09-30-2009, 07:25 AM
Dave, I personally believe that everyone was part of this orchestrated process.
The overriding issue is if the bill can survive a legal challenge. Based on Hawaii law, odds are it will be ruled illegal. However, this was known to everyone before the vote. The Executive Branch's legal Counsel recommended necessary changes that would enable the bill to possible survive a legal challenge. Not one item of that clear recommendation was done. Without those modifications, it is unlikely that it would survive one day as law and an injunction almost certainly would have been issued.
So I ask, why was the legal advice and recommendation completely ignored?
The first bill introduced was dead before the ink was dried. It was withdrawn due to lack of any support. Passage wasn't even a remote possibility. Suddenly the same bill is resurrected by another Council member but this time a Puna only clause was included. Now instead of almost everyone opposed, you have everyone in favor. Legal advice was to include a detailed reasoning why this applied only to Puna and make sure that the "experimental" nature is clearly defined. That was not included.
So a vote is taken, it passes. The original Councilmember has a feather in her cap for getting her baby passed. All the other Council members don't have to worry about tent city slums in their districts while playing nicy-nice to the Huns. But there are those in other districts that want tents and there are those that don't want tents. Same goes for the people of Puna.
The dilemma is the Council needs to say they passed the bill but also they need for the bill never to become law. This way nobody can blame them. So, enter stage left, the Mayor and his veto. In his veto, he is setting the stage for rejecting the bill and giving each Council member the ability to get out from any negatives about the bill.
The Council has only three options:
1. Let the bill die with the veto. They will cite the potential legal issues as their reasoning for not voting to override the veto. It’s not them not passing the bill; it’s really the legal system keeping the tents off the land.
2. Override the veto but know that the legal challenges will probably keep the bill from ever becoming law. They show support for the Huns, and stay in their good graces. Again, it’s not us, but the legal system that is keeping tents from the people.
3. Introduce a new bill that includes all districts. Since no other Council member wants ghettos in their neighborhoods and they want Puna to remain the official slum of the Big Island, this option will never happen!
This could not have been successful unless everyone already knew their parts and played it as written. They needed the legal challenge issue to be made public and that was done in the Mayor's veto message. If this was done without everyone’s involvement, there was no guarantee there would be a veto, not have resulted in passage to the level it did that elevate a certain Councilmember, make sure people knew the law could be challenged, kept the pawns in place while ensuring they never had to worry about slums in their districts, and ensure the bill would never become law.
The overriding issue is if the bill can survive a legal challenge. Based on Hawaii law, odds are it will be ruled illegal. However, this was known to everyone before the vote. The Executive Branch's legal Counsel recommended necessary changes that would enable the bill to possible survive a legal challenge. Not one item of that clear recommendation was done. Without those modifications, it is unlikely that it would survive one day as law and an injunction almost certainly would have been issued.
So I ask, why was the legal advice and recommendation completely ignored?
The first bill introduced was dead before the ink was dried. It was withdrawn due to lack of any support. Passage wasn't even a remote possibility. Suddenly the same bill is resurrected by another Council member but this time a Puna only clause was included. Now instead of almost everyone opposed, you have everyone in favor. Legal advice was to include a detailed reasoning why this applied only to Puna and make sure that the "experimental" nature is clearly defined. That was not included.
So a vote is taken, it passes. The original Councilmember has a feather in her cap for getting her baby passed. All the other Council members don't have to worry about tent city slums in their districts while playing nicy-nice to the Huns. But there are those in other districts that want tents and there are those that don't want tents. Same goes for the people of Puna.
The dilemma is the Council needs to say they passed the bill but also they need for the bill never to become law. This way nobody can blame them. So, enter stage left, the Mayor and his veto. In his veto, he is setting the stage for rejecting the bill and giving each Council member the ability to get out from any negatives about the bill.
The Council has only three options:
1. Let the bill die with the veto. They will cite the potential legal issues as their reasoning for not voting to override the veto. It’s not them not passing the bill; it’s really the legal system keeping the tents off the land.
2. Override the veto but know that the legal challenges will probably keep the bill from ever becoming law. They show support for the Huns, and stay in their good graces. Again, it’s not us, but the legal system that is keeping tents from the people.
3. Introduce a new bill that includes all districts. Since no other Council member wants ghettos in their neighborhoods and they want Puna to remain the official slum of the Big Island, this option will never happen!
This could not have been successful unless everyone already knew their parts and played it as written. They needed the legal challenge issue to be made public and that was done in the Mayor's veto message. If this was done without everyone’s involvement, there was no guarantee there would be a veto, not have resulted in passage to the level it did that elevate a certain Councilmember, make sure people knew the law could be challenged, kept the pawns in place while ensuring they never had to worry about slums in their districts, and ensure the bill would never become law.