• Vote liberty over tyranny • Get to work Vote liberty over tyranny Not understanding your ballot propositions can lead to blindness. Voters in 2008 passed a charter amendment to “conform the Kaua‘i County Charter to the Hawai‘i State Sunshine
• Vote liberty over tyranny • Get to
work
Vote liberty over tyranny
Not understanding your ballot propositions can lead to blindness.
Voters in 2008 passed a charter amendment to “conform the Kaua‘i County Charter to the Hawai‘i State Sunshine Law” by a nearly four-to-one margin for what was sold through county voter education by members of the Charter Review Commission to us as more open government.
Government watchdogs who studied state law, Kaua‘i County Charter, codes, rules and local government meetings exposed Hawai‘i State Law HRS 92-71 allowing Kaua‘i and other counties to further restrict secrecy — a higher standard for open public meetings than the state’s “Sunshine Law.”
Furthermore, these watchful folks exposed that the charter, more specifically Sect. 3.07(E) in conjunction with Sect. 23.06, allowed only one reason to go into executive session as opposed to eight given in the Sunshine Law.
Crafters of the charter authored an open council far beyond our current state standard in that it may only go into executive session with its county attorney to discuss “claims filed with the County Clerk” as stated in Sect. 23.06. No other reasons outside personal privacy granted by federal or state law could otherwise guarantee further privilege.
Contemporary councils ignored charter law each time it entered executive session outside its own home rule restrictions. The 2006 – 2008 membership argued fervently on record claiming “a higher law” — Hawai‘i’s Sunshine Law. A fallacy, the charter held more stringency than the state — exposing the Sunshine Law as a lower standard.
Council requested help when they approached the Charter Review Commission with a ballot proposal for 2008. The council’s action intrigued many who followed this issue. Many heard the council proclaim no foul, no problem, so why the request to change the charter?
Council and County Attorney understood what hung in the balance, now they needed cover.
When the Charter Review Commission finally wrestled with an amendment proscribed by Council, the public in chambers stated their case: as written but ignored to date Council has only one reason to enter executive session — and that’s for claims filed against the county recorded with the County Clerk. Ballot language must be clear on this point. If it’s not the voter shall be misled.
Exactly what was intended happened.
Voters read the 2008 ballot proposal question, interpreted it to understand that changing charter section 3.07 (E) to conform to the Sunshine Law was to make meetings more open and difficult for Council to hide business behind closed doors. Nothing was made in voter education of the fact that our laws were already more strict therefore meeting requirements more open.
Voters were asked the wrong question entirely. Unsuspectingly, voters did not realize that “Kaua‘i sunshine” was already stronger than Hawai‘i Sunshine Law, but the electorate was fooled into voting the way the government insiders desired. Victory ensued for Council, the County Attorney, the Administration and anyone who enjoyed their dealings in secret — a defeat for everyone else, particularly those who cherish more transparent government.
The 2008 government-sunshine scam was a lesson in hard-ball politics.
Before I cast my votes on the 2010 ballot proposals I’ll beware the “voter education,” ask more questions, do the research and scrutinize the pros and cons. If I don’t, I may be voting myself another slice of blind-sided tyranny instead of liberty.
Rolf Bieber, Kapa‘a
Get to work
Isn’t it time to do an “overhaul” of the nuts and bolts in the way our governmental engines operate?
When a car breaks down, a mechanic is required to “tune-up,” replace or render a part obsolete. Shouldn’t we be doing likewise when it comes down to government efficiency?
Time and again, we have seen how the state and county parts are “mix-matched” because one entity does not fit in with the other, and so, the wrangling begins, or worse yet, the officials sort of stand around and stare at what’s wrong, and kind of hope that the problem will go away on its own. How effective or efficient is that?
The technology exists to gather data from near and far or to analyze and compare methodology in seeking out what’s wrong and/or what options may be available to consider in seeking solutions.
Yet, we often see the patterns of “clinging to the way it’s always been done” or hear the excuse “we can’t afford to make the required changes.”
It’s time for new, bold and innovative approaches in establishing government efficiency. If that requires belt-tightening, some sacrifice, and the willingness to be responsible to pay for what we want, then it’s time for us to stop complaining about party labels and power plays. It’s time to expect those who are running for office to set their agendas about what they hope to accomplish.
If elected, those in office had better get to work on completing their agendas.
Jose Bulatao Jr., Kekaha
