Secrecy breeds suspicion
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 03:34PM Mahalos for all the good responses to the post on the Council’s incinerator vote.
I still wonder why the vote. The Council has had these closed-door progress briefings on waste-to-energy projects before but never voted.
And the Environmental Management director suggests that the procurement officer, Bill Takaba, could still hold on to the proposal and not present it to the Council. So why the vote?
KS Medeiros says don’t get excited, it’s only process. But people like me get excited and wonder what the heck’s going on when their elected officials come out of a closed-door meeting and cast votes on something they can’t discuss publicly and for which no information is available.
These back-room briefings make a mockery of Sunshine and provide the sinister opportunity for deal-making out of the public eye. And the Council and administration have shown a propensity to play loose with public meetings law before (the state Office of Information Practices still has the August lava meeting under advisement), which helps foster further suspicion whenever they go behind closed doors to conduct public business.
Following Dave Smith’s comment, why should procurement trump Sunshine? I would question the state procurement law, which county officials are hiding behind, that allows the bids to be submitted in secret. If all bids were required to be open up front from the time they are opened, and all the bidders knew that, you think no one would take on these lucrative public projects? What kind of proprietary information are we protecting? Will the proprietary info be part of the public record when it becomes public?
Also, if Council members know already that they will reject the project because it costs too much or creates too much pollution, why didn’t they vote against bringing it forward? As KS Medeiros explained, the Council will only get to approve or reject the proposal, without changes, because they’ve already stipulated that everything they wanted in the ordinance already is there. So if it won’t change, why waste time and money from here on in with lengthy public hearings on something they’ve made up their minds about already.
And, to Ken Adams' comment, if all they did was simply file the communication, why was there one vote against it?
There are good people in government working on this, to be sure, but this level of secrecy in the process still raises suspicion when so much is at stake.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (10)
It is true.
All the explanations AFTER the secret meeting could have been made BEFORE the secret meeting to much better effect.
Trust the community -- the Administration has not done this from the outset. The Mayor has put his faith in the soothing words of consultants from afar and kept his own community in the dark.
If Lindy Lingle's procurement law does trump the charter and all prior efforts to keep Hawaii County open, then that says much about her alleged transparency and stains her legacy permanently.
As for inceneration of our waste, I am willing to hear more, a lot more. I am not knee jerker but wonder outloud why Andy Anderson's Oahu projects work so well and ours are cosidered a failure at the outset.
As for those who seem to know what hapened at the closed meeting, I have to ask if they were somehow present or just engaging in a guesing game?
For every F'n Consultant that is hired to give us "supposed" information, is one less meal for a child, home for an Hawaiian, health center where needed, etc.
Keep up the good work cause all I see as the results of all these "consultants" is $ in thier pockets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As my Mother of 84 so wonderfully put it, "common sense in this country went out the door along time ago, the simple has been made complicated"! Bless her heart and those of you who play the political BS game. This is the Island of Hawaii, what goes around comes around extreemly fast, it will come back and bite you in the _______!
I moved here for the "lifestyle of the Hawaiians" and In the last 10 yrs all I have seen is the U.S. Gov't taking/stealing more and more (and corrupting with money even those making decsions for the Hawaiian peoples).
I have a very heavy heart and it makes hard to go to the poles for any election, local or National. I am pretty sure if Obahma tries to implement any social reform that would affect those who have the "power" (corporations") he will be swayed or lying next to his relatives!
Come on, logically can you make sense of 4 years of Bush!
The incinerator, IMHO, is a Trojan Horse, something that looks good on the surface but has danger lurking within. If they end up rejecting it solely on the cost factor, they will be doing the right thing, but missing some important points. Imagine that, our Council not getting the point.
I just want to point out two things:
1. Because the Administration has to be on the same page when this goes out to the public and
2. Who says it can't be changed?
So we're talking about a bid, right? Just a bid.
Wouldn't it be irresponsible if the Administration threw out something to the public, and then went, "no, wait wait. We forgot something. Okay, disregard what we just sent you, and replace section 3.2.2 with the following language."
Then, three days later: "Wait, wait! Councilman Hoffman just looked at it for the first time and saw something that he want the contractor to address. So disregard the last two versions, and use this one instead"
Get the idea?
To me, it makes total sense that there is more than just one pencil-pusher approving a document of this magnitude.
As I see it, the next step after this is that we have public comment ... and mutual discussion/enlightenment. Then either the bid will change ... or it won't. And the Council will approve it ... or not.
"...why Andy Anderson's Oahu projects work so well and ours are considered a failure at the outset."
Has the incineration on Oahu "worked so well"?
It has had planned and unplanned shutdowns that have resulted in Waimanalo landfill space being used up years before expected.
"ours" a "failure from the outset"? --
No, just a bad idea that doesn't get any better.
Have you read the testimony to Council, regarding:
the viable, proven, safer, more reliable, and less costly alternatives to incineration; the fraudulent information that has brought the procurement process to this point; the criminal character of the people who sell and operate incinerators; the substantial financial, legal and environmental problems experienced by other communities with incineration; and the rest?
If you haven't, then I highly recommend it.
The considerable amount that I have submitted is available directly from me for anyone who would like to read it.