• Telemarketers test patience • Ethics merry-go-round? • Faded crosswalk danger Telemarketers test patience Since January my husband and I have been inundated by phone calls from a telemarketer, National Auto Warranty Service, telling us that they have important information
• Telemarketers test patience
• Ethics merry-go-round?
• Faded crosswalk danger
Telemarketers test patience
Since January my husband and I have been inundated by phone calls from a telemarketer, National Auto Warranty Service, telling us that they have important information regarding our vehicle’s warranty.
At first there is a recorded message, but eventually they will connect you with a real person who cannot actually tell you what vehicle they mean. We have tried to explain to them that we do not wish them to contact us at any future time, but they continue to call repeatedly, even calling four times on Feb. 29. We are registered on the National Do Not Call list and I have lodged a complaint to no avail.
After expressing our frustration to friends and neighbors, we found that they all have been harassed by this company. So, we are wondering if all Kaua‘i citizens or a vast majority of them are experiencing this problem.
Perhaps if we all contact the consumer’s complaint division of the Hawai‘i state government and fill out the form which can be obtained online at: www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/ocp and click on the box labeled “File a Complaint,” or can also be obtained by calling toll free: 274-3141 and asking for a form, we can stop these annoying calls. Let’s give our government a chance to really work for us.
Helen Stuefloten
Hanalei
Ethics merry-go-round?
On Jan. 28 a member of the public (not myself) reminded Jonathan Chun, chairman of the Charter Commission, that he had violated charter section 20.02D by appearing in behalf of private interests before county agencies and suggested that he resign from the commission. He responded by temporarily recusing himself from the commission, asking the Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion, and continuing to appear in behalf of private interests before county agencies.
On Feb. 14 the Ethics Board resisted telling Chun that his activities represented a violation of the charter and deferred their advisory opinion in order to ask for an opinion from the county attorney’s office regarding an issue that is about as clear-cut as any ethics issue can be.
Consider the merits of the case. When the voters adopted the charter in 1968 they included a Code of Ethics (Article 20) because they wanted “to establish a high standard of integrity and morality in government service.” They made the mayor, council, and Board of Ethics equally responsible for enforcing the code.
A major purpose of the charter is to shape and inform the conscience of government, and the Code of Ethics plays a central role in the process.
At the outset the code establishes a fire wall between private interests and the public interest in Section 20.02. All six sub-sections of 20.02 prohibit even the appearance of impropriety by unconditionally prohibiting county officers and employees from engaging in certain activities. Collectively, they are the most stringent provisions in the code.
Specifically, Section 20.02D prohibits officers and employees of the county from appearing before any county board, commission, or agency in behalf of private interests. The prohibition applies to members of boards and commissions because they are officers of the county.
The issue raised by 20.02D for some volunteer unpaid candidates/members of boards/commissions is that they may at some point need to choose between pursuing their livelihood and serving as a volunteer. I don’t believe that anyone expects a volunteer to give up earning a living in order to serve on a board/commission. I do believe that the ethical choice for a person in such a situation is to resign from his volunteer position.
The four members of the Charter Commission attending their Feb. 25 meeting apparently had no difficulty in understanding that 20.02D says what it means and means what it says. They did not question its meaning but decided instead to introduce a charter amendment which would exempt members of boards and commissions from the requirements of 20.02D. They argued that the section is unfair to volunteers and that enforcing it would make finding volunteers more difficult than it already is.
I question the reasoning. In light of the declared purpose of the ethics code and the fact that volunteer service is a privilege as well as a responsibility, I see no basis for exempting volunteers from having to make ethical choices which might lead at worst to resigning or being removed from a board/commission. As for finding volunteers, if we ever place the process on a professional rather than a political footing, I predict that new well-qualified candidates for volunteer service will appear.
Although the Code of Ethics does not use the word “honor,” it certainly seems to me to apply to Section 20.02D, especially when one considers that all the principals involved, from mayor to council to county attorney’s office to board and commission members, are honor-bound by a pledge to support and defend the charter.
Members of the public have expressed no interest in conducting a vendetta against Jonathan Chun or anyone else who may be violating the letter and/or spirit of the charter. We do contend that “a high standard of integrity and morality in government service” begins with a proper understanding and application of the charter. Failure by those in authority to respect the charter fosters contempt for the law and cynicism about government, and we already have an excess of both attitudes.
Horace Stoessel
Kapa’a
Faded crosswalk danger
There is a crosswalk in Wailua town on Kaua‘i at the turn to the Wailua River Marina and Smith’s Paradise. The crosswalk is grossly faded and can barely be seen. I use this crosswalk daily for my walk to Lydgate Park and must point out in an animated gesture to oncoming traffic that there is a crosswalk, only then might a vehicle stop.
I have called the state Department of Transportation and their response was it’s not supposed to be there, so we will not paint it. I said, you need to either erase it or paint it over, since it is an accident waiting to happen.
I do not understand the state’s reasoning. I even called the Kaua‘i mayor’s office and they said it was not their problem but I asked if they would call the state since the state was not hearing me out. The mayor’s office graciously called the state and got the ball rolling, but to my dismay they do not want to spend 15 minutes repainting a crosswalk. I even approached a police officer and said, “You give tickets for not wearing a seatbelt since it is life threatening but when it comes to making a crosswalk more visible and money cannot be made, you do nothing?”
The officer said it was the state’s jurisdiction not his. But I said, please talk to someone for me, he just excused himself to answer his cell phone, smoke his cigarette and drink his coffee and finally said all the crosswalks need to be painted. I shook my head in dismay muttering silent profanities and left.
Eventually somebody will be killed there, and only then will action be taken. Don’t say I didn’t tell you so.
James Rosen
Kapa‘a
