Who Is Afraid Of The Sunshine .................... Law?

Aloha,
The front page article of the 'Kohala Mountain News'  January 29, 2011 issue, entitled "CDP Action Committee Announces First Community Meeting" prompts me to address the Hawaii State law dealing with ...

"The Sunshine Law is Hawaii’s open meetings law. It governs the manner in which all state and county boards must conduct their official business.

The Sunshine Law is codified at part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes."  Ref. http://www.state.hi.us/oip/sunshinelaw.html

 The following quotations were taken from:

http://www.state.hi.us/oip/6aug08%20Sunshine%20GUIDE%20complete.pdf

"The Sunshine Law is Hawaii’s open meetings law. It governs
the manner in which all state and county boards must conduct
their business. The law is codified at part I of chapter 92,
Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”)."

"The intent of the Sunshine Law is to open up governmental
processes to public scrutiny and participation by requiring
state and county boards to conduct their business as openly as
possible. The Legislature expressly declared that “it is the
policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public
policy - the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and actions
of government agencies - shall be conducted as openly as
possible.”

"In implementing this policy, the Legislature directed that the
provisions in the Sunshine Law requiring open meetings be
liberally construed and the provisions providing for exceptions
to open meeting requirements be strictly construed against
closed meetings. Thus, with certain specific exceptions, all
discussions, deliberations, decisions and actions of a board relating
to the official business of the board must be conducted
in a public meeting."

"In other words, absent a specific statutory exception, board
business cannot be discussed in secret, without public notice,
without public access to the board’s discussions, deliberations
and decisions, without the keeping of minutes, or without the
opportunity for public testimony."

"... As a general statement, all state and county boards, commissions, authorities,
task forces and committees that have supervision, control,
jurisdiction or advisory power over a specific matter and
are created by the State Constitution, statute, county charter,
rule, executive order or some similar official act are subject to
the Sunshine Law."

"A committee or other subgroup of a board
that is subject to the Sunshine Law is also considered to be a
“board” for purposes of the Sunshine Law and must comply
with the statute’s requirements."
"Yes. ... The open meeting requirement also applies to the meetings of a board’s committees or subgroups."



"In 1998, the administration of the law was transferred to OIP.
OIP also oversees the Uniform Information Practices Act
(Modified) (“UIPA”), chapter 92F, HRS. The UIPA is Hawaii’s
freedom of information act."

It appears, this rule of law existed in 1998, and perhaps sooner.  The CDP Action Committee announces, in the 'Kohala Mountain News', first community meeting to be held Saturday February 19, 2011, about 12 years after the law applied.  And, no sooner was this meeting announced in the paper, when we also learn that "on December 30, [2010], Chairman Bob Martin and AC member Joe Carvalho met with County Planning Director  Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Amy Self from the corporate Counsel's office, and Pete Hoffmann to discuss whether the AC should consider transitioning  to a community association not under the jurisdiction of the county code and therefore not subject to the restrictions of the Sunshine Law."  This so called 'County Code', is actually State Law, and therefore is not subject to revision by the county, I understand.

If a public organization has nothing to hide, why would it be against open meetings?  Why would they seek ways to avoid open meetings?  In fact, had 'WasteStream' complied with existing law, I doubt very much that we would be in the situation we are in because of their unilateral bad choice for a waste treatment facility near Ainakea homes, made in secrecy.  Residents of our area would have had early input, thus avoiding what was to follow.

"§92-9 Minutes.
(a) The board shall keep written minutes of all meetings. Unless otherwise
required by law, neither a full transcript nor a recording of the meeting is
required, but the written minutes shall give a true reflection of the matters
discussed at the meeting and the views of the participants. The minutes
shall include, but need not be limited to:
(1) The date, time and place of the meeting;
(2) The members of the board recorded as either present or absent;
(3) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided; and a
record, by individual member, of any votes taken; and
(4) Any other information that any member of the board requests be
included or reflected in the minutes.
(b) The minutes shall be public records and shall be available within thirty
days after the meeting, except where such disclosure would be inconsistent
with section 92-5; provided that minutes of executive meetings may
be withheld so long as their publication would defeat the lawful purpose
of the executive meeting, but no longer.
(c) All or any part of a meeting, of a board may be recorded by any person in
attendance by means of a tape recorder or any other means of sonic
reproduction, except when a meeting is closed pursuant to section 92-4;
provided the recording does not actively interfere with the conduct of the
meeting. [L 1975, c 166, pt of §1]


"§92-13 Penalties. Any person who wilfully violates any provisions of this part
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, may be summarily
removed from the board unless otherwise provided by law. [L 1975, c 166,
pt of §1]"  Ref. part I of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Well Over 360 Residents Have Registered In Opposition So Far

Just a quick update, the list of residents in opposition to WasteStream's current site selection for the waste processing facility is still growing.  Our community has banded together to oppose this unwanted project near our homes, as is clearly evidenced by the number of residents who are willing to show their stand on this issue publicly.  Many more consider this a bad location, and have yet to register their voices.  Some still have no idea what is at stake for our community. Let us get the word out, and make your neighbors and friends realize that we need their support.  I firmly believe that the 360 plus registered residents are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

Not all signed petitions have been posted yet, but will be soon.

Invitation To Fact Check

Once in a while we are accused that our web-site shows misinformation, and distorted facts.  Here is the latest message I have received.

Email from Scott B. (1/12/2011)
"While I agree that the proposed site is not the best site for such a facility, I was disappointed to see so much misinformaion on your web site. It does not help our community to distort facts and persist in repeating inacurate and false information, and diminishes the value of the real information you present. Thank you for your efforts to inform the community on this issue, but please check your facts more carefully and present them objectively. If you are going to state opinion, make sure it is clear that it is just that - opinion or conjecture. Using fear to prevail on an issue only divides us."

The writer of the foregoing email does not provide a single example of misinformation or distorted facts he alludes to.  Is it because he couldn't find any?

Here is my invitation to all.  If any of you think or know our web-site contains an error, or a twisted/distorted fact, please provide the specifics, so that I can double check your input, and if necessary correct what is wrong.  I do not knowingly place incorrect information onto any of our web-pages, nor do I torture facts known to me through research.  When it comes to facts, I have no ego.  Moreover, 'Against' does not employ fear, in order to prevail on this issue.  We received WasteStream's mailing, which states their intentions in print, and what some individuals express verbally, contradicting the written word, concerns me not.  If WasteStream wants to retract some of their written public announcements, let them do so also in writing, in another mailing, and this time to all residents, and not just a few.  Too many residents did not receive their last mailing.

Please use the comment section of this blog to give your specific input on any matter you think needs correction.  This way, myself and others can verify your point, and comment as well.

Thank you.

Bio-Fuel Generation ... At What Price?

I just learned that HECO (Hawaii Electric Co.) let a contract, worth $320,000,000.00 to build another 'White Elephant'; the plant is advertised as the answer to our energy needs.  It is reported, by Honolulu News Jan. 6th 2011, "In a major step to ease the state's reliance on fossil fuels, Hawaiian Electric Company announced, what it calls a historic partnership that will supply bio fuels for electricity."... "Fallow sugar cane fields in the Kau region on the Big Island will soon become fertile land for biofuels."  If you care to read the entire article, follow this link: http://www.kitv.com/news/26395836/detail.html 

Pacific Business News' article, on this topic, of  Jan. 6th 2011, reports, in part, "Honolulu-based Aina Koa Pono will be growing agricultural feedstocks on 13,000 acres of leased land on the Big Island’s Kau Energy Farm. Aina Koa Pono’s contract with Hawaiian Electric includes an undisclosed fixed price for the biofuel and an escalator to account for operational expenses. The negotiated price is expected to add $1.55 to $1.86 per month to a typical residential electric bill for customers statewide. The fuel has the potential to be exported to other islands, according to Robbie Alm, executive vice president of Hawaiian Electric."

Read more: Aina Koa Pono wins contract; plans to build $320M plant | Pacific Business News

I was fortunate that my British contact, Richard Strauss, provided me with the following link, which contains presentations by the world renown expert on incineration, and Professor of chemistry, Dr Paul Connett (with whom I am also in contact), who speaks on the subject of 'Incineration'.  I let you all be the judge to make up your own mind, after you have heard what the professor had to say.  If you are like me, you will be alarmed, to say the least.  See link below.

They claim that the project will generate 150 permanent jobs for the 20 year contract duration, and that is about the life span of these types of plants.  So, after 20 years it will be scrapped, as have many been before.
When doing the math. each year it costs us 16 million dollars of investment (320M/20 years), not counting the energy it takes to run this monster plant.  Each job costs 2.13 million dollars initially (320M/150 jobs), and then there is of course the payroll, including the costs of benefits, etc.  And, that would all be fine if it were not for the health price we pay for it.

The people in Kau, and all others who will be exposed to possible fallout, carried by the winds, will pay the price for this so called clean Bio-Fuel.  They claim no toxic emission into the air, but don't believe this propaganda, based on theory alone no doubt.  But, not to worry, some will make out like bandits.

Well, I let Dr. Paul Connett do the explaining in his 20 minutes video talk.   Please follow the link shown below.
http://www.ecoivy.org/index.php/component/content/article/83-dr-paul-connetts-incineration-presentation

Who Is Dividing The Community?

From time to time 'Against' is accused of dividing the community on the issue of the planned waste processing facility near Ainakea homes.  Here are two examples of what WasteStream supportes had to say.

• Instead of bringing our community together, 'Against' is dividing it.

• In reference to 'Against's" activism, this comment was emailed to me; "... And the harm that is being done in this way can only hinder the great efforts that NKCRC has made to benefit and support this community as well as unnecessarily divide and confuse our community. ..."

From where I stand, the opposite is the case; 'Against' has brought the community together in this common cause, to oppose this heartless selection of the current site for a waste processing facility.  If there is indeed a division than it is dividing about 10 WasteStream members and a few potential beneficiaries from the rest of the community.  So far the ratio appears to be 327 to 11 or 12, i.e., at best, 327 against and 12 for the current site selection.  I must say, I like this kind of a division. It is WasteStream, and its supporters, who by their actions have separated themselves from the mainstream of our community.  It tells me that WasteStream does not know, or refuses to understand  the simple requirements of our community; requirements such as,

 Clean air
 No damage to our coastline and the ocean
 No groundwater contamination
 No fallout of any kind
 Quiet neighborhood
 No increase in road noise and carbon monoxide pollution
 Safety for our children walking to and from school
 Leaving only access road free from traffic congestion for emergency traffic
 Keep rodents away from homes and children at play
 No noise from a waste treatment plant
 No stench from a waste treatment plant
 No harm to North Kohala’s reputation of its unpolluted pristine nature

Our community is not confused, as the writer, quoted above, thinks.  We know exactly what we want, and what we don't want, and that is why well over 300 residents have already rejected WasteStream's present site proposal/plan.