Did you catch Gov. Abercrombie on PBS Hawaii’s “Insights” last night? It will eventually make it back to the station’s “video on demand.”
The program format was simple. The governor appeared alone with moderator Dan Boylan. The opportunity was missed to have a knowledgeable panel of reporters on hand to question him. Did PBS fail to suggest it, or did the governor’s office demur?
I have to admit that I didn’t make it through the full program. I changed the channel after Neil’s answer regarding disclosure of the names of judicial nominees forwarded by the Judicial Selection Commission.
Neil pitched it as simply “a philosophical difference,” a disagreement over the advisability of making those names public.
There was no one there to challenge this viewpoint, so the governor was successful in glossing over the issue.
Neil’s answer was that anyone who really thinks this philosophical difference is that important will have the choice not to vote for his reelection in 2014.
But the governor has framed the issue incorrectly.
There is a philosophical difference, but it’s about whether or not the highest elected official in state government should follow the law even when he personally disagrees with it.
That’s what we’re really talking about here.
There is a law regarding access to government information, and a procedure for determining what things should be disclosed and what should remain public. It’s a law that a lot of public-interest oriented people have worked hard to get and to strengthen for over 25 years. Under the law, the Office of Information Practices is given the statutory authority to make these determinations for state agencies, including the governor’s office, about what records must be publicly disclosed.
The OIP’s opinion is that the governor has the authority to keep the list of nominees confidential only until an appointment is made.
I don’t have any problem with Neil having a philosophical difference over the advisability of disclosure. I do have a serious problem with the governor refusing to comply with the law and the direction of OIP.
Too bad the format chosen by PBS Hawaii gave all the advantage to the governor, who could just blow past critical issues.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I didn’t watch the whole program either. It appears that Dan Boylan’s credibility has slipped along with Abercrombies.
Dan Boyland has been cozy with politicians for a very long time. I don’t watch him.
Sorry, I disagree. Surely we all want the very best possible people appointed to the judiciary. But if a capable, honest, skilled attorney — someone on an upward track in a major law firm — is willing to give all that up to serve as a judge, he or she would certainly be very reluctant even to apply if the names of unsuccessful applicants became public. Are we really willing to limit the number of highly qualified applicants for judgeships just so we can know, after all is said and done, who was NOT selected?
Again, that’s not really the issue. The immediate issue is whether the governor should comply with the existing law even if he personally disagrees with it. He is saying that he won’t comply with OIP, which has the statutory authority to make these calls on disclosure by state agencies. That’s the immediate issue, in my view.
Honolulu, Hawaii, a banana republic of the United States of America.
http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2011/09/02/12736-honolulu-rail-authority-follows-abercrombie-secrecy-doctrine/
Agreed, and if Neil really believes in this “philosophy,” he will go to the Legislature next session and and try to get it enshrined in law. Because, after all, we are a nation not of people, but of laws.
Weak argument Loomis.
You get to only choose one or the amount needed. So there is no shame in not being selected.
It’s already an honor to be selected and considered.
@Jim, well the proof is in the pudding. CJ Moon and Gov. Lingle made the lists public for years yet no one has seriously argued that the disclosure of the fact that you were a finalist among a very large group of applicants has deterred qualified persons from applying. Our Chief Justice Recktenwald, who is outstanding, was subject to this very same process as well as many fine members of our ICA, etc. etc.
Leslie Wilcox did request questions to pass along to Abercrombie on her blog. http://leslienotes.typepad.com/the_long_and_short_of_it_/2011/08/pbs-hawaii-weekly-newsletter-august-28-through-september-3.html
Neill needs to seek changes to existing laws he disagrees with, not ignore them.
Is there a legal avenue to compel the Governor to follow what I think is a short sighted law?
Can anyone sue?
The Star-Advertiser has filed suit.
Star Advertiser is finally trying to prove itself, eh? Could it because of the new kid in the block, Civil Beat?
I started to watch, but gave up after just a few minutes, when it was clear Abercrombie was steamrolling over Boylan. What a lost opportunity.
From Josh Levinson, DaGov’s communication honcho.
Sorry – didn’t realize that it wouldn’t copy/paste “hot”
http://www.pbshawaii.org/indexee.php/site/vidpopdream/248/
Right after saying that revealing the list was a philosophical question, Abercrombie asked why the Advertiser editors don’t sign their editorials. He called that a sunshine issue.
WTF? And I seldom use that expression. What does a newspaper policy have to do with a transparency law?
A governor should follow the law. If he doesn’t like it, for philosophical reasons, all the more reason to follow it and ask the legislature to change it. Why does he think he’s above the law? That’s not a philosophical question.
Editorials aren’t signed because they represent the opinion of the newspaper, not an individual, as Abercrombie well knows.
Thanks for staying with this issue, Ian. Who would have guessed that Neil Abercrombie, PhD, would turn “philosophical” into a weasel word?
Elected officials not following the law is becoming very common. Paul Craig Roberts in a recent column called, “In America the Rule of Law is Vacated” only confirms that fact. Often political figures are held to the lowest standards for prosecution which means they are often not accountable. As long as these two political parties control the judiciary and the organs of prosecution, justice is rarely administered to elected officials when they break the law.
After talking to quite a few attorneys I actually agree that sometimes they are reluctant to apply if their names would become public. But that said, it doesn’t rise to the level of “frustration of a legitimate government purpose” which is the exemption Abercrombie is claiming. The burden of proof is on him and he hasn’t suggested any proof that it alone would rise to the frustration clause, only a claim of “philosophical differences.”
The “purpose” is to appoint a judge, not to have universal inclusion all attorneys when doing so. If there were no applicants and all said they weren’t applying because of the public revelation of their names then maybe. But as it is it’s only one of many factors to be considered like salary, future career in private practice, perhaps having to move, the financial disclosure. Revelation of names alone can’t really “frustrate” that purpose.
If there are sufficient names to fill the list, by definition nothing is being frustrated.