• For the benefit of clarity • Fair treatment For the benefit of clarity Having been a participant in the events discussed in Rolf Bieber’s letter regarding (“How will council address transparency?” Letters, July 1), it should be noted that
• For the benefit of clarity
• Fair treatment
For the benefit of clarity
Having been a participant in the events discussed in Rolf Bieber’s letter regarding (“How will council address transparency?” Letters, July 1), it should be noted that some very important contextual elements missing from his account which I would like to take this opportunity to clarify — in the interest of full transparency.
Mr. Bieber contends that information he sent to councilmembers — via e-mail to the county clerk on Nov. 1, 2008 — which he wished the members to consider for an item on the Nov. 6, 2008 agenda, did not reach members prior to that meeting. This assertion is false.
I have a copy of the e-mail sent by Mr. Bieber to Peter Nakamura on Saturday, Nov. 1, 2008. This e-mail was sent twice — at 4:35 p.m. and again at 4:50 p.m. The council staff is usually off on Saturdays, except on weekend days leading up to the Nov. 4 election.
As a matter of reference, that was three days before the general election and was the last day of walk-in voting at the Historic County Building. In addition to his normal duties in serving the council, Mr. Nakamura also had his hands full serving as chief elections officer at that time.
Mr. Nakamura confirmed by reply e-mail at 9:05 p.m. (five hours later) that he had received Mr. Bieber’s messages and attachments and would provide copies for councilmembers for the next scheduled council meeting on Thursday, Nov. 6.
The following day, Sunday, Nov. 2, 2008, Mr. Nakamura printed and date-stamped copies of this communication and deposited them in each of the councilmembers’ mailboxes. I still have my copy of that communication with the date stamp.
Mr. Bieber states in his letter that, upon approaching an unnamed councilmember at the meeting on Nov. 6, he was told by that councilmember that he had not received the information e-mailed on Nov. 1.
Although I don’t recall the exchange, it could very well have been me to which Mr. Bieber is referring. Because of the election and its related activities, I had not checked my council mailbox since the preceding Saturday, and would not have been familiar with the documentation placed there prior to that day.
While my colleagues and I try diligently to “do our homework” prior to all official proceedings, during election week it is especially difficult to do so. It would not surprise me if other councilmembers had arrived for that Nov. 6 meeting without fully reviewing all of the mail that had accumulated from the week before.
In my mind, there is a significant distinction between not receiving information and not having had the opportunity to review it. No such distinction was made by Mr. Bieber.
In his letter, Mr. Bieber also makes reference to the council’s “in-house attorney.” The person to whom he refers to was not the council’s attorney. He was the council’s analyst — another important distinction.
It is unfortunate in this case that Mr. Bieber’s conclusions about distribution of his November 2008 testimony belie actual circumstances. It is also unfortunate that the timing of the Nov. 6, 2008 council meeting occurred shortly after the Nov. 4, 2008 general election which may have played a part in forestalling councilmembers from checking their mailboxes prior to the Nov. 6 council meeting.
I don’t know whether or not these additional facts were known by Mr. Bieber prior to writing his letter. However, I do feel they are important to the reader in order to place the events in their proper context.
Jay Furfaro, Kaua‘i County Councilman
Fair treatment
If a person had been treated like the Board of Ethics and county attorney’s office have treated Charter Section 20.02D, how would the person feel?
During the last year and a half the board, relying on legal opinions, has (1) given Jonathan Chun permission to continue representing clients before county agencies even though 20.02D prohibits such activities by officers of the county, and (2) dismissed three ethics complaints filed by Rolf Bieber alleging violations of 20.02D.
According to Charter Section 20.05G, the complaints could not be upheld as long as the Chun decision remains in force.
I have followed the process closely. There has been no shortage of statements from the board and attorney’s office aimed at proving that 20.02D cannot possibly mean what it says, or that the county code amends or modifies the language of 20.02D, or that 20.02D is unfair and leads to absurdities and therefore should not be enforced.
County officers pledge to support and defend the charter. Bearing that fact in mind, I tried to remember statements I had heard or read from the board and the attorney’s office supporting and defending 20.02D. I couldn’t think of a single example.
20.02D appears in an executive session item on the board’s agenda for Thursday related to the ethics complaints dismissed by the board on June 4. The notice for executive session reads in part: “… to consider a communication from the county attorney clarifying the opinion he gave to the board on June 4, 2009 and providing the substantive basis for that opinion regarding Charter §20.02D, County Code 3-1.7 and prior attorney’s opinion dated March 5, 2008.”
Following the executive session the board will publicly “ratify” matters from the session. Since the board has already approved Chun’s actions and dismissed the complaints, can we reasonably expect the board or the attorney to “support and defend” 20.02D on Thursday?
Horace Stoessel, Kapa’a
