The public was treated, at Oct. 11’s County Council committee meeting, to an
unusual performance that was at once baffling, confusing, intriguing and,
ultimately, amusing – so much so that the episode ended with spirited applause
by the audience.
It was not made explicit, either in the wording of the
agenda or any preliminary remarks by the Public Works Committee chairman,
Councilman Randal Valenciano, who the parties were in this apparent dispute
over the award of a glass recycling contract by the county. Fortunately, the
clouds were partially lifted by Mr. Camp, a recent arrival to our island who is
probably not steeped in the ways some of our officials conduct business, who
played the role of the little boy who said, “The emperor has no clothes
on.”
Mr. Camp wondered aloud at the witness stand why a not uncommon matter
of a disputed award of a contract (in this case one that does not involve a
significant amount of money — such as the still unexplained expenditure of a
million dollars to fence in a mountain of junk cars in Puhi) that would
normally be handled by the procurement office or the legal department (the
county attorney), should be placed before a council committee whose chairman
allowed a witness (representing the complaining company) to ramble on for more
than 20 minutes with inanities incomprehensible to all but a few in the council
chambers.
Mr. Camp’s comments were especially relevant in view of the fact
that the same chairman had just cut short (for the second time in a month)
testimony by another witness with serious questions involving millions of
dollars of the taxpayers’ money.
The spirited applause following the
testimony of Mr. Camp and myself clearly embarrassed Mr. Valenciano, who saw
fit to mount a defense of himself, joined in, curiously, by Councilman Kouchi.
At this point in our discourse, we should perhaps stop being cute and come
to the point. Before coming to the point, however, I should note that both Mr.
Kouchi and Mr. Valenciano have been assiduously correct in the past in publicly
disclosing any possible conflict of interest. For example, whenever the name
Garden Isle Disposal came up, Mr. Kouchi was quick to disclose that his father
is an employee of the company (although this is not quite complete a
disclosure, as Mr. Kouchi senior is, according to sources close to the
situation, an officer and stockholder in Garden Isle Disposal); and Mr.
Valenciano routinely discloses his possible conflict of interest whenever a
legal case comes before the council.
The point is this: The party disputing
the award of the glass recycling contract is Garden Isle Disposal. Garden Isle
Disposal is represented in this dispute (as well as the one involving the now
terminated procurement for the island’s solid waste disposal facility) by Mr.
Valenciano’s law firm. The litany of complaints by Garden Isle Disposal
testified to by deputy county engineer Ian Costa, called by Valenciano to be
the first to testify, was read from the Valenciano law firm’s
stationery.
Those members of the public who were at the committee meeting,
and others who may have seen the spectacle on Ho’ike, should be helped by the
recitation of facts in this letter to better understand the sometimes
mysterious ways our officials conduct business.
Raymond L.
Chuan
Hanalei
