It is not the first time our local government has made us scratch our heads, and it certainly won’t be the last, but the most recent dubious decision by a group of county officials may very well make us go
It is not the first time our local government has made us scratch our heads, and it certainly won’t be the last, but the most recent dubious decision by a group of county officials may very well make us go bald.
We looked at the facts available to us. Then we looked again. And again. We still don’t get it.
The Ethics Board recently advised a Charter Review Commission member in a fashion that seems to totally contradict the advice it gave two of its own members a couple months ago on a similar issue.
Matilda “Mattie” Yoshioka confirmed this week that she proffered a resignation letter to the Charter Review Commission on Aug. 14, a day after the Ethics Board advised her to no longer appear before the Kaua‘i County Council in her role as Kaua‘i Economic Development Board president and CEO.
Charter Section 20.02D says “No officer or employee of the county shall … appear in behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency.”
Yoshioka agreed that she had done just that for KEDB. But as far as we can tell, so have Ethics Board members Judy Lenthall (who appeared before the County Council on behalf of Kaua‘i Foodbank) and Mark Hubbard (who appeared before the council on behalf of Kaua‘i Planning and Action Alliance), not to mention Cost Control Commissioner Lorna Nishimitsu (who appeared before the council on behalf of Kikiaola Land Co.) and Charter Review Commissioner Jonathan Chun (who appeared before the council and Planning Commission on behalf of his legal clients).
The first three were cleared June 4 of allegations they violated the County Charter. Similarly, the board unanimously decided last year that Chun, a private attorney, should be allowed to continue representing his clients before county government bodies.
No matter how you choose to define “appear” or “private interest,” there is no logical way of interpreting 20.02D to have it apply to Yoshioka’s behavior but not to Chun’s or the other three examples we mentioned. So why was Yoshioka — who, like Chun, voluntarily went to the Ethics Board for an advisory opinion — held to a different standard? We’re not saying we don’t like the new direction, but we are concerned about its selective application.
In a discussion on the merits of applying 20.02D earlier this year, County Attorney Al Castillo told the Ethics Board that forbidding board and commission members to appear on behalf of private interests before other boards and commissions could have a chilling effect, causing a mass exodus of such county volunteers and “absurd results.”
In a new legal opinion provided this week to the Ethics Board, which it appropriately released to the public, the County Attorney’s Office argues that the absurdity of a “strict constructionist reading” is what essentially nullifies the charter provision and allows the County Code to reign supreme.
So why did the board apparently heed that advice for Lenthall, Hubbard, Nishimitsu and Chun in the past, but not now for Yoshioka? Is it personal, a new path or what?
The law is clear to us, and even the latest legal opinion calls it “unambiguous.” Can it be interpreted to produce “absurd” results, such as a commissioner not being allowed to get her driver’s license, apply for a water meter or file a police report? Only if we let it.
The county should clarify the section. But it should do so according to the people’s will. This is, after all, a representative republic.
The Charter Review Commission put an amendment on the ballot last November that asked if the charter should be amended to expressly permit county board and commission members to appear on behalf of private interests before any county board, commission or agency except the board or commission on which they serve. Voters roundly rejected it 13,751 “no” to 7,133 “yes.”
A group of concerned citizens fought this proposed change to Section 20.02D from its infancy. Despite an affirmative advisory opinion in March 2008 from the Ethics Board, some residents argued there is a conflict of interest when commissioners try to wear “multiple hats.”
The people have spoken on this issue. Residents want this charter provision applied more conservatively. If a few exceptions are needed to avoid the section becoming “absurd” then the county should draft those and put them up for voter approval.
The county should not try to do the opposite of the people’s desire. The voters will see through any clever wording and kill such an amendment.
Let’s tighten up 20.02D and lay some ground rules — but make it practical and keep it realistic. It is indeed absurd if a volunteer board member is unable to apply for a driver’s license because of a potential charter violation.
But until those changes happen, let’s enforce the charter consistently. Qualified volunteers to fill the dozens of important board and commission seats are in short supply on such a small island. Let’s make sure we keep the minds of current and potential members open to serving the county.
If the Ethics Board is going to tell Yoshioka to either stop representing KEDB in front of the council or stop volunteering for the Charter Review Commission, then Chun, Hubbard, Lenthall, Nishimitsu and all the others wearing “multiple hats” should either stop representing their private interests or resign themselves.
