions under current rules, as interpreted by Asing,
When they were done, leader of the rebellion Bynum’s turn to speak came and he stated that he had no problem with the committee or it’s members assuming that they will meet in sessions open to the public and take public input.
Bynum, sensing that a third vote in the person of Furfaro- whom he and Kawahara supported in opposing Asing for chair last December- was essential for future battles on this and other subjects, supported Furfaro’s “ad hoc committee” resolution.
That was just fine with Furfaro of course who has been seeking to have some of the massive community support that Bynum’s and Kawahara’s dissident stance has garnered.
Kawahara seeing the other two members of her coalition supporting it expressed some misgivings about it but acquiesced after hearing assurances from Furfaro that the committee would meet openly with public testimony
Kawahara and Bynum were in a tough spot. Neither could afford to attack the three respected community members for obvious reasons and the wind had been taken out of the sails of any opposition they might mount when the assurance of openness was made.
Previously public opposition to the resolution was mixed at best with most focusing on expanding the list of committee members to include well known sunshine and open government advocates. It looked like certain passage with four votes- the four most important at that point- assured in favor of the resolution
That’s when the totally unexpected happened.
Surely the mad dash to catch up with the bandwagon by Furfaro hasn’t gone unnoticed by Councilperson Darryl Kaneshiro, who was faced with the prospect of being the last defender of the realm, viewed by those paying attention as Asing’s right hand man, actually sitting on Asing’s right at the table.
The fact that community outrage over the whole matter had coalesced over the ad hoc committee since it hit the pages of the local newspaper days before, wasn’t lost of Kaneshiro who has done nothing to suggest he was anything but a shill for the now reviled Asing.
So, in his last chance to turn things around and associate himself with the reform movement sweeping the island, he pulled the political play of the day by opposing the committee.
In a speech that could have been torn from these “pages”, he objected to the fact that an outside group would be doing something that the council could and should be doing “around this table... before the public... in an open forum”- going over the rules in the light of day, not by a closed, small group.
It was so out of character for Kaneshiro- who never seems to run out of ways to consolidate power behind Asing in all of this- that at first no one knew what to do.
But it was Bynum, sensing the opportunity to build on Kaneshiro’s eloquent plea for open and good governance. who took the moment to say Kaneshiro had caused him to change his mind on the matter and he now favored having the council tackle rule changes on the floor- what he had really wanted all along.
Then they fell like dominoes with even Chang and then Furfaro recognizing the sea change around the table.
Finally, even Asing endorsed the idea.
It was only Furfaro’s last ditch plea to defer and not kill the resolution in the face of what even Furfaro admitted was certain defeat if it were to be voted on, that kept it on a future agenda where it will appear on August 12.
On thing of note that we missed in yesterday’s and Friday’s reports was what happened after the dinner break last Wednesday.
Sensing the discussion had played out, Bynum then turned to the issue that started it all- his resolution to change the wording of a council rule to make sure members could place matters on the agenda.
He tried to make a motion to put that resolution on a future agenda, a motion seconded by Kawahara.
But Asing also sensing the end of the discussion was adamant, insisting at every juncture that, if “discussion” was over the agenda item had to be “received” before anything else could happen. But then of course there would be no discussion of the matter on the table and Bynum would have no way to make a motion.
And of course, after some wrangling, the matter was “received” and Bynum did not get to take a vote on putting it on a future agenda.
Most probably Bynum gave up because he sensed that this was a battle that had already won with the chair’s vow that things would change “Monday”, assuming that one of those things would be access to the agenda.
If Bynum now tries to introduce the reso- especially in light of the later discussion initiated by Kaneshiro that the council would be taking up the rules on the council floor- and Asing refuses, Bynum will have a strong point to show that nothing has changed and that Asing broke his much vaunted promise to accommodate change.
The “sub committee” as it was referred to- despite the fact that is was “sub” to nothing, having no council members- was apparently Furfaro’s attempt to play both sides against the muddle by delaying any real change and putting it in the hands of three status quo supporting good old boys: Former Judge Spike Masunaga, Former council chair Ron Kouchi and former everything-to-everyone in power Phil Tachbin.
As we wrote last week it was transparently a way to put any discussion of the changes requested by open governance advocates, Councilmembers Tim Bynum and Lani Kawahara, behind closed doors and discussed by people who had been anything but sunshine advocates over their careers.
That was certainly the public perception going in. Furfaro’s latest attempt to say “I’m a dissident too”- while at the same time not outwardly opposing Chair Kaipo Asing’s ever-tenuous grasp on ultimate power and also maintaining his famous paternalism- was certainly going to be put to another test.
Furfaro started out the discussion trying to paint the “ad hoc’ committee as his attempt to make sure that the council’s rules- the key subject of the day’s discussions- were going to be reviewed completely by respected members of the community, experienced in the function of organizations.
Chang. a co-introducer, went next and said essentially the same thing. He co-introduced the reso with Furfaro thinking it to be a measure in support of Kawahara and Bynum. Both were surprised that there was opposition immediately when activists all over the island looked askew at the effort.
Neither made mention of the absurdity of having a secret cabal of non-council members meet behind closed doors without public input to decide what needed to be done to improve both the council’s and the public’s access to public documents and make sure that open meetings are the norm, both of which are a dubious propositions under current rules, as interpreted by Asing,
When they were done, leader of the rebellion Bynum’s turn to speak came and he stated that he had no problem with the committee or it’s members assuming that they will meet in sessions open to the public and take public input.
Bynum, sensing that a third vote in the person of Furfaro- whom he and Kawahara supported in opposing Asing for chair last December- was essential for future battles on this and other subjects, supported Furfaro’s “ad hoc committee” resolution.
That was just fine with Furfaro of course who has been seeking to have some of the massive community support that Bynum’s and Kawahara’s dissident stance has garnered.
Kawahara seeing the other two members of her coalition supporting it expressed some misgivings about it but acquiesced after hearing assurances from Furfaro that the committee would meet openly with public testimony
Kawahara and Bynum were in a tough spot. Neither could afford to attack the three respected community members for obvious reasons and the wind had been taken out of the sails of any opposition they might mount when the assurance of openness was made.
Previously public opposition to the resolution was mixed at best with most focusing on expanding the list of committee members to include well known sunshine and open government advocates. It looked like certain passage with four votes- the four most important at that point- assured in favor of the resolution
That’s when the totally unexpected happened.
Surely the mad dash to catch up with the bandwagon by Furfaro hasn’t gone unnoticed by Councilperson Darryl Kaneshiro, who was faced with the prospect of being the last defender of the realm, viewed by those paying attention as Asing’s right hand man, actually sitting on Asing’s right at the table.
The fact that community outrage over the whole matter had coalesced over the ad hoc committee since it hit the pages of the local newspaper days before, wasn’t lost of Kaneshiro who has done nothing to suggest he was anything but a shill for the now reviled Asing.
So, in his last chance to turn things around and associate himself with the reform movement sweeping the island, he pulled the political play of the day by opposing the committee.
In a speech that could have been torn from these “pages”, he objected to the fact that an outside group would be doing something that the council could and should be doing “around this table... before the public... in an open forum”- going over the rules in the light of day, not by a closed, small group.
It was so out of character for Kaneshiro- who never seems to run out of ways to consolidate power behind Asing in all of this- that at first no one knew what to do.
But it was Bynum, sensing the opportunity to build on Kaneshiro’s eloquent plea for open and good governance. who took the moment to say Kaneshiro had caused him to change his mind on the matter and he now favored having the council tackle rule changes on the floor- what he had really wanted all along.
Then they fell like dominoes with even Chang and then Furfaro recognizing the sea change around the table.
Finally, even Asing endorsed the idea.
It was only Furfaro’s last ditch plea to defer and not kill the resolution in the face of what even Furfaro admitted was certain defeat if it were to be voted on, that kept it on a future agenda where it will appear on August 12.
On thing of note that we missed in yesterday’s and Friday’s reports was what happened after the dinner break last Wednesday.
Sensing the discussion had played out, Bynum then turned to the issue that started it all- his resolution to change the wording of a council rule to make sure members could place matters on the agenda.
He tried to make a motion to put that resolution on a future agenda, a motion seconded by Kawahara.
But Asing also sensing the end of the discussion was adamant, insisting at every juncture that, if “discussion” was over the agenda item had to be “received” before anything else could happen. But then of course there would be no discussion of the matter on the table and Bynum would have no way to make a motion.
And of course, after some wrangling, the matter was “received” and Bynum did not get to take a vote on putting it on a future agenda.
Most probably Bynum gave up because he sensed that this was a battle that had already won with the chair’s vow that things would change “Monday”, assuming that one of those things would be access to the agenda.
If Bynum now tries to introduce the reso- especially in light of the later discussion initiated by Kaneshiro that the council would be taking up the rules on the council floor- and Asing refuses, Bynum will have a strong point to show that nothing has changed and that Asing broke his much vaunted promise to accommodate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
