I was glad to see the story in today’s Star-Advertiser concerning this morning’s City Council Budget Committee hearing on a resolution that would disband the Clean Water & Natural Lands Commission. The daily newspaper, despite its shortcomings, is still one of the best ways to get an issue out to the general public.
But the brief story is short on the key details that raise concern, and makes an error in its broad characterization of the proposal.
According to the story:
Resolution 10-149 proposes to replace the nine-member commission with a Clean Water and Natural Lands Advisory Committee that would have a similar role but would be equally appointed by the Council and mayor.
Incorrect.
The CWNL commission advises the City Council, which according to the city charter must approve expenditures from the fund.
The proposed advisory committee would be advisory to the administration–meaning, the mayor–and the council would get a copy of its report.
That’s a very key difference.
The second key difference is that members of the commission are required to have certain expertise, including at least one scientist, one representative from an environmental or land conservation organization, one member of an agricultural association, one water expert, a public recreation specialist, and at least one member knowledgeable about Hawaiian cultural practices.
This collective expertise has allowed the commission to make richly detailed reviews of each proposal it has received.
In contract to the commission, the proposed advisory committee would have no requirements for expertise or experience for dealing with the complex issues confronted when trying to prioritize potential environmental projects.
And the article fails to mention any of the issues surrounding the diversion of funds by the Hannemann administration, which has refused to go through the legally required process for allocating funds targeted for clean water and natural lands projects.
As long as the commission is designated as the proper venue for screening and evaluating proposals for use of the clean water and natural lands money, the administration was required to follow the law and bring its proposals to the commission.
It did not, and stopped even sending a representative to the commission meetings well over a year ago.
The administration’s bypassing of the commission appears to be a legally questionable process.
In addition, the City Charter, the county’s equivalent of the state constitution, now provides, in part (Section 9-204):
“The council shall by ordinance establish procedures for the administration and expenditure of moneys in each fund. The appropriations to each fund shall not substitute for, but shall be in addition to, those appropriations historically made for the purposes stated in this section. ”
This is repeated in the implementing ordinance.
The establishment of regional parks has been a routine type of expenditure historically made by the city. As the population has grown and shifted, news regional parks have been routinely funded and developed. The law requires that the expenditures from the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund “shall not substitute for, but shall be in addition to, those appropriations historically made” for such purposes. The Hannemann administration’s apparent disregard for the law in making its grab for the money needs to be part of this discussion.
Finally, it should be noted that the mayor could have simply asked that he be allowed to nominate some of the commission within the existing framework, creating some sharing of power with the council. But this would still have required the mayor to bring proposals to the commission for evaluation, which seems to be at the heart of the mayor’s real objection to the commission.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are you asking that news stories include informed analysis and/or commentary? That’s generally the job of the newspaper’s Op-Ed section and columnists.
Not necessarily, although informed analysis isn’t a bad idea. Too often we get uninformed analysis disguised as quotes. But I do think news stories should include relevant factual details. If a reader isn’t told that there are real legal issues involved, they assume it’s just one of those “he said – she said” situations. The points I cited–the elimination of specific expertise on the commission, and the legal restrictions of the city charter that might already have been breached–those aren’t commentary. Those are key factual elements, drawn from the existing charter and ordinance, that readers should be aware of. I’m a believer in pointing people to the real stuff–the charter provision, the ordinance, the text of the current resolution–so that they don’t just take the reporter’s word for what’s happening.
Looks like some of the bad habits in the lack of thorough reporting at the Advertiser are being followed at the Star Advertiser. The new paper has the opportunity to improve on both former dallies. Time will tell if they try to do it.
The newspaper business must be terribly easy….between Ian, John Temple (his paper folded) and a couple other “experts” one would think if they were in charge not a single story would go untold, under reported, nor published with a single flaw. What’s amazing is that many of the fromer Tizer writers suddendly became a less skilled reporter as they made the move down the street. I get being critical Ian but geez…..I think it’s a pretty good paper so far and they deserve a lot of credit pulling the merge off. Other than the disgruntled trolls who are now on the outside looking in, the few news staffers that I know seem to be enjoying the experience.
Of course, I didn’t write anything here about the newspaper as a whole, only about this story that I happen to know a bit about. So I’m not exactly sure what you’re reacting to.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that some “merge” occurred. One paper was killed and the other expanded slightly to take advantage of the monopoly.
I have a radical suggestion — the points you raise seem critically important for the public to know, and you’ve done a great job describing the issue. And “The daily newspaper, despite its shortcomings, is still one of the best ways to get an issue out to the general public.” So may I suggest that an op-ed from you might bring these important facts to the attention of the newspaper-reading public. Just a suggestion. It would be a valuable service.
Here, here.
Ian, many of your blog posts could be edited and submitted as op-eds.
I’m guessing that most reporters miss things and make mistakes because of deadlines and work pressures rather than laziness.
This morning the City Council Budget Committee deferred the resolution to another day. It’s not over. There are some on the Committee who believe the resolution is still necessary to get the Administration to cooperate and get with the program, even though the Mayor is expected to resign in a few weeks to run for Governor. Others on the Budget Committee seem to think the resolution was unnecessary. It’s unclear whether the Administration will continue to ignore the Clean Water and Natural Lands Commission once the Mayor is gone. All the testimony received was against the resolution, and many there were manyt kind words of support for the Commission and its open, fair, and transparent process. Chair Garcia intends to have further discussions with the Administration, Commission, and others, and will be reviewing the background documents on the Fund and Commission.
In the meantime, the third cycle for application to the CWNL Fund opens August 2 and closes September 30, 2010. All interested parties are encourage to inquire and apply. For more information, go to Clean Water and Natural Lands Commission website. Imua – Protect land for the people!
Not everyone is enjoying the “new” newspaper. Some Star-Bulletin staff are out on stress leave. And it seems the Advertiser hires are getting higher salaries than their SB coworkers. That must be demoralizing.
Seeing as how they are covered under the same union contract, I don’t see how that’s possible.
I’ve been covered under the Guild contract for a long time. But pay levels are a funny thing. Basically, managers are free to pay certain employees more than others, even if they’re under the same contract. They just can’t pay them less.