Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0044.075 2020-2022 cwm.qq 1 � n j m f COMM.44 - Written Testimony David Blancett-Maddock, 01/15/21 My name is David Blancett-Maddock. I am a Kona Resident home owner. I am a licensed Hawai'i attorney and former Hawai'i County Deputy Prosecutor in the Appellate Division. I have spent the vast majority of my working life in government service accumulating an extensive background in government law, planning and administration. Seven years of that was in planning for major municipalities including the City of Los Angeles, Allegheny County, and the City of Pittsburgh. I protest the inadequate access to these public hearings and unconstitutional and arbitrary time limits on public testimony. Particularly where I am offering expert testimony. Because there is no closing in this proceeding, I will make it now. This body must serve as the judge and jury of the evidence in this confirmation hearing. If we were in a trial, the Judge would instruct the jury on the law, parties on both side would have equal opportunity to present evidence, parties would object to arguments and evidence from their opponents and the judge would rule on what is admissible. The jury would decide the outcome. In this proceeding, only the Mayor presents evidence and this Council must do the rest_ So, first the law. Last time I pointed out the law of this case — it requires a verdict not to confirm unless the evidence shows that nominee has the requisite combination of training, education and experience. It is not advisory like the yellow signs on the highway — it is mandatory —this is a Stop sign - the Red light — not the Yellow on the traffic signal. In addition, there is the law of your duty — Council and the Mayor took an oath to uphold the law, our charter, and protect the public. Comm. •1'J Ref. T : G Ref. gate JAN 1 9 X021 In these hearings, you have heard various arguments in support of this candidate, some from the Mayor, some from developers and some from council members themselves: 1. The First argument was that you know what the charter says, but we need change and you want to support the mayor—let him try things his way, give him the chance to see if it works. There is no provision or exception in the law for this. 2. Another argument was that we need change and that you can't have change doing things the same old way. That using the same old standards will get the same old results, and we need to move on to a new way of doing things. We need to make it easier for development and business in the community to thrive and prosper. There is no provision or exception in the law for this 1 Another argument is that That there is a precedent for not strictly following the Charter. That you have confirmed a nominee before who didn't have these education or other qualifications under the Charter and it turned out to be a success. That Education and experience aren't really all that important. Maybe the candidate needs the chance to prove himself. I've heard this very argument from Nominee Zendo Kern on behalf of his client with a non-conforming illegal use in zoning matter in this county. He argued that the zoning body had been convinced to let someone break the law before and let them have their admittedly illegal use. He argued that established a precedent— and thus, the body was free to continue to ignore the law. i Ignoring the law is not a precedent — it is just breaking the law. There is no court precedent for this body ignoring the provisions of the charter or violating their oath and duty_ i i i 4. The third argument came from the Mayor who said something to the effect that "this council has made me certain promises and I know that you will keep them." (paraphrasing) Any promises between anyone on this Council and the Mayor to agree to purposefully violate our Charter not only violates the Charter, but violates both the Mayor's and that council person's oath of office and their ethical duty to represent and disclose. If this is true, I object and call for disclosure. This Council's promises are to us, the people of the Big Island. 5. The fourth Argument for confirmation, was to the effect that, "I've heard the nominee testify about how he has handled specific situations, and I am convinced that he has the proper judgement and experience to handle this position. The Charter does not have any provisions for substituting a council member's opinion for anything less than the requisite number of years of combined education, training or experience. Even if you are personally impressed with the nominee, you must find the requisite objective specified number of years required by the Charter or Vote NO to confirm.' 1 The National Center for Education provides an authoritative definition for Public Administration that provides an objective standard for evaluating the administrative experience at issue. It defines Public Administration education as follows: Detail for CIP Code 44.0401 Title: Public Administration. Definition: A program that prepares individuals to serve as managers in the executive arm of local, state, and federal government and that focuses on the systematic study of executive organization and management. Includes instruction in the roles, development, and principles of public administration; the management of public policy; executive- legislative relations;public budgetary processes and financial management;administrative law;public personnel management;professional ethics;and research methods. National Center for Educational Statistics. (01/15/2021, https:Hnces.ed.gov/) i i So what about us —the people of the Big Island - our Charter, laws and ethics. Lack of integrity taints everything it touches The Charter guarantees us a Planning Director who is found to be properly qualified by the objective standards set forth in the Charter. Our faith in the integrity of our government and its officials depends on what you do and how you do it. Look at the poor personnel director He has repeatedly told you that he doesn't want to be here. That he doesn't feel that is proper. But the Mayor forced him. If he wants to keep his job, he knows he has to do this. This cost him and all of us. After this, how will we ever know if the person he selects for future civil service jobs are the best qualified, or whether he was just paid a visit by the Mayor. The Mayor brags that he "took money from everyone". Well, he shouldn't have. The citizens of the Big Island cannot be left wondering who may have influenced their government or what deals may have been made to give away their Charter given rights and protections. We should not shoulder the practical or the financial burdens of constant contests, challenges and even litigation to ensure that our laws are upheld. One last consideration as you weigh the evidence and testimony. { Weight and Credibility of those who testify. Not all evidence and testimony are given the t same weight. Look at the Mayor-The Mayor is asking you to break the law. How can that be credible? Breaking our laws is not the kind of change we need. Our planning department is not a revenue generating tool. It the vanguard of our laws and our rights to quiet enjoyment of our land, and one of our greatest assets, our public land use. It protects the peace and tranquility of our neighborhoods, it protects our tax base, it protects our shorelines, parks and open spaces. It prevents overcrowding, overburdening of our resources and utilities, and the safety of our community. The Mayor's purpose is against the will and the rights of the people_ It is not credible. Look at who is testifying for this nominee— People who are supporting the Nominee are wealthy people. People who stand to profit at the cost of the people of this Island. These are not the everyday people who voted for this Mayor believing that he would support and uphold the law. People who advocate their own private interest over the laws of the people of this island and advocate ignoring the law are not credible. Look at the People's testimony opposing this nominee - The Charter is our law — it is our voice. The legislative intent is the law and the voice of the people. It is not to be cast aside or rendered ineffective. It makes a difference to us -We expect the new director to have demonstrated experience in public administration of many of professional employees in an institutional environment because our departments are government institutions. We cannot accept that supervision of a handful of 3-4 employees of warehouse in a private sector business qualifies as proper experience under our Charter. We cannot accept that where this Nominee who does not have sufficient experience, we should ignore the Charter anyway, that the law and professional education and training do not matter. The laws were duly enacted, and the intent of these laws was not to accommodate the vision of a mayor or the needs of any special interest, or the profits of developers. These Charter provisions were enacted to ensure and protect the interest of the people of the i I Big island in a government that is competent in the business of government and to ensure that the laws and ordinances of the people are upheld and enforced. i Our tax dollars are limited and must be spent wisely. And our planning department is not a revenue generating tool. It the vanguard of our laws and our rights to quiet enjoyment of our land, and one of our greatest assets, our public land use. It protects the peace and tranquility of our neighborhoods, it protects our tax base, it protects our shorelines, parks and open spaces. It prevents overcrowding, overburdening of our resources and utilities, and the safety of our community. Our planning department and our lands and laws belong to us — the people argue legitimate rights and their testimony is not tainted by profit or special interest. Our testimony is based on the facts and the law— it is credible and should carry great weight_ So, what about us? What about the laws you passed and promised to uphold? We support our Mayor in his vision to improve our government and our economy. But we do not waive the protections of our Charter. We rely on you to meaningfully enforce those for the benefit and protection of all of us. Your constituents — the people of the Big Island. The Mayor said that this Council made him promises which he knows you will keep, but you made us promises too. You promised to put us first and you took an oath office to uphold the laws of our island and uphold the public trust. Your promises to the people, the law, and your oath of office come first. Vote No on the confirmation of Zendo Kern for Planning Director. Do it based on the merits.