OPEN MEETINGS

LEGISLATORS HYPOCRITICAL OVER THE SUNSHINE LAW

The old saying "the rules don't apply to me" is alive and well at our state Legislature.

It seems that the public's right to know what our government is up to does not extend to our senators and representatives. They require other policymakers to hold open meetings, give advance notice of those meetings and allow for public input; but when they had the chance to hold themselves to the same standards of conduct and accountability, they chose to take the easy way out.

In an almost unanimous vote, the Senate Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee voted to "hold" Senate Bill 1062, effectively killing the measure. The bill would have required the Legislature to follow fundamental principles of the Sunshine Law, which would have bolstered both the public's trust and the public's ability to participate in our democratic process in a more meaningful way.

Our legislators leave us wondering what exactly they are trying to hide. It is time for voters to ask that question loudly and repeatedly until we get some answers.

RESCUE

A GUARDIAN ANGEL HELPED TURN THE TIDE

A highlight to my annual winter visit to O'ahu is snorkling in Hanauma Bay. Feb. 23 offered a break in the showers, so my brother Bob and I left early from his Kailua home with fins and masks.

The morning was cool by Hawai'i standards, but pleasant. We entered the water and swam to the outside of the reef where we have seen a wonderful variety of sea life in the past.

On our swim back to the beach, we encountered a strong outbound current. Bob made it through the reef, but I could not seem to make any progress. To make matters worse, my snorkle mouthpiece had become crooked in my mouth, allowing water in as I breathed. Despite my efforts to remain calm, I was tiring and I could feel a bit of panic rising in my throat.

Then I heard a calming voice behind me. It was a woman's voice, as sweet as I had ever heard, saying, "Let yourself drift back to me. I swim out here every day."

I followed the instructions and quickly found myself next to Suzanne. She helped support me as I adjusted my equipment and rested a bit. Bob also swam back to my side. A few minutes later, lifeguard Shannon arrived on a rescue board and took me back to the inside of the reef and safety.

I know I made a couple of mistakes that morning by not properly adjusting my equipment and by fighting the current rather than waiting for it to ebb. Luckily, a guardian angel named Suzanne was there to help. She exemplified the aloha spirit that infuses Hawai'i and makes me look forward to my next visit.

TAX RELIEF

O'AHU'S ELDERLY MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED

The City Council tax-relief proposal Bill 1 would double the basic homeowner's exemption and increase the exemptions for all age groups except for those 70 years old and older.

Any tax relief should, all things being equal, favor the elderly for they are the very ones who need help the most. As such, Mayor Mufi Hannemann and the City Council should amend Bill 1 to provide, at the very least, equitable relief to all regardless of age.

LEVEES

NEW ORLEANS FLOODING WAS DUE TO BREACHING

Your March 3 editorial "Katrina tape shows administration failed" perpetuates some factual errors surrounding the flooding of New Orleans that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.

The facts are, the videotape briefings did not mention "breaching" the levees but "topping" the levees. Breaching implies a catastrophic failure of the levee, with the disastrous result. Actually, very few of the levees were "topped," resulting in the minor flooding; only when several key levees were breached did the major flooding occur.

Contrary to AP, ABC, CBS, et al., the March issue of Popular Mechanics (also online at www.popularmechanics.com) has an excellent apolitical analysis of what did go wrong (and right) during the hurricane.

Considering Hawai'i is overdue for a hurricane and the nearest large-scale assistance is 2,500 miles away instead of 200, a proactive editorial emphasizing the importance of local preparation would be more constructive.

LIFE IS BETTER

TAKE BACK CONTROL BY TURNING OFF THE TV

Television is, by design, an advertising medium. And it's getting worse all the time.

There is only one way that we can regain our voice and it is not by trying to fix the now totally ineffectual FCC. No, the only way to take back control of our lives is to turn the TV off. It's the best thing we can ever do for our children's grades, health and sanity.

While living on Guam, my family and I rode through the eye of Super-Typhoon Paka, one of the strongest hurricanes on record. No power, water or TV(!) for about two months. I thought I was in for the worst experience of my life.

I couldn't have been more wrong. At first our kids would complain that they were bored, but surprisingly, they would find something (usually creative) to do. My wife and I rekindled a flame that I have to admit neither of us had realized was fading.

When the cable company called to tell us that they were ready to turn the TV back on, I asked my family and all of them said, "Leave it off." That was over eight years ago.

April 24 to 30 is TV Turn-off Week, and millions of people will take part. If you feel something could be missing in your life, if you want to give your family not just the gift of a lifetime but the gift of a life, if you're at all curious, try it — just for one week. I think you'll be surprised.

BOOMERANG

DOBELLE WOULD NOT HAVE BACKED UARC

In the aftermath of interim President David McClain's decision to back the Navy research center at the University of Hawai'i, one thing seems abundantly clear: This decision would not have happened under ousted President Evan Dobelle.

The idea of making a major public university dependent on military research contracts for its future financial security could not pass any wise person's "common-sense test," and I'm confident would have been quashed by the farsighted and politically independent Dobelle.

That truth might be noted by those university activists who worked so stridently for Dobelle's removal and then equally so against the UARC.

Perhaps it should not be unexpected, therefore, that many of these same faculty are among the most vociferous opponents of independent Democratic Senate candidate Ed Case's effort to break up the Democratic Party's old-boy network, with its reliance on Defense Department programs posing as economic development.

If there is a lesson to be learned, it is to never doubt the ability of Hawai'i's progressive movement to pull a "Dick Cheney" against its own best interests.

OUST MENOR

NON-ENGLISH SPEAKER MEASURE OUTRAGEOUS

Has Ron Menor lost his mind?

First he brings us the gas cap, now he wants to have our tax dollars fund help for non-English speakers.

As a middle-class taxpaying citizen, I'm struggling like everyone else to get by. I can't afford to buy a home, I don't qualify for affordable housing, or any type of public assistance. I'm getting tired of my tax dollars benefiting only a few people here in Hawai'i.

If these people want to live in America, then they need to learn the language. If we were to live in another country, we would have to learn its language.

By forcing agencies to provide language services, we aren't encouraging them at all to try to learn the English language.

People in the 17th District (Mililani, Waipi'o), please don't vote Ron Menor in again into the Senate.

We need a change.

DLNR'S YOUNG SHOULD BE FLEXIBLE ON FISHERIES

I was surprised to read the Feb. 20 letter by Peter Young, the director of the state Department of Land and Natural Resources. Director Young is responsible for the state's ocean resources, which extend three miles from the shoreline.

Prior to the 2006 session, members of the Legislature and DLNR staff held statewide meetings to discuss the problem of Hawai'i's depleting marine resources and the need to adopt measures that would ensure their viability for present and future generations. While supporting the protection of fisheries, many stakeholders in attendance raised serious questions regarding the basis and effectiveness of marine managed areas.

As a result of these meetings, two bills were introduced this session. House Bill 2587 would require the DLNR to assess its effectiveness of managing the marine environment and to review its various marine management tools. The other bill, House Bill 2881, would require the DLNR to demonstrate a scientific need prior to prohibiting or limiting fishing in any public fishing area.

How can Peter Young say this is a "betrayal of the public trust" and "the measures would result in ultimately killing marine resources instead of protecting them"?

In my opinion, the issue of the effectiveness of marine managed areas is timely given the amount of development across the state. Therefore, I am disappointed in Director Young's defensive posture against these measures. His portrayal of them as promoting fishing no matter what the consequences and killing the marine resources only polarizes the stakeholders.

In light of his objections, he should not squander this opportunity to support amendments to this legislation to help the DLNR become more effective.

At this writing, only HB2857 is advancing. This legislation would require the DLNR to: (1) assess the effectiveness of no-take marine managed areas; (2) assess, prioritize and implement effective measures to increase Hawai'i's fish population; and (3) hire additional personnel to enforce the state's fishing laws.

My message to Peter Young is reach out and build partnerships to find solutions that work for the common good of all and take heed that your harsh words will perpetuate an us-versus-them environment.

WE'RE PAYING TOO MUCH

GAS CAP LAW MUST BE TOUGHENED

The battle over Hawai'i's gas cap is proving to be a great reason to pass a Voter Owned Elections law. It would be naive to think that contributions paid by or expected from the oil industry are not a factor in lawmakers' decision-making on this controversial issue.

Caught in the middle are all of us who have shelled out more for gasoline than we should have and who are faced with the prospect of paying even more should the law be repealed.

The House seems bent on repealing the law, the first in the nation, despite testimony by the state Public Utilities Commission that in using its discretion, it set prices as high as it could rather than as low as possible. You'd think that the House might work on that core problem instead of taking away what protection consumers have had.

What could be fueling this flight from logic?

Certainly, it's fair to suspect that oil industry money might be involved. In fact, in the 2004 election cycle, the industry pumped up the campaign funds of Hawai'i lawmakers by a whopping $150,822, according to followthemoney.org. This includes $46,250 from Chevron/Texaco, $36,097 from Tesoro, a generous $25,000 additional from Albert D.K. Chee, director of Chev-ron/Texaco, and other large contributions from Interisland Petroleum, Aloha Petroleum, Maui Petroleum, or people associated with those companies.

Let's keep in mind that this huge payout to politicos has been more than recovered from the wallets of Hawai'i drivers and small-business owners who paid more for their gasoline than they would have if the gas cap had been administered to produce the lowest prices.

In other words, we all paid at the pump much more than we needed to, and part of the oil companies' windfall profits can be turned into campaign contributions.

Looking over the data, a large portion of the money went to the campaigns of Republican candidates who eventually lost in the primary or the general election. Of course, there are more Democrats in the House than Republicans, but still, they did not get nearly as much per capita in the 2004 cycle from the oil lobby as did the oil-industry-friendly Republicans. Contributions have gone to a couple of legislators who indeed have voted for repeal.

This is an election year, and special-interest money will help top off candidates' war chests once again. Will there be a bigger payoff if a legislator votes to repeal the gas cap law?

Here's a chance for the average person to make a difference. We've all had extra money snatched from our wallets when we buy gas. The gas cap law should have been used to lower the price, not as a political tool by an administration that wants to get it repealed. Mark down what you pay next time you fill up, then call your state legislators about lowering that bill and remind them that you, not the oil companies, vote for them.