I pulled this week’s Pacific Business News out of our mail stack yesterday and started reading. Two stories jumped out at me with sunshine law issues. They tell me that we’re already facing issues of openness, and reporters are going to have to get pushier in order to pry information out for the public.
First, PBN reports that finalists for the position of executive director of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation were scheduled to be in town last week for interviews. But the agency is getting off on the wrong foot by refusing to identify the finalists, meaning that there’s no public accountability for their final choice.
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation officials were not disclosing the names of the finalists for HART executive director as PBN went to press Wednesday. Keslie Hui, the HART board member who is heading the search committee, said the candidates’ identities are being kept confidential because some applicants expressed concern about their employers finding out they were applying for the position.
This is another one of those crazy situations where someone is applying for a public position that could earn them close to a half-million a year and where they will be constantly subject to the state’s sunshine law, but immediately request special consideration to stay out of the public spotlight.
This is not a good sign.
While PBN reporter Mark Abramson did a good job of highlighting the secrecy issue, Civil Beat’s Mike Levine failed to note it as a problem. He reported, matter of factly: “Names of finalists will not be revealed. After that, a contract will be negotiated.”
The second PBN story is also by Abramson (“Abercrombie: UH athletic facilities need improvements“).
To make that happen, the governor will review a wish list that Athletics Director Jim Donovan compiled with cost estimates of various improvements to facilities. The university would not release that list to PBN and the governor’s office indicated that it had not seen the list.
Athletics department officials also would not disclose whether any money they might request for facilities would be in addition to the department’s $30 million annual budget, or how much money it was requesting for facilities.
So what’s that about?
They want public money. They will need public support, as well as the governor’s backing, to make that happen. But UH wants to keep it secret?
With the layers of highly experienced (and highly paid) former reporters handling public relations for the UH system, why does secrecy still seem to be the initial instinct?
If there is a “wish list,” how can UH refuse to disclose it? What possible exemption in the public records law could apply to a list of construction priorities? Unless, perhaps, this is an “out of proper channels” request that doesn’t have administrative approval and isn’t part of the official UH budget request.
In any case, combined with bills in the hopper at the Legislature that would undermine current sunshine law requirements, these are warning signs that need to be taken seriously.
In my view, at least.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe it’s just me but it seems as though this year has brought a particularly intense onslaught against transparency in government at all levels.
The HART decision to hide the process and present a fait accompli with respect to the selection of an executive director is especially outrageous. But it is consistent with past behavior and probably indicative of future behavior. Frankly, it should be part of the process that interested applicants agree that their application details will be made public.
Are we in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA or are we in
Beijing, China?
There is a thickening fog engulfing that
building.
We need a big wind to clear it out.
As the Star Advertiser found out you must sue for the info and even then it is like pulling teeth. Didn’t they sue both the C&C and then the State on two seperate incidents where they ultimately were told to release the info? What the hell is going on? I think it is more then just reporters asking the hard questions….when they are told no so easily and have to consider suit it’s likely a decision is made to say it is not worth it. Our government on all levels is getting very very scary folks….
newspapers have the financial ability to sue, and they used to do it more often.
hordes of independent bloggers do not have anywhere near the same level of funds. and even if they have the money, like Civil Beat’s founder, that don’t mean they gonna spend it in ways that will benefit other media outlets!
this fading Sunshine will only get darker and darker as the information industry continues to change in the Internet era. there is no easy way around it. bloggers would have to join hands — financially or magically — to protect the First Amendment at the same level as newspapers and broadcasters. they do not have the money.
Keep at ’em Ian. Sunshine, is after all, the greatest disinfectant.
🙂
N
My example? The Honolulu rail project that needs more sunshine and far less gunky PR. From my distant perch, a good idea has run amuck by stupidity — the decision to tell them nothing and we know what is best for them. Now “them” is opposed to an overdue project.
OPEN LETTER to DON HORNER, CARRIE OKINAGA and the members of HART Cartel:
” Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation officials were not disclosing the names of the finalists for HART executive director as PBN went to press Wednesday. Keslie Hui, the HART board member who is heading the search committee, said the candidates’ identities are being kept confidential because some applicants expressed concern about their employers finding out they were applying for the position.”
Your behavior is unacceptable, shibai, wrong, dishonest, arrogant, unfair, unjust, unprofessional, un American. . . . .
ENOUGH is ENOUGH.
enough is enough for us, but apparently not for Mr. Levine, who will spend thousands of words exploring the finer points of “aircraft carriers in the sky” and “debt”….
The cold light of reality requires but a well placed microphone and a good interviewer, like Margaret Warner here on PBS Newshour last February 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eadgDEta5Ek
The balance between open records and privacy is not a slam dunk
Most people would agree, especially in personnel matters, that there is information that is protected from public release
The law also allows protection of information whose release would frustrate a public purpose.
If you were an applicant and felt there was a good chance you might lose your job if you applied for the HART job, you probably would think twice about applying. Therefore it can be argued that not releasing the names of finalist gives HART a wider range of candidates to choose from.
I am also puzzled by Ian’s assertion that there is no public accontability for their choice.
The HART board will be held accountable for their choice because if their choice proves to be incompetent, they will bear the responsibility for having made a bad choice.
And once the new director is chosen, the person’s background and track record will be fair game for all to dig through, and the Board can rightfully be held accountable if it proves that they did not due their due diligence.
We voted to create HART to put a buffer between politics and development and operation of the transit system. I think they should be given the same latitude Coach Norm Chow was given in recruiting his staff. HART needs to find the person that they feel can best work with them to make the rail system a success; I don’t think a more “open” system which limits the candidates who apply serves that goal.
To me, the analogy of
Thanks, Ian, for highlighting these important issues. On the surface, the decision to not disclose finalists for the HART executive director position looks similar to Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s decision to keep judicial nominee lists private. The justification is the same — that disclosing names will discourage qualified applicants.
But there is at least one key difference.
Law firms in Hawaii would presumably stand to benefit from one of their own becoming a judge, both in terms of connections and in terms of prestige. That’s why you see so many colleagues and partners coming out to testify in favor of judicial appointees. (Clients, of course, might not be too happy to learn their attorney was looking for other work.)
In the instant case, finalists for the HART job will presumably be experienced transit leaders from around the country and around the world. The companies they’re seeking to leave don’t stand to gain anything by having a former employee in a position of power in Honolulu.
Does that reduce the public interest in making sure the search process was above board, not cooked to benefit HART’s friends, and not discriminatory against any ethnic or gender group? No, I don’t think so.
Does the difference between the two situations tip the scales in favor of secrecy, when there’s hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money at stake? That’s a tougher question, but I’m still inclined to say no. The list of finalists should be revealed.
But I do understand why HART says it won’t be. It’s not the craziest thing I ever heard. I also think it’s hyperbole to say that without the list, there can be “no public accountability.”
We all want to make “sure the search process was above board, not cooked to benefit HART’s friends, and not discriminatory against any ethnic or gender group”
To this point, nobody has presented any evidence that the process is corrupt or flawed.
HART has to follow a host of Federal, State, and City laws in its hiring practices. And they are fair game for freedom of information requests and legislative inquiries and audits which would require them to show how they are following the law in their hiring practices.
I believe that HART could demonstrate compliance without having to breach the confidentiality agreements they apparently made to get the broadest range of applicants to apply.
“The companies they’re seeking to leave don’t stand to gain anything by having a former employee in a position of power in Honolulu.”
That’s not necessarily true. How is a transit company having one of their own as the HART ED any different than a law firm having one of their own as a judge, in terms of connections or prestige?
You’re right. Depending on which company they’re leaving, there might well be an advantage.
Perhaps I should have typed “transit agencies” instead of “companies.” If someone comes to Honolulu from, say, the MTA in New York, then the MTA in New York doesn’t stand to gain anything from having a former employee in Honolulu.
Tell me again who is working at HART right now.
Where is their office?
How much is the lease rent?
What are the operating costs?
How much has HART spent thus far?
How many workers?
How much is their salaries?
What is their job description?
Are they created for the Honolulu Rail?
What happens if we have problems paying for
the train?
I will say this for the rail team, at least they’re consistent in their approach to transparency.Their commitment to do what they can to thwart all attempts by the public to see beyond the closed doors behind which key decisions are made has not wavered over the years. Found an old article that takes us back to the early days of this rendition of the rail song and dance.
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/12/14/news/story02.html
Access to rail comment halted
•••”City officials have refused to allow immediate access to comment sheets submitted by people attending two meetings this week on mass transit despite acknowledging that the sheets are public documents.”‘
“At other city public hearings or meetings, written testimony is generally available on request. City officials told the Star-Bulletin that neither Tuesday’s meeting nor last night’s meeting was covered under the open meetings law.”
On Tuesday night, as a reporter was reviewing the public comment sheets that were placed in one box, an official took the box away to another table.
Brennan said the issue is not whether the sheets are public — because they are — the issue is when the sheets would be available for public review.
“It seems to me that you’re demanding to see these things both last night and again tonight, right? Because you think we’re required to furnish you them at your demand,” Brennan said. “We are not. Well, we are not by law required to furnish those on demand,” he said.
Reading from an e-mail sent by Corporation Counsel Carrie Okinaga, Brennan said, the city is not required to turn over public documents “instantaneously.”
“(The Uniform Information Practices Act) sets forth what documents are public and those which are not,” Brennan said.
“And just because a document is held by the government does not mean it or its contents are automatically public. We do not know what is in the comment box and while we may guess that most of the contents will be public, we do not know that until we review them.”
Brennan said he doesn’t know if there’s been a determination on when those documents would be available for public review.
“It would be after we review them,” Brennan said.”•••
Actually some who attended these early mass transit meetings found fault with the way they were conducted that went beyond the restricted access to normally available public comments issue.
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/12/14/news/story02.html
Forum tries to cover all rail-transit bases
Some find the event instructive, while others find it meaningless
•••More freeways.
Rail is the way to go.
Just a bunch of meaningless drawings.
These are a few of the reactions last night at the first of two public meetings in which the city introduced proposed ideas on mass transit alternatives. The meetings included four proposed rail routes for a 23-mile stretch between Kapolei and the University of Hawaii.
“This is a format that we’ve used in other meetings. Some people like it, some people don’t. I’m not sure there’s a format that’s perfect for everyone,” said Mark Scheibe, project manager with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, the consultant charged with producing a report analyzing the different transit options.
One person remarked that the meeting room at the Blaisdell Exhibition Hall resembled a science fair with display boards of information lined up around the room. People answering questions were stationed throughout the room.
“The open format gives people an opportunity to gather information at their own pace, ask questions on issues that are particularly pertinent to them and then to make their comments at their own pace as well,” Scheibe said.•••
The city has boasted several times that more than a thousand rail meetings have been held. But what I would like to know is, how many were held that allowed those with opposing views to address all in attendance? Here’s what one attendee of the 2005 mass transit meeting from the article had to say.
•••Bob Loy, director of environmental programs with the Outdoor Circle, said the organization is concerned about the affect a mass transit project will have on Honolulu’s view planes and also about the way the public comment was collected.
“We’re uncomfortable that it’s not the kind of process that would really allow for a good free public conversation about this issue and how it should be handled,” Loy said. “It seems to have been designed in a way to limit public interaction and the ability for the public to create any kind of synergistic conversation that could result in a community consensus.”•••
The rail team’s opposition to open discussion has gone on for so long it would probably be an exercise in futility to expect anything different from them in the future. Looking at the rail project’s history, is it unreasonable for people to become suspicious when an arm of the rail team opts to shut yet another door in the face of the public?