KPD Blue: Truth puts on its shoes

I have read Tony's book and while his framing of events in racist terms, in my opinion misses the mark, and there are some minor factual errors it is on the whole more accurate than say typical reporting in most dailies. The real issue is insular corruption by the power structure. Many insular communities, like the rural southern community I grew up in, can and do display this level of corruption, and the power structures racial makeup is entirely different (which is to say white). The race of the power structure is historical artifact, and not the driver of corruption.

As to why Tony wrote it -- that should be self evident. Tony was ridden out of town on a rail for basically doing his job. As a consequence of a reporter becoming (an unwilling) part of the story, charges of "vendetta" can dismiss the truth of the tale being told. Corruption is still in full bloom today, but largely dismissed as understandable as evidenced by this quote from Joan Conrow's blog "...not because the cops were necessarily crooked or bad, but hesitant to bust anyone who was a relative or a friend." Excuse me! Isn't that the definition of corruption: differential treatment under the law based upon affiliation?

Tony had to rely primarily on Court records, because of County of Kauai secrecy that is still a HUGE problem as we speak, and many individual bad actors then, are in positions of power NOW. These problems are still with us manifesting themselves in a variety of ways and will not begin to be addressed by putting these events in the past tense creating the illusion that it is old news and filing it under again quoting Joan's blog, "dredging up the stinky muck one more time for those who perhaps never knew the details or, like me, prefer to have forgotten."

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" while perhaps a trite shopworn phrase is still salient in the lives of Kauai citizens. There are years of executive session minutes still not released by the COK who is frightening tooth and nail to keep it that way. Both the Board of Ethics and Police Commission remain dysfunctional (and that's putting it kindly). KOC has and continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring outside attorneys to lose cases defending bad county actors.

Last election the COK council displayed an unbelievable abuse of political power by manufacturing a "tampering with a government document" conspiracy to attack a political opponent running for County Council (former police chief K.C. Lum) using what everyone knew was a sheet-feed error. Lum's house was raided right before the election. Think that played an role in his loss? Duh! After a six month investigation -- guess what? It was a sheet feed error. When the council hatched the conspiracy theory they demanded an apology from "members of the community that were trying to make the county look bad," but not a word of apology from the council members that concocted their lunatic conspiracy for their self-serving political gain. Talk about vendetta!

COK is more secretive today than ever and relies on Mark Twain's astute observation, "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." KPD Blue put shoes on the truth which now must fight for relevancy amid the propaganda spin of "why dredge up ancient history", "lets put it behind us" and, "its much better now." Such propaganda is blowing smoke to obscure the ongoing corruption occurring in real-time before our very eyes.

Green Jobs: Selling Chopsticks to the Chinese

Selling Koa chopsticks to the Chinese was an example of the green jobs advocated by candidate for Kauai County mayor Joanne Yukimura. As a visual aid she displayed a set of Koa chopsticks she said she purchased 20 yeas ago and took with her everywhere so she didn't have to use the petroleum based plastic spoons, and forks which are environmental unfriendly and become non-decomposable landfill fodder.

Is it this sort of thinking the will provide Kauai the green jobs for a sustainable future? While I applaud Joanne's chopstick toting sensitivity and her taking individual action to reduce the waste stream, is selling Koa chopsticks to Chinese consumers a viable plan or indicate a fundamental flaw in logic?

Koa is a beautiful slow growing prized wood while bamboo is a fast growing grass traditionally used to make chopsticks. As chopsticks either would serve equally well in terms of functionality and durability if properly cared for. Koa chopsticks are a luxury or a value added item with the value added being the status of the possessor of a pair of Koa chopsticks.

The annual income of the average Chinese citizen would no doubt limit the ability of the majority to afford Koa chopsticks limiting the sale of Koa chopsticks to the upper crust of Chinese society.

I also have a twenty year old pair of Koa chopsticks given to me as a gift by one of Kauai's master furniture makers. He made fine Koa furniture and the Koa chopsticks were made from scrap left over from the furniture making process. I value the chopsticks not for any status they may impart, but rather the beauty of the wood and the memory of the maker.

If one is looking for green jobs perhaps one should consider bamboo. From chopsticks to furniture, from charcoal to construction materials bamboo so fast growing it is termed invasive, but invasive is not a bad word if one can use all one can get. Prolific is a better descriptor. Given the price of shipping a furniture, arts, and construction industry based on bamboo could fulfill the needs of a local market right here in Kauai. Two Thousand acres of sub marginal sugarcane land planted in bamboo could provide a plant to produce 1/8", 1/2", 3/4", or 5/8" 4x8 ft epoxy laminated bamboo sheets for a homegrown construction industry.

Nothing wrong with Koa chopsticks but my hope is people will have a larger vision of green jobs for Kauai. A vision that will have more substance and solve more pressing problems facing us right here on Kauai than selling designer Koa chopsticks to Chinese consumers.

Assimilate This!

The whole problem of assimilation into the status quo is structural in nature and is imposed by the elite special interests who are supported by the legal system that enforces the structural integrity of the prevailing system which increasingly serve an ever shrinking number of super elite.

Take a square frame and pour equally sized marbles into that frame. The result will always be a pyramid. The un-assimilated marbles will be bounced out of the system. Using different marbles or different sized marbles, or a different number of marbles (well you need at least 5) or a different sized square frame will not alter the final result.

Until the shape of the frame itself is changed the result will always be the same, a pyramid.

Changing the frame is a radical (change from the root) and fundamental one, and apparently the only solution. To radically change the shape of the frame the system itself must become increasingly unstable with a lot of marbles bounced out of the system.

The increasing number of bounced marbles has created the recent resurgence of anarchism whose successes are in large part to technological innovation (internet,cell phones, etc) which allows people in different geographical locations to communicate and coordinate disruptive activities.

System instability is accelerating beyond the capacity of traditional power elites to handle, as more and more marbles are bounced out of the system. The result is fourth generation asymmetric warfare.

Welcome to Anarchism Triumphant!

Weasel Word Alert

Voters should take a closer look at the weasel worded PROPOSAL NO.2 which will appear on the ballot in the General Election this November.

In The Garden Island 9-11-2008, Kaipo Asing asserts in "Council candidates answers" that he has and will continue to abide by State Sunshine Law (Kaipo Asing, A5, Item 6, Open Government). But is he complying with our County Charter? He may "abide" which means to put up with; tolerate, but he has neither "complied" nor "conformed" with County Charter Section 3.07E.
It has become more than apparent that under his guidance as Council Chair the County Council has continuously violated County Charter ethics item 307E by going into executive session for reasons other than "consultations with the county attorney on claims". The State Office of Information Practices (OIP) has opined that 307E does not violate and is in compliance with State Sunshine law.

The council asserts it has a secret opinion from the county attorney which states that despite repeatedly going into executive session for reasons other than consultations with the county attorney on claims, the council has not violated 307E. The council claims "attorney-client privilege" but downplays their sole right as the client to waive that privilege and has stubbornly refuse to do so for the public good and a more transparent government. Now they want to change a law they are already breaking.

The ballot question PROPOSAL NO. 2: RELATING TO COUNTY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSIONS is deceptively worded. The ballot question states "Should the Kaua'i County Charter be amended to conform to state law requiring that all meetings of the County council be open to the public unless allowed to be closed under the State Sunshine law, Chapter 92, Hawai'i Revised Statutes?"

Here is the proposed deletion: [With the exception of deliberations relating to confirmation of appointees, or consultations with the county attorney on claims, all council and council committee meetings shall be open to the public.]

Pardon my analysis but what is to be deleted is the section 307e of the County Charter that the secret county attorney opinion asserts has not been violated! Why is our county attempting to change the law?

As County Charter Commission Chair Chun is fond of saying "What's the problem is this proposal is attempting to address?" The weasel word in this proposal is "conform" implying that 307e is somehow in violation of State Sunshine Law when in fact 307E is in complete "compliance" with the State Sunshine Law. The weasel is in the difference in the meaning of the words "conformance" versus "compliance". Conformance means an exact word for word match with the laws. Compliance means obeying the law and could provide even greater protections than the law itself. That is what our current charter section 307E provides: greater transparency. Our current charter in fact provides greater transparency than the State Sunshine Law, while being in complete compliance with that law.

The take home message for the voter is that this proposal implies the County of Kauai is somehow not following the state law when in fact 307E provides even greater transparency than the State Sunshine Law requires which is in complete "compliance" with State Sunshine Law.

Why is the County attempting to trick the voter into voting for less transparency in government with this weasel-worded proposal?

If more transparency in government is what you want vote NO on proposed charter amendment number 2.

MISTAKES AND COVERUPS

Whether in Washington or Lihue, the cover- up is more serious than the original mistake. What began as a mistake by the Board of Ethics that could have been corrected fairly easily has ballooned into a cover-up that implicates the board, county attorney’s office, mayor, and council and raises numerous questions.

What prompted the Board of Ethics to give two former county officials now serving on a board/commission permission to violate the plain meaning of charter section 20.02D, which prohibits officers and employees from appearing in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency, and to do so contrary to its own interpretation of 20.02D as set forth on page six of its handbook, “A Guide to Ethical Issues in the Kauai County Government”?

What prompted the board to keep secret an opinion it sought from the county attorney’s office in the second case that it purportedly used to justify its decision to dishonor its published policy? What authority could the county attorney have cited to justify ignoring or contravening 20.02D?

What prompted an attorney sitting on the Charter Commission to propose a charter amendment exempting board/commission members from the requirements of 20.02D as soon as the second case, which involved the chairman of the Charter Commission, became public? What prompted the Board of Ethics to then propose exempting everyone?

What prompted the council to turn a blind eye to the evidence I presented in support of my three requests over a period of five months for the council to exercise its oversight role by calling for a public accounting from the Board of Ethics?

In my opinion, a due regard for the Sunshine Law and for the stated purpose of the Code of Ethics to “establish a high standard of integrity and morality in government service” would lead to a full public discussion and resolution of these and other questions related to the administration and enforcement of the Code of Ethics. County officials seem to prefer secrecy and silence, perhaps hoping at this point that a charter amendment will make the questions disappear.

Horace Stoessel

Is it broke?

Is Section 3.07E of our charter broken? A proposed charter amendment to section 3.07E "would allow the council to hold executive sessions in conformance with the state Sunshine Law." (Charter amendments headed for Nov.4 ballot TGI, A5, 7-11-2008). Nathan Eagle then writes, "The council already does this, but some residents contend that the charter prohibits the council from going behind closed doors for anything except claims."

Read the charter section 3.07E - it is in black and white.

Our County Council claims they have an attorney opinion stating they are not in violation of the Charter, but they won't release it for all to see, invoking their client/attorney privilege not to inform the public. Curiously, the Commission deferred an amendment requiring county attorney opinions upon questions of law to be available in writing within two business days of issuance.

Regarding the County Manager amendment Charter Commission Chair Chun has repeats like a mantra "what problem does this amendment address?" , but apparently he is not applying the same criteria to the 3.07E amendment. Why not?

The question Chun refuses to ask is, "What problem is the 3.07E amendment addressing"? If "The council already does this" why is it being put on the ballot?

Apparently, the charter commission does not apply the same criteria to all proposed amendments but is using standardless discretion to pick and choose what they deem appropriate for the people vote on. This is called gate-keeping.

Could it be that the county council is in violation of the county charter by meeting on matters other than claims, and are changing the charter to cover up their lawless actions? Will the amendment grant retroactive immunity to council members?

T. Boone Pickens TV Commercial