This morning after seeing the headline front page above the fold in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald, I couldn’t get North Kona Councilman Kelly Greenwell out of my mind.
The guy is trying out for the new lead role headlining the “We’re Walking On Sunshine” band comprised of other members of the Hawaii County Council that give a rat’s ass about the public’s right to know.
According to the Tribune-Herald report,Greenwell has introduced a resolution calling for the Council to spend money hiring legal counsel to explore a proposal to the State Legislature to exempt the Council from the state’s Sunshine Law.
That law, also known as the open meetings law, ensures the public is properly noticed about public meetings and that our lawmakers at the County level are doing the public’s business in public.
Shamefully, our State Legislature exempted itself from the Sunshine Law. Our County Council wants to follow state legislators’ lead.
This is wrong and would be to our detriment. As is, we barely know what is going on with our elected officials. They hardly communicate with the public, except to litter our mailbox with pamplets claiming term accomplishments during election season. If we lose the Sunshine Law, the dark drapes will be completely drawn and we will have no way to peer in and find out what those we elected to serve us are up to.
I don’t know what is wrong with Greenwell.
Ever since that notorious illegal Council reorganization that cost us taxpayers nearly $50,000 in legal fees (due to a challenge by West Hawaii Today), Greenwell has dogged the Sunshine Law.
Does Greenwell not recall that he once was an outsider to County government? The Sunshine Law requires accountability from our lawmakers, and apparently some of our elected officials think they shouldn’t be accountable to those who made them who they are today.
Greenwell blames the Sunshine Law on the fact that none of our nine council members have accomplished anything meaningful this term. I laughed outloud when I read that lame justification.
Please, voters, can we get serious with our candidates for public office? To have this guy waste taxpayers’ dollars trying to make a pitch for Council members to be exempt from the Sunshine Law, what a joke. What a waste of time and public resources. More meaninglessness.
-
Posted by Tiffany Edwards Hunt @ 7:34 pm
60 Responses
July 27th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
As a BIPC member I am nominating any councilman who votes for Resolution 364-10 as the recipient of the Lava Tube dishonor.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=740960&page=1&dbid=0
July 27th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
I think there are one or two problems with the sunshine law but on the whole it’s about making politicians more accountable to the public and there’s little wrong about that.
What I find very odd in reading the Trib article is:
“My guess is it shouldn’t cost more than twenty-five bucks”
which is a quote attributed to Greenwell. I’m sure he was joking but it would costs thousands of dollars to bring this to court, maybe much more, and it would be at the expense of tax payers.
Is he really suggesting a law that opens up government to the public should be repealed and that it won’t cost anything to the public? Let alone make local government more secret and prone to corruption?
I thought this guy was mad before but maybe he’s running for the job of CEO at BP. He’s way up there in the goof department.
Tom
July 28th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Does Emily agree with this garbage?
Given her past conduct, I assume she would like to go private too.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:29 am
Theres a old saying (Where the Sun don’t Shine). Thats what I think of this council (except Yagong, Ford) just a waste of time and money. We ought to think about cutting pay by 50 % if this is all we get.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:03 am
Here’s an example of a politician at the end of his term taking up an issue he’d never touch earlier in the political calendar. Mr. Greenwell doesn’t care that the people want this law to stand. He doesn’t care that an overturning of this law or an exemption should at least be EARNED, and if anything, this Council has done just the opposite. I think Kelly’s top priority needs to be working on his anger management. The Kona police would agree….
July 28th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Kelly is simply trying to burn the place down on his way out
July 28th, 2010 at 8:24 am
I’ll be tracking this and council members can plan on me being there to testify. If their meeting falls on a day when my child doesn’t go to her tutu’s house, I will be bringing her with me. It’s her government, too, so don’t give me any crap about my two year old being disruptive. This is why we have open meetings — for the public to come and participate.
This is one of those upcoming issues on their agenda that will bring me down there to look them all in the eyes, one by one, as I put on the public record my dissatisfaction with this pathetic piece of legislation. Any council member who votes in favor of this resolution SHOULD NOT BE RE-ELECTED. The other issue that will bring me in to the Council Chambers to offer testimony, I believe, will be taken up next week, and it’s a subject for another thread. So, see you as soon as next week, folks!
July 28th, 2010 at 10:46 am
This brings to mind the time Neil Abercrombie tried to do the same thing when he was a member of the Honolulu council. He lost a lot of my respect that day.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Tom, I agree the $25 lawyer estimate was the funny part. You can’t get an attorney to sneeze for $25, even without government involvement.
Greenwell’s proposal is inexplicable.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:49 am
This is a volatile topic!
As a Director on a board of directors [and we are not obliged to invoke a sunshine law] there are times when SERIOUS topics or concerns come before the board that require in depth discussion and research. Having the freedom to pick each other’s brains before the meeting allows for the board to be able to make a motion and thoroughly discuss that motion logically and intelligently before and with the members who might be present. Too many times, serious issues are brought up at a board meeting and with no time to really become familiar with all aspects we do the topic/concern a disservice in our ignorance.
I believe the Sunshine Law is totally necessary, with this caveat: The different council members should have the freedom to discuss among themselves, though not to make agreement to vote one way or another, merely to become informed, with impunity. This might cut down on the long and tedious hours that happen when these sorts of topics/concerns come up. They would understand this particular exception would and COULD never be used to form an alliance to ‘vote’ a specific way, despite public input. They would merely be able to share their collective resources to inform themselves, play a little devil’s advocate to foster critical thinking on the individual council member’s part, and then to weigh the public’s concerns with their own concerns, discussing their concerns in open session where it is transparent and let the record reflect the process accordingly.
In no way would I support freedom to explore each other’s minds if it was used to form a block, an alliance, a plan of attack or action that would then be reflected in open session.
As regards the $25 attorney…You get what you pay for! There are a few of them out there who will work cheap, but they NEVER put their ‘opinions’ on paper, thus removing future litigation from them, and the whole time reminding you it is ‘just an opinion!’ I do have to say, as unsavory as a couple of the attorneys I know here locally may be, I don’t know a one of them who will work for $25. That actually makes me laugh!
I find this most suspicious on a couple of levels…1]That Mr. Greenwell, who has chosen not to renew his bid for council, should bring this up; 2]that it is coming up right now where it will be political suicide for anyone who supports it; 3]There was no attempt made to mitigate only that portion of the Law that addresses Mr. Greenwell’s alleged concerns: effective decision processes. Why not parse out the part[s]of the law that is objectionable so as to minimize the impact of the public when they would read the article? Surely he is wise enough to know, given the recent history, there would be public uproar about such a resolution? The antithesis of what he alleges as a reason to exempt the council in order to facilitate better government?
Even in my naivete, I can see there is much that is not making sense about this move at this time!
July 28th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Further, as Mr. Greenwell’s allegation that the ‘council hasn’t changed their minds yet’ is controverted by facts in evidence! In fact, I have been present and witness to members of the council leaning one way and changing their opinions right before a huge audience. Then, at the very next meeting, two of the directors who’d voted ‘no’ said for the record their minds had been changed by the evidence they personally heard during public meetings! Perhaps Mr. Greenwell has no recollections of those meetings but the recorded evidence will prove otherwise.
Public Testimony will always be underestimated but in the few short months I have been regularly attending day long sessions I have watched the progression of many a topic and the efforts the individual council people have manifest in trying to reach a decision they can live with considering all the testimony.
Considering the sorts of statements made in that article, and the lack of veracity on some of them, it really makes me question motive and opportunity as to this resolution. I will most assuredly be there to testify. I hope Mr. Greenwell is checking the comments here, seriously, with an OPEN mind!
July 28th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Way to pop in your anti-Abercrombie message in there Dave!
July 28th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
This entire council has truthfully lost touch with any form of reality.
Initially in seeing this council perform one blunder after the other, I chalked it up to a group of 9 who were just uneducated as to their duties.
What I think has now happened is this council has become a group of 9 misfits – who are want to be “New York” or “Chicago” politicos. These 9 elected members have become drunk with power. Greenwell’s outbursts at council meetings, as well as Emily, the terrorists blunder, the tent city blunder, the reorganization blunder – - we have a group of 9 elected representatives who have not at one turn represented the people – only their selfish selves and agendas.
No pay cuts for them, reorganizations that made no sense – as well as being illegal in the first go around – that cost us almost 50 grand to fix – and now Greenwell wants this council to operate in privacy and with total power.
When I read these blogs with people who go off into these tangents about Bush or Obama, or McCain, or Palin, or Cheney – I just got to say – not ONE OF US should criticize any other political person – when we have this group of 9 plus Billy in office.
I think the biggest issue the citizens have here in electing a competent council and mayor is that everyone is just too nice. We elected Kim because he was a savior to many when he ran Civil Defense. That does not make him a good mayor. Billy got elected more or less by default – same with Greenwell. We elected Emily because she was like everyone’s “grandma” – who could say no to that simile and fruit hat? Competency has never elected a person here. The one who sits in the rain and waves the most – gets elected. Along with a very bad cold for a few days!
The only words of truth this Council has uttered came from Yagong in the HTH Story – and I quote “”I don’t think this council has any credibility to address this issue”
Actually a half truth – as this council has no credibility whatsoever.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
“Trust us. We’re with the Gov’t!”
July 28th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
@ Toni,
Re: “Mr. Greenwell, who has chosen not to renew his bid for council…”
But, in fact, he is a candidate.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Toni, that’s why there are executive sessions.
But the decisions have to be arrived at publicly, and accountably.
This is a symptom of all “public officials”, elected or appointed, not wanting to be answerable to their constituents or the public in general that has been developing in in its modern form over the last 30 or 40 years.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Kelly has brought the sunshine law issue up before right after he got elected.
There are some ways to get informed on topics by using such avenues as workshops, but sunshine does not really allow this for any specific agenda item unless there has been six days notice abuot the workshop.
What I find objectionable about the sunshine law is the way it has been interpreted/written to prevent council members and members of other boards and commissions from attending the publicly noticed meetings of other boards and commissions.
So it makes it difficult for Action /Steering Committee members to attend charettes, workshops, council, planning commission meetings. Similarly it limits the number of councilmembers who can attend a publicly noticed state legislative committee meeting.
I also think council should be able to meet to discuss leadership.
The law as written also prevents the mayor from talking to more than one or two council members at a time about any matter that may come before the council. So the mayor would need to speak to each council member individually.
There was also the ridiculous situation in the Silva/police promotion lawsuit where Judge Amano could not speak to all nine councilmembers in private about a settlement offer and instead had to schedule nine separate meetings in order to avoid the councilmembers violating the sunshine law.
You may also recall that a sunshine law violation was alleged when Keith Kaneshiro gave 7 or 8 couuncilmembers a briefing on state plans for a prison on the Big Island (even though county has no control over the issue). This is what prompted an attorney general opinion that if three councilmembers attended a Senate Judiciary public meeting to be held on a prison, that it could be a violation of the sunshine law since more than two would be present at the public hearing that had been advertised in the newspaper since there was no public notice (six days) that the council would attend the meeting of the Judiciary Committee. Since the legislature typically gives notice of meetings 48 hours before a hearing is scheduled, there is no way to meet the six day notice requirement of the sunshine law.
Similarly, the AG has indicated that the sunshine law may be violated if two councilmembers co-introduce a measure or resolution as that would indicate an agreement to vote in favor of the measure. So when some councilmembers wanted to introduce a measure/resolution against sonar testing or a 9/11 reso honoring the fallen, there were concerns that if more than one person introduced the resolutions it would be a violation. For example, when the Kona CDP was drafted and was going to the Council for a vote, it had to be introduced by the Planning Committee Chair and the privilege of introducing it could not be given to the two Kona councilmembers. Even a measure to accept a monetary donation to the county cannot be co-introduced under the sunshine law.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Casual Observer, it’s germane to the discussion, unlike your snide, assuming comment, and it’s the truth.
I was very surprised when Abercrombie attempted it as I thought something like that wasn’t in his character. But that’s not to say he might not still be the best candidate for guv.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
I have been a fan of Kelly’s for a long time…he tends to speak his mind and is usually in-step with the mainstream of the Island. On this Sunshine issue….he is way out of line …open Government is our right…and he appears to be authoring a Bill that will deny that right….shame on him…and anyone who votes with him. I will be lobbying our local Council-member and staff to oppose the bill.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Abercrombie and the state “Sunshine Law” aside Mr. Greeenwell obviously has not read the Hawaii County Charter which requires open meetings, published agendas and minutes. He likely has not read section 13-20 (b) or he wuld have sought to remove it from the charter. It is too late for him to get that onto the ballot for voter approval. He seems from here to be running amuck. Did that Kona cop and goat wrangler also whack him on the head?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Anything else highly controversial or outright inflammatory that Greenwell can introduce? Trying to distract us from the arrest?
July 28th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
@James: Re: “Mr. Greenwell, who has chosen not to renew his bid for council…”
But, in fact, he is a candidate.
ME: My bad. I did not look to see if he’d filed. I was told a couple of weeks ago he’d decided not to seek re-election, and frankly, I thought that was wise.
It makes this resolution all the more confounding! I cannot believe the folks in his district are so disengaged they’d not be unglued at this proposal…which could translate into a ‘no’ vote for this incumbent.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
@Pete Altomare:Toni, that’s why there are executive sessions.
But the decisions have to be arrived at publicly, and accountably.
This is a symptom of all “public officials”, elected or appointed, not wanting to be answerable to their constituents or the public in general that has been developing in in its modern form over the last 30 or 40 years.
ME: I do not know how ‘exec session’ is justified as a county council, am absolutely familiar with HRS and ROBERT’s with regards to Rule of Order and Planned Communities. There are only certain topics which are covered in exec session for us and not many can be discussed in open session or even the results of our closed session discussion released because of ‘privacy’ or legal issues. If in fact, executive session would allow them to consider something of import, but not decide on the course of action, merely to inform themselves, then by all means, instead of changing the Sunshine Law why not work within the parameters of the current law.
I honestly have not had the time to read the County Charter; Nor have I the time to become intimate with the details of the council’s rules and regs….My ignorance and being forced to apprise myself of such will eventually motivate me.
Thanks for your feedback…much appreciated.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Look at all of the laughs we get form Gitmo Greenwell. A hundred grand for two years in office ain’t really that much is it?
If Kelly had his way we would have terrorist as our honored guest here in Hawaii….hahaha.
If Gitmo had his way we would be we would be spending millions on lobbyist to get us thousands from the feds…..hahahaha.
If Greenwell had his way we would eliminate our traffic police….hahahahaha.
Oh Kelly, the list seems to just go on and on and you are truly a barrel of laughs. One never knows where you will be going next but it sure is entertaining. Think that this kind of fun only cost us one hundred grand so far.
The Lack
July 29th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Instead of reading the WHT article,as I seldom believe what they print, I decided to review resolution 364. What I see when I read it is a request to have the law reviewed by an attorney to see if it restricts the County Council from being effective in the same way the State decided it restricted them. Seems like a logical thing to do to me.It also seems to me that Greenwell is more concerned with important issues then just trying to get re-elected. I wish the same was true for others.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:17 am
As Hugh pointed out, Kelly should be looking at the Hawaii County Charter, which has Sunshine elements that are more stringent than state law. In this matter, county law trumps state law.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
And bluz-guy (assuming you’re not a female blues fan), your point about WHT is well-taken. A knowledgeable, experienced reporter would have known that aspect about county vs. state law and brought it up as a matter of perspective.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Say, why does the Legislature exempt itself from the Sunshine Law? What does that say about good government practices?
July 29th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I see now that the author of the article was Jason Armstrong, who is experienced and should know about the difference between state and county sunshine laws. Auwe!
July 29th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Peter, for my two cents worth, the Legislature did it because it could.
While it’s no doubt more convenient for the lawmakers, it – like some other practices there such as the excessive power given to committee chairs which allows them to put a hold on legislation on nothing more than a whim – is certainly not in the best interest of the people they represent.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I am willing to admit that I would trade effectiveness for openness anyday of the week. The first step would be to elect government officials that can carry out their functions, whether this is in private of in the open. This issue is classic Catch-22, if we can trust them then we might as well let them get the work done as quickly as possible which would involve putting as little restriction on the process as possible. If we can’t trust them then we should restrict them as much as possible and not allow anything to happen. It all comes down to trust and we need to elect people we can trust so something can finally get done. Ironically if this was done then the sunshine laws really wouldn’t matter.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Although Ken is entitled to his opinion, I must protest. I do not agree with Ken’s lumping all of the 9 council members together. He states that they “are misfits”, “drunk with power”, or “have not at one turn represented the people – only their selfish selves and agendas”. Although he indicates otherwise, some of them did vote for pay cuts, but were over ruled.
There are certainly some council members who might fit the above description, but not all nine. We know who they are. Above all, please do not include my council member, Brenda Ford, in your lump assessment.
She is intelligent and hard working, putting in many, many hours of overtime to research and understand the proposed legislation and issues and to write legislation she thinks is important. Unlike some of the other council members, she does not embarrass us and she stands her ground to represent us in the face of opposition from outside interests.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
You’re one optomistic fella, Geoff.
Call me cynical, perhaps from too many years spent as a reporter, but I just can’t see that scenario you picture happening. Perhaps the temptations are just too great. I have seen some get into politics that I figured would never fall into the usual pitfalls, but without fail (so far) they do.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
‘scuse me, that word should be spelled “optimistic.”
July 29th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
@Cheryl: There are certainly some council members who might fit the above description, but not all nine. We know who they are. Above all, please do not include my council member, Brenda Ford, in your lump assessment.
She is intelligent and hard working, putting in many, many hours of overtime to research and understand the proposed legislation and issues and to write legislation she thinks is important. Unlike some of the other council members, she does not embarrass us and she stands her ground to represent us in the face of opposition from outside interests.
ME: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree. In the time I have been a spectator I have noted a serious minded and quick witted woman in Ms. Ford. She is also most personable. I have enjoyed each of my few interactions with her. I may not always agree with her but I totally respect her and the level of knowledge she brings to most of the topics under discussion. She also asks for a little more organization of those who prep for the council meetings for tracking purposes.
I have enjoyed getting to know many of the council members, even if in trading quick sarcasm when it seems appropriate.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
@dabluz, thanks for the resolution number. I actually spent time looking for it and even called to get the number. I might be blind but I looked all over the article online and could not find it. I could not get a copy to look over.
With regard to the article, I suspect most of the folks here are reacting to the statements made, or the ‘quotes’ attributed to Mr. Greenwell more than the content of the resolution. Sometimes, the extemporaneous statements supporting one’s efforts tell more about intent than the printed word does.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
One reasonegislature exempted themselvesis that given number of days in session and the number of bills introduced, the six day notice of the sunshine law would make it diificult to get bills heard in timely fashion.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Though I’m not a Greenwell fan, if you’re gonna trash the guy, get your facts right, you might not seem so ignorant. The Guantanamo detainees Greenwell wanted to settle here were migrant workers, not terrorists. When the war started, they were traveling east, but were detained by Pakistani officials, who sold them as terrorists to the US military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301362.html
The Bahamas and Palau got millions from our government to allow these innocent men to settle there, after wrongly spending years of their lives in prison. These are not the worst things that happen in wars, but a big wrong, just the same. Please read a little, it may help you get it right.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Please Get It Right,
Thank you for bringing a little reality to counter check the fantasies people prefer. It was perhaps one of Kelly’s best ideas but was seized upon without much thought as a way to ridicule him.
The U.S. was offering $200 million as I recall under Bush to resettle a dozen or so innocent men. The B.I. certainly could have used that money. Too many knee jerk reactions.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I understand your argument Dave, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but even with the most stringent sunshine laws corruption will still exist, it will just be driven more underground. One thing I don’t agree with is asking elected officials who are expected to work full-time to take a pay cut. That’s just asking for corruption. If the council member is wealthy then he could offer to volunteer. Maybe instead of a sunshine law we should make it clear that if you’re a government official you can’t use your power for your own gain or your friends and you can’t get revenge on your opponents. If this happens then they should be beheaded and the head placed on the end of a stake and paraded around the county. I saw this in a movie about Thailand in the 14th century and I thought that would really make me think twice about something. I know this is extreme but why can’t we find 9 people and a Mayor who can have the vision to make this Island better.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
@Please Get It Right I read the article regarding the Gitmo detainees. It still doesn’t ease ease my concerns about Councilman Greenwell’s proposal. Seven of these individuals are still held as enemy combatants.
It was dumb proposal then, and its still a dumb proposal now. It is akin to sending a fox into a hen house. There wasn’t conclusive proof these individuals were safe to relocate here. It would’ve harmed our quality of life and our tourism industry if these folks were moved here.
July 29th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
The council shouldn’t be exempted from the sunshine law. The community is already up in arms about the current ineffective, and overreaching county council’s actions. So, this proposed legislation is simply adding fuel to the fire.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:35 am
If the council wants to exempt themselves from a law requiring them to be more open to the public, maybe the council members themselves should have to pay for the court challenge instead of the public they want to hide from.
July 30th, 2010 at 3:40 am
@Cheryl
I would not call 2 members – Ford and Yagong who voted for no raise as “some” members. That means 7 of 9 said NO pay cuts. Emily went on her tirade about her teenage daughter blah blah blah.
In as much as I at one time held respect for both Yagong and Ford, they too have just lost touch with reality – maybe due to the gross ineptness of the other 7 – but their actions have grown to become that of self serving – just keeping their county paid jobs has become their agenda – and NOT THAT OF THE PEOPLE who elected them. Ford withdrew her RIGHTFUL lawsuit – only because of pressure to do so – and Yagong built a road for one house.
I can not see how anyone can look at this council – both individually and collectively – and say we got our monies worth. We could get nine 2nd and 3rd graders – one from every school here on this island – and have more competencies – and they would get along better too!
I would be open to once again respecting Ford and Yagong – if they just once would publically denounce the other 7 for their ineptness.
My statement that they are 9 misfits is due to their being a group of 7 idiots plus 2 smart and intelligent members who do nothing to stop the insanity of the other 7 – so collectively – it’s a group of 9 misfits.
Plus Billy.
As I did also say – we as the electorate – are just too nice. We will no doubt reelect a majority of these 9 yet once again.
Plus Billy.
Then we can have these never ending blogs of people who defend the ignorance and self serving ways these nine (Plus Billy) have operated for the last 2 years.
And the electorate as a whole – suffers. Again.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Oh please to the bleeding hearts…….
All terrorist have their tale of whoa. I’m just an honest traveler trying to relocate into the war zone, believe me, trust me, whoa is me.
Give me a break sometimes common sense trumps the propaganda that the bleeding hearts keep trying to shove down our gullets. You want to relocate them well do it in the middle east and watch how fast they scramble to the nearest Sharia Law.
Nuf said…….The Washington Post…….aka….. “The we hate America Post”
The Lack
July 30th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Here’s hoping the council members are reviewing this topic regularly and getting a feel for how everyone thinking. Together with those who testify publicly perhaps they will vote down the resolution at each step. It is simply a wrong move at a wrong time.
July 30th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Feliciano, I understand the challenges that a 6-day period would create, but perhaps there could be some middle ground, like, perhaps, a 3-day notice.
There are many instances when an amended bill is rammed through with virtually no meaningful advance notice, sometimes late at night, giving the public no opportunity to even be aware of it, let alone prepare and give testimony.
It’s times like that when it seems like lawmakers don’t give a hoot for the public’s input.
July 30th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
@Toni: “Here’s hoping the council members are reviewing this topic regularly and getting a feel for how everyone thinking.”
If you mean reading the opinions on this (and other) blogs, your hope may be misplaced. The last time I asked, Emily Naeole-Beason stated that she didn’t read “globs,” but her people had told her that they weren’t saying nice things about her on them. She also apparently doesn’t do email because when I have emailed her, the response (if there was one at all) always came from a staffer. If this has changed, someone please let me know, because I gave up on emailing Emily some time ago.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
On lunch break –
Legislature usually does a 48 hour notice on hearings. Some legislators try to do more notice. Hanabusa took the unusual step when she had Judiciary Committee of trying to do 6 day notice and emailing out her proposed recommendations on bills in advance of the hearings. I think she was the only legislator that did that. It gave people interested in her committee an oportunity to prepare opposition to her recommendations and try to change them.
However, the rules/48 hour notice goes out the window in the final days of conference committees.
What is not covered by notice is the caucuses of the parties which occur on a regular basis when there is division in the chambers on bills.
There is also no prohibition on multiple legislators getting together to discuss and agree on voting, agree on amendments or co-introduce bills.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
“There is also no prohibition on multiple legislators getting together to discuss and agree on voting, agree on amendments or co-introduce bills.”
That, Feliciano, is what I believe is the main problem with the Legislature exempting themselves. And the little brothers and sisters on the County Council want to be given the same privilege. You know that saying, “Laws are like sausage, you don’t want to see how they are made.” What lawmakers do not understand is that the public wants a tour of the sausage factory. Because these representatives were elected by and for us, we want to know how they come to conclusions they do, how they reach consensus or not, how they come up with ideas, how they toss them out — all of this public business needs to be conducted in the light of the day. If this is cumbersome, well, let’s not waste so much of the public’s time on resolutions suggesting doing away with the Sunshine Law. Let’s save the public’s paper, save the public’s time, save the public’s resources, for something more meaningful.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
@ Tiff,
“…save the public’s paper, save the public’s time, save the public’s resources, for something more meaningful.”
Yep.
July 30th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
About State Legislature and the Sunshine Law.
The Sunshine Law sets the upper limit of how many “members” may meet without notice as “less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum.”
There are 51 members in the State House and 25 in the State Senate. Hawaii County Council has 9 members.
It would be pretty easy to get 5 Council members together to make decisions without public input or scrutiny.
Getting 26 House members together secretly behind closed doors can surely be done, but not so easily. Same with 13 Senators — doable, but not as easy as 5 Council members.
July 30th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Feliciano, thanks for the explanation of the Legislative process. I think the part about the conference committees is most telling as that is where much or most of the action occurs. I suppose from the media’s standpoint there’s little hope that would ever be opened up to public scrutiny, but I hope it doesn’t stop trying. Heck, given the state of the shrinking press nowadays I guess the public is lucky to hear about the Leg’s actions even after the bills are passed.
July 31st, 2010 at 9:37 am
Toni, there is a search function on the County website for looking up resolution numbers, but all I did was call Greenwells office and his staff gave it to me. They were very informative and helpful.
Lack, my father landed at Normandy and my brother served in Nam.They and their friends are disgusted and embarrassed with how USA treated Gitmos and feel it disgraces all those that have served so bravely, and I wouldn’t call either of them “bleeding hearts”
As to the Sunshine Law, my guess is that it does very little to actually stop any discussions and committments and only acts to keep things unproductive, as the State wants it.Does anyone really believe that the Eastside majority haven’t discussed their votes?..Be real folks.
I do believe in the public’s right to know but the way it is written is ridiculously constrictive. Have you read it? If not, please do. Why not allow them to have discussions, as this is how ideas are generated, and still have the public meetings?
July 31st, 2010 at 9:39 am
Tiff and James, what is more meaningful than trying to have a productive Council?
July 31st, 2010 at 9:59 am
DaBluz,
In your previous comment, you stated, parapharasing here, does anyone believe the Eastside majority hadn’t discussed their votes? Indeed, I have witnessed the Sunshine Law being violated. What makes you think that if we do away with the law meant to protect the public’s right to know our Council majority will suddenly become righteous?
They aren’t very productive because they simply aren’t very productive. They come up with legislation to ban smoking in vehicles with child passengers and to hire legal counsel to explore exempting themselves from the Sunshine Law.
The Open Meetings law does not prevent them from coming up with meaningful legislation. They are doing the typical casting of blame to be unaccountable for not giving us very much fruit in two years, costing us $900K in pay alone.
There is no way I would ever endorse repealing the Sunshine Law. I think our State Legislature should be included in the law.
Also, since it will be a little bit before I can develop a separate thread for this, do you realize the Council will be taking up the Woodland Center issue on Aug. 17 in Kona?! Now that’s a legislative body really keen on public participation and the public’s right to know. Auwe!
I am so jaded by this crew that I am convinced that they have already decided through their whispers in passing and using staff to convey messages that they will allow Woodland Center to be occupied prior to intersection improvements. The only reason why I am going to make any effort to testify in person in Kona or via videoconferencing in Hilo is I want to put on record my opposition.
I want to do that for the fact that my friend Peter Gonsalves lost his leg in a car crash at the intersection of Highway 130 and Pahoa Village Road. I want yo do that because I have been in a crash at that intersection. I know that opening Woodland Center is only going to exacerbate this problem and, God forbid, there will be a fatal car crash at that intersection with the increased occupancy Long’s Drugs and the fast food restaurants will create.
I don’t want the County or County Council to say that they weren’t warned. If they allow this Woodland Center to be occupied before the intersection, they should be held accountable for any and all crashes that occur with the increased traffic in the clusterf-k. The blood of any fatality or serious injury will be on their hands.
Just in case it is ever needed to be referred to again, every bit of the County Council’s deliberation needs to be on the record and in a public meeting. Not at a backyard barbecue at Donald Ikeda’s house. This is a group of nine elected by and for the people. It’s not an elite club that gets to secretly meet and decide on the fate of an intersection I use everyday.
July 31st, 2010 at 10:28 am
@ dabluz,
Tiff’s point says it pretty well:
there is no reason to believe that doing away with the Sunshine/Open meetings law will make the Council more productive — at least not more productive for the wider community’s benefit as contrasted to the benefit of a few with special access.
Anything that needs to be said about any issue can be said in a pubic-noticed and open meeting — that is, other than, perhaps lawsuits, which are already discussed in Executive sessions.
August 1st, 2010 at 7:25 pm
[...] (Editor’s Note: The following historical perspective was written to members of Big Island Press Club leadership (BIPC) leadersjhip in a call for action to resist anti-Sunshine Law legislation recently introduced by Kona Councilman Kelly Greenwell.) [...]
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:43 am
With 59 comments so far, my two-cents-worth may be much devalued by inflation at this point, but… Peter Sur of the Press Club should indeed nominate for a dishonorable “Lava Tube” award any Council member who votes to do away with the Sunshine Law. And I will nominate any Council member who votes to retain the Sunshine Law for the club’s honorable “Torch of Light” award.