������Ƶ

The relationship between a government and the people it serves is based upon one thing in a modern democracy: trust.

As a state, Hawaii and its political direction are heavily centered around a number of public boards and commissions. Hawaii voters, in an act of trust, deferred to out elected official to select the individuals who sit on these boards; among these was the Hawaii Board of Education.

However, the most influential of these boards and commissions are not rewarding the trust placed in them by the people. They do business outside the public eye, and the concern has risen that some of these board members may be more enthralled in the game of politics than engaged in finding solutions. As a result, the best interests of the people are put by the wayside.

It is time for the public to realize that these boards have refused to openly embrace transparency and are not being held accountable for their actions. The democratic system that guarantees public participation and ensures that board members are held accountable is disturbingly absent. Perhaps it is time that these boards once again become elected positions, to give a voice back to the people these boards serve.

Boards are Not Embracing Democracy and Transparency

In 2010, more than 57 percent of Hawaii voters approved a constitutional amendment to make the Board of Education a board appointed by the governor. However, the result was not meant to be a referendum to keep the public completely out of the picture.

Since the BOE has become an appointed board, all the meetings are held in downtown during the day, making it difficult for parents and educators to testify. In contrast, the former, elected BOE held meetings during evening hours and sometimes on the neighbor islands. It has taken more than five and a half years for the appointed BOE to consider ways to foster better public engagement. Recently, the BOE started to live stream its meetings online; and it held its first evening meeting last October.

It has taken more than five and a half years for the appointed Board of Education to consider ways to foster better public engagement.

It is unfortunate that the BOE did not give the public ample opportunity to provide input before making some of its most recent decisions that affect parents’ wallets. Last year, the BOE approved and lobbied the legislature to raise the salary cap of the Department of Education superintendent by 40 percent. That is unheard of in Hawaii’s current job climate. This is puzzling considering that the same body approved raising the price of school lunches and tuition of after school “A-plus” care earlier this year.

The BOE is not the only public institution that has failed to embrace democracy and transparency. Initially, the Public Utilities Commission refused to post the transcripts of its hearings on the proposed $4.3 billion sale of Hawaiian Electric Industries to NextEra Energy on its website. This would have forced the public to purchase the transcripts from the court reporters assigned to the hearing. According to Civil Beat’s estimate, it would cost around $9,000 to purchase a transcript of the hearings.

After receiving criticism from the public and environmental groups, the PUC revised its decision, and now plans to release the transcripts. However, the free digital transcript will not be available until the PUC makes a final decision on the proposed merger.

Ultimately, to the public’s dismay, the so-called open hearings are not public after all. During the first week of the hearings, the PUC agreed to hold private sessions when reviewing confidential documents.

Even PUC Chair Randy Iwase admitted that the lack of transparency has damaged the public’s trust. “It is going to smell. I understand that,” he said.

Are Board Members Becoming Lobbyists?

In 2010, Honolulu voters approved the creation of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation. Voters approved the creation of HART to ensure the mass transit rail project is completed on time and on budget. Furthermore, HART was created to become a semi-independent agency, free of political pressures.

According to former Mayor Peter Carlisle, in a Civil Beat article, there will be consequences if HART becomes embroiled in petty politics. “The whole point, basically, of putting this all in the hands of HART was to keep politics out of it,” Carlisle said. “I cannot begin to tell you what a calamity it would be to allow politics as usual with people trying to use the rail system for some form of political advantage.”

If this is the case, HART’s board should be focused solely on reviewing Honolulu’s most expensive construction project. Instead, HART’s board of directors planned a political lobbying movement behind closed doors.

During a private executive session held on Dec. 18, 2014, HART’s board of directors were discussing strategies to lobby the legislature to extend the half-percent General Excise Tax (GET) surcharge. Current HART Board Chairman Don Horner was very engaged in the meeting’s discussion.

“He [Horner] said that a suggestion that the 10 percent retained by the State of Hawaii be raised to 25 percent over time may find support with some Senate members, and he reminded members that the Senate had been supportive in the past, and had advocated for passage of the 0.5 percent GET surcharge for rail,” the minutes of the meeting recorded.

A lobbyist could not have said it better. It is disappointing that such discussions took place during a private meeting when the meeting’s agenda was to discuss legal matters. In fact, Civil Beat challenged HART’s legal basis for secrecy to the Hawaii Office of Information Practices to obtain the meeting minutes. Otherwise, no one would have known of the political discussion that took place.

Solution: Let The Public Elect Board Members

Although the boards and commissions are not conducting any illegal activity, they have lost much of the public’s trust due to their lack of engagement. Perhaps the best solution to this apparent disconnect is to make the board seats elected positions, accountable to the public who voted for them. Whoever was elected by voters to sit in these influential positions would at least appreciate the public’s perspective.

One example is the Honolulu City Prosecuting Attorney. In 1980, the job became an elected position to prevent prosecuting attorney from being beholden to the mayor, who used to appoint the city’s law enforcer. Since then, Honolulu voters have proved capable of electing competent prosecutors including Keith Kaneshiro and Peter Carlisle. Both individuals have advocated their initiatives openly and earned the public’s trust in ensuring public safety. Although the prosecuting attorney is not a board position, it demonstrates that the process works when the public is given the right to elect their leaders.  

Unlike appointed board members, the Honolulu prosecutor is accountable to the public, not to elected officials. If board members are not living up to expectations, they could be voted out of their positions. We should take a page from the Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney position: Keith Kaneshiro defeated incumbent Chuck Marsland in 1988. At the time, Marsland was a controversial figure and lost major court cases.

There is no better way to promote democracy than by having the people elect their decision makers. Who can say no to, “let the people decide?”