The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that will determine whether or not current curbs on corporate money in federal political campaigns will continue.
There are lots of news reports providing summaries of the argument, including those in the NY Times, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, and the PBS News Hour.
You can also turn directly to the transcript of yesterday’s hearing.
There’s no doubt that this is a huge case, and little doubt that the scale is currently tilting towards those big money interests.
Both Honolulu dailies followed-up yesterday with further stories about Kamehameha Schools failure to report a sexual assault in its dorms.
This time around, Star-Bulletin reporter Susan Essoyan referred to the state law and quoted from its provisions.
Last week, Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman Ann Botticelli told the Star-Bulletin, “We rely on parents to file criminal complaints on behalf of the children.” She added that the school calls police when there is imminent danger to students.
State law requires “employees or officers of any public or private school” to immediately report suspected child abuse or neglect to the Department of Human Services or police. Abuse includes “when the child has been the victim of sexual contact or conduct.”
The Advertiser, though, continues to dance around the statute and instead attributes statements about requirements to others.
Education officials and legal experts have raised questions about the decision by officials at the Kamehameha Schools Kapalama campus not to call police after the girl reported being sexually assaulted.
They said Hawai’i law states that employees or officers of a school must notify the state Department of Human Services or the Police Department immediately when a student reports being sexually assaulted.
But after again insisting on attributing comments about the legal requirement to others, the story follows with a declarative sentence: “Failure to comply with the reporting requirement is a petty misdemeanor.”
Sort of one toe across the line.
I’m still puzzled by the editorial decision to avoid citing the statute directly.
Citing the statute, or even providing a link to it in the online version of the stories, would empower readers, who could then look up the law themselves. Most won’t, but it would at least make clear that laws are there as a reference that anyone can access. Otherwise, what’s legal and what isn’t remains a mystery always to be interpreted by special interests and experts.
The Advertiser reported yesterday on the state’s attempt to avoid having to pay a $1.6 million arbitration award to the former developer of another phase of the Aloha Tower complex.
Judge David Ezra’s order rejecting the state’s defenses and confirming the arbitration award was issued yesterday and can be read here.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Chapter 350, Hawaii Revised Statutes, seems to apply to “child abuse” or abuse of a child by a family member rather than a criminal act such as rape by an unrelated individual against another. The definition of “child abuse” for purposes of chapter 350, HRS, is set forth below and appears not to apply to the Kamehameha schools situation. You might want to run chapter 350 by a lawyer friend.
§350-1 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, unless the context specifically indicates otherwise:
“Child abuse or neglect” means the acts or omissions of any person who, or legal entity which, is in any manner or degree related to the child, is residing with the child, or is otherwise responsible for the child’s care, that have resulted in the physical or psychological health or welfare of the child, who is under the age of eighteen, to be harmed, or to be subject to any reasonably foreseeable, substantial risk of being harmed.
Since the setting was a school dormitory, Kamehameha was certainly “responsible for the child’s care” and, under their watch, allowed the child to be harmed. And sex asssault is a situation that the statute says should have triggered reporting. So I wouldn’t dismiss Chapter 350 so quickly.
But this discussion is productive. And you can’t have this kind of discussion without referencing the statute directly. That’s why I’ve been critical of the reporting of the incident.
chapter 530 applies to “child abuse” as defined therein and seems to apply to abuse of a minor by a relative or other caretaker. See definitions in that chapter.
It seems inapplicable to criminal acts against a child by someone who is not related or is not a caretaker.
Maybe run chap 530 by an attorney friend to interpret for you.
Sorry old bean, chapter 350, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which I’ve set forth in its entirety below, does not apply, which may be why there is no reference to it in the articles. If anything, a convoluted reading of chapter 350 may subject Kamehameha schools to an accusation that their actions or omissions somehow constitute child abuse under chapter 350.
This chapter of Hawaii Revised Statutes appears to address the issue of requiring teachers to report cases of children injured by their families or homes. In this case, the child was the victim of criminal acts rather than “child abuse.”
Chapter 350 appears to require teachers and schools to report when they know or suspect a child is being abused by her family or caretaker. It does not appear to require teachers and schools to report when a student has been attacked by another student.
That said, another law may require that a school report crimes, or alleged crimes perpetuated by a student on another student on their property. And certainly, ethically and practically, that may be the “right” thing to do. Chapter 350, HRS, however, is not the law that requires it.
Link to Chapter 350 HRS.
Actually, the articles did refer to the statute, they just didn’t do so directly. Which meant that they couldn’t properly report either the application of the statute in this case or the inapplicability in this case. Relying on on someone else to say “the law requires such and such” without reporting on the law supposedly being cited didn’t get the reader anywhere. Once the statute in question was identified as Chapter 350, then we–generally–can evaluate its applicability. We may not agree, but the issues can be clarified, and exchanges like this make sense.