Tag Archives: University of Hawaii

My mother establishes a UH scholarship fund

14 Replies

I drove my mother, Helen Yonge Lind, up to University of Hawaii Foundation offices on the Manoa campus yesterday morning where she signed the final paperwork to establish a small scholarship fund to support nontraditional students in the UH system.

There was a time when she wanted to go back to school and couldn’t afford it. The Yonge-Cathcart Scholarship Fund is named for her grandfather, Robert William Cathcart, and her mother, Heleualani Yonge. Cathcart put his daughters through school at the Priory in Honolulu. Lani, who later was a school teacher, continued his emphasis on education by supporting my mother and her sister through their years at UH.

My mom graduated in the UH Class of 1935 with a degree in Home Economics, and worked in the department until after the start of WWII. In those days, there was no such thing as a scholarship. You took out loans to go to school. She hopes this scholarship will help other women and Hawaiians to return to further their educations.

We were welcomed by Malia Peters, the foundations director of scholarship development, and her staff, along with Rockne Freitas, UH VP for student affairs and university and community relations.

[text]

[text]

[text]

We were in Bachman Hall, and I asked my mother, who turns 97 in just six weeks, what had been in that location during her time at UH. She didn’t have to think long.

[text]“This was the gym,” she quickly recalled. “Not this building, but the gym was here.”

The swimming pool was located just a short distance above the gym, below what is now the Campus Center. She was a member of the first UH women’s swim team in 1934. The photo is is from the UH yearbook, Ka Palapala. I know there’s at least one other picture that I’ve scanned from this period, but I haven’t found it this morning.

Rockne was interested in hearing that my mom graduated from Kamehameha School for Girls in 1931, the year before the school moved up the heights to its current location. She is reportedly the only surviving member of that class, and perhaps the oldest surviving graduate of Kamehameha, although I haven’t tried to confirm that.

Few UH officials disclose protocol spending

1 Reply

Back on July 12, I noted that UH Manoa Chancellor Virginia Hinshaw had not yet filed the annual gift disclosure required by the state ethics law. The disclosure statement was due on June 30.

Hinshaw’s statement was eventually received, signed at dated July 14, two weeks after the filing deadline. It was submitted via email and the copy online was not timestamped on receipt.

Hinshaw discloses several gifts, including the usual array of athletic tickets, travel expenses for one meeting of the Western Athletic Conference board of directors, and travel costs for an appearance at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The only other gift listed is a 6 foot carpet with a UH Manoa Athletics logo for her office, courtesy of Chevron USA, valued at $1,895.

Absent is any accounting of expenditures from so-called “protocol accounts” provided through the UH Foundation, which can be expended at the discretion of the chancellor.

This is an ongoing issue that is yet to be resolved.

A number of administrators throughout the UH system are provided these slush funds via the foundation, including Hinshaw.

I believe the only administrators to disclose these as gifts are UH President M.R.C. Greenwood, former president David McClain, and Engineering Dean Peter Crouch.

In 2004, an opinion by the State Ethics Commission considered the question of protocol funds controlled by then-UH President Evan Dobelle. The commission opinion was in response to a complaint brought by Rep. Mark Takai.

Takai’s complaint came after the foundation claimed it was not subject to the state’s open records law because it is legally an independent, private entity. In that case, Takai argued, any money the foundation provides for the official use of the president (and, presumably, other officials) is a gift from an outside party and must be reported as such. I summarized the issues in an entry last year.

The commission sided with Takai, and found that the foundation money was subject to disclosure even if intended to further the official functions of the university.

The commission opinion cited the legislative history of the provision requiring public disclosure of certain gifts.

From this legislative history, it is clear that the purpose of the gifts disclosure law is to “promote public confidence” in state government as well as in public officials. The purpose of the gifts disclosure law is to “monitor and prevent any abuse” that might arise with respect to gifts. The Conference Committee Report specifically referred to the public’s right “to know” of certain gifts that public officials receive, in order to take action against any potential abuse.

However, at that time the commission noted that the university’s general counsel had taken the opposite position, putting the top UH lawyer at odds with the commission’s opinion.

I wonder whether similar advice is still being given to officials other than the president, which might account for why all those with protocol accounts at their disposal are not disclosing them as gifts.

The money involved can be significant. Crouch, dean of the College of Engineering, reports a total of $12,714 spent from the University of Hawaii Foundation Enrichment Account. I don’t think any other deans filed gift disclosures.

About those free tickets….

9 Replies

Remember those free season tickets to UH athletic events that top level university administrators and members of the Board of Regents disclosed to the State Ethics Commission?

The issue of free tickets came up in a 1996 Advisory Opinion issued by the commission, and guess what? Those perks may violate provisions of the state’s ethics law.

In Advisory Opinion 96-1, the ethics commission looked at the question of whether the ethics law restricts an agency’s distribution of free tickets. If I recall correctly, this case involved the Stadium Authority, which controls Aloha Stadium.

Historically, the commission found, free tickets had been given to agency officials and some elected officials, with extra tickets provided “for the purpose of having their family members, friends, and guests accompany them without charge to events.”

At the time the commission stepped in, free tickets to all major events were going to some officials of the agency, a former employee, a deputy attorney general assigned to the agency, and the head of a company that provided services under contract.

The commission cited Section 84-13 HRS which “prohibits an employee from using the employee’s official position to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage for the employee or for others.”

§84-13 Fair treatment. No legislator or employee shall use or attempt to use the legislator’s or employee’s official position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, exemptions, advantages, contracts, or treatment, for oneself or others; including but not limited to the following:

…

(2) Accepting, receiving, or soliciting compensation or other consideration for the performance of the legislator’s or employee’s official duties or responsibilities except as provided by law.

The commission determined that free tickets could not be given out in a way that would create unwarranted privileges or advantages.

The commission reasoned that tickets could be used for marketing and promotional purposes, and could also go to certain public officials as a matter of traditional protocol. However, the commission insisted that there must be a valid state purpose before anyone can be given free tickets, and that the provision of additional tickets for friends or family members would generally not be allowed.

The commission then spelled out guidelines to be followed.

1. Tickets and seating that were controlled by the Agency were state property, and could not be used to grant unwarranted privileges or advantages to Agency officials or others.

2. The distribution of free tickets or passes to any person by the Agency had to serve a valid state purpose.

3. Persons who could receive free tickets or passes included the following:

a. Persons with a work relationship to an event;

b. Government officials on official business related to an event under the jurisdiction of the Agency. Tickets and passes could not be distributed routinely to government officials in the absence of an official business purpose.

c. Persons involved in encouraging organizations to hold events that came under the jurisdiction of the Agency; and

d. A limited class of dignitaries and other persons who fell within traditional protocol rules. Questions as to whether or not persons fell within traditional protocol rules had to be reviewed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis.

4. Additional free tickets or passes for guests could not be distributed to Agency officials or to other government officials unless there was a valid state purpose related to their acceptance and use.

a. It did not serve a valid state purpose to distribute additional free tickets or passes to Agency officials or other government officials so that they could be accompanied to events by a spouse, family members, or other personal guests.

5. Agency officials and other government officials should return unused tickets or passes to the Agency before an event was held, or if that was not possible, as soon as possible after an event, to provide accountability for the use of those tickets or passes and to obviate concerns about the possible misuse of tickets or passes.

6. The Agency should maintain, for each event, a written record of persons or organizations to whom free tickets and passes were distributed to enable review by the Commission of any ethics questions or complaints that could arise in the future. Keeping such a record also comported with normal administrative practices of accountability.

In applying these guidelines, the commission decided that although the agency’s deputy AG could arguably have a legitimate reason to be present, there would not be any valid state purpose in providing additional tickets for those accompanying the deputy.

The agency, believed to be the Stadium Authority, floated many kinds of justifications for its free ticket policies, most of which were rejected by the commission.

I phoned the commission last week and was told this 1996 opinion had not been superseded or reversed, and still reflects the commission’s position on the handling of free tickets.

Where does this leave the university? It looks to me like the distribution of free tickets to officials is going to have to be pared down significantly, and the past practice of providing tickets on request for guests or family members will have to be re-examined.

FBI investigates security breach and loss of personal data at Honolulu Community College

4 Replies

Someone gained unauthorized access to a computer at Honolulu Community College’s Pacific Avaiation Training Center on Monday, February 1, 2010, according to a report submitted to the legislature on March 16.

Several days later, on Thursday, Feb. 4, the FBI was notified of the incident. Two weeks later, it was discovered that the compromised computer had been used to store credit card information for 35 students so that they could easily pay for ongoing flight training.

The investigation apparently stepped up after two individuals reported unauthorized transactions on their credit cards.

The hacker used a shared networked computer “in a common area accessible by all student, staff and faculty in a planning and maps room,” according to the report.

Both the suspect and breached systems have been physically removed from the location and secured offsite and will be made available for additional forensic analysis in cooperation with the FBI. Follow up has been initiated with the FBI and the University of Hawaii Information Technology Services department.