• No more County Council delays on transparency • The coming drama • Wonderful windmills No more County Council delays on transparency The long awaited discussion about open government on the County Council seemed like it was finally going to
• No more County Council delays on transparency
• The coming drama
• Wonderful windmills
No more County Council delays on transparency
The long awaited discussion about open government on the County Council seemed like it was finally going to happen at the July 22 council meeting.
I submitted testimony to the council on the request by Council members Lani Kawahara and Tim Bynum seeking a vote on a resolution for a council rules clarification. They seek to ensure that all of the people we elect can place items on the agenda for consideration in an open public forum.
This would seem to be a basic assumption of any democratic process and many are surprised that it would even be a question. Yet their efforts have been resisted and so far they have maneuvered just a “discussion” of the issue and not a vote on their proposals.
On the other hand it seems that Council members Dickie Chang and Jay Furfaro have no difficulty placing their proposed resolution for a Special Advisory Committee on the agenda for a vote. This leaves many questions.
Why is there a need for a Special Advisory Committee? Can’t the council take care of its own business? Why are some members of the council resisting an open public discussion of these issues including the consideration of proposals for rule changes? Who selected the members of the Special Advisory Committee and what criteria were there for their selection? Will any meetings of the proposed Special Advisory Committee be sunshined and open to the public? Will public testimony be allowed? Will Council members Kawahara and Bynum’s proposals ever be placed on the agenda or will we have to wait for the report from a handpicked Special Advisory Committee?
In Kaua‘i government we have seen this before. The public turns its attention to an issue and government delays, defers or creates a study by a “Special Committee” then public attention fades and the issues are never resolved.
Again, what is it that Council members Kawahara and Bynum are asking for that is so radical? They are seeking to: 1.) Allow all council members to place items on the council agenda for consideration; 2.) Make key public documents readily available to the public on the county’s Web site; 3.) Circulate Council Services documents equitably to all council members in a timely manner.
Do we really need a Special Committee to address these ideas? Haven’t we waited long enough? This seems to be a fairly straightforward matter. Are council members going to stand up for real democracy or not?
David Thorp, Kalaheo
The coming drama
The County Council’s agenda item C2009-251, a transmittal for consideration from members Chang and Furfaro of Resolution No. 2009-48 to establish a non-council, three-member special advisory committee to review and recommend amendments to the entire rules of council is aptly described by reporter Michael Levine’s “Promise kept” article in The Garden Island on July 18.
Reminiscent of the recent Charter Review Commission dullard’s scheme to “committee” the county manager problem, Chang and Furfaro go one step further crafting a proposal to exile council discussion for 90 days, or essentially 10 council meetings to a hand-picked group of political insiders lamely billed by Chang as “Ain’t no old boys’ network.” At least in the half-hearted and dysfunctional CRC the two official committee members are commissioners. Why? Because that’s the job.
Remember also, the now centrally controversial little old council rule 10(c) required Chair Asing to initial C2009-251 to appear on this agenda. Logically (and legally) the chairman approves of at least the agenda item’s appearance and specific placement, a high contrast to the remarkable difficulty of his placement of its counterpart, Bynum and Kawahara’s C2009-259 (in part months or longer in the making which in turn provided the impetus for kauaiinfo.org).
Significant and predictable in this coming drama will be Councilmen Daryl Kaneshiro and Derek Kawakami who by no coincidence flank the chairman at the big council table. In short, no surprise as K3D collects Jay in their latest foray, an undeniable five-man charade of good governance.
Tim and Lani’s daunting task against newly “improved” and menacing KJ and the 3D’s is envied by no one who’s experienced the losing end of Robert’s Rules of Order vote.
But, if you thought that trick was crafty, understated C2009-260 from the county attorney might peak curiosities if one clues to what it’s about: “… consider the evaluation of officers and/or employees where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved and associated matters.”
OIP frowns on this kind of vague and opaque language on agendas for obvious reasons and because it does not serve well the legal intent of the Sunshine Law, essentially giving the public the best practical, widest scope into what the agenda item refers. Phrases like, “and associated matters” are particularly a no-no for their lack of transparency.
But then again, it is the county attorney, expert in attorney-client privilege and wordsmith extraordinaire. Besides, how’s a sporting CA supposed to devour his opponents if they can see counsel coming by way of a proper agenda posting?
Rolf Bieber, Kapa‘a
Wonderful windmills
We are lucky enough to live on a rim lot that overlooks the Keapana Valley in Kapa‘a.
In the spectacular view are two fabulous windmills. It is absolutely fantastic!
Helena and Patrick Cooney, Kapa‘a
