•Much ado about nothing •What a shame Much ado about nothing By way of full disclosure, I served as a planning commissioner from 1989-1992, as county attorney from 1994-2002, and am privileged to again serve as a planning commissioner. Enough
•Much ado about nothing
•What a shame
Much ado about nothing
By way of full disclosure, I served as a planning commissioner from 1989-1992, as county attorney from 1994-2002, and am privileged to again serve as a planning commissioner.
Enough already with the constant, strident diatribe advanced by a select few regarding the manner whereby the current county attorney discharges his duties.
These individuals have stated their disagreement with certain of the office’s opinions and repeatedly taken the office to task in this newspaper. Since the office has neither adopted their interpretations nor substituted their opinions, they continue to monopolize the editorial pages with carping sarcasm and “insinuendo.”
The Office of the County Attorney represents the County of Kaua‘i, i.e., the government, as it relates to all of its citizens. The office advises the mayor, members of the Kaua‘i County Council, department heads, employees, and appointees, in their official capacities. It does not represent officials in their non-official, individual capacities, nor does it represent individual citizens whose interests may conflict with government action or policy.
Much has been written about transparency in government. This does not mean that everything discussed, considered, or proposed, should be immediately disclosed to the public. Oftentimes, an individual citizen who has a claim against the county or disagrees with the county is motivated by his personal interest and not by the public’s welfare. Premature disclosure would violate the attorney/client relationship between the attorney and the county. It would serve neither the government nor the governed.
The disagreement over Sections 20.02 and 3-17.5 is much ado about nothing. The basic principle of statutory interpretation directs that separate provisions of the law, in apparent disagreement, be interpreted so as to give effect to both provisions. Again, if persons feel this is untenable, they may appear before the council, the legislative body that can assess the merits of their complaints. They can then petition the council to repeal the offending provision, amend the law, or pass a new law.
County attorneys, past and present, have been called upon to advise county representatives to follow the advice of legal counsel. The underlying principle is basic. If a county representative is sued, the council must decide whether he was acting in an official capacity and whether his action justifies paying for his legal defense.
If the official or employee ignored the advice of counsel while acting in an official capacity, the county must still be defended. The county, however, is not bound to defend that person. This is fair. Public funds should not be spent defending someone who disregarded the advice of counsel and thereby exposed the county to liability.
The Office of the County Attorney has been criticized because it does not handle all litigation with its present staff. The primary function of the office, as presently structured and funded, is to advise the various county departments. Although the office does handle some litigation with the resources at hand, it is not a “litigation firm.” It has neither the litigation support personnel nor other necessary litigation resources to dedicate a team within the office solely to the courtroom.
The county has consistently deemed it a better utilization of resources to secure outside litigators to defend against claims that are complex, substantial, and protracted. It is childish and mean-spirited to criticize the quality and ability of the individual county attorneys because of this practice.
It is also foolhardy to expect a lawyer who is a generalist to advise one or more county departments on an everyday basis and simultaneously handle complex, substantial, protracted litigation. The situation is akin to expecting a “family practitioner” to attend to the patients who visit his office every day while simultaneously undertaking brain surgery, heart transplants, and reattachment of severed limbs.
I am confident in the manner by which the Office of the County Attorney arrives at the legal advice it dispenses. I appreciate its energy, the quality of advice, and the guidance that has been afforded to the county.
There are pro-active alternatives available to those who disagree.
Hartwell H.K. Blake, Koloa
What a shame
Isn’t it a shame that the Chamber of Commerce always seems to come down in favor of pollution? (“Chamber opposes plastic bag ban,” The Garden Island, Sept. 10)
Somehow, it is seen as “good for business.” Of course, when a business can dump their waste without having to pay for the consequences, perhaps pollution is good for business?
Someone tell Randy Francisco and the chamber that the island’s economy runs on a beautiful, clean environment. Instead of opposing the ban on plastic bags, the chamber should be encouraging their members to use reusable canvas bags.
Gordon LaBedz, Kekaha
