• Hiking’s inherent risks • What happened to reason? • Council executive sessions Hiking’s inherent risks With regard to the lawsuit against the state filed by the hikers killed near Opaeka‘a Falls: Did the state place a sign near the
• Hiking’s inherent risks
• What happened to reason?
• Council executive sessions
Hiking’s inherent risks
With regard to the lawsuit against the state filed by the hikers killed near Opaeka‘a Falls:
Did the state place a sign near the trail stating that “Hiking here is 100% safe?” Had they done this I could understand the lawsuit. Short of this, any hiker should know that hiking has inherent risk. It is the responsibility of individuals (not the state) to assess that danger and make decisions to preserve one’s safety and well-being.
As an avid hiker for the past 15 years, I don’t expect safety nets when I enter into the natural environment. I expect to survive based on awareness, my assessment of the surroundings and sound decision-making. Beyond this, there is no guarantee that I will return home safely. I understand this, my wife understands this. Should such a terrible fate ever befall me, I hope that my family, despite their great loss, would have the sense to understand that I entered into nature knowing that I was at risk and that I made a conscious decision to proceed.
Nature isn’t outfitted with signs and guardrails from the start. Government agencies are kind enough to put them there to assist, not guarantee, our safe return.
A successful lawsuit is one way to guarantee that trees, dirt and a beautiful waterfall become a waterfall surrounded by signs, concrete paths and fences. I’ll take my nature with a little risk rather than hiking through a parking lot.
Brian Gebhardt
Kalaheo
What happened to reason?
How can the State of Hawai‘i help a company (Superferry) and not help their own people?
We have so many problems that the state tends to forget about: homeless families living on our beaches (with kids); the un-affordable rent; the un-affordable homes for sale; the on going drug problems which contributes to a lot of unemployment, domestics and criminal charges.
Is this what living in Hawai‘i has become? A paradise going down the drain? Because that is how I see it from the local (27 years and counting) point of view.
The state of Hawai‘i does not care about its people, for they are not listening to their people.
The Superferry is a luxury, not a necessity.
I hate seeing our Kaua‘i turn into another O‘ahu.
Shyla Moon
Kalaheo
Council executive sessions
Council Chairman Kaipo Asing was asked at the Oct. 22 meeting of the Charter Commission if he favored amending the charter to comply with State law regarding executive sessions held by the Council. According to the minutes (which are posted on the county’s Web site), “Mr. Asing replied ‘good luck’, it’s not easy’…To answer the question … yes, but he does not think it will happen. Mr. Asing further noted they would get “seven opinions if (they) talked to seven council members.”
Actually, the problem can be resolved quite simply, by eliminating one sentence from Sect. 3.07E of the charter that should have been eliminated years ago when the Sunshine Law was enacted. The sentence reads, “With the exception of deliberations relating to confirmation of appointees, or consultations with the county attorney on claims, all council and council committee meetings shall be open to the public.”
Conducting interviews in secret violates the Sunshine Law, so in reality 3.07E allows the Council to hold executive sessions only on claims.
Here is the complication. The Sunshine Law allows the Council to meet in executive session for a variety of reasons, which raises the question of whether 3.07E is relevant at all. The answer is yes, because the last section of the Sunshine Law (HRS 92-71) stipulates that if a charter restriction on closed meetings is more stringent than the Sunshine Law, the charter provision shall prevail. In short, Sect. 3.07E and HRS 92-71 taken together restrict Council executive sessions to claims.
It is indisputable that under the terms of Sect. 3.07E and HRS 92-71 the Council has repeatedly held unauthorized executive sessions. It is equally indisputable that the main provisions of the Sunshine Law render obsolete the sentence in Sect. 3.07E, and that the easy solution is to eliminate the obsolete sentence from the charter. Until it is eliminated (or HRS 92-71 is repealed), the Council faces a dilemma.
Why does the Council not acknowledge the dilemma, instigate or support steps to eliminate the obsolete sentence, and ask the indulgence of the community based on the promise that it will schedule only executive sessions authorized under current law until the correction is made? I believe the voters would agree to eliminate the sentence if someone explained to them the reasons for doing so.
Citizen Glenn Mickens has repeatedly asked the Council to explain why it continues to convene executive sessions in violation of 3.07E and HRS 92-71 and to explain why he is mistaken, if he is mistaken, in his interpretation. Councilmember Jay Furfaro said that he received an opinion from the county attorney that refutes Mr. Mickens’ interpretation, but he has refused to divulge the question(s) he asked and the answer(s) he received, implying that the whole Council needs to approve releasing the information but offering no evidence that the matter will appear on the Council’s agenda.
If the Council has received information contradicting or neutralizing the apparent force of Sect. 3.07E and HRS 92-71, why are the members not eager to share the information with the public? Transparency engenders trust between the public and elected officials. In my judgment the behavior of councilmembers in this case inspires not trust but suspicion and speculation.
Could it be that the Council’s stalling and stonewalling is triggered by the fact that the fate of numerous sets of executive session minutes hangs in the balance? If the Council is restricted to executive sessions on claims and sessions authorized by federal law, how many executive session minutes can no longer be held secret?
Rather than dialoguing honestly with the public and sharing the information it has with the public, is the Council relying on the fact that the public is powerless unless someone is willing to spend thousands of dollars on a court case in which public dollars will finance the Council’s defense? Is the Council betting on the likelihood that if a suit is filed a friendly court will rule in the Council’s favor?
Questions like these can be put to rest by the simple expedient of eliminating one sentence from the charter, and the Charter Commission does not need anyone’s permission to propose such a solution. Eliminating the sentence will not cure the propensity of some councilmembers to prefer secrecy and control over open and honest dialogue with the public and with each other in public, but it will provide a rational basis for future discussions.
Horace Stoessel
Kapa‘a
