Kudos to Hawaii County Councilwoman Brenda Ford for taking legal action challenging the qualifications of Bobby Jean Leithead Todd to serve as the county’s director of environmental management.
Leithead Todd previously held the position in 2007-2008, but in 2010 voters approved an amendment to the county charter requiring specific qualifications for the job.
The charter now provides “the director shall have had a minimum of five years of administrative experience in a related field and an engineering degree or a degree in a related field.”
Leithead Todd, a lawyer and a familiar political “go-to” figure in the county, has neither an engineering degree nor any background in a related scientific field.
Her legal credentials and experience would appear to meet the initial qualification–“five years of administrative experience in a related field”. But that’s not enough, according to the charter. In addition, the director must have “an engineering degree or a degree in a related field.”
Ford’s initial lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality, but is expected to be refiled soon.
Look. I know it’s commonly believed that lawyers know best, or at least are politically safe because they know how to cover their rears.
But legal experience does not provide subject matter expertise. And that was apparently in the minds of voters when they approved the engineer “or eqrelated” requirement.
Would you hire a lawyer experienced in medical malpractice cases as your surgeon? Most people would quickly say “no.” One set of skills is not the equivalent of the other, although they are in some sense related.
Then why let a law degree substitute for an engineering degree? It only makes sense in political terms.
And need I point out that lawyers don’t have the same openness about people without law degrees acting as lawyers, no matter the extent of their related experience and education.
And unfortunately this is an all too familiar situation, where short term political interests sidestep public interest reforms approved by voters. We’ve faced the same situation here in Honolulu on several occasions where department heads were approved despite failing to meet minimum qualifications.
So many thanks to Councilwoman Ford for stepping up and taking action. She deserves support in her efforts.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Beware of who you embrace, Ian. Your understanding of this issue may be far too shallow.
Ford is a soon t0-be-termed out councilwoman who has been pretty much at odds with reality since her defeat of Virginia Isbell. She is known to be vindictive and publicly mean spirited.
That she was unable o submit a proper complaint to court after her many years in office tells us something.
I submit she has a very S-L-O-W learning curve.
Bobby Jean Leithead Todd.
Too many names.
Beware also of folks with a longstanding grudge again Ford, especially those who believe that years in political office should provide the expertise necessary to draft a legal complaint.
Not to mention the possibility that the “qualifications” have little to do with what is required to actually run the department. Usually what is most needed is leadership ability (communicating, listening, delegating, inspiring, focusing).
Most department heads are not actually doing the engineering work, and rely on their middle management to vet the work.
If she ran the department successfully for two years without having an engineering degree, maybe the need for the degree is not critical, especially if she has a strong deputy with engineering credentials.
Ian
I’m surprised by your statement;
“Leithead Todd, a lawyer and a familiar political “go-to” figure in the county, has neither an engineering degree nor any background in a related scientific field”
The amendment, poorly conceived in my opinion, states only “related field”. Your addition of “scientific” as a qualifier is the same rationale Ford is arguing, suggesting you too are willing/able to read the voters minds rather than rely on the actual language they (misguidedly) approved. They seem to have provided some latitude to the Mayor in choosing the appointee. Ford has no business wasting time and money opposing a former Director’s reappointment. She is the Mayors choice, with training and experience in “related fields”.
Ms Ford is, for the most part, an ineffectual malcontent, seemingly prepared for every action but rarely able to effect change. She is somewhat reminescent of Bob Jacobsen in that regard, a former Puna councilman who was able to do a bit more damage due to a more Machivellian mindset.
Our Public Works Dept is plagued by similar restrictive language in choosing its Chief Engineer. The language specifies an engineering degree in order to qualify as the Dept head, the result being that previous engineer/administrators has led to a wildly inefficient and dysfunctional department.
Engineers need to push lead (draw plans) and administrators need to lead people, including engineers.
The “defect” Hugh refers to was the fact that service of the action was made to one of Leithead-Todd’s employees, rather than to Leithead-Todd herself. For that reason alone the court dismissed it — without prejudice, meaning it can (and probably will) be refiled. My own thinking is that BJ left Planning because of a series of really bad decisions that resulted in the county being on the losing end of several lawsuits (and facing still several more). Yes, decisions that leave parties unhappy will always be appealed, but BJ, I would argue, had more overturned than her predecessors.
You are right Ian!
Funny how personalities become the issue in a small town. This is actually a legal question about the interpretation of the county charter, which is, last I checked, the purview of the court.
🙂
N
If a law degree is a “related field” to engineering, is there any degree that wouldn’t be “related”? Perhaps, as some suggest, the restriction is a bad idea, but nonetheless, it is the law.