������Ƶ

With no warning, University of Hawaii President David Lassner fired UH athletic director Craig Angelos. Lassner won’t say why.  

Those supporting the AD have filled in the blanks with their own explanations, which can be described this way: All conspiracy theories but no facts.

The AD conspiracy theories are part of a conspiracy theory contagion because conspiracy is the prevailing way we talk about Hawaii politics. Secret inside info, dark doings, shady, secret dealings beneath the surface. The anti-Lassner people build on that.

Angelos’ supporters’ response is so common, that it could be the template for the way people in Hawaii respond when they complain about government.

They are also wrongheaded, misleading and disempowering. The lingo bathes in the glory of the B-movie spy story while missing the problem’s guts. 

On his Facebook page the other day, Honolulu Star-Advertiser columnist Dave Shapiro asked the basic question: Why the UH president would threaten his legacy by firing UH athletic director Craig Angelos? (OK, it’s a slightly loaded question because Shapiro assumes it will hurt the president’s legacy.)

Here are the responses he got, all from those supporting the athletic director and criticizing his firing:

The Legislature had a hand in it. It was a quid pro quo to save a pet project of the president. The University of Hawaii bureaucracy’s “selfish bureaucratic politics.” “Territorialism:” a wealthy benefactor wanted better results. And finally a palace coup — it was part of a plot to get the assistant athletic director the job.

And it’s not just Facebook. Those responses are common. Pretty spicy, with a kind of insider know-it-all feel. 

Here’s the problem, though.

First of all, these reasons are entirely made up. There are no facts to support them. Of course, there are no available facts of any kind about the firing because the reasons have been kept confidential. That does not mean that your pet theory, without evidence, can accurately fill the gap.

Fantasy about the firing replaces facts. If in fact you have no facts, assume that you do because “everyone knows” that is how things work around here.

But you can’t just simply substitute facts with fantasy and call the fantasy facts. Better to assume that than to believe overconfidently that you have the answer. 

Second, this sort of talk about the athletic director goes for the glory of sweeping explanations about how Hawaii government works while it misses the guts of how Hawaii politics works — and especially doesn’t work.

These conspiracies encourage citizen laziness. The way to find out how government works is to look closely, not to make sweeping statements based on suspicions and suppositions.

And that’s the ultimate problem. This is, then, about much more than an AD getting fired.

It’s about the self-deceptions people have about the link between citizens and government: what they think they know, but they don’t, and what they don’t know, but they think they do.

As Louise Penny writes in her novel “,” “How easy it was to slide into conspiracies. To mistake misjudgment for deceit. To see treacheries and plots and sedition where none existed …to attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. There was much more stupidity around than malice.”

Look, the reality is that Lassner had the right to do what he did, and withholding information about personnel matters is both common and acceptable. So is firing without warning.

At the same time, you would think that a pretty sharp operator like Lassner might have given some earlier public hints along the way that his AD wasn’t doing so good. 

You have to feel sorry for the AD’s fans who felt that they were ambushed and dumped by the wayside. 

And of course, as far as some Hawaii public agencies are concerned, “We won’t give you that information” might as well be a part of the state motto.

Bigger picture, though, is that deserving sympathy or not, those AD supporters need to be called out for their prevailing, contagion-spreading language.

Conspiracy theories about Hawaii government make us cynical. But they do not make us knowledgeable. Finding out why things go wrong does not require grandiose language.

For example, saying that the DOE is made up of a bunch of entrenched bozo bureaucrats is simply a form of venting. Finding out how things actually work in DOE and why they work that way means taking a careful detailed look at the guts of its everyday work. 

And that’s really hard to do here because agencies so often withhold information. Because the Legislature can’t or won’t do this deep digging. Because UH academics ignore these fascinating, important questions. And because the public has become accustomed to the sweeping but ineffective language of conspiracy that covers all but uncovers little.

Hawaii’s child welfare system is a disaster. It has been for a long time.

Along these lines, here’s one to watch because the same issues come into play.

Hawaii’s child welfare system is a disaster. It has been for a long time and as Civil Beat’s John Hill has shown in one of several stories, that includes state agencies clearly violating federal law.

A panel, the Malama Ohana Working Group, was created to examine the system and propose reforms.

The report is damning. It’s no exaggeration to say the child welfare services are doing very close to everything wrong, endangering children for sure. 

Malama Ohana’s report says that the child welfare system “must be reimagined,” a namby-pamby way of saying things need to be changed from top to bottom. Legislators plan to hold a hearing about this.

What’s going to happen? First consider what should not happen but too often does: The public talks about it in terms of those lazy, incompetent bureaucrats more interested in protecting themselves and their bailiwicks than protecting the kids. Legislators use the hearings to make impassioned speeches about helping the keiki. The child welfare operation gets a portion of what they need. Everyone hopes for the best, but no one takes a deep look at how to make these changes and how to make them work.

Here is how the process should work. Quit the lazy, inept, selfish bureaucrat talk, understand that simply giving an agency more resources itself does not solve the problem. It’s only the beginning of the journey.

Understand how limiting even the most eloquent rhetoric is and how much the real change needs to be about getting people to work every day at the everyday level to make these changes happen.

And absolutely what also needs to happen is this: to make information available to the public — regular, detailed, unabashed reports on their progress. And not in terms of generalizations and platitudes.  Rather in terms of the guts, which is how the child welfare agencies do their work every day.

David Lassner’s response was within the rules. Child Welfare Services’ refusal to release information required by federal law was not. Differences aside, they both show how much trouble comes from withholding information.

Withholding information raises people’s hackles. It increases cynicism and fosters distrust that goes well beyond the situation at hand.