Disappeared News

I really felt funny. I was the only one in the hearing room today to speak against the governor's education initiative. Well, after I spoke, two others followed with oral testimony. It really was scary. I was wondering, should I split, should I rethink what I wrote?

Maybe I'm stupid, or maybe I'm brave, but I did testify.

I was dismayed to see the same old pitch for Hawaii as a high-tech center come up again. Someone even testified before me that our position in middle of the Pacific, between the Mainland and Asia, gives us an advantage. No it doesn't. Guy Kawasaki, a couple of years ago at a lecture at UH, advised Hawaii to drop that already. Being in the middle of the Pacific, away from the centers of technology and far from markets, is a disadvantage. It makes a high-tech future tougher.

We're not going to be leaders in robotics. Robots are not going to be built here. We're not going to be leaders in space science.

Nor, in my opinion anyway, can we afford to damage the curriculum of students who need to learn English and math in order to write technical reports, for example. It all has to be integrated, and some of the money should go to improving basic skills. The proposed "academies" are to handle remediation, another hint that they are intended to substitute for DOE education. Let's make it so there needs to be little or no remediation. That should be part of the plan.

There's also the sword of No Child Left Behind still hanging over the heads of Hawaii and every other state. Unfortunately, in order to meet its mandates, schools are often forced to give up enriched curricula. NCLB will soon require science assessments and I don't know how that will work, or if robotics "academies" will be helpful or not.

We shouldn't dangle false hopes of technology employment in front of parents, students or the people of the state. Those magical jobs aren't going to be here for good reasons. For example, the current technology darling, Hoku Scientific, is creating jobs, but they are in Idaho (google for articles in the local papers).

I'm not saying do nothing, I'm saying first get a plan, and I think the plan has to be run by the Department of Education. It seems UH, HPU, Chaminade and perhaps others want to get on the bandwagon, and I do believe they are serious about making a contribution. But without an inclusive plan centered in the DOE, it could simply be a technology cacaphony, a chaotic mess that will interfere rather than help our struggling students.

I'm a graduate of New York City's Stuyvesant High School, a specialized engineering and science school that attracted a remarkably qualified faculty. Stuyvesant (and other specialized schools) are run by the New York equivalant of our own DOE. Of course, the school system can do it. And of course, I had to learn English and take other subjects designed to create a well-rounded--and employable--graduate.

The governor failed to break up the Board of Education a couple of years ago. So I have some suspicions, but I wouldn't want students to lose potential benefits. This proposal has much to like, and it should be for the Superintendent to say how she would like to proceed. That may or may not include outsiders running the show, I can't say. It should not be used as a backdoor way to take over Hawaii's K-12 educational system.

Now that the bill has begun its tortuous path through the legislature, let's see how it goes. Expect more PR from the governor's office (see her website) and expect every state agency to jump on the innovation bandwagon. Expect that those who oppose the governor's plan may be branded as anti-education or something else.

The legislature can decide what is good in the proposal and how to use it to improve education for all students--on all islands. And not just where the proposed "academies" will be located.

That's right, we need to give every boy and every girl an opportunity to choose technology studies. Never mind that they might have to go to the Mainland later to work. We haven't solved that part yet. I'm talking about students who live on Kauai or who live in Hana. Everyone, without discrimination.

Let's not promise students jobs here in robotics or space that aren't going to materialize. High-tech jobs seem to be decreasing rather than increasing (Isles' tech jobs drop despite tax credit), and there is no evidence that Hawaii will be the high-tech center of the universe except for some ocean or bio sciences where perhaps something remarkable will really happen.

I was amazed to hear our state Department of Transportation testify at the legislature that they need a million bucks and two more years to conduct a study of dangerous intersections before doing anything about them. See the Star-Bulletin article Crosswalk probe may last till '08, state says:

A proposal to study intersections and determine where crossing times are insufficient for elderly and disabled pedestrians would cost about $1 million and likely would not be ready until the end of 2008, state officials said.

With six pedestrian fatalities already this year, supporters of the proposal say that is too long.

"We should not accept that," said Larry Geller, president of the Kokua Council citizens advocacy group.

Yup, that's me. I actually said a lot more than that.

No one should accept that people will continue to be killed while the DOT twiddles its thumbs and waits for an expensive consultants report. Just what do they do each day at work? Why don't they adjust the lights that AARP found to be dangerous in their May 2006 survey, which involved 50 intersections statewide? Another question: what have they been doing all these years, and why did it take the AARP to identify the danger in these intersections? (And many thanks to the AARP and its army of volunteers for doing this.)

I was dismayed that while others in the room seemed to have many suggestions, the DOT only explained why they couldn't adjust the lights.

How about firing those guys and put people on the job who can contribute to the solution instead of the problem? I'm serious. I wanted to hear how they were going to protect people's lives, not what they can't do.

It's not only senior citizens. It's people who are blind, who have a disability, or who drop their glasses, keys, cellphones or whatever while crossing and need a few seconds to pick them up.

Try helping a little old lady cross the street like your mom taught you to do and you're taking your own life in your hands.

The House bill, HB806, is scheduled to be heard by the transportation committee on Monday, 02-05-07 at 9:00 am in House conference room 309. A schedule for hearing the Senate bill SB1191 mentioned in the article has not yet been set.

A suggestion that was popular with us ordinary folks at the Senate hearing was that the DOT publish intermediate results and begin to take action instead of waiting for the 2008 study to be completed. If they wait, the 2009 legislature must take action and probably nothing would be done until 2010.

Imagine how many lives will avoidably be lost if we let them take their own sweet time to fix this identified problem. And no one seems to be counting those injured or maimed, which is probably several times the published body count.

What can you do? Depends on whether you're as angry as I am. You could always call the governor (586-0034). Or you could send in testimony on the two bills (better, come on down and speak in person).

Imagine there's a disaster. You want information, but there's nothing on the radio but canned programming. There's no way you can find out what to do, what to expect. The authorities have no way to warn the public.

Ah, the Big Island earthquake, you say. It was just like that. Yes, but I'm talking about the future as well as the past. The communication problems that came to light with the Big Island earthquake are nothing new, they are caused by a combination of uncontrolled mass acquisition and robot operation of cookie-cutter radio stations and lack of preparedness by public officials. And there's not much indication of improvement yet. So it could happen again. And again.

Media consolidation has brought us robot radio stations that are programmed from afar. They don't care about being your news source in a disaster, they only want you to listen to their (often right-wing) programming and buy the advertised products. They don't need backup power to sell you things when the lights are usually on.

Well, there are at least the sirens. Guess what: you may not have sirens in your neighborhood. Some people do, some people don't. And our state government didn't want you to know if you are a have or a have not.

Yikes, you may say, well, when is this all going to be fixed? Ha, ha, ha. Funny you should ask. The info will eventually come out, but for the moment, that too is a secret, because the state is retreating into secret bunkers to make plans.

Ok, let's take one thing at a time.


Media consolidation

The lack of information available to Hawaii's anxious public was a shock and (I hope) a wake-up call. Interestingly, it was not a unique situation. Perhaps the best-known example of how media consolidation (that is, the widespread buying up of local radio or TV stations and operating them from afar, often with programming that is made to sound local) has caused similar problems elsewhere.

A situation that occurred five years ago this week parallels our own and should have been known to our civil defense officials. In the town of Minot, North Dakota, a train derailed spilling 240,000 gallons of ammonia on the town. That stuff kills and injures. People tuned to their local radio stations for instructions on what to do.

No one was at home at the robot stations operated by media conglomerate Clear Channel. Although people were advised by 911 operators to listen for advice on the radio, none was forthcoming. (Knock, knock. Who's there? Nobody.)

This story was carried on today's Democracy Now. You can hear the program or read a transcript on their web page. I advise checking out the audio or video of the segment because of the chilling voices on the 911 dispatch tapes.

If you visit that page you'll understand the dangers that media consolidation poses to disaster preparedness. Hawaii fell right in the trap. We had no way to broadcast information after the quake. The question now is, what will happen if the identical conditions--or worse--should befall us in the future? And of course, they will, the question is just when.

How come our civil defense people didn't play act the scenario that eventually played out for real? Where are Hawaii's disaster planners? (Knock, knock. Who's there? Nobody?)


Disappeared sirens

When state legislature held hearings in the month after the Katrina floods, they learned that some sirens were rusted or inoperative. Thanks to Star-Bulletin reporter Alexandre Da Silva, we learned in his January 14 article Disaster plans show a shortage of sirens: 148 areas lack the means to issue disaster warnings, says Hawaii Civil Defense. This is more than a little rust, this is inexcusable neglect (tell me again about the budget surplus, please...).

Sadly, as watchdog blogger Doug Carlson reveals in his post, List of Communities Without Sirens No Longer Secret; Newspaper Forces Information Release, the state resisted releasing the information. Doug asked:

“How does refusing to tell citizens where these gaps exist serve the public good? Families living in a gap area certainly deserve to know about it and that whatever sense of security they have the sirens will alert them in an emergency is false.”

Doug commends the Star-Bulletin for pursuing an information request and obtaining and making public the list. Why was there such a delay in getting the info? Did our civil defense people even know which sirens were working and which not? Just a theory.


Secret talks keep the public in the dark

The earthquake brought us not only a power failure, but a Sunshine failure. The administration decided to gather experts to work on the communication problem, but they met and conferred in secret. As readers may know, I've advocated for a completely open planning process (for example, in this article). This secret bunker mentality mirrors the antics of our national government, where the people's right to know has been locked up somewhere undisclosed.

Doug Carlson is correctly concerned:

The list is unsettling. How do you suppose parents with children in Enchanted Lake Elementary feel, knowing the school is on the list? Or people who frequent Kapiolani Park and the five other Oahu parks listed, or residents of Sunset Beach, Velzyland, Palolo Valley, Mililani, Kahuku, Waianae, Ewa, Pearl City…? The list is extensive.

We should all be concerned.

The state didn't inspect those dams, remember. People were killed as a result. We should not be so tolerant of our government's failures. I found the Governor's State of the State message disturbing because there is work to do and money to be spent to reverse ongoing neglect before we can talk about the size of a surplus and tax refunds.

When the next disaster strikes, the siren may sound somewhere, but will it sound for thee?

It's great when government works for the benefit of the people. Nationally, Bush has skewered seniors with his Medicare Part D drug plan which benefits insurance companies. The government is forbidden to bargain for lower prices, and the insurance companies have been caught jacking up rates.

But in steps Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, who is expanding the successful I-SaveRx plan to include more citizens of his state. Five states participate in this program already. Here's part of a news release from Illinois:

Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today announced that the State of Illinois will expand its innovative I-SaveRx drug importation program to state employees and dependents. Currently, the program is available and intended for senior citizens and the uninsured, and covers the citizens of Illinois, Kansas, Wisconsin, Missouri and Vermont.

The program’s expansion will allow the State to reduce its annual prescription drug costs and reduce, and sometimes even eliminate, co-payments for state employees and dependents (currently, co-payments on brand name prescription drugs for those in the state’s health insurance range from $20-80). The expanded program for employees will be voluntary. Illinois was the first state in the nation to make safe, affordable prescription drugs from other countries available to its citizens.

Yup, you read that correctly--the program imports drugs from overseas.

The USA pays the highest prices for prescription drugs of any industrialized country. Since the federal government is run by folks who are paid off by drug manufacturers (and it doesn't matter much whether the pols are Republicans or Democrats), it falls to the states to do something for their citizens.

In Hawaii, Rep. Roy Takumi (along with Reps. Green and Thielen) have introduced a bill that would enable Hawaii to participate in this program:

-----------------

HB7: RELATING TO THE I-SAVERX PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM

Report Title: Prescription Drugs; I-SaveRx; Governor; Reimportation

Description: Directs governor to establish the State of Hawaii's participation in the I-SaveRx prescription drug program to provide residents with increased access to affordable drugs.

-----------------

Now, I hope they don't leave it up to Governor Lingle to implement the law. Remember that the Lingle administration still refuses to negotiate with drug companies as the Legislature required when it created the Rx Plus program. I'm not sure how that can be fixed--you can put people in a room together but they won't negotiate if they really don't want to.

So I hope the bill grows some teeth as it progresses from committee to committee.

If you'd like the opportunity to buy prescription drugs from overseas, you might want to testify in favor of this bill. You can follow its progress by tracking it at billtracking.org. When it comes up for a hearing, send in your testimony. Go over to the Capitol if you can and testify in person.

With your help, this and other worthy bills can become law.

Or in Darfur or in Guantanamo. We don't want to see anything unless it's clean, and we want no fuss. Meat and fish are sold under cellophane. You never see a bone or anything that might offend the squeamish. I'm sure that there are many people who never saw a fish bone and don't want to, either.

Similarly, as long as we have peace at home, to hell with the rest of the world. Europeans see scenes of war that American papers won't dare to print. We don't want to see or hear about the consequences of our actions, much less see news photos of dead and dying or hear about families, homes and villages destroyed by our troops.

We won't tolerate torture here, but we also won't stop our government from using it overseas. We want to have democracy at home but don't care what elected governments we overthrow elsewhere or how many innocent civilians we kill in the process.

This has everything to do with fish bones and toilet brushes. And with burning up the world's fossil fuel and spoiling it's climate. We are spoiled. Spoiled rotten.

Hey, folks--the world is beginning to notice. It used to be that others thought highly of Americans. They thought that just Bush and his henchmen were evil. But after Bush got elected in 2004 this got a bit shaky. After all, regardless of whether the elections in Ohio were rigged or not, it was close enough. We didn't kick the bums out then. And we didn't stop the illegal war or rebuild Iraq.

Ok, we are starting to rethink this. We put Democrats in control of Congress and there is a chance to show that we are not really lazy and spoiled and uncaring of the rest of the planet. This will depend on Congress doing what's right, of course. If they don't, it will depend on whether we chase after them and make them do the right thing.

If we don't take this opportunity to make our government act like America is a civilized nation, the rest of the world could easily begin to shun us or worse. It could stop buying our iPods, for example. It could begin to call in its loans to Uncle Sam. It could begin to buy oil in other currencies. It could begin to kidnap and torture Americans. It could cut off our oil next time we bomb someone to get more of it.

So now is our chance to redeem ourselves. Let's not relax because Democrats have Congress. Push on them, nag them, get them to take action. Debate whether to pull out of Iraq now or when and how to do it, but begin that debate now.

Oh yes...one more useful thing that could be done: Put Pelosi in the White House in 2007.

ABC News reports Gas Price Down About 14 Cents in 2 Weeks, but guess what: Honolulu today (January 21) is $2.814 and on January 7 (two weeks ago) it was $2.846. Net change? Not 14 cents, but 3.2 cents.

The national average for self-serve regular was $2.18 a gallon, industry analyst Trilby Lundberg said Sunday.

The average for midgrade was $2.29, while premium was $2.40 a gallon, according to Lundberg's latest survey of 7,000 gas stations across the country.

The cheapest gas in the country was found in Detroit, where the price of self-serve regular was $1.86. The highest average price for that grade was $2.81 a gallon in Honolulu.

The legislature is back in session. Forget the governor, she's not going to cross her friends in the oil industry and jeopardize her political future. Best to hound your state representatives to bring back the gas cap.

If you think "gas cap" is a dirty word, or that a "free market" will take care of you, you've been reading too many Honolulu daily newspapers.

The AARP survey of dangerous crosswalks was released in August, 2006. It revealed that the length of time of many crossing signals is not long enough to allow everyone, especially the elderly, to cross safely.

So what needs to be done? Well, this isn't rocket science. The timing needs to be adjusted so that it is long enough for everyone to be protected. Maybe there are other things that can or should be done also, but the first thing is to get everyone safely to the other side of the street.

So how many signals have been adjusted? I don't think even one has been fixed. This smells like other situations where the city is only moved to install traffic signals when a sufficient number of people have been killed at an intersection. It's a practice that should be stopped.

In an article in today's Star-Bulletin, Pedestrian deaths to be fought on 3 fronts, the solution the city proposes is described:

Better crossing signals. The city Department of Transportation Services is asking for about $200,000 next year to begin installing countdown indicators at several crosswalk signals in the city.

So ok, a few more people are killed and then the crosswalks are changed to countdown and tell pedestrians what they already know: there isn't enough time for you to get across the street. How dumb.

Maybe the $200,000 could be spent on installing a second crossing button that would give additional time. Just telling someone they are out of time doesn't help--many people can't walk any faster, or they would. Some people can't see the signals (e.g., the blind). Others can't move their walker any faster than they do already. Someone may drop something and have to pick it up, losing a few seconds. Should these people be exposed to impatient drivers, or a driver in the right lane who can't see through the hulking SUV just to the left?

The city should move immediately to adjust the intersections that the AARP has already identified. Period. No more delays.

Governor Lingle's proposal to increase penalties for drivers who violate traffic laws is fine, except that we can't take comfort in laws when they are not enforced. Once again, the responsibility to protect lives in this case falls on the City and County of Honolulu. The police have to enforce laws that are already on the books or will be passed in the future.

You never see police at intersections, do you? Partly because of this, drivers ignore all sorts of laws. They don't signal for turns, they enter intersections right in front of pedestrians, and they speed through crosswalks. Oh yes...running red lights is a favorite driver sport.

It's not enough to just write about this. The City needs to take action. You can help by calling the mayor's office. His phone is 523-4141 and his email is mayor@honolulu.gov . Tell him, enough already, fix those crosswalk signals before more people die. And put more police to work at intersections.

It seems there are plenty of drivers here who think that their needs come first. Some of them write letters to the editor blaming pedestrians for interfering with their speedy progress on the streets. No doubt armies of arrogant drivers will testify at the Capitol to oppose proposed new laws. I hope our legislators have the good sense to put the safety of pedestrians first.

Meanwhile, please call or email the mayor, and if you're so inclined, write letters to the editors yourself.

Federal and state legislation requires schools to increase the nutritional content of school lunches and vending machine contents in order to substitute healthy food for empty calories and junk food. Milk has long been an important component of a healthy diet for children, and so it has been served in the schools since who knows when.

It seems, though, that the feds prohibit discrimination in favor of local dairies, according to an article in today's Honolulu Advertiser, Outsourcing Hawai'i's school milk:

In previous years, there was no question that the DOE would always buy local milk. However, federal rules prevent such favoritism, according to state DOE officials.

The article notes that giving the school milk contract to a Mainland supplier could be the tipping point for the local dairy industry, which has been in decline for some time.

Without a local dairy industry, Hawaii will be vulnerable in the event of a natural disaster or oil shortage that limits the amount of food brought in. Since milk is so important to our children, it would seem that we should take steps to protect our local industry and keep the school milk contracts in Hawaii.

I don't know what's best to do, but I'll bet that our Congressional delegation can help fix this problem. I faxed each of them suggesting that a federal exemption be made for any location farther than (say) 1500 miles from its source of supply. Maybe there's a better way, but that's what came to my mind.

You can help too, and I hope you will. Please make four phone calls. Here are the local phone numbers for our federal representatives. Please tell them to fix things so that Hawaii can continue to supply its school children with local, rather than Mainland, milk. Please do it.

Representative Neil Abercrombie, Phone: (808) 541-2570
Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Phone: (808) 522-8970
Representative Mazie K. Hirono, Phone: (808) 541-1986
Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Phone: (808) 541-2542

Don't worry, you don't get to speak to the congresspeople themselves, someone will take a message. Your call can make a difference--please call right away before you forget. Thanks!

The Procurement Policy Board at its meeting on Thursday, January 18, 2007 voted against three petitions on rules to exempt Hawaii's public access television services from the bidding process. It also denied a request for declaratory ruling that the public access services are utilities and should therefore be exempt from the state procurement process, and another holding that the funds that support these public services come from cable fees and so are not public funds subject to the procurement law.

The PPB decision pushes the next action over to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, which even before yesterday's PPB decision had already issued a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to begin the open-bidding process.


Open bidding risks loss of local control

Any corporation, based in Hawaii or the Mainland, can win the contracts. This could mean that an organization with a political or religious agenda could take over Hawaii's broadcast channels. The requirement that the bidder be a non-profit is no obstacle to a large broadcaster such as Fox News or to Time Warner (the cable company) itself, since it is inexpensive to organize and register a non-profit in the state of Hawaii.

Should the contract go to a new corporate entity, there would be no assurance that current programs or policies would continue.

The implication for viewers of `Olelo, Akaku and the other public access TV providers is that whatever entity wins the bidding process will replace the current providers. There is no provision in the current draft RFP that would provide identical services or guarantee free speech rights, and it has specific sections that disadvantage current public access providers from winning future contracts, which could change hands every three years. The disruption caused by the open-bidding process has also been a subject of community opposition

The PPB decision must be placed in context. Congress passed its legislation as a benefit to the people, not to the state government. Funding for the channels comes from the cable companies, not from the state budget. This is one of the arguments against imposing the state procurement process onto the awarding of public access contracts--no state money is involved, and no goods or services are purchased by the state. Additionally, the PPB reached its decision after a number of meetings at which quorums were not present, and after an irregular secret meeting lasting longer than two hours was held on October 5, 2006.

Yesterday's meeting and reconsideration of the petitions came about as a result of the violations of the state open meetings law in previous meetings. Some of those who voted yesterday did not hear the lengthy public testimony. Even at yesterday's meeting, some Board members continued discussions among themselves even during an announced "bathroom break" recess during which the public and even their own attorney were not present in the room.

Public testimony (as recorded in PPB minutes) was overwhelmingly against the decision that the PPB finally made by denying all of these petitions. At yesterday's meeting, no one present testified in favor of sending the contracts out to bid.

[The Hawaii public has consistently supported the current public access providers. At the September 22 and October 5, 2006 PPB meetings, 166 people provided testimony and only approximately one person testified in favor of the RFP. At meetings held during February 2006 statewide, over 1,200 people sent in written testimony and only about 35 of those favored the RFP or were not satisfied with current services. In an older (1995) survey of cable subscribers, over eight in ten viewers surveyed viewed then current access programming as valuable to the community.]


Public policy background

Congress passed the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 which permitted the cable franchising authorities in municipalities or states to provide public access channels (also called PEG channels, for "Public", "Educational" and "Government"). These channels were to be used to provide programming for local audiences, including ethnic, cultural, social, religious, or political material that would not be found on commercial channels or even on public broadcasting stations (such as PBS).

The legislative history states that

Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker's soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who generally have not had access to electronic media with the opportunity to become sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas. PEG channels also contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing local schools into the home, and by showing the public local government at work.

Hawaii's Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) interpreted this language to mean that

there are two beneficiaries of PEG access: the individual speaker, who has a forum for the speaker's ideas, and the community, which will receive access to a diversity of viewpoints.

This supports claims by opponents of the RFP process that public access channels are not goods or services which benefit the state.

Hawaii established its public access services in the late 1980's with the advice of consultants in the field. The Mainland experts helped the community to set up organizations which (1) operate the public access cable channels, (2) provide facilities and equipment, (3) train ordinary people and community organizations to produce programs and use the facilities and equipment, and (4) provide support services including marketing and promotion of the channels and programming to the viewing public. That the experts did their job well is reflected in the high level of satisfaction expressed in surveys.

The PPB has not sought expert advice in making its decision. At yesterday's meeting, they seemed to be guided by an often-repeated mantra that "competition is good." Unfortunately, this is one situation where competition means disruption and disassembly of the work that has been put in to developing the system over the years to the point where it is working well for the public.


Political influence on public access television

In a 1995 report, the LRB found that

... In Hawai'i, the State has an unusually high degree of involvement with its access organizations.

and that

The State could help by ensuring that undue political influence and special interests do not interfere with the creation and implementation of PEG access public policy

Instead of following the LRB recommendation, by putting the public access TV contracts out to bid, the Lingle administration is privatizing services and opening them up to political influence.

It appears that part of the motivation may be the same as has been alleged during the turmoil last year on Maui: Akaku was attacked and lost its executive director, a well-known advocate of open access to the media. It was alleged that moneyed developers objected to the broadcast content. If these or other special interests wanted to put together a bid, they have extensive resources to do so. What they failed to win last year they could receive as a gift from the state.

It's not unusual for a state or city to bias the bidding process in favor of a particular outcome (or even a particular vendor) through the devilish details in the bidding document--the RFP. DCCA's draft RFP shows signs that it is strongly biased against the current public access providers. Since the draft RFP is not the final document, it remains to be seen whether adjustments will be made to level the playing field.

For example, one section of the RFP would take the current provider's assets and give them to the winner of the contract. But the state does not own these assets since they were not purchased with state money. In fact, the providers have done extensive fundraising to make ends meet. The DCCA itself urged the providers to raise their own funds. DCCA's Decision and Order No. 174, October 2, 1995 explicitly encourages access organizations to seek other funding strategies. So the state cannot claim those assets to give to an unrelated company. At least, this can result in litigation that will cost taxpayers money in the end.

Another provision of the contract requires DCCA's approval for outside fundraising, which is contrary to their own order and could reduce services particularly on Neighbor Islands where the cable franchise fee is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of services.

But the most biased provision of the RFP is the one that prohibits the providers from using their own staff or resources to prepare a response to the RFP itself. This provision would seem to exclude the current providers from winning a contract at all, and has at least the appearance that it is politically motivated.

Other provisions would severely cut back on public programming, training and services because it would channel funds to provide services to the government itself (the "G" in PEG access). The present balance between P, E, and G which preserves the public component would not be possible, to the detriment of both the producers and viewers.

With public testimony against the bidding process and producer and viewer satisfaction at very high levels, it is hard to avoid concluding that there could be a political motivation behind the administration's action against the current public access television providers.

If you're an older person living in Honolulu, best thing to do may be to stay off the streets. At least until the City Council issues body armor to anyone over 55.

2007 is only a few days old and already the body count is climbing. Today a 91-year old pedestrian was hit in Liliha.

Much of the eldercide is taking place in crosswalks. There is seldom an excuse for drivers hitting pedestrians anywhere, but particularly when they are in a crosswalk. It doesn't matter whether the person crossing is young or old, moving quickly or slowly, or whether the light has changed before they have managed to get across. It's just not ok to hit them with your car, period.

Many drivers are calling for education. I agree with that. Education of drivers.

I seldom refer to letters in newspapers, but one by Robert Ching of Mililani that was printed in today's Star-Bulletin impressed me as particularly obnoxious. I think he would be an ideal candidate for an education program. The problem is, many other obmoxious drivers may agree with him. That's part of the problem we face. His letter was practically a death threat to our elderly. He's pretty explicit, closing with the advice "Step onto a roadway and you take your life into your hands."

The behaviors he describes are commonplace and normal. People these days talk on cellphones whether they are walking or driving. Which is the more dangerous? I've experienced drivers cutting in front of me in a nearby crosswalk while talking on the phone and gesturing with one hand. It's unlikely, by the way, that granny even owns a cell phone, but if she happens to be talking on one while crossing, drivers should take care that she does get across safely, not take aim.

I hold that deaths and injuries would be reduced greatly if (1) the traffic signals were fixed to eliminate the problems uncovered by the AARP survey, released last August but never implemented by our traffic people, and (2) if police were regularly deployed at intersections to enforce the laws already on the books so that drivers are alert (for cops, if not yet for pedestrians) every time they make a turn or approach a crosswalk.

Enforcement would also reduce red-light running, speeding and tailgating.

You never see a cop on the streets, so people are being killed. There oughta be a law.

The BOE is asking an estimated $880 to provide a redacted copy of the audio tape of a meeting which should not have been secret in the first place. They say they have to send the tape out to be redacted.

This may be a situation where the state wants a vendor to charge it as much as possible for a small bit of work (remember how the military was paying $750 for a toilet seat; $2034 for a 13-cent nut; $1500 for a screwdriver?). Of course, they plan to charge me for it, that's how they can get away with this.

By setting a high charge, they effectively keep the information out of public hands.

OIP will be asking the BOE to justify the charge.

The OIP has so many more important things to do. By its ongoing refusal to obey the law, the BOE is costing taxpayers money just bringing them to justice.

Regardless of the outcome of the OIP inquiry, I won't be paying the BOE $880 for the tape. Even if they get to keep it a secret, I've had the opportunity to bring their actions in this matter to the attention of the public.

I hope everyone will support legislation to put teeth into OIP decisions. In the end, it saves us all money, and keeps our government accountable to the people. It can also help prevent abuses such as we are seeing at the national level.

Our educational system can only be improved if the BOE will follow the law and conduct its business in full view of the public.

Richard Borreca covered the new rule changes at the legislature in a fine story in today's Star-Bulletin, 'Embedded lobbyist' business interns out.

Small thing in the article--a quote from Senate President Colleen Hanabusa referring to the interns as lobbyists:

"A lot of it was the concern raised about the lobbyists, even if we don't believe there was any evidence of it -- just the appearance to the public that special-interest groups have had certain access to individuals because they provide them with staff," said Hanabusa (D, Nanakuli-Makua).

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue, but it shows the power of blogs these days. Even the senate president now calls the interns lobbyists. Small thing, I know, but the truth eventually leaks out.

With the announcement yesterday by Senate President Colleen Hanabusa that:

...The senate is adopting a rule which prohibits interms from the private sector. We are only permitting students interns from the University of Hawaii who are part of an established program.

and the banning of all interns from the House by Speaker Calvin Say, this questionable practice has come to an end in Hawaii's state legislature.

The "announcement" was actually discovered in the middle of the Honolulu Advertiser's Hot Seat live blog yesterday. Nevermind. In this digital age, why not announce something in a blog.

Since these reforms will be implemented as rule changes, they can of course be simply undone in the future. But let's be content with the victory, for that's what it was. It's a victory for the people because it helps remove corporate influence from the decisionmaking process at the legislature.

Last session Hawaii employees lost the important protection of health care premium regulation, raising the issue of whether an HMSA Foundation executive working as an intern in Rep. Bob Herkes' office might have played a role in the defeat of that legislation. The Ethics Commission has not settled the issue, but nevertheless, the presence of these corporate people within legislative offices was a questionable practice from several points of view.

In the same blog comment, Sen. Hanabusa denied that she has a staff member who works for the Hawaiian Electric Company in her office.

Now that corporations cannot place "interns" at the legislature, look for them to try to find ways around the new rule. We'll need to be vigilant to uncover employees who take leaves of absence to work at the legislature for a session and then go back to their companies, for example.

There are also other reforms that need to be implemented before we have Democracy fully implemented in our state legislature. Stay tuned for more on this.

Although it wasn't posted on their website when I last looked, here is a copy of the agenda for Friday's meeting that was sent to me by several people in the email. It's clear that the state is trying to keep this issue "under the radar".

If you want to submit written testimony, it says that today (Tuesday), 1:00 pm is the deadline to send it in, or else you have to bring 12 copies.

Anyone who values the programs they watch on Olelo, Akaku or the other providers should weigh in at this meeting if you can.

Please don't assume someone else will do that -- your testimony counts.

It was a pleasure watching Bill Moyers address the National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis (links below). Even though I couldn't be there, through the miracle of the Internet and YouTube, my desk chair became a front-row seat.

--------------------

Update: Bill Moyers' talk is on today's Democracy Now, which you can catch on public access TV today on Olelo or Akaku. The attendance was 3500, not 3000, and most important: Moyers announced that he'll be back on the air in April. Watch Democracy Now tonight at 10 pm on channel 56. And remember, if an organization that thinks like Fox News wins a bid for Hawaii's public access TV channels, you won't get to see programming like this on Hawaii's television screens.

--------------------

As I listened to Moyers' address to the 3000+ strong crowd I thought of the threat to public access TV right here in Hawaii. He urged everyone at the conference to stand up to what is happening, stand up right now, before it is too late.

The same advice surely applies to Hawaii's public access TV channels. If the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs puts them out to bid, then we (1) risk losing them to an unknown entity that puts in a winning bid, even if that entity is a Mainland or special interest organization with an agenda to push, and (2) public access TV will be weakened and diminished if the service is disrupted by being put out to bid every three years.

The winners will be those who object to the content, those who wish to see public access TV crippled, and the commercial channels that want to capture viewers who used to prefer the variety and local coverage that only public access channels can provide.

Before I send you off to YouTube, I want to ask that you take some small steps to preserve Hawaii's public access channels. Remember, if you don't do something, one day your public access channels could be taken from you.

1) Call the governor's office and ask that she get her man Mark Recktenwald, Director of the DCCA, to refuse to put public access TV services out to bid. Governor Lingle may be reached at: Phone: 586-0034, Fax: 586-0006 or e-mail: governor.lingle@hawaii.gov . Don't worry, you don't actually get the governor when you call, but someone will take the message.

2) Try calling Recktenwald himself (again, no fear, you don't actually get him on the phone, he doesn't speak to ordinary people either): Phone: 586-2850. Tell him that public access TV channels should not be messed with, and should not go out to bid, 'cause we can lose them.

3) The Procurement Policy Board is meeting on January 18 (Thursday). They are under a lot of pressure because they have taken testimony without a quorem being present and have held discussions in secret meetings. In fact, one agenda item for Thursday is to meet with their attorney to talk about my request for minutes of their secret meeting on October 5. Your testimony can help. I'll post instructions tomorrow (Tuesday) on how to send testimony, but time is short, please check here tomorrow morning.

You can save a trip to their website for the meeting notice or agenda, though. As of a few minutes ago, I didn't see it posted there. There's a lot about holding public meetings that the PPB could learn, don't you think?


Ok, here are the links.

I find listening to Bill Moyers to be a real pleasure. His address to the conference is in two parts. Both are linked from the home page of the Free Press website, or here they are embedded for you on Disappeared News.


Bill Moyers - Part I




Bill Moyers - Part II




Amy Goodman (short)





Helen Thomas and President Bush (funny)

I received a letter dated January 9, 2007 from Karen Knudsen, Chairperson of the Board of Education, requesting a preliminary payment of $880 for estimated costs of redacting the audiotape of the secret meeting on September 7, 2006 at which Jim Shon was fired. Recall that the BOE action was not on the agenda, and so the action should either have taken place at another time or been open to the public.

The Office of Information Practices ruled that the redacted audiotape should be made public. So will I pay the BOE $880 (estimated) for information that should have been available for free? No.

The BOE letter cited Hawaii Administrative Rules 2-71-13 as authority for the charge. I took a look at the rules. There is a provision that $5 per fifteen minutes of time redacting may be charged. Let's see... that would come to about 44 hours of work. Does that seem just a wee bit excessive to you? I know things go slowly at the Board of Education, but more than a whole week's work to redact a tape! Give me a break.

There is another provision that might be a loophole for them. If they send it out, they can charge for the cost of the service, perhaps. I'm not sure how to interpret that section. Surely, the law doesn't intend to provide a way to gouge the public when a public record is requested.

The OIP must be tired of this case. And Jim Shon has moved on. It's old news. While I feel the record should be made completely available to the public, I don't have money to spend on this, and they know it.

Have I lost? No. The BOE has shown themselves to be secretive, manipulative, and violators of state law. They did that all by themselves, it didn't cost me anything at all. They have likely alienated the charter school community even more than they did when they fired Jim Shon.

The tension between the Department of Education and parents of special needs children has never abated.

In retrospect, the decade of the Felix Consent Decree did little or nothing to create trust among parents for DOE's committment to the children. Quite the opposite: with negotiations conducted almost exclusively in secret meetings (quite legal, because the talks between attorneys, Judge Ezra, the Court Monitor and the Special Master were considered of the nature of settlement negotiations), what the public saw was that the state wanted mainly to get the feds off its back and avoid the necessary expense of paying for the education of children with disabilities.

An Advertiser story this morning Some say DOE plan puts special-needs kids at risk is refreshing because it puts the ongoing problems back on the front burner. I hope that reporter Bev Creamer will continue to follow the issue.

During Felix, both the DOE and the Department of Health claimed that there were not enough professionals or paraprofessionals available to serve the children after setting up conditions, primarily by cutting services, pay, or delaying payment to agencies, which pretty much guaranteed the shortage that they would later claim as an excuse.

In many cases, parents had to scour the state themselves to find someone to provide services to the children. Is the DOE setting up the same scenario again? From the Advertiser article:

Parent Deborah Tucher who has a team of skills trainers for her 8-year-old autistic son, was in tears as she spoke of what a rate reduction would mean to her family.

"One trainer I've had for three years has just told me she can no longer live on the cut," she said. "Another has already been told by her agency they'll cut their autism services."

Before the meeting, Big Island parent Susan Wood, said: "I know for a fact our skills trainer is not going to work for $12 to $14 (an hour). He can go to the hotels and make more money."

Tina McLaughlin, president of CARE Hawai'i which serves about 120 children, said she expects a 70 percent reduction in services, while Dr. Raelyn Hillhouse, from Hawai'i Behavioral Health, expects to see an 80 percent turnover — meaning the loss of 350 to 400 paraprofessionals from her staff. Hillhouse said she expects that means her agency will no longer be able to serve from 250 to 300 of its children at the proposed rates.

The paper's headline writer has understated the extent of parent opposition. There's no longer a Felix court monitor to take reports of service cuts, but that doesn't mean that they are not happening. Every so often DOE's neglect still breaks out into the news (there was a recent story on KHNL-TV Dec 20, 2006 and another in Pacific Business Journal, but the links aren't working at present).

While Felix ended, the federal government through No Child Left Behind placed requirements on the DOE that all students, including special needs students, make measurable progress towards proficiency according to a federal timetable. There are consequences attached, including loss of federal funds. Hawaii (and many other states) are not doing so well, so school district opposition to NCLB has been constant and fierce.

But until now, the schools might as well have been protesting the Iraq war, their voices went unheard by a national government that controlled all of Congress as well as the presidency. With Democrats now in control of Congress, there is a newly envigorated movement to kill NCLB entirely since it is up for reauthorization this year. If it is not killed, schools are demanding relief from the requirements that special needs students and other disadvanteged learners (for example, those for whom English is a second language) meet current standards.

Should either happen, it will be a return to the bad old days for Hawaii's special needs children.

The DOE attack on providers' pay bears a resemblance to HMSA's cutback on doctors' reimbursements. Somehow we tolerate their expectation that professionals and other health workers will agree to live in poverty if they want to pursue their chosen professions. Both groups will, of course, either leave the state or find something else to do if pay cuts go into force. And the losers are those who require their services.

If NCLB no longer protects them, Hawaii's special needs children will be at the mercy of both the DOE and state legislature cutting back services. It may be time for Felix II. And I hope, should there be a new lawsuit, that it be done differently. Parents should establish up front that there be no secret meetings that allow the DOE and a conservative judge to drag the case on for another decade while children lose their one chance at an equal education, as the law still requires.

And what will become of the paraprofessionals who used to work with our children? I suppose they can be retrained. Repeat after me: "Do you want fries with that?"

The world now knows that the Bush administration relied on fear mongering tactics to sway public opinion to support its unfortunate incursion into Iraq.

There were no WMDs of course, but we sure fell for it, didn't we. I like to think that we have learned a lesson, and that the American people will be much more critical of contrived threats used to advance military and political objectives should the tactic be tried again.

Thank goodness I didn't hold my breath waiting for politicians to stand up and confront the administration and stop the war. Few spoke out. Ultimately, the people took matters in their own hands and booted the Republicans out of Congress.

The fear-mongering that Goebbels used so effectively to bend the German people to his will would not have succeeded here if the press were not complicit. Not only were the hard questions not asked, but print and broadcast media served as cheerleaders for the Administration both in the runup to war and as it unfolded.

Which brings us to Hawaii and the press's role in the war over the summit of Mauna Kea.

There's an article on the bottom of today's Honolulu Advertiser innocently headlined Astronomers seek to win favor that could serve as a model to journalism students researching Goebbel's methods. Note how the writer accepts without question the "potential threats" posed by the as-yet-undiscovered asteroids of mass destruction. We are supposed to react to this threat by allowing a huge telescope to be built on a sacred mountain, overcoming reasonable and long-standing public objection.

Just as the press uncritically accepted claims of Iraq's non-existent WMDs, the Advertiser has failed to check into the credibility of the threat and suitability of the proposed remedy. It's really the beginning of a case study if any student is looking for a term project.

My suspicions are obviously aroused. Why the urgency? According to the Advertiser article,

Scientists believe they can complete a survey of the potential threats in 10 years if Pan-STARRS is built on Mauna Kea, which is widely regarded as the best location for astronomy in the world. But that same work will take more than 20 years if Pan-STARRS must be built on a less desirable alternate site on Maui's Haleakala, according to planning documents for the project.

In other words, humanity has managed to survive for millions of years without this telescope, and now, to find out if we're doomed at last, we have to build it or keep worrying for an additional ten years. Oh, the pain. Will adding ten years to the mystery matter at all? There's got to be more to it than spying on evil asteroids intent on destroying civilization as we know it.

And so there is. But to find out, you need to check the story over at the Star Bulletin. In Asteroid tracker due for isles, Helen Altonn reports that

Pan-STARRS' purpose is to detect and track asteroids and comets on a threatening path toward Earth. It will also survey other moving objects in space.

Funding is provided through an agreement administered by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. The UH will support maintenance and operation of Pan-STARRS and be responsible for processing what is expected to be a deluge of data and images.

(The Advertiser story also mentions the Air Force funding.)

What we learn from the Star-Bulletin story is that the telescope will track other objects in space. This is key because it is an Air Force project, and because there seems to be some kind of military contract with the University of Hawaii to analyze the data for the military.

The question we need to ask may be if this telescope is part of Bush's plan to militarize space. The device will be the largest digital camera in the world, with obvious utility to the military. To dominate space it's necessary to know if anyone else is up there, and to detect and get precise coordinates on any object that they might launch.

There are unanswered (in fact, unasked) questions about the UH role in analyzing data for the military and whether this contract will be a back-door way for UH to participate in a potentially lucrative Star Wars project.

In a perverse way, the willingness to conduct an environmental impact study at a cost of $1 million or more may be as much a desire to nail down that military contract as to appease the community.

If the telescope is part of Star Wars, it also becomes a military target. The sacred mountain will be in the cross-hairs of a future enemy planning to launch something into space undetected. We have a right to know exactly what use will be made of the data collected by the proposed telescope before assuming its job is purely scientific.

Yesterday's story in the Honolulu Advertiser Health workers stiffed by state was dismaying because it brought flashbacks of the Felix Consent Decree days when the Department of Health's disregard for the material needs (e.g., need to pay for food, rent) of mental health workers threatened services to the children. One of the failures of the decade-long legal process was that it allowed the state's misdeeds to continue without consequence.

I was one of many people who had the opportunity to participate in the "Service Testing" program developed by Dr. Ivor Groves, the Felix court monitor. The process involved interviewing the Felix child, the parents, teachers, psychologists and other professionals involved with the child's education or care. I was assigned a child on Kauai and arranged to fly there and do the interviews.

There was no problem interviewing the family or school staff, but I couldn't get hold of the psychologists. At that time, services were provided through the Mokihana Project and paid for by the Department of Health. Speaking to psychologists and staff at the project, I finally was able to link up with one of the child's psychologists. I spoke with him--he was at the airport, about to fly off to the Mainland to take another job. He told me he hadn't been paid in months.

As it turned out, the DOH failed to pay Mokihana substantial amounts of money. My memory is that it was someplace between one and three million dollars. Without that money, Mokihana, in turn, could not pay its contracted professionals.

Now, that's a great way to reduce the number of professionals available to serve the children and in the end save a bundle of money, but it is clearly unfair to both the children and the professionals involved. Many had their credit ratings destroyed because of mounting bills. Many had to leave the island and had no plan to return and be abused by the DOH again.

The Felix wars are over, but the flashbacks continue. It seems that the DOH is still not impressed with the need to pay mental health workers on time.

There's no excuse, and in my view there should be personal consequences for DOH staff who neglected to make arrangements to pay for the contracts that were signed.

How come Hawaii isn't using more alternative energy sources? Wind, wave, geothermal, photovoltaic, hydro? For a place that has such abundant sunlight and rain, we seem to be shamefully behind the curve. Perhaps consumers think that they have no choice but to pay increasingly high electricity and water bills. With some of the highest charges for energy anyplace in the country, shouldn't we be doing something different?

Consumers of Hawaii arise--you have nothing to lose but the outrageous utility bills you pay. And nothing's getting cheaper in Hawaii these days, so why not work at reducing this expense, because there are alternative ways to get our electricity without burning expensive oil? We should do this.

In the real world outside of Hawaii people are working hard to reduce their energy costs and dependence on imported oil. Hawaii can do the same.

Our government chases futilely after a high-tech dream while not using technology for our own benefit. Go figure. How can we be the high-tech center of the Pacific if we aren't leaders in using high-tech ourselves? Alternative energy generation isn't even so high-tech anymore, it's dropping down to commonplace while we are ignoring it. Wind power and wave power are not unproven technologies--mainstream companies like General Electric and Siemens are industry leaders in wind and wave power, respectively.


How to make the transition in Hawaii?

First off, we can do something simple. We should be using rain water in places that have it. It's a free resource that can be saved and used to flush toilets, wash cars, water lawns, and more. With a bit of filtering it can do the laundry. With a bit more, it can be drinking water.

This should be easy. Of course, there are places that are "off the grid" that already use their abundant rainfall. We should be using it in Manoa, Nuuanu and other places where we have the rain. Imagine no more water bills! And no worries when the water rationing comes, as it must if we keep building new homes at the current pace.

HECO knows that biofuels won't work in the long run. It's too energy inefficient to raise them. And guess what--it will take water. So better learn to make use of the free water you have before housing, golf courses and even biofuel production demand the municipal water you're now using.

Using rain water isn't directly related to making electricity, but it is part of the complete picture of reducing our dependence on renewable resources.


Give up on HECO as an alternative energy promoter

What is more ridiculous than depending on the electric company to lower its profits?

We should give up waiting for HECO to lead us to energy independence. That's not a good plan.

Getting HECO to spend money on energy efficiency programs and renewable energy programs is not likely to meet with success. The legislature has even tried to get them to spend the money they collect from customers for energy efficiency programs, but I understand that they haven't complied.

Why not set up alternative companies to provide alternative energy? They would have the incentive to succeed. And yes, they would compete against HECO on all islands. These companies could do wind, water, or smaller industrial, retail or residential systems and would benefit from tax incentives.

At the same time, HECO's ability to maintain its profits protected from fuel costs should be reduced by gradually cutting the fuel surcharge. If they raise rates, then consumers will be more inclined to push alternative and renewable options and to purchase energy from alternative companies when available. Of course, we'll need a net metering law so that homes and businesses can send their homemade power back onto the grid and eliminate HECO charges altogether.

If HECO would like to compete against the new companies by providing renewable energy itself, of course it is free to do so, but would not share tax incentives necessarily. Our electric companies already have the income to do anything they like.


Disconnect HECO from the legislature

We can't expect our elected officials to make decisions that favor us (as they should) over corporate interests such as HECO's when corporations are in bed with legislators. HECO and its PACs not only contribute to legislators, but HECO employees are "embedded lobbyists" at the legislature. That's right, HECO employees, either on payroll or on leave, work side by side with legislators in their offices. They not only have the chance to influence legislation but they can act as spies.

So another way ordinary citizens can help take control of our energy future is to call or write House and Senate leaders and ask them to evict HECO and other corporate lobbyists from legislative offices. (Speaker of the House Calvin Say: phone 586-6100, fax 586-6101, e-mail repsay@Capitol.hawaii.gov; Senate President Colleen Hanabusa: phone 586-7793; Fax 586-7797 email senhanabusa@Capitol.hawaii.gov).

Flash--this just in (really): I just heard a couple of hours ago that Senator Hanabusa, the new senate president, may have an embedded lobbyist from HECO working in her office this coming session. The rumor is still unconfirmed (and there's still time, Senator, to do the right thing and kick him out if this rumor is true!).

In a post today on the Poinography.com blog, Doug takes a KHON reporter to task (gently) for not asking the hardball questions you'd think should have been asked about the state's monitoring (or lack thereof) of the oil industry, as required by current law.

And in a comment, Doug indicated that he himself has asked for the data. I know I'd love to see it. If it exists. Bloggers seem to be braver than journalists. Asking for the monitoring data is something you'd think reporters should already have done by now.

The Lingle administration clearly doesn't want to upset its pals and/or contributors in the oil industry, so I'm curious about how seriously the new law is being implemented. This also brings me back to one of my current peeves: how come we have laws and our government thinks they can just ignore them?

Stay tuned to the blogosphere.

If you read this in time, tune in to Town Square on Hawaii Public Radio on Thursday 5-6 p.m. for a discussion of the local and national attacks on your public access television services. If you missed the show live, it should be on their website in a couple of days.

Tune to KIPO 89.3 FM or stream it from the web.

Guests will be: Sean McLaughlin, Keali'i Lopez, Ruth Hsu, Larry Geller, Lance Collins, and Carol Bain. You might want to keep this article handy for reference, and also this web page from the Alliance for Community Media for details of the troubling FCC decision and what happens next on the national scene.

This just in, via today's Progressive Review:

KOLO TV, NV - Saying security concerns prompted him to take office as soon as possible, Republican Jim Gibbons was sworn in as Nevada governor seconds after the New Year opened at midnight Monday. . . Immediately after his oath-taking, Gibbons named Larry Martines, who has had a long career in police and security work -- including work for the CIA -- as the state homeland security director; and law enforcement veteran Phil Galeoto as state Department of Public Safety director.

But why? Sure, one tactic used to gain support for the unfortunate war in Iraq is to keep Americans in a constant state of fear, but short of the whole state being turned into a pillar of salt, what threat faces Nevada that couldn't wait till morning?

When a board that is obligated to follow the open meeting law holds an unannounced secret meeting, it's illegal as far as I know. So I requested a copy of the minutes. This was the 2-hour-plus meeting at which the state Procurement Policy Board seems to have decided to give Hawaii's public access TV contracts out to bid.

At least that's what it appears they discussed. That's why it's important to have a copy of the minutes. Sure, they could have been arguing about whether to order pizza or fried chicken for the annual Christmas party and it just took a while to decide. Not too likely. As soon as they left their secret meeting they reconvened in public, and against overwhelming testimony, voted to apply the bidding process to these contracts.

My request for minutes was turned down in an unsigned email.

So I requested an investigation of the meeting and of the entire process leading to the PPB's vote. After all, they also took testimony without a quorem and there seem to have been other irregularities.

As the OIP letter to me explains, I could go to court and try to have their decision overturned. A problem with this law is that it has no teeth. I have no money to go to court to enforce it. Maybe someone does, but not me.

So far the press has not picked up on this important issue--that the public could lose `Olelo, Akaku and the other public access TV providers to some special interest organization. If you would like to learn more and hear a variety of voices on this issue, tune in on Thursday, January 4, 2007 to Town Square on Hawaii Public Radio, 89.3 FM, 5-6 p.m. The program also streams on the Internet from hawaiipublicradio.org .

It's a new year, but some things just never seem to change.

The Board of Education still has not turned over all of the material they were directed to release by the Office of Information Practices on the illegal secret meeting they held to fire Jim Shon. Instead, on December 13 they wrote that they will be scheduling yet another meeting on January 4 to confer (in secret, of course) with their attorney on the matter.

They did release some more, on December 28. This time there is less magic marker redaction. You can read it here (attached to the letter). Compare with the previous copy and you'll see that we are making progress slowly.

The BOE has had months to confer with their attorney, the deputy Attorney General. It's not as though they were trying to get an appointment with a famous brain surgeon or get their cable TV fixed--they can meet with the attorney any time, no waiting. In fact, they can just pick up the phone: "Hey, Holly, this guy still insists he wants a copy of the minutes. I didn't understand last time when you said we had to turn it over. Could you explain again?"

Honestly, this is getting old. A law is a law. They broke it. No one goes to jail. They just have to cooperate now and turn over the material that should have been public.

What exactly is the deputy AG telling the BOE when they do confer? Keep in mind that the deputy AG participates in these secret meetings, legal and illegal. Why does the deputy get a free ride on this? It sounds so silly to say that the BOE's attorney should know the law. Of course she does. I wonder why the deputy isn't held accountable for her part when a meeting is held contrary to the open meeting law.

Maybe we need one more law to clarify the role of the AG's office so that they are required to inform their client when a meeting is illegal and to absent themselves if it goes on.

Meanwhile, if you're at all still interested, check back here in a bit for the next installment.