Keep citizens ignorant and blame them for their ignorance

I would like to respond to the quotations attributed to council member Yukimura in the article, "Government watchdogs on the prowl". Yukimura begins by stating that engaged citizens are a “very valuable resource,” and “Democracy only works well when we have actively participating citizens.” Yukimura is absolutely correct, but from that point on council member Yukimura begins a litany of "buts" and launches into thinly veiled left-handed attack critical of citizen involvement.

Yukimura advises, “When you get a soapbox to speak from, it’s really important to have your facts accurate and really listen carefully to what’s happening — not make assumptions, not jump to quick conclusions.” This advice in this context has the subtext that citizens may not have accurate facts, and may not listen carefully. Citizens may make assumptions and jumping to quick conclusions.

Yukimura continues, “You really have to become an expert in the subject so you can perform to the highest ideal. You can lead people in the wrong place.” The subtext: citizens may not be experts, may not perform to the highest ideals, and may lead people to the wrong place.

Yukimura concludes with an accurate description of the divide that exists today between county government and engaged citizens. “It can get to an attitude where, if you don’t agree with me, you’re wrong and stupid,” she said. “That’s more destructive than helpful.”

There is, however, an underlying fact not acknowledged by Yukimura when she gives advice that engaged citizens should have accurate facts, and become experts. To have accurate facts and becoming an expert is only possible if government allows engaged citizens access to information. If government boards, councils, and commissions refuse to disclose such information claiming "attorney-client privileged" then Yukimura's criticism is disingenuous.

It is the county government boards, councils, and commissions that refuse to release the facts and refuse to answer questions citizens ask so the citizen can get their facts straight and become experts.

Yukimura is critical of engaged citizens lacking the facts, not being experts, and not listening carefully while the count council does everything in its power to hide those facts under the cloak of attorney-client privilege.

Yukimura is a member of a county council that is responsible for keeping citizens ignorant, but rather than casting a critical eye on the actions of her colleagues (and perhaps herself) for refusing to waive attorney-client privilege she implies the fault lies with the engaged citizens, victims of government secrecy, for not having the facts, not being experts, and leading people to the wrong place.

Engaged citizens are not trying to lead people anywhere, but rather hold government officials accountable for their actions. Mahalo to council member Yukimura for at least speaking to this issue, and she can rest assured that engaged citizens are reading carefully, even between the lines.

Kauai Ethics Board: Alice in Blunderland

In a recent decision regarding a case I brought before the Board of Ethics, the Board based their opinion on the contents of minutes from the Kauai County Council wherein they claim an officer of the county had not made private information public because that information had already been made public as detailed in the Council minutes. When I requested reconsideration of that opinion claiming the Council minutes did not contain such revelation and requested the Board show me the language in the minutes upon which they based their opinion, they refused.

Now the Board is claiming they have a legal opinion that they are refusing to disclose, claiming attorney-client privilege. Although the Board has the power to waive this privilege they refuse (Ethics Board clears Chun, Guards legal opinion, TGI, A1, 3-14-2008). In both cases the charter language uses the words "no officer or employee of the county shall" and is clearly stated. However, the Ethics Board prattles on about broad versus narrow legal interpretations of what appears to be black-letter law without revealing any of the logic or rationale hidden in their lawyer's secret opinion.

Pardon my analysis but this seems to make a mockery of the law as any action can be justified by saying our attorney said it was OK but we refuse to show the public that opinion because we don't want to.

Is the Board of Ethics living with Alice in Wonderland where, to quote the song: "logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead, and the White Knight is talking backwards"? Evidently we now live in a county where the rule of law is whatever the Ethics Board says it is and they do not have to justify their opinion to the public they supposedly represent. This is not the rule of law it is rule by fiat. The Ethics Board has no grace and they aren't that slick. Everyone knows the word "shall" and "not" are both white rabbits and no amount of waha can turn a white rabbit black.

President Bush vetoes CIA waterboarding ban

ACLU describes President Bush's veto of CIA waterboarding ban as 'a callous disregard for human rights'

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has described President Bush's veto of CIA waterboarding ban as, among other things, "a brazen move signaling a callous disregard for human rights."
more

Claiyrvoants and precogs of Kaua`i County Government

The Garden Island newspaper provided an interesting lesson in the genesis of what becomes news and the role a citizen journalist plays. It is a simple recipe, and here it is;

1) Take a letter to the editor like this one I wrote;

Ed Coll to letters,

Mar 3

from Ed Coll to letters@kauaipubco.com, Adam Harju , bcc hsps@hawaiiantel.net, date Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:07 AM subject Where is the need? Show me the money! mailed-by gmail.com

hide details Mar 3 (4 days ago)

Reply

I was surprised to see a notice for professional services from the County of Kauai to pay outside legal council $30,000 to $50,000 to provide research and advice to the County of Kauai Charter Review Commission (TGI, Friday, February 29, 2008, D6).

I was surprised because to my knowledge the Charter Revie Commission
(CRC) does not have a budget, and did not request a legal consultant. Where and how did the perceived need for outside legal council arise if not requested by the CRC?

It appears the County of Kauai is spending an awful lot of taxpayer money on outside legal council even if such legal council is not requested. Why? Whose budget is funding such unrequested services?

2) Use the letter as a tip for a feature story like this one;

County readies for possible charter change

The letter I wrote was not published but the article did include this brief but not totally accurate summary of my letter;

"Still, some residents, such as Ed Coll, of Puhi, question the use of taxpayer money on outside counsel."

"He said that the county seems to be spending 'an awful lot' on a service that was not requested."

I did make that statement but the main question I asked in the letter was left begging for an answers.

How is the process by which something that is not requested funded and received? The obvious answer is back room communications between parties involved that are occurring outside official (and public) channels;

'"This is a proactive effort on my part,' Office of Boards and Commissions Administrator John Isobe said yesterday"

"Charter Review Commission Chair Jonathan Chun said he, for one, would welcome the help."

Pardon my analysis but unless Sonobe is precognitive and Chun is clairvoyant things are being funded and moving forward in most mysterious ways unknown to the taxpayers footing the bill for services that may or may not be needed.

Stay tuned for hidden agendas and special interests ahead.