The Rotten Scavengers in
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
Sightings from The Catbird Seat
~o~
June 27, 2007
Out of the Shadows,
Into the Spotlight
Gov. Lingle’s Chief of Staff Bob Awana Is the Victim of a Blackmail
Scheme and Under Investigation for Alleged Bribery in Saipan,
But So Far He's Kept His Job
By Malia Zimmerman, Hawaii Reporter
Gov. Linda Lingle’s chief of staff Robert “Bob” Awana has come under fire in recent weeks for his connection to two so far unrelated federal crimes – one allegedly involving blackmail, and the other, bribery. In one he is the victim; and the other, a person of interest. Combined, both crimes, which are being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, involve people in Hawaii as well as other Pacific Rim countries: Japan, the Philippines, India and Saipan.
Despite concerns by many Republicans about Awana’s intentions and propensity to put politics over principal, the former Democratic political strategist and waste management consultant is considered Lingle’s closest confidant. He managed her failed 1998 gubernatorial campaign, but ran her successful 2002 gubernatorial effort, securing in a state dominated by Democrats, the election of Hawaii’s first woman governor and first Republican governor in 4 decades.
Since then, Lingle has afforded Awana tremendous power. He has the most influence over the hiring and firing of the governor’s appointees and has been accused of micromanagement; and reportedly keeps a color-coded enemies list with names of those perceived disloyal to the governor.
Most alarming to Republicans, in a 2006 backroom multi-billion deal with Mayor Mufi Hannemann, Awana brokered the passage of a controversial bill that allowed Hannemann and the Honolulu City Council to hike the state General Excise Tax by 12.5 percent – a record tax increase for the state – even though Lingle pledged 72 hours earlier to veto the measure.
Though he’s usually by the governor’s side, on Monday, June 25, 2007, in a press conference at the governor’s office, Awana was uncharacteristically absent. Lingle refused to comment on either investigation. She told inquiring reporters that Awana’s employment status with her office had not changed – he is still her chief of staff. But she would not answer questions posed by KITV’s Darryl Huff as to whether she still had “faith and confidence’ in Awana. The governor tried to put off the question by claiming she’d just returned from an extended trip to Asia, and had not spoken to Awana. But Huff pointed out that just days earlier, Awana spoke to KITV and admitted that in 2005, he met with the governor about the bribery attempt.
In an interview with Hawaii Reporter on Monday, Awana refused to comment further about either case, except to reiterate what he told other reporters: He is a “victim” of a crime, and because both investigations are ongoing, he won’t speak about them.
"Threat to Injure the Property and Reputation of R.A."
Rajdatta Patkar, an Indian national, was indicted by a federal grand jury more than a year ago on April 27, 2006, on 5 counts for “threatening to injure the property and reputation” of “R.A.” (Robert Awana). Court records say the “five communications sent by the defendant (on September 5, 11, 15, 18, and 26, 2005) formed the basis of the 5-count extortion.” Since the matter involved an extradition proceeding, the indictment was sealed until the defendant was located in Japan where he lives. There, Patkar was arrested in March 2007, and despite his opposition, he was extradited to Hawaii.
Indian newspapers first reported that Patkar’s family petitioned the Indian High Court and Indian Supreme Court through their attorney in hopes of bringing Patkar back to India, but those attempts failed. Stuck in Hawaii, he pled “not guilty” to the charges, but the judge ordered him detained in federal prison until his trial. While the trial is scheduled to start August 21, 2007, it won’t. Public defender Pamela Byrne has asked for more time to review the materials and mount her client’s defense.
In Hawaii, the bribery case received no media coverage until this month, in part because of the sealed records. In addition, Awana was not named – in all court records he is only referred to as “R.A.” Federal prosecutors say keeping Awana’s name a secret is standard procedure: “All cases involving victims, irrespective of whether they are high profile members of the community, the United States is obligated under the Crime Victim Rights Act to treat victims with fairness and respect for the victims’ privacy. Accordingly, it is generally incumbent upon the prosecution to abbreviate or eliminate the names of victims in all documents that may become public …,” writes U.S. Deputy Attorney Clare Connors.
Despite the federal government’s discretion, Awana’s name became public after Indian newspapers reported Patkar’s arrest, indictment, extradition to the United States and incarceration in Hawaii.
So What’s Behind the Alleged Bribery Scheme?
According to court documents, Patkar attempted to extort $35,000 from Awana on threat of exposing Awana’s purported “unseemly emails” that if published would “subject the victim’s reputation to unfavorable scrutiny.”
Sources close to the case say that Patkar threatened to expose the married Awana for his relationship with Jullie Mae – a student Awana allegedly met in 2005 while in the Philippines. Awana purportedly saw Mae when he represented the governor in a large delegation that went to the Philippines in 2005; Awana went again to the Philippines in 2006 with the governor’s more than 200-member delegation.
Mae, who became acquainted with Patkar through the Internet, reportedly has a web profile posted on the Chinese Kisses international dating service – http://www.chinesekisses.com/view.php?id=69357&l=en
Here Mae is listed as an 18-year-old unemployed student living in Davao, Philippines. If her age is accurately posted, she was a minor when Awana allegedly met her more than two years ago, a fact some law enforcement looking into the matter say could be problematic for Awana in the future.
Complicating the alleged blackmail attempt is reported correspondence between Awana and Mae that asks Mae to arrange escorts for two prominent married men from Hawaii.
Maui Time Weekly’s Greg Mebele interviewed Charudatta Patkar, the brother of Patkar. In a June 14 interview, he writes when “Awana and other state officials visited the Philippines, Charudatta said Mae was expected to ‘entertain his delegates.’ When I asked if this included sexual entertainment, Charudatta said, ‘Yes.’ “
Details on the case are sketchy because portions of the court records containing the emails that Patkar sent to Awana and Awana sent to Mae are sealed. Patkar, who is still incarcerated, has not been allowed to speak to the media. His federal public defender, Pamela Byrne, filed a petition on June 12, 2007, asking the federal court to “clarify whether the defendant and undersigned counsel are restricted from disseminating and/or discussing information concerning this case with anyone else.”
Byrne says the grounds for her motion are that “the government has requested that the counsel and defendant sign a proposed order in which the name of the alleged victim and certain details of the instant offense are not revealed unless and until there is a trial on the merits.”
Her motion will be heard this Friday, June 29, at 10 a.m. before Federal Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi. Byrne has not returned calls to Hawaii Reporter about this case, or, according to her own sworn statement, any media. Federal officials also are not commenting.
Awana told reporters that he went to U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo after being blackmailed by Patkar, and Kubo referred the case to the FBI. Awana said that he worked with the FBI to catch Patkar in the act by telling Patkar to charge $4,000 to his credit card as a first payment of the $35,000 that Patkar demanded. But the credit card wasn’t Awana’s – it belonged to the FBI. The whole transaction was a sting, and Patkar, according to court records, took the money.
Awana Investigated in Alleged Bribery Incident in Saipan
In addition to being the subject of a blackmail attempt, Awana is being questioned by FBI officials about an alleged bribery attempt of the former Republican governor of Saipan.
Law enforcement sources confirm Awana has been under investigation – and was interviewed by FBI agents in 2006 – over a $1 million Saipan government contract awarded four years earlier to a Saipan waste management company, which Awana owns a large percentage of.
Awana told The Honolulu Advertiser last week that he did not bribe government officials in Saipan.
When asked by Hawaii Reporter about the investigation, Awana maintained his innocence.
He says he had not hired a criminal attorney to represent him and says that he is cooperating with federal authorities in both cases.
Political Pundits Speculate on Impact on 2010 Gubernatorial Election
In light of Awana’s close political ties to both Lingle and Lt. Governor James “Duke” Aiona, political pundits are already debating how these federal investigations, possible subsequent trials, and the information revealed through them, might impact Hawaii’s 2010 elections.
They note the Lingle/Aiona administration promised to end corruption in government – and these investigations only hurt that pledge.
Aiona has already announced his plans to run for governor on the Republican ticket, but both investigations are placing the Lingle/Aiona administration under tremendous local, national and international scrutiny. And that won’t likely end soon.
The Friday hearing before Judge Leslie Kobayashi determining if there is a gag order on Patkar and his attorney, is sure to gain additional media attention on this case - attention that will only drag on with the delay in the August trial.
Attorneys tell Hawaii Reporter that if there is a trial in the blackmail case, several of the governor’s prominent Philippine trip sponsors and donors could be called as witnesses. That could have a chilling effect on recruiting private sponsorships for future foreign "good will" trips and on relations with donors for Aiona’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign.
Also depending on what is discovered in the blackmail trial, sources say Awana could become the target of a separate but related federal investigation – and in that case, these sponsors and donors may once again be called as witnesses.
One source close to the investigation told Hawaii Reporter: “It will only get worse for Awana from here. There is no upside for him.”
Reach Malia Zimmerman, editor and president of Hawaii Reporter, via email at mailto:Malia@hawaiireporter.com
December 28, 2006
Allegations of Improprieties in
City Dump Inspections
By Tina Shelton, KHON
Hawaii’s Attorney General is investigating whether state Health Department officials accepted bribes in connection with operations at the Waimanalo Gulch Landfill.
KHON2 News has learned the allegations appear to have come from the company that runs the municipal dump for the city of Honolulu.
Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc. was hit last February with the biggest fine in local history for violations at the Leeward Oahu dump.
The State Department of Health accused the company of eighteen types of infractions. Now, health department employees are facing their own accusations, from the company.
Waste Management is appealing the $2.7 million fine. The company is fighting the state’s allegations that it failed to report over filling and other rule violations at the dump.
During private settlement negotiations between the firm and the state health department, the company made a serious accusation.
According to a letter from the attorney general's office, "Waste Management made an allegation relating to Waste Management employee(s) spending money on DOH employee(s) and related accusations."
And Waste Management seems to have offered proof.
The letter says, "Waste Management cited certain of its expense records in support of its allegation."
None of this sits well with Waianae resident and Senate President Colleen Hanabusa.
"It appears from the face of the letter that it was Waste Management itself who brought this to the attention of the Attorney General,” Hanabusa told KHON2 News.
Hanabusa is petitioning to be a party to the settlement process between Waste Management and the Department of Health.
"At the very minimum, it's a definite impropriety,” Hanabusa said. “But it could rise to the level a bribery or something along those lines."
Hanabusa worries that without another witness to the settlement process, it could become tainted.
"They may have other reasons to settle the matter and basically sweep everything under the rug."
"Someone else should be there who's able to watch over them," Hanabusa explained.
Neither the state nor Waste Management of Hawaii has submitted public
documents outlining further details about the alleged bribery scheme.
Hanabusa says the secrecy is intolerable. She's hoping the hearings officer
presiding over the administrative fine process will allow her to intervene.
Neither Waste Management nor state or city attorneys responded when KHON2 News sought comment.
http://www.khon2.com/home/ticker/5033386.html
November 17, 2006
EPA announces Hawai ’i environmental enforcement
accomplishments for 2006; Water pollution
related cases highlight year
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
HONOLULU - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s enforcement actions in Hawai’i for 2006 brought environmental and public benefits for the state’s residents as polluters committed to more than $95 million to correct environmental violations and prevent future pollution.
Included in the amount will be over $1.1 million in commitments from the Hawai’i Department of Transportation (a.k.a. US taxpayers)to fund community projects with expanded environmental benefits.
This year continues the successful efforts from the past five years in terms of polluters making on-the-ground improvements. The continued cesspool upgrades, the largest stormwater settlement to date nationally against a private landowner with James Pflueger, and the settlement of stormwater violations statewide with the Hawai’i Department of Transportation, lead the year’s accomplishments to protect the environment.
“The Pflueger and HDOT settlements and the replacement of over 350 large capacity cesspools will provide Hawai’i residents continued enjoyment of cleaner water and land areas,” said Wayne Nastri, administrator of the EPA’s Pacific Southwest Office. “EPA will continue working to enforce environmental laws and ensure compliance of environmental regulations to improve public health.”
·Pflueger Stormwater: A nearly $7.5 million settlement with James Pflueger over Clean Water Act violations associated with construction activities on Pflueger’s property at Pila’a on the island of Kaua’i....
Other Hawai’i enforcement highlights for 2006 include:
· Clean Air Act violations against Waste Management of Hawai’i, Inc., and county governments on Oahu and Hawai’i at the Waimanalo Gulch landfill at Kapolei and West Hawai’i landfill at Waikaloa. At the Waimanalo Gulch landfill, EPA inspectors found that the gas collection and control system was installed seven years late in August 2005, and does not meet requirements. At the West Hawai’i landfill, Waste Management and the County of Hawai’i violated several reporting requirements.
· An action with $1,375 (WOW, that’s going to hurt ‘em! Time to file for a rate increase!) in fines against Hawaiian Electric Co. for improperly disposing of 75 pounds of absorbent material contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, a violation of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act....
· A settlement for $3,300 with Kamehameha Schools for the improper use of a rodenticide within the Keauhou forest region on the Big Island. Kamehameha Schools failed to comply with the conditions set forth in an EPA experimental use permit authorizing the limited aerial application of a pesticide to control mongoose and rats for wildlife conservation purposes. As a result of the pesticide’s non-permitted use inside bait traps, at least 12 non-targeted wild pigs were killed in addition to the targeted rat and mongoose populations.
(H-m-m-m...wonder how this experimental stuff affects the HEALTH of the HUMAN life in the Hawaiian Islands???...either SPRAYED or ON THE GROUND? And,,,wonder who manufactures this “experimental pesticide”? DuPont? Monsanto? ... Kinda reminds me of something out of “Uncle Sam’s Guinea Pigs”.)
April 6, 2006
Two Hawai'i landfills cited for
violating clean air laws
Contact Information: Dean Higuchi, (808) 541-2711
HONOLULU – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc., and island governments on Oahu and Hawai’i have violated the Clean Air Act at the Waimanalo Gulch landfill at Kapolei and West Hawai’i landfill at Waikoloa.
The violations pertain to the Waimanalo Gulch landfill at Kapolei on Oahu and West Hawai’i landfill at Waikoloa on the Big Island. The Waimanalo Gulch landfill is owned by the City and County of Honolulu, and the West Hawai’i landfill is owned by the County of Hawai’i. Both landfills are run and operated for the counties by Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc.
“Landfill owners and operators need to meet the planning, permitting and control requirements to comply with clean air rules,” said Deborah Jordan, director for the EPA Pacific Southwest Region’s Air Division. “The goal of our action is to ensure that Waste Management and the counties effectively control emissions from both landfills.”
At the Waimanalo Gulch landfill, EPA inspectors found that the gas collection and control system was installed seven years late in August 2005, and does not meet requirements. At the West Hawaii landfill, Waste Management and the County of Hawai’i violated several reporting requirements. Both landfills have been required to comply with the clean air rules since March 1996.
The EPA is requiring Waste Management and the counties to get both landfills into compliance with clean air rules. Under the Clean Air Act, they could face fines of up to $32,500 per day, per violation. Staff from the Hawai’i Department of Health’s Clean Air Branch provided assistance to the EPA’s investigators.
Nonmethane landfill gas contains volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants that can result in adverse effects to the respiratory system, cancer, and damage to the nervous system. Methane emissions contribute to global climate change and can result in fires or explosions when they accumulate in structures on or off the landfill site.
March 26, 2002
Waste Management Founder, Five
Other Former Top Officers Sued
for Massive Fraud
Defendants Inflated Profits by $1.7 Billion To Meet Earnings Targets;
Defendants Reap Millions in Ill-Gotten Gains While
Defrauded Investors Lose More Than $6 Billion
Washington, D.C. — The Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit today against the founder and five other former top officers of Waste Management Inc., charging them with perpetrating a massive financial fraud lasting more than five years. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, charges that defendants engaged in a systematic scheme to falsify and misrepresent Waste Management's financial results between 1992 and 1997.
The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Management's founder, chairman of the board of directors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a portion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice president, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance.
"Our complaint describes one of the most egregious accounting frauds we have seen," said Thomas C. Newkirk, associate director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "For years, these defendants cooked the books, enriched themselves, preserved their jobs, and duped unsuspecting shareholders."
According to the complaint, the defendants violated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money penalties, and officer and director bars against all defendants.
"Defendants' fraudulent conduct was driven by greed and a desire to retain their corporate positions and status in the business and social communities," Newkirk said. "Our goal is to take the profit out of securities fraud and to prevent fraudsters from serving as officers or directors of public companies."
The complaint alleges that the defendants played the following roles in the scheme:
Buntrock - the driving force behind the fraud. He set earnings targets, fostered a culture of fraudulent accounting, personally directed certain of the accounting changes to make the targeted earnings, and was the spokesperson who announced the company's phony numbers. At the same time, Buntrock posed as a successful entrepreneur. With charitable contributions made with fruits of his ill-gotten gains or money taken from the company, Buntrock presented himself as a pillar of the community. For example, just 10 days before certain of the accounting irregularities first became public, he enriched himself with a tax benefit by donating inflated company stock to his college alma mater to fund a building in his name. He was the primary beneficiary of the fraud and reaped more than $16.9 million in ill-gotten gains from, among other things, performance-based bonuses, retirement benefits, charitable giving, and selling company stock while the fraud was ongoing.
Rooney - in charge of building the profitability of the company's core solid waste operations and at all times exercised overall control over the company's largest subsidiary. He ensured that required write-offs were not recorded and, in some instances, overruled accounting decisions that would have a negative impact on operations. He reaped more than $9.2 million in ill-gotten gains from, among other things, performance-based bonuses, retirement benefits, and selling company stock while the fraud was ongoing.
Koenig - primarily responsible for executing the scheme. He also ordered the destruction of damaging evidence, misled the company's audit committee and internal accountants, and withheld information from the outside auditors. He profited by more than $900,000 from his fraudulent acts.
Hau - principal technician for the fraudulent accounting. Among other things, he devised many "one-off" accounting manipulations to deliver the targeted earnings and carefully crafted the deceptive disclosures. He profited by more than $600,000 from his fraudulent acts.
Tobecksen - another accounting expert who was Koenig's right-hand man. In 1994, he was enlisted to handle Hau's overflow. He profited by more than $400,000 from his fraudulent acts
Getz - the company's general counsel. Getz blessed the company's fraudulent disclosures and profited by more than $450,000 from his fraudulent acts.
The complaint alleges that defendants fraudulently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The company's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multitude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants:
avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives,
assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value,
failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste,
refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects,
established inflated environmental reserves (liabilities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses,
improperly capitalized a variety of expenses, and
failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses.
Defendants' improper accounting practices were centralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earnings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to conform the company's actual results to the predetermined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudulently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next.
Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants allegedly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of millions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them."
Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and misleading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries ("PAJEs") to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements.
Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJEs, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four-page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and prescribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to follow to change those practices.
The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges.
Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying accounting practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says.
Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid-July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the company's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowledged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restatement was the largest in corporate history.
As news of the company's overstatement of earnings became public, Waste Management's shareholders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their investments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33%....
http://www.sec.gov/news/headlines/wastemgmt6.htm
February 2, 2006
City Landfill Fined Almost $3 Million
Brooks Baehr – bbaehr@kgmb9.com
The City and County of Honolulu and the company that operates Oahu's only municipal landfill face the largest fine ever for rules violations at a Hawaii dump. They have been fined $2.769 million.
The Waimanalo Gulch landfill is run by a company called Waste Management of Hawaii. The state Health Department alleges the Waste Management and the city have committed 18 kinds of violations. They include overfilling the dump above permitted heights, failure to cover garbage with soil, allowing excessive liquids to build up at the base of the landfill and failure to monitor methane gas levels in the dump.
"The department sees these are serious violations which warrant penalties," said Larry Lau, deputy director of the Health Department.
Lau says the overfilling and excessive liquid build-up could have destabilized the landfill causing portions of it to slide downslope toward Farrington Highway and the Ko Olina resort.
"To address that, they are building a large berm or wall at the bottom of the landfill to make sure the waste stays in place. We believe that will take care of that issue," Lau added.
According to city Environmental Services director Eric Takamura, deficiencies at the landfill have been remedied. He said the fine will be paid by Waste Management.
"Right now, our understanding of the contract is, yes. The tax payers won't pay the burden," Takamura said.
Executives from Waste Management would not talk on camera, but issued a statement saying, "Waste Management has taken significant efforts to address the issues."
"It's about time," Maeda Timson told KGMB9.
Timson is chair of the Makakilo/Kapolei Neighborhood Board. She is glad community suspicions about the landfill have finally been verified, but is not ready to believe Waste Management has cleaned up its act.
"For two years we've been saying all these things. Waste Management came back and said, oh no, we're not doing this. Well we smell it. Oh no, you're not smelling our odor. Oh you're not seeing our rubbish. So why would we believe them," Timson said.
Waste Management is expected to appeal the fine within the next 20 days. If it does, it's possible the fine will be reduced from the current $2.8 million.
http://kgmb9.com/kgmb/display.cfm?storyID=7172&sid=1183
December 4, 2003
From The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii website:
Stanley Hong to Lead Nature Conservancy's
Corporate Council for the Environment
Honolulu, HI - Longtime Honolulu business leader Stanley Hong has been named the new chair of The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii's Corporate Council for the Environment, the organization announced today.
Hong, the President of Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc., and a trustee of the King William Charles Lunalilo Trust Estate, is a past President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii (1996 -2002) and the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau (1984-1993). He has served as a member of The Nature Conservancy's Board of Trustees since 1992.
"Few people know the business community in Hawaii like Stanley Hong," said Suzanne Case, the Conservancy's Executive Director in Hawaii. "He is experienced, well-liked and respected, and his enthusiasm and can-do attitude are contagious. We are very excited to have him lead our Corporate Council for the Environment."
Begun in 1987, the Conservancy's Corporate Council for the Environment works to engage the business community in caring for Hawaii's environment. Its founder and first chair was the late Colin Cameron of Maui Land Pineapple. Other chairs have included Bob Clarke of Hawaiian Electric, Larry Johnson of Bank of Hawaii, Tom Leppert of Castle & Cooke, and Don Carroll of Oceanic Cable....
"Business leaders in Hawaii know how important the environment is to our economy and quality of life," said Hong. "The Conservancy's ability to work with business – balancing the needs of people and nature to achieve realistic conservation results – characterizes its approach. It’s an approach that I think the business community believes in."
For more information about the Corporate Council for the Environment, or to become a member, contact Diane Kane at (808) 537-4508.
~ ~ ~
August 4, 2002
Stanley Hong moves on to a new challenge
By Susan Hooper, Honolulu Advertiser
In March, just one month shy of his 66th birthday, Stanley Hong settled in to a new job as president of Waste Management of Hawaii Inc. But the former president and chief executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawai'i sees nothing unusual in that: His father was a dental surgeon who worked until he was 88 and lived another 10 years.
Stanley Hong, former CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawai'i, now is president of Waste Management of Hawaii, a firm overseeing operations at various landfills. At 66, he's not looking to retire.
"Some people think of 65 or 60 as an age when they should be retiring," said Hong, known in the Islands for his role with the chamber and, before that, as president and CEO of the Hawai'i Visitors & Convention Bureau.
"But there are many more who go beyond that. I never thought of that as a cap, so to speak, but just another phase of one's life. I never thought, 'When I reach 60 or 65, I'm going to retire.' Instead, it was just: 'What am I going to do?' "
Hong says he has relied on a combination of planning and serendipity in charting his career course, which includes stints as vice president of administration and general counsel at TheoDavies & Co. Ltd. and, before that, as an executive with TheoDavies' parent, Jardine, Matheson and Co. Ltd. in Hong Kong.
His new post, as head of the Hawai'i arm of Houston-based firm Waste Management, uses the same management and executive leadership skills he's honed in previous positions, Hong said.
"It didn't faze me," he said of overseeing the company that manages the landfills on O'ahu, Kaua'i and the island of Hawai'i. "It's just another challenge. It's not something I can't do."...
Hong was offered the Waste Management of Hawaii job by A. Maurice Myers, a former president and chief executive officer of Aloha Airlines who is now chairman, president and chief executive of parent company Waste Management Inc.
Hong started at Waste Management three months after leaving the chamber job in part because he needed another "breathing spell" after being with the chamber for more than five years.
He also wanted to spend time on his work as a trustee with the King William Charles Lunalilo Trust Estate, a position he has held since June 2001....
November 8, 2001
Waste Management to Pay $457 Million To
Settle Shareholder Class-Action Suit
CALMETTA COLEMAN / Wall Street Journal
Waste Management Inc. agreed to pay $457 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging securities-law violations and said it expects to receive $20 million in a related settlement with its auditor.
The Houston trash hauler also reported third-quarter net income of $30 million, or five cents a share, compared with a year-earlier loss of $191 million, or 31 cents a share. The latest results reflect the proposed settlements. Revenue fell 7.3% to $2.9 billion from $3.13 billion.
Waste Management shares were up 6.4%, or $1.63, to $26.98 at 4 p.m. Wednesday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
The class-action suit, a consolidation of 30 suits brought by shareholders, was filed in July 1999 and relates to conduct around the company's 1998 merger with USA Waste Services Inc. and a 1999 accounting scandal that triggered a stock plunge. Waste Management and its executives came under fire from shareholders after the company twice revised reported earnings in 1999 and took a $1.8 billion write-off.
The company said the settlement agreement resolves all claims under the class-action suit against the company as well as current and former officers and directors. If the settlement is approved by the U.S. District Court in Houston, the company said it would recommend a binding resolution to require annual elections of all directors to ensure better oversight.
Chairman and Chief Executive A. Maurice Myers said the settlement puts "to rest the most significant issues from the past."
The class covered by the settlement consists of all persons or entities who bought or acquired the company's stocks, bonds or call options or who sold put options from June 11, 1998, through Nov. 9, 1999.
Waste Management also said its auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, settled a suit that alleged "professional malpractice" by the accounting firm in relation to the alleged securities violations. That suit was brought in a Texas state court in Harris County by shareholders on behalf of Waste Management. The $20 million settlement would be reduced by attorney's fees and expenses.
Arthur Andersen said it admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.
May 15, 1998
Public workers sue city over privatization
Harris denounces the four lawsuits as ‘self-serving’
By Linda Hosek, Star-Bulletin
United Public Workers has filed four lawsuits in Circuit Court, asking the court to end specific private contracts with the city, including a major one for the Waimanalo landfill, which receives most of Oahu's waste.
Mayor Jeremy Harris called the suits "self-serving," saying the union's intent to use civil servants in the contracts would increase costs for taxpayers at a time when they can least afford it.
"We will defend our contracts vigorously," he said.
The union yesterday filed the suits, citing a 1997 state Supreme Court decision against the use of private workers in landfills historically run by civil servants.
Justices, ruling on Kono vs. County of Hawaii, found that privatizing landfills was contrary to public policy.
In other suits against the city, the union seeks to resume the use of civil servants for janitorial and building and grounds maintenance, and solid waste pickup, collection and disposal.
UPW also sued the Board of Water Supply, asking the court to order the use of civil servants for automotive and equipment repair.
Waste Management of Hawaii Inc. currently operates the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill.
Harris faulted Gary Rodrigues, UPW's state director, for filing the suits after lawmakers passed the "privatization bill," which protects privatization from union challenges.
It allows the government to privatize services, so long as workers don't lose their jobs as a result.
But Harris also faulted lawmakers for failing to stand up to Rodrigues. He said they left open a window of opportunity to allow the union to challenge private contracts.
"Today, our worst fears have been realized, and Rodrigues has taken advantage of the opportunity the Legislature provided him," he said.
Herbert Takahashi, union attorney, could not be reached for comment.
The suits come at a time of conflict over privatization between the city and union.
http://starbulletin.com/98/05/15/news/story7.html
Privatization The Key to
Waste Management Growth
Privatization is a dream of Waste Management (WMI) for future growth and profits. Some fifty years ago it was common that municipalities owned a dump where local companies or the city disposed of solid waste. Today with needed environmental regulations and the immense increase of solid waste, WMI has become an huge corporation exploiting the solid waste crisis. It has made great gains in privatization by often owning a price monopoly landfill. Future growth plans include supporting maximum privatization. John Donahue's THE PRIVATIZATION DECISION lays out solid bases for garbage collection decisions....
http://www.stopwmx.org/private.html
~ ~ ~
Canadians Oppose Privatization
The Vector Poll shows that 2/3rd of all Canadians recognize that the privatizing of trash collection will result in reduced quality, confused accountability, higher fees and increased safety concerns.
The same % worry about loss of Canadian control of such services. Waste Management is a United States based corporation. 70% believe that overtime, staffing and service levels will be cut by private corporations who will cut corners on maintenance to increase profits. Vector's poll interviews 1,000 adults by telephone with about 3% error.
The poll also showed that three of every four Canadians believe that good jobs will be lost, environmental protection will fall and access to good services will deteriorate for the poor, women and visible minorities. Such opposition by citizens hopefully will stop WMI's growth hopes through privatization.
The biannual polls also show that few people think that politicians who promote privatization of public services want to improve services. Citizens believe the most driving motives for privatization are short term savings and providing contracts to their political supporters. Only one in six believe improving quality is a reason while only 12% believe that cutting public sector jobs is the reason....
In the CUPE 1999 Annual Report on Privatization, CUPE President Judy Darcy writes that "doing more with less is an impressive sound bite. ... Politicians looking for a quick fix and corporations looking to made quick profits, are promoting privatization as the magic answer to government deficit problems."...
Darcy also spoke on the fundamental change to Canadian society from privatization. "Privatization is undermining the public services that bind us together and underpin the foundations or our democracy," she wrote....
“Private operators taking over public services bring with them an arsenal of cost-cutting measures that includes slashing jobs. In four short years between 1992 and 1996, 121,000 public sector jobs vanished, many due to privatization. Good jobs are being replaced with privatized or contracted out jobs that pay less, don't have union protection, offer fewer benefits and are often part-time, temporary or casual,"the report continues.
CUPE also charges corporations profit through public subsidies. "The sales pitch for privatization usually stressed savings for the public treasury. Yet mounting evidence from privatization experiments shows that promised savings are more apparent than real. ...
“For corporate interests it's a perfect deal: low-risk, high-return ventures with guaranteed funding and little in the way of public accountability. Tax dollars are still collected and spent. The dramatic difference is that public control over that spending is slipping into the hands of corporations and investors, converting public funds into private capital. ...
“Many expenses don't show up until after private companies get their foot in the door. Having underbid public providers to secure a contract, corporations then introduce user fees or increase rates once they've gained control of a public service. ..."
Once a service has been handed over to a private company, public agencies soon find themselves without the in-house equipment, infrastructure and know-how to provide the service directly, leaving the public at the mercy of a newly-created private monopoly.
While may public services are de facto monopolies, there exists a far higher level of accountability than the cloak of corporate secrecy ... Once a corporation corners the market in a service, they are well-placed to impose new user fees, extract higher service charges from government and cut corners to maximize profit."
With the recent mega mergers of waste management firms there remain only two large firms in the US and three in Canada. Municipalities run the risk of price fixing among these huge corporations and the inability to provide the waste management services themselves.
Citizens should take every action necessary to maintain public services in the monopolistic waste management industry.
Waste Management Inc. is the largest of the three and the most in trouble with the law and its stockholders.
http://www.stopwmx.org/cupe.html
February 28, 1997
**************** See Document 18203REC********************
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
---o0o---
JACK T. KONNO; SAMUEL K. KALUA, III; GARY W. RODRIGUES; UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF HAWAI`I; STEPHEN K. YAMASHIRO; DONNA FAY K. KIYOSAKI; RICHARD WURDEMAN; MICHAEL BEN, as Director of Department of Personnel, County of Hawai`i; SPENCER KALANI SCHUTTE; TAKASHI DOMINGO; JIMMY ARAKAKI; KEOLA CHILDS; JIM RATH; John Does 1-10; Jane Does 1-10; Doe Corporations 1-10; Doe Partnerships 1-10; Roe Non-Profit Organizations 1-10; and Roe Governmental Entities 1- 10, Defendants-Appellees; and WASTE MANAGEMENT OF HAWAI`I, INC., Intervenor/Defendant-Appellee
NO. 18203
(CIV. NO. 93-281 (Hilo))
and
UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, AFSCME, LOCAL 646, AFL-CIO, Complainant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant-Appellant/Cross- Appellee/Cross-Appellee, v. STEPHEN K. YAMASHIRO and DONNA FAY KIYOSAKI, Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees-Appellees/Cross- Appellees/Cross-Appellees; and RICHARD WURDEMAN, ESQ.; SPENCER KALANI SCHUTTE; TAKASHI DOMINGO; JIMMY ARAKAKI; KEOLA CHILDS; JIM RATH, Respondents-Cross-Appellees-Appellees/Cross- Appellees/Cross-Appellees; and WASTE MANAGEMENT OF HAWAI`I, INC., Intervenor-Cross-Appellee-Appellee/Cross-Appellant/Cross- Appellee; and HAWAI`I LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; BERT M. TOMASU; RUSSELL T. HIGA; SANDRA H. EBESU, Appellees/Cross-Appellees- Appellees/Cross-Appellees/Cross-Appellants
NO. 18236
(CIV. NO. 94-63 (Hilo))
APPEALS FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
February 28, 1997
MOON, C.J., KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, AND RAMIL, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY RAMIL, J.
The central issue addressed in these cases (1) is the privatization of public services. The United Public Workers and its officers (collectively the UPW) challenge the validity of a contract entered into by the County of Hawai`i (the County) to privatize the operation of a landfill at Pu`uanahulu on the island of Hawai`i.
In No. 18203, the UPW argues that the County violated civil service laws and merit principles by privatizing the landfill worker positions in question. In No. 18236, the UPW argues that the County violated collective bargaining laws by privatizing without participating in mandatory negotiations with the UPW. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the County violated civil service laws and merit principles but did not violate collective bargaining laws.
The contract between the County and Waste Management of Hawai`i, Inc. (WMI) is void as a violation of public policy to the extent that it provides for the private operation of the Pu`uanahulu landfill. We vacate the circuit courtþs award of summary judgment in favor of the County in No. 18203 and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of the UPW. We instruct the circuit court to grant the UPW a declaratory judgment and an injunction barring private operation of the landfill and to determine whether additional relief is appropriate....
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the County violated civil service laws and merit principles but did not violate collective bargaining laws. The contract between the County and WMI is void as a violation of public policy to the extent that it provides for the private operation of the Pu`uanahulu landfill....
On the briefs:
No. 18203:
Herbert Takahashi, Stanford H. Masui, Danny J. Vasconcellos, and Rebecca L. Covert (of Takahashi, Masui & Vasconcellos) for plaintiffs-appellants Mark Bennett (of McCorriston, Miho & Miller) for defendants-appellees John Knorek (of Torkildson, Katz, Jossem, Fonseca, Jaffe, Moore & Hetherington) for intervenor/defendant-appellee
No. 18236:
Herbert Takahashi, Stanford H. Masui, Danny J. Vasconcellos, and Rebecca L. Covert (of Takahashi, Masui & Vasconcellos) for complainant-appellee/cross- appellant-appellant/cross- appellee/cross-appellee
William C. McCorriston, Mark J. Bennett, and Nadine Ando (of McCorriston, Miho & Miller) for respondents- appellants/cross-appellees- appellees/cross-appellees/ cross-appellees and respondents- cross-appellees-appellees/cross- appellees/cross-appellees
Robert S. Katz, Richard M. Rand, and John L. Knorek (of Torkildson, Katz, Jossem, Fonseca, Jaffe, Moore & Hetherington) for intervenor- cross-appellee-appellee/cross- appellant/cross-appellee
Valri Lei Kunimoto (of Hawai`i Labor Relations Board) for appellees/cross-appellees- appellees/cross-appellees/ cross-appellants
THE WORLD'S WORST LAWBREAKERS -
WORSE THEN EVER
Waste Management Incorporated received legal judgments of at least $357.2 Million from 1991 to 2000.
These judgments over ten years are three and one-half times the 1970-1991 judgments of $104.6 Million!
If you thought WMI was bad in the eighties, they were seven times the worse in the nineties. In addition to the $5.7 million environmental non-compliance fines over $1,000, they were adjudged other court judgments including a $220 million shareholder settlement, a $91.5 million Federal court judgment, and a $11.6 million Chemical Waste Management Pennsylvania guilty plea....
WMI continues to be one of the worst corporation in America. Their pollution, corruption, and racism are unbelievably stinking. With tens of stockholder lawsuits in recent years, a desperation merger, a turnover of six CEOs in two years, a worst case drop in stock value in 1999, WMI continues to attempt to recover as the world's largest waste management company. But plans to sell its international operations may even end this claim!
Check out these other organizations to confirm how bad Waste Management is.EBIC INFACT, Rachel 'have provided analyses of their corruption in politics and their pollution in the nineties. In addition Common Cause and the Center for Responsive Politics give details on some of WMI's massive lobbying activity.
During the eighties Waste Management (WMX) had been fined and penalized 50 million dollars. A review by the Ventura County, CA sheriff's department found the following violations between 1980 and 1991:
1) Criminal violation, 10 violations in 5 states; total fines and penalties, $5.1 million.
2) Antitrust civil cases, 23 in 23 states; penalties of S23.2 million.
3) Environmental civil cases, 22 in 12 states; total fines and costs of $5.4 million.
4) Administrative cases, 87 in 13 states,; total fines and penalties of $3.3 million.
http://www.stopwmx.org/worst.html
STATEMENT OF
WILLIAM SANJOUR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 5, 1992
Thank you for inviting me to testify here today. I am required to inform you that although I am employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), I am not testifying on behalf of the agency.
I've been with EPA for over twenty years and was, at one time, a Branch Chief in the Hazardous Waste Management Division. Twelve years ago I testified before the Congress on the subject of EPA corruption in the implementation of hazardous waste regulations (see Exhibit 1). Since then I have been consistently harassed by EPA's management and my duties have been gradually whittled away to the point that I have had almost no assigned work in the past three years.
As result, I began to work very closely with grassroots environmental groups around the country who could make use of the knowledge and experience I have gained at EPA at taxpayer expense. Since 1982, I have occasionally been invited by these local non-profit groups to speak about my EPA experiences at public meetings, at governmental hearings and before committees of state legislatures. I did so on my own time, accepting only reimbursement for direct travel expenses and making it clear that I was not representing EPA.
Recently, the government has hit upon a new form of harassment, which comes under the jurisdiction of this committee. On January 17th, 1991, the Office of Government Ethics published an interim rule in the Federal Register. The stated purpose of the rule, in the very first sentence, is to implement the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. Buried deep in the rule is the provision (5CFR 2636.202(b))
An [federal government] employee is prohibited ... from receiving ... travel expenses for speaking ... on subject matter that focuses specifically on ... the responsibilities, policies, and programs of his employing agency.
I reviewed the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and found nothing in it to support this provision. That this regulation came from the Ethics Reform Act was the first of many lies I would encounter.
When I called the Office of Government Ethics for an explanation they admitted that this provision did not come out of the Ethics Reform Act. They said it was supported by previous policy statements of the Office of Government Ethics going back to 1984. On reading these memoranda I found that I was familiar with the limitations on travel they contained and had consistently complied with them.
They included restrictions against accepting travel expenses to speak to business organizations or trade associations for businesses regulated or potentially regulated by EPA, businesses selling or wishing to sell goods or services to EPA and those wishing to profit financially from knowledge of government intentions. Nothing I read, however, supported this new, all inclusive restriction. This was the second lie.
Last October, when I had to decline speaking engagements (see Exhibit 2) as a result of a warning by my management, I filed a lawsuit challenging this policy in the D.C. Circuit Court with the support of the National Whistleblower Center. The suit was later joined by fellow whistleblower Hugh Kaufman and by a coalition of North Carolina grassroots environmental groups called NC WARN. Many other interested organizations have joined as amicus curie (Exhibit 3) and more are joining every day.
We have since run into more government lies. In its court filings, the Justice Department claimed that the January 1991 rule was merely reiterating a long standing pre-existent policy of the Office of Government Ethics. But we were able to produce many documents by the EPA General Counsel and other top EPA executives (e.g. Exhibit 6) which showed that the opposite policy existed prior to 1991. (Lie number three). In its motion to dismiss, the Justice Department admitted that EPA had the opposite policy prior to 1991, but they claim that EPA was mistaken and had mis-interpreted the policy of the Office of Government Ethics prior to 1991. However, we have shown that EPA has routinely sent copies of the "mistaken" policy documents to the Office of Government Ethics. (Lie number four).
Regardless of whether this policy can be supported by law, an issue which our lawsuit will eventually decide, two important facts remain. One is that this is a new policy. Mr. Kaufman and I have been speaking on EPA related issues on our vacation time and on weekends for over ten years. EPA has been well aware that we have been reimbursed for our travel expenses and EPA's written policy, until this year, has allowed this activity. The fact is the government has changed the policy this year with no visible mandate, from Congress or elsewhere, to change it.
The second fact is that the Office of Government Ethics has tried to make it look like the policy originated with the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 by secreting it in a rule to implement that law. This is fraud. Obviously OGE wanted to create the appearance that this policy originated in Congress.
I believe this policy change originated at a high level in the administration and that it was probably written to silence Mr. Kaufman and me. Let me explain why I think that. Having been a mid-level career civil servant for twenty years, I find it inconceivable that mid-level career civil servants in the Office of Government Ethics would take it on themselves to change government policy with no mandate to do so and hide the change in a rule published in the Federal Register to implement an act of Congress. I believe that this could only have been done if officials of the Office of Government Ethics were told to do it by a higher authority.
Secondly, my attorney, Mr. Stephen Kohn, told me that EPA referred our lawsuit directly to the Justice Department and that the Justice Department told him that the government intends to defend this policy to the hilt, and that it applies to all U.S. government employees, and that the administrator of EPA has no discretion on its implementation. I don't believe that the Justice Department would take such an aggressive stance if the policy merely originated in the Office of Government Ethics or in EPA.
Third, I know of no other persons, outside of Mr. Kaufman and myself, affected by this rule. My attorney, who is a specialist in whistleblower cases, has encountered no other cases. We are in touch with many organizations that deal with controversial issues and to my knowledge no other federal employee has come forward to protest this ruling. We know of no federal agency, outside of EPA, that have felt it necessary to inform its employees of this provision.
While this policy may have changed suddenly, one could see something like this coming for some time. The talks that Mr. Kaufman and I have been invited to give over the years have not only been critical of EPA and other government policy, but have frequently stepped on the toes of some powerful business interests, particularly the commercial hazardous and nuclear waste management industry. Over the years administrators of EPA have received many complaints about remarks we have made from businessmen, congressmen, governors, etc. Two of the more recent ones are included as Exhibits 4 and 5. EPA has always had to reply that while they disapproved of what we were doing, they had no legal basis for stopping us (see Exhibit 6).
In fact, the agency has made many attempts to stop us under various pretexts. Until now, they have all failed. One even backfired on the agency when Assistant Administrator Rita Lavelle ordered the Inspector General to keep Mr. Kaufman under surveillance when he was invited to speak to a group of citizens. This became one of the factors leading to the Congressional hearings into the administration of Anne Gorsuch in 1983, to which Mr. Kaufman provided valuable information
Clearly, frustration has been growing within EPA, the commercial hazardous and nuclear waste management industry, and other elements of state and the federal government. Therefore this latest blow was not unexpected, even if the form it took was not anticipated.
I believe the government has now turned to using the guise of ethics to harass us and control what the public can hear. After all, what is unethical about being reimbursed for travel expenses to carry on a perfectly legal activity? In its brief the Justice Department argued:
The prohibition on using public office for private gain is plainly designed to ensure that federal employees devote themselves solely to the work of the people rather than use their government jobs to advance their private interests. The prohibition against receiving free airline tickets, hotel rooms and meals for non-official speeches from private sources if the subjects of the speech are the programs, policies and responsibilities of the agency is clearly consistent with this laudable objective.
Can we seriously believe that the Justice Department thinks that giving up my vacation time for a coach ticket on USAIR and a night in a room at a budget motel in the boondocks constitutes using public office for private gain? Its amazing that when the deputy to the White House Chief of Staff, barely out of law school, leaves the government to accept $600,000 to lobby for BCCI, the Justice Department does not seem to think that he has used his public office for his private gain (see Exhibit 7).
The Justice Department does not seem to be concerned about EPA employees accepting "free airline tickets, hotel rooms and meals" when they are invited to speak in public meetings in support of the waste management industry as demonstrated in Exhibit 8.
In clear violation of the same rule that prevents Mr. Kaufman and me from accepting travel expenses, Dr. Eric Johnson of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has received $105,000 to testify on behalf of chemical companies being sued by citizens of Times Beach, Missouri (see Exhibit 9). Yet the Justice Department doesn't think he has used his public office for private gain.
Mammoth examples of conflict of interest go right by them as in the case of William Ruckelshaus as shown in Exhibit 10. Therefore, I cannot believe that the Justice Department or the Administration is really concerned about ethics in government. What then is the real issue?
State and EPA officials, who are being paid by the public, go out to poor rural counties and mislead and deceive the people into believing that the law requires them to have a hazardous waste dump or incinerator which will import toxic wastes from all over America and foreign countries. They tell these people that new industries will rush into their communities and that strict government regulation will protect them. The sad truth for those desperate communities that have bought this line is that EPA's regulations are pathetically weak, enforcement is almost nonexistent and rather than jobs, the communities have gotten disease, depression, and the eventual cost of cleaning up (see Exhibit 11). Meanwhile, the government officials who touted the hazardous waste industry go on to high paying jobs working for them (see Exhibit 12).
When the citizens recognize that they cannot trust their own government, they pass the hat around and run bake sales to raise money to try to get some outside expert advice. So, when I'm asked to attend a public meeting on my vacation with no compensation other than a plane ticket and a motel room, I do it because I'm ashamed of the way EPA treats these people. I believe the public has a right to the knowledge I have gained at their expense.
The real function of these commercial hazardous waste facilities is not to protect the environment but to pass the liability for the wastes from the generator to the public. It is a waste laundering scam of multi-billion dollar proportions. The waste management industry has boomed since it formed a partnership with EPA. Yet in almost every community to which Mr. Kaufman or I have been invited to speak, the citizens have been successful in stopping or delaying some hazardous waste project, at a cost to the waste industry of tens of millions of dollars.
Money, and not ethics, I sincerely believe, is the real issue, and that is why the administration is using such extraordinary chicanery to silence us.
I feel like the company employee who has been invited by a group of stockholders to tell them what I know about how the management is cheating them. The management has succeeded in stopping me from attending the stockholders meeting. The real loser is not me but the stockholders. It is not Mr. Kaufman and myself who are hurt by this policy so much as the rights of the public to know what their government is doing to them.
Furthermore, I believe that if the administration can stop citizens from hearing dissenting opinions today, they can stop Congress and the press from hearing them tomorrow.
I believe Congress is our only hope of redressing this situation. Our case was recently dismissed from DC Circuit Court and we will appeal but I have little confidence in the federal courts as they are packed with judges loyal to this administration
The judge who dismissed our case, Stanley S. Harris, used to be the head of the U.S. Attorney's office in the District of Columbia during the Anne Gorsuch/Rita Lavelle fracas. When EPA administrator Anne Gorsuch was found in contempt of Congress, Harris refused to do as the law requires and bring the case before a grand jury. Instead he turned around and sued the House of Representatives! He claimed he was not acting on orders from the White House, but of course, he wasn't believed and Congress was on the verge of starting impeachment proceedings against him when Anne Gorsuch resigned.
Even though Congressional investigations, with Mr. Kaufman's help, had revealed that dozens of high level EPA appointees had broken the law, when the public pressure got unbearable, Stanley Harris' U.S. Attorney's office selected only one scape goat for sacrificial prosecution, Rita Lavelle. The most politically damaging crime that Congress had uncovered was that Lavelle had met with the Reagan White House to discuss how to dispense billions of dollars of Superfund toxic waste cleanup money to political friends and withhold it from enemies. The U.S. Attorney saw to it that these charges were never brought up at her trial and refused to explain why. Almost immediately, President Reagan appointed Stanley Harris to the federal bench (see Exhibit 13).
In the courts and in the Office of Government Ethics and in the Justice Department we are dealing with apparatchiks. Judge Harris did not get his appointment because of his loyalty to the law but for his loyalty to President Reagan. Stephen Potts did not become the director of the Office of Government Ethics because of his dedication to ethical principals but because of his dedication to President Bush. They are both arms of the same administration.
I would, therefore, urge the committee to enact legislation to correct this situation and to investigate how this rule came to be written, who gave the order, and why it was done in such an underhanded way.
I appreciate that it may be difficult to craft legislation which distinguishes between necessary free expression and abuse of office. But I would think that with all the talent available to Congress that this could be done. However, if it cannot be done, it is far better to save the baby in the dirty bath water than to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would like to see an end to the joy rides of our high living government executives as much as any person, but not at the price of silencing dissent.
After all, no matter how many laws are passed restricting what government officials may do, the polluters are free to go where they want and say what they want. Furthermore, the government can and does get around non-official travel restrictions by making it official and gets around official travel restrictions by using contractors. But there is no way for me to get around non-official travel restrictions without risking dismissal and a ten thousand dollar fine.
If you would like further information, please contact:
Attorney Stephen Kohn, 202-234-4663
William Sanjour, office 202-260-4502, home 703-528-3859
Hugh B. Kaufman, office 703-308-8319. home 202-488-3430
Mrs. Billie Elmore, NC WARN 919-774-9566.
1. The Agency seems to be re-instating this policy. We have recently learned, through papers anonymously leaked to us, that the EPA General Counsel has asked the Inspector General to investigate us as a result of our lawsuit.
http://pwp.lincs.net/sanjour/Congress5.htm
October 10, 1997
UPW asks judge to order
public-funds restitution
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
HILO -- The United Public Workers union is asking a judge to order a private landfill company or Mayor Stephen Yamashiro and several County Council members to personally repay millions of dollars to the county treasury.
In a continuation of the dispute over the county's 1993 contract with Waste Management Inc. to construct and operate the Kona landfill, UPW attorney Herbert Takahashi says the contract was illegal and money paid to the company must be returned.
Waste Management spokesman Bob Awana said the amount paid over four years may approach $16 million.
"He (Takahashi) has been threatening to do this all along," Awana said.
County attorney Ted Hong said, "To me it just looks like another example of UPW's vendetta against (Mayor Yamashiro's) administration and against privatization."
The state Supreme Court earlier said Waste Management could not operate the Kona landfill because that kind of work was customarily done by county workers. The union represents those workers.
http://starbulletin.com/97/10/10/news/satnews.html
March 14, 1997
Privatization brouhaha
has mayors befuddled
Pacific Business News
A lawsuit targeting a Big Island contract might be the catalyst that sets Hawaii's economic wheels rolling again -- or it could permanently stall the state.
As decided by the Hawaii Supreme Court, the United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO, was justified in contesting the contract between Waste Management of Hawaii Inc. and Hawaii County, because it allowed for the displacement of 22 county workers with seven employees at the Puuanahulu landfill in West Hawaii.
None of the 22 county workers employed at the landfill relinquished their status or their pension during privatization of the landfill. Mayor Stephen Yamashiro arranged for each of them to be absorbed into other county positions.
"We were concerned about those employees," said Bob Awana, division sales manager for Waste Management. "We presented a number of proposals to [UPW state director Gary Rodrigues] and the union to make an amicable transition. But he was not interested. His legal maneuvers appeared to us not to be an issue of how these employees should be protected, but how they wanted no part of privatization."...
Rodrigues did not return telephone calls from Pacific Business News.
The decision against privatization has given everyone pause. The mayors from all the counties have descended upon the state Legislature, personally asking Senate President Norman Mizuguchi and House Speaker Joseph Souki to address the dilemma this Supreme Court decision has created. Both Souki and Mizuguchi told the mayors they would have their staffs examine the union's and the counties' arguments to determine if introducing a bill this late in the legislative session would be justified....
Sen. Sam Slom addressed the Senate about the issue, pointing out there are many areas where government provides services or functions that compete with, and could be best performed by, the private sector.
"We can change the law this session and facilitate public-private partnerships between the state and the private sector," said Slom. "Non-civil service workers need and deserve jobs, too -- even if Gary Rodrigues doesn't represent them.
"In areas where public services could be delivered by the private sector in a more cost-effective way, state and county administrations should have the freedom -- and a fiscal obligation to the taxpayers -- to make those choices," he said.
Slom said there is a vehicle by which legislation protecting privatization will be introduced, but he declined to elaborate at this time.
Meanwhile, companies holding county and state contracts do not know how to proceed. Even the mayors do not know how to proceed.
In a March 4 letter to state and county agencies, Rodrigues requested they "promptly cease and desist from any and all forms of privatization in violation of Hawaii's civil service laws currently and in the future." Rodrigues gave everyone 10 days to contact the UPW to make appointments to remedy their past violations and to review contracts that extend for the next two years.
"Now I am wondering who I can pay now. If money is spent illegally, that can be the subject of my removal from office," Yamashiro said. "And there are one or two who would love to see that."
Maui Mayor Linda Crockett Lingle said the amount of work contracted by the state and counties is voluminous, involving workers who ride on buses as aides, harbor pilots, A+ after-school program aides, parks and maintenance workers, and social services.
"The state and county contract a lot more than realized. The word `private' causes people to take partisan views," Lingle said. "How can we provide our public with the best service at the lowest possible cost? Sometimes the answer is privatizing, sometimes not. But we should be allowed to use it as one of our tools."...
According to Denny Watts, president of Fletcher Pacific Construction Co. Ltd., it is now time for the Legislature to realize it makes sense to depend upon private companies to put in the dollars to maintain the infrastructure, provide power, run prisons and build roads.
"The only option to sustain the requirements of the [state's] infrastructure, and to actually minimize costs to all of us who live here and make the dollars go further, is privatization," Watts said. "We can look at laws that guarantee people jobs at the cost of the economy, or we can create opportunities with private investors to carry the biggest load in lieu of tax dollars."
For many of its 58 years of business in Hawaii, Fletcher Pacific has responded to municipal and state RFPs. Recent projects include schools on Kauai and in Kona, and the Honolulu Police Department's new headquarters on Beretania Street.
"Private prisons and private schools are things that are givens in many other communities," Watts said. "And these are things that can happen very fast and very cost effectively for the citizens of the state."
Watts said it was time the state and counties quit the employment agency business and adapt themselves to a new way of doing business.
"You can work to protect the status quo or deal with the inevitability of change," Watts said.
# # #
Hey, bird watchers, for a gander at a giganic garbage dump filled
with a whole flock of glutenous bad buzzards, fly over to...
* * * * *
"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our Fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
-- Abraham Lincoln
* * * * *
* * * * *
National Priorities Project - Cost of War
* * * * *
A Timeline of Oil and Violence in Iraq
* * * * *
THE EAGLE HOODED: THE 9-11 COVERUP
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
Some other vultures you might see searching for
dead carcasses in this garbage dump...
A Connecticut Yankee in King Kamehameha’s Court
Aloha Airlines: Flying with the Bankruptcy Buzzards
AIG: The Un-American Insurance Group
BCCI: The Bank of Crooks & Criminals
Behind the Blinds at American Savings Bank
The Carlyle Group: Birds that Drink from Cesspools
Confessions of a Whistleblower
Conseco: Birds in the Trailer Park
Dirty Money, Dirty Politics & Bishop Estate
The Eagle Hooded: The 9-11 Coverups
Hawaiian Airlines: Flying with the Bankruptcy Buzzards
Marsh & McLennan’s Kroll Associates
Marsh & McLennan: The Marsh Birds
Marsh & McLennan’s Mercer Consulting
The Peregrine Gallery Presents Henry Paulson
The Secret Treasury of Henry Paulson
The Silence of the Whistleblowers
The Vampires on Jupiter Island
Vultures in The Nature Conservancy
~ o ~
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Last Update December 30, 2007, by The Catbird