LIHU‘E — Questions about Mel Rapozo’s working relationship with former County Council colleague and current Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho were largely dismissed as the Kaua‘i Board of Ethics on Thursday gave him a pass to continue his employment and renew
LIHU‘E — Questions about Mel Rapozo’s working relationship with former County Council colleague and current Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho were largely dismissed as the Kaua‘i Board of Ethics on Thursday gave him a pass to continue his employment and renew his contract with her department.
Both Rapozo and Iseri-Carvalho appeared at the board’s monthly meeting to quell concerns about a potential conflict of interest. Rapozo’s company, M&P Legal Support Services, has had a county contract to serve legal documents for years, including during his stint on the council, he said.
A new 89-day personal contract that has Rapozo under Iseri-Carvalho as a special investigator put into effect after the pair left the council late last year seemed to confuse matters.
Iseri-Carvalho told the board that Rapozo, in his new position, has no control over the distribution of cases to M&P or other employees, noting that cases are in fact distributed automatically under an objective policy that gives all cases with more than a four-day window to M&P and all “expedited” deliveries to a different county employee.
Rapozo acknowledged in an interview in the Mo‘ikeha Building courtyard after he received his clearance that his role as a special investigator involves the analysis of some 4,000 “cold cases,” some of which could be dismissed and re-filed, with fresh subpoenas to be delivered by M&P under the objective criteria Iseri-Carvalho outlined.
However, Rapozo said such a scenario in which he essentially assigns himself additional work is unlikely, and he earlier told the board that the long-running M&P contract earns him between $400 and $500 each month, and losing it “would be no skin off Mel Rapozo’s back.”
Asked in the interview if Iseri-Carvalho’s budget proposal to council, which seeks to create two new presumably full-time positions — a special investigator and a legal clerk — would cut into one or both of his two contracts with her office, Rapozo said he was unconcerned about that possibility. He said he was uninterested in becoming a full-time process server in her office and that he has different plans for the future.
“We’re gearing up for another run at the council,” Rapozo said.
The County Council’s review of Iseri-Carvalho’s budget proposal last week included discussion of her decision to let go two victim witness advocates and transfer the grant money that had paid their salaries to nonprofit agencies, including YWCA. Board of Ethics Chair Leila Fuller serves as YWCA’s director of fund development and contract manager.
After discussion, the board determined that extending Rapozo’s contract with the county constituted an extension of the valid competitive bid process the prosecutor’s office, under Craig De Costa’s leadership, had conducted when he was first brought on, and voted unanimously that there was no conflict of interest.
Also discussed at the Thursday meeting were a pair of “sunshine” issues pertaining to a pair of scheduled executive session items.
A consultation with County Attorney Al Castillo “regarding the process for releasing county attorney opinions” to the public was deferred from executive session Thursday to open session.
“I am in favor of transparency,” said board member Mark Hubbard. “Anything the county attorney tells me, I’d like to hear in open session. If she (the deputy county attorney) doesn’t want to tell me in open session, then I don’t want to hear it.”
Because Castillo was not in attendance Thursday and because he was not yet prepared to speak on the issue, the board deferred the item to a future open session. The board of ethics’ change in policy could set a precedent, as various boards and commissions, plus the County Council, have in the past raised the issue of how and when to release county attorney opinions to the public.
Also discussed was the board’s policy of reviewing disclosure statements — there were more than 20 Thursday — in executive session rather than in open session. Various board members argued that confidential information such as phone number, address, and sensitive financial information should be redacted by staff before the finished reports are available to the public, while members of the public asked that the review process be made as transparent as possible.
For more information on the Board of Ethics and its agendas and minutes, visit the County of Kaua‘i Web site at www.kauai.gov
