• Voters have spoken • Bad Taste • Catch-22 maneuvering • Try correcting the situation Voters have spoken Credit to The Garden Island’s Curtis and Levine for fair, accurate and effective reporting of recent controversies regarding the county Board of
• Voters have spoken
• Bad Taste
• Catch-22 maneuvering
• Try correcting the situation
Voters have spoken
Credit to The Garden Island’s Curtis and Levine for fair, accurate and effective reporting of recent controversies regarding the county Board of Ethics. Editor Eagle gets it right, prominently featuring stories allowing more public view into local government operation.
In Sunday’s article, (“Board members cleared of alleged charter violations,” The Garden Island, June 7), a piece of misinformation must be addressed as readers are told by Mr. Hubbard — “Nobody could be a member of a board or commission if the charter is read as narrowly as Bieber apparently is interpreting it.”
His statement, blatantly false, lacks merit and is simply illogical.
Clearly, dozens of board and commission members including myself operate effectively throughout the county week after week without violating 20.02D by “appearing on behalf of private interest before other boards and commissions.”
The fact is, only a very select few of these officers choose willingly to flout this law that survives unchanged by ballot proposal only last November.
Voters have spoken. Inconvenient say some.
Furthermore, there is no interpretation of 20.02D, as Hubbard suggests, a law with plain meaning.
Yet, now the question begs: How can mere inconvenience and wishful thinking — not statutory law, permeate County Attorney opinion and Board decisions, trump Hawai‘i State Constitution Article 8 Section 2 while ignoring County Code 3-1.7’s silence on Charter section 20.02 and deny Board of Ethics own guide book (page six)?
Rolf Bieber, Kapa‘a
Bad Taste
I attended the 2009 Taste of Hawai“i. The food and entertainment were wonderful — at least the food that I tasted was.
The problem was that by 2 p.m. half the vendors were packing up because they were out of food. When I pay $75 for a ticket to “Taste Hawai‘i” I expect to do just that.
The entire left side (the side with Roy’s) was packing it in by the time I made it over to that side. Since I don’t drink alcohol, I didn’t expect to “get my money’s worth” but I was expecting to at least sample from any food vendors that were there.
Sadly, it is not an event I will waste my hard-earned money on again.
Patricia Huff, Princeville
Catch-22 maneuvering
The two letters to the Forum on June 5 by Elli Ward, “A Challenge to the 3 Ds,” and Judie Lundborg’s “Time to Talk” show clear evidence that our citizens are getting outraged by the secretive practices of our government.
Michael Levine’s story “Following the rules” (The Garden Island, June 4) revealed the autocratic nature of the power exercised by Council Chair Asing in setting council agendas. At present, what is on those agendas is determined by Asing in his absolute discretion.
When Councilman Bynum sought to offer an amendment that would prevent exclusion of a member-proposed agenda item indefinitely his efforts were blocked in a Catch- 22 maneuver.
The state Sunshine law requires that agendas be posted for six days before a meeting if the item is of “reasonably major importance”. When our county attorney found the Bynum proposal to be of reasonably major importance, Bynum was caught in a never-neverland.
If he could not get his proposal on the agenda it could never have the six days required notice to consider.
It is devastating that our council rules provide such dictatorial powers to the chair. And it is of comparable concern that a limited proposal that would prohibit a council member proposal from being blocked indefinitely by the chair would be considered of “reasonably major importance.”
Don’t we believe in democracy anymore?
Glenn Mickens, Kapa‘a
Try correcting the situation
Councilman Tim Bynum writes in his Guest Viewpoint (“Sunshine on Kaua‘i?,” Forum, June 7) “that decisions are made by majority vote…”
I’m sure we all agree that “majority rules” is an acceptable basic tenet of group dynamics and certainly applicable to the Kaua‘i County Council.
A councilperson who wants to bring a serious matter to the attention of the council for serious consideration and action has a vehicle available to him/her. This is called a “motion” which, if duly “seconded,” is discussed and voted upon. A motion lacking a second is denied discussion or dies for want of a majority vote.
Parliamentary rules are available also to prevent or shorten discussion which involve matters not of substance or material to the issue and which so often, on televised sessions of the council, becomes political in nature.
I suggest that the Guest Viewpoint authors sponsor motions on the council floor of the next council meeting that will appropriately correct the situation they complain about. Will rule changes involve constitutional, charter, legal considerations? Or simple majority vote?
If they succeed in their motions, it is true that Kaipo is a “dictator.” If not…?
Alfred Laureta, Lihu‘e
