Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Letters for Wednesday, July 1, 2009
• How will council address transparency?
• Waste of money
How will council address transparency?
Rightfully, much press and public outcry surrounding Kaua‘i County Council’s struggle for transparency focuses on the chairman, county clerk and two defiant council members.
Opinions of those who follow local politics vary from outrage to oblivion, while few find those opaque or obtuse therein acceptable.
In any case, extraordinary is the reaction of those who buck a well- entrenched system.
It’s my opinion that this particular chairman/clerk relationship in regard to distribution of information is not an isolated incident or restricted only to those of our most recent focus. In my short-time, I personally have experienced unacceptable levels of county government secrecy.
Historically, as an advocate for more government transparency, I am pleased by council’s intent to air a highly-contentious issue openly in a July agenda, illuminating one curious personal experience last November, as summary, illustrated briefly:
By communication Oct. 30, 2008, agenda item C2008-319, Council Chair Furfaro requested time to discuss council’s policy and procedure regarding release of legal opinions.
Nov. 1, 2008, I received an e-mail response from the county clerk telling me that although the office was very busy with general elections, copies of case law (Akaku v. Bennett) I sent directly to the clerk’s office for council view regarding C2008-319 would be “distributed to all council members for the Thursday, Nov. 6 meeting.”
Importantly, the County Attorney’s Office was copied in my communication to the clerk.
The evening before the council meeting I decided to testify before council on C2008-319. Up until then, I assumed the Akaku e-mail to the council and county attorney was enough. For courtesy, I delivered a brief e-mail testimony to the “County of Kaua‘i/ Council” making sure again the county attorney was copied. The correspondence contained two questions for the council to answer concerning the relevance of Akaku on release of county attorney opinions.
Curious is what happened next.
The following afternoon, Nov. 6, 2008, during council recess shortly before C2008-319, I asked a councilman outside chambers if he had received the Akaku case law. He said he did not. I inquired if he knew anything about my written testimony concerning the agenda item. He said no.
A moment later, before I could arrive to the entrance of council chambers, I was asked to step into a small council office room behind the chamber by the council’s “in-house” attorney. Alone, he urged me not to give testimony on C2008-319. He said it would be a waste of time, that I may embarrass myself and that the case law itself was irrelevant. I responded politely and told him I intended to testify anyway.
Five days before, the clerk told me he would distribute the case law. But then at least one council member said he knew nothing of it and shortly thereafter the council’s attorney discouraged me from giving testimony.
Something was wrong.
Events following are illustrated by council minutes of C2008-319, Nov. 6, 2008 and Ho‘ike video in my possession:
Bieber to council: “Did you receive my e-mail, the .pdf file from [County Clerk], the case law?”
[Councilman whom I addressed earlier outside]: “I did not receive anything.”
At that point, the council’s attorney who discouraged my testimony began distributing the case law and written testimony around the table to the council members. Lots of uncomfortable laughter ensued. Perhaps only by coincidence did then the deputy county attorney leave chambers on his phone.
Chairman Furfaro: “May I take a moment before you start [Bieber’s] time. Just to remind everyone that often when you respond to County of Kaua‘i, there is a timing issue with circulation and if you use our personal e-mails ... we are able to expedite the communication quicker.”
Finally, if you read the minutes or view video, Akaku was anything but “irrelevant” — it sparked lengthy debate amongst council members and the deputy county attorney concerning release of county attorney opinions.
How will council, among others, address transparency not only in July but into the future to better serve the people?
Rolf Bieber, Kapa‘a
Waste of money
The story “Mayor’s father arrested” (The Garden Island, June 19) shows how really silly, petty and ridiculous politicians and their families can be and are.
Wow. This is bad! A family feud that our/my money that I work so hard for and have to pay taxes with will now be put to use to settle this. Great work!
Things like this just disgust me. Come on people, get it together and start acting like adults here.
Ruby Rider, Kapa‘a
• Waste of money
How will council address transparency?
Rightfully, much press and public outcry surrounding Kaua‘i County Council’s struggle for transparency focuses on the chairman, county clerk and two defiant council members.
Opinions of those who follow local politics vary from outrage to oblivion, while few find those opaque or obtuse therein acceptable.
In any case, extraordinary is the reaction of those who buck a well- entrenched system.
It’s my opinion that this particular chairman/clerk relationship in regard to distribution of information is not an isolated incident or restricted only to those of our most recent focus. In my short-time, I personally have experienced unacceptable levels of county government secrecy.
Historically, as an advocate for more government transparency, I am pleased by council’s intent to air a highly-contentious issue openly in a July agenda, illuminating one curious personal experience last November, as summary, illustrated briefly:
By communication Oct. 30, 2008, agenda item C2008-319, Council Chair Furfaro requested time to discuss council’s policy and procedure regarding release of legal opinions.
Nov. 1, 2008, I received an e-mail response from the county clerk telling me that although the office was very busy with general elections, copies of case law (Akaku v. Bennett) I sent directly to the clerk’s office for council view regarding C2008-319 would be “distributed to all council members for the Thursday, Nov. 6 meeting.”
Importantly, the County Attorney’s Office was copied in my communication to the clerk.
The evening before the council meeting I decided to testify before council on C2008-319. Up until then, I assumed the Akaku e-mail to the council and county attorney was enough. For courtesy, I delivered a brief e-mail testimony to the “County of Kaua‘i/ Council” making sure again the county attorney was copied. The correspondence contained two questions for the council to answer concerning the relevance of Akaku on release of county attorney opinions.
Curious is what happened next.
The following afternoon, Nov. 6, 2008, during council recess shortly before C2008-319, I asked a councilman outside chambers if he had received the Akaku case law. He said he did not. I inquired if he knew anything about my written testimony concerning the agenda item. He said no.
A moment later, before I could arrive to the entrance of council chambers, I was asked to step into a small council office room behind the chamber by the council’s “in-house” attorney. Alone, he urged me not to give testimony on C2008-319. He said it would be a waste of time, that I may embarrass myself and that the case law itself was irrelevant. I responded politely and told him I intended to testify anyway.
Five days before, the clerk told me he would distribute the case law. But then at least one council member said he knew nothing of it and shortly thereafter the council’s attorney discouraged me from giving testimony.
Something was wrong.
Events following are illustrated by council minutes of C2008-319, Nov. 6, 2008 and Ho‘ike video in my possession:
Bieber to council: “Did you receive my e-mail, the .pdf file from [County Clerk], the case law?”
[Councilman whom I addressed earlier outside]: “I did not receive anything.”
At that point, the council’s attorney who discouraged my testimony began distributing the case law and written testimony around the table to the council members. Lots of uncomfortable laughter ensued. Perhaps only by coincidence did then the deputy county attorney leave chambers on his phone.
Chairman Furfaro: “May I take a moment before you start [Bieber’s] time. Just to remind everyone that often when you respond to County of Kaua‘i, there is a timing issue with circulation and if you use our personal e-mails ... we are able to expedite the communication quicker.”
Finally, if you read the minutes or view video, Akaku was anything but “irrelevant” — it sparked lengthy debate amongst council members and the deputy county attorney concerning release of county attorney opinions.
How will council, among others, address transparency not only in July but into the future to better serve the people?
Rolf Bieber, Kapa‘a
Waste of money
The story “Mayor’s father arrested” (The Garden Island, June 19) shows how really silly, petty and ridiculous politicians and their families can be and are.
Wow. This is bad! A family feud that our/my money that I work so hard for and have to pay taxes with will now be put to use to settle this. Great work!
Things like this just disgust me. Come on people, get it together and start acting like adults here.
Ruby Rider, Kapa‘a
Related headlines
- Public Meetings for Sunday, August 9, 2009
- Public Meetings for Sunday, May 3, 2009
- Public Meetings for Sunday, June 21, 2009
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of kauaiworld.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
RSS