January 2006

County Council Chairs support bill to strip OIP of power

more http://starbulletin.com/print/2005.php?fr=/2006/01/28/news/story05.html

FEAR AND OPPORTUNITY

You may soon have a chance to vote for or against a county manager system, but don't hold your breath. During its 1/23 meeting a majority of Charter Commission members said they would not be comfortable in placing the matter on the ballot even though it might lead to greater efficiency and accountability in government.

Change always wears two faces: fear and opportunity. I favor adopting a county manager system, but only if we embrace it as an opportunity to improve government.

Changing to a county manager system will be a major step, but it wouldn't be earthshaking. It would redefine the mayor's role by transferring administrative responsibility to a professional manager, and it would give the council the power it needs to fulfill its oversight responsibility. About half of local jurisdictions in the country use the system.

What I heard from Charter Commission members is that they fear the change so strongly that they don't want to risk letting the voters decide. I have more confidence in the voters than that.

When I observe a fear that sometimes approaches paranoia in the words and actions of government officials I understand why they oppose the change. Do the voters share their fear? The only way to find out is to place the measure on the ballot.

It would not trouble me if the voters reject a county manager system. It would trouble me if they are denied the opportunity to decide.

STATEMENT OF WALTER S. LEWIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 2006

STATEMENT OF
WALTER S. LEWIS
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
JANUARY 23, 2006

This testimony is to cover four topical areas:

1.Election of Council
2.Total Expense Limitation
3.Citizens Petitions
4.Powers and Duties of Elected Officials.

(1). Election of Council. I have previously submitted to you my memorandum on this subject dated January 1, 2006 and I respectfully refer you to that memo for my views as to making the Council a full time position and districting the election of its members. Since my memo was written I have concluded that term limits should be established for Council members. At present persons must be employed by the County for ten years to be eligible for a pension. I believe it would be unfair to deprive Council members whose only employment by the County is as a Council member of a pension by a term limitation shorter than ten years. The arguments pro and con about term limits are well known. On balance I believe it to be in the interests of the County to set a limit and I think that the citizens of the County should be given the opportunity to decide the question. My suggested text for the ballot issues on making the Council a full time position and election its members by district and on term limits are attached as Exhibits A and B.

(2). Total Expense Limitation. The daunting increases in recent years in the Kauai operating budget have been eye opening . The current budget of $122.9 million is about 80% higher than it was five years ago. The inevitable connection to rising government cost is rising taxes. Kauai property taxes have soared over 100% in the last five years. It appears to many Kauai residents that our government operates inefficiently and that costs are not well controlled. The concept of imposing a spending limit for the County has been previously presented. My suggested text for a ballot issue to establish a regimen of a spending limit is attached as Exhibit C.

(3). Citizens Petitions. The right of citizens to determine how they wish to be governed is a fundamental element of democracy. The Kauai County Charter furthers this concept by expressing the right of citizens to seek through petitions four types of government action –amendment of the charter, adoption of ordinances by initiative or for their repeal by referendum, recall of elected officials and impeachment. Unfortunately in my view the terms of the charter in these regards are in a state of disarray and changes are required if the purposes of these citizens actions can be effectively utilized.

One question for examination relates to the quantum of signatures that should be required on a citizens petition. At present signatures of 20% of the registered voters are required in Article XXII (dealing with initiatives and referendums) and in Article XXVII (dealing with recall). Signatures of 5% of the registered voters are required in Article XXIV (dealing with charter amendments) and in Section 23.13 (dealing with impeachment). I believe that the requirement of obtaining signatures from 20% of the registered voters in order to place a matter on the ballot is unreasonably high and will result in precluding any use of the initiative and referendum and recall procedures. It needs to be noted that the filing of the citizen petition is only one step in the process, the key one being obtaining the requisite majority vote at the general election. I suggest that the requirement for petition signatures in Articles XXII and XXVII be reduced to 5% of the registered voter number.

The Bills proposed by Mr. Asing (Bills 2154-6) to alter the procedures for citizens petitions have been brought to the attention of the Commission. It appears that these Bills have been abandoned. It remains, however, desirable to have standard requirements for the methodology to be used in citizen petitions. The presumably defunct Bills included provisions that would hobble the petition process. Such provisions are in my view unattractive as in the ultimate analysis the petitions are as noted only a preliminary step in presenting the matter involved for voter determination. I propose that the Charter be amended to contain the basic requirements for all petitions – its committee, the statement of the matter to be presented, and the signature and identification of the citizen. If other and not inconsistent or more onerous terms are needed they could be established by ordinance.

I would also propose the elimination of Section 22.02 which contains limitations on initiative and referendum powers and the extension of coverage of Section 27.01 to allow recall of officers serving two year terms. The present provisions unduly restrict the exercise of these citizens powers.

In regard to impeachment some history is relevant. Prior to 1989 HRS 62-13 provided for removal of elected county officials for malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance or maladministration in office by circuit court following a petition by not less than 25 voters and citizens. In 1988 the state repealed this provision related to the Constitutional amendment adopting County home rule. In 1990 the County Council took advantage of this change and presented to the voters a resolution changing the Charter to provide that the number of signatures on the petition be increased to 5% of the registered voters. The change was narrowly approved by the voters. Under the Charter the Board of Ethics may also file impeachment proceedings. (Section 20.04 D (1)). I propose that the process be simplified and made less burdensome by allowing a petition containing the acts or failures to act believed to be grounds for impeachment signed by at least 100 citizens and voters be filed with the Board of Ethics and if the Board finds the charges to be sufficient for the Board to file with the Circuit Court.

If the Commission wishes I would be glad to provide a draft of the ballot text for the citizens petition changes that I propose.

(4). Powers and Duties. Finally I wish to address an area where I find the Charter as presently constituted to be seriously deficient. That area relates to the powers and duties of Kauai’s elected officials and the question of accountability and sanctions for failure to perform prescribed duties.

Let me begin by mentioning three instances to illustrate where there has been a failure of implementation of actions contemplated by the Charter. First, Article XXVIII provides that there shall be a County Cost Control Commission whose members are to be appointed by the Mayor and the Council within 45 days of the beginning of the Mayor’s term. No appointments have been made and the Commission is not serving. Second, Article XXIX provides for a Salary Commission to be similarly appointed. No Salary Commission is serving. Third Section 3.12 of the Charter provides for a financial audit of the County’s books and accounts at least once every two years. No such audit has occurred in recent years. If the Charter can be flaunted without consequences in cases such as these what is the purpose of having a Charter?

The inadequacies of the Charter are structural. With respect to the Council the Charter (Section 3.01) endows it with legislative powers and identifies in Sections 3.07, 3.10, 3.11, and 3.12 and Articles XXVIII and XXIX certain specific duties, With respect to the Mayor Section 7.05 is captioned “Powers, Duties and Functions” but its content is limited to expression of 13 powers.

The conferral of powers on the Council and the Mayor is necessary to establish their authority. Certain powers exist which are discretionary and exercise is not required. Other powers must be exercised. When the exercise of a power is mandated, e.g. the power of the Mayor to submit to the Council annual operating and capital budgets, the duty to meet the mandate should exist. If there is no duty established then there are no sanctions for failure to perform. The position as to the Cost Control and Salary Commissions and as to the audit exist because there is no expressed duty imposed.

Charter Section 23.10 expresses certain sanctions for “violation of a charter provision” and other matters. But is non-performance a violation when no duty is stated?

In my view an amendment to the charter is clearly needed to specify that as to those powers where exercise of the authority is to be obliged, the elected officials have the duty to act to perform the function mandated. The completion of the cycle requires that where nonperformance or malfeasance occurs a sanction should be identified.

For these purposes I suggest that the provisions of Sections 3.07, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 and Articles XXVIII and XXIX and timely action of approval of appointments be identified as duties of the Council and that Section 7.05 A,B,C.E, F, G,I J, L, and M, Section 23.14 and Article XXVIII and XXIX be identified as duties of the Mayor.

Regarding Section 20.04 E I would suggest that it be a duty of the Mayor and the Council to notify the Board of Ethics of any facts known to them which might constitute a violation of Article XX, and require the Board to take any necessary action for enforcement. This would avoid having multiple responsibilities for the same matter.

I believe that any material or willful failure by a county official to perform a duty should become grounds for impeachment of the failing party or parties and justify the commencement of impeachment proceedings in the Fifth Circuit Court. I doubt that it is helpful to also invoke Section 23.10 and say it is a misdemeanor. As noted above I believe the process by which impeachment proceedings are to be implemented should be changed. I would if the Commission so desires be prepared to offer a draft of a ballot text on the power and duty questions I have mentioned.

EXHIBIT A

Effective 2008, shall all Council members be selected by district of which there shall be five to be defined by an apportionment commission to be appointed in 2007, with one member who shall be a resident of the district elected from each district, and effective 2008, shall the service of all council members be as full time positions with members prohibited from other gainful pursuits, and shall be the salary commission set compensation for council members to be applied when full time service commences.

EXHIBIT B

Shall effective for the 2008 election no candidate be permitted to seek election to the County Council who has served more than ten consecutive years as a member of the Council.

EXHIBIT C

Shall effective for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2007 the amount of the Kauai County operating budget be limited to being not greater than the sum of the operating budget for the preceding fiscal year plus a percentage thereof equal to the average annual increase in the population of Kauai as measured by the two most recent Federal census data and plus a percentage thereof equal to the greater of the increase in the Consumer Price Index in Honolulu during the preceding twelve months or the increase provided for average hourly wages in the collective bargaining agreement covering the most Kauai County employees during such twelve months, and shall expenditures by the County for operating costs greater than such limit be prohibited.

POLITICS AND PRINCIPLE

You can’t take the politics out of government, but you can reduce government to nothing but politics. A few years ago a councilman told me that in the real world of Kaua’i government lip service is paid to the charter but all decision-making is political. Now that the political season is heating up, you can see for yourself the truth of the councilman’s remark by observing the political posturing on display in marathon council meetings and in the stream of PR releases from the mayor’s office. When the spin becomes so thin that you can see right through it, do we then have what the Sunshine Law means by transparency in government?

When government is reduced to nothing but politics, what happens to the public interest? What happens to the principles that should guide public policy? They take a back seat to political expediency, coming into play only when they serve the purposes of the politicians.

Of course, in the politician’s mind, his purposes are public policy and are in the public interest. By definition, if there is fault in a given case the fault lies elsewhere. Deflecting and re-directing blame is the first rule of politics. The second rule is to take credit, either legitimately or by the manipulation of the public’s perception of events and what they mean. An informed and vocal public is the only effective countervailing force to this pattern of politics-as-usual--there is no self-correcting mechanism in politics

The ease with which local politicians switch parties is a symptom of the triumph of political expediency over principle. Political parties at their best present the voters with alternative values to choose between, and party affiliation means that a politician is committed to those values. Nowadays political power is the be-all and end-all. Values are subservient to partisan quests for power and the ambitions of electable (they hope) politicians. When values take a back seat, honest debates and political courage also take a back seat.

The reduction of government to nothing but politics has led to a shift. The political battle is now between entrenched powers and the people, not between the competing values of political parties, as was once the case. It remains to be seen if the politicians have overreached in their fight against the Ohana Kauai charter amendment or their attack on OIP. These actions, financed with taxpayer dollars, challenge the will of the sovereign people as expressed respectively in the charter and in state law. Court decisions in these cases will not alter the fact that the political power structure has crossed the Rubicon in its determination to prove that the only power the people have is the power to vote for their favorite politicians.

Less dramatic than the court cases is the campaign by those wielding political power to ensure that the Charter Commission proposes no significant changes in the way power is allocated and exercised or in the way government officials are held (or not held) accountable. The mayor and council chairman praise the work of the Commission and in the same breath tell them and the world that only “tweaks” are necessary to bring the charter up-to-date. They rely on their authority, not fact-based debate, to carry the day.

Public interest in the work of the Commission is greater than at any time in the past, but it is still minimal. Public ignorance, apathy, and blind trust still work in favor of the politicians.

However, the jury is still out on what the Commission will propose and the voters will approve. It is not too late for public-minded citizens to pay attention to the issues now being considered by the Commission. Do we need a county manager system? District elections? A Parks and Recreation Department? Fulltime council members? Spending limits? A permanent Charter Commission? These are just some of the issues on the Commission’s agenda.

In my opinion, the weightiest question facing the Commission is how to make the first major mid-course correction in 35 years in the charter as a whole. There is abundant evidence that a major revision is needed, and the charter itself contemplates the need for a “new charter” at some point. But in the past the public has relied on 50 random amendments as the way to update the charter.

If you want to see a group of citizen volunteers who take their work seriously and who welcome and respect input from their fellow citizens, I recommend that you attend their sessions and/or watch them on Hoike. As matters now stand it will be eight years before you have another realistic opportunity to say how you want local government to work.

Horace Stoessel
P.O. Box 369 , Kapa’a
822-7976

Damage control is the wrong beacon

This is to offer some thoughts about TGI’s January 19, 2006 editorial entitled “Damage Control needed at Kauai Police Department”. After using qualified terms such as “rumored” “claim” “allegedly” “widely speculated” “apparently” and “suspected” throughout the piece it wanders to its wobbly conclusion that “damage control” is the answer. I don’t think so. Damage control is a cover up and that can never be a justifiable solution to any problem.

Some of the wisest words in our law are set forth at the beginning of the State Sunshine law which declares: “ In a democracy the people are vested with the ultimate decision making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. … Therefore, …it is the policy of this state that the formation and conduct of public policy, - the discussion, deliberations, decisions and actions of governmental agencies – shall be conducted as openly as possible.”

A major problem that surrounds our police department is the lack of public knowledge about the actions of the department and its officers. There is no clear public perception of any of the events mentioned in the editorial because they are largely shrouded in secrecy.

Using claimed protection of privacy, executive sessions and attorney client privilege as shields meaningful information as to controversies concerning the department is simply unavailable.

In theory the threatened investigation of the department by the County Council could be of value but that possibility is poisoned by the bias of Council members and because State law and the County Charter are determinative as to the process of police chief selection there is little on which the Council might legislate.

Openness not secrecy should be the policy of our Police Commission and our police department. A better informed populace can lead to identifying the problems which exist and their solution. Damage control is the wrong beacon.

Maui's First Annual "Influence Peddler of the Year" award

Who is worthy of Maui's first "Jack Abramoff No Ka Oi Corruption Prize" for 2005?

Using elaborate schemes to enrich themselves and buy influence with government agencies, the winner must be both shrewd and effective. Abusing the trust of native people is another requisite tactic, along with buying influential friends through favored non-profits and political donations. Although Abramoff looks to be a partisan hack, Maui's winner must be bi-partisan. The "No Ka Oi Corruption Prize" must stand for the most creative manipulations, involving "charity" and "native" resources to build a web of influential friends among supplicant bureaucrats and corrupted politicians.

Maui 's fantastic wealth can surely support a world class influence peddler like Abramoff.

Searching the news archives for 2005, the closest fit appears to be a rock star developer and his posse, so the prize for Maui's First Annual "Influence Peddler of the Year" goes to Ev Dowling and Dowling B.I.G.! For important supporting roles the Maui Contractors Association and the Maui Chamber of Commerce get special mentions.

In 2005 Dowling and his "Building Imbalance Gang" (aka. Dowling B.I.G.) launched a new trilogy of projects: "Akaku Putsch" the ongoing story of corrupt political intrigue that is sure to become a best-seller during the 2006 election year; the next BIG release is "Rape of Honua'ula" about land and power for Maui island; the final installment is tentatively titled "Kamehameha meets Trujillo" bringing the lessons of the Dominican Republic to Maui Nui.

Congratulations to the winner for 2005, Ev Dowling and B.I.G. For the runners up, just remember 2006 is another year!

County deeds done in dark

{The following was submitted to the Garden Island forum)

Mahalo for the editorial, "County letting less Sunshine in" (TGI, In Our Voices, , A4, 12-5-2006). The editorial notes the county is becoming more secretive and attempting to neuter the Office of Information Practices (OIP) by taking the OIP to court. Evidently, the Office of the County Attorney is capable of advising the Kauai County Council not to comply with the OIP, but is apparently incapable of defending that position in court. Instead, the Kauai County Council approved spending public money hiring an outside attorney, David Minkin, who asserts, "This is the first time anyone has challenged the OIP in court."

Mr. Minkin's assertion is incorrect. In July 2005 OIP announced the First Circuit Court granted summary judgment to 'Olelo in a lawsuit asserting that Public, Education, and Government (PEG) access providers are not subject to state open records law. OIP is currently appealing this ruling, but according to OIP the current ruling applies to all PEG providers in the state, including Ho`ike, Kauai's PEG provider. So, as it now stands public access provider records are not public records despite the fact that these PEGS were created by the state, are funded with state mandated franchise fees, and the state appoints the board majority of these PEGs.

I find it more than ironic that `Olelo as the lead PEG provider has already spent around $100,000 of government mandated public monies to deny the public access to PEG records. Now our County Council is spending even more public money to hire an outside attorney who incorrectly believes, "This is the first time anyone has challenged the OIP in court." A hundred thousand dollars here and a hundred thousand dollars there can really hurt the public pocket.

As your editorial correctly notes this Kauai County Council court action is, "something the legislature hoped to avoid so that agencies were not suing agencies," but it is obvious the current Kauai County Council will spend any amount of the public's money necessary to keep their actions secret from the public.

Perhaps in the upcoming election voters can replace these secretive council members, unless of course the County of Kauai sues itself to negate the will of the people as they are currently doing to prevent enacting the voter approved Ohana Amendment. I'm sure the current council members that approved this court action would much prefer to appoint themselves, and make decisions for us in secret. Their lack of transparency, oversight, and accountability is a fast-track to corn-pone tyranny. As Federal Circuit Court Judge Damon Keith remarked, "Democracy dies behind closed doors." Keep democracy alive and vote only for candidates who insist on transparency, oversight, and accountability.

Hawaii state Office of Information Practices is a paper tiger.

www.pritchettcartoons.com/oip.htm

UNMENTIONABLES and UNTOUCHABLES

By now the Asing Council has passed the 160 mark in the number of Executive Sessions it has held since December, 2003; whereas, in the two years prior to that the Kouchi Council, there were 41 ES’s. One would presume that some of the matters that this County Government would not want the public to know about would be special deals between the county and outside contractors, deals that are not stipulated in contracts. One such instance would be what is not covered by the Garden Island in its front page story “County evicts recycler” on Wednesday, January 4, 2006. For those who are somewhat familiar with how this county handles waste materials, including all the instances of illegal waste handling, it must be puzzling how minor the infractions Island Recycling is alleged, by the county, to have committed to warrant the summary cancellation of its contract; and further, why Island Recycling did not challenge the county’s action. When it comes to illegal handling of solid waste nobody can beat the record of this county for its seven years of stockpiling of mixed and hazardous waste on unprepared ground surface at the Lihue Transfer Station which culminated in a huge fire of suspicious origin in July, 2004, followed by an un-reported fire at the Puhi Metals Center the same night which destroyed what was left of the evidence of the mixed and hazardous waste that had been removed to Puhi from the Lihue Transfer Station during the fire.

All this, while indicative of the deplorable operation of this county’s solid waste management (which has had no qualified professional person in charge since 1995), is not directly related to the mysteries surrounding the Garden Island’s front page story of Jan 4; but does provide the background of incompetence and corruption to explain the Garden Island’s reporting of the dismissal of its contractor, Island Recycling, by the County of Kauai.

The story spans the tenures of three mayors of this island, beginning with Mayor JoAnn Yukimura (currently a member of the County Council), continuing through the administrations of Mayors Kusaka and Baptiste. It began with Hurricane Iniki, the historical wind that left the island with untold tons of debris of all descriptions the disposal of which posed a real challenge to then Mayor Yukimura. Two of her emergency measures dealing with hurricane debris – burning it in large deep trenches above Kalihiwai and burying mattresses in large pits in Anahola – were not met with accolades. The idea of placing some of the debris through some process to render it useful again was considered. An appeal to the Economic Development Administration of the Agriculture Department brought home over two million dollars in grant to build a facility in which hurricane-generated debris would be sorted and modified so as to leave the facility as products with commercial value. Thus the term “Resource Center” was applied to this new facility which was completed, though not yet put to use, by the time Mayor Kusaka came to office. Mayor Yukimura had more pressing issues to deal with in the immediate post-Iniki years, especially in securing financial resources to repair damages to county-owned properties, even though the county had $65 million in insurance coverage, because the insurance company would cover only a small percentage of the losses. Hundreds of DSR’s (damage survey reports) were bounced back from the insurance company and bounced forward to the FEMA office in Honolulu. A significant part of the county’s claims forwarded to FEMA also covered the completion of the modification of the commercial shopping center in Lihue into the present Kauai County Civic Center. FEMA wasn’t exactly pleased with the claims; and contested these with so-called “de-obligation” – meaning FEMA wanted some of the money back, especially the part covering not the repair of the renovation of the shopping center but the forward going completion of the Civic Center. Negotiations with FEMA over the de-obligation actions consumed much of the time of the mayor’s office during those years following Iniki.

Thus Mayor Kusaka’s office was not well prepared to deal with implementing the utilization of the spanking new Resource Center – which by then had earned the moniker “White Elephant”. For two years the county tried to secure a contractor to operate the Resource Center to process the debris left over from Iniki, through the publication of three “Request for Proposal” documents, none of which received any bids. Worried that the EDA might cancel the grant and ask for the return of the money, the county asked for help from the state’s Department of Business and Economic Development, which brought to Kauai, on loan, a specialist to help with the next round of RFP’s. Finally, a deal was made between Kauai County and Island Recycling of Honolulu, to operate the Resource Center in accordance with the terms of the grant from the EDA.

The county’s problems did not end with this contract to Island Recycling, for a very simple reason. There were already contracts in place, before Island Recycling came along, to handle the solid waste, the major one being, originally, Waste Management Inc., the largest waste management company in the country. WMI quit Kauai when it could not negotiate a continuation of the contract it had held with the county and was not paid for six months, leaving the county in a lurch. A group of local business people formed Garden Island Disposal to take over the business from WMI. Later, when Island Recycling came into the picture, the problem arose as how to play a zero sum game, giving work to Island Recycling without taking some of it away from GID and others such as JC Glass. The seed for conflict and discontent was thus sown.

GID was the most affected, and decided to look into the operation of Island Recycling at the Resource Center. It transpired that, after spending more than two years without success in securing a contractor, the county enticed IR to accept a contract by relieving it of the responsibility (written into its contract) of taking the unused waste stream, after it had taken what it needed to process for re-use and recycling, with its own crew and equipment, to the Kekaha Landfill – a not insubstantial cost reduction for IR. This little shenanigan was uncovered by GID whose investigator was able to get testimony from county workers at the Lihue Transfer Station (which is right next to the Resource Center) that county personnel and equipment were used to move the un-used waste to the Lihue Transfer Station and thence, by county truck and driver, to the landfill at Kekaha.

I have no direct knowledge of what transpired between GID and the County during a good part of 2004 and 2005, except to take note of the frequent appearance of Executive Session 165 (regarding the contract with Island Recycling) on the agenda of the County Council meetings. It doesn’t require much speculation to surmise that the County was trying to get out from under the mess it had created with the under-the-table deal offered to Island Recycling who, on the other hand, did not help matters by further adding fuel to the fire by encroaching even more into the waste business of existing contractors on the island.

It may well help to clear up much of the un-answered questions raised by the Garden Island report of January 4 on the eviction of Island Recycling if the journalistic sleuths of TGI would request the County Council to release the minutes of ES-165. Direct contacts with GID as well as Island Recycling should shed further light on the numerous UNMENTIONABLES buried under the White Elephant.

In hind sight, it would have been better and cheaper for the county to give back the two million dollars to the EDA to get out from under the commitment when you consider the legal expenses the county must have incurred since its clever little deal with Island Recycling was unmasked. The current County Council would thereby also learn the benefits of maintaining TRANSPARENCY in discharging its official duties under the current Council Chair.

THE UNTOUCHABLES

Over the years many of the Nitpickers have noticed that certain officials in the County Government, generally in the first or second level of supervision, seem to be immune from criticism for their malfeasance and their assurance of retiring after completing their High Three -highest salary in the last three years of service which in the examples of the three or four recent retirees meant salaries in the low nineties, significantly higher than that of the mayor. Notable among recent retirees are John Apana and Russell Sugano. The former “cleaned up” the mess left by a contractor for handling junk cars who simply walked away from his yard near the Lihue Airport a few years ago, by simply digging a hole one fine night and burying the mess, instead of moving the hazardous waste with proper care to the Kekaha Landfill, the act reportedly witnessed by a member of the County Council. Upon discovering this transgression the State Department of Health levied a fine of $50,000 against the County of Kauai. The Mayor’s Office haggled with the DOH for months to get the fine reduced ultimately to $15,000, all the while explaining that what happened was not an act of malfeasance but the over-zealousness of an employee in doing his job well.

Then there was the head of the Roads Division who hardly ever stepped outside his office while the public clamored for the filling of pot-holes and broken pavements all over the island – except for Haleilio Road which, always in top shape, happens to lead to the residences of some top County officials. Three of these Untouchables have retired in recent years, opening the opportunity for some new and, hopefully, diligent talents to fill the important positions, including, not the least, that of the County Engineer.

But, what about the Untouchables who are still too young to retire? Such as the person who has had various titles but the same job of “managing” the county’s Solid Waste Program, the job which he is famously known not to be qualified for; and, when challenged by some among the Nitpickers, Mayor Kusaka promised to send him to school to become qualified. Regrettably, Her Honor never fulfilled her promise. In the mean time, the cost of running the Solid Waste Program keeps rising from year to year, standing now at near nine million dollars, compared to $6.6 million in FY2002. When faced with similar untouchable problems, former Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris promoted the untouchables to positions where they essentially did nothing; and filled their positions with younger people willing and able to do their jobs. In two years Harris reportedly saved $45 million; and the jobs got done. The obvious solution to our SW Untouchable is to put him in an empty office to while away time; and filling his vacated position with someone who is qualified. Since the Untouchable hardly ever does anything of any substance without paying a “consultant” to do it, the savings in eliminating the consultant with the arrival of the qualified solid waste manager would more than make up for the cost of keeping the Untouchable on the county payroll. This brilliant advice I am giving the Mayor and the Council for free, again, just as I did for helping them out of the landfill dilemma recently.