It would be pleasant to write an article about our county government and observe that our leaders enjoy congenial relations with each other and all work harmoniously together. Unfortunately, the truth is that there are some deep seated animosities and
It would be pleasant to write an article about our county government and observe that our leaders enjoy congenial relations with each other and all work harmoniously together. Unfortunately, the truth is that there are some deep seated animosities and some vicious infighting and maneuvering. They tend to come into focus in election years.
There are complex interrelationships in our governmental structure and claimed confidentialities, which often blur observations.
Since early this year, the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney (OPA) and its head Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho have been under continuing and apparently coordinated attack by certain members of the county administration, one or two council members and the Board of Ethics. The validity of the allegations made remains unproven, but the making of them has had its usual disquieting effect.
Let us examine the context involved and the nature of the claims asserted. The OPA in common with state and county prosecutorial offices elsewhere has responsibility for prosecuting claims of violations of criminal law referred to them by the police department and occasionally others. It is general practice that in certain appropriate cases instead of a prosecution or a dismissal of a case that discretion is used to resolve a case by what is called a diversion. This requires the accused to participate in a program administered by an independent party, which is intended to deter criminal activity. Three of such programs are POHAKU (for adults), Keiki POHAKU (for minors) and Teen Court.
Members of the County Attorney’s office are assigned to serve county agencies such as OPA. The overt harassment of OPA began in April with an unsolicited opinion from the assigned Deputy County Attorney stating a contention of irregularities in the administration of the POHAKU program. When OPA sought to justify its practices, the County Attorney acknowledged a conflict and the County Council appointed Special Counsel to consider the assertions made. The council, led by two of its members, also took a swipe at the OPA adopting a resolution seeking Board of Ethics review of the POHAKU program.
When the Special Counsel gave his opinion, the stalkers were disappointed as the opinion gave the POHAKU program and the OPA role legal approval.
Although the Special Counsel had been appointed by him, undaunted the County Attorney found fault with the opinion, which disagreed with his contentions and then ventured his view that, as the Charter was silent on the matter, that OPA was not authorized to use diversion programs. This opinion by the County Attorney, if written, was never disclosed. It did not resonate as it ignored that diversion programs administered by prosecuting attorney offices had been in place for many years on Kaua‘i and elsewhere and failed to recognize that OPA had the power to prosecute and to dismiss case and logically should have the power to use diversion, an intermediate step.
Also earlier this year, the Board of Ethics initiated proceedings investigating the role of the OPA in regard to the POHAKU program. The Kaua‘i Charter empowers the board to investigate complaints of Code of Ethics violations. The identity of the complainant and the content of the complaint have never been disclosed by the board. In its zeal to protect the secrecy of its procedures the board, which should be a citadel of integrity, has ignored the basic constitutional rights of individuals who may be targeted by the complaint and whose testimony is sought to be informed as to its accusers and the nature of the accusation. No findings have been made in this investigation.
Although for many years approvals of state grants for the diversion programs had been routinely approved, at the County Council its vengeful members raised multiple essentially dilatory and time consuming objections to funding the programs. When the council ultimately approved the funding, the mayor entered the picture and asserted that he was not going to release the necessary funds for the administration of one or more of the programs.
As none of the assaults on the programs or the OPA’s role in administering them have been established as meritorious, one wonders why this multi-pronged assault was mounted. Was it just the manifestation of some personal animosities which had grown over the years? Or were there ulterior motives? One likely potential justification for the making of disparaging allegations that have occurred is a connection with the campaign of a deputy county attorney who has the very public support of his boss to unseat the incumbent prosecuting attorney.
Unjustified personal attacks are a disturbing element in a political campaign, but they seem to be effective. The making of an allegation of misconduct even if untrue is difficult to erase. The OPA under its present director has a fine record of convictions and it is indeed unfortunate that the election for our prosecuting attorney may well be influenced by a collection of unsubstantiated charges.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
