Interesting to watch the deft spin by the Hannemann campaign as it deflected the issue of the “Atomic Monkey” blog, a “no holds barred” web site that had been pounding Neil Abercrombie from various directions. Abercrombie, of course, is Hannemann’s main opponent for governor in the Democratic primary and a political adversary for at least 25 years.
Derrick DePledge linked the site to Keith Rollman, a “campaign volunteer and city advisor.” From the Star-Advertiser story:
The Hannemann campaign also confirmed yesterday that a campaign volunteer, who works as a special adviser attached to the city Department of Information Technology, was responsible for a parody website that savagely mocked Abercrombie.
Tanaka said Keith Rollman, the campaign volunteer and city adviser, created the “Atomic Monkey” website on his own time and without the campaign’s approval. The website, which has been taken down, included a disclaimer stating that it was not operated or financed by Hannemann or any other candidate for public office.
“Given his volunteer status with the campaign, it was pointed out to him that this type of website could be misconstrued,” Tanaka said.
Well, the “just a volunteer and advisor” schtick was a spin meant to minimize Rollman’s ties to the campaign. If the story described Rollman as a Hannemann appointee and campaign consultant, that would give a very different and more accurate sense of Rollman’s position.
It looks like the only reason Rollman is a campaign “volunteer” is that he was given a day job as “senior advisor” in the Dept. of Information Technology once Mufi was elected mayor.
Until recently, Rollman’s name appeared after the director’s in the listing of city departments, a slot usually reserved for the deputy director. But sometime after the “Atomic Monkey” flap surfaced, his name was removed.
Then there’s the other little role as campaign consultant.
Rollman was a consultant to Hannemann’s 2004 campaign, before being rewarded with his appointment as senior advisor. During the successful campaign, he was paid just over $75,000, according to reports filed with the Campaign Spending Commission.
![[text]](http://ilind.net/misc /2010/rollman-payments.jpg)
Nothing nefarious here, but his ties to the Hannemann campaign are considerably more substantive and active than the phrase “campaign volunteer and advisor” conveys.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Congratulations Keith Rollman, you’ve been Pwned!
And like I said about possible biases in Civil Beat even without advertisers, will CB be more likely to be critical or to turn a blind eye to Keith’s “comments” or rather propaganda, simply because he is a frequent commenter? If so then the bias at CB is worse than having advertisers, as Keith/Mufi would be able to exert influence a whole lot cheaper and sneakier than simply buying ads.
Then again, with the few subscribers CB has, one subscriber might be worth as much percentage-wise as a big car ad in the staradvertiser!
There’s also the issue of access to sources with
Civil Beat. Look too much with a critical eye
at Keith’s shenanigans and you may lose
access to City administrators.
This applies to the Star Advertiser too, and
might explain their kid glove treatment of
Rollman’s blatant behavior.
But I don’t think you can blame Civil Beat for having to deal with what is a constant issue for reporters.
Every reporter has to cope with this issue, and everyone develops their own coping mechanisms.
Civil Beat is no different on this score.
So true, which is why I pointed out Star Advertiser has the problem too. I think the only difference is that because Civil Beat is so commentary-centered, and that portion is free to view by non-subscribers, it becomes cheap for Rollman to rebut every article or point for just the price of a subscription. You can’t do tat with the paper or even call-in radio, which limits the number of letters to the editor per person per month, or the number of radio call-ins per person per show.
Civil Beat allows UNLIMITED admin propaganda commentary per subscriber, writing on their free time or not.
We will continue in this morass if we focus on the status quo, be they Repug or DemGuys. Both mentioned are terrible: Mufi is super-tethered to money guys, Ambecrombie turned his back on the little people way back when he first went to
D.C. (he adores the 3-piece suits and matching boots). If we keep raising the status of these two to rock stars, we’re gonna get what we deserve.
Still, this was a good piece for a mental reminder that options are: frick or frack.
Not sure what it means but the folks cleaning up after the horses in the Kailua parade today got more applause than did the politicians.
Ian,
I have no paid position with the Hannemann campaign as I did in 2004 when I acted as their advertising agency.
Atomic Monkey was simply a personal blog that I did from my home.
I also pay my own way at CivilBeat, and am entitled to exercise my first amendment right to state my own opinion whenever I want to. Same as everyone else here.
Well Keith, your full-time job for the Mufi administration is a de facto paid position with the Hannemann campaign, dude. Better than being a consultant, cause you get benefits, medical insurance, and retirement credits too.
And apparently, the hours are great!
Don’t call me “dude.”
What Ian has represented as a “reward” is actually the lowest paying job I have held in the last twenty years. The hours are demanding and Mayor Hannemann’s expectations are that we all contribute additional time to community service. I have attended Waikiki Neighborhood Board meetings regularly for the past 5 years, cleared garbage out of beach parks, served on several state commissions, removed graffiti from public bus stops and signs, contributed to numerous charities and lectured students on the value of sustainable practices.
I earn my first amendment rights every day…do you?
I don’t know Keith personally, but I know he’s a professional. He’s good at what he does. As he notes here, he puts in lots of hours for the city. I’ve looked at some of the neighborhood board minutes, and he speaks the truth on that score. He happens to be backing a candidate who is not my top choice in the primary. That’s nothing new.
And that’s not any reason to be attacking him personally.
Yes, and I do them voluntarily, without any “expectations” from our great leader compelling me to do so. You should also look up the definition of what a right is. Hint, it’s not something you earn.
Now that I am at my desk at the Department of Information Technology, I would like to officially respond to Mr. Lind’s report that my name was somehow removed from the directory. It clearly was not. Nothing has changed as a result of what Mr. Lind refers to as a “flap.”
http://www.honolulu.gov/agencies.htm
Keith,
Here is a sincere question, which, I agree, has no easy answer. You say you are simply exercising your First Amendment rights to free speech. And I can see that, from your perspective, that rings true.
You work for Mufi, but you also believe he is the best man to be Mayor and/or Governor.
Not to get all Karl Popper on you, but do you really have the freedom to disagree with Mufi in your online postings? If you say there is no link between your paid City position and your volunteer work on the campaign, can you point to another exempt employee as a counter-example, who exercises their online free speech First Amendment rights and disagrees with the Mayor?
In the absence of a counter-example to demonstrate the “freedom” of your speech, it is hard to believe it is actually free. If you are NOT free to point out where you disagree with Mufi, why should we trust your statements in support of the guy?
Or should we just observe those matters on which you remain silent and take that as a sign of your disagreement?
Kolea,
Mayor Hannemann is not just my boss he’s my friend. That relationship is based on 8 years of working closely on a near daily basis. Our views on the issues have always been in pretty close alignment. I was a rail proponent, for example, before I ever met Mufi.
Hannemann has been consistently honest in his communication with the public and, to my knowledge, never made a decision that he felt was not in their best interests. I admired Frank Fasi for the same reasons. It’s not a matter of ideology, it’s a matter of heart. What more can you ask from an elected official?
“8 years of working closely on a near daily basis” and yet Mufi supposedly knew nothing about your Atomic Monkey smear site.
The worst thing that can happen to a PR hack is to lose credibility, and you’ve lost it in spades.
And you didn’t answer Kolea’s direct question about pointing out even a SINGLE instance of one of Mufi’s appointed staff exercising their free speech and disagreeing with him in public.
That says it all right there about how free your speech really is or has been.
We talk about work not hobbies. And, I generally don’t feel compelled to answer questions by individuals who don’t have a real name.
Yet you tried to answer Kolea’s other questions, just not the ones you can’t squirm out of easily.
The more you talk, Keith, the more you hurt Mufi . . . .
Pot meet kettle.
Was anyone supposed to pay any attention to your Atomic Monkey site or your numerous comments to the newspaper and who knows what else when you constantly use false names? That’s arguably much worse than being anonymous as it shows an intent to deceive.
Whatever you say, “Hypocrisy.”