i L i n d

Ian Lind • Online daily from Kaaawa, Hawaii

i L i n d header image 1



Complaints against Pacific Resource Partnership on tap for Campaign Spending Commission

October 18th, 2014 · 10 Comments

There’s a full and potentially interesting agenda for next week’s Campaign Spending Commission meeting, set for Wednesday morning at 10 a.m.

Leading off are several cases involving the Pacific Resource Partnership, its executive director, John White, and related entities. The cases involve the failure to report expenditures or to identify contributors. In each case, the commission is asked to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that probable cause that the law was violated.

*Docket No. 15-15 – In Re the Matter of Pacific Resource Partnership PAC, a Noncandidate Committee, and John White, as its Treasurer and Chairperson, and in his Individual Capacity – A complaint by Ben Cayetano against PRP for the failure to report expenditures. The Commission to conduct an initial determination of the complaint in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes section 11-404 – i.e., summarily dismiss the complaint, investigate further, make a preliminary determination of the existence of probable cause to believe a violation of law has been committed, or refer the complaint to an appropriate prosecuting attorney for prosecution.

*Docket No. 15-48 – In Re the Matter of Pacific Resource Partnership PAC and John D. White, Jr. – A complaint by the Executive Director against PRP for failure to report expenditures. The Commission to conduct an initial determination of the complaint in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes section 11-404 – i.e., summarily dismiss the complaint, investigate further, make a preliminary determination of the existence of probable cause to believe a violation of law has been committed, or refer the complaint to an appropriate prosecuting attorney for prosecution.

*Docket No. 15-38 – In Re the Matter of Hawaii Carpenters Market Recovery Program Fund – A complaint by Karen Chun for failure to identify contributors. The Commission to conduct an initial determination of the complaint in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes section 11-404 – i.e., summarily dismiss the complaint, investigate further, make a preliminary determination of the existence of probable cause to believe a violation of law has been committed, or refer the complaint to an appropriate prosecuting attorney for prosecution.

*Docket No. 15-41 – In Re the Matter of Forward Progress – A complaint by Karen Chun for failure to identify independent expenditures. The Commission to conduct an initial determination of the complaint in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes section 11-404 – i.e., summarily dismiss the complaint, investigate further, make a preliminary determination of the existence of probable cause to believe a violation of law has been committed, or refer the complaint to an appropriate prosecuting attorney for prosecution.

The agenda includes a number of additional cases involve failure to file required reports, or not filing them on time.

But down at the bottom of the agenda are two other items of interest that involve possible criminal charges and will be considered in executive session. No details about the cases or the campaigns involved is disclosed.

*Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 92-5(a)(5) – To investigate proceedings regarding criminal misconduct in Docket No. 15-08 concerning a candidate committee’s filing of a false report and untimely deposit of contributions pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes sections 11-331, 11-333, and 11-351(a) as well as Hawaii Administrative Rules section 3-160-20(a).

*Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 92-5(a)(5) – To investigate proceedings regarding criminal misconduct in Docket No. 15-29 concerning a candidate committee’s filing of a false report, untimely deposit of contributions, and unauthorized spending from campaign account pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes sections 11-331, 11-333, 11-351(a), and 11-324(d) as well as Hawaii Administrative Rules section 3-160-20(a).

→ 10 CommentsTags: Campaigns · Elections

Another Feline Friday in Kaaawa (photos)

October 17th, 2014 · 2 Comments

Caught nappingHere it is, another Feline Friday with our Kaaawa 7.

I caught this photo of an evening cat nap with my iPhone and a flashlight. I had been going out to the deck and back to tend the grill, and finally noticed the little scene in the corner by the cat tree. That’s Toby asleep on the cat tree, and Ms. Annie in the very popular box that delivered my still relatively new pair of walking shoes.

Let’s see…giving insulin shots twice a day to both Duke and Kili has become all too routine. The problem now is that it’s so routine that sometimes I stop don’t recall if I’ve already done the job or not. Usually it’s serve the cats’ meals, then do the shots, then do the peoples’ food or, in the morning, do the cat food, shots, then off on our walk.

Later, the routine becomes my enemy when I can’t distinctly recall whether I actually gave the shots as scheduled. It’s so much part of the regular flow that I can do it in my sleep. The problem: Missing the insulin shot isn’t good for the cats, but getting an extra one could be disastrous and potentially life threatening.

It’s like being in the car on the way to town and wondering if the coffee really got turned off. It can become one of those little existential issues to cope with.

Meanwhile, Romeo managed to get his left ear scraped up. We didn’t even hear any fight, and he’s been very good about not disappearing when he does get to go out. So I don’t know when this fight happened, but his ear is the evidence that it did.

And so it goes in the cat world.

–> Click here to see all of today’s Friday Felines!

→ 2 CommentsTags: Cats · Photographs

“If the Mayor doesn’t like your attitude, you’re in deep shit”

October 17th, 2014 · 13 Comments

The mayor being referred to here is former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann, now an Independent Party candidate for governor.

The quote is drawn from the trial transcript in a case that has become news again in the context of this election.

Hawaii News Now broadcast a story on Thursday about the exchange during this week’s mayoral debate concerning Hannemann’s perceived demeanor (“Hannemann tries to get rid of bully image“).

Democratic candidate David Ige asked Hannemann about his role in blacklisting two stagehands who previously had worked on productions at city facilities.

Keoki Kerr reported:

During Wednesday night’s debate sponsored by Hawaii News Now and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Hannemann’s opponent, State Sen. David Ige asked him a question that was aimed at Hannemann’s lingering reputation as a bully.

“In a unanimous decision, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that you destroyed the livelihoods of two stagehands by blacklisting them from working at the city facility,” said Ige, a Democrat.

“I stand by my character. I stand by my integrity,” responded Hannemann, who’s running for governor as a candidate for the Hawaii Independent Party, which was just created this year and has only one candidate running besides Hannemann and his running mate.

“I just wish you would have asked a question about my record at City Hall, about why I’m fit to be governor as opposed to engaging in character assassination again,” Hannemann said, noting Ige had asked him about the same issue at a previous forum.

Hannemann’s response was off base. The question actually went right at his record at city hall and his reputation for bullying.

If you didn’t understand the reference, it was to a case I wrote about in a Civil Beat column at the end of last year (“Hawaii Monitor: Blacklisted for Life by Mayor Hannemann?“).

I think it’s a good column and worth another look now that Hannemann is again making a bid to be governor.

The court ruled the blacklisting violated the men’s constitutional rights, found they had not been provided due process, and ruled that the evidence properly demonstrated the city’s action had resulted in the loss of a significant part of their incomes.

The court called the city’s action “particularly egregious” because it effectively destroyed the men’s livelihoods by banning them for life from the premier entertainment venues, Blaisdell Center and the Waikiki Shell, without any intention of providing due process.

Although the city argued the men could still work in other venues, the court noted they were experts in the types of large productions that typically exceed the capacity of other, smaller theaters. Barring them from the city’s main venues essentially meant they could not practice their professions, the court found.

Now that the case has surfaced again, I went back to look more carefully through additional public records that were disclosed in the course of the case.

Here’s a summary of what was involved in the case as it was argued by Charles Lotsof, an attorney representing the two stagehands who suffered Hannemann’s wrath, Eric Minton and Richard Stanley. This is taken from a transcript of the trial proceedings held on April 10, 2010.

And, to be clear–the mayor referred to, of course, is Mufi Hannemann.

MR. LOTSOF: Eric Minton’s real offense, Your Honor, is that he’s pretty naive. What this case is all about is whether you, when the Mayor or his brother tell you to move a piano, whether you give them an argument. It’s pretty clear from the Mayor’s deposition — the Mayor’s deposition is something else, but it’s pretty clear from the deposition that the Mayor is communicating something that was missed by Mr. Minton in the first instance, but never will be missed again: If you give the Mayor an argument, you get in trouble. If you give the Mayor’s brother an argument, you get in trouble. When they say move the piano, you move the piano. When they say get the guy down from the sound booth, you get him down from the sound booth.

And this case is about the fact that these people didn’t do immediately what was told to them to do. They didn’t immediately do — they talked back, or Mr. Minton talked back. Mr. Minton is naive, he didn’t realize that you don’t talk back to the Mayor. And so the Mayor, through Mr. Quintal and Mr. Fuhrmann, is teaching Mr. Minton a lesson and teaching the whole union a lesson: Don’t talk back to the Mayor. Don’t get the Mayor’s brother peeved at you. If you do, you get hurt. And that’s what the case is about.

If the defendants win this case, everybody is vulnerable to the Mayor’s wrath. If the Mayor doesn’t like your attitude, you’re in deep shit. If the Court can use this case, can come to grips with this case, can have the courage to tell — in this case enter findings of fact that come to grips with the real truth of what the case is about, then justice will have to be done, and Mr. Stanley in particular, his sense of justice will recover.

There’s nothing, nothing wrong with what Mr. Minton did, except that he pissed the Mayor off.

Stay tuned. I’ll dig through the case records for other interesting nuggets.

→ 13 CommentsTags: Campaigns · Court · Elections · Politics

Honolulu Advertiser items on the auction block

October 16th, 2014 · No Comments

Refugees from the old Honolulu Advertiser, or history buffs generally, might be interested in several items to be offered in an auction by Wendy McClain of McClain’s Ultimate Attic.

It’s scheduled for Saturday morning at 10 a.m., 780 South Beretania Street, directly across from the police station.

You can click through to the catalog of auction items, as well as photos (not all photos are posted yet).

You’ll see in the brief description that this auction includes items from Thurston & Sharon Twigg-Smith, among others. That gives it a bit of traction among old newsies, I would guess.

Among the items is this sign from the old news building at the corner of Kapiolani and South Street.

Honolulu Advertiser

There’s a second sign, not in as good condition, “Honolulu Advertiser/Commercial Printing”.

In addition, there’s a photo of a group of newsboys taken by Ray Jerome Baker. Given his presence in Hawaii, I’m guessing the photo was taken here.

Given the weather warnings, I would keep close watch to see if Saturday’s auction might be postponed.

→ No CommentsTags: Art · Media · Photographs

Throwback Thursday: The day we got married

October 16th, 2014 · 2 Comments

I just recently found this old snapshot, which was taken on the day we were married, back in the Summer of 1969. It was taken in the back yard of my sister’s house in Palo Alto, where we had spent the summer and where we gathered with family and a few friends after the brief ceremony in Judge Sidney Feinberg‘s municipal court office.

Don’t you love the skinny tie? And the dress Meda made herself?

Palo Alto, CA

→ 2 CommentsTags: History · Photographs