Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Dominic Yagong, the Hamakua councilman who opposes the county sale of lands in his district, has proposed Bill 132 which calls for transparency and council oversight of any such sales.
And guess what? It looks like it was about to pass in council yesterday.
So Council Chair J. Yoshimoto, not one to let a good proposal succeed, postponed the vote until mind September. We assume this is to allow more time to lean on Emily Naeole who usually does what she is told by Cousin Billy. Perhaps with a wedding pending she is becoming a bit unmanageable.
I read all this at
www.margaretwille.com
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 703
Threads: 37
Joined: Jun 2008
Watching the goings on with what passes for a council, just confirms for me the desirability of implementing retroactive birth control. Saves on court costs trying to get the miserable basta#@s to do what they a paid for, as opposed to what the special interest groups are also paying them to do.[
!]
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
dick wilson
"Nothing is idiot proof,because idiots are so ingenious!"
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Councilman Guy Enriques (District 6) has been sending our this position statement on Bill 132. This message was sent in reply to an FoPF member who send him testimony:
After reviewing bill 132 with the County Finance Department I am convinced that this newly proposed policy of having the Council become a watchdog over public land sales and purchases goes well beyond our role as legislators.
This bill requires the Council to become more deeply involved in areas already specifically managed by the Executive branch, the Department of Finance in particular. The Council already has a say in whether or not sales should happen and that is good, however, to begin micro- managing the sales process goes too far.
What I have learned during my short time as a Council member is we spend far too much time and money doing jobs that can be done more efficiently by the private sector. The county is bound by rules and regulations of procurement and transparency that have become nearly ineffective and often financially unsound. We must have some measure of trust and confidence among our co-workers, that most perform their jobs well and appropriately. To encumber ourselves with these proposed additional rules and regulations will only serve to perpetuate a lack of trust within county government and continue to add unnecessary expense and procedure to the existing regulations.
Thank you for thoughts.
Guy Enriques
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 2,149
Threads: 90
Joined: Feb 2006
What a crock! The "lack of trust within county government" Enriques mentions is illusory. They trust each other too much, i.e. no meaningful oversight. The real issue of trust is between the citizens and both the legislative and executive branches of the County.
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
So, the Kenoi - Enriques - Yoshimoto line is: "trust me".
That is precisely what they have proven I should not do!
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
And, about this:
"...areas already specifically managed by the Executive branch, the Department of Finance in particular."
The current Finance Director and the current Managing Director were the people who were pushing the County to go into $125 million debt to buy an incinerator.
Wouldn't we love to have that debt now? Not!
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 450
Threads: 128
Joined: Jul 2007
Updating Emily's position on Bill 132, she just emailed me the following response when I wrote her an email telling her how much her constituents appreciated her voting for Bill 132 and for helping to provide transparency in gov't:
From the Councilwoman: "The idea that the County Council should impose a new hurdle to the process of buying and selling land from the County is not my idea of fair. Bill 132 is not about transparency. There already is transparency. It’s about one branch of county government trying to take over the responsibilities of another. It’s a naked power grab, where Mr. Yagong is trying to hide behind the false pretense of transparency. I will not be fooled by this reactionary bill.
In the beginning there was a moment when I thought perhaps this might be a good thing. I believe in transparency but on further investigation of this particular bill I realized that there was a vindictive tone to this legislation and a intimation that there is a basic distrust of the mayor. I will not be party to such juvenile political antics.
Imagine this, bill 132 passes and the County Council agrees to sell the land to a local farmer and one year later that farmer decides to sell the land to the Monsanto Corporation? The point is no matter who the county sells the land to those individuals are free to do with the land as they please. That is America. Now we could lease the land to local farmers but that will not bring in the kind of money we need to balance the budget.
The mayor has pointed to the fact that “Because of the difficult economic times, we proposed selling a portion of the Hamakua lands that have sat unused for 15 years. The sale was part of a budget process designed to avoid raising taxes, avoid cuts in non-profit agencies, maintain free bus service, and protect essential services such as police and fire protection.”
In closing, I would just like to say that I am very aware of my districts passion for the issues. I am also very aware that there are some people out there who don’t agree with some of the decisions I am making yet I find it more important to live with integrity then to spend my old age in regret.
Lau Lima,
Emily I. Naeole
Council Member 5th District"
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Bill 132 does not change the process of selling land except that when it hits a certain size and/or dollar value, the County Council must approve the sale. What in God's name are they afraid of? Are they afraid of going on record that they agreed with the Finance Director's decision? Are they afraid that by having a Council vote of larger property or high dollar value that the citizens will have a more open view into the sale? They can rubberstamp every sale if they like.
I believe they are AFRAID of the bill because they wouldn’t be able to feign ignorance and act as if they didn't have a hand in it, if something scandalous occurred. They want to be able to claim their hands are clean by wearing gloves so nobody can see their hands. This is not a power grab, just prudent fiduciary duties of elected officials.
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Emily did not write that. That is not her voice.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 450
Threads: 128
Joined: Jul 2007
My thoughts exactly, Rob. And I think I know the voice ...
