• Rule of the people • Political maneuvers Rule of the people When elected officials abandon the realm of honoring the vote of the people, they’ve wandered into pastures of personal agendas and special interest. Democracy and “government of the
• Rule of the people
• Political maneuvers
Rule of the people
When elected officials abandon the realm of honoring the vote of the people, they’ve wandered into pastures of personal agendas and special interest. Democracy and “government of the people, by the people and for the people” dies as oligarchy and rule of the few flourishes.
In 2004, the Rule of Law as outlined in our federal and state constitution and in our Kaua‘i Charter was dishonored, ignored by elected politicians as directed by similar special interests. Adhering to our legally recognized process of “petition,” a citizens group called Ohana Kaua‘i followed every letter of the law in placing a charter amendment upon the 2004 general election ballot for property tax relief. This charter amendment was overwhelmingly approved by a plebiscite “of the people,” 13,000 ayes to 8,000 nays. Immediately after the election, Kaua‘i’s elected officials turned their backs on the voters and chose “not to honor” the vote of the people. Kaua‘i’s mayor and county council, “elected poor losers,” extracted the voter’s victory from the jawbone of the Kaua‘i charter amendment and threw it into the courts, to die a suffocating death of words and interpretations.
Kaua‘i’s politicians challenged the legality of the very amendment they approved and allowed to be placed on the ballot. After a year’s labor of meetings, consultation, reviewing, advising, compromises, approval, acceptance, directing and actually placing the amendment on the ballot by the county, Kaua‘i’s mayor and county council suddenly did an “about face” and claimed it as being illegal only after a landslide victory.
In 1893, the Rule of Law in the Hawaiian Kingdom was dishonored by special interests. Hawaiians have lived 113 years with deep feelings of betrayal (and) being cheated, taken advantage of, disrespected, ignored, overlooked and trampled upon. Kaua‘i residents have experienced but two years of such treatment from politicians they elected to office and we do not like it. This election, let’s take back our government by voting in new blood, new life into an aging, decaying body.
In two years from now will this small message still echo the same conditions Hawaiians have experienced these past 113 years? Or will voters take back their “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” this 2006 election? Register and vote.
Political maneuvers
On his June 9 radio program councilmember Jay Furfaro and guest councilmember Melvin Rapozo spent considerable time talking about aspects of the process leading to Chief Lum’s decision to retire.
At one point they endorsed again the falsehood that lies at the heart of the process, i.e. the claim that in his report to the Board of Ethics, arising from Mike Ching’s contested case hearing, Judge McConnell authorized the finance director to cancel Chief Lum’s employment contract.
Here are the pertinent facts, easily verifiable from the record.
Judge McConnell made only one recommendation to the ethics board: that the matter be referred to the council for appropriate action. “The matter” in this case is the judge’s upholding of two of the three ethics complaints against Ching and his refusal to uphold the key third complaint that Ching violated the ethics code by failing to conduct a fair and impartial selection process.
The judge was not asked to adjudicate, nor did he adjudicate or make a recommendation regarding Lum’s employment contract.
Instead of simply following the judge’s recommendation to refer the matter to Council for appropriate action, the ethics board, presumably acting on advice from the county attorney and a Honolulu law firm, formulated three punitive recommendations. Two of the recommendations were directed against Ching — to impeach him and fine him $2,000.
However, the board gave top priority to its recommendation that the finance director cancel Chief Lum’s employment contract. To suggest that the finance director has the authority to fire the police chief is an absurd fiction that flies in the face of both the charter and state law. To claim that Judge McConnell authorized the recommendation is at best a deception born of incompetence and at worst a lie.
Judge McConnell’s report to the board consisted of a five-page summary, to which was attached a 25-page “findings of fact and conclusions of law.” The five-page summary makes clear what is not clear in the 25-page document; i.e. that the judge refused to uphold the charge that Ching violated the ethics code by failing to conduct a fair and impartial selection process. By a selective and manipulative use of Judge McConnell’s report, the ethics board created the illusion that the punitive action against Lum came straight from Judge McConnell.
Along with its punitive recommendations, the board forwarded the 25 pages to the council minus the five-page summary to which the 25 pages formed an attachment. The council, apparently without knowledge of the key clarification contained in the five-page summary, endorsed the board’s recommendations.
The council did not question a member of the board, did not verify publicly that the charter authorizes the board to make such recommendations, and made no independent inquiry as to what actions might be appropriate in relation to Ching’s contested case hearing, which they would have been required to do if the ethics board had followed Judge McConnell’s advice simply to forward his full report to the council for appropriate action.
The mayor, in his politically astute style, has distanced himself from this process. He asked the Police Commission to remove Lum because he was not doing his job — a thoroughly defensible stance under the charter — and has made clear that his recommendation to remove Lum is in no way related to the process that was actually used to get rid of Lum.
In addition, he has challenged the process at another point by saying that he could work with Deputy Chief Venneman while the commission seeks a chief, whereas the council is on record for removing Venneman as Deputy Chief. Regardless of the outcome regarding Venneman’s future, the mayor is once again in the clear politically.
In my opinion, the council would profit by spending less time defending the indefensible and more time figuring out how the mayor regularly out-maneuvers them.
