Puna Councilman Fred Blas chose not to side with the Council majority on the resolution calling for special legal counsel to review council members' work on the budget. Today's vote is an indication that Blas won't vote for the veto override on June 30. Without six votes, the veto will stand and the mayor's version of the budget will become law.
I need to ask you, truthfully, are you surprised that council members failed to pass the resolution introduced by Council Chairman Dominic Yagong to hire special legal counsel? If you haven’t already heard, council members voted 5-4 for an independent legal review of their work on the 2011-2012 operating budget after Corporation Counsel suggested at least one of their amendments was illegal. Council members needed six votes today. Apparently, Fred Blas, of Puna, was expected to side with the Council majority but cast a vote with the three Hilo oriented council members, J Yoshimoto, Donald Ikeda, and Dennis “Fresh” Onishi. Blas cast the no vote without any comments beforehand to give any indication what side he would be coming down on.
To those that are shocked by Blas’ vote, I should point you to my coverage of the recent Pahoa Recycling and Transfer Station blessing. Not the photographs Blas took with Mayor Billy Kenoi. My hit, when watching them interact that day, was that Blas wants to work with Kenoi. I didn’t eavesdrop on their conversations, but it is possible that the mayor pulled Blas aside and shared his perspective. If you talk with the mayor, like I have, you can see his perspective. You can see the rationale for the administration deferring payment of the General Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45, which, in layman’s terms, is the pre-payment for future health care obligations of retired County workers. You begin to wonder why council members inserted a “Council adjusted expense account” into Bill 29, the operating budget for next fiscal year, creating a negative appropriation of $5.8 million.
And then you talk with Yagong and you get an entirely different perspective. But that’s another commentary.
Blas attended the Hawaii State Association of Counties conference on the island of Maui the last couple of days — with Ikeda, Onishi, and lead Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida. I’d be really surprised if one, two, three, or all four of them didn’t discuss this resolution to be taken up today.
Clearly, this vote today is an indication that, come June 30 when council members take up the mayor’s veto of Bill 29, Draft 4, there will not be enough votes for an override. Six votes are needed for a veto override. I have not yet to talk with Blas regarding his vote against this resolution. But I can’t imagine he is going to vote for a veto override, if he has cast a vote against hiring special legal counsel to review Ashida’s opinion that the Council’s work on the budget was illegal.
I’ve said before that in the decade that I have followed Hawaii County government, I have never seen anything like this: The mayor vetoing the budget with Corporation Counsel alleging council members put forth at least one illegal amendment, and then council members seeking special legal counsel to counter Corporation Counsel. I really don’t know how all this gets resolved in the short term, when you have council members feeling betrayed by the Corporation Counsel and Corporation Counsel offended that council members want to go “shopping” for another legal opinion. In the long term we are going to see a Charter amendment proposing that the administration and the County Council have different legal councilors. But what’s going to happen between now and the November election, when that Charter amendment question gets posed to voters?
And, since I’m putting all the questions in my head out there, is the honeymoon between Blas and the Council majority over? Are we back to the tradition of our Puna council member siding with the Hilo majority, or is this an isolated incident? After Pete Hoffmann handed over the vice chairmanship to Angel Pilago, the new seating arrangement puts Blas in the middle of Pilago and Brenda Ford. As soon as the special Council meeting was over today, Blas was out of there. He did not stick around to talk story. Surely there had to be some tension over his no vote. We have another week to wait and see how Blas will answer the veto override question. You read it here first, I don’t think Blas is going to side with the Council majority. I think he’ll vote with Hilo. Without six votes for the veto override, the mayor’s veto will stand and the mayor’s version of the budget will become law. And, once that happens, we can revisit what that means for the County of Hawaii for the next year, including two percent of our real property tax revenue going into the Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund and $500,000 for a West Hawaii golf subsidy.
June 24th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I think he used his head on this one. A vote for another legal opinion opened the possibility of a very costly fight which would result in much more heat than light.
What will be interesting to see going forward is who comes out as the statesman, accepting this result and moving forward selflessly to serve the Island. Continued fighting and public sniping will, in any cases tell us who is NOT.
June 24th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
For Fred, this is all about Fred.
Other than Parks and Rec and Litter, all he cares about is staying on further in politics, and he sees more future kissing Billy’s than standing up for anything else.
June 24th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
I don’t blame Fred for refusing to help Dominic Yagong to run for Mayor. Yagong fought the last council majority until he got to be council chairman, and he will fight with the mayor until he gets to be mayor. How that helps anyone but Yagong is a mystery to me.
June 24th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
It’s outrageous that the county council’s legal representative claims that they have committed illegal acts without having testified or advised them before they took their vote.
Mr. Blas did our island a great disservice by not allowing an truly independent legal counsel to advise the county government.
The Kenoi administration has little regard for laws, rules, and regulations, especially those that interfere with their political and financial agendas.
For instance, the Planning Director has stated that not only does she opposes the state Land Use Commission as an authorative body, but that she is going to break laws that prevent the county from upzoning property from its state Land Use District designation (Aina Lea reversion to Agriculture).
Her justification? To avoid litigation. Time for a legal case in which private citizens sue government under the “private attorney general” doctrine which allows for plaintiff citizens legal fees and costs to be paid by the relevant developers and the offending government agency when citizens are forced to sue its own government in order to have laws, rules, and regulations enforced.
Meanwhile, the Planning Director, an attorney who should know better, to resign.
And as for Lincoln Ashida? He is impossibly conflicted between his legal representation of both the mayor and the county council. The Sunshine Law violation was the first clear evidence of this fact and now we have another crystal clear example.
The question is does this situation create an State Bar Association ethics problem?
June 24th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Wow!!! Why is it so bad to side with Hilo. Maybe he just felt it was the right thing to do. Afterall, they are the brains of the county council. Go Fred!!!!
June 25th, 2011 at 12:40 am
I’d take Mr. Flaherty’s opinions with a grain of salt, since he is a shill for his landlord, Brenda Ford, who must be simmering after the events of today. Mr. Blas has finally recognized that he is being used as a stooge for a council majority which collectively has done little despite controlling six votes, and which includes a council woman who, in public, essentially called one of her colleagues a liar Friday, and a council chair whose lack of leadership over the last year leaves me shaking in my boots at the thought of him becoming mayor.
June 25th, 2011 at 7:42 am
I so agree with Chuck….Fred has no understanding of the budget and was led by the nose….very disappointed in him…..
June 25th, 2011 at 7:57 am
There must have been 20 of us testifying at council yesterday in favor of the 2 percent funding for PONC. We reminded the council majority that they are breaking a written pledge to restore funding for PONC. (You can see those signed promises at http://www.dhecht.com).
There was not one word about this broken promise in the daily papers, and I can’t imagine why. Are the newspapers protecting their favorite politicians? Dominic Yagong was one of those who signed a pledge, and is now reneging on his promise. Shameful.
June 25th, 2011 at 8:08 am
The people voted in 2010 for a 1 percent minimum for the land fund….we are in very bad economic times …the charter trumps the code…we can’t pay our bills and yet we continue to buy land……nonsense….
June 25th, 2011 at 8:24 am
The point really is not which side one is on and how to “win the fight.”. The point is what to do from here. “Here” in this case is with a vetoed budget declared illegal. Frankly that os a “check mate” position. Fighting further is only to spend money needlessly while tying the County in knots.
We can debate whether Lincoln has integrity or not (I have always found him to give a straight – sometimes painful answer) and whether the mayor was into the game or governing. But at the point where the budget was vetoed it was game over from a practical stand point. Sometimes you just lose the point and need to move on.
The reaction of the majority tells us a lot about what their true desires are. Hoffman pouts and says “no more cooperation from us.”. Dominic tries to keep the fight moving along despite the obvious affect that would have on the County. Ford is so out of control that she all but calls the “opposition” liars. This is leadership and statesmanship? Lord help us.
June 25th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Litigation is fools’ gold in my view. Good attorneys keep you out of court.
Flaherty’s suggestion that Lincoln Ashida somehow is afoul the state bar ethics is a strange, if not twisted, concept.
The charter is the charter. It is written in reasonabky plain English. Anyone checked it out lately?
June 25th, 2011 at 8:37 am
One expects that our representatives should fight for what they believe is right….to do otherwise breeds. dictatorship…..should we expect that they should just roll over and play dead…FIGHt ON……that is what they are elected to do ..
June 25th, 2011 at 10:19 am
For Jan, “We can’t pay our bills” my eye. The council INCREASED spending, their budget amendments will spend MORE than Kenoi proposed. The council violated their pledge and raided the PONC while increasing spending. It was in the newspaper, and was in Kenoi’s budget veto message.
The vote last year for the PONC was just that – a vote FOR PONC. The popel want the PONC funded, and the council is betraying the people and breaking their promise. Dominic Yagong and Fred Blas should be ashamed.
June 25th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Debbie Hecht’s pledges are the mother of all smoking guns. The acts of the council chair and his cronies regarding the PONC prove that no matter how much we want to believe someone when they say they won’t stoop to politics as usual, they eventually stoop. I’m not so surprised with smug Brenda and self-righteous Dominic, but Brittany? Maybe now you realize why Guy Enriques was a one-term councilman. It ain’t that easy, huh?
June 25th, 2011 at 11:34 am
I hope they have all learned never to say never…..difficult times have dictated the choices they had to make and again, if you can’t pay the bills then you shouldn’t be buying land….if they had broken their pledge in good times then maybe you ca gripe but let’s all be real instead of self serving…..
June 25th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Jan, that makes no sense. The Kenoi administration fully funded the PONC. We know this isn’t about money or tough times because PONC was fully funded in the mayor’s budget. Now the council is trying to take that money away.
This is inexcusable. The council promised in October to protect PONC funding. But yesterday Yagong, Blas, Hoffmann, Smart and Ford all voted to take the money away. They have no good reson for doing this, and I do NOT excuse them from their promise. I will never forget this.
June 25th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Chuck, what happened to you? I remember when you were die-hard defender of the land fund. If Brenda Ford listens to you, you should tell her she is making an awful mistake. By cutting the land fund she is betraying people who supported her for years, and for what?
June 25th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
I applaud Coincilmember Blas for taking a stand against the majority. It made no sense to pay $8,000 for an OPINION. Even if they got another opinion then you would just have one opinion for each side. It wouldn’t prove anything. You would have to go to court for a judgement. Besides council already acknowleded the budget they submitted was illegal that’s why they had to hear the resolution to adjust the PONC payments to 1% and they were told this by corp counsel before they passed the amendment.
I also wonder if Corp Counsels review came back in favor of the Council would Yagong, Ford, Hoffmann, Pilago, & Smart approve of special counsel for the Mayor. Afterall according to their logic another opinion wouldn’t hurt.
June 25th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Mr. Oana, your statement “he is a shill for his landlord” is a libelous false statement about me. Brenda Ford is not my landlord and my opinions are and always have been my own.
I would appreciate an apology and admission that you are wrong since your false, offensive, and harmful statement has been published on the internet.
Further, even if your disclosure of my place of residence was true, you would have made a public disclosure of private facts and truth is not a legal defense for invasion of privacy.
Brenda Ford is my friend and is the hardest working county council person that I’ve ever seen. But anyone who knows me or her knows that hasn’t and doesn’t prevent us from having serious disagreements.
June 25th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Hugh, please read the following from the Hawai’i Rules of Professional Conduct adopted and promulgated by the State Supreme Court in 1994. I think when you consider the current situation where the county council and mayor are on oppositet sides of the court, so to speak, you’ll no longer find my suggestion that Mr. Ashida has an ethics problem is neither strange or twisted.
(http://www.state.hi.us/jud/ctrules/hrpcond.htm#Rule_1.7)
Rule 1.7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE.
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.
COMMENT:
Loyalty to a Client
[1] Loyalty is an essential element in the lawyer’s relationship to a client. An impermissible conflict of interest may exist before representation is undertaken, in which event the representation should be declined. The lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, to determine in both litigation and non-litigation matters the parties and issues involved and to determine whether there are actual or potential conflicts of interest.
[2] If such a conflict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer should withdraw from the representation. See Rule 1.16. Where more than one client is involved and the lawyer withdraws because a conflict arises after representation, whether the lawyer may continue to represent any of the clients is determined by Rule 1.9. See also Rule 2.2(c). As to whether a client-lawyer relationship exists or, having once been established, is continuing, see Comment to Rule 1.3 and Scope.
[3] As a general proposition, loyalty to a client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client without that client’s consent. Paragraph (a) expresses that general rule. Thus, a lawyer ordinarily may not act as advocate against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if it is wholly unrelated. On the other hand, simultaneous representation in unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only generally adverse, such as competing economic enterprises, does not require consent of the respective clients. Paragraph (a) applies only when the representation of one client would be directly adverse to the other.
[4] Loyalty to a client is also impaired when a lawyer cannot consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client because of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests. The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. Paragraph (b) addresses such situations. A possible conflict does not itself preclude the representation. The critical questions are the likelihood that a conflict will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client. Consideration should be given to whether the client wishes to accommodate the other interest involved.
June 25th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Chuck,
Note that Lincoln’s client is neither the mayor nor the council. His client is the County. As County agencies it is reasonable for either of them to ask Corp Counsil for an opinion on behalf of keeping the County legal.
This is why suggesting a separate attorney for each makes little sense. It is as is a corporation had separate attorneys for each division for the primary reason of sueing each other. This would be both wasteful and counter productive – as it would be for the County. Another alternative would be an elected Corp Counsel. But then do we REALLY want more politics in the mix?
June 25th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Bill, you make a good point, but I do not agree because county agencies exist under the executive branch of county government and the county council is not an agency.
Please consider the following excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution.
“Separation of powers political doctrine originating from the United States Constitution, according to which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This U.S. form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
Separation of powers is not absolute; it is instead qualified by the doctrine of checks and balances. James Madison wrote that the three branches “should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” The system of checks and balances is designed to allow each branch to restrain abuse by another branch.
The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. However, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that “it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Having separate attorneys would not be wasteful, but rather would enhance the founding fathers’s desire for checks and balances between branches of government.
Regardless, only the county council can fix this situation through a charter amendment, but it is now clear that they lack the six votes that would be required. The only other option is a citizens’ petition to place it on the ballot, but I don’t believe there is enough political traction for that to happen.
June 25th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Bill, you make a good point, but I do not agree because county agencies exist under the executive branch of county government; the county council is not an agency.
Please consider the following excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution.
“Separation of powers political doctrine originating from the United States Constitution, according to which the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This U.S. form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
Separation of powers is not absolute; it is instead qualified by the doctrine of checks and balances. James Madison wrote that the three branches “should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” The system of checks and balances is designed to allow each branch to restrain abuse by another branch.
The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. However, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that “it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Having separate attorneys would not be wasteful, but rather would enhance the founding fathers’s desire for checks and balances between branches of government.
Regardless, only the county council can fix this situation through a charter amendment, but it is now clear that they lack the six votes that would be required. The only other option is a citizens’ petition to place it on the ballot, but I don’t believe there is enough political traction for that to happen.
June 25th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Since none of you brought it up, I will: Both Council Chair Dominic Yagong and Councilmember Angel Pilago acknowledged during the debate yesterday that the budget as they sent it to Mayor Kenoi (my boss) is in fact illegal.
Dominic acknowledged on camera that Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida’s opinion was correct in its finding that the County Code requires that 2 percent of tax collections be deposited into the PONC fund. Lincoln was also correct when he pointed out the budget as amended by council appropriated only about 1.5 percent of tax collections for the fund. In other words, for the mayor to sign off on that budget as it was sent to him would be a violation of the code. It would be illegal.
That is why the council yesterday was rushing to try to pass a bill to reduce the required PONC contribution from 2 percent to 1 percent. Without that bill, the council’s budget would still be illegal even if they could muster the votes for a budget override. Councilman Yagong made that point himself during an exchange with Lincoln yesterday. I was surprised to hear the councilman make that admission, but he did.
So, with all due respect, the council chairman himself admits this isn’t just about politics. The budget they sent to the mayor really was illegal, and Lincoln Ashida was correct as a matter of law.
June 25th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Chuck, note that that being said the executive and legislative staffs do not have separate attorneys. There is one attorney general and one solicitor general and both report to the executive branch. The same is true at the State level, so having two separate attorneys at the county level would be a non conforming model. Multiple attorneys would keep the County tied up in court getting little of the County’ work done.
In any case enough of my opinions, you can see where they lead.
June 25th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Failing to make $20 million dollars to GASB45 in this years budget is not paying the bills……deferring it to next years budget is not paying the bills in this years budget……
June 25th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
This naturally brings up the question: how can city lawyers represent both sides in a lawsuit between the Mayor and the Council? Are government lawyers not subject to the usual conflict-of-interest and ethical rules that prohibit lawyers from the same office from representing both parties in a lawsuit, especially when both parties are existing clients?
From Civil Beat: In County of Kauai ex rel. Nakazawa v. Baptiste, 115 Haw. 15, 165 P.3d 916 (2007), a three-Justice majority of the Hawaii Supreme Court held that there is “a well-established distinction between private attorneys representing private parties and government attorneys representing government entities,” and concluded that in a lawsuit between the County Council as plaintiff, and the Mayor as the defendant, the County Attorney could represent both sides.
June 25th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
@Kevin….then why didn’t Lincoln speak up earlier…he claims it took him time to research…shouldn’t he be really familiar with the charter….he’s been Chief Counsel for 10 years….
June 25th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Typically, corp. counsel does not render an opinion unless asked to do so. But really, every council person knew that the county code requires 2%.
that’s why they introduced an earlier measure to amend the amount. That item was voted against in committee.
I also don’t get Ms. Ford. How can she vote to raid the fund and then say she’s going to introduce charter amendment to require 2%. If she’s committed to 2% then she should not have voted to raid the fund.
June 25th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Feliciano, mahalo for the case citation. That pretty much clears it all up since the state Supreme Court ruling creates precedent…unless you happen to be US Supreme Court Justice Thomas, that is!
Mahalo to everyone for the debate.
June 25th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I doubt it will be the last time Fred votes with the Sunshine Boys; you might as well have just kept Emily, at least she was funny and did actually communicate, sorta.
June 25th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Jan, GASB is a program to tuck money away to pay retirement health costs for public workers who will retire in the years ahead. It is the equivalent of putting money in a savings account to use years from now. We don’t owe the money today.
GASB is a good program, but it’s not mandatory. The state of Hawaii has never made a GASB payment, ever. The City of Honolulu didn’t make a payment this year, and it is unclear if they will make a payment next year. This county has made the payment for four consecutive years. We checked with our bond underwriters, and they were unconcerned when they heard we will hold off on the GASB payment next year. These are some of the toughest years since the Great Depression, and jurisdictions all across the county have decided to hold off on GASB until times get better.
We are cutting spending for a third consecutive year, but the budget is balanced, and the bills are paid. We’re very proud of that.
June 25th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
yes and the State is $40 Billion in arrears in making those payments……eventually it will catch up to them……retireess are living longer and if we keep deferring that obligation we will end up with huge problems….what happens next year…do we defer again? and again because this economy is not going to get better overnight…..will it eventually affect our bond rating when we get seriously in arrears?….deferring that payment is risky business ….Much too risky for me……
June 25th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Wouldn’t it have made sense to ask about the legality of what you want to do before moving ahead and making all this trouble? Ikeda even warned them about the potential for legal trouble. But this isn’t about the Mayor and Dominic Yagong. It’s about the incompetent ambition of the Council Chair vs. the Council’s integrity and the economic well-being of the County. Yagong should get out of the way and let responsible adults do the important stuff.
June 25th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Jan your response about GASB 45 is spot on, Kevin Dayton also conveniently leaves out that GASB 45 is shown as a liability for the County, that interest is added to that liability when payments are not made, and that that increased liability impacts the bond ratings, meaning bonds will cost us more.
Debt service was deferred in this budget, Kevin isn’t that a bill not being paid?
Payroll is being “lagged” into FY 2012-2013, meaning one of this years pay periods are coming out of next years budget to the tune of $6 million dollars. Either the county doubles up on a payment in 2012-2013 for we will forever “lag”
Approximate;y 30 million dollars is lagged, deferred, pushed off, so let’s do the real math
Mayor says he reduced his budget by about 12 million dollars between lat year and this year, but he deferred 30 million to make it balence, what that means is it really went UP 18 MILLION DOLLARS
June 25th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Jan your response about GASB 45 is spot on, Kevin Dayton also conveniently leaves out that GASB 45 is shown as a liability for the County, that interest is added to that liability when payments are not made, and that that increased liability impacts the bond ratings, meaning bonds will cost us more.
Debt service was deferred in this budget, Kevin isn’t that a bill not being paid?
Payroll is being “lagged” into FY 2012-2013, meaning one of this years pay periods are coming out of next years budget to the tune of $6 million dollars. Either the county doubles up on a payment in 2012-2013 for we will forever “lag”
Approximately 30 million dollars is lagged, deferred, pushed off, so let’s do the real math
Mayor says he reduced his budget by about 12 million dollars between lat year and this year, but he deferred 30 million to make it balance, what that means is it really went UP 18 MILLION DOLLARS
June 26th, 2011 at 4:23 am
Thank you Just One Voice….so once again, if we cannot pay the bills we should not be buying more land……responsible people pay their bills first and if there is enough left then you get the things you want…this is not the time…we are sinking and we are stuck with the most irresponsible administration which is just a carry over from Kim….same people just spread around in different departments…..hope you sleep well Fred Blas….and you claim to be a businessman…..
June 26th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Right now is exactly when the County should be buying land, if Hawaii County waits until boom times roll around again prices will be sky high and we will all pay way too much for the same parcels of land. The county needs to take the long view, it is an entity that will be around for a long time and the time to buy land and bank it for future public use is right now, while prices are low.
The majority of voters voted for this specific use of their money, not for a slush fund available for raiding by politicians. Those who oppose that use of the money had the opportunity to voice their opinions when it was up for vote by the people of Hawaii County. The designated 2% fund should never have even been on the table as a way to “balance” the budget, that is not what the people voted for. It was not the “2% for land fund unless times are hard and we need the money to fund our pet projects that help get us reelected” that was approved by the voters.
June 26th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Getting a second opinion would be profoundly stupid. Ashida is a hack, certainly, from the way he handled this, but he’s also smart, and extremely unlikely to put his name on an opinion unless it’s solid.
Whether he was right to go to the media disparaging the integrity of the Council (his clients) is another question. But to think he’d give a legally wrong opinion for political purposes is idiotic.
June 26th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Questions: Is corporation counsel an appointed position? By whom? What about Planning Director? I’ve been lied to, bold-faced, by BJ Lighthead when she disregarded the documents I brought to her since it contradicted her agenda and told me they’re only working off of HER documents.
Why don’t the public have a say as to who occupies these positions?
June 26th, 2011 at 10:38 am
So now Puna has a Councillor aligned with Hilo’s power brokers instead of Puna’s best interest, same as with the previous three Councillors from lower Puna. As Pete Townsend said, ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.’
June 26th, 2011 at 10:42 am
I keep reminding folks the charter is in print and on line. Above questions are not truly relevant when all is answered by charter.
It clearly states the counsel is nominated by mayor, as has been the case since 1969, and confirmed by council. Yagong ansd his troops knew Lincoln and his principles long before they confirmed him.
The only department heads appointed oherwise are water, fire, police and civil service, all of whom answered to appointed commissions which also are confirmed by the council.
June 26th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Just a simple budget number for anyone who cares about facts: Mayor Kenoi’s budget for the coming year is $37 million less than the budget that was in effect when he took office in 2008.
There has been no spending increase. Spending has declined for each year of this administration. Through all of that, he county has maintained public safety and other essential services.
The budget is balanced, and we are paying our bills. For anyone who wants more information, the Mayor’s veto message and the Corporation Counsel opinion declaring the council budget amendments illegal can be found at http://www.hawaiicountymayor.com
June 26th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Kevin,
Specifically without spinning please:
Debt Service: is it being paid in the Mayor’s 2011-2012 proposed budget
Payroll lag: Is the county in fact, pushing one payroll from 2011-2012 into 2012-2013 to the tune of 6 million dollars
isn’t debt service a bill? isn’t payroll a bill?
between 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 didn’t the budget only go down something like 12 million dollars, while employing different tactics to not pay 30 million worth of things….doesn’t this really mean the budget is approximately 15-18 million MORE when you take into account the deferments?
Please explain.
June 26th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
The budget is not balanced….bills are being deferred, wher do you think we will find $40 million next year to fund GASB45…..we are deferring major debt to our children and grandchildren and that is wrong…..there are more cuts that can be made even some departments that truly have cost us far more than they are worth…..it is time that we act prudently for the sake of future generations…..deferring the payment of obligations is financial suicide……we deserve a second opinion….the planned 11th hour Ashida opinion is just an opinion….we need another one…he has been chief counsel for 10 years and should know the charter like the back of his hand and he remained silent until the 11th hour…..games….may the Lord help us through this one….Kenoi isn’t always right and his budget is not necessarily the right one….he can and should cut more…..and act responsibly and get our bills paid rather than deferred……
June 26th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Kevin-
The actual 2011-2012 budget was supposed to be $390 million dollars not $370 million if the GASB 45 contribution of $20 MILLION was included. Kenoi conveniently left out the GASB 45 contribution of $20 MILLION from the budget and conveniently submitted a budget he falsely claimed was balanced at $370 MILLION.
Add the $20 MILLION to the budget and you have a real County budget of $390 MILLION.
The council submiited a budget addressing the GASB 45 contribution of $20 million and balanced it at $370 MILLION while addressing other cuts while Kenoi and Dayton are trying to falsely claim that this council raised the budget by $44k.
Could you please answer the question “Just one Voice” has of you Mr. Dayton?
Is it not true that deferring the $20 MILLION this administration is going to do will cause the county tax payer another $4 million dollars plus in interest over the term of the GASB 45 payments in the following years?
That is unnecessary $4 million plus the tax payer will pay because this mayor is not willing to make the present cuts in furloughs, layoffs, slashing of department expenses that are presently needed today.
Why are you and the administration not willing to be honest with the voters and taxpayers and be willing to crunch the numbers to pay the GASB 45 now so the tax payer won’t have to pay the extra $4 million in interest in next few years.
Be honest with the tax payer and admit Mr. Dayton that deferring GASB 45 will cost the tax payer another $4 million in compounded interest.
Plus, you cite the State of Hawaii not paying their contribution but the State just hand their bond rating lowered because of this very thing, deferral of contributions to pensions.
Also, for an Executive Assistant to state that GASB 45 “is equivalent to putting money in a savings account to use years from now. We don’t owe the money today” is stunning coming from a person who is supposedly overseeing our county finances and protect the county workers future retirement.
Absolutely stunning.
Spend it all today and don’t worry about tomorrow.
So what happens next year, are we supposed to double up on the payments?
Where is this $40 MILLION going to come from next year?
Mark my words, these guys who are pulling this stunt now own this budget and will be responsible for it next year.
June 26th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Kevin-
The actual 2011-2012 budget was supposed to be $390 million dollars not $370 million if the GASB 45 contribution of $20 MILLION was included. Kenoi conveniently left out the GASB 45 contribution of $20 MILLION from the budget and conveniently submitted a budget he falsely claimed was balanced at $370 MILLION.
Add the $20 MILLION to the budget and you have a real County budget of $390 MILLION.
The council submiited a budget addressing the GASB 45 contribution of $20 million and balanced it at $370 MILLION while addressing other cuts while Kenoi and Dayton are trying to falsely claim that this council raised the budget by $44k.
Could you please answer the question “Just one Voice” has of you Mr. Dayton?
Is it not true that deferring the $20 MILLION this administration is going to do will cause the county tax payer another $4 million dollars plus in interest over the term of the GASB 45 payments in the following years?
That is unnecessary $4 million plus the tax payer will pay because this mayor is not willing to make the present cuts in furloughs, layoffs, slashing of department expenses that are presently needed today.
Why are you and the administration not willing to be honest with the voters and taxpayers and be willing to crunch the numbers to pay the GASB 45 now so the tax payer won’t have to pay the extra $4 million in interest in next few years.
Be honest with the tax payer and admit Mr. Dayton that deferring GASB 45 will cost the tax payer another $4 million in compounded interest.
Plus, you cite the State of Hawaii not paying their contribution but the State just hand their bond rating lowered because of this very thing, deferral of contributions to pensions.
Also, for an Executive Assistant to state that GASB 45 “is equivalent to putting money in a savings account to use years from now. We don’t owe the money today” is stunning coming from a person who is supposedly overseeing our county finances and protect the county workers future retirement.
Absolutely stunning.
Spend it all today and don’t worry about tomorrow.
So what happens next year, are we supposed to double up on the payments?
Where is this $40 MILLION going to come from next year?
Mark my words, these guys who are pulling this stunt now own this budget and will be responsible for it next year.
June 26th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Right on, Jan and Just one voice.
Yes, when the Government Accounting Standards Board adopted GASB 45 in reaction to governments not reporting their postemployment benefits liability, they didn’t require that annual payments be made, only recorded.
Not paying public worker benefits is a Republican Party value.
I don’t think that the county council made a political mistake attempting to remove $1 million from the open space fund when the other option is not paying $20 million in county worker pension benefits.
In addition, what will be the impact of the new law signed into law by Abercrombie last month creating the “public lands development corporation” under the Department of Land and Natural Resources?
Privatization of public lands is another Republican value.
Seems that Hawai’i's Democratic Party is increasingly Democratic in name only.
June 26th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
My goodness, that’s an awful lot of misinformation for one afternoon.
First of all, GASB:
– GASB is a good program, but it’s optional.
– It is probably best to think of GASB as a savings account where we have been tucking away money for the past four years. The money will be there later when we need it to cover health benefits when the public workers of today retire. GASB isn’t really a “pension benefit.”
– While we appreciate the council’s efforts, in the end the council appropriated only enough money to cover about half of GASB. That demonstrates quite clearly that the council understands GASB is a voluntary payment. That’s why the council proposes to pay only half of it next year. It’s optional. The council understands that.
– GASB is not projected to increase to $40 million next year. The $40 million number is a fiction, pure and simple.
– Our actuary and bond underwriters are very comfortable with the county’s decision to hold off on the GASB payment next year. Municipalities across the nation have made the same decision, because these are tough times.
June 26th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
The administration budget is balanced, and that budget is $37 million less than the budget in effect when Mayor Kenoi took office. Fabricated numbers such as those fabricated by rsjm (above) don’t change that.
The county’s debt service is being paid exactly when it is due. We are realizing a savings by a one-time shift of debt service into fy 2013, because that is when that debt payment is due — in 2013. We’re paying our bills, right on time.
Mahalo to the council for agreeing unanimously with the administration strategy on debt service. The council approved this provision of the administration budget.
The payroll lag is something we probably should have done in the 1990s, when the state and all the other counties adopted payroll lag. We will get a one-time savings from that as well, and of course we’ll make our payments to our employees right on time. Again, we’re paying our bills and protecting our credit rating, as always.
Again, a big mahalo to the council for agreeing unanimously with the Kenoi administration strategy on payroll lag. The council approved this provision of the administration budget.
June 26th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Finally, for rjsm, please stop making up numbers. The kind of nonsense you posted above is a real disservice to members of the public who are trying to follow the budget discussion. Fabricated numbers make it much harder for people to understand what’s happening.
My guess is you already know perfectly well the Mayor’s budget is $367.2 million for the coming year, which is a decrease of $35.9 million from the budget in effect when Mayor Kenoi took office. This administration has cut the budget each and every year. That is fact.
June 26th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Ok let me translate for Mr. Dayton. who at this point seems unable or unwilling to respond to direct questions:
FACT: If you read carefully Kevin’s 5:06 pm post above you will note he admits the administration is NOT making the debt service payment in fiscal year 2011-2012.
Kevin is trying to dumb down GASB 45 and make it seem like its all good, its not. Interest is added to the county of Hawaii liability sheet, that is a FACT. As that liability grows our bond rating will be reduced JUST LIKE THE STATES JUST WAS, that is also a fact
Kevin PLEASE, PLEASE explain these numbers:
using your numbers
FY 2010-2011 Approx 375 million (source mayors 2010 budget message)
MINUS the 30 million in gasb 45 NON PAY, PAYROLL LAG, and debt service deferment (source mayors 2011 budget message)
375 million minus 30 million is 345 million, but Mayors budget after not paying for things is 367 million (source Kevin Dayton)
so after deferring 30 million dollars the budget is cut ONLY 8 MILLION DOLLARS which means 22 MILLION dollars in increased spending
Please Kevin explain
June 26th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Kevin, you’re understanding of GASB 45 is wrong and needs to be corrected before you mislead more of the public.
GASB 45 is an abbreviation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45. It was issued in June 2004 and its official title is “Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions”.
GASB 45 requires that the current year’s cost for future postemployment obligations to current county workers be reported in the county’s financial statements. Not paying the current year’s GASB 45 obligation means that their will not be money to pay current county worker’s postemployment benefits, such as healthcare. To characterize these payments as payments into a savings account is ridiculous and wrong. GASB 45 payments are funding future postemployment benefits that the county has promised its workers.
According to the GASB’s website: “This Statement improves the relevance and usefulness of financial reporting by (a) requiring systematic, accrual-basis measurement and recognition of OPEB cost (expense) over a period that approximates employees’ years of service and (b) providing information about actuarial accrued liabilities associated with OPEB and whether and to what extent progress is being made in funding the plan.”
Therefore, not paying the GASB 45 liability for this year means that NO PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN FUNDING CURRENT COUNTY WORKER’S RETIREMENT.
County workers should be tarring and feathering any politician or co-worker who supports delaying GASB 45 payments because they are placing their quality of life after retirement at risk.
I don’t think the county council made a political error by attempting to withhold $1 million from the open space fund when county workers’ postretirement benefits are not being paid.
June 26th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Kevin, you’re understanding of GASB 45 is wrong and needs to be corrected before you mislead more of the public.
GASB 45 is an abbreviation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45. It was issued in June 2004 and its official title is “Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions”.
GASB 45 requires that the current year’s cost for future postemployment obligations to current county workers be reported in the county’s financial statements. Not paying the current year’s GASB 45 obligation means that their will not be money to pay current county worker’s postemployment benefits, such as healthcare. To characterize these payments as payments into a savings account is ridiculous and wrong. GASB 45 payments are funding future postemployment benefits that the county has promised its workers.
According to the GASB’s website: “This Statement improves the relevance and usefulness of financial reporting by (a) requiring systematic, accrual-basis measurement and recognition of OPEB cost (expense) over a period that approximates employees’ years of service and (b) providing information about actuarial accrued liabilities associated with OPEB and whether and to what extent progress is being made in funding the plan.”
Therefore, not paying the GASB 45 liability for this year means that NO PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN FUNDING CURRENT COUNTY WORKER’S FUTURE RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
County workers should be tarring and feathering any politician or co-worker who supports delaying GASB 45 payments because that places their quality of life after retirement at risk.
I don’t think the county council made a political error by attempting to withhold $1 million from the open space fund when county workers’ postretirement benefits are not being paid
June 26th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
PS – I don’t know why my posts are appearing twice…my apologies.
June 26th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Dear Kevin Dayton-
You still have not answered my question and owned up to the point that the taxpayers will have to swallow $4 million dollars in “compounded” interest over the long term when your GASB 45 “hocus pocus” financial deferment is passed.
Just as Kevin Dayton and Mayor Kenoi’s administration tried to pass a $56 million dollar bond float “blank check” with no line items, the public did not know how much each project would be allocated in the proposal until the midnight hour when Mayor Kenoi was invoked to, and this GASB 45 deferment just is another version of Kevin Dayton’s and Mayor Kenoi’s deception and voodoo economics.
The public was not given the actual cost breakdown for each project of the $56 million dollar bond float until the last minute.
This unconscionable deliberate stall tactic foretold Corp Counsel Lincoln Ashida’s last minute concocted foolish opinion on the so-called illegality of the alleged council’s action especially with the designated OCE appropriation.
This is nothing but political theater, and yet it is more fiscally perilous to the public and taxpayers because it could force our county to lay off employees (not just furloughs) and force our real estate property taxes and other taxes to be raised next year.
Any finance person would know, contrary to Kevin Dayton’s claims, that this is not a savings account. This is like a credit card payment and if Mayor Kenoi’s administration and Kevin Dayton have their way they will put the “Master Charge” in the drawer until next year. The “Master Charge” will not just sit there in the drawer. This credit card’s deferred principal will grow along with deferred interest and it will be another $4 million dollars in interest alone on this, not to mention other minuses.
Fiscal responsibility is about paying your bills on time and not letting principle and interest add up!!
And Kevin Dayton also states the bond issuers are comfortable with the county’s decision to “hold off GASB 45.” Ramping up interest in part due to the increased risk of non-payment is no problem, right, Kevin Dayton?? Wrong!!
Kevin Dayton also states that municipalities throughout the nation are deferring GASB 45, yet municipalities throughout the nation are also laying off government employees in droves!!
This is BEFORE Mayor Kenoi declared to the state legistlature, “We have a government we no longer can afford.” Is the County of Hawaii better off and more prosperous financially that we can end furloughs which saved the County $7 million last year? Kevin Dayton and Mayor Kenoi’s administration are just playing up to the government worker unions because they will all support Kevin’s ultra-sneaky and fit-rage lying boss Mayor Kenoi next year.
Kevin Dayton takes the public cheaply but we are not stupid. We are just the silent majority/mainstream folks.
To Kevin Dayton, don’t point your index finger and blame others when our county financially implodes under your and Mayor Kenoi’s watch next year. Wait and see, folks. Guarantee.
June 26th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
One Voice, I’m now posting for the third time the basic fact that you refuse to acknowledge: At $367 million, the Mayor’s budget represents the third consecutive budget reduction in the three years of this administration.
You may not like the way he reduced spending, but he did reduce it, and he preserved public safety and other essential services in the bargain.
It is a good and balanced budget that meets the needs of our community. The bond underwriter approves. The actuary approves. And I think the public approves, because the feedback we got when the Mayor presented his budget to communities around the island was very positive.
June 26th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
I wouldn’t be so hard on Fred re his refusal to vote in favor of outside legal council—now at the 11th hour, at considerable expense, when there were other ways to amend the Council’s budget so as avoid the questionable provisions.
To start with, I disagreed with the majority’s action decreasing the land fund deposits by one million. However, if you accepted that action, then it was appropriate to amend the County Code along the lines proposed by Ikeda in his Bill #61 –provided for a temporary reduction of one million of the deposits to the Land Fund. But low and behold (and no surprise to anyone who knows that Ikeda does not support the Land Fund – whether at 1% or at 2%), Ikeda immediately withdrew his Bill 61. Passage of his Bill 61 would have eliminated the need for a legal opinion as to whether the Council’s budget was inconsistent with the County Code provision. Frankly in my opinion such an amendment to the Code was necessary so that the budget reduction of this Fund would not be contrary to the current Code requirement of 2% deposits.
Therefore Dominic’s Bill #63 scheduled to come up on June 1 – should be withdrawn or rejected. His Bill 63 is based on the premise that the County Code provision set at 2% deposits is contrary to the County Charter provision that requires a minimum of one percent to be deposited into the Land Fund. Well I am not much good at math, but last I heard 2% is more than the minimum of 1% and therefore is perfectly legit – and not contrary to the Charter provision. This exact issue was addressed by the Charter Commission, and the point was that by setting a 1% floor it provided assurance of some investment into the Land Fund, but didn’t mandate any particular percentage so long as it stayed above 1%. (Likely that even if Yagong’s bill #63 passes, it can be vetoed by the Mayor, which would push the debate pass the June 30th deadline, which means the Mayor’s budget passes…. or am I wrong on this budget deadline?)
Yet, because Yagong clearly was given bad legal advice, he is still pushing for the Code provision to be permanently changed to 1% deposits instead of 2% so as not to be inconsistent with the County Charter. Yes the Charter (which is like the County’s constitution) trumps the County Code (the County’s statutory laws) – but only if the Code provision in question is not permissible under the Charter (and that is not the situation here).
Understandably however, Councilman Yagong is reluctant to trust that Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida is the Council’s loyal counsel. How can Corp Counsel Lincoln Ashida be part of the Mayor’s cabinet and at the same time be representing the best interests of the County Council on this matter? Repeatedly where there has been an apparent conflict between the Administration’s interests and the Council’s interests, in my opinion, Corporation Counsel generally protects the interest of the Kenoi Administration over the interests of the Council. Otherwise, if there were potential legal issues related to the Council’s budget wouldn’t he have immediately brought this concern to the Council when it was proposing the budget provisions in question, and not waited until the 11th hour to write his legal memo on behalf of Mayor Kenoi’s position. In my view wearing two hats here and fairly representing both the Executive and the Legislative branches is not possible. (However when I raised this conflict of interest to the Charter Commission, Corp Counsel Ashida assured the Commission, there was no problem. )
At this point what is most important is there is no need to seek to amend the Charter from a minimum of 1% to 2%. Clearly it would be a bad idea to pursue that course of action. Why risk a negative vote – which given the politics at present is likely to happen? Be glad that we have a 1% minimum in the Charter and preserve the 2% in the Code.
Move on — and stop giving Fred Blas a hard time for his vote on hiring outside legal counsel.
For more discussion on these matters, read my blog at: http://www.margaretwille.com/home/?q=node/680
June 26th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Rsjm; wait and see what???
June 26th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of what GASB 45 is.
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board is a set of standards for state and local governments to follow for its financial reporting to provide useful information for its users.
Chuck is correct that GASB 45 is for Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions. This standard requires that the liability be recognized on the balance sheet so that users can see what future expenses may occur. This amount is an estimate based on actuary calculation. This is not a payment.
Payments come into play when you start putting money away for these future expenses. Payments go into a fund/investments that will be used to pay these future expenses. The county has been making payments into the fund for the past 4 yrs. These are voluntary payments to fund a future liability. If you don’t make a payment it doesn’t mean you have to double a payment next time and your liability doesn’t double. This also is not borrowed money so there is no debt service.
The bottom line is this liability is determined by an actuary. If the actuary says the county doesn’t have to pay it and it won’t adversely affect the bond rating then it should be deferred in these tough economic times.
June 26th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Wow Kevin, you completely ignored all the numbers I posted, clearly you refuse to answer and instead choose to regurgitate Billy’s one liners, I so liked your writing better when you were a real journalist. What a shame. How you can look at my numbers and not see, let alone, not comment at all on the 20 plus million in increased spending is beyond me, I hope at least others can see it, but hey together we can right
June 27th, 2011 at 6:34 am
JOV, I didn’t bother with fabricated numbers as a journalist, and I’m not going to argue with fabricated numbers today. Please try to stick to the facts.
Regarding Chuck’s comment on GASB, you should know that we have not heard a single complaint (that I am aware of) from any public workers concerned about GASB. I think the public workforce understands what we’re doing, and sees the need for it. People understand these are tough times.
June 27th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Perfect Kevin let’s use real verified numbers
1. The FY 2010-2011 budget is $375 million (fact, real number)
2. The proposed FY 2011-2012 budget is $367 million (fact, verified by you above)
3. This shows us a factual reduction of 8 million dollars
4.fy 2010 minus the $29.1 million dollars eliminated by not paying GASB-45, debt service, and payroll lag (factual number from proposed budget bill 29) should have made FY 2011 budget $346 million but it’s not, it’s $367 million, a factual numbers based increase of $22 million dollars
Can you comment now Kevin?
June 27th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Dominic has the luxury of running for Mayor without stating how he would address the tough economic issues the county faces today. I’m very curious as to how he would go about reducing government spending while keeping services.
It’s easy to second guess and obstruct the efforts of the person in the hot seat, but I think it would be more honorable to just state his true motivations and solutions.
June 27th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
I’m not surprised Fred is aligning himself with the Hilo/east side council members. Word on the street is that he is basically abandoning half of his current constituency because of potential redistricting – that is he’s giving up on HPP as it may move to District 3. I also heard that he is trying to get some (half?) of HPP’s park money for a covered court area in his own subdivision! so he’s already showing himself to be a “true politician”.
June 27th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Greg-
Excuse me, this has nothing to do with Dominic Yagong.
It’s about the current budget, Fred Blas backing the Hilo council members for his own political purposes (this is the same guy who refused and and made false statements about not attending public hearings and debates during his campaign… rookie Brittany Smart would not do that), and the Mayor’s Executive Assistant Kevin Dayton who has put himself in to the discussion concerning this thread.
But at this point, I think Dominic’s top platform would probably be to downsize the county government — Kenoi testified before the legislature in 2010 “the county has a government we can no longer afford” but Kenoi then turned around and eliminated furloughs which saved the county $7 million dollars in 09-10 and he now seems to coddle and suck up, no surprises of Kenoi here, to the government unions so they support him in his re-election campaign of 2012 which the unions will all do.
70% of the county budget is government employee related, then where else are we to slash expenses, so there need to be more cuts and furloughs made there in the county budget, right there, and when furloughs were in place in 10-11, it was like we never missed them. Municipalities around the country are laying off and furloughing, why can’t the County of Hawaii?
Especially when the mayor says himself out of his own mouth we longer have a county government we can afford.
Kevin Dayton-has still not answered the question, we, the voters and taxpayers have, will deferring the $20 million dollar GASB 45 payment cost the County of Hawaii $4 million dollars more in principal and interest over the years?
Mr. Dayton has called my fiscal numbers “fabrication,” “nonsense,” “a disservice” to the public and keeps parroting the same old line, “the mayor has reduced the budget 3 consecutive years.”
Nothing more from Dayton but repeating the same line, again and again.
Scroll up and look at the his comments.
Kevin Dayton-for the fifth time, will deferring the GASB 45 contribution of $20 million dollars cost the county $4 million dollars in principal and interest over the years?
Mr. Dayton, you need to answer the questions and stop misleading the public and side-stepping the question on this very issue. Dayton claims the actuary and bond underwriters are saying it’s ok to defer. Of course, they are. If the County of Hawaii’s credit rating is lowered, it will cost more for the County of Hawaii to borrow. And this means more in borrowing fees for the brokers, consultants and advisers.
Mr. Dayton knows very well his administration is looking to defer or stall the paying of bills and expenses to a future time so they do not have to make the tough decisions today such as furloughing and laying off government employees and/or raising our property taxes. If this administration does either or both, Dayton knows very well it will affect the mayor’s ability to be re-elected and cost many of them, including Mr. Dayton, their jobs.
If this budget is passed as proposed by the Mayor, there will be no blaming, finger pointing, and laying the responsibilities on others later, like this administration is famous for doing. Kenoi, Dayton, and the rest will be responsible if you see an extreme rise in your property taxes in the next year’s budget hearings or if there are massive layoffs of county employees when the county might not be able to meet payroll later.
They pulled every trick out of the hat to get their budget approved. Now they own it. And we need to hold them responsible for it.
And Mr. Dayton needs to be held responsible for answering my question.
He put himself in to this debate and needs to answer the tough questions not just the softball ones.
June 27th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Quoted above:
“70% of the county budget is government employee related, then where else are we to slash expenses?.”
One sacred cow that has not yet been examined for budget balancing potential is the overall procurement system which in my opinion is so out of whack and corrupt that if it operated within normal bounds there would not be a budget deficit. An interesting quote I heard is that we do not have a budget crises… we have a management crises.
The standard county defense when this is brought up on rare occasions is that the procurement laws are state laws and our poor well intentioned county leadership is powerless to do anything about it. I don’t personally think powerless is the right word. I think there is no willingness. The very largest donations to mayoral campaigns (successful ones that is) have been from the contractors, consultants and vendors who to this day and up to this minute continue to reap very, very healthy profits on our public works projects.
This is not solely a Billy Kenoi phenomena. Billy Kenoi, on this subject, is one link in a chain of administrations going back many years. Remember if you will that he came into office as a young lawyer with a weak resume and a bucket of money. Not unique. Really quite ordinary in Hawaiian politics actually. NAtional politics too.
Whatever the result of this years budget brouhaha next year will likely be a mirror image of this one. Included in that image will be no reflection of activity on procurement reform. I estimate we waste about $30+ million a year this way…. most every year.
June 27th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Tiff,
In my estimation, the essence of the original post — your call on Mr Blas and Mr Kenoi — is spot on.
June 27th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
When Yagong and Hoffman are leading a charge over a cliff it makes sense not to follow them. If they win they end up with a probably fatally defective budget resolution. That’s if they win.
June 27th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
So in 2012 we will, once again, have to choose between Hilo hegemony, cronyism, but some competence, and well meaning but ineffectual opposition.
June 27th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Yes Rob. Yes.
June 27th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Rob is right, cut the fat from consultants and contractors. We get more bang for our tax dollars the more we hire and buy locally. Who disagrees with that ?
June 28th, 2011 at 11:39 am
John-
“Hilo competence.”
You’re kidding us, right?
More like Hilo incompetence.
Yoshimoto, Onishi, and Ikeda….the three who put an ad-hoc committee together to address the COH 2009-2010 budget issues of the Finance Committee in which Onishi was the Finance Chair.
When Onishi became chair of Finance he than oversaw a COH budget of $380,000,000. Before Onishi became a council member he was the recreation director and custodian for the Hilo Boy’s Club gym with an annual budget of $9,000.
So Onishi really had experience he brought to the table before he oversaw our county’s budget?
This ad-hoc committee came back with no recommendations on a 380 million dollar budget.
The real Hilo incompetents had asked and begged Yagong, Ford, and Hoffman to help them with their and the mayor’s budget. Yagong, Ford, and Hoffman have actually seen, read, understand and signed budgets before, but all three competent council members told the Hilo three incompetent council members “no.”
After the three Hilo council members subverted the Sunshine Laws, shanghai’d the Council, now they are asking the very council member they screwed over to help them with the budget.
Could you believe the nerve?
The same three who were involved in electing Emily Naeole to be the Vice-Chair not for her competence and skill in possibly running a council meeting but for her swing vote.
Would Naeole even be capable of running a council meeting if Yoshimoto were not present?
Nominating and electing by these very three of Naeole to the Vice-Chair was a completely politically motivated decision and would you trust their judgment in anything else after that.?
And, John, are you including Ashida in the equation?
Ashida, who was responsible for the extended term for Arakaki, Sunshine law violations, impediment to Maile David’s running against their favorite Guy Enriques….cases Ashida either outright lost at the lower Circuit Level, had his arguments and rulings over-turned at the Appellate or Supreme Court, or paid off litigants with our tax dollars.
Then there is the accusation in the Stacy Higa civil case that Ashida leaked information to the media which allagedly hurt Higa’s campaign for mayor before Kenoi appointed Ashida to Corporation Counsel.
I think Ashida is the worst attorney to get a legal opinion from.
Sherry Broder is one of Hawaii’s top human rights attorneys, won a $2 billion dollar judgement against the former President Marcos regime (recently settled at $10 million), represented the Dana Ireland family and won a huge judgement against the COH, sued Heptaclor and won a huge judgment , and was the former President of the Hawaii State Bar Association.
There is no comparison between Sherry Broder and Lincoln Ashida.
Ashida only knows how to work for the County of Hawaii (allegedly fixed up for his job by his Daddy) and has never proven himself working in the private sector nor by opening up his own law practice.
You, John, called Ashida a political hack but based on his own track history, listed above, that is not only true but he is fully not competent to give the County of Hawaii a legal opinion.
So, Kevin Dayton, are you going to answer the question of whether or not the taxpayer will be responsible for the $4 million dollars in interest over the term when GASB 45 is deferred this Friday?
We wouldn’t want to “fabricate,” state “nonsense,” or do a “disservice” to the public by “misleading” them.
Mr. Dayton the public is waiting for your answer.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
At the end of the day, the issue is not budget related, it is procedure related.
Is what the Council did with the budget amendments legal or illegal?
It really is not a matter of the budget – amounts – waste or anything.
The issue is if what the Council did was legal or illegal.
How we got to this point however, is the same old crap I thought we voted this group into replace.
Personally, I think in this case, Billy thru his pen across the room.
Unfortunately, us taxpayers get to once yet again, pay for gross incompetence, and political grand standing.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
It should come as no surprise that when confronted with real numbers and unspinable questions Kevin Dayton has suddenly vanished, together we can huh folks
June 28th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
As far as competence, in this dust-up, Billy and his consigliare have been two steps ahead of Yagong/Hoffman. No contest.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
John, In your opinion should we be electing more lawyers or fewer lawyers?
June 28th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
John-
What Billy the liar and Lincoln the hack are doing is political grandstanding for their own benefit and the benefit of their sleazy cabal of Onishi, Ikeda, Yoshimoto, Ashida, and all the consultants, developers, etc. listed above by Tucker. One group donates to campaigns, the other rips off the taxpayers blindly, overcharging us for public works projects. One group executes the plan, the other enables. Nothing to be proud of here. Blas should have learned from how they used Emily, Guy, Gary Safarik, Al Smith, John Santangelo but it doesn’t seem that Blas has learned.
John-
You sound like a county employee, government union member, a Kenoi sign waver, or all of the above. Be really proud of who and what you support.
One Voice-
Sometimes the sound of silence is golden.
Kevin-
We are all still waiting….Or was John blogging for you….?
June 28th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
rsjm, I realize that we are talking about politicians here and we can feel frustrated by their actions, but I just have to wonder if you can assure me that yours aren’t libelous comments… Is there any public good in calling our mayor a “liar” and our Corporation Counsel a “hack.” To read these sort of allegations, they feel like fingernails on a chalkboard. Do you have a personal axe to grind? Please expound.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
I don’t support Kenoi, and have always tried to vote against Hilo and its cronyism. All I’m saying is Yagong and Hoffman haven’t impressed me as remotely competent in this ridiculous controversy. I’ll probably vote for whichever one ends up against Billy, like I voted for Angel, but without any confidence that they know what they’re doing.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Tiff, I said that Asida was a hack first. Rsjm was quoting me.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Sorry, for some reason I am not being emailed all the blog comments, so I didn’t see you called Lincoln Ashida a hack first, John. What is your basis for saying that? Incidentally, we journalists call ourselves “hacks” and we call PR people “flacks.”
June 29th, 2011 at 6:39 am
Because he went to the press and disparaged the honesty of some of the council, just like he called Hoffman a liar last year in the reorganization fiasco. He’s a political hack, the admins hatchet man.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Regarding Fred Blas as the subject of this topic:
I heard a quote on the news last night from Ed Koch, former Mayor or New York City which I think is appropriate. It went like this:
“If you agree with me 80% of the time that’s great. If you agree with me 100% of the time you’re nuts!”.
June 29th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Dayton/Kenoi are not being honest in answering the question of whether the tax payer will have to pay the $4 million in interest on the deferment of GASB 45. Dayton is Kenoi’s Executive Assistant and speaks for Kenoi and if Dayton is continuing to say it is a savings account than he is continually lying to the public.
This means Dayton, and also Kenoi, are lying to the public on a crucial issue in this bill which will cost the tax payer $4 million dollars in interest which the administration intends to have approved on Friday.This is another continued breach of the voters trust by this mayoral administration and we must not ignore this or take it lightly.
If Dayton disagrees with my observation and opinion then he needs to come back to this public forum and state his position and stop repeating himself and trotting out the same old tired line the public has heard from him repeatedly on this thread, “for three straight years the mayor has lowered the budget”.
Of course the budget was lowered if Kenoi and Dayton removed and deferred certain expenses and bills to the following year or until 2013-2014. This administration simply removes certain bills and expenses from the current budget to be paid at a later date and than claim all current bills and expenses were paid . Than they claim it’s a balanced budget. The Kenoi administration is just trying look good to the voters but it’s nothing more than a smoke screen of bookkeeping and it’s certainly not a balanced budget.
It will be horrendous if another mayor is sworn in to office 2012 and has to clean up this fiscal mess that will be left behind by Kenoi, Dayton and the rest of their gang. Or if Kenoi gets re-elected to office with this financial disaster in play it will be appalling to watch him blame someone else. And Kenoi will try. Kenoi has had his budget signed by the council exactly how he proposed it for two straight years with no collaboration, feedback, or opposition from the minority.This year will be no different when the mayor recently exercised his veto power over the present majority council.
From here on in, let’s be very clear that Kenoi, Dayton, and the gang own this budget and the buck will fall on them. And they need to be held responsible.
I did not want to interrogate Dayton in such a way but he started it with me by accusing me of making comments that were a “fabrication” “nonsense” and a “disservice” to the public. Dayton has arrogantly called all the inquisitive commentators “fabrication/s” but continually not answering the question.
I take offense to those remarks and want to see Mayor Kenoi’s right hand man prove to the tax paying public he is accountable too by being honest and truthful on this very blog where he made this preposterous accusations.
If Dayton was hired as the County of Hawaii Mayor’s Executive Assistant/Public Affairs official he should start taking his job seriously and performing like an Executive Assistant/Public Affairs official. He should come forward concerning my question which I have asked him 7 times in different variations over a two day period and state either the “tax payer is not obligated to the $4 million in interest on the 2011-2012 deferment”, “the tax payer is obligated,” or Dayton will “check on it and get back to us with the information in a day.”
It’s that simple.
Ashida’s history with Corporation Counsel, as noted above, obviously speaks for itself. Ashida’s most recent play was to threaten the Council if they were to ask for monies from a special fund to pay for outside legal counsel for a second opinion on the budget issues, Ashida said he would fight the Council tooth and nail. This is a special fund set up for this very type of legal advisement and Ashida threatened to fight them on it.
Ashida does not know the ideals of the true meaning of a public servant or a statesman but is the most egregious type of political operator we have ever seen in the history of Hawaii county. It is appalling that Ashida continues to act in such a unconscionable and rogue-is manner, he needs step down or Kenoi should flat out remove him. Ashida has failed to represent the council, it is not even an option for him to represent the tax payer, and will only represent the mayor as it serves his own political agenda.
Thank You
P.S.-Nice press release and pictures Kevin but maybe it’s time we forget about the softball subjects and this “nonsense” like street cleanups and Billy boy’s vacation and address my specific question along with the other commentators questions. The County budget needs to be approved tomorrow and there are unanswered questions and concerns with GASB 45 and other issues.
June 29th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
[...] http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/06/ashida-plays-politics-with-county-council/ * * * http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2011/06/24/commentary-regarding-fred-blas-decision-to-side-with-hi... * * * * [...]
June 29th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
My apologies to anyone who is still following this string, I forgot to check on the $4 million allegation yesterday, but I did get a chance to check today. I was curious, because I noticed rsjm didn’t cite any source for that figure. So I checked with the county Department of Finance:
As to RSJM’s claim that it will cost the County $4 million to defer the GASB payment: You’re wrong. The experts in the county have never heard of any such estimate, so it appears to be another fabrication.
Mahalo to anyone who has stayed with us this long. I won’t be posting here again, but please don’t take that as agreement with rsjm or his crew.
Also, mahalo to those of you who have joined us on Opala in Paradise. rsjm may not appreciate you guys, but I do. I don’t think community cleanups are nonsense at all. See you in Puna on Saturday!
June 30th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Kevin -
It’s very nice of you finally to come back on BIC two and a half days after many questions were asked of you. Usually the rule of thumb is public relations pros respond back to the public or person asking the questions within 24 hours. Not two and a half days later. But you are a former print journalist so I sincerely apologize for asking and expecting of you to understand how p.r. is practiced.
And I would think that detailed questions concerning the COH budget asked by one of the other BIC participants, ” just one voice,” would be much more of a priority to answer than the sending out of a media release concerning the mayor’s vacation plans in Japan.
Again, I guess it comes down to what is the most important priority for you as the public affairs representative.
Fluff that looks nice and feels good or just the hard facts.
The information you provided concerning the no payment of interest on the deferral of the GASB 45 payment factually is inaccurate. There WILL be interest paid on this deferral and it will come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this island over the term of the program.
And this could have been avoided if we had made the tough decisions and paid it this year.
Dayton cites COH Department of Finance “experts” (by which the word “experts” is being very loosely thrown around by Dayton…the COH has NO expert on GASB 45) who said no interest payment is due for deferring GASB 45.
Not quite what I would call a reliable or accurate source.
Is this the same department that is stacked with your own administration’s appointees?
Is this your idea of an objective financial opinion?
Sorry, Kevin, but the GASB 45 stateside administrators say we will pay interest on the deferment of the $20 million dollars.
The county taxpayer has had all legal opinions of our county run through Corporation Counsel, another department stacked with the administration’s appointees, and look how apocalyptic that has turned out for the taxpayer and county council.
Is this also your idea of an objective legal opinion?
According to a CNN article which cites IHS global insight, 110,000 state and city level government employees will be laid off in the third quarter of 2011 alone in the United States. This amounts to approximately 20,000 per state.
The State of Wisconsin Milwaukee Public Schools will layoff 519 staff members including 349 public school teachers.
How can a state like ours in the middle of the Pacific with a county on a neighbor island have its county employees be immune from layoffs or at least furloughs in the worst economic downward cycle of our global and national economy since the Great Depression of 1929?
In California, a state with the fifth largest economy in the world, there are thousands of government employees being laid off including clerical workers, teachers, police officers, etc. and their state capital of Sacramento is laying off dozens of fireman because this county simply cannot afford to pay them.
California is even making cuts in public safety to prepare and save for possible worse times ahead.
Is our COH run so efficiently that we are immune from all of this?
The COH’s budget of this year has no property tax increases, no furloughs, no layoffs, and we are deferring many of our debts, bills and expenses until 2012 or 2013-2014.
There is a give and take in government economic policy of a balance of revenue generators along with the slashing of expenses. This year’s budget has no substantial slashing of expenses from department to department (Kenoi claimed an across the board slashing of expenses in last year’s budget which an HTH journalism award winning story by Jason Armstrong on July 18, 2010 stated the mayor was not truthful or was lying….a story in which Kenoi refused to return the calls for two weeks but responded to other softball stories during this same time…sound familiar?) and no revenue generators like raising of taxes.
This county is being run under this administration with no sound administrative, business, or general accounting practices. This is voodoo economics in which next year is election time and everything about this budget process and decisions is politically motivated by our administration.
There is no one in this administration who has any prior successful experience in government executive operations or even business experience and it shows when looking at the way this budget was handled and written.
The administrations elimination of or refusing to lay off or furlough county employees, reduce adequate spending by departments, deferring of much of the county’s bills, expenses, and debt, the deferring of GASB 45 contributions, and the catering to property owners by not raising real property taxes are great for the Mayor Kenoi’s campaign for 2012 purposes.
This is Mayor Kenoi’s administration’s “failed economic theory” of no slashing of expenses and no raising of taxes and the administration’s attempt to be “a friend to all” just for re-election purposes and self preservation of the Mayor’s patronage jobs.
If this county implodes financially somewhere in the next few years, we know who to blame.
Kenoi, Dayton, Ashida and their gang.
You claim it. You own it. And now you are responsible for it.
June 30th, 2011 at 9:50 am
Kevin -
It’s very nice of you finally to come back on BIC two and a half days after many questions were asked of you. Usually the rule of thumb is public relations pros respond back to the public or person asking the questions within 24 hours. Not two and a half days later. But you are former print journalist so I sincerely apologize for asking and expecting of you to understand how p.r. is practiced.
And I would think that detailed questions concerning the COH budget asked by one of the other BIC participants, ” just one voice,” would be much more of a priority to answer than the sending out of a media release concerning the mayor’s vacation plans in Japan.
Again, I guess it comes down to what is the most important priority for you as our public affairs representative.
Fluff that looks nice and feels good or just the hard facts.
The information you provided concerning the no payment of interest on the deferral of the GASB 45 payment factually is inaccurate. There WILL be interest paid on this deferral and it will come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this island over the term of the program.
And this could have been avoided if we had made the tough decisions and paid it this year.
Dayton cites COH Department of Finance “experts” (the word “experts” is being very loosely thrown around by Dayton…the COH has NO expert on GASB 45) who said no interest payment is due for deferring GASB 45.
Not what I would call a reliable or accurate source.
Is this the same department that is stacked with your own administration’s appointees?
Is this your idea of an objective financial opinion?
Sorry, Kevin, but the GASB 45 stateside administrators say we will pay interest on the deferment of the $20 million dollars.
The county taxpayers have had all legal opinions of our county run through Corporation Counsel, another department stacked with the administration’s appointees, and look how apocalyptic that has turned out for the taxpayers and county council.
Is this also your idea of an objective legal opinion?
According to a CNN article which cites IHS global insight, 110,000 state and city level government employees will be laid off in the third quarter of 2011 alone in the United States. This amounts to approximately 20,000 per state.
The State of Wisconsin Milwaukee Public Schools will layoff 519 staff members including 349 public school teachers.
How can a state like ours in the middle of the Pacific with a county on a neighbor island have it’s county employees be immune from layoffs or at least furloughs in the worst economic downward cycle of our global and national economy since the Great Depression of 1929.
In California, a state with the fifth largest economy in the world, there are thousands of government employees being laid off including clerical workers, teachers, police officers, etc. and their state capital of Sacramento is laying off dozens of fireman because this county simply cannot afford to pay them.
California is even making cuts in public safety to prepare and save for possible worse times ahead.
Is our COH run so efficiently that we are immune from all of this?
The COH’s budget of this year has no property tax increases, no furloughs, no layoffs, and we are deferring many of our debts, bills and expenses until 2012 or 2013-2014.
There is a give and take in government economic policy of a balance of revenue generators along with the slashing of expenses. This year’s budget has no substantial slashing of expenses from department to department (Kenoi claimed an across the board slashing of expenses in last year’s budget which an HTH journalism award winning story by Jason Armstrong on July 18, 2010 stated the mayor was not truthful or was lying….a story in which Kenoi refused to return the calls for two weeks but responded to other softball stories during this same time…sound familiar?) and no revenue generators like raising of taxes.
This county is being run under this administration with no sound administrative, business, or general accounting practices. This is voodoo economics in which next year is a election time and everything about this budget process and decisions is politically motivated by our administration.
There is no one in this administration who has any prior successful experience in government executive operations or even business experience and it shows when looking at the way this budget was handled and written.
The administrations elimination of or refusing to lay off or furlough county employees, reduce adequate spending by departments, deferring of much of the county’s bills, expenses, and debt, the deferring of GASB 45 contributions, and the catering to property owners by not raising real property taxes is great for the Mayor Kenoi’s campaign for 2012 purposes.
This is the administrators “failed economic theory” of no slashing of expenses and no raising of taxes and the administrations attempt to be “a friend to all” just for re-election purposes and self preservation of their jobs.
If this county implodes financially somewhere in the next few years, we know who to blame.
Kenoi, Dayton, Ashida and their gang.
You claim it. You own it. And now you are responsible for it.
June 30th, 2011 at 10:32 am
To add to this discussion that I am happy to have Kevin Dayton participating in a community forum and would like to see this continue and encourage others in government to participate as well.
I do not think accusations of lying or such are a good way to keep an open dialogue going.
I say this because I believe it to be in the community interest to have an open public dialogue between resident and county offices.
July 1st, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Just a short note re prior/outside experience of some of administration etc. Deputy Finance Director, Deanne Sako, was a CPA with Deloitte and Touche and conducted audits of county budgets. Warren Lee was head honcho for Helco, Steve Arnett, former CPA and business manager for Beach Boys, successful home builder, Bob Fitzgerald, had successful career in real estate in addition to his coaching experience. R&D head Randy Kurohara, successful businessman. Not sure of backgrounds of other cabinet members but prior post that no one has business experience or successful government executive experience seems off the mark. Takaba was previously Finance Director under Harry Kim and Lorraine Inouye but was best known for developing a model Office of Aging which is looked up to nationally.
BTW, Fresh Onishi has successful private business, Donald Ikeda was/is businessman, was a CPA in California, Blas was a businessman.
July 1st, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Another note…County gets audited every year by outside auditors regarding its accounting, ledgers etc. Every year that I can think of it also gets awards for its financial reports.