Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
Can someone help me understand how the Council can re-raise the reorganization resolutions that are the subject of a pending lawsuit? Yes, the temporary restraining order is moot, because the Council reverted to its previous organization; but the lawsuit has not been withdrawn or dismissed.
While it may be asserted that none (or the allowable number) of the Council members has (have) discussed the reorganization since the 16 June meeting, are not those decisions tainted by the alleged previous violations of the Sunshine Law?
I'm genuinely confused.
Posts: 8,480
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
Aloha Janet,
If you are confused be assured that so are they (the council majority).
I was at the hearing all day and there appeared to be no concern on the part of the majority that 1) the judge may legally frown on their actions and force a redo of the redo of the redo or 2) another lawsuit had basis (Rule 15.6) to be filed which could also result in another Temporay Restraining Order and redo of the redo of the redo.
I call it a Confederacy of Dunces.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
If the judge rules it was an inadvertent serial communications, the redo and any further changes could stand, but if ruled intentional, the judge could order a return to the original way the committees were set up and bar any changes.
Posts: 8,480
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
The Rereredo...
I spent the whole day at the county council on August 5th watching the actions and efforts of our council members as they try to unravel the mess created by Guy Enriques, Dennis Onishi and J. Yoshimoto. The “redo” of a slate of legislation went rather quickly. A few details to examine here and there but the slate was completed with rare smooth efficiency.
Then came the testimony on Bills 204 and 218. Bill 204 was the Yagong bill to send the 22% pay raise back to the salary commission for reconsideration. Bill 218 was a revamp of Guy Enriques’ reorganization of council. A redo of the redo of the reorganization (I am going to have to shorten this phrase to “rereredo”).
There was some impressive testimony. Starting with retired attorneys and going through very elegant and clear appeals to logic and discretion. A lot is at stake. The shear credibility of the council and the standing before a circuit court with potential serious penalties to start with. The waste of time and money too.
The only expressed concern of Dennis Onishi’s was to ask Ashida’s opinion of whether it was legal to proceed with another redo.
Lincoln Ashida played his role of Enabler perfectly. In his professional opinion he could find no hint of inappropriateness or illegality in a rereredo. Not a whiff. Asked to assess the potential for additional litigation should the council majority insist on the rereredo Lincoln was incapable of discerning any risk. Not a whiff. The potential that the rereredo could again become subject to a redo was dismissed. Ashida’s ability to ignore negatives and embrace positives in furtherance of his masters goals is the definition of Enabler. Like a bar tender with alcoholics Ashida serves the drinks they order. Power Straight Up with a touch of bitters.
The funniest moment of the day was Guy Enriques asking Ashida if what they were doing was legal. Ashida’s lead off of “as of yesterday it was” solicited appropriate laughter. Even Guy couldn't help but laugh despite being at the brunt of the joke.
Guy Enriques is, was, continues to be focused on the rereredo like the sports coach he is. Seeking a win, fielding players like Asida, Onishi and Yoshimoto, not concerned with injuries or the boos and hisses of the crowd. Focused. Unfortunately he is a very clumsy player himself. He set up plenty of points for the opposition. Perhaps it’s age, perhaps it’s inexperience. In his quest for a win he missed or lost the value of cost/benefit analysis - something of no discernible meaning in sports but of high value in legislation. That was the weakness of his game. No sense of cost/benefit analysis.
Brenda Ford, Pete Hoffman, Kelly Greenwell and Dominic Yagong, the Enriques selected opponents in this game, all understand cost/benefit analysis and scored point after point on the realities of dealing with a disapproving court over a lawsuit with a determined plaintiff and the realities of subjecting the county business to further delay, distraction and risk. The fact that a rereredo could once again have to be redone was lost on the B team.
J. Yoshimoto tried to be eloquent in his approach to the debate but his bias was clearly showing. He was clearly on the rereredo team and was reaching for every excuse to ignore realities. This is something I’ve watched him do before. It intrigues me that a man so intelligent can have so much trouble seeing the forest through the trees.
Guy Enriques’ embrace of self serving rationalizations was a case study in self empowerment. All this waste and embarrassment was only based on his sincere desire to have a better council. All the working at cross purposes was only to have everyone work together. All the bad will and destruction of relationships was only to make for better will and relationships. Who sits in what committee chairs is of no importance at all as long as the people sitting in the committee chairs are the B Team. He has his invisible silent majority to sustain him and that, for Guy Enriques, is enough.
Emily Naeole was irrelevant. She had little or nothing to say or contribute. Her concern was completely with her own self esteem and position. No other factors entered her radar. She has improved her skills at seconding motions though. Training for becoming Vice Chair.
Ikeda and Hoffman were absent. Hoffman physically. Ikeda mentally and emotionally.
Thank you to Brenda Ford for reluctantly taking a parliamentary procedure (calling for a public hearing) and deferring the rereredo until after some Judge Ibarra realities become known. The furrows on Enriques brow were deep. Drat! Out maneuvered by someone with no apparent knowledge of sports!
So how should a public deal with council members who refuse to listen? Week after week, month after month turning into year after year they completely ignore the will of the people on issue after issue and testimony upon testimony.
I say ignore them. Time to make our own plans and take charge of our issues. Work with the council members that do listen. Seek out candidates for next term and support them with time and money. Move forward by referendum, by initiative, by recall, by impeachment by ethics complaint, by civil rights complaint and by lawsuit. We need to take charge of these amateurs. It is after all our council.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
Thanks for that, Rob.
It was a day of shame for the cause of good government.
Ikeda, Enriques, and Onishi have dug in their heels with blind stubbornes to make other jackasses envious.
Yoshimoto is stuck with those three and with Ms Naeole, who, it truly saddens me to say, does not have a clue.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
Thanks for the information. It helps, a little.
I don't see how serial communications could be "inadvertant", unless each member who raised the subject with another started with "I just thought this up", instead of "Council member X asked me/thinks/agrees”, but that is for the Court to decide.
Hooray for Ms. Ford and her "parliamentary trick". Postponing these decisions until September will, at least, maintain the former organization and allow Council work to continue. Whether we agree with what they are up to or not, at least these decisions won't have to be redone for this reason.
Posts: 647
Threads: 20
Joined: Jul 2003
thanks for the report Rob, I knew from the very begining Enriques had a "smell" , how I miss Jacobson, well looking forward I hope our district can come together behind someone who will work for the people, not just for his own interests
