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

Gone at the speed of lawmaking

Hawaii government's recent renewed attack on the homeless, which include limiting the times parks are open and passing laws against sleeping at bus-stops, demonstrates how quickly governments can act against the the disenfranchised.

On the other hand, laws against selling products whose proper usage kill people, such as tobacco, are weak and take decades to pass.

Meanwhile, state-originated non-profit public access television service providers that violate State procurement laws are exempted from compliance with those laws.

Citizens recently observed as with the Superferry process, if exemptions are not possible within the current legal framework, laws are quickly changed.

In summary, it is easier to pass laws that victimize the victims than it is to pass laws against the victimizers. As Hawaiian sovereignty activist Dr. Kekuni Blaisdall once remarked, "Someone's a victim, blame them."

Kauai Council members promote self-serving scam?

Andy Parx may have uncovered a nationally franchised self-promotion scam (See: another-round-of-imaginary-kibble) to help local politicians be viewed more favorably by voters. It appears no money is involved beyond the waste of time on the part of the perps and their dupes (i.e. the politicians involved and the citizen marks that fall for the time-wasting scam). If the facts check out it appears to be a very sophisticated scam cooked up by the trade group for local politicians NACO , or the National Association of Counties and franchised around the country by NACO members. No one really gets hurt and it's a great way for councilmembers to boost their positive image in the community.

I'm Voting Republican

Barack reality check: Who are you calling a dictator Obama?

In a speech Barack Obama gave in Flint, MI, called "Renewing American Competitiveness" on Jun 16th, 2008 he said;

Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut, and the bombast of dictators from Caracas to Tehran.

Clearly Barack Obama agreeing with President Bush is calling President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela a dictator. Historical facts indicate otherwise. Chávez won the 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56% of the votes (the largest margin in 40 years). In 2000 Chávez was reelected by 59.76% of the popular votes. Chávez survived a failed coup attempt in 2002 that tried to install the Chamber of Commerce president Pedro Carmona and in 2006 Chávez again won the OAS and Carter Center certification of the national election on December 3, 2006 with 63 percent of the popular vote.

Compare this to the United States 2004 election of George H.W. Bush by only 50.73% percent of the popular vote in a highly controversial election. The only international organization allowed to monitor the election, The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) Election Observation Mission Final Report said this;

In keeping with its OSCE commitments, the United States invited the OSCE/ODIHR to observe these elections. OSCE observers were granted access to polling stations in a number of states, although sometimes only in specific counties. However, in other states, access was not possible or was limited. This was a result of state law, either because international observers were not included in the statutory categories of persons permitted to be in polling places, or because the lack of reference to international observers in state law was deemed to constitute an obstacle to their presence in polling places. Lack of observer access to the election process, both international and domestic, including at polling station level, is contrary to OSCE commitments, and limited the possibility of the OSCE EOM to comment more fully on the election process.

Instead of pandering to popular ignorance of world affairs and U.S. propaganda by the current administration perhaps Barack Obama should look a bit closer to home if he wants to call someone a dictator.