hunterbishop.com

All weekend I wrestled with Stacy Higa’s shocking  blog post from Friday and finally couldn’t bring myself to sound off again without asking a couple of questions first. Immediately I thought his comments were reprehensible and irresponsible, smearing the victim by innuendo and suggesting her sexual harassment complaints against him are frivolous and politically motivated. Higa wrote:

When people look into this Plaintiff’s history, there will be some startling information. I think that is the reason why the case was sealed. It is very common for people to sue the County for frivolous reasons. They are hoping for easy money during an election year. It won’t happen this time. This claim has no merit, and I am fighting to get this corrected.

I wanted to know how he planned “to get this corrected.”

“I’m looking at a whole bunch of possibilities,” Higa said Monday by phone.

Higa boasted of a “whole host of lawyers” working on his defense, “some of the best legal minds in the state.” What happened to him was “un-American,” he said. He said he testified for three hours during the three-day federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission trial, was barred from the courtroom when not testifying, and was not allowed an attorney except to observe.

I said here before that he’d have to sue to get whatever vindication he may have coming in this case, and this afternoon he said he’s looking to sue complainant Melissa Chang, the County of Hawaii, Connie Kiriu, Jimmy Arakaki and anyone else in the way and let a civil court sort it all out.

Higa understands from his lawyers that he’s under a gag order but agreed his comments about Chang in Friday’s blog could invite scrutiny. “Let them sue me,” he said, eager to give his side of the story in court. “Bring it on.”

Higa said the complaint was meant to harm his mayoral bid and suggested the scheme was set in motion more than two years ago. “A lot of this is politically motivated.”

“Hundreds of people” have offered information about Chang, he said, without being specific. “People think I’m getting railroaded.”

Asked whether the Judge believed others’ testimony over his, Higa said his testimony as a witness in the case pertained to questions about other people’s actions, not his own.

Higa didn’t refute the Hawaii Tribune-Herald's reporting of the judge's decision – it would be tough to explain what all those lawyers are doing otherwise -- but he complained that the leaker wasn’t identified. He also complained that the newspaper wasn’t publishing letters that defended him and that it balked at publishing his paid ad in response to the stories until the last minute.

He also suggested the County Corporation Counsel’s office may have been too inexperienced to deal effectively with the federal EEOC case.

Personally, I think Higa’s blowing a lot of smoke. But he's using the opportunity to play the victim himself and score some political points with it. It's strange campaign strategy, granted, but maybe he can keep up the bluff till after the election. The County could buy him time with an appeal. But if the county decides to pay off and cut its losses, Higa either will have to unleash his lawyers on everybody or simply fade away.

Ultimately, however, who’s right or wrong avoids the crucial role that secrecy plays in creating this prolonged and unnecessary public spectacle. I understand the judge is accommodating the privacy concerns of the complainant, who may suffer emotionally, but substantial sums of public money are being weighed in a public courtroom where the actions of publicly elected officials are under scrutiny. The public has an abiding interest in these matters and the public should have a right to know what’s going on. In the public interest, and since the complainant is already known, the judge should lift the gag order so that the public will have the benefit of the facts in the case, ending much of the uncertainty, and either clearing Councilman Higa's name or removing it from serious political consideration before voters go to the polls in September.