I’m at a bit of a disadvantage this morning. First, we had to make a very early drive into town. Early, like way before the sun came up. The cats were happy to get fed early, but people weren’t all that cheery about it all. And then I have ended up with a terrible internet connection which seems to be crawling on hands and knees, which leaves me without effective access to most online information.
So…I did check out Civil Beat before my internet connection went down. And I found myself interested in some of the major story topics, but disappointed that crucial questions weren’t asked and, as a result, key information wasn’t presented to readers.
Three examples.
1) FACT CHECK — Union President: Some Hawaii Teachers’ Health Premiums Doubled.
The article traced a limited part of the history of the HSTA VEBA, which for a short period provided health insurance to teachers outside of the state’s Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund. Along the way, subheads to the story asked, “Are Teachers Getting The Short End Of The Stick?” and “Who Pays Most Out Of Pocket?”
But the story never even gives a nod to the reasons given for folding HSTA’s members back into the EUTF. If I’m not mistaken (and I haven’t been able to access to legislature’s archive, so I’m unable to check my memory against the documents) the issue was that the VEBA creamed off the teachers, who generally are better health risks, leaving EUTF with categories of employees expected to have higher health costs. Although this benefited teachers, it reduced the risk pool and increased health insurance costs to all other state employees and retirees. Simply put, the teachers union tried to take care of its members at the expense of other public employees. But you wouldn’t have any inkling of these issues from the Civil Beat review.
2) OHA Employees Were Public Last Year — But Not This Year?
I’m glad Civil Beat flagged this issue. It’s an important one, and part of CB’s ongoing stress on public records. Since it builds on CB’s efforts last year to pry information out of OHA, it’s another important piece of the puzzle.
Despite efforts to avoid it, though, the story becomes the contrast between two opinions, those of OIP and an OHA attorney.
In my view, it’s important to guide readers back to the underlying law. The language of the statute, not the personal views of either party, are what’s important. We educate readers by showing them how these disputes are generally resolved, and that requires going back to the law.
Although the story makes passing reference to the law, the statute is never quoted. It’s vaguely in the background.
The relevant questions are: First, is OHA a state agency? Since it is created by Article XII of the state constitution, one would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. And, as a state agency, is there any reason its personnel records would be exempt from being subject to public disclosure to the same extent as other state agencies? CB should be able to give direct answers to those questions.
3) Large Rail Landowners Give to Pro-Rail Campaigns
The problem here is perspective. Yes, landowners (especially large landowners and those with land-related interests) contributed to mayoral candidates. Surprise? No.
What I found surprising about the story is that the amounts were so small, and these landowners played such a minor campaign role. The bulk of all contributions cited in the story came from First Hawaiian Bank, and even those are less than eye-popping in context of the overall campaigns.
Any “person,” including individuals and corporations, unions, or other organizations, can contribute up to $6,000 during an election cycle to each candidate for governor, and $4,000 to mayoral candidates.
During the special election that pitted Kirk Caldwell against Peter Carlisle, all those landowners combined to give less than $8,000 to each of the two major candidates, far less than they contributed to Hannemann when he ran for mayor in 2008, and less than they gave to his unsuccessful campaign for governor.
The headline might more properly have read, “Large Rail Landowners Don’t Give much to Pro-Rail Campaigns.”
Okay, these comments are a bit critical of CB. But that’s tempered by the fact that I turned to CB early in the day because, just often enough, it hits the nail on the head, or at least aims at the right nails.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I believe a reader of the US Supreme Court’s opinion in Rice v. Cayetano would lead you to the conclusion that OHA is a state agency:
“The Hawaiian Constitution limits the right to vote for nine trustees chosen in a statewide election. The trustees compose the governing authority of a state agency known as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or OHA. Haw. Const., Art. XII, §5. The agency administers programs designed for the benefit of two subclasses of the Hawaiian citizenry.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-818.ZO.html
Kimo got it right. And here are some additional excerpts from the Rice decision:
About 40% of the way down: “The Hawaiian Legislature has charged OHA with the mission of “[s]erving as the principal public agency … responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of programs and activities relating to native Hawaiians and Hawaiians …”
And about 85% of the way down: “The OHA elections, by contrast, are the affair of the State of Hawaii. OHA is a state agency, established by the State Constitution, responsible for the administration of state laws and obligations. See Haw. Const., Art. XII, §§5—6. … The delegates to the 1978 constitutional convention explained the position of OHA in the state structure: “The committee intends that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs will be independent from the executive branch and all other branches of government although it will assume the status of a state agency. …”
Hi Ian,
I had similar feelings on the rail article, that also kind of agreed with a yawn during my early-morning read.
However, their persistance in swinging the hammer (to extend your metaphor) at important issues like this one is admirable; and noteworthy, so much that we’re commenting on it now.
Comparatively, the free content in my Star-Advertiser feed amounted to two NYT articles that have nothing to do with the islands.
I think the basic problem is that the reporters lack experience. The persistent and obvious errors in story judgment and structure also indicates a weakness in editorial supervision.
YOur “Fact Check #1” is a great across the board argument for a single payer health care system.
Your “Fact Check #2” points out an import point about the nature of OHA as a public entity. It is a bridge to further questions about OHA created private sub-entities like Hiipaka LLC, formed to govern the Waimea Valley property on O’ahu, which was deeded to it to preserve the public interest.
Your “Fact Check #3” has the unintended consequence of exposing that getting politicians to do corporate bidding is not that expensive. : ) Perhaps it is the communication to employees and their families to vote for the pols that represent corporate interests that sweetens/completes the deal? But that is politics.
Considering that CB has previously remarked on how many properties are near rail lines, why is it surprising that *some* near-rail owners gave *some* money to pro-rail campaigns? CB needs to provide a comparison, e.g., vs. how much near-rail property owners gave to anti-rail campaigns, or vs. how much not-near-rail owners gave to pro-rail (or to anti-rail).
Your interpretation of the small amounts of money donated to pro-rail politicians by landowners of areas near the rail stations concludes that “Large Rail Landowners Don’t Give much to Pro-Rail Campaigns.”
But you could have gone further, as did the defunct Honolulu Advertiser when its reporters revealed that land prices in the areas of the proposed rail stations had not risen since the project was launched.
The dirty little secret would then be that land developers really are not that interested in the rail project, otherwise they would be buying land and its value would be skyrocketing. Moreover, developers are not interested perhaps because potential home buyers have displayed no interest in living there.
Looks like the kids at Civil Beat dropped the ball on this one.
Score:
Ian, 1. Civil Beat, 0.
(Honolulu Advertiser gets a posthumous Medal of Honor.)
CB gets a thumbs up for pressing OHA to divulge names and numbers. It’s obviously absurd for OHA to even make the argument that its staff are not public employees, or that ceded land revenues are somehow not public funds, just because of the source and use restrictions (that some argue aren’t even followed anyway).
It’s that kind of attitude (among other things) that badly undermines support for OHA, even among some who support many of its goals. And it’s really politically stupid to be taking such a position at a time when OHA is trying to create a semi-sovereign governing entity. Now critics of that effort will be able to cite secrecy and law-doesn’t-apply-to-us-ism as a legitimate basis for alarm and opposition.
And putting OIP on the hook for a hoped-for revisionist interpretation of the law might further undermine that agency’s strained credibility, not to mention Abercrombie’s. Maybe the question should go straight to him.
The rail story was just a pointless mess.
Hi Ian,
Thanks for your constructive criticism on my Fact Check. I want to draw your attention to a sentence under the second subhead, first graf: “Because it served only teachers, a population healthier than the general government worker population, VEBA’s premiums were lower than those offered by EUTF.”
Granted, there’s room to be more explicit about the impact the “skimming” had on government employees, but I would hope you agree with me that that qualifies as “a nod” to the issue.
However, I read that in context and interpreted it as supporting the teachers general view that they got a raw deal, and an unfair one. It didn’t make the connection that their lower rates were a cause of higher rates required for others outside of the HSTA VEBA.
Ben C. sees the lack of rise in property values prior to construction of the rail system as an indication that developers are not interested in the system.
My research suggests that the values of land along the route (and development to take advantage of the access and volume of traffic in the vicinity of a station) does not typically increase in advance of actual construction of the system.
And there are at least three major developers who are designing their projects to be transit ready.
Then there is corruption after all. (comment slightly edited. Without a valid email, I could not check the edit with the author.)
But development potential along the mass transit route is considered a central feature of rail, so I don’t think it can be considered a form of corruption. Charges of corruption would have to be based on substantially more.
Just as bad on Civil Beat is when the reporters pat each other on the back and give kudos to each other in the middle of their own articles. It’s fine to mention other articles of interest in house, but the fawning over each other is embarrassing. Is morale really that low?
Might be too cynical, but if the value of land along rail route did not bump up and that is an indicator of lack of confidence in or intention of its completion, would not the main purpose of rail have been to spend the $500 million spent already on studies and propaganda in the Hannemann cycle? Was that not the size of the budget shortfall?
I meant that then there would be reason to suspect that the political system would have significant examples of corruption, of politicians essentially being paid off in subtle ways by developers who seek to capitalize on the development of a rail system on their lands.
Are there any examples of this?
Are they being reported in Hawaii’s mainstream press?
There could be another aspect to this, however, which is that of inexperience and over-eagerness on the part of developers with such a large and ambitious project. I am reminded of Ian’s recent blog entry “Another failed HECO deal”, which suggest that a small-town utility monopoly is finding it quite challenging to adopt to a fast-changing 21st-century energy milieu. If land developers have pushed for the rail project, they have likewise not done it in the most sophisticated fashion.
From what I have read, the land developers in Hawaii are not the primary movers of the rail project. There are certain select trade unions, the carpenters and electricians, who are desperate for work in the face of the housing bubble collapse. Architects too, although they oppose an elevated rail system as urban blight (such blight would supposedly impact them in the long run, as upscale prospective home buyers would be supposedly turned off of Oahu in the future). Unfortunately, work for these laborers and architects would be limited to the rail stations; most of the money spent would be for the rail line proper — the structure and the rail cars — would not impact local workers. This could be yet another example of over-eagerness and inexperience with massive projects.
However, local banks and local attorneys would be eager for any large project, because when a big cake is being cut up, crumbs will fall to the floor. Also, Bombadier Transportation is perhaps the largest rail development corporation in the world, and might have intervened in the political process (e.g., with political fundraisers), although Bombadier seems to have been cast out of the project, controversially.
Also, commuters on the west side of Oahu are of course a big voice in support of this project. There has been evidence, however, that very few of them would actually use the rail system if built (again, more over-eagerness and inexperience).
So land developers in Hawaii might largely be a red herring in understanding who is pushing this project. And where developers have been pushing for it, they might not completely know what they are doing (as Ian suggests about HECO).
Seems like the CB staff is very quick to hop on and try to defend themselves anytime someone has any kind of criticism here. Insecure much?