hunterbishop.com

Pahoa public hearing re Wheelabrator was indeed well-attended.
40 people signed up to testify.
2 left before their name was called.
A few (2 or 3?) asked the Council to vote YES.
A generous number (7 or 8?) had comments and/or opposition based on specific alternative technological solutions.
Well more than half (<30) asked the Council to vote NO for a familiar wide range of reasons: environmental health, economics, finance, better alternatives, etc.

Show Stopper:
Employee from Island Naturals, Pahoa, testified re the success of she and fellow employees reducing discards by 50% within a few months. Her message, "CAN DO!"

...oh yeah, btw, some folks at the Pahoa public hearing were asking about Stacy Higa and had expected to see him there. 'Conspicuous by his absence,' seemed to be sentiment.

According to yesterday's HTH article by Jason Armstrong, Stacy Higa was quoted as saying he was definitely going to attend.

In those discussions during the short break (at #20 of 40 testifiers) last night it was pointed out that Stacy Higa has not listened to the entire public testimony during either of the other two hearings, while all of the other Council members have done so at one or both of the first two hearings.

Maybe Stacy Higa will be (er, grace us with his presence?) at the Keauhou public hearing Thurs, April 17, 6pm, AND the Pahala public hearing, Fri April 18, 6pm.

;)

Can anyone say "red herring?"

Can someone explain the process. How can he be a witness to something that he may or may not have done but still be named in the complaint without defending himself or did he when he was called as a witness.

Surely, Stacy jests. No reporter, even the youngest one on the block, will divulge his source. Notice, too, Higa did not claim the report was wrong.

How can he claim if the report is right or wrong? Everybody's on a gag order and I bet Stacy doesn't even know if this was true or not except from the "very reliable source" of the stephens media. It's kinda hard to claim wright or wrong if you have no access to the case.

I think at last glance of my comment I wrote "wright" instead of "right", could you please correct it if I did do that. Thanks

If three men are accused of something and all three answer the accusation by pointing out that a fourth man was the cause then the forth man has a problem.

In this case the fourth man is an entity called the county of Hawaii who happens to have enough money to get the problem to go away.


Its call false witnesses.
And politics.

I suspect that it is not over....

Until the fat man sings.

And another thing.
Elizabeth and I agreed that at the Pahoa public hearing, there were so very many people -- no matter what else they had to say -- that thanked the Council for coming to Puna. At the Hilo and (a bit more so) at Waimea hearings most people politely thanked them. But, when we talked about it later, we realized how genuinely thankful people in Puna were for being included in this discussion.
Good stuff...

Hugh --
Did you go to journalism school? And frankly, Hunter, the same question goes to you, too. Every major paper frowns against anonomous sources, except in extreme cases -- which this -- a typical sexual harassment suit in an election year -- is not. Doesn't every election year have one of these?

In February of this year, the Founder of USA Today wrote an editorial about the use of Anonomous Sources. In it, he cites the New York Times' own "ombudsman," Public Editor Clark Hoyt as explaining:

"I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."

(he was writing about Washington DC politics ... see how common this political strategy is?)

USA Today Founder Al Neuharth -- who established a policy against anonomous sources when he started the paper -- explained why. In his words:

"The key word is 'anonymous.' The reasons are so simple:


"* Anonymous sources sometimes — or often — are cowards with an axe to grind who exaggerate or lie.


"* Some reporters who are allowed to use anonymous sources sometimes are too headline-happy to diligently search for the truth.


"Some editors who claim they carefully scrutinize anonymous sources sometimes are too busy putting out the paper to provide proper policing.

"The First Amendment guarantees a free press. We in the media must make sure it is a fair press. We can't do that if we use anonymous sources. The Times and other major newspapers — including USA TODAY — have learned painfully that too much of that stuff is unfit to print."


As so-called journalists ... you folks really need to think about what you're putting up everywhere.

Does ANYONE on this list know who Cameron Johnson is? Why haven't I ever seen him print anything before or SINCE? Is he even a real person? Why doesn't his name show up as a Stephens Media employee or reporter on Internet searches?

Folks ... don't you think something screwy is going on here? Why didn't one of the regular reporters write this story?

I smell something foul.

Stacy wrote a very lucid reply which the HTH refused to print. WHT did print it. The Advertiser and Bulletin just in my case wouldn't touch it. Why? Because NO ONE KNOWS THE FACTS and they are smart enough not to risk a law suit. I'm not saying I know the truth, because no one does right now. However the timing for these charges stink. The letter to the editor in the HTH was full of inaccurate implications including no one by that name in Hilo. The competition for this job is fierce. Having been where he is and found INNOCENT after being tried in the press. Please for God sake let the bedrock of AMERICAN law be the basis for your decision. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. If he is guilty then hang him, but as I said the timing smells rotten to me. Even after he is found innocent those that choose to believe the worst will continue to defame him.
Place yourself in his shoes.

Higa needs to wake-up

I know Cameron Johnson. I can vouch that he is a real person, a recent hire and a regular reporter, and that is his real name. I also hope that the questioning of Hunter's and Hugh's journalism credentials were rhetorical in nature.

At the risk of speaking legalese, I also want to put in a disclaimer that I haven't written a sentence about this case and I know nothing more about it than what's been published.

My only question here is: Why are we, the citizens of Hawaii County, being charged $272,000? That is a matter of overriding public interest. I am a registered voter and I want to know what really happened.

The $272K says all us taxpayers and voters need to know, at least with the files being sealed as they are. This secrecy enables SH and other "witnesses" to claim innocence, yet to us the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
If I were Mr. Higa, Instead of just hoping it will all go away, I'd consider saving a lot of time, money, and energy, and get out of this campaign, pick up the pieces, and make things right with those who matter the most. Then it just might go away.

Anonymous sources are everywhere there is corruption. Those who seek to diminish their credibility are looking for a weakness that, in this case, does not seem to exist. The facts are as they are; the aggressive, hostile, and negligent actions of three public officials have harmed an innocent employee, and tainted county government. A federal judge has found the county liable, and we're out a lot of cash because of those officials.

Additionally, I have always found both Bishop and Clark to be very skilled, professional journalists. I don't agree with every thing they may have written, but I would never question their integrity.

Lots of questions, some deserving answers.

Me first. Yes, I attended college (Humboldt State (now University) from 1958 and received a delayed BA in 1964 to my late mom's delight.

It what was known then as a group major with major emphasis in journalism and history (U,S.). I had 20 or so units beyond requirement since I ventured also for knowledge beyond the sheepskin from how to coach football (a sport I continue to follow but never played well and never sought to coach). We had a great teacher who won 20 straight games at one stage before coming to Hawaii for a spell.

I also took clases in musical instruments and photography, and not because I had to.

I nearly flunked a course in Russian history because of confusion over the Ivans and too many "Greats" but I snokered the final and rebounded with a flat C..

More important in my view is that our student publication won numerous statewide awards in competition against UCLA, San Diego State, Cal Poly and San Jose State, finishing second once and first another time, I personally won three awards, first in sports writing and first in news writing in separate years against folks who later starred in California pro careers,

We had a super photographer whose work is sold around the globe today. And he wrote an outdoor column that won attention and an award.

I feel my early days as a student/full-time journalist in a newsroom full of old hard-drinking vets was great. And did we use anonymous sources? You bet.

Just like the Washington Post with Nixon's Watergate scandal and the NY Times with the "Pentagon Papers."

This work, I found after 46 years of wage earning and six years since, is a testimony to accurately getting to the roots of a story by whatever means. Truth is the test, not the how.

Most city editors in my days knew and understood that and the good ones do till now.

As for Cameron,I have not met him but I already like his work product thus far. Stephens does not parade new hires around town for introduction to others. Neither did its predecessor, Donrey Media Group.

In my many jobs,the only pre-introduction I recall was by The Advertiser in November 1971.

As for Hunter, he is best able to put on line his credentials that I never have suspected for a moment.

As for Stacy, he is not the subject of an indictment (I know you can indict a ham sandwich as defense attorney friends claim) but his a civil outcome. I consider it to be valid under the federal system. Whether he owes $270,000 plus to us taxpayers that our county surely will pay his outcome. I doubt his own or political pockets will take that kind of jerk.

(I sill consider him jesting when he says he does not know what has occurred,)

As for presumption of innocence that is being implied by some it was lost with the federal judge's decison. An appeal is possible, but don't hold your breaths.

thanks Hugh and Don for statements of clarity.

As for some others.
There people who "know the facts" -- the accuser and the accused. The federal Judge took those "facts" into consideration, perhaps?

This is NOT "a typical sexual harassment suit in an election year" -- to say so is pathetic and disingenuous.

"...timing for these charges stink."
These charges were initiated more than two years ago!
Melissa took stress leave and, through standard formal procedure, was awarded workers' compensation.

One small correction to Hugh's comments: The Trib used to introduce its writers to the public upon hiring, but that was before current management decided that such familiarity might get in the way of its union-busting efforts. And, with the continuing pattern of driving away reporters (through concerns of an impending strike or its more recent efforts of weakening of morale or outright illegal termination), it would take way too much copy space to accommodate the revolving door.

To illustrate, for many years the average tenure of reporters there was easily into double digits; it's now less than four years. The firing of Hunter and myself more than two years ago, and the resignation of Chris Loos at that time, resulted in the loss of more than 40 years of experience at the Trib alone.

Too much! If I knew that he cost me the taxpayer $272,000 that's one thing. Show me a check stub the at the county has written a check. Give me a statement from Lincoln Ashida saying it was Stacy's fault.
If Ms.Chang was harmed she should be compensated. I just haven't seen the sealed evidence. Trial by implication and innuendo is not justice. BUT DAMN IT SELLS PAPERS! Why hasn't Honolulu printed anything? Did I miss it? Hugh why is the presumption of innocence lost when we haven't received all the facts. Stacy has not been named a defendant. Mr Higa's lawyers weren't called in because he wasn't named a defendant. The complaintant sealed the case Mr Higa wants the facts know ,at least thats what he's said in public. Ms. Chang says Mr. Higa made an unwanted dinner date she failed to mention 13 other County employees were at the event and she didn't sit near Mr. Higa. She charges his behavior from approximately around May 2005 - Aug 2005.. She then went to work for Mr Higa in Dec 2005. Why would she apply to MR Higa for a job? IN Sept. 2006 she said she had a problem and when did it come out for administrative hearing Sept 2007. The judge did come out for Ms.Chang. But what does that mean? If Mr Higa wasn't charged or his lawyers weren't allowed to enter into proceedings. Hugh I'm not defending just Stacy, but the process of law.

"Ms. Chang says Mr. Higa made an unwanted dinner date she failed to mention 13 other County employees were at the event and she didn't sit near Mr. Higa."

This is interesting since I have heard from reliable sources that Mr. Higa has been known to take groups of people out to dinner both in Hilo and in Kona. That is his style.

"She charges his behavior from approximately around May 2005 - Aug 2005 She then went to work for Mr Higa in Dec 2005. Why would she apply to MR Higa for a job?"

Hmmmm? Good question.