• ‘A travesty of democracy’ •Welcome to the magic show ‘A travesty of democracy’ I was saddened and dismayed and then appalled to read the editorials written by Kaua‘i County Council members Bynum and Kawahara (“Government transparency at Kaua‘i County
• ‘A travesty of democracy’
•Welcome to the magic show
‘A travesty of democracy’
I was saddened and dismayed and then appalled to read the editorials written by Kaua‘i County Council members Bynum and Kawahara (“Government transparency at Kaua‘i County Council,” Forum, June 7).
This is clearly a sad day for government in Kaua‘i and for the rights of the public the council is supposed to serve.
All council members should have equal access to all information available; as soon as it is obtained by the county clerk. As a citizen of this county I should be able to address any council member and they should all have available the same information.
I, as a citizen of this county, should also have at my disposal convenient and easy access to information that the council is considering, discussing and taking action upon. With today’s technology this access should be available prior, during and immediately after council meetings.
If I, as a citizen, talk to any one council member I should be assured that he or she can bring my concerns, translated into a bill/ordinance, to the council for due deliberation. I should not be forced to only bring issues to the chair for being placed on the agenda.
My concerns should be able to be communicated to the council by any member. It is a travesty of democracy to allow any other system to exist. According to the editorials by Bynum and Kawahara, it would appear that the chair has made himself a king/dictator of my rights as a citizen. This cannot be allowed to continue and I would hope all council members will immediately appeal the rules and the chair’s stance and bring this issue to public discussion, debate and action.
There should be no excuse for not having this as a public agenda item at the next council meeting.
I would wish that what Bynum and Kawahara have stated was totally untrue, but unfortunately I do know that many things they claim are true.
As a resident of this county I know it is extremely difficult to obtain copies of proposed bills, amended bills and, even worse, bills that have been passed by the council.
In this age of information technology, there is absolutely no reason that redlined copies of bills are not available immediately when passed by council, even before the mayor signs them. It is outrageous that citizens are kept in the dark about laws that the council passes or rejects. Why do we as county residents have to pay to get a copy of an ordinance when electronic access should be readily available to all of us?
I would strongly urge all council members to bring all the issues discussed by Bynum and Kawahara to your agenda as soon as possible. I would also urge you to follow the administrative branch of government and truly follow the Sunshine Law and make access to the public much more available in real-time.
I commend the mayor for his initiative “to bring government into the living room” (see kauai.gov, posted June 5). It is wonderful to see the openness of the administrative branch underway.
I would hope the council can follow suit and perhaps equal or even better the administrative branch in openness and evenhandedness of information.
Neil Clendeninn, Hanalei
Welcome to the magic show
Welcome to the Kaua’i County magic show. Watch carefully as the Board of Ethics and the county attorney’s office make Charter Section 20.02D disappear from the Code of Ethics even though the section stands unchanged in the charter after the voters rejected a charter amendment last fall that would have exempted board and commission members from having to comply with its prohibition against appearing in behalf of private interests before any county agency (“Board members cleared of alleged charter violations,” The Garden Island, June 7).
The magical process, later refined by the board and the county attorney, was first spelled out in the legal opinion used by the board in March 2008 to justify giving attorney and Charter Commissioner Jonathan Chun permission to continue representing clients before county agencies. A rerun of the process is underway in connection with three ethics complaints filed by Rolf Bieber in May.
The process begins with a claim that the charter can be amended by ordinance based on a statement to that effect by a deputy county attorney in 1976. Next comes an assertion, contrary to the evidence in the charter and the county code, that 20.02D must be interpreted and applied within the narrow limits set by County Code Section 3-1.7. Finally, while carefully avoiding any discussion of the plain meaning of 20.02D or the unequivocal language in the five other subsections in 20.02, comes the announcement, without supporting evidence, that attributing independent meaning to 20.02D creates absurdities and a chilling effect with respect to volunteers.
This magical process offers unlimited potential for avoiding the costly and cumbersome process of amending the charter by vote of the electorate. It is simpler, faster, and less expensive for the council to pass an ordinance “clarifying” any section of the charter that it deems inconvenient or burdensome.
Horace Stoessel, Kapa’a
