Monthly Archives: June 2009

Friday…Bainum services, special council election, looking back on the campaign contribution issue, and the mayor’s transit bind

4 Replies

Services for Duke Bainum are being held today, and state flags will be at half-staff in his honor.

DUKE MARK EDMUND BAINUM
56, of Honolulu, died June 9, 2009. Born in Takoma Park, Md. A physician and Honolulu city councilman. Survived by wife, Jennifer; sons, Z and Kona; stepson, Johnny Lesseos; stepdaughter, Jennifer “Leona” Lesseos; a stepgrandchild; mother, Evea; brother, Timothy. Visitation noon to 2 p.m. Friday at Hosoi Garden Mortuary; service 2 p.m. Inurnment 10:30 a.m. Saturday at Diamond Head Memorial Park. No flowers. Aloha attire. Donations to the Duke and Jennifer Bainum Foundation, P.O. Box 11120, Honolulu, HI 96828.

Meanwhile, the filing period for the special election to fill the District V seat on the City Council closed yesterday. A total of 16 candidates filed, and two withdrew before the deadline, leaving a lively field of 14 who will vie for the seat.

The presumed front runners appear to be Ann Kobayashi, who held the seat before resigning to run for mayor, and Nathaniel Kinney, who expects to draw labor backing and the support of Mayor Hannemann. I’ll have to look at prior election results to see if Matt Matsunaga ran well enough in the district to be a serious presence in this race, given the extremely short campaign period.

And in light of yesterday’s ruling by the Intermediate Court of Appeals in the campaign spending case involving contribution limits, corporations will continue to use their treasury funds to back candidates of choice.

I can’t help referring again to my comments back in February, when the House was considering a bill that would have limited a corporation to a total of $25,000 in contributions. It was shouted down by proponents of a ban on all corporate contributions, a position which found little traction in the legislature.

If those opposing HB 539 asked my advice, I would suggest they weigh the risks and rewards.

The risk in opposing the bill is that the legislature will again take no action, key legislative friends of reform will end up feeling “burned”, corporations will be free to use as much of their own money as they wish because of the Maui court’s decision, and the Supreme Court will make that situation permanent by upholding the decision. The director of the Campaign Spending Commission noted the additional risk that corporate contributors will be able to evade disclosure requirements, meaning that the public will have a difficult time tracing corporate influence. The reward, absent success in pressing a total ban, is being seen by the public as opponents of corporate power and as advocates of the rest of us.

We’ve ended up just about precisely where I feared. Friendly legislators feel “burned”, corporations are free to spend, and disclosure will be diminished, but reform advocates can say they held strong to their beliefs. So it goes.

Meanwhile, I’m almost starting to sympathize with the spot Mayor Hannemann is in regarding the proposed transit. Until relatively recently, his decision to fast-track the train, block out alternatives, and ram through his own technology choice, seemed to be working with the tacit support of federal transit officials who, perhaps, were feeling some pressure to go along because of the backing of Hawaii’s Congressional delegation.

But then things started getting rocky. The local AIA, representing the architectural community, began questioning the process which initially directed that questions about specific technology choices should be held off until “later”, but when “later” arrived Mayor Mufi said it was already too late to consider those alternatives. And AIA has rather persuasively suggested that some of those alternatives, including running the train at ground level through central Honolulu, make tremendous financial as well as visual sense.

Then, in one of his last official acts, Duke Bainum teamed with Councilmember Djou in sending a letter to federal transit officials spelling out an array of legal problems with Hannemann’s fast track process and, in the process, calling out federal officials who might otherwise be inclined to just go along. It’s the kind of carefully written letter designed to make “cover your okole” bureaucrats worry about the chance of being held responsible if the process is subjected to critical legal and political reviews. And it appears to increase the possibility that the Honolulu’s rail environmental impact study will be found lacking due to several outstanding technical issues. The letter is definitely worth reading to get a sense of the vulnerabilities of the city process so far.

But consider the mayor’s problem. On the one hand, he wants to keep the political momentum in favor of the rail project going, but he must recognize that some of these issues are substantive and could result in litigation. And he certainly knows that a court challenge could derail the fast track and put the project in limbo, at least temporarily.

In this climate, though, an open-ended legal delay could also be the opening legislators need to follow through on their threat to raid the city’s transit funds, which have been accumulating via the half-percent excise tax increase. If the funds don’t have an immediate use, their vulnerability to a raid increases.

So the dangers of total intransigence are becoming clearer. However, the mayor might also be worried that making adjustments in the rail plan to include more flexible, less expensive, and more widely used rail technology could discourage bidders. Why? Because the city, at the mayor’s insistence, has jumped ahead of the review process and already put the first big contracts out for bid, and the specifications lock the city in to a particular older type of train. So even if he were willing to look at alternatives, which I believe he is legally required to do, Hannemann may be worried that bidders will lose interest or be scared away by the prospect of shifting specs.

So the mayor may be between a rock and a hard place, with his predicted run for governor adding it’s own timetable to the mix.

Interesting times, for sure.

Thursday (2)…Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals rejects Campaign Spending Commission’s attempt to impose $1,000 limit on corporate contributions

2 Replies

It took less than two weeks for the Intermediate Court of Appeals to issue a concise 13-page opinion upholding a Maui judge’s ruling rejecting the Campaign Spending Commission’s attempt to restrict corporations to a total of $1,000 in contributions to all candidates combined in any election.

The Intermediate Court found that the campaign spending law’s contribution limits are “clear and unambiguous” and allow “any person or entity” to contribute up to $4,000 to a candidate running for a four-year county office, while limiting contributions to noncandidate committees to $1,000.

Calling the commission’s interpretation of the law “convoluted”, the court said it could find nothing in the legislative history of the law that contradicts its decision that the law is straightforward and unambiguous.

The immediate result is that the corporations will be able to contribute up to the statutory limits to all candidates, with no overall restriction on how much a corporation can give in total to all candidates.

Supporters of campaign reform opposed a bill introduced in the 2009 legislative session that would have allowed corporations to give no more than $25,000 in total to all candidates combined. By rejecting that measure, reformers now face the prospect of the upcoming 2010 election without any limits on corporate money in place.

Thursday…Phony quotes discovered at Ka Leo, budget cuts threaten fishing resources, Coleman-Franken documents, evaluate the paperless Senate

1 Reply

Sharp eyes of folks at PBN noted an unusually long set of “corrections” published this week by the UH Manoa student newspaper, Ka Leo, and tracked down the story.

PBN reports that 26 stories written by former Ka Leo reporter and news editor Kris DeRego included fabricated quotes or other errors, including misspelled names and misidentification.

The correction said the existence of 21 people who were quoted by the reporter as students at UH Manoa could not be confirmed.

For eight others, the paper said there were students with similar names, but that they were not enrolled as students at the time they were quoted.

You might remember DeRego’s Hardball Hawaii, which was online during 2007 and can now be traced back using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

My own short interchange with DeRego and Hardball Hawaii is described here, and the original can be found at the bottom of this archived page from DeRego’s blog.

This comment comes from former Star-Bulletin photographer and photo editor Dean Sensui, now executive producer of Hawaii Goes Fishing.

I just learned today that it seems the State is making a huge mistake in shutting down the Anuenue hatchery program at Sand Island, along with the artificial reef program and other fishing-related programs.

For every dollar the State spends, these programs get three dollars in Federal funds. These funds come from the Dingell-Johnson act which funds the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The WSFRP gets its funding from the sale of fishing-related equipment as mandated by Federal law.

http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/djact.html
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/

If the State shuts down the fishery program, it loses more than it gains. There’s the freshwater stock programs. The artificial reef program. The Fish Attraction Device (FAD) program. And other programs in the Division of Aquatic Resources that have provided valuable scientific information. Overall, the state could lose as much as $3 million to $4 million in federal funding.

Much worse is that all the work that went into establishing these fish stock and habitat programs — several years of intense efforts — would be lost. It would take several more years to re-establish breeder stocks, for example. A huge waste. And all that scientific research would be interrupted when it’s needed most.

Something else to look at: what’s happening to the money? Are the federal funds being returned to the feds if they’re not being applied toward fishing-related projects as mandated? Or are they being redirected elsewhere? If so, that’s probably illegal.

Dean Sensui

A memorial for UH Professor Ira Rohter will be held Saturday morning in Niu Valley, according to Ka Leo.

Political junkies may want to check this out. According to information activist Michael Ravnitzky, an archive of legal briefs from the Norm Coleman-Al Franken court marathon are temporarily available for download.

Ravnitzky also pointed to a story in the NY Daily News based on formerly secret FBI files from the agency’s interrogation of Saddam Hussein, obtained via a Freedom of Information request. What a score in terms of document searching!

The Senate is seeking feedback on its “paperless” initiative which has tried to reduce paper and printing by increasing online access to Senate documents. Comments are being sought via a survey form available here.

According to an email being sent out by the Senate Clerk’s office:

Aloha – On behalf of the Hawai‘i Senate, we want to extend our sincere Mahalo for your participation in our Paperless Process Initiative during these past two legislative sessions. This ongoing initiative is part of the Senate’s commitment to support sustainability in Hawai‘i and increase public access to the legislative process.

As part of our ongoing effort to improve our Paperless Process Initiative, we are interested in receiving your compliments and/or concerns. We would appreciate you taking a few minutes to complete the attached user survey.

To complete this form electronically, we recommend that you use the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Please go to www.adobe.com to download the free PDF reader. Just open the document in Reader, fill in your responses, and when you have finished, click on File, Attach to E-mail, and send e-mail to: sclerk2@capitol.hawaii.gov

Mahalo for your participation and we look forward to hearing from you.

Hawaii Senate Clerk’s Office

So let them know what you think!

Wednesday…City rail symposium disappoints, and documents from furlough lawsuit and Superferry bankruptcy

2 Replies

How time flies. I “knew” it was Wednesday because the crew arrived at 5:30 a.m. to pick up our trash. But my brain still let a “Tuesday” headline into the original version of this entry. An early morning short-circuit!

[text]There was a lot of traintosterone at Blaisdell Center yesterday at the city’s rain transit symposium, which wasn’t designed to explore the serious issues but rather to serve as a pep rally for Mufi’s transit team.

It’s a shame, though, because the speakers flown in at substantial public expense had quite a wealth of experience, most with transit systems using exactly the more flexible type of technology that Honolulu is refusing to even consider as a theoretical option in its environmental impact statement.

That’s right. Among the cities represented were Denver, Charlotte, Seattle, and Phoenix, all of which use flexible light rail trains that can run on elevated tracks or, when appropriate, at ground level or even in tunnels.

But for some reason Mufi is adamant that we’re going to ram through a different, most costly, and more intrusive type of train.

It would have been very interesting to free up the speakers present yesterday to talk about this decision.

I would have wanted to ask each one: “Do you think that Honolulu should at least consider the kind of flexible light rail technology that your city has chosen?”

I would have been very interested to hear the answer.

In any case, that opportunity was lost. It’s a shame. While Mayor Hannemann says that he’s confident that the right choices have been made, his insistence on avoiding a real discussion of alternatives conveys a very different message, perhaps a fear that some of those alternatives would be persuasive. But why should that be threatening if it moves the rail project forward? Again, I don’t know.

There was some useful discussion of elevated systems vs. those running at ground level. Some of the cities run their trains on the ground on tracks in protected coridors, some on the street in traffic. Most have at least some sections on elevated tracks.

There seemed to be agreement that street level access is popular with the people in surrounding communities but management is much more difficult because of the disruption of street life and business while construction is ongoing. So there are tradeoffs in trying to keep the train on the ground.

On the other hand, in response to a question about the feasibility of using tunnels in Honolulu, one of the speakers said the issue is cost. If it costs $1 to be at ground level, and an elevated track costs $4, going to a tunnel system would run $9-$15.

I wonder if that 4-1 cost ratio of above-ground to street level is really in the ballpark? If so, no wonder our projected cost is so much higher than mainland systems have been.

Noted: The League of Women Voters of Honolulu devoted a portion of their June newsletter to the rail issue.

The day was also interesting for providing a glimpse at the vendors lining up to bid on parts of the project. Check out this consortium which boasts its own Honolulu web site.

And, of course, keep in mind that none of these companies have lobbyists registered with the city, and most never have. How is that possible? I don’t know.

Here are a few more documents to prowl through. First, yesterday’s motion for a temporary restraining order filed by the Hawaii State Teachers Association and United Public Workers in the latest move in their attempt to derail the Lingle furlough plan, along with their motion to bring a San Francisco law firm into the case on behalf of the unions.

Then a few tidbits from the Hawaii Superferry bankruptcy case: The State of Hawaii’s motion to move the case back to the islands, a copy of the Superferry’s security agreement with the Federal Maritime Administration, and an affidavit by the corporate secretary filed for the opening bankruptcy hearing spelling out the company’s financial structure.

For those following the cases, these source documents will be interesting.