Category Archives: Aging & dementia

Supreme Court decision could impact Hawaii election districts

7 Replies

Congratulations to Honolulu attorney and law blogger Robert Thomas, whose column on a recent U.S. Supreme Court voting rights case landed a lead mention by the SCOTUSblog.

SCOTUSblog provides wall-to-wall coverage of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas’ blog, http://www.inversecondemnation.com, comments on a variety of cases of national and local import.

Thomas called the SCOTUSblog mention “the equivalent of law blogger nirvana.”

His column, What Does Evenwel v. Abbott Mean For “One Person, One Vote”? appeared at casetext.com.

It was a refinement of his own blog post published immediately after the decision.

Here’s the court’s own summary of the case:

Texas, like all other States, draws its legislative dis- tricts on the basis of total population. Plaintiffs- appellants are Texas voters; they challenge this uniform method of districting on the ground that it produces un- equal districts when measured by voter-eligible population. Voter-eligible population, not total population, they urge, must be used to ensure that their votes will not be deval- ued in relation to citizens’ votes in other districts. We hold, based on constitutional history, this Court’s decisions, and longstanding practice, that a State may draw its legislative districts based on total population.

Thomas was quick to tie the decision back to the awkward case of Hawaii, where legislative districts are apportioned based on “permanent resident population,” which excludes most military personnel and students who maintain legal residence elsewhere.

Thomas was lead attorney in a legal challenge to Hawaii’s most recent reapportionment. The plaintiffs in that case sought to force the state to include military personnel and students in the base population for purposes of reapportionment (Congressman Mark Takai was one of the plaintiffs). The challenge was rejected, but Thomas now raises the question of whether this latest Supreme Court ruling will change the outcome in any future case.

Thomas writes:

Hawaii is the most prominent and extreme. It counts only “permanent residents” and Hawaii “extracted” 108,767 of its Census-counted residents from its last reapportionment population. Like Texas, Hawaii included undocumented aliens (who are counted as residents by the Census), prisoners, felons, and others, but unlike Texas, it excluded active duty military personnel if they elected to pay state taxes in another state. It also excluded military dependents if they were associated with a service member who so elected, and university students who did not qualify to pay resident tuition. Hawaii does so on the avowed basis that it is counting state citizens and protecting their voting power. Which means that to the State of Hawaii, undocumented aliens and felons are all Hawaii citizens, but resident military, dependents, and students who don’t qualify to pay resident tuition are not. This plan resulted in nearly 8% of Hawaii’s actual population being deprived of representation in the state legislature.

The biggest question remaining after the Supreme Court’s decision is how this and similar exclusions will be treated by the courts. The Evenwel opinion cryptically noted that if states rely on “nondiscriminatory population bases,” the choice of whom to include is better left to them. By what standard should future courts evaluate whether a state is not discriminating when it favors voting power over equal representation for all, and chooses to deny some residents the right to be represented equally as recognized by Evenwel?

Congressman Takai issued a press release immediately following the court decision.

“Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that states should be using the “one person one vote” methodology, and not excluding anyone during the reapportionment process. Hawaii continues to wrongfully leave out more than 108,000 military members, their families and university students. It is time to bring our reapportionment practice in line with 48 other states, and ensure everyone is included equally,” Takai said.

It’s worth reading through some of this, as the questions will undoubtedly be front and center when reapportionment time rolls around again.

“Ask me anything,” he said with a sigh.

9 Replies

Friday will be the 5th anniversary of my dad’s death.

Looking back, there are a couple of moments over the course of his nearly two years in the nursing home suffering from dementia, and going through the drawn out process of dying, that are now colored with regret, at least in my mind.

The first arose during one of my afternoon visits to his bedside on the fourth floor in the nursing home on Beretania and Artesian Street where he spent his final two years. This would have been in the final months of his life, as he was spending more time asleep and less time awake and functioning. I had to work to keep him connected with the moment.

I was also spending a lot of time sorting through the stacks of loose papers and boxes of photos retrieved from his small room at the home in Kahala where my parents lived together for nearly 70 years. My practice was to take a couple of pictures, or an old letter or clipping, when I visited, and ask him about it, trying to stimulate parts of his brain that could still yield important bits and pieces of his long life. Almost until the end, his memory of distant events and people remained incredibly sharp even while the present was lost in a swirl of confusion and short-term memory loss.

[text]On this afternoon, I asked him about several photos dating from his 1933 adventure hitchhiking across the country with a good friend to the Chicago World’s Fair in 1933, then on to visit other friends–especially a girlfriend, I believe–in Michigan.

On this afternoon, I raised the head of his bed so that he was almost in a sitting position. After placing his glasses on, somewhat awkwardly, I passed him photos, slowly, one at a time. He held up each of them, feeling the texture of the paper, looking to see if there were notes on the back, holding them up close to examine details, turning to them catch the afternoon light at different angles. After fixing the moment in his mind, he started talking. Slowly, in a soft, gravely voice, he told of getting lucky, catching a couple of long rides, then spending a day waiting beside a highway before getting their next lift. As he spoke, I had the impression that there might have been several different sets of memories that were mixed in his mind. But I wasn’t seeking historical accuracy. I was just using the pictures as a way to connect with that bit of himself and whatever history that was still intact. As he shared recollections, I tried to probe with simple questions. How did that feel? Were you worried? How long did it take? We parried back and forth in slow motion.

At some point, though, he surprised me. He had stopped, relaxed back onto his pillow, his hand, still holding one of the photos, dropped to his side on the bed. His eyes closed briefly, then looked ahead, not really looking at me.

“Ask me anything,” he said in that same tired voice. “Ask me anything. I’ll tell you.”

And I froze.

One one level, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

But we were never an “ask me anything” family. Far from it.

For us, it was more “ask me no questions, and I’ll tell you no lies.”

There were, I came to realize over the years, huge black holes in our family’s life, dead areas that we learned to walk past, to talk around, or to just pretend weren’t there. Some were obvious things that we somehow normalized but never spoke of, others hidden but simmering sources of emotion, anger, that only welled up years later when my parents were in their waning years.

As a kid, I didn’t recognize or pay attention to such gaps in the family matrix, or about fuzzy areas in their relationship that should have been warning signs.

My awareness came later, as an adult. And, at that point, I had adopted a working rule. These were their choices, affecting most directly their lives. Don’t judge, because you are not responsible for their lives and their choices, I told myself repeatedly over the years. Don’t take sides, don’t be drawn in, maintain a safe distance.

So when my dad extended the invitation to ask about anything I wanted to know, I immediately thought of a long list of questions. But I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t bring myself to start asking. I don’t know if I was protecting him, protecting my mother, or protecting myself. Probably some combination of all those.

And so I didn’t respond. I just let the silence flow over and around us. He slowly closed his eyes, and faded into sleep.

I stayed for a few minutes, thinking of the opportunity lost, the things, the people, and situations I’ll never have a chance to ask about. And then I picked up my computer bag, slung it over my shoulder, and made my way past the men in the other three beds, towards the hallway, and on to the elevator and the parking lot downstairs.

I didn’t look back.

HPD wrong on mandatory retirement for police officers

7 Replies

Like many others, I was surprised by last week’s news that one of the police officers indicted on federal charges stemming from a violent incident at a local game room last September was a 77-year old reserve police officer.

Senator Will Espero reacted to the officer’s age, as Civil Beat reported (“How Old Is Too Old for a Cop?“).

According to Civil Beat:

Assistant Police Chief Dave Kajihiro responded to Espero’s email Thursday, saying that the Americans With Disability Act prevented the department from implementing a mandatory retirement age for officers.

So are we stuck with aging law enforcement officers at all levels due to the federal law?

The quick answer is a simple “no”.

HPD’s claim that it’s stymied by the legal requirements of the Americans With Disability Act apparently isn’t true.

Here’s an excerpt from a publication of the International Association of Firefighters.

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) permanently exempts fire fighters, emergency medical personnel, and police officers from the federal ban on age limits and employment.

The new law authorizes state and local governments to establish mandatory retirement ages of at least 55, as well as maximum hiring ages. It is also retroactive to January 1, 1994, to cover municipalities whose age limits became illegal when the ADEA took affect for public safety personnel.

And here’s the relevant section from the law itself.

It shall not be unlawful for an employer which is a State, a political subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State, or an interstate agency to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual because of such individual’s age if such action is taken-

(1) with respect to the employment of an individual as a firefighter or as a law enforcement officer, the employer has complied with section 3(d)(2) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1996 if the individual was discharged after the date described in such section, and the individual has attained-

(A) the age of hiring or retirement, respectively, in effect under applicable State or local law on March 3, 1983; or

(B) (i) if the individual was not hired, the age of hiring in effect on the date of such failure or refusal to hire under applicable State or local law enacted after September 30, 1996; or

(ii) if applicable State or local law was enacted after September 30, 1996, and the individual was discharged, the higher of-

(I) the age of retirement in effect on the date of such discharge under such law; and

(II) age 55; and

(2) pursuant to a bona fide hiring or retirement plan that is not a subterfuge to evade the purposes of this chapter.

So why did HPD misunderstand the law? That’s one important unanswered question.

And what is the deal with the reserve officer program?

It doesn’t get in the news much.

My dad was a reserve HPD officer back in the 1950s. At one time, he was president of the “Keys & Whistles” organization, which I think was made up of reserve officers and supporters.

I found a Star-Bulletin story dated April 11, 2000 about the program (“Lawyer by day, Cop by night“).

Charlie Dang is one of the few Honolulu police officers who is not concerned with pay. That’s because he gets no pay.

Dang is one of 68 Honolulu Police Department reserve officers who volunteer at least one night a week to serve the community.

Faced with a shortage and retirements, HPD is looking for at least 32 more reserves. For the first time since 1992, HPD is hoping to bolster its reserve force, with the newest group of recruits to be assigned to the Kaneohe/Kailua areas.

A 2002 opinion by the Honolulu Ethics Commission provided this summary:

A reserve police officer serves for no pay, but receives reimbursement for a automobile fuel expended in the service of HPD and is covered under the city’s workers compensation and disabilities programs. The job description for a reserve officer is similar to that of a regular officer. Like a regular officer, a reserve officer must follow HPD’s Standards of Conduct, is issued and carries a firearm, carries a badge, wears the standard HPD uniform, possesses and uses all the authority of a police officer and receives supervision from HPD. A reserve officer is limited in the number of hours available to work and there is no promotion available. There are about 75 reserve officers at HPD.

Here’s a paragraph from the city’s 2006-2007 annual report.

The Reserve Officer program enlists the services of qualified citizens to perform emergency police duties. Reserve officers provide additional police protection to the public with emphasis on supplementing the patrol divisions. The Reserve Officer program has 100 authorized positions, 78 of which are currently filled. The reserve officers work without compensation or financial obligation from the City and County of Honolulu. The reserve officers are assigned to a specific division where they work five hours a week. In addition to their regular assignments, they assist the CAS with various special events such as Police Week, Drug Abuse Resistance Education Day, Troy Barboza Torch Run, Memorial Day, Explorers’ Conference, Honolulu City Lights Electric Light Parade and the annual city employees’ Christmas party. At year’s end, reserve officers provided the city with a total of 16,623 hours of police service.

How many are there today? Don’t know. The reserve program isn’t mentioned in the department’s most recent annual report, except that several reserve officers are listed among retirees or award recipients.

The reserve officer indicted in the Honolulu case (and who entered a guilty plea last week), Joseph A. Becera, was listed among the 2014 retirees, with 37 years of service. And Becera was a four-time winner of “reserve officer of the year” honors.

I wonder what perks reserve officers enjoy, if any? Can they take special duty assignments for pay by third parties? Do their badges get them special treatment that no one talks about? I recall back a few decades when key legislators were awarded honorary deputy sheriff’s badges that could be used to get free parking and other benefits.

In any case, it seems like some follow-up is in order on the whole reserve officer program.

Greece crisis points back to our own bank regulation issues

10 Replies

With the financial crisis in Greece so much in the headlines, I’ve been watching the news more closely and trying to figure out what’s going on. And the answer is pretty nasty. It’s the U.S. financial crisis all over again, with policy geared to protect the interests of the big banks, which themselves propelled the increased risk for all through their lending practices. When things go south, it’s the regular people who pay the price through enforced austerity, slashed pensions, and high unemployment in order to keep those big banks from failing, or even paying their share of the cleanup.

Start with a good syndicated column yesterday by economic Joseph Stieglitz (“How I would vote in the Greek referendum“).

We should be clear: almost none of the huge amount of money loaned to Greece has actually gone there. It has gone to pay out private-sector creditors – including German and French banks. Greece has gotten but a pittance, but it has paid a high price to preserve these countries’ banking systems. The IMF and the other “official” creditors do not need the money that is being demanded. Under a business-as-usual scenario, the money received would most likely just be lent out again to Greece.

Paul Krugman’s column this week in the New York Times took a similar tack (“Greece over the brink“).

Yes, the Greek government was spending beyond its means in the late 2000s. But since then it has repeatedly slashed spending and raised taxes. Government employment has fallen more than 25 percent, and pensions (which were indeed much too generous) have been cut sharply. If you add up all the austerity measures, they have been more than enough to eliminate the original deficit and turn it into a large surplus.

So why didn’t this happen? Because the Greek economy collapsed, largely as a result of those very austerity measures, dragging revenues down with it.

But there’s another layer here.

Just as the U.S. housing depression was caused by negligent lending and the leveraging power of derivatives pushed on clients by the big banks and investment firms, Greece was also taken in by promises made by financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Several years ago, the Goldman deals with Greece were already drawing criticism.

The NY Times reported on this back in 2010 (“Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis“).

As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.

Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country’s liabilities.

Here’s Bloomberg Business in 2012 (“Goldman Secret Greece Loan Shows Two Sinners as Client Unravels“).

Greece’s secret loan from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was a costly mistake from the start.
On the day the 2001 deal was struck, the government owed the bank about 600 million euros ($793 million) more than the 2.8 billion euros it borrowed, said Spyros Papanicolaou, who took over the country’s debt-management agency in 2005. By then, the price of the transaction, a derivative that disguised the loan and that Goldman Sachs persuaded Greece not to test with competitors, had almost doubled to 5.1 billion euros, he said.

I’ve lost track of the article which speculated that one reason why debt relief by the European Union isn’t considered a viable option is that the secret terms of the billions in derivatives marketed by Goldman and others would treat that as a default and send the huge derivatives market into a tailspin like the 2007-2008 banking crisis.

An article in Bloomberg yesterday minimizes that risk but doesn’t mention the Goldman derivatives, leaving the total outlook a bit murky (“Default Seen Averted in Swaps by Greek Failure to Pay IMF“).

Anyway, the point here is that squeezing the people of Greece further doesn’t get at the roots of this crisis, which may lead right back here to our own banking industry.