Interestingly, all their false claims were attempts to discredit their arch enemy: County Attorney Al Castillo.
Shay told MidWeek Kauai:
But if you look at the amount of money that there has been allocated just in the past year for the county attorney’s special counsel because they have these conflicts, it has been almost $1.7 million in special counsel. …. So if you look at all the money that the County Attorney’s Office has expended, it’s humongous, it’s more than $1 million in a year on special counsel because of the conflict that it has with all of the department heads.
I checked, and the actual amount allocated for special counsel in the past year (9-11 to 9-12) was $619,680 — $85,000 of which was appropriated due to a conflict with the County Attorney's Office.
Mel, challenging Al at Wednesday's Council meeting, claimed the Charter Review Commission had approved a ballot amendment to clarify whether the Prosecutor's office could offer diversionary programs like POHAKU. But it reversed its vote upon advice from a deputy county attorney:
“I sat in a Charter Review Commission meeting a while back. I was there for another matter. In fact, for the “shall vs may,” believe it or not. But prior to that coming up, there was discussion on whether or not to put that [Prosecutor's amendment] in the charter. The Charter Commission voted to support putting that on the ballot. I was at that meeting. I was there with my own ears. But I'm telling you that the record will reflect that at that meeting, they said hey, that make sense. So they voted and I believe it was unanimous and then when the thing came out, it's not on. This charter ballot question that was supposed to be on the ballot this year, that item was not on to add in diversionary programs. OK, so I talked to two commissioners that told me, 'we were advised that we didn't have to put it on because they already have the right to do that.' I don't know who the deputy was there. I'm thinking who advised the Charter Commission now to take it off the ballot when they voted to support it? That troubles me, because now we're hearing that they don't [have that authority]. And if they don't, then it should've been on ballot.
So maybe you do your research with your deputies to find out why that commission was told we didn't need that item. I'm asking you to to go find out. Because that's not right, Al. I'm beginning to see a pattern that I'm uncomfortable with. The other thing is, um, and I don't know if you guys are aware of this, probably not, because it didn't make the paper, but I was there when they called for the question. It just bothers me because now we're hearing they don't have that express authority.
We can request the minutes. I was there and I know what I heard."
I checked the Charter Review Commission minutes, which are all on-line. The item first came up in Oct. 24, 2011 and was deferred. The “shall vs. may” issue was on the March 19 meeting, but despite what Mel says, the Prosecutor's amendment was not discussed. At its May 21 meeting, the Commission did approve the Prosecutor's amendment, by a 5-0 vote, with no discussion.
At its July 23 meeting, the Commission voted to reject the amendment. But as the minutes show, the decision did not involve an opinion from the deputy county attorney:
Mr. Nishida said the items listed were programs and the Charter is not the place where you assign programs. The Charter does not have to include all programs because there would not be a bus system, there would not be an Office of Elderly Affairs, and there would not be a Housing Agency. The Charter establishes the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney but the programs should be within the administration and not listed in the Charter.
Mr. Justus thought this request was brought to the Charter Commission because the Prosecuting Office in Honolulu was sued. Honolulu was doing programs like our Prosecuting Office is doing now but the Court decided since it wasn’t specified in the Charter that the Prosecuting Attorney had the ability to do these programs they lost.
Attorney Winn said that was not correct. The case had to do with Peter Carlisle using public funds to promote information charging and the Courts said it was not within his purview to use public funds to do that.
Mr. Nishida said he specifically asked the Prosecutor’s Office what the relationship was between that case and the proposed amendment and they said there was no relationship; it was just that it was not in the Charter. These are programs and they should not be in the Charter because the Charter states what needs to be done in this office. The programs are a good idea but the Charter could restrict movement.
Ms. Barela agreed with Mr. Nishida.
Mr. Justus felt this would provide the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office with legal protection. Mr. Justus asked if this should be in the County Code instead of the Charter. Mr. Nishida and Ms. Barela both said it should be between agencies and/or grants. It should not be dictated in the Charter what should be there or may or may not be there. Mr. Justus wanted to know what the harm would be if it did not lock anything in; if it just provides padding.
Mr. Nishida moved to reject the amendment. Ms. Barela seconded the motion. Motion carried 4:0
Jake, meanwhile, told The Garden Island:
“The commission, however, at their July meeting, voted to not place the amendment on the ballot because they were advised by the County Attorney’s Office that the OPA already had the authority to establish such programs under the charter, thus amending the charter for this purpose was unnecessary,” Delaplane said on an email Wednesday evening.
As I noted above, that's not the case.
So why do Mel, Shay and Jake lie about stuff that can so easily be proven via public records? Just because they want to make Al look bad?
To borrow Mel's words, “I'm beginning to see a pattern here, and it makes me uncomfortable.”
"I checked, and the actual amount allocated for special counsel in the past year (9-11 to 9-12)"
Uh, did you check calendar or fiscal year 2011. Why not? Because that would confirm Shay?
Shay said "in the last year" so that's the time frame I checked. Wanted to be sure we were comparing apples to apples, ya know.
Mel and Jake are correct and you haven't proven them wrong. Jake took the case to the Charter Commission concerned about how it could be used against the pros doing things not explicitely listed in the charter. It was not his position that the Carlisle case stood for that limitation, but he was concerned it could be used to impose that kind of limitation.
Too bad there are not recordings or transcripts. Minutes are too inexact and give people who want to invent discrepencies too much room to make false claims, Joan.
"Shay said "in the last year" so that's the time frame I checked. Wanted to be sure we were comparing apples to apples, ya know."
Besides, doing the fiscal year, which is obviously when such things would be reported, comes up with a number you don't like?
Thank you for the painstaking research into Charter Commission's minutes.
I would estimate less than half of the Charter Commission is able to actually understand the function of the Charter.
For a laugh - TRY to follow the 2011-2012 Ethic commission minutes...
Classic. Mel says check the minutes, but no, the minutes aren't exact enough. Shay says the last year but you're supposed to mind read that she maybe meant something else.
Why do you people keep making excuses for them? Or are you them? ha ha
seems that the minuts support Mel.
Glad to see you seeing this. The ShayCo vendetta against Al Castillo drives all their terrible behavior. Even Mel's "shall may" tantrum was just personal against Castillo. They don't like rule of law.
"The ShayCo vendetta against Al Castillo drives all their terrible behavior."
Projection: where a person denies his or her own motives, which are then ascribed to other people.
Al has an obvious motive for fucking with "Shayco": replacing her with Al's little minion.
After my wife and I watched the Council Meeting , She said MEL ROCKS!
Watch the Council Meeting live and the truth will be heard...
Joan here you go mixing apples and grapes again.... too funny
Mel for mayor!
this is pretty weak analysis, Joan.
I meant sour grapes
9:53 AM Yeah, that's Mel's MO -- talk shit to make yourself look good and hope nobody calls you on it. Too bad for him somebody did.
"Projection: where a person denies his or her own motives, which are then ascribed to other people. "
Like when Shayme says everybody's out to get her.
"Mel for mayor!"
He already tried that and he LOST, remember?
Lots of people have lost races before later winning. Losing once means nothing.
Mel likes to talk fast, think later. He's convincing at first than find out later WRONG!!!!
Mel has way too many skeletons in his closet to be mayor.
I finally read the Mid Week to see what all the hype was about. All I can say is, WOW! Shaylene's most objective article printed to date. And it landed on every dinning room table on the island.
Their lies remind me of the Republican motto......just keep lying, eventually they will believe you!
Was it just me or did Shaylene sound kind of crazy in that MidWeek article? At least this guy Justin sounds sane and ethical.
Definitely it wasn't just you. I don't know why Shay thinks she is fooling.
The really funny comment of Shay's was when she said that we need to think of County money as our own money. Yep Shay - I am sure you think that County money is your own money -- frivolous travel, treating employees so poorly, not caring if they sue and get settlements against the County (will the lawsuits by her employees ever stop?), driving the County car home, $9,500 for Pohaku trinkets, huge raises for employees who help on your campaign, etc.
It's not your money, Shay.
I am going to send a petition to the Deparment of Justice to investigate Shaylene Iseri Carvalho and her cohorts for all the corruption and crimmes that they have committed. If anyone is interested in signing the petition please freel free to reply.
If you want to sign a petition then sign one that counts. In fact stick out your chin and I will have it signed immediately.
Are you nuts, the FBI will probably say its not there problem its Kauai's problem. Your the people that voted for them not the FBI so why make it there problem.
Doubtless the Justice Department will be most impressed by your credible first hand knowledge of "her crimmes".
The FBI is too busy dealing with bigger fish. Shay is minini compared to Cayetano and Lingle.
The public defenders cannot be too happy with Shay's attitude toward them in the Mid Week article.
John Calma, Steph Sato, Dena Renti Cruz, Christian Enright or Jake Delaplane, Charley Foster, Jared Auna, Lance Kobashigawa. No contest.
If it weren't for the people on this blog, Shay would have gotten away with all her crimes.
Yah that's why they have been here watching and waiting for you people to make the wrong move. If you all think that the serial killer stopped killing all of a sudden, then you all really don't know what's really going on.
Like a Bozo, rape and take pictures of a prositute in custody for the very last time.
Wonder what all the cursing was about at the Bullshed Friday night?
Mel was not there when it happened.
Wait for the "October Surprise" out of Pennsylvania shortly.
Maybe the rumors are true and Justin was born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim sent here to subvert the United States?
Charley the Top spinning on his blog, complaining about political maneuvering by Shay's "opponents". Charley doesn't know that once the election is over a blogger is an unnecessary appendage at $101,000.
Is blogging even a proper assignment for a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney?
Blogging is certainly ALLOWED of a deputy prosecuting attorney, if you are suggesting they leave their free speach rights at the door when they are hired by the government...
It raises all sorts of ethical issues when the blogger gets a fat raise after posting favorable crap about his boss. Especially when the blogger apparently doesn't do much (in comparison to the other deputies who go to court and actually prosecute criminals). How does this person show his face in public? Isn't he ashamed by the circumstances that led to his raise? Or is he some unethical douchebag?
What else does the deputy blogger do to earn his $101,000? If he's not prosecuting criminals, he's ripping off the taxpayers.
But can a deputy prosecutor blog on County time? is that allowed? I don't think so...
What if that Deputy Prosecuting Attorney is blogging for Shaylene on County time? Is that allowed?
What happens when OPA criminally charges one of the subjects of the prosecutor's blog? That would seem to then have recusal written all over it.
What if an OPA blogger left an "anonymous" comment on another blog revealing confidential information, then blogged about it, then later altered his post to remove the incriminating reference? Couldn't that be a problem, especially if his office was, say, involved in an EEOC action?
Who would do something that stupid?
Give you one guess...
You rarely see Shay, Jake or Charley in court but you see them on TV. Good for morale in the office to have Charley and Jake pull their weight like the other deputies.
Post a Comment