Monthly Archive for October, 2010

Couch: Balance is Key

October 14, 2010, Maui Weekly

Throughout this campaign, my opponent and his supporters have attempted to tag me as “pro-development,” and therefore, a bad guy who the voters shouldn’t trust. Let’s set the record straight. When I worked in the Arakawa administration, the only developments I supported were Jesse Spencer’s Waikapū project and the West Maui Breakers projects—both successful, affordable housing projects. I opposed and testified against the Pu‘unoa project in Lahaina because it was poorly designed and in the wrong location.

My opponents say that I am “pro-development” simply because my campaign has accepted donations from people in the development field. In fact, the far majority the campaign contributions I have received are from ordinary Maui County residents. Of the over 70 people whom have contributed to my campaign, contributions from folks in the development industry amount to eight.

My opponents see this election as a referendum on development. I see it very differently. This election for the South Maui Council seat is about restoring common sense and honest discussion of the facts, and getting our community back to work while preserving what makes Maui County so special.

The main difference between my opponent and me is that he comes from a rigid ideology that prevents him from seeking balance. I believe that finding balance is the key to our future. We need to balance the need for a vibrant economy with the imperative to protect and enhance our environment.

So if I am “pro” anything, it is for a balanced future. So please vote Don Couch on Nov. 2. Mahalo.

Don Couch
Kīhei

Viewpoint: Nishiki’s personal loan is a current issue; questions about it remain

Anthony Ranken “Viewpoint,” October 13, 2010, Maui News

Two years ago, at the time and place required by the County Charter, Maui County Council candidate Wayne Nishiki failed to disclose his $100,000 unsecured personal loan from Everett Dowling, our community’s best-known developer.

Nishiki now says that what he did in the last election is old news and chastises his opponent for bringing it up. But when it comes to the ethics of an elected representative, there is no statute of limitations, and this is the first time Nishiki has faced the voters since the story broke.

While the Maui County Board of Ethics did not pursue impeachment of Council Member Nishiki, it did not exonerate him either. His second-place finish in the Sept. 18 primary implies the issue remains a concern for many voters.

The loan itself was not illegal but it clearly would have been of interest to voters in the 2008 election. What was illegal was the late filing of the statement disclosing the loan. Candidate Nishiki’s financial disclosure was submitted to the county 2 months late – after the primary election and so near to the general election that it did not come to light until after Nishiki won that close contest.

Equally troubling is that Mr. Nishiki refused and still refuses to publicly answer basic questions about the affair. Council Member Nishiki champions the Sunshine Law when it comes to considering developers’ proposals, but he kept his business with this particular developer in the dark. At Mr. Nishiki’s request, the Board of Ethics investigation was closed to the public and to reporters. Nishiki has taken the position that his privacy outweighs his constituents’ desire for a full explanation of the loan and of his delay in disclosing it.

It is logical to wonder whether Mr. Nishiki, instead of being merely forgetful or disorganized, may have procrastinated in filing the disclosure form because he was embarrassed about what it would reveal. Only by answering questions publicly and releasing the existing transcript of the closed Board of Ethics meeting can Mr. Nishiki give the voters the information they would need in order to determine whether his conduct was devious or merely careless.

If Mr. Nishiki wants to convince skeptical voters that his conduct in the 2008 election was innocent, he should release the transcript and then submit to a follow-up interview with The Maui News. By publicly addressing the lingering questions, Mr. Nishiki might have the chance to restore community confidence in his character and integrity.

Among the unanswered questions:

* After missing the legal deadline, Mr. Nishiki received some half-dozen reminders from the secretary of the Board of Ethics before the final warning letter. The disclosure form is not complicated and Nishiki was familiar with it. So what exactly caused him to fail to respond each of those times?

* Since Mr. Nishiki states he does not meet with developers, what were the circumstances under which he became so close to Mr. Dowling that an unsecured personal note of $100,000 was provided upon request?

* What was the purpose of the loan? Mr. Nishiki has stated both that it was for his farmers market and that it was to give to his daughter for her business. And why did he need a loan, when his financial disclosure reflected that the year before he had received $200,000 cash back on a mortgage for his condominium unit, a condo that he reports was sold to him in 2007 for less than a third of its market value?

There is a reason that candidates and officeholders are required to disclose financial information. In his attacks against his opponent, Nishiki himself has emphasized the importance of monetary contributions. So why not step forward at this time and clarify his own financial ties?

Mr. Nishiki, as council member you’ve done your job as a watchdog for the people. Now, please give the people the information we need to do our job as voters.

* Attorney Anthony Ranken is a former chairman of the Maui County Board of Ethics. He has written this Viewpoint in his private capacity, as a citizen who supported Wayne Nishiki in many prior elections.

The Maui Chamber of Commerce Endorses Don Couch

“The Chamber of Maui Political Action Committee (COMPAC), who handles the Chamber’s candidate endorsement process, is pleased to announce the Chamber’s ‘business friendly’ endorsements for County and State offices in the 2010 General Election…To receive a Chamber endorsement, candidates had to participate in the interview process…To receive the Chamber’s endorsement as a ‘business friendly’ candidate, the candidate had to meet a minimum score equating to 60% of the total points possible. Candidates who do not meet the minimum score are not endorsed, even if it means that no endorsement is made for a race.”

Read more here.