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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment