More trouble is smoldering at the courthouse, with Hawaii News Now reporting that Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho was one vote short to indict Human Resources Manager Janine Rapozo on gas theft. She needed 11 votes from the Grand Jury, but sources reportedly told the TV station she only had 10. As reporter Rick Daysog noted, “Why the indictment was handed down anyway is unclear.”
Former Prosecutor Craig DeCosta, who is representing Janine, is seeking to have the charges dismissed, with a hearing set for Tuesday. He's also reportedly accusing Shay of misconduct.
The Star-Advertiser, meanwhile, is reporting that Shay blames Mayor Bernard Carvalho for her defeat, and that the theft indictment is retaliation.
Speaking of which, there's also trouble brewing in the auditor's office, which conducted the fuel audit. The County Attorney on Wednesday is seeking approval to spend up to $15,000 to hire special counsel to advise and represent the Council “in matters relating to the investigation of personnel matters involving the County Auditor’s Office.”
I'm sure Kauai County is the laughing stock of the Hawaii legal community, as we pay Oahu attorneys to wash our dirty laundry and mend the bad choices made by those who hold power.
Speaking of which, the mayor's decision to build the Path on Wailua Beach will be coming before the County Council on Wednesday. Councilman KipuKai Kualii has asked planning director Mike Dahilig and someone from the UH Seagrant program to attend the meeting and brief the Council on how erosion there may impact the Path.
It's a total legit concern given what we can see happening with our own eyes — not to mention all the scientific warnings about rising sea levels, greater storm intensity, accelerated coastal erosion, etc.
Yet paid Path promoter Tommy Noyes wasted no time in sending out emails trying to quash all discussion. As he sees it, the matter has been thoroughly studied. And to back up that questionable assertion, he links to his own 2010 website posting that rehashes a county press release that states the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has signed off on it all.
That's supposed to be proof of thorough studies? Since 2010, we've seen quite a lot of erosion. I've also been hearing from members of the Hawaiian community that the Section 106 federal consultation process was flawed, because it was not conducted prior to decisions being made, and that Hawaiian concerns were misrepresented and ignored.
Why are we even thinking of putting this beautiful beach at risk just for the sake of running a Path along it — a Path that could be moved mauka? Why push ahead even though Hawaiians have expressed grave cultural concerns? Why not take some time to rethink, or at least discuss this portion of the Path in light of new developments, instead of acting like it's all hunky dory?
What is the burning rush? Because once we start messing with this beach, there will be no turning back.