ELECTROCUTION ELOCUTION: Perhaps the biggest chuckle we got during the whole KIUC FERC vote debacle was the electric co-op's promise that, like any five year old who had lied and misbehaved, they would never do it again.
So the new era of openness and transparency that was promised after the vote failed, is upon us, right?
OK you can stop laughing now. Because as many have heard, after the second petition- one to try to force a re-vote due to the massive abuse of the voting process on KIUC's part- allegedly failed to garner enough signatures, they wouldn't even allow the petitioners to go over the petition and the membership list to ascertain the co-op's claim that many of the signatures were either duplicates or those of non-members.
But for a real eyeful of what the future of "member relations" is going to look like nothing can beat the "Fear and Loathing" style first hand account of Tuesday's KIUC Board meeting by Tek Nickerson- a regular guy who was outraged by many of the things he saw and got involved with the second petition.
So we hand over the rest of today's column to Tek's "report" on what went down (all SIC).
-----
UPDATE ON PETITION TO RECALL ELECTION by Tek Nickerson
KIUC held their regularly scheduled Board meeting yesterday, Tuesday, 7.26.11. In response to the Members’ Second Petition and strong request for a verifiable count of signatures, KIUC simply issued a statement, defining a valid signature vs an invalid signature, plus a restatement of the count. They completely sidestepped the question about verification and that they might have a vested interest in protecting their own privacy how the determination was made on each signature.
I was the only one from the public signed in to talk, which was first on the agenda. Chairman Phil Tacbian said only members could talk and they could only talk in items on the agenda for three minutes.
I was called “to the stand.” I introduced myself as the point person on the second petition (to recall the election). The chairman said the petition was not on the agenda, and therefore COULD NOT BE DISCUSSED, so I could not talk. I thanked him and sat down, setting my precedence for respect.
(It was later explained to me that items are put on the agenda five days prior to the meeting. The agenda is posted on the KIUC web site. Since Tuesday was the sixth day after they received the petition, they CHOSE to avoid the issue by ignoring it on the agenda.)
I sat and listened as each person at the table gave their report. Consulting Counsel Proudfoot reported that he advised the Board how to proceed in response to the Second Petition.
Paraphrasing:
“A point of order, Mr. Chairman! Mr Proudfoot just brought the subject of the Second Petition to the table! I may now speak on the subject!”
“No, you may not.”
This is the second time the Chair CHOSE to be dismissive.
Steve Raposo, Vice Chair and chairman of the Members Relations Committee, did not mention the Second Petition in his report. This was the third time that a KIUC elected representative chose to ignore their commitment to being open and reaching out to the public.
During a break, Consulting Counsel Proudfoot approached Director Jan TenBruggencarte and me. He said he was intending to tell Jan something to tell me. Finding me pleasant and inviting his advice, he said that I could ask the Chair to wave the rule and allow me to speak. This is encouraging, especially coming from him. We showed each other we were reasonable men and could work with each other.
Raposo’s Members Relations report centered on defining exactly what their course of action would be for outreach with the public. After ten minutes of discussion, it was still a quandary for them what it would look like.
Knowing that Raposo probably categorized me as an unreasonable obstructionist, I approached him with a suggestion. He was a bit taken aback, but he listened. I reminded him that history has taught us the approach that works under similar circumstances: the Dolley Madison solution of giving weekly parties for opposing political sides in the neutral territory of her home. I.e. Take the budget for talk-down “dog and pony shows” and apply it to island-wide regional parties, where the public is attracted first by the food and then by the opportunity to ask questions of their elected directors and opposing views one-on-one. Raposo listened. Time will tell if he is receptive to Dolley Madison’s ingeniously iconic solution, used in the White House to this day.
Raposo is one of the Gang of Five, who controls the direction that the board votes. (About the First Petition, he reportedly remarked that some people are only obstructionists. This is the third opportunity they passed up.)
At each opportunity ANY one of the directors could have interjected an objection…and did not.
A CALL TO ACTION:
During a break, Jan B. told me that until the elections give them FIVE votes aligned with our thinking, the board will continue to vote as they have. I characterize this as an archaic corporate/plantation-style mentality. The progeny of field hands have come of age to think on their own without the aid of the dumbing down from a political machine.
The three up for re-election are Ben Sullivan, Stu Burley and Steve Raposo. Jan explained that if we vote out Stu and Steve with strong candidates, we’ll have purged the Gang of Five with our own Five Alive.
This is the light at the end of the tunnel.
Meanwhile, sitting in the back of the room for a while was Free Flow Power representatives, Jason Hines and his assistant, Dawn. The chairman invited them to report an update on their progress. THIS WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
Then we all took a break before they went onto Executive session. I took the opportunity to complain to Ben Sullivan that FFP should not have been given the floor, since they weren’t on the Agenda. Ben said he let it go, because they wouldn’t be taking a vote. That’s contrary to their own rules! Thus, there is NO WAY in which the situation can be “corrected” if the Board can continue to “pick and choose” what it can do accordingly.
Will KIUC consider the “possibility” of a forum approach in getting to the root of the matter discussed in a neutral venue with an opportunity for both sides of the issue to be in the planning process of determining what should be discussed and how both sides can be fairly presented?
If you are a member of KIUC and wish to express your position on any of these matters, you are encouraged to contact the KIUC Board of Directors at KIUCBOD@Hawaii.rr.com.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
HOME HOME ON THE RANGE
HOME HOME ON THE RANGE: It didn't take long for the other shoe to drop after the eyebrow-raising buyout of the Goliath Honolulu Advertiser by the David Star Bulletin.
But the reasoning for the new pay wall for on-line readers of the new Star-Advertiser (S-A) had us in stitches as Publisher Dennis Frances claimed they were just following the lead of the New York Times, as if the two had anything in common journaistically other than the fact that both call themselves newspapers.
It kind of reminded us of when our own local Kaua`i newspaper informed readers of their then-owners by printing a blurb on the masthead saying "A Pulitzer Newspaper"- as if they were actually somehow associated with the prize instead of the chain of small fluff and pap publications.
But if a story in today's S-A is any indication news seekers may not be missing much if they eschew the "newspaper of record"- because if you're the only newspaper in town you are, by definition, the newspaper of record- in favor of other news sources.
While the S-A was busy telling it's readers about how the APEC will conclude at Ihilani resort in Ko Olina and wondering how the sharing of the wealth with out of town facilities might effect traffic, those who turned to KITV's web site got the real story.
In an un-bylined report, they repeated their exclusive from yesterday's 6 p.m. telecast saying that
APEC's two most important events with 21 world leaders attending will not be held at the Hawaii Convention Center in Waikiki.KITV4 first reported in May that law enforcement officials raised security concerns about the glass throughout the convention center. If a bomb was detonated even fairly far away from the building, shards of the glass ceiling and glass walls could injure people inside and outside the building, sources said. As a result, security experts recommended against having APEC leaders' meetings at the convention center involving President Barack Obama and heads of state from APEC's 21 countries, sources said.
The worst part is that the exorcizing of the real news wasn't because the KITV report was too late in the day to make the morning paper but rather because the S-A either intentionally ignored or didn't bother to seek out the KITV's earlier May and January reports on security- which, given the history of these kinds of gatherings should be issue number one.
That or, more likely, they simply regurgitated a pre-packaged press release without, as they are wont to do, any attribution- a lapse of ethics that neither the Times or even the local Kaua`i paper would allow.
If the S-A insists on being a paper where never is heard a discouraging word there are few, if any, that are going to pay the $120 a year for very long especially if all they get is a watered down product that reports only what their advertisers and the Chamber of Commerce want readers to know.
The worst part is that the reasonable rate of $1.95 a month is available to mainland subscribers.
Some may say that $10 a month is not a lot of money to pay for news. But the problem is that those who read news on-line don't read just one source. And if this trend continues it will be ten dollars and ten dollars and ten dollars and... well you get the point.
There has to be a way for newspapers to reap revenues for the on-line versions of their newspapers. But having all the individual publications each charge their own fee for their limited coverage isn't it.
We've long advocated for an "all you can eat" pricing for a massive consortium of newspapers including those with a national readership such as the NY Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal as well as the vast number of city and community newspapers... all for one reasonable fee, perhaps to be distributed via a "per-click" system.
Systems like ASCAP and BMI have been working for music publishing and radio play for decades and nascent music subscription services are cropping up everywhere and will soon be ubiquitous, as the large record companies as well as the independents come around to a business model of necessity.
But apparently the "news industry" feels like it has to go through all the wrong moves that the music business did rather than learning from them and creating a business model with will serve everyone going into the future.
All that will happen as medium sized newspapers like the Star-Advertiser become providers and aggregators is that the number of independent news sources will be diminished. And of course each one thinks that they will be the sole survivor of a war like that. And in the S-A's case that would be to ignore their own history wherein the size of the publication had nothing whatsoever to do with who "won" the contraction of Honolulu newspapers.
We fully expect the quality of the Star-Advertiser to diminish further with this pay wall as they become even more alienated from their readers. And if today's coverage is any example that inexorable march has already begun.
But the reasoning for the new pay wall for on-line readers of the new Star-Advertiser (S-A) had us in stitches as Publisher Dennis Frances claimed they were just following the lead of the New York Times, as if the two had anything in common journaistically other than the fact that both call themselves newspapers.
It kind of reminded us of when our own local Kaua`i newspaper informed readers of their then-owners by printing a blurb on the masthead saying "A Pulitzer Newspaper"- as if they were actually somehow associated with the prize instead of the chain of small fluff and pap publications.
But if a story in today's S-A is any indication news seekers may not be missing much if they eschew the "newspaper of record"- because if you're the only newspaper in town you are, by definition, the newspaper of record- in favor of other news sources.
While the S-A was busy telling it's readers about how the APEC will conclude at Ihilani resort in Ko Olina and wondering how the sharing of the wealth with out of town facilities might effect traffic, those who turned to KITV's web site got the real story.
In an un-bylined report, they repeated their exclusive from yesterday's 6 p.m. telecast saying that
APEC's two most important events with 21 world leaders attending will not be held at the Hawaii Convention Center in Waikiki.KITV4 first reported in May that law enforcement officials raised security concerns about the glass throughout the convention center. If a bomb was detonated even fairly far away from the building, shards of the glass ceiling and glass walls could injure people inside and outside the building, sources said. As a result, security experts recommended against having APEC leaders' meetings at the convention center involving President Barack Obama and heads of state from APEC's 21 countries, sources said.
The worst part is that the exorcizing of the real news wasn't because the KITV report was too late in the day to make the morning paper but rather because the S-A either intentionally ignored or didn't bother to seek out the KITV's earlier May and January reports on security- which, given the history of these kinds of gatherings should be issue number one.
That or, more likely, they simply regurgitated a pre-packaged press release without, as they are wont to do, any attribution- a lapse of ethics that neither the Times or even the local Kaua`i paper would allow.
If the S-A insists on being a paper where never is heard a discouraging word there are few, if any, that are going to pay the $120 a year for very long especially if all they get is a watered down product that reports only what their advertisers and the Chamber of Commerce want readers to know.
The worst part is that the reasonable rate of $1.95 a month is available to mainland subscribers.
Some may say that $10 a month is not a lot of money to pay for news. But the problem is that those who read news on-line don't read just one source. And if this trend continues it will be ten dollars and ten dollars and ten dollars and... well you get the point.
There has to be a way for newspapers to reap revenues for the on-line versions of their newspapers. But having all the individual publications each charge their own fee for their limited coverage isn't it.
We've long advocated for an "all you can eat" pricing for a massive consortium of newspapers including those with a national readership such as the NY Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal as well as the vast number of city and community newspapers... all for one reasonable fee, perhaps to be distributed via a "per-click" system.
Systems like ASCAP and BMI have been working for music publishing and radio play for decades and nascent music subscription services are cropping up everywhere and will soon be ubiquitous, as the large record companies as well as the independents come around to a business model of necessity.
But apparently the "news industry" feels like it has to go through all the wrong moves that the music business did rather than learning from them and creating a business model with will serve everyone going into the future.
All that will happen as medium sized newspapers like the Star-Advertiser become providers and aggregators is that the number of independent news sources will be diminished. And of course each one thinks that they will be the sole survivor of a war like that. And in the S-A's case that would be to ignore their own history wherein the size of the publication had nothing whatsoever to do with who "won" the contraction of Honolulu newspapers.
We fully expect the quality of the Star-Advertiser to diminish further with this pay wall as they become even more alienated from their readers. And if today's coverage is any example that inexorable march has already begun.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
INFORMATION TAR-TAR
INFORMATION TAR-TAR: Ever since the Office of Information Practices (OIP) lost the infamous ES-177 case- wherein the County of Kaua`i went to court to avoid releasing the minutes of an executive session despite apparent legislative intent to give OIP ultimate authority and ban such court action- we've kind of felt like the guy in the movies screaming in futility while spinning through the vacuum of space.
But recent attention has been paid by Civil Beat Editor John Temple prompting the OIP to defend itself- in a letter from the current director entitled "The Raw Truth"- for refusing to, as they see it, waste their time trying to claim their "teeth" that the court took away.
We're not going to try to rehash the long and winding road of ES-177 and CofK vs OIP again here but today Temple does point out a new wrinkle that puts OIP's finger-pointing at the legislature in a new light saying that under:
sections 92F-15.5 and 92F-28 of Hawaii Revised Statutes that the OIP has authority to hear and make binding decisions in appeals if it exercises its rule-making authority.
Apparently OIP has never bothered to promulgate Chapter 91 Administrative Rules to set up an appeals process for agencies who disagree with their Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) rulings to follow- one of Kaua`i County's major gripes in their suit having been the denial of "due process."
In addition today, another open records and meetings junkie, blogger/journalist Ian Lind takes a shot at OIP's defense by noting that in CofK vs OIP the court actually distinguished it from another case where OIP's authority was upheld, noting that "board meeting minutes are specifically covered by HRS Chapter 92, whereas development proposals, such as the ones at issue" in the other case, are not.
Of course the only reason the ES-177 case is finally getting statewide attention is that Governor Neil Abercrombie refused to adhere to an OIP decision on releasing the names of candidates for the Hawaii Supreme Court and then refused to reappoint the OIP director who made the decision.
But one thing that again occurs to us today, has bothered us since the first day the CofK decided to file suit.
Why exactly did the county bother to sue and not just ignore the OIP?
By filing suit they risked losing but by ignoring the OIP- as many are doing today, they apparently would have risked nothing. That's because of something that neither Temple nor Lind nor OIP itself has mentioned- something that really exposed the weak link in all of this.
According to the Sunshine Law under §92-12 Enforcement,
(a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.
The fact is that, because the law also says that anyone who doesn't agree with an OIP directive can sue in circuit court, attorneys general have consistently said that one must go to court first and so, they have refused to enforce OIP's opinions.
Thus the root of the claim that OIP is a "toothless tiger" is that the AG refuses to enforce its decisions.
That is why Abercrombie can get away with thumbing his nose at the OIP- not because the legislature hasn't been clear enough, as Temple points out today in citing the 1989 conference committee report for the sunshine law, as the OIP did in it's arguments in CofK vs. OIP.
Seems that "The Raw Truth" is that OIP does have options- options that you can bet the always-reticent-to-act legislature will be sure to iterate next year when they consider the OIP's request for tooth sharpening.
But recent attention has been paid by Civil Beat Editor John Temple prompting the OIP to defend itself- in a letter from the current director entitled "The Raw Truth"- for refusing to, as they see it, waste their time trying to claim their "teeth" that the court took away.
We're not going to try to rehash the long and winding road of ES-177 and CofK vs OIP again here but today Temple does point out a new wrinkle that puts OIP's finger-pointing at the legislature in a new light saying that under:
sections 92F-15.5 and 92F-28 of Hawaii Revised Statutes that the OIP has authority to hear and make binding decisions in appeals if it exercises its rule-making authority.
Apparently OIP has never bothered to promulgate Chapter 91 Administrative Rules to set up an appeals process for agencies who disagree with their Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) rulings to follow- one of Kaua`i County's major gripes in their suit having been the denial of "due process."
In addition today, another open records and meetings junkie, blogger/journalist Ian Lind takes a shot at OIP's defense by noting that in CofK vs OIP the court actually distinguished it from another case where OIP's authority was upheld, noting that "board meeting minutes are specifically covered by HRS Chapter 92, whereas development proposals, such as the ones at issue" in the other case, are not.
Of course the only reason the ES-177 case is finally getting statewide attention is that Governor Neil Abercrombie refused to adhere to an OIP decision on releasing the names of candidates for the Hawaii Supreme Court and then refused to reappoint the OIP director who made the decision.
But one thing that again occurs to us today, has bothered us since the first day the CofK decided to file suit.
Why exactly did the county bother to sue and not just ignore the OIP?
By filing suit they risked losing but by ignoring the OIP- as many are doing today, they apparently would have risked nothing. That's because of something that neither Temple nor Lind nor OIP itself has mentioned- something that really exposed the weak link in all of this.
According to the Sunshine Law under §92-12 Enforcement,
(a) The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall enforce this part.
The fact is that, because the law also says that anyone who doesn't agree with an OIP directive can sue in circuit court, attorneys general have consistently said that one must go to court first and so, they have refused to enforce OIP's opinions.
Thus the root of the claim that OIP is a "toothless tiger" is that the AG refuses to enforce its decisions.
That is why Abercrombie can get away with thumbing his nose at the OIP- not because the legislature hasn't been clear enough, as Temple points out today in citing the 1989 conference committee report for the sunshine law, as the OIP did in it's arguments in CofK vs. OIP.
Seems that "The Raw Truth" is that OIP does have options- options that you can bet the always-reticent-to-act legislature will be sure to iterate next year when they consider the OIP's request for tooth sharpening.
Monday, July 25, 2011
SEE HOW THEY RUN
SEE HOW THEY RUN: Try to pull a con-job on a New Yorker and it's likely his- or her- response will be a sneering "what am I- a freakin' idiot?".
But when one examines the ingestion and regurgitation of mindless claptrap that passes for the cranial contents of some of these vapid tea-party-addled denizens of the fly-over states, you just know that an honest response to that same query, would be "indubitably."
But mainlanders have no monopoly on helpfully doling out "two tens for a five" upon request if a story in this morning's Honolulu newspaper is any indication.
The headline "State may sell buildings, then pay developers rent" doesn't even tell the whole story.
Apparently the Brainiacs at the capitol have passed legislation allowing the fiscally-challenged gang at state Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS) to "sell buildings under its ownership to developers with an agreement by which the developer pays for upgrades and the state pays to rent the improved facilities."
Of course as long as you don't think too much- or at all- about it it sounds like a great deal. But, as the article notes in one of those passive-aggressive passages reporters have designed to give credence to even the most harebrained of ideas:
Concerns have been raised that the law... could end up making it more expensive in the long range to own and maintain buildings, given that developers will need to earn a return on their investment through charging the state rent.
Gee, ya think?
Where exactly do we find one of these saps who think that instead of fixing his broken-down car it would be cheaper to sell it to you and then buy it back for the price you paid plus the amount of the repair bill and then throw in 10% for YOUR trouble?
Well apparently you find at least 49 of these Lady Madonnas in the state house and 25 of them in the senate- and of course one more on the fifth floor- who do indeed think that money is heaven sent.
So who's the real idiot? Well, in New York they say to look all around the room and if you can't find the mark it's because you don't have a mirror handy.
But when one examines the ingestion and regurgitation of mindless claptrap that passes for the cranial contents of some of these vapid tea-party-addled denizens of the fly-over states, you just know that an honest response to that same query, would be "indubitably."
But mainlanders have no monopoly on helpfully doling out "two tens for a five" upon request if a story in this morning's Honolulu newspaper is any indication.
The headline "State may sell buildings, then pay developers rent" doesn't even tell the whole story.
Apparently the Brainiacs at the capitol have passed legislation allowing the fiscally-challenged gang at state Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS) to "sell buildings under its ownership to developers with an agreement by which the developer pays for upgrades and the state pays to rent the improved facilities."
Of course as long as you don't think too much- or at all- about it it sounds like a great deal. But, as the article notes in one of those passive-aggressive passages reporters have designed to give credence to even the most harebrained of ideas:
Concerns have been raised that the law... could end up making it more expensive in the long range to own and maintain buildings, given that developers will need to earn a return on their investment through charging the state rent.
Gee, ya think?
Where exactly do we find one of these saps who think that instead of fixing his broken-down car it would be cheaper to sell it to you and then buy it back for the price you paid plus the amount of the repair bill and then throw in 10% for YOUR trouble?
Well apparently you find at least 49 of these Lady Madonnas in the state house and 25 of them in the senate- and of course one more on the fifth floor- who do indeed think that money is heaven sent.
So who's the real idiot? Well, in New York they say to look all around the room and if you can't find the mark it's because you don't have a mirror handy.
Friday, July 22, 2011
DEMON SEED
DEMON SEED: Apparently it's the crime that will not speak its name.
When the first word in the headline- "Decapitation"- caught our eye Wednesday we almost kept scanning the Honolulu paper for less bloody fare- until, that is, we read "of papaya trees unnerves Hawaii isle farmers."
According to the article, someone took a machete to 10 acres on the Big Island. The same thing occurred at this time last summer to 17 acres there and another farm three months before that.
But the article ended without any speculation by anyone as to a motive for the "crime," saying
(Police) said while farmers talk and speculate, they have no clues about who is committing the vandalism or why it is happening.
"There's no rhyme or reason for these thoughtless acts."
The TV news stories weren't much help either but the next day the Honolulu newspaper made clear what their theory was in an editorial that squarely pointed a finger, saying:
In all incidents, the papaya trees were genetically modified. William Julian, brother of the Kapoho farmer, speculated that the destruction was the work of people who oppose genetically modified crops or the use of chemicals to control weeds and pests...
Julian's speculation is not far-fetched. His brother, Laureto Julian, who has grown papayas since 1967, said he had harvested his first patch of genetically engineered, or GE, "Rainbow" and "Sun Up" papayas just three days before what he called "a gang of up to five people" whacked away at his trees.
The editorial predictably went on to condemn the "organized vandalism" saying:
Police need to step up their investigation of this criminality and, along with the public, recognize that this goes beyond mere property damage and is becoming a form of agricultural terrorism.
But even though it's hard to root for seeing anyone's rice bowl get broken it's apparent that the paper's editorial board has it's economic blinders pointed in the wrong direction because from our vantage point the "agricultural terrorists" are not the decapitators but the "decapitees".
Though the creators of "genetically modified organisms" (GMO)- or Frankenfoods as many depict them- claim the scientific high ground, real scientists, especially those without any economic interest, recognize the violation of the first rule of science- the precautionary principle. It says that anything being released into the wild- especially for human consumption- should be considered unsafe until proven safe rather than the other way around.
It's certainly the way the Food and Drug Administration treats new drugs. But for some reason- most likely the massive amounts of cash poured into lobbying efforts and politicians' campaign coffers- testing of GMO foods have been done subject to the use of this kind of Carrollian logic.
But safety issues aside- and make no mistake many are emerging such as colony collapse in bees which has increasingly been thought to be associated with the widespread use of GMO cereal seeds- the violation of the right of people to choose what they put in their pieholes has many hopping mad... mad enough to take matters into their own hands.
The not just lack of but actual suppression of information makes any attempt to simply refuse to buy or eat GMO products impossible. Not only are GMO foods not required to have labels informing consumers but it is actually illegal to say a product contains no GMOs. Not only that but federal law actually forbids states and local jurisdictions from enacting such informational legislation on their own.
Those who try to grow organic or even just non-GMO papayas- the latter of which, by the way, are the only ones accepted in the biggest foreign papaya market, Japan- are fed up having their crops infected by the pollen that drifts on the wind from near-by GMO fields making their harvests useless for them and their customers.
In some cases GMO seed distributors on the mainland such as Monsanto have gone so far as to actually sue those whose crops were infected by their seeds. And to add insult to injury they forbid anyone to grow their GMO brands from the seeds of their own harvests, including those whose "legacy crops" have been infected.
So far the courts- in the US at least- have bizarrely upheld Monsanto's and other GMO seed creators' and distributors' own "agricultural terrorism," although some small victories have led to ambiguity as to what will happen next in the appellate courts.
Is it really terrorism to engage in protecting your non-GMO papayas by taking matters into your own hands and physically preventing the flowering and pollen drift of the GMO brands?
Who are the real criminals- the ones who are protecting their own health, safety and livelihood where the courts have failed to protect them or those who could care less about health and safety of others as long as they get paid?
It may be "illegal" to destroy someone else's property but it certainly is at worst a form of civil disobedience, at best self-defense, to eradicate the source of the scourge of GMO crops.
When the first word in the headline- "Decapitation"- caught our eye Wednesday we almost kept scanning the Honolulu paper for less bloody fare- until, that is, we read "of papaya trees unnerves Hawaii isle farmers."
According to the article, someone took a machete to 10 acres on the Big Island. The same thing occurred at this time last summer to 17 acres there and another farm three months before that.
But the article ended without any speculation by anyone as to a motive for the "crime," saying
(Police) said while farmers talk and speculate, they have no clues about who is committing the vandalism or why it is happening.
"There's no rhyme or reason for these thoughtless acts."
The TV news stories weren't much help either but the next day the Honolulu newspaper made clear what their theory was in an editorial that squarely pointed a finger, saying:
In all incidents, the papaya trees were genetically modified. William Julian, brother of the Kapoho farmer, speculated that the destruction was the work of people who oppose genetically modified crops or the use of chemicals to control weeds and pests...
Julian's speculation is not far-fetched. His brother, Laureto Julian, who has grown papayas since 1967, said he had harvested his first patch of genetically engineered, or GE, "Rainbow" and "Sun Up" papayas just three days before what he called "a gang of up to five people" whacked away at his trees.
The editorial predictably went on to condemn the "organized vandalism" saying:
Police need to step up their investigation of this criminality and, along with the public, recognize that this goes beyond mere property damage and is becoming a form of agricultural terrorism.
But even though it's hard to root for seeing anyone's rice bowl get broken it's apparent that the paper's editorial board has it's economic blinders pointed in the wrong direction because from our vantage point the "agricultural terrorists" are not the decapitators but the "decapitees".
Though the creators of "genetically modified organisms" (GMO)- or Frankenfoods as many depict them- claim the scientific high ground, real scientists, especially those without any economic interest, recognize the violation of the first rule of science- the precautionary principle. It says that anything being released into the wild- especially for human consumption- should be considered unsafe until proven safe rather than the other way around.
It's certainly the way the Food and Drug Administration treats new drugs. But for some reason- most likely the massive amounts of cash poured into lobbying efforts and politicians' campaign coffers- testing of GMO foods have been done subject to the use of this kind of Carrollian logic.
But safety issues aside- and make no mistake many are emerging such as colony collapse in bees which has increasingly been thought to be associated with the widespread use of GMO cereal seeds- the violation of the right of people to choose what they put in their pieholes has many hopping mad... mad enough to take matters into their own hands.
The not just lack of but actual suppression of information makes any attempt to simply refuse to buy or eat GMO products impossible. Not only are GMO foods not required to have labels informing consumers but it is actually illegal to say a product contains no GMOs. Not only that but federal law actually forbids states and local jurisdictions from enacting such informational legislation on their own.
Those who try to grow organic or even just non-GMO papayas- the latter of which, by the way, are the only ones accepted in the biggest foreign papaya market, Japan- are fed up having their crops infected by the pollen that drifts on the wind from near-by GMO fields making their harvests useless for them and their customers.
In some cases GMO seed distributors on the mainland such as Monsanto have gone so far as to actually sue those whose crops were infected by their seeds. And to add insult to injury they forbid anyone to grow their GMO brands from the seeds of their own harvests, including those whose "legacy crops" have been infected.
So far the courts- in the US at least- have bizarrely upheld Monsanto's and other GMO seed creators' and distributors' own "agricultural terrorism," although some small victories have led to ambiguity as to what will happen next in the appellate courts.
Is it really terrorism to engage in protecting your non-GMO papayas by taking matters into your own hands and physically preventing the flowering and pollen drift of the GMO brands?
Who are the real criminals- the ones who are protecting their own health, safety and livelihood where the courts have failed to protect them or those who could care less about health and safety of others as long as they get paid?
It may be "illegal" to destroy someone else's property but it certainly is at worst a form of civil disobedience, at best self-defense, to eradicate the source of the scourge of GMO crops.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
DIVIDING BY ZERO
DIVIDING BY ZERO: Is it possible that the pablum that passes for the product of the press on Kaua`i is actually getting less informative? It's kind of like asking whether the sound of zero hands clapping is quieter than the sound of one.
We expected to get shafted with KIUC-spun articles in the FERC vote debacle, given that the electric co-op remains one of the local newspaper's biggest advertisers... that and the fact that it was made abundantly clear to the current business editor- who covered the story- that the last business editor was fired for not toeing the Chamber of Commerce line.
Coverage of the planning commission's wholesale permitting of the new transient vacation rentals on ag land shouldn't have to fall to Joan Conrow whose KauaiEclectic blog told the sad tale Monday of how "county planner Mike Laureta prepared Bruce Fehring’s TVR application" as well as other eyebrow raising horror stories from last Tuesday's meeting.
But in reading her exclusive report we could not help but ask how the planning commission is able to get away with violating the now-not-so-new, citizen-petitioned charter amendment that was supposed to give "teeth" to the growth numbers contained in the general plan.
The amendment essentially put a hold on the processing of any new tourist accommodations by the planning commission and gave that job to the county council unless and until the council enacts an ordinance delineating the nuts and bolts of how the limitations are to work and then and only then return the power to the planning commission.
At the last full council meeting just such a proposed ordinance finally returned from the scrutiny of the planning department and commission- albeit in the form of a totally new bill- which passed first reading and is headed for a public hearing on August 3 at 1:30 p.m.
Bill 2140- which, along with all the other documents accompanying council agendas, is still not on-line even though a year has gone by since they were supposed to be made available there- is apparently still a long way from being a legitimate reflection of the intent of the amendment, with some of the "creative interpretations" of the starting point that were contained in the previous version of the bill, still being a point of contention.
The point is that the pointed disregard of the charter shown in the planning commission's approval of these TVRs is just another example of the predictable results of the lack of effective media scrutiny of county government on Kaua`i.
Rote regurgitation of press releases and unquestioned repetition of officials' political talking points does not a watchdog make.
Our local newspaper is bought and paid for, there is no local TV and there are enough shenanigans in Honolulu to keep both the Honolulu newspaper and the on-line "Civil Beat" busy over there, eight days a week, thank you very much.
That has left Kaua`i citizen's with no recourse but to file expensive lawsuits in order to put a stop to these violations of the law, especially those dealing with land use where the big money interests have sewed up just about every attorney in town.
That makes the lack of funding secondary to the availability of a lawyer to take the case- and don't think they don't know and count on that.
Because when it comes enumerating potentially effective opposition to rampant lawlessness, it doesn't take very long to count to zero.
We expected to get shafted with KIUC-spun articles in the FERC vote debacle, given that the electric co-op remains one of the local newspaper's biggest advertisers... that and the fact that it was made abundantly clear to the current business editor- who covered the story- that the last business editor was fired for not toeing the Chamber of Commerce line.
Coverage of the planning commission's wholesale permitting of the new transient vacation rentals on ag land shouldn't have to fall to Joan Conrow whose KauaiEclectic blog told the sad tale Monday of how "county planner Mike Laureta prepared Bruce Fehring’s TVR application" as well as other eyebrow raising horror stories from last Tuesday's meeting.
But in reading her exclusive report we could not help but ask how the planning commission is able to get away with violating the now-not-so-new, citizen-petitioned charter amendment that was supposed to give "teeth" to the growth numbers contained in the general plan.
The amendment essentially put a hold on the processing of any new tourist accommodations by the planning commission and gave that job to the county council unless and until the council enacts an ordinance delineating the nuts and bolts of how the limitations are to work and then and only then return the power to the planning commission.
At the last full council meeting just such a proposed ordinance finally returned from the scrutiny of the planning department and commission- albeit in the form of a totally new bill- which passed first reading and is headed for a public hearing on August 3 at 1:30 p.m.
Bill 2140- which, along with all the other documents accompanying council agendas, is still not on-line even though a year has gone by since they were supposed to be made available there- is apparently still a long way from being a legitimate reflection of the intent of the amendment, with some of the "creative interpretations" of the starting point that were contained in the previous version of the bill, still being a point of contention.
The point is that the pointed disregard of the charter shown in the planning commission's approval of these TVRs is just another example of the predictable results of the lack of effective media scrutiny of county government on Kaua`i.
Rote regurgitation of press releases and unquestioned repetition of officials' political talking points does not a watchdog make.
Our local newspaper is bought and paid for, there is no local TV and there are enough shenanigans in Honolulu to keep both the Honolulu newspaper and the on-line "Civil Beat" busy over there, eight days a week, thank you very much.
That has left Kaua`i citizen's with no recourse but to file expensive lawsuits in order to put a stop to these violations of the law, especially those dealing with land use where the big money interests have sewed up just about every attorney in town.
That makes the lack of funding secondary to the availability of a lawyer to take the case- and don't think they don't know and count on that.
Because when it comes enumerating potentially effective opposition to rampant lawlessness, it doesn't take very long to count to zero.
Monday, July 18, 2011
NOTHING TO SEE HERE
NOTHING TO SEE HERE: One thing that rampant county cronyism creates is a bunch of well-connected board and commission members whose qualifications are often as dubious as their conscientiousness.
When Charter Commission Chair Sherman Shiraishi showed up at last Wednesday's Council Committee of the Whole meeting to request the council's input on a "proposal to establish a permanent Charter Review Commission," it was the council that seemed befuddled as to why the commission is sitting for 10 years in the first place.
Seems that when the 2007-8 commission was empaneled for the then-usual "once every 10 years" assemblage there were so many proposals for changes to the charter that they had to limit the number that made it to the ballot to 15 from as many as 50 at one point, just so as not to overwhelm voters.
And that was without even touching the whole "county manager" mess or the apparent need for a slew of housekeeping changes.
As the session began a letter from Mayor Bernard Carvalho to the commission and council was produced raising the question as to why, if the commission was good to go until 2018, it was necessary to make it permanent now.
Well that was enough for Shiraishi to take his cue and all of a sudden, after months of charter commission meetings and weeks of council deferrals until Shiraishi could come to address the council, he instantly decided he agreed with the mayor after all.
Nope- no cronyism here... just good old independent thought.
But since Shiraishi and Board and Commissions Director John Isobe were there anyway the councilmembers decided to air some gripes about the charter and past amendments- whether they had any idea what they were talking about or not.
First up was Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who has a special black place in her heart for the ease with which citizen's can petition for a charter amendment- a 5% of registered voters threshold. That came about after she initiated and led the court fight- where the county sued the county- against the "Proposition 13" style property tax amendment that passed overwhelmingly in the early 2000's, only to be overturned by the Hawai`i Supreme Court in a confused ruling that no one really understood.
She and others maintain that a county's charter is "like the federal or state constitutions" in that it should be hard to change since it is a guiding document. But the difference is that while the federal and state constitutions grant rights to citizens and delineate powers, local charters merely take the powers left over and delineate the structure of the legislative and executive branches and list the various departments, board and commissions and the like, describing their functions- nuts and bolts measures that occasionally need revision due to changes in the needs of the community.
But that's a philosophical matter that can be argued either way. What wasn't was Yukimura's bemoaning of the fact that the people of Kaua`i "still need education" after they rejected changes to the infamous anti-cronyism section 20.02(D) of the charter which prohibits members of boards and commissions from "(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency."
It's a simple measure that stops perceptions of conflicts of interest before they start so that the "one hand washes the other" style of governance can be nipped in the bud.
It seems the charter commission has recently lost three of its members because they routinely represented clients before the council and planning commission and even though there are only a handful of such good old boys and girls on the island they have populated boards and commissions in droves. The county tried to ignore the provision for years even appointing conflicted individuals to the Ethics Board to rule for allowing the practice.
But when they finally tried to change the charter the voters rejected it and the Ethics Board was left with no other choice to finally issue an opinion enforcing the charter.
Of course there were nods of agreement around the council table as well as from Shiraishi and Isobe that indeed it is the voters who "don't get it."
Despite the need for things like reform of the county attorney section (we're the only island without a "corporation counsel") and a the transformation of the Department of Personnel Services into a modern Department Human Resources (another example of changing times leading to the need for changes to the charter) as well as a slew of needed housekeeping changes (like removing all the references to "he") councilmembers insist on the commission asking voters the same questions over and over (like four year council terms) even when they've been answered again and again... resoundingly.
Once again the trophy for the most dunderheaded performance of the day had to go to- who else- Chair Jay Furfaro.
Recently the council discovered that the Cost Control Commission (CCC) was taking the powers the charter gave them seriously, such as requiring the administration to submit bills to the council to carry out their recommendations within 30 days of their request. But despite the charter requirement, the administration had simply ignored three such requests in 2009.
That apparently got Furfaro looking through CCC documents where he noticed that they were discussing possible changes to the real property tax laws- something that Furfaro rarely fails to tell the public, whether it's on the agenda or not, that he is working on reforming.
Like a lion building up from a growl to a roar, Furfaro essentially asked what the heck the CCC was doing butting into the council's kuleana finally reading Section 3.10 from the charter:
Annual Budget and Capital Program. The council shall enact an annual budget ordinance, which shall include both the operational and capital expenditures for the fiscal year and the method of financing same. The council shall provide sufficient revenues to assure a balanced budget (emphasis his).
The council is in charge of property taxes, he bellowed, not the cost control commission.
Apparently Furfaro failed to read the charter's Section 28, regarding the CCC. Isobe, left with no choice but to defend the CCC- and so himself as the person in charge- then read 28.04 aloud:
The commission shall review personnel costs, real property taxes (emphasis added), travel budgets, contract procedures; review with the aim of eliminating programs and services available or more efficiently supplied by other governments or organizations; eliminate or consolidate overlapping or duplicate programs and services; scrutinize for reduction any county operation.
Furfaro hemmed and hawed and with a Ralph Kramden "hahmana-hamamana" quickly changed the subject but we were laughing too hard to hear what he said next.
What wasn't surprising at all was how quickly Shiraishi changed from the need for a perpetual charter commission to saying that there was barely any work to do as soon as the mayor told him what to think- and how fast the council agreed.
Because after all what's the good of being able to nominate and confirm a select set of yes men and women to board and commissions if they start to tell you no?
When Charter Commission Chair Sherman Shiraishi showed up at last Wednesday's Council Committee of the Whole meeting to request the council's input on a "proposal to establish a permanent Charter Review Commission," it was the council that seemed befuddled as to why the commission is sitting for 10 years in the first place.
Seems that when the 2007-8 commission was empaneled for the then-usual "once every 10 years" assemblage there were so many proposals for changes to the charter that they had to limit the number that made it to the ballot to 15 from as many as 50 at one point, just so as not to overwhelm voters.
And that was without even touching the whole "county manager" mess or the apparent need for a slew of housekeeping changes.
As the session began a letter from Mayor Bernard Carvalho to the commission and council was produced raising the question as to why, if the commission was good to go until 2018, it was necessary to make it permanent now.
Well that was enough for Shiraishi to take his cue and all of a sudden, after months of charter commission meetings and weeks of council deferrals until Shiraishi could come to address the council, he instantly decided he agreed with the mayor after all.
Nope- no cronyism here... just good old independent thought.
But since Shiraishi and Board and Commissions Director John Isobe were there anyway the councilmembers decided to air some gripes about the charter and past amendments- whether they had any idea what they were talking about or not.
First up was Councilperson JoAnn Yukimura who has a special black place in her heart for the ease with which citizen's can petition for a charter amendment- a 5% of registered voters threshold. That came about after she initiated and led the court fight- where the county sued the county- against the "Proposition 13" style property tax amendment that passed overwhelmingly in the early 2000's, only to be overturned by the Hawai`i Supreme Court in a confused ruling that no one really understood.
She and others maintain that a county's charter is "like the federal or state constitutions" in that it should be hard to change since it is a guiding document. But the difference is that while the federal and state constitutions grant rights to citizens and delineate powers, local charters merely take the powers left over and delineate the structure of the legislative and executive branches and list the various departments, board and commissions and the like, describing their functions- nuts and bolts measures that occasionally need revision due to changes in the needs of the community.
But that's a philosophical matter that can be argued either way. What wasn't was Yukimura's bemoaning of the fact that the people of Kaua`i "still need education" after they rejected changes to the infamous anti-cronyism section 20.02(D) of the charter which prohibits members of boards and commissions from "(a)ppear(ing) in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency."
It's a simple measure that stops perceptions of conflicts of interest before they start so that the "one hand washes the other" style of governance can be nipped in the bud.
It seems the charter commission has recently lost three of its members because they routinely represented clients before the council and planning commission and even though there are only a handful of such good old boys and girls on the island they have populated boards and commissions in droves. The county tried to ignore the provision for years even appointing conflicted individuals to the Ethics Board to rule for allowing the practice.
But when they finally tried to change the charter the voters rejected it and the Ethics Board was left with no other choice to finally issue an opinion enforcing the charter.
Of course there were nods of agreement around the council table as well as from Shiraishi and Isobe that indeed it is the voters who "don't get it."
Despite the need for things like reform of the county attorney section (we're the only island without a "corporation counsel") and a the transformation of the Department of Personnel Services into a modern Department Human Resources (another example of changing times leading to the need for changes to the charter) as well as a slew of needed housekeeping changes (like removing all the references to "he") councilmembers insist on the commission asking voters the same questions over and over (like four year council terms) even when they've been answered again and again... resoundingly.
Once again the trophy for the most dunderheaded performance of the day had to go to- who else- Chair Jay Furfaro.
Recently the council discovered that the Cost Control Commission (CCC) was taking the powers the charter gave them seriously, such as requiring the administration to submit bills to the council to carry out their recommendations within 30 days of their request. But despite the charter requirement, the administration had simply ignored three such requests in 2009.
That apparently got Furfaro looking through CCC documents where he noticed that they were discussing possible changes to the real property tax laws- something that Furfaro rarely fails to tell the public, whether it's on the agenda or not, that he is working on reforming.
Like a lion building up from a growl to a roar, Furfaro essentially asked what the heck the CCC was doing butting into the council's kuleana finally reading Section 3.10 from the charter:
Annual Budget and Capital Program. The council shall enact an annual budget ordinance, which shall include both the operational and capital expenditures for the fiscal year and the method of financing same. The council shall provide sufficient revenues to assure a balanced budget (emphasis his).
The council is in charge of property taxes, he bellowed, not the cost control commission.
Apparently Furfaro failed to read the charter's Section 28, regarding the CCC. Isobe, left with no choice but to defend the CCC- and so himself as the person in charge- then read 28.04 aloud:
The commission shall review personnel costs, real property taxes (emphasis added), travel budgets, contract procedures; review with the aim of eliminating programs and services available or more efficiently supplied by other governments or organizations; eliminate or consolidate overlapping or duplicate programs and services; scrutinize for reduction any county operation.
Furfaro hemmed and hawed and with a Ralph Kramden "hahmana-hamamana" quickly changed the subject but we were laughing too hard to hear what he said next.
What wasn't surprising at all was how quickly Shiraishi changed from the need for a perpetual charter commission to saying that there was barely any work to do as soon as the mayor told him what to think- and how fast the council agreed.
Because after all what's the good of being able to nominate and confirm a select set of yes men and women to board and commissions if they start to tell you no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
