FEELING KINDA SEASICK: We admit it- we have a hard time keeping up with the voluminous viewing of council meetings.
First of all, even if we do watch them "gavel to gavel" figuring out what the bleep is going on is often a fool's mission because the actual communications, reports, memos, bills, resolutions and the rest of the accompanying paperwork is still not available on line after years of promises from two different council chairs and even a budgetary appropriation for another staff member dedicated solely to this supposedly daunting task
So again it's time to ask how hard it is to take the packet of hard copies, already sorted and ready for replication and distribution to the public at the counter of Council Services, and scan and post them at the council's web site? Apparently it's beyond the capabilities of anyone who works there, although we suspect that it is, rather, a reluctance to actually let people know any more than they want us to know.
But it's not all due to the speed bumps and blind spots strategically placed on the information highway. We do get overwhelmed on occasion as it was earlier this year when the outside, independent auditors came in for their "report" to the council.
Yes, we missed the audit report. Somehow it quite literally put us to sleep as we remember it. Imagine that.
And so it was that later, last Wednesday well after the miller had told his tale, that we were taken aback when Director of Finance Wall Rezentes Jr.- or "Little Wally" as he is known around county government- took the hot seat to answer some 13 questions the council had for him regarding the findings in the charter-mandated audit.
Apparently, according to Councilmember Mel Rapozo, the audit showed that the "ending balance for vacation and sick leave were not matching the beginning balance for the next year." And, 90% of them were in the Personnel Department of Malcolm Fernandez.
"It's more than an anomaly" said Rapozo, "it's a trend.
"Obviously it's human error... we know that," he told Little Wally and the assembled, saying that there were "too many occurrences for it to be just a mistake.
"I want to make sure there's no evidence of fraud- that nobody's getting extra vacation and sick leave hours," Rapozo said.
But Rezentes couldn't say that was so, only that the amounts had been reconciled and that "Fernandez is taking corrective action." He admitted no one had really checked for wrongdoing or what really happened other than ascertaining, in response to a final question from Rapozo, that "somebody" did reconcile the numbers.
Rapozo seemed to indicate that there were 20 instances of "irreconciled" sick and vacation filings in the Personnel Department alone and let slip that that was "90%" of the total and, apparently there were "one or two" in- drum roll please- the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD).
That was last Wednesday. And, although "we ain't sayin', we're just saying" as they say, yesterday it was reported in the local newspaper that KPD Chief Darryl Perry has placed his two assistant chiefs, Roy Asher and Ale Quibilan, on leave "due to a 'personnel matter.'"
Oh, and of course neither the audit, nor the 13 questions- nor for that matter the written answers to the 13 questions that were apparently provided to the council by Rezentes- is posted on the county's web site.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
ON A WING AND A PRAYER
ON A WING AND A PRAYER: We've all read them- national newspaper stories that attempt to make sense of a local story but instead make a mess of it.
"Parachute journalism" isn't easy but can be downright impossible when the story you're looking for isn't really there but the author is determined to pound that square peg into an existing round hole.
We came across just such a piece at the popular "Truthout" website this weekend. It's a very strange- and skewed- little article on the supposed "Occupy movement" on Kaua`i by Michelle Fawcett Ph.D., an adjunct professor in the Media, Culture and Communications Department at New York University who "is currently traveling across the US covering the Occupy movement."
For those who might have missed it when the Occupy Wall Street movement came to Kaua`i last year in its nascent days, after a fairly well-attended sign-holding rally in front of Safeway and an attempt a few days later to actually occupy the county building lawn overnight- where attendees kind of drifted away before they rolled up the sidewalks at 9 p.m.- things kind of fizzled.
We speculated that it might be because, if you're not homeless, a transient or working six jobs, you are, almost by definition, among the very privileged just to live on Kaua`i. Living here permanently means you're apt to be in the 90th percentile of the "99%." On Kaua`i the 1% is more like 75% (to pull some numbers out of our butt).
But that didn't stop Fawcett who somehow dug up a few FOB North Shore malahini who assured her the Kaua`i version of the Occupy Wall Street movement is alive and well here and that "we" are planning on permanently occupying the County Building lawn.
As to the controversy over naming a group "occupy" in the islands - what with the overthrow in 1893 and the military occupation that persists to this day - it somehow feels insulting to the real ongoing occupation. Instead of the "Occupy with Aloha" name that had been adopted by those who organized and participated in those events last year, somehow she came up with the "Occupy Movement" moniker.
But at least she tried, circling around the sovereignty issue by interviewing the Reinstated Hawaiian Government's Kane Pa- although it was apparent she didn't really "get" the irony involved in new haole group occupying a "country" that another haole group has been occupying for more than a century.
Fawcett first introduces us to her sources, writing
Members of Occupy Kapaa on Kauai, Toni Liljengren, 54, and Andy Fitts, 57, are transplants to the northernmost island they now call home. Toni, a lomi lomi massage therapist, relocated over 20 years ago, while Andy, director of a local Tibetan peace park and a real estate developer, and his wife are more recent arrivals. Speaking over lunch in a sun-washed café, both warned of an imminent global "systems shift."
Where do you start with the oxymoronic absurdity of a North Shore real estate developer as spokesperson for a non-existent "Occupy Kapa`a" group?
At least the writer kind of got the idea that there's a sustainability movement here, albeit presenting it as a self-contained part and parcel of the local "Occupy" movement- as if it all just occurred to us last October as a result of the establishment of the original "Occupy Wall Street" outpost, about a quarter-mile from Fawcett's NYU campus.
So what will Liljengren and Fitts do "when da boat no more come?" Liljengren says:
"I feel really safe on Kauai. There's fish. There's fruit. This is a very sustainable place. It's probably one of the best places to be at the time of the collapse."
Toni is confident she can survive a crisis because she already barters for food, shelter and chelation therapy. While Andy is more wary, he concludes that a systems shift will "bring out the best in everyone because all the intelligence will be called upon. It will be survival time. Everyone will be scrambling for a new paradigm. But it will be a wonderful time because people will actually stop sleepwalking."
So we'll all be okay just the way things are now- no gardens (and no land for them), little or no large scale sustainable crop agriculture, prime Ag land broken up into gentlemen’s estates, everyone working 11 jobs in the all-pervasive tourism industry- because there'll be plenty of free fish and fruit trees for Toni and Andy expects everyone to be so "awake" and "aware" that they apparently won’t need food or fuel anymore.
Yeah we'll live on love. Or better still we'll become "breatharians."
There's a certain rare skill to airlifting into town and jumping right in journalistically- one that many try but few master. Not everyone is a Tony Sommer, a Denis Wilken or a Mike Levine. But even more difficult is doing it for a "one-off." And it's even harder still if you came with a thesis and the facts on the ground don't jibe with those you thought you'd find.
The solution is to change your theory, instead of trying to change what you find on the ground, Mr. Jones.
"Parachute journalism" isn't easy but can be downright impossible when the story you're looking for isn't really there but the author is determined to pound that square peg into an existing round hole.
We came across just such a piece at the popular "Truthout" website this weekend. It's a very strange- and skewed- little article on the supposed "Occupy movement" on Kaua`i by Michelle Fawcett Ph.D., an adjunct professor in the Media, Culture and Communications Department at New York University who "is currently traveling across the US covering the Occupy movement."
For those who might have missed it when the Occupy Wall Street movement came to Kaua`i last year in its nascent days, after a fairly well-attended sign-holding rally in front of Safeway and an attempt a few days later to actually occupy the county building lawn overnight- where attendees kind of drifted away before they rolled up the sidewalks at 9 p.m.- things kind of fizzled.
We speculated that it might be because, if you're not homeless, a transient or working six jobs, you are, almost by definition, among the very privileged just to live on Kaua`i. Living here permanently means you're apt to be in the 90th percentile of the "99%." On Kaua`i the 1% is more like 75% (to pull some numbers out of our butt).
But that didn't stop Fawcett who somehow dug up a few FOB North Shore malahini who assured her the Kaua`i version of the Occupy Wall Street movement is alive and well here and that "we" are planning on permanently occupying the County Building lawn.
As to the controversy over naming a group "occupy" in the islands - what with the overthrow in 1893 and the military occupation that persists to this day - it somehow feels insulting to the real ongoing occupation. Instead of the "Occupy with Aloha" name that had been adopted by those who organized and participated in those events last year, somehow she came up with the "Occupy Movement" moniker.
But at least she tried, circling around the sovereignty issue by interviewing the Reinstated Hawaiian Government's Kane Pa- although it was apparent she didn't really "get" the irony involved in new haole group occupying a "country" that another haole group has been occupying for more than a century.
Fawcett first introduces us to her sources, writing
Members of Occupy Kapaa on Kauai, Toni Liljengren, 54, and Andy Fitts, 57, are transplants to the northernmost island they now call home. Toni, a lomi lomi massage therapist, relocated over 20 years ago, while Andy, director of a local Tibetan peace park and a real estate developer, and his wife are more recent arrivals. Speaking over lunch in a sun-washed café, both warned of an imminent global "systems shift."
Where do you start with the oxymoronic absurdity of a North Shore real estate developer as spokesperson for a non-existent "Occupy Kapa`a" group?
At least the writer kind of got the idea that there's a sustainability movement here, albeit presenting it as a self-contained part and parcel of the local "Occupy" movement- as if it all just occurred to us last October as a result of the establishment of the original "Occupy Wall Street" outpost, about a quarter-mile from Fawcett's NYU campus.
So what will Liljengren and Fitts do "when da boat no more come?" Liljengren says:
"I feel really safe on Kauai. There's fish. There's fruit. This is a very sustainable place. It's probably one of the best places to be at the time of the collapse."
Toni is confident she can survive a crisis because she already barters for food, shelter and chelation therapy. While Andy is more wary, he concludes that a systems shift will "bring out the best in everyone because all the intelligence will be called upon. It will be survival time. Everyone will be scrambling for a new paradigm. But it will be a wonderful time because people will actually stop sleepwalking."
So we'll all be okay just the way things are now- no gardens (and no land for them), little or no large scale sustainable crop agriculture, prime Ag land broken up into gentlemen’s estates, everyone working 11 jobs in the all-pervasive tourism industry- because there'll be plenty of free fish and fruit trees for Toni and Andy expects everyone to be so "awake" and "aware" that they apparently won’t need food or fuel anymore.
Yeah we'll live on love. Or better still we'll become "breatharians."
There's a certain rare skill to airlifting into town and jumping right in journalistically- one that many try but few master. Not everyone is a Tony Sommer, a Denis Wilken or a Mike Levine. But even more difficult is doing it for a "one-off." And it's even harder still if you came with a thesis and the facts on the ground don't jibe with those you thought you'd find.
The solution is to change your theory, instead of trying to change what you find on the ground, Mr. Jones.
Friday, January 27, 2012
JUST A MOTION AWAY
JUST A MOTION AWAY: Our high school Economics class had us bored to tears. For a red diaper baby in the midst of the late 60's "revolution" it held little relevance. But we do remember one thing- the way Mr. Voorhies would ask questions of our equally narcoleptic classmates and, when no one raised their hands, he would rub his thumb across his other four fingers, indicating the inevitable answer to every question in economics... money.
Perhaps it has stuck with us because every time we see the Hawai`i State Legislature, or any legislative body in the country for that matter, propose some inane and out-of-touch piece of legislation- many times either in opposition to pervasive public opinion or presenting a version of the ideal that is so watered-down you can actually hear it gurgling as it goes down for the third time- we leap to the conclusion that the answer as to "why" can be summed up with Mr. Voorhies' gesture.
So when we heard that rather than ban those one-time-use, white, plastic grocery bags like Kaua`i and Maui have done, the bill streaking through the legislature aims to simply put a 10 cent fee on them- to go to 25 cents if it doesn't decrease the use significantly.
At first blush we assume it was, as usual, the "money in the system" from both the supermarkets and plastic bag makers that was the proverbial fly in the ointment.
But the reality is that the reason why the corporate media is framing any controversy over the bill as whether in fact to institute a fee and if so how much it should be, is that our own people have sold us down the river once again.
Rather than look at how incredibly beautiful the roadsides, beaches and, everything else looks on Kaua`i and Maui now that everything isn't draped in white plastic and advocate for a total ban statewide, according to Civil Beat:
Sierra Club director Robert Harris told the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection Thursday that a fee — which would be charged to consumers at the checkout counter — has worked to reduce plastic bag use in other areas.
Harris was among those testifying on House Bill 2260. Environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and Surfrider Foundation, as well as government department heads and even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill.
The important part that tells you something is wrong is that last part- it wasn't just the environmental group but "even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill."
Now we get the "strange bedfellows" aspect of politics. Many times we have to question our own sanity when we find ourselves agreeing on some issue with various and sundry fascists, war mongers and general all-around creeps and cretins.
But that isn't the case here.
Way too often, especially in "the Aloha State," those who put themselves out as allies in the fight to stop despoilment in the name of progress in the islands abandon the fight to enact effective legislation in favor of compromising our environment before the fight even begins.
The thought process, as we've been told in similar circumstances in the past, is that the good fight isn't worth fighting this time. We've been admonished by the leadership of the above listed groups that certain battles aren't worth fighting and scoring political points for the organization on "this one" is more important than staking out the "perfect" so that the final "good" will be just a little better when all is said and done.
The way politics is supposed to work is that you stake out your perfect position and either win over the other side or find a happy medium. But lately- whether it's the Hawai`i environmental groups or the national Democratic Party, the position taken going into negotiations is already compromised to the extent that the final measure is inevitably horrific.
It isn't the money itself in many of these situations. Rather it's the acknowledging- and therefore condoning- of the fear from legislators over the use of that money to challenge them at election time that creates the defeatist attitude of progressive organizations these days.
Yes- getting all money out of politics is the ultimate solution to our broken political system. But if we give up before we begin, we're giving that money exponentially more power than it already has.
Perhaps it has stuck with us because every time we see the Hawai`i State Legislature, or any legislative body in the country for that matter, propose some inane and out-of-touch piece of legislation- many times either in opposition to pervasive public opinion or presenting a version of the ideal that is so watered-down you can actually hear it gurgling as it goes down for the third time- we leap to the conclusion that the answer as to "why" can be summed up with Mr. Voorhies' gesture.
So when we heard that rather than ban those one-time-use, white, plastic grocery bags like Kaua`i and Maui have done, the bill streaking through the legislature aims to simply put a 10 cent fee on them- to go to 25 cents if it doesn't decrease the use significantly.
At first blush we assume it was, as usual, the "money in the system" from both the supermarkets and plastic bag makers that was the proverbial fly in the ointment.
But the reality is that the reason why the corporate media is framing any controversy over the bill as whether in fact to institute a fee and if so how much it should be, is that our own people have sold us down the river once again.
Rather than look at how incredibly beautiful the roadsides, beaches and, everything else looks on Kaua`i and Maui now that everything isn't draped in white plastic and advocate for a total ban statewide, according to Civil Beat:
Sierra Club director Robert Harris told the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection Thursday that a fee — which would be charged to consumers at the checkout counter — has worked to reduce plastic bag use in other areas.
Harris was among those testifying on House Bill 2260. Environmental groups, including The Nature Conservancy and Surfrider Foundation, as well as government department heads and even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill.
The important part that tells you something is wrong is that last part- it wasn't just the environmental group but "even major supermarkets, testified in support of the bill."
Now we get the "strange bedfellows" aspect of politics. Many times we have to question our own sanity when we find ourselves agreeing on some issue with various and sundry fascists, war mongers and general all-around creeps and cretins.
But that isn't the case here.
Way too often, especially in "the Aloha State," those who put themselves out as allies in the fight to stop despoilment in the name of progress in the islands abandon the fight to enact effective legislation in favor of compromising our environment before the fight even begins.
The thought process, as we've been told in similar circumstances in the past, is that the good fight isn't worth fighting this time. We've been admonished by the leadership of the above listed groups that certain battles aren't worth fighting and scoring political points for the organization on "this one" is more important than staking out the "perfect" so that the final "good" will be just a little better when all is said and done.
The way politics is supposed to work is that you stake out your perfect position and either win over the other side or find a happy medium. But lately- whether it's the Hawai`i environmental groups or the national Democratic Party, the position taken going into negotiations is already compromised to the extent that the final measure is inevitably horrific.
It isn't the money itself in many of these situations. Rather it's the acknowledging- and therefore condoning- of the fear from legislators over the use of that money to challenge them at election time that creates the defeatist attitude of progressive organizations these days.
Yes- getting all money out of politics is the ultimate solution to our broken political system. But if we give up before we begin, we're giving that money exponentially more power than it already has.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
POLITICAL THEATER ON RYE... WITH MUSTARD PLEASE
POLITICAL THEATER ON RYE... WITH MUSTARD PLEASE: What with all the fun and games of the Iseri-Bynum circus of the absurd, the status and functionality of the Victim-Witness Program (VWP), the meat of the recent political sandwich, hasn't really received much press.
As we reported two weeks ago (January 12) according to a scathing letter to the Kaua`i County Council by Erin Wilson, a terminated Victim-Witness Counselor at the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA, the program is now dysfunctional due to the requirement that all communications with outside agencies and the world in general be channeled through Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, the lack of communications between those performing VWP services and many other issues such as the 17 new faces at the OPA since Iseri came into office.
According to the agenda for last Thursday's council meeting, Council Vice Chair JoAnn Yukimura asked Iseri to come before the council to discuss "the status of the Victim-Witness Program and OPA." And when Councilmember Tim Bynum recused himself due to Iseri's prosecution of him for alleged zoning violations at his home- as we detailed yesterday- Yukimura took over the questioning that, according to Bynum, had been suspended in 2009 when then Chair Kaipo Asing stopped it.
But not before Iseri, trying to direct the show, dragged up her whole department to blow smoke up everyone's butts after demanding that Wilson be questioned, spurring Chair Jay Furfaro to remind her that he was the one running the show.
Instead Yukimura asked for current VWP employee Dianne Gauspohl-White to come up to tesfy. She pretty much backed up most of Wilson's complaints although saying she could only speak from her perspective.
At first Yukimura's questioning elicited mostly red-faced rage, bluster and misdirection on Iseri's part, complaining how she and her staff had to take valuable time to present information they had supposedly already presented.
But after Iseri's right hand man First Deputy Prosecutor Jake DelaPlane- who continually throughout the session pulled her butt out of the sling she had created through her own belligerence- did a PowerPoint presentation with lots of numbers and statistics but almost nothing on the VWP, the questioning of Iseri by Yukimura began, mostly based on Wilson's allegations.
Things were going along swimmingly (not) with Iseri parrying Yukimura's questions with non-responsive "answers" and continual reminders that she had already presented the requested material, when Yukimura finally asked the right questions and hit a jackpot of an answer.
"The Victim Witness Program no longer exists" Iseri told a stunned council.
Seems that Iseri has instituted a program called "vertical prosecution." Formerly deputy prosecutors were assigned to individual courts, not to individual cases. That meant that many times an attorney got the case for the first time when he showed up to court after a case had, for example, been moved from district to circuit court or from the court of one judge to another.
"Vertical prosecution" (VP) is a system where each case is assigned to one attorney who takes it from beginning to end, usually sorted by subject matter- drugs, violent crime, domestic, white collar crime etc.- supposedly creating attorneys with expertise in a certain area.
It actually sounds like a good and long overdue practice.
Under VP each individual attorney has a "team" assigned to him or her- a law clerk, and now, a Victim-Witness (VW) counselor.
And in Iseri's office that apparently has come to mean that there's no cross communication anymore between the various VW employees.
According to White and Wilson, VW employees are now tasked by the attorney who almost exclusively assigns them tasks like calling specific victims and witnesses to let them know about court dates, changes in case status and those kinds of things.
Apparently the actual "counseling" part has fallen through the cracks and not only that but the only victims and witnesses contacted by the counselors are those the attorney on the team tells them to call- and then only to communicate matters regarding the case status.
It used to be that VW employees met every month, traveled to conferences and did a lot of evaluation of whether and how services were being delivered to VWs. But that is a thing of the past with VP where counselors are now "team members" whose actions are dictated by either the attorneys in charge of the team or Iseri herself.
Whereas vertical integration is growing in popularity in the offices of prosecutors and district attorneys across the country- and, according to Councilmember and Iseri ally Mel Rapozo, is by far the most popular management scheme- robust victim witness counseling can wind up being be sacrificed.
Especially if a megalomaniacal, puerile, petty, vindictive, ego-driven prosecutor is the one running the show.
The rest of Yukimura's questioning revealed that, despite requests from the council that statistics and information be presented in an intelligible manner and one that addresses questions the council has- like how all the monies from the various VW programs from the county state and federal governments are actually spent- they are embedded in spread sheets and long narratives where there's little or no possibility of extracting the pertinent information.
It all ended up with DelaPlane- who had taken over much of the question-answering after Iseri's patented self-righteous, rage-filled and spittle-spewing attacks on the questions and questioner became self-defeating- promising to put the statistics in meaningful formats for the new budget... and, importantly, to provide the evaluation forms that victims and witnesses have filled out for those entities providing the grants, which had never been provided to the council previous to the request.
We can expect a repeat performance during the budget hearings starting in March when the OPA presents its budget. But more importantly we just may get some of the issues aired during this year's election campaign where current Deputy County Attorney for the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD), Justin Kollar, is challenging Iseri for the Prosecutor's job.
Iseri won her first and only term as prosecutor in 2008 running unopposed, leaving her position on the county council after four years there.
Although the community has suffered in all this, personally we can't be too distressed with the Bynum matter, the victim witness program questions and other brewing debacles promise that this summer will be anything but a dull one in this space.
So thank you Shay- you're a columnist's dream. So much so that we're torn between supporting Justin for the sake of the community or you for being the gift that keeps on giving.
As we reported two weeks ago (January 12) according to a scathing letter to the Kaua`i County Council by Erin Wilson, a terminated Victim-Witness Counselor at the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA, the program is now dysfunctional due to the requirement that all communications with outside agencies and the world in general be channeled through Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, the lack of communications between those performing VWP services and many other issues such as the 17 new faces at the OPA since Iseri came into office.
According to the agenda for last Thursday's council meeting, Council Vice Chair JoAnn Yukimura asked Iseri to come before the council to discuss "the status of the Victim-Witness Program and OPA." And when Councilmember Tim Bynum recused himself due to Iseri's prosecution of him for alleged zoning violations at his home- as we detailed yesterday- Yukimura took over the questioning that, according to Bynum, had been suspended in 2009 when then Chair Kaipo Asing stopped it.
But not before Iseri, trying to direct the show, dragged up her whole department to blow smoke up everyone's butts after demanding that Wilson be questioned, spurring Chair Jay Furfaro to remind her that he was the one running the show.
Instead Yukimura asked for current VWP employee Dianne Gauspohl-White to come up to tesfy. She pretty much backed up most of Wilson's complaints although saying she could only speak from her perspective.
At first Yukimura's questioning elicited mostly red-faced rage, bluster and misdirection on Iseri's part, complaining how she and her staff had to take valuable time to present information they had supposedly already presented.
But after Iseri's right hand man First Deputy Prosecutor Jake DelaPlane- who continually throughout the session pulled her butt out of the sling she had created through her own belligerence- did a PowerPoint presentation with lots of numbers and statistics but almost nothing on the VWP, the questioning of Iseri by Yukimura began, mostly based on Wilson's allegations.
Things were going along swimmingly (not) with Iseri parrying Yukimura's questions with non-responsive "answers" and continual reminders that she had already presented the requested material, when Yukimura finally asked the right questions and hit a jackpot of an answer.
"The Victim Witness Program no longer exists" Iseri told a stunned council.
Seems that Iseri has instituted a program called "vertical prosecution." Formerly deputy prosecutors were assigned to individual courts, not to individual cases. That meant that many times an attorney got the case for the first time when he showed up to court after a case had, for example, been moved from district to circuit court or from the court of one judge to another.
"Vertical prosecution" (VP) is a system where each case is assigned to one attorney who takes it from beginning to end, usually sorted by subject matter- drugs, violent crime, domestic, white collar crime etc.- supposedly creating attorneys with expertise in a certain area.
It actually sounds like a good and long overdue practice.
Under VP each individual attorney has a "team" assigned to him or her- a law clerk, and now, a Victim-Witness (VW) counselor.
And in Iseri's office that apparently has come to mean that there's no cross communication anymore between the various VW employees.
According to White and Wilson, VW employees are now tasked by the attorney who almost exclusively assigns them tasks like calling specific victims and witnesses to let them know about court dates, changes in case status and those kinds of things.
Apparently the actual "counseling" part has fallen through the cracks and not only that but the only victims and witnesses contacted by the counselors are those the attorney on the team tells them to call- and then only to communicate matters regarding the case status.
It used to be that VW employees met every month, traveled to conferences and did a lot of evaluation of whether and how services were being delivered to VWs. But that is a thing of the past with VP where counselors are now "team members" whose actions are dictated by either the attorneys in charge of the team or Iseri herself.
Whereas vertical integration is growing in popularity in the offices of prosecutors and district attorneys across the country- and, according to Councilmember and Iseri ally Mel Rapozo, is by far the most popular management scheme- robust victim witness counseling can wind up being be sacrificed.
Especially if a megalomaniacal, puerile, petty, vindictive, ego-driven prosecutor is the one running the show.
The rest of Yukimura's questioning revealed that, despite requests from the council that statistics and information be presented in an intelligible manner and one that addresses questions the council has- like how all the monies from the various VW programs from the county state and federal governments are actually spent- they are embedded in spread sheets and long narratives where there's little or no possibility of extracting the pertinent information.
It all ended up with DelaPlane- who had taken over much of the question-answering after Iseri's patented self-righteous, rage-filled and spittle-spewing attacks on the questions and questioner became self-defeating- promising to put the statistics in meaningful formats for the new budget... and, importantly, to provide the evaluation forms that victims and witnesses have filled out for those entities providing the grants, which had never been provided to the council previous to the request.
We can expect a repeat performance during the budget hearings starting in March when the OPA presents its budget. But more importantly we just may get some of the issues aired during this year's election campaign where current Deputy County Attorney for the Kaua`i Police Department (KPD), Justin Kollar, is challenging Iseri for the Prosecutor's job.
Iseri won her first and only term as prosecutor in 2008 running unopposed, leaving her position on the county council after four years there.
Although the community has suffered in all this, personally we can't be too distressed with the Bynum matter, the victim witness program questions and other brewing debacles promise that this summer will be anything but a dull one in this space.
So thank you Shay- you're a columnist's dream. So much so that we're torn between supporting Justin for the sake of the community or you for being the gift that keeps on giving.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
BUT WAS IT BASMATI OR LOCAL-KINE STICKY?
BUT WAS IT BASMATI OR LOCAL-KINE STICKY?: Only on Kauai could we have a scandal that revolves around whether having a rice-cooker in the wrong room constitutes a zoning violation.
That's because "Rice-cooker-gate" is a direct result of what happens when a dysfunctional planning department and an ego-maniacal prosecutor collude to "bring down" a councilmember.
The matter- into which we've been delving for the past year or so- has finally spilled over into the local newspaper with an article yesterday that scratched the surface of the prosecution of Councilmember Tim Bynum by Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, after the release of various documents and a back and forth between Iseri and Bynum on the matter.
Despite Iseri's denial of any ill-feeling between the two, the feud between her and Bynum goes back to their days together on the council when she and Councilmember Mel Rapozo were allies and sided with then-Chair Kaipo Asing in the infamous days when Bynum and Asing butted heads with all of them over Asing's paternalistic leadership of the council involving issues of process, staffing, introduction of measures and other issues.
Iseri was then elected prosecuting attorney in 2008.
According to a complaint form we've obtained dated 3/26/10 Bynum was alleged to have an "illegal dwelling multi family" unit at his home which is on agriculturally zoned land.
The problem is that, under "Complainer/Requester" the form notes "*wants to remain anonymous!" (the asterisk and exclamation marks are written on the form)
The complaint has two initializations, one for "inspector" and another for "assigned by" but who they actually are is not readily apparent. However what is known is that, according to Bynum's press release that followed an email from Iseri to current Council Chair Jay Furfaro sent just before last Wednesday's council meeting where Iseri appeared on a budgetary matter related to the Victim Witness program:
Apparently, sometime prior to April 2010 a trespasser entered onto my property, looked into my windows and observed a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the family room.
That someone is apparently Planning Inspector Sheilah Miyake who was CCed in a series of memos between Iseri and then Planning Director Ian Costa and has been identified by numerous reliable sources close to the investigation as being the "trespasser."
On April 7, 2010, Iseri wrote to Costa:
We received information to corroborate an anonymous complaint dated March 2.6, 2010 that was sent to the Planning Department and our office, that Councilmember Tim Bynum was renting out his house, or a portion thereof. Can you let me know if renting out a portion of his residence is ill~gal given his land status, and what ordinance/statute would he be violating by doing so? Please advise.
Costa wrote back, CCing Miyake, saying
Sorry for delay Shaylene.
The CZO really doesn't prohibit renting portions of structures. Even the issue of "lock-outs" is not addressed.
The CZO does not dictate where locks are permitted and not permitted (thank goodness!). The issue would be whether the area, in question creates a "multi-family" dwelling. What was permitted is a "single-family" dwelling based on "one kitchen". If a second kitchen (area used for the preparation of food) is present, then a violation would exist for an illegal "multi-family" dwelling unit.
I understand Sheila has been assisting and monitoring .......let me know if we can be of further assistance.
Despite Iseri's previous contention that actions on the complaint was initiated by the planning department alone, her memo indicates that now she says the complaint was sent to both planning and the prosecutor's office. She also seems to say that she and Miyake worked together to get the "rice cooker" information that was arguably obtained illegally via Miyake's trespassing.
In a comment on our November 5, 2010 report on Bynum's denial of allgations, Iseri wrote"
Mr. Parx,
Your statements are completely erroneous. I was never involved in the investigation of Tim Bynum's violations. The entire investigation was conducted by the Planning Department.
The memo seems to indicate that it was Iseri who initiated the action in conjunction with Miyake and without Director Costa's prior involvement. It also shows that Costa essentially confirms what people have been told at planning previous to this incident- that a "second kitchen" is what makes it illegal. And, as everyone is told, it is a stove that constituted what a "kitchen" was.
But Iseri wasn't to be stopped by the prior definition of a kitchen by planning. Apparently when Miyake told her she saw a "rice cooker" on the counter when she sneaked onto Bynum's property without his permission- or even asking- Iseri saw her opening and decided that, despite what planning had said ever since the CZO was established in the early 70's, now any device- presumably even a toaster or coffee maker- is a "kitchen."
The most hilarious part of all this is Iseri's continuing contention that there is no feud or even animosity between her and Bynum. Anyone who ever watched those council sessions where she butted heads with Bynum would have no doubt she despises Bynum.
So as to who made the complaint? Well we can't say for sure but for some reason former Chair Kaipo Asing has taken an unusual interest in Bynum's cases, showing up to Bynum's court dates and last week's council meeting where, if Bynum had not recused himself, sparks between Iseri and Bynum would surely have flown.
Was it Asing? Was it Iseri's ally Mel Rapozo whose animosity toward Bynum is thinly, if at all, disguised? Some seem to think the latter is the case but so far Rapozo's name hasn't come up in any documents.
The answer is apparently another question- does it really matter which of them it was? To think that there was no collusion in the matter would strain credulity.
Another question is what will happen when these people are put under oath. We understand that new Planning Director Mike Dahilig is privy to the whole story and even if the others were thinking of perjuring themselves, his testimony would surely be straightforward, the thinking being that Dahilig, a former deputy county attorney, isn't going to lie under oath for anyone.
A final question is why Iseri's office is even prosecuting the case and why she hasn't recused herself and her office by letting the state attorney general's office take it over. It would seem, given the history between Iseri and Bynum, recusal would be a no brainer.
Also, Iseri's email was stamped with a big "Confidential" across the top and the original did not contain any redactions. But under the Sunshine law she has no apparent right to say an email to the council is confidential. All emails to councilmembers are considered public documents.
We'll leave it there for today. Below are the full texts of Iseri's letter asking for Bynum's recusal last Wednesday and Bynum's "press release" that followed this weekend. It should be noted that there may be misprints in Iseri's email. First of all, names of those involved are redacted and second we had to use optical character recognition software to get it in "text" form. There may be redactions that are not noted so the sentences may seem disjointed. But you'll get the gist of it.
----#---
Iseri's letter to Council Chair Jay Furfaro CCed to all councilmembers except Bynum.
January 19, 2011
TO: Council Chair Jay Furfaro
FR: Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho
RE: Conflict Notice Regarding Councilmember Timothy Bynum
This communication serves as a notice to the Council regarding a conflict of interest between Councilmember Timothy Bynum and the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. This conflict arises from several incidents involving Councilmember Bynum and employees in our office, as well as the pending criminal case filed by our Office against Councilmember Bynum in November 2011.
1. Bynum's Inappropriate Confrontation Of Deputy Prosecuting (redacted)
On September 28, 2011, Councilmember Timothy Bynum attended a court proceeding with his son, David Bynum, at the 5th Judicial Circuit Courthouse in Lihu`e. After the hearing, Mr. Bynum stood outside the courtroom door in the public hallway and confronted Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (redacted) regarding David's case. As (redacted) exited the courtroom, Mr. Bynum stated directly to (redacted) "Do you think justice was done? This was because [expletive] Shaylene doesn't like me and is out to get me." (Redacted) was standing nearby and also witnessed the confrontation.
According to the Kaua`i County Charter section 3.07(D)
The council may, upon an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of its entire membership, suspend without pay for not more than one month any member for disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence. The presiding officer or the council by a majority vote may expel any other person who is guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or improper conduct at any meeting.
While this section deals with disorderly and contemptuous conduct that occurs in the presence of the Council, it is also instructive as to the appropriate conduct expected from Councilmembers in their dealings with county employees as well as the general public.
Additionally, Section 3.18 of the Kaua`i County Charter states:
Except for the purpose of investigative inquiries under Section 3.17, the council or its members, in dealing with county employees, or with county officers who are subjected to the direction and supervision of the mayor, shall deal solely through the mayor. and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such employee or officer either publicly or privately. Any willful violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the council shall be sufficient grounds for an action for his removal from office.
Clearly, Councilmember Bynum did not handle this situation appropriately. If Mr. Bynum had questions or concerns about the case, the appropriate course of action would have been to communicate those to the elected Department Head, which is me, rather than confronting one of our Deputies, who, in fact, was not assigned to handling the case. This confrontation clearly illustrates the undue bias Mr. Bynum harbors toward both me personally, as well as the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. As such, Mr. Bynum must recuse himself from any matter before the Council involving the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.
2. Bynum's inappropriate confrontation of (redacted)
Before coming to work at the OPA (redacted) was employed by (redacted) as (redacted). She applied to the OPA as a (redacted) and was offered the job in (redacted) . After accepting the position (redacted), who had turned in her 2 week notice (redacted) was confronted by Councilmember Bynum in her office. Bynum stated that he was concerned because it was well known that he and Shaylene did not 'get along' and adamantly believed that the only reason Shaylene hired her was to 'get back at him.' These statements and allegations continued for a prolonged period, leaving (redacted) to feel uncomfortable and offended.
Councilmember Bynum's inappropriate confrontation with (redacted) regarding her employment at the OPA demonstrates Mr. Bynum's continued undue bias toward me and my office. This bias and proclivity to engage in inappropriate conduct with OPA employees further establishes the need to have Mr. Bynum precluded from participating in any matters relating to the operations of the OPA.
3. Bynum's Pending Criminal Case
On November 9, 2011, the OPA filed a criminal complaint in the District Court of the Fifth Circuit against Timothy Bynum, alleging 4 counts of violations of the Kaua`i County Code. Each Count is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000.000 fine for each. This means that if convicted, Bynum could face up to 4 total years imprisonment and $8,000.00 in fines. There have already been two motion hearings on the case, in which Mr. Bynum has been represented by a private attorney. At each hearing, First Deputy Prosecutor Jake Delaplane represented the State and made all arguments on behalf of the State. Councilmember Bynum's criminal case clearly establishes a conflict with the OPA. He has a clear financial interest in the operations of the OPA, as he would directly benefit if the OPA's operations were negatively impacted by any action of the Council. By virtue of being a criminal defendant, he has a vested interest in ensuring that the OPA not operate at peak efficiency. In accordance with Article )0( of the Kaua`i County Charter, this financial interest clearly prohibits Bynum from participating in any matter relating to the OPA that comes before the Council. Further, because Councilmember Bynum is represented by an attorney in his criminal case, our office is prohibited from having direct contact with Bynum without his attorney present; as such contact would violate Bynum's 6th Amendment Right to Counsel and could result in dismissal of his case. Bynum's paranoid belief that the actions taken by our office were calculated personal attacks against him is without any merit and is completely baseless. The criminal case against his son was investigated by the Kaua`i Police Department and referred to our office for prosecution. The case initiated against Councilmember Bynum was investigated by the Planning Department and referred to our office for criminal prosecution. The contact with (redacted) was solely initiated by Councilmember Bynum. Her decision to apply to the OPA and our decision to hire her was purely based on (redacted) exceptional experience and qualifications.
For the above stated reasons, Councilmember Bynum has a clear conflict of interest with the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney and should not be allowed to participate in any Council proceedings involving the OPA. It is our hope that the Council will address this situation in a timely and appropriate manner. Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this matter.
SHAYLENE ISERI-CARVALHO
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
---------
Bynum's Press Release
I was elected to legislate for the county and to provide oversight of various government agencies and offices. Among these is the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA).
However, the OPA has recently filed criminal zoning violations against me and I must now defend those in Court. Since I was charged, the County Prosecutor has now cited those same charges as a basis for having me recused from all legislative oversight over her office. Out of an over abundance of caution I agreed to recuse myself from the January 19th meeting.
Likewise, I believe that it would be appropriate for the Kauai Prosecuting Attorney to be recused from prosecuting my case and allow the Attorney General's office to properly evaluate this case. I believe that this would be the best assurance of a fair proceeding and a fair process that is certain to be governed by the rule of law.
The Prosecuting Attorney states in a Jan 19 letter that her criminal prosecution is not personal, and was a routine matter “investigated by the Planning Department and referred to our office for criminal prosecution.” What I have learned is that as early as April 2010, the Prosecuting Attorney asked the Planning Director in an email for a legal basis on which to prosecute me. I am attaching a copy of emails between the Prosecuting Attorney and then-Planning Department Head Ian Costa. These e-mails establish that the Prosecuting Attorney was involved in the matter before Planning even investigated the “anonymous complaint” and that this was not just a routine Planning Department investigation.
In her email, the Prosecutor refers to an "anonymous" complaint. Apparently, sometime prior to April 2010 a trespasser entered onto my property, looked into my windows and observed a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the family room.
I hope that through the court-process I will be able to ascertain the identity of this trespasser and learn how this person was able to anonymously commence a criminal investigation - especially when I have previously been assured by the Planning Department that my house was properly permitted. I also hope to find out who, if anyone in government authorized sending someone to peer into the windows of my family home. I believe that the trespasser should be prosecuted, but thus far his or her identity appears to have been protected. The documents provided to my defense attorney so far only state that he or she "wishes to remain anonymous".
Finally, just minutes prior to the January 19, 2012 Special Council Meeting, the Prosecuting Attorney sent a letter marked confidential demanding my recusal. The letter was sent to all Council Members except for me. I was allowed to read the letter in the presence of the County Attorneys but I was not given a copy.
I am now informed that the Prosecuting Attorney intends to release to the public this letter she stamped “confidential.” The letter misrepresents conversations I had with two individuals I have long respected and have had a cordial professional relationship with for years.
The intended subject matter of the January 19 Council Meeting was a valid examination of concerns raised by a number of citizens regarding the Victim Witness program, the reported backlog of cases, finance issues and the high turnover / vacancies of Deputies. Council member Joann Yukimura instigated the request. Anyone who follows the Council knows that this type of oversight agenda item is common and a legitimate Council responsibility.
Additional information regarding the alleged zoning violation:
In 2005, at times there were 4 generations of my family (7 people total) living in my home (my father, myself and my wife, my son, my daughter, our grandson and his mother). We decided to do an addition to our home. We wanted to create a living space that was integrated. We constructed two bedrooms, a bathroom and family room. The addition also included a ramp because my elderly father was increasingly having difficulty negotiating the steps to the front door much less the stairs to the second story where the existing bedrooms were located.
When the drawings were done I took them to the County Planning department and the Building division for informal review. I was told everything was fine as long as no stove was installed. Subsequently we submitted the plans to the County for formal review and approval. The plans were approved after being circulated to and approved by various departments including the Planning department.
We hired a contractor and built according to the plans. The County sent inspectors during construction including a final inspection after which we were issued a certificate of occupancy. The addition is exactly as it was when “final inspection” occurred; nothing has been added or deleted. No installed cooking facilities have ever existed in the addition. Our home has one kitchen; every person that has ever resided in our home has used the one kitchen.
That's because "Rice-cooker-gate" is a direct result of what happens when a dysfunctional planning department and an ego-maniacal prosecutor collude to "bring down" a councilmember.
The matter- into which we've been delving for the past year or so- has finally spilled over into the local newspaper with an article yesterday that scratched the surface of the prosecution of Councilmember Tim Bynum by Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho, after the release of various documents and a back and forth between Iseri and Bynum on the matter.
Despite Iseri's denial of any ill-feeling between the two, the feud between her and Bynum goes back to their days together on the council when she and Councilmember Mel Rapozo were allies and sided with then-Chair Kaipo Asing in the infamous days when Bynum and Asing butted heads with all of them over Asing's paternalistic leadership of the council involving issues of process, staffing, introduction of measures and other issues.
Iseri was then elected prosecuting attorney in 2008.
According to a complaint form we've obtained dated 3/26/10 Bynum was alleged to have an "illegal dwelling multi family" unit at his home which is on agriculturally zoned land.
The problem is that, under "Complainer/Requester" the form notes "*wants to remain anonymous!" (the asterisk and exclamation marks are written on the form)
The complaint has two initializations, one for "inspector" and another for "assigned by" but who they actually are is not readily apparent. However what is known is that, according to Bynum's press release that followed an email from Iseri to current Council Chair Jay Furfaro sent just before last Wednesday's council meeting where Iseri appeared on a budgetary matter related to the Victim Witness program:
Apparently, sometime prior to April 2010 a trespasser entered onto my property, looked into my windows and observed a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the family room.
That someone is apparently Planning Inspector Sheilah Miyake who was CCed in a series of memos between Iseri and then Planning Director Ian Costa and has been identified by numerous reliable sources close to the investigation as being the "trespasser."
On April 7, 2010, Iseri wrote to Costa:
We received information to corroborate an anonymous complaint dated March 2.6, 2010 that was sent to the Planning Department and our office, that Councilmember Tim Bynum was renting out his house, or a portion thereof. Can you let me know if renting out a portion of his residence is ill~gal given his land status, and what ordinance/statute would he be violating by doing so? Please advise.
Costa wrote back, CCing Miyake, saying
Sorry for delay Shaylene.
The CZO really doesn't prohibit renting portions of structures. Even the issue of "lock-outs" is not addressed.
The CZO does not dictate where locks are permitted and not permitted (thank goodness!). The issue would be whether the area, in question creates a "multi-family" dwelling. What was permitted is a "single-family" dwelling based on "one kitchen". If a second kitchen (area used for the preparation of food) is present, then a violation would exist for an illegal "multi-family" dwelling unit.
I understand Sheila has been assisting and monitoring .......let me know if we can be of further assistance.
Despite Iseri's previous contention that actions on the complaint was initiated by the planning department alone, her memo indicates that now she says the complaint was sent to both planning and the prosecutor's office. She also seems to say that she and Miyake worked together to get the "rice cooker" information that was arguably obtained illegally via Miyake's trespassing.
In a comment on our November 5, 2010 report on Bynum's denial of allgations, Iseri wrote"
Mr. Parx,
Your statements are completely erroneous. I was never involved in the investigation of Tim Bynum's violations. The entire investigation was conducted by the Planning Department.
The memo seems to indicate that it was Iseri who initiated the action in conjunction with Miyake and without Director Costa's prior involvement. It also shows that Costa essentially confirms what people have been told at planning previous to this incident- that a "second kitchen" is what makes it illegal. And, as everyone is told, it is a stove that constituted what a "kitchen" was.
But Iseri wasn't to be stopped by the prior definition of a kitchen by planning. Apparently when Miyake told her she saw a "rice cooker" on the counter when she sneaked onto Bynum's property without his permission- or even asking- Iseri saw her opening and decided that, despite what planning had said ever since the CZO was established in the early 70's, now any device- presumably even a toaster or coffee maker- is a "kitchen."
The most hilarious part of all this is Iseri's continuing contention that there is no feud or even animosity between her and Bynum. Anyone who ever watched those council sessions where she butted heads with Bynum would have no doubt she despises Bynum.
So as to who made the complaint? Well we can't say for sure but for some reason former Chair Kaipo Asing has taken an unusual interest in Bynum's cases, showing up to Bynum's court dates and last week's council meeting where, if Bynum had not recused himself, sparks between Iseri and Bynum would surely have flown.
Was it Asing? Was it Iseri's ally Mel Rapozo whose animosity toward Bynum is thinly, if at all, disguised? Some seem to think the latter is the case but so far Rapozo's name hasn't come up in any documents.
The answer is apparently another question- does it really matter which of them it was? To think that there was no collusion in the matter would strain credulity.
Another question is what will happen when these people are put under oath. We understand that new Planning Director Mike Dahilig is privy to the whole story and even if the others were thinking of perjuring themselves, his testimony would surely be straightforward, the thinking being that Dahilig, a former deputy county attorney, isn't going to lie under oath for anyone.
A final question is why Iseri's office is even prosecuting the case and why she hasn't recused herself and her office by letting the state attorney general's office take it over. It would seem, given the history between Iseri and Bynum, recusal would be a no brainer.
Also, Iseri's email was stamped with a big "Confidential" across the top and the original did not contain any redactions. But under the Sunshine law she has no apparent right to say an email to the council is confidential. All emails to councilmembers are considered public documents.
We'll leave it there for today. Below are the full texts of Iseri's letter asking for Bynum's recusal last Wednesday and Bynum's "press release" that followed this weekend. It should be noted that there may be misprints in Iseri's email. First of all, names of those involved are redacted and second we had to use optical character recognition software to get it in "text" form. There may be redactions that are not noted so the sentences may seem disjointed. But you'll get the gist of it.
----#---
Iseri's letter to Council Chair Jay Furfaro CCed to all councilmembers except Bynum.
January 19, 2011
TO: Council Chair Jay Furfaro
FR: Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho
RE: Conflict Notice Regarding Councilmember Timothy Bynum
This communication serves as a notice to the Council regarding a conflict of interest between Councilmember Timothy Bynum and the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. This conflict arises from several incidents involving Councilmember Bynum and employees in our office, as well as the pending criminal case filed by our Office against Councilmember Bynum in November 2011.
1. Bynum's Inappropriate Confrontation Of Deputy Prosecuting (redacted)
On September 28, 2011, Councilmember Timothy Bynum attended a court proceeding with his son, David Bynum, at the 5th Judicial Circuit Courthouse in Lihu`e. After the hearing, Mr. Bynum stood outside the courtroom door in the public hallway and confronted Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (redacted) regarding David's case. As (redacted) exited the courtroom, Mr. Bynum stated directly to (redacted) "Do you think justice was done? This was because [expletive] Shaylene doesn't like me and is out to get me." (Redacted) was standing nearby and also witnessed the confrontation.
According to the Kaua`i County Charter section 3.07(D)
The council may, upon an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of its entire membership, suspend without pay for not more than one month any member for disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its presence. The presiding officer or the council by a majority vote may expel any other person who is guilty of disorderly, contemptuous or improper conduct at any meeting.
While this section deals with disorderly and contemptuous conduct that occurs in the presence of the Council, it is also instructive as to the appropriate conduct expected from Councilmembers in their dealings with county employees as well as the general public.
Additionally, Section 3.18 of the Kaua`i County Charter states:
Except for the purpose of investigative inquiries under Section 3.17, the council or its members, in dealing with county employees, or with county officers who are subjected to the direction and supervision of the mayor, shall deal solely through the mayor. and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such employee or officer either publicly or privately. Any willful violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the council shall be sufficient grounds for an action for his removal from office.
Clearly, Councilmember Bynum did not handle this situation appropriately. If Mr. Bynum had questions or concerns about the case, the appropriate course of action would have been to communicate those to the elected Department Head, which is me, rather than confronting one of our Deputies, who, in fact, was not assigned to handling the case. This confrontation clearly illustrates the undue bias Mr. Bynum harbors toward both me personally, as well as the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. As such, Mr. Bynum must recuse himself from any matter before the Council involving the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney.
2. Bynum's inappropriate confrontation of (redacted)
Before coming to work at the OPA (redacted) was employed by (redacted) as (redacted). She applied to the OPA as a (redacted) and was offered the job in (redacted) . After accepting the position (redacted), who had turned in her 2 week notice (redacted) was confronted by Councilmember Bynum in her office. Bynum stated that he was concerned because it was well known that he and Shaylene did not 'get along' and adamantly believed that the only reason Shaylene hired her was to 'get back at him.' These statements and allegations continued for a prolonged period, leaving (redacted) to feel uncomfortable and offended.
Councilmember Bynum's inappropriate confrontation with (redacted) regarding her employment at the OPA demonstrates Mr. Bynum's continued undue bias toward me and my office. This bias and proclivity to engage in inappropriate conduct with OPA employees further establishes the need to have Mr. Bynum precluded from participating in any matters relating to the operations of the OPA.
3. Bynum's Pending Criminal Case
On November 9, 2011, the OPA filed a criminal complaint in the District Court of the Fifth Circuit against Timothy Bynum, alleging 4 counts of violations of the Kaua`i County Code. Each Count is a misdemeanor offense, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000.000 fine for each. This means that if convicted, Bynum could face up to 4 total years imprisonment and $8,000.00 in fines. There have already been two motion hearings on the case, in which Mr. Bynum has been represented by a private attorney. At each hearing, First Deputy Prosecutor Jake Delaplane represented the State and made all arguments on behalf of the State. Councilmember Bynum's criminal case clearly establishes a conflict with the OPA. He has a clear financial interest in the operations of the OPA, as he would directly benefit if the OPA's operations were negatively impacted by any action of the Council. By virtue of being a criminal defendant, he has a vested interest in ensuring that the OPA not operate at peak efficiency. In accordance with Article )0( of the Kaua`i County Charter, this financial interest clearly prohibits Bynum from participating in any matter relating to the OPA that comes before the Council. Further, because Councilmember Bynum is represented by an attorney in his criminal case, our office is prohibited from having direct contact with Bynum without his attorney present; as such contact would violate Bynum's 6th Amendment Right to Counsel and could result in dismissal of his case. Bynum's paranoid belief that the actions taken by our office were calculated personal attacks against him is without any merit and is completely baseless. The criminal case against his son was investigated by the Kaua`i Police Department and referred to our office for prosecution. The case initiated against Councilmember Bynum was investigated by the Planning Department and referred to our office for criminal prosecution. The contact with (redacted) was solely initiated by Councilmember Bynum. Her decision to apply to the OPA and our decision to hire her was purely based on (redacted) exceptional experience and qualifications.
For the above stated reasons, Councilmember Bynum has a clear conflict of interest with the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney and should not be allowed to participate in any Council proceedings involving the OPA. It is our hope that the Council will address this situation in a timely and appropriate manner. Feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this matter.
SHAYLENE ISERI-CARVALHO
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
---------
Bynum's Press Release
I was elected to legislate for the county and to provide oversight of various government agencies and offices. Among these is the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA).
However, the OPA has recently filed criminal zoning violations against me and I must now defend those in Court. Since I was charged, the County Prosecutor has now cited those same charges as a basis for having me recused from all legislative oversight over her office. Out of an over abundance of caution I agreed to recuse myself from the January 19th meeting.
Likewise, I believe that it would be appropriate for the Kauai Prosecuting Attorney to be recused from prosecuting my case and allow the Attorney General's office to properly evaluate this case. I believe that this would be the best assurance of a fair proceeding and a fair process that is certain to be governed by the rule of law.
The Prosecuting Attorney states in a Jan 19 letter that her criminal prosecution is not personal, and was a routine matter “investigated by the Planning Department and referred to our office for criminal prosecution.” What I have learned is that as early as April 2010, the Prosecuting Attorney asked the Planning Director in an email for a legal basis on which to prosecute me. I am attaching a copy of emails between the Prosecuting Attorney and then-Planning Department Head Ian Costa. These e-mails establish that the Prosecuting Attorney was involved in the matter before Planning even investigated the “anonymous complaint” and that this was not just a routine Planning Department investigation.
In her email, the Prosecutor refers to an "anonymous" complaint. Apparently, sometime prior to April 2010 a trespasser entered onto my property, looked into my windows and observed a rice cooker and a refrigerator in the family room.
I hope that through the court-process I will be able to ascertain the identity of this trespasser and learn how this person was able to anonymously commence a criminal investigation - especially when I have previously been assured by the Planning Department that my house was properly permitted. I also hope to find out who, if anyone in government authorized sending someone to peer into the windows of my family home. I believe that the trespasser should be prosecuted, but thus far his or her identity appears to have been protected. The documents provided to my defense attorney so far only state that he or she "wishes to remain anonymous".
Finally, just minutes prior to the January 19, 2012 Special Council Meeting, the Prosecuting Attorney sent a letter marked confidential demanding my recusal. The letter was sent to all Council Members except for me. I was allowed to read the letter in the presence of the County Attorneys but I was not given a copy.
I am now informed that the Prosecuting Attorney intends to release to the public this letter she stamped “confidential.” The letter misrepresents conversations I had with two individuals I have long respected and have had a cordial professional relationship with for years.
The intended subject matter of the January 19 Council Meeting was a valid examination of concerns raised by a number of citizens regarding the Victim Witness program, the reported backlog of cases, finance issues and the high turnover / vacancies of Deputies. Council member Joann Yukimura instigated the request. Anyone who follows the Council knows that this type of oversight agenda item is common and a legitimate Council responsibility.
Additional information regarding the alleged zoning violation:
In 2005, at times there were 4 generations of my family (7 people total) living in my home (my father, myself and my wife, my son, my daughter, our grandson and his mother). We decided to do an addition to our home. We wanted to create a living space that was integrated. We constructed two bedrooms, a bathroom and family room. The addition also included a ramp because my elderly father was increasingly having difficulty negotiating the steps to the front door much less the stairs to the second story where the existing bedrooms were located.
When the drawings were done I took them to the County Planning department and the Building division for informal review. I was told everything was fine as long as no stove was installed. Subsequently we submitted the plans to the County for formal review and approval. The plans were approved after being circulated to and approved by various departments including the Planning department.
We hired a contractor and built according to the plans. The County sent inspectors during construction including a final inspection after which we were issued a certificate of occupancy. The addition is exactly as it was when “final inspection” occurred; nothing has been added or deleted. No installed cooking facilities have ever existed in the addition. Our home has one kitchen; every person that has ever resided in our home has used the one kitchen.
Friday, January 20, 2012
DISINFECTANT APLENTY
DISINFECTANT APLENTY: The subject of open meetings and records- and of course the related Sunshine Laws- has always been near and dear to us. Nothing gets our blood boiling more than attempts by councilmembers across the state who try to claim it prevents them from doing their job, especially when they misrepresent restrictions on interactions with each other, even after the Office of Information Practices (OIP) tells them where "the line" is.
The typical complaint goes something like "I can't even go to dinner and talk to a fellow councilmember about the weather without violating the Sunshine Law." The fact is that there are "permitted interactions." They include allowing two members to talk about anything unrestricted as well as other bright lines of what can and can't be discussed unless it is done in a properly agendaed meeting.
But the main thing is- to perhaps oversimplify- that you can't talk about a matter of public policy that is- or is likely to be- before the body. And you can't use serial communications to avoid the ban.
So it irked us a little to see fellow champion of open governance journalist-blogger Ian Lind's comment on a proposed clarification of the law proposed by OIP.
After discussing the permitted interactions rules he wrote:
The result has been what I consider some absurd results, including the notion that circulating draft bills for signatures prior to introduction would somehow violate the law, despite the fact that it has nothing at all to do with whether the bill will become law or not.
Wow. As it turns out, a case we filed against Kaua`i County Council Chair Jay Furfaro for just such an infraction- apparently circulating a proposed bill to all other councilmembers at the time and even asking for "support" for it- was recently addressed by OIP and the only fact that prevented it from being an "unpermitted interaction" is that, according to then County Clerk Peter Nakamura, the cover letter and draft bill were never actually sent to other councilmembers, only addressed to them.
Otherwise, OIP said, it would have violated the sunshine law.
And that's as it should be. If you want to talk about the content of a bill, do it in public. It has nothing to do with the actual passing of the bill but rather the deliberations which eventually yield those pesky details that the bill will contain. It's called "deliberating toward a decision" and it includes all stages of public policy making from the drafting through the discussion and finally to the passage.
So how do you talk to your fellow councilmembers about proposed legislation? The answer may be contained in a notice for a "workshop" the Kaua`i Council has scheduled for next Tuesday January 24 at 9 a.m. at the Kaua’i Civil Defense Agency- Emergency Operating Center, 3990 Ka’ana Street, Suite 100
According to the notice:
A facilitated workshop is scheduled to set goals that the Kaua’i County Council would like to see achieved in the next few years and to discuss issues pertaining thereto that could include:
So far, so good. Sounds like they are finally "getting it" and want to let the public in at the planning stage rather than springing matters on us as a "done deal."
But then, to our astonishment, the agenda list 41, count 'em 41, subjects they intend to discuss, each subject so broad that each individual item could spur hours of discussion. We've listed them at the end of this post.
That also means that if the public wanted to testify on each one, assuming they'd be given the usual six minutes to speak on each, just one person could sit there for just over fours hours... although, because all 41 are listed under one agenda item they might decide to give only one six minute time allotment for all of them. That of course would leave about nine seconds a subject.
We did ask OIP for a down and dirty opinion of the sufficiency of the agenda and were told that it looked okay, although they did not address the public testimony aspects.
But the upshot is that rather than complain that they are prevented from discussing proposed legislation, this format- not with 41 subjects but with let's say with just one or two- is the way it's supposed to work. You put it on an agenda for discussion and have that discussion in public, not behind closed doors.
That's the irksome part of all this. What those who would allow these kinds of things to be done in private are saying is that, because it is a little more hassle to put a subject on the agenda and discuss it in public, we should chuck the whole concept of discussing public policy in open session and allow pols to collude behind closed doors.
The message we should be sending officeholders is this: although you apparently think that the council is your own little private fiefdom where you are a god of lawmaking unto yourself, you are, in fact, in the line of work of deciding public policy with the key word being "public." If you want to make decisions by yourself, go into the private sector and then you can make all the decision about selling your widgets as privately as you want to.
But if you want to hold public office you'd better get used to discussing public policy with that pesky public listening to the deliberations that go into your decision making.
Is that asking too much? Apparently yes.
----------
The following is the list of subjects to be discussed at the workshop:
1. Drug abuse prevention and treatment and interdiction of illegal drugs
2. Traffic congestion relief/multimodal integrated transportation system
3. Open space acquisition! preservation, including coastal and Mauka lands and access
thereto
4. Tourism, including sustainable tourism
5. Economic development
6. Island-wide information technology & management systems
7. County information technology & management systems
8. Agriculture & biotechnology
9. Solid waste management, Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), recycling programs, and recycling facilities
10. Military
11. Voter registration
12. 2012 State Legislative issues, including Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT)
13. Real property tax system
14. Town planning
15. Affordable housing
16. County budget; Operating and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
17. Containment of sprawl and protection of open spaces and vistas
18. Subdivisions, grading and drainage
19. Small businesses
20. Sustainability and sustainable communities
21. Park planning, development and maintenance
22. Planning issues; General Plan Update, Development Plans, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Special Management Areas
23. Community outreach
24. Energy self-sufficiency, renewable energy, and renewable energy projects
25. County infrastructure
26. Preservation of “places of the heart”
27. Bikeways
28. Underground utilities
29. County as a model—”Walking the Talk”
30. County efficiency and cost control
31. Elderly programs & outreach
32. Youth programs & outreach
33. Timeshare
34. Bed & Breakfast and Transient Vacation Rentals regulations
35. Wastewater systems
36. Water systems
37. Public safety issues; police, fire and civil defense
38. Risk management
39. Public transportation
40. Intra-governmental relations
41. County Human Resource Management
The typical complaint goes something like "I can't even go to dinner and talk to a fellow councilmember about the weather without violating the Sunshine Law." The fact is that there are "permitted interactions." They include allowing two members to talk about anything unrestricted as well as other bright lines of what can and can't be discussed unless it is done in a properly agendaed meeting.
But the main thing is- to perhaps oversimplify- that you can't talk about a matter of public policy that is- or is likely to be- before the body. And you can't use serial communications to avoid the ban.
So it irked us a little to see fellow champion of open governance journalist-blogger Ian Lind's comment on a proposed clarification of the law proposed by OIP.
After discussing the permitted interactions rules he wrote:
The result has been what I consider some absurd results, including the notion that circulating draft bills for signatures prior to introduction would somehow violate the law, despite the fact that it has nothing at all to do with whether the bill will become law or not.
Wow. As it turns out, a case we filed against Kaua`i County Council Chair Jay Furfaro for just such an infraction- apparently circulating a proposed bill to all other councilmembers at the time and even asking for "support" for it- was recently addressed by OIP and the only fact that prevented it from being an "unpermitted interaction" is that, according to then County Clerk Peter Nakamura, the cover letter and draft bill were never actually sent to other councilmembers, only addressed to them.
Otherwise, OIP said, it would have violated the sunshine law.
And that's as it should be. If you want to talk about the content of a bill, do it in public. It has nothing to do with the actual passing of the bill but rather the deliberations which eventually yield those pesky details that the bill will contain. It's called "deliberating toward a decision" and it includes all stages of public policy making from the drafting through the discussion and finally to the passage.
So how do you talk to your fellow councilmembers about proposed legislation? The answer may be contained in a notice for a "workshop" the Kaua`i Council has scheduled for next Tuesday January 24 at 9 a.m. at the Kaua’i Civil Defense Agency- Emergency Operating Center, 3990 Ka’ana Street, Suite 100
According to the notice:
A facilitated workshop is scheduled to set goals that the Kaua’i County Council would like to see achieved in the next few years and to discuss issues pertaining thereto that could include:
So far, so good. Sounds like they are finally "getting it" and want to let the public in at the planning stage rather than springing matters on us as a "done deal."
But then, to our astonishment, the agenda list 41, count 'em 41, subjects they intend to discuss, each subject so broad that each individual item could spur hours of discussion. We've listed them at the end of this post.
That also means that if the public wanted to testify on each one, assuming they'd be given the usual six minutes to speak on each, just one person could sit there for just over fours hours... although, because all 41 are listed under one agenda item they might decide to give only one six minute time allotment for all of them. That of course would leave about nine seconds a subject.
We did ask OIP for a down and dirty opinion of the sufficiency of the agenda and were told that it looked okay, although they did not address the public testimony aspects.
But the upshot is that rather than complain that they are prevented from discussing proposed legislation, this format- not with 41 subjects but with let's say with just one or two- is the way it's supposed to work. You put it on an agenda for discussion and have that discussion in public, not behind closed doors.
That's the irksome part of all this. What those who would allow these kinds of things to be done in private are saying is that, because it is a little more hassle to put a subject on the agenda and discuss it in public, we should chuck the whole concept of discussing public policy in open session and allow pols to collude behind closed doors.
The message we should be sending officeholders is this: although you apparently think that the council is your own little private fiefdom where you are a god of lawmaking unto yourself, you are, in fact, in the line of work of deciding public policy with the key word being "public." If you want to make decisions by yourself, go into the private sector and then you can make all the decision about selling your widgets as privately as you want to.
But if you want to hold public office you'd better get used to discussing public policy with that pesky public listening to the deliberations that go into your decision making.
Is that asking too much? Apparently yes.
----------
The following is the list of subjects to be discussed at the workshop:
1. Drug abuse prevention and treatment and interdiction of illegal drugs
2. Traffic congestion relief/multimodal integrated transportation system
3. Open space acquisition! preservation, including coastal and Mauka lands and access
thereto
4. Tourism, including sustainable tourism
5. Economic development
6. Island-wide information technology & management systems
7. County information technology & management systems
8. Agriculture & biotechnology
9. Solid waste management, Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), recycling programs, and recycling facilities
10. Military
11. Voter registration
12. 2012 State Legislative issues, including Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT)
13. Real property tax system
14. Town planning
15. Affordable housing
16. County budget; Operating and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
17. Containment of sprawl and protection of open spaces and vistas
18. Subdivisions, grading and drainage
19. Small businesses
20. Sustainability and sustainable communities
21. Park planning, development and maintenance
22. Planning issues; General Plan Update, Development Plans, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Special Management Areas
23. Community outreach
24. Energy self-sufficiency, renewable energy, and renewable energy projects
25. County infrastructure
26. Preservation of “places of the heart”
27. Bikeways
28. Underground utilities
29. County as a model—”Walking the Talk”
30. County efficiency and cost control
31. Elderly programs & outreach
32. Youth programs & outreach
33. Timeshare
34. Bed & Breakfast and Transient Vacation Rentals regulations
35. Wastewater systems
36. Water systems
37. Public safety issues; police, fire and civil defense
38. Risk management
39. Public transportation
40. Intra-governmental relations
41. County Human Resource Management
Thursday, January 19, 2012
FORE
FORE: Back in the days of rampant resort development on Kaua`i- as if they ever ended- many of us thought that, in an attempt to keep it simple for voters, we should ask only one question of council candidates that year: "Do you play golf?"
In the 80's and early 90's it seemed like every resort- from the Hyatt at Maha`ulepu to Chris Hemmeter's Westin- depended on having a golf course to make them "viable"- or at least that's what they tried to tell the council and planning commission.
But at the time, before there were a gazillion golf courses on the island all "designed" by the top names in golf, there was what is still called "the jewel" of the county's Parks and Recreation system: the Wailua Golf Course.
It was once named one of the top municipal golf courses in the country and was not just meticulously maintained- all by one old guy with a green thumb, infinite energy and love of golf and golfers- but it broke even, paying for itself through round and cart fees and the proceeds from the "19th hole" concession.
So the council, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that since it was self-supporting it should be funded using what's called an "enterprise fund"- a separate account, set up in perpetuity for an operation that's supposed be self-supporting.
The problem is that the old maintenance guy retired and the irrigation system rusted out and the council started throwing money into things like a new drip irrigation system (that never did work right) and outside consultants.
But they never did get the same results and now the "self-supporting" golf course costs around an extra half-a-million dollars each year- subsidized from the general fund- in order to operate.
Over the past few years the council has tried everything from raising fees for each round to lowering the fees to get more people to play more rounds, especially tourists. When they tried "adjusting" the fees for local youth and seniors it caused enough of an outcry that any further thought of actually making local people pay to play golf was permanently back-burnered.
The only place to look for revenue ended up being that "19th hole"- the restaurant, bar and "pro shop."
So last spring the council was thrilled when local attorney and former Prosecutor Mike Soong and his friend, bail bondsman Darrell Horner, opened the incredibly tone-deafly-named Jailhouse Pub & Grill- so monikered because it sits across from the Kaua`i County Correctional Center.
Councilmembers proclaimed this to be just the thing that was going to save the golf course- or at least somehow save the "enterprise fund" aspect of it and maybe put a dent in the half-million dollars of taxpayer money being pumped into the "enterprise fund" every year.
Oh, why?.. didn't you hear? The Jailhouse Pub & Grill is now "officially closed" according to their phone message. The sign is gone and the door is locked. Pau already.
According to an article in the local newspaper just last May:
Late last year, Mike Soong learned the county was seeking bids to fill the space for its former bar “Par for the Course.” By February they were awarded the contract and a 7-year-lease.
Seems they didn't even make it seven months.
This whole fiasco just further shines a light on the absurd conundrum that is the Wailua Golf Course. If the county doesn't charge enough per round they will not be able to get it to break even. And if they raise the price to where it will pay for itself people, especially the tourists who pay the higher fees, will say to themselves "for that kind of money I'd rather go to one of the resort golf courses" which are meticulously maintained by the resorts- and which the resorts subsidize as they would any "essential" amenity.
The "clubhouse" was never designed to- and never will- pay for the difference between what the county can charge for a round of golf and what it costs to keep the place "well maintained," a condition that any golfer will tell you, is anything but the case these days despite millions in capital improvements and outside groundskeeping consultants. That "investment" in this "jewel" has only add to the increasing negative balance of the "enterprise fund" at a rate that makes ever catching-up impossible.
We're not sure whether it was the name or what but the quick opening and closing of the Jailhouse Pub and Grill indicates that the council's last best hope for the golf course "breaking even" was a pipe dream to begin with.
It's certainly time to, if nothing else, give up on the enterprise fund and get real with the taxpayers. Right now a handful of golfers are running the show proving that nothing really ever changes at the county building.
Maybe people don't mind throwing that half-million bucks at a run-down facility that only serves a small fraction of a population that is desperate for more recreational facilites and in severe need of money for maintaince to keep the existing ones clean and operating.
But the council needs to at least start being honest enough to ask.
In the 80's and early 90's it seemed like every resort- from the Hyatt at Maha`ulepu to Chris Hemmeter's Westin- depended on having a golf course to make them "viable"- or at least that's what they tried to tell the council and planning commission.
But at the time, before there were a gazillion golf courses on the island all "designed" by the top names in golf, there was what is still called "the jewel" of the county's Parks and Recreation system: the Wailua Golf Course.
It was once named one of the top municipal golf courses in the country and was not just meticulously maintained- all by one old guy with a green thumb, infinite energy and love of golf and golfers- but it broke even, paying for itself through round and cart fees and the proceeds from the "19th hole" concession.
So the council, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that since it was self-supporting it should be funded using what's called an "enterprise fund"- a separate account, set up in perpetuity for an operation that's supposed be self-supporting.
The problem is that the old maintenance guy retired and the irrigation system rusted out and the council started throwing money into things like a new drip irrigation system (that never did work right) and outside consultants.
But they never did get the same results and now the "self-supporting" golf course costs around an extra half-a-million dollars each year- subsidized from the general fund- in order to operate.
Over the past few years the council has tried everything from raising fees for each round to lowering the fees to get more people to play more rounds, especially tourists. When they tried "adjusting" the fees for local youth and seniors it caused enough of an outcry that any further thought of actually making local people pay to play golf was permanently back-burnered.
The only place to look for revenue ended up being that "19th hole"- the restaurant, bar and "pro shop."
So last spring the council was thrilled when local attorney and former Prosecutor Mike Soong and his friend, bail bondsman Darrell Horner, opened the incredibly tone-deafly-named Jailhouse Pub & Grill- so monikered because it sits across from the Kaua`i County Correctional Center.
Councilmembers proclaimed this to be just the thing that was going to save the golf course- or at least somehow save the "enterprise fund" aspect of it and maybe put a dent in the half-million dollars of taxpayer money being pumped into the "enterprise fund" every year.
Oh, why?.. didn't you hear? The Jailhouse Pub & Grill is now "officially closed" according to their phone message. The sign is gone and the door is locked. Pau already.
According to an article in the local newspaper just last May:
Late last year, Mike Soong learned the county was seeking bids to fill the space for its former bar “Par for the Course.” By February they were awarded the contract and a 7-year-lease.
Seems they didn't even make it seven months.
This whole fiasco just further shines a light on the absurd conundrum that is the Wailua Golf Course. If the county doesn't charge enough per round they will not be able to get it to break even. And if they raise the price to where it will pay for itself people, especially the tourists who pay the higher fees, will say to themselves "for that kind of money I'd rather go to one of the resort golf courses" which are meticulously maintained by the resorts- and which the resorts subsidize as they would any "essential" amenity.
The "clubhouse" was never designed to- and never will- pay for the difference between what the county can charge for a round of golf and what it costs to keep the place "well maintained," a condition that any golfer will tell you, is anything but the case these days despite millions in capital improvements and outside groundskeeping consultants. That "investment" in this "jewel" has only add to the increasing negative balance of the "enterprise fund" at a rate that makes ever catching-up impossible.
We're not sure whether it was the name or what but the quick opening and closing of the Jailhouse Pub and Grill indicates that the council's last best hope for the golf course "breaking even" was a pipe dream to begin with.
It's certainly time to, if nothing else, give up on the enterprise fund and get real with the taxpayers. Right now a handful of golfers are running the show proving that nothing really ever changes at the county building.
Maybe people don't mind throwing that half-million bucks at a run-down facility that only serves a small fraction of a population that is desperate for more recreational facilites and in severe need of money for maintaince to keep the existing ones clean and operating.
But the council needs to at least start being honest enough to ask.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
