• Charter hopscotching questionable • Voters wanted no party designation Charter hopscotching questionable Editor’s note: This letter discusses one resident’s queries as to the chair of the Kauai County Charter Commission Jonathan Chun’s perceived conflict of interest in his representation
• Charter hopscotching questionable
• Voters wanted no party designation
Charter hopscotching questionable
Editor’s note: This letter discusses one resident’s queries as to the chair of the Kauai County Charter Commission Jonathan Chun’s perceived conflict of interest in his representation as an attorney for private entities in business dealings with the county. Both the County Attorney and the Board of Ethics have made determinations that Chun’s roles are proper.
The chairman’s recent letter stated that “based on the Board of Ethics’ March 13 decision on Jonathan Chun’s request for an opinion, the Board will not be taking further action on your request to file impeachment charges against Mr. Chun.”
My request stipulated that it would be withdrawn if Chun resigned or was removed from the Charter Commission.
The board’s decisions leave major questions unanswered. The overarching question is why the board did not apply the plain meaning of charter section 20.02D to the plain set of facts which demonstrate that before Jonathan Chun asked for an advisory opinion he repeatedly violated the section by appearing on behalf of private interests before county agencies.
This question leads to others. For example: Why did the board create a process of secrecy and control by deferring a response to Chun, asking for an opinion from the County Attorney’s office, keeping the opinion secret, and refusing to say by what authority it allowed Chun to continue violating the plain meaning of 20.02D?
Did the board resort to secrecy and control because it was unable to refute the testimony from members of the public in support of 20.02D? I, for one, offered a carefully reasoned argument that the board did not even attempt to address.
If board members believe that the legal opinion they received justifies their decision, why are they unwilling to exercise their authority to release the opinion to the public? The opinion apparently did not convince one member who abstained from the vote allowing Chun to continue his activities.
Is the board willing to take the responsibility for effectively eliminating 20.02D from the charter? I contend that if 20.02D does not apply in a case as clear-cut as Chun’s, it will probably never apply.
Do board members understand that all six subsections of section 20.02 unconditionally prohibit certain activities, collectively erect a fire wall between private interests and the public interest, and are not limited in scope to direct conflicts of interest? The issue in Chun’s case is not that he had a conflict of interest but that he violated the plain meaning of 20.02D. His fellow attorney on the Charter Commission understands the point because he has proposed amending the charter to exempt board and commission members from the requirements of 20.02D.
Did the board decide in effect to cover Chun’s tracks in order to cover its own tracks rather than making a principled decision? In a similar case in December 2007 the board gave former county planning director Dee Crowell permission to seek permits from county agencies in behalf of his current employer. In that case the board unjustifiably ignored and bypassed 20.02D and based its decision on the “Conflicts of Interest” section in the county code. In addition, Chairman Mark Hubbard acknowledged that upholding the plain meaning of 20.02D would mean that he had violated the section in the past.
It should be noted that Crowell is in the clear because (a) the Water Board requested an opinion about his future activities while he was still a nominee and (b) section 20.05G clears him of any subsequent violations of 20.02D since he was following the advice of the board. 20.05G does not clear Chun of violations he committed before asking for an advisory opinion.
How does the board justify the motion allowing Chun to continue his activities? According to the minutes, the motion was made “relative to information in the Code of Ethics and the Charter.”
What information?
The motion reflects a lack of understanding that the Code of Ethics is in the Charter, cites no specific provisions, and conceals the fact that the board bypassed 20.02D.
I had questions like these in mind when I asked the mayor and council, who appoint board members and share the responsibility with them to enforce the Code of Ethics, to call for a public accounting from the board. No one has acknowledged receiving my request, much less that my concerns would be addressed.
To me, the silence and secrecy do not accord with the stated purpose of the Code of Ethics “to establish a high standard of integrity and morality in government service” (section 20.01). As representatives of the people charged with administering the code, what do you think and, if I may put it so, do you have the courage to discuss these questions in a public setting?
Horace Stoessel
Kapa‘a
Voters wanted no party designation
The letter in yesterday’s newspaper “Agor looking for a Democrat” obviously shows the lack of knowledge of the writer or inclination to blame political parties for all the woes of our society.
It’s amazing that so many of our citizens do not remember that Kaua‘i voters determined in 1996 that all county officials elected after that year would not be branded with a political party designation. We do not need political party bashing to split and alienate our small community — we have enough differences without adding state and national politics to the list.
If you are going to place the blame on non-partisan Mayor Bryan Baptiste for our ills you should share some of the responsibility with the non-partisan councilmembers, many of whom would be considered Democrats if we still selected candidates by political parties. Please continue to elect county officials for their individual integrity and views rather than imagining some fictitious political party ideology that controls their every thought.
Murray Hudson
Princeville