Posted on: Sunday, April 27, 2003
COMMENTARY
Change requires having will to speak up
By Chuck Quackenbush
Former California insurance commissioner
I appreciate this opportunity to respond to a curious column written by David Polhemus last week describing my activities in Hawai'i. I am always happy to discuss any of my activities with anyone. In his article the Advertiser editorial writer implied that my wife, Chris, and I are not very nice people because of our "abrasive" and "take-no-prisoners Mainland style" of advocating needed changes in Hawai'i.
Well. What's that all about? Two-and-a-half years ago, Chris took it upon herself to organize an effort to change the antiquated pet quarantine system in Hawai'i. This seemed a modest, achievable goal at first, immediately attracting support from a long list of Hawai'i institutions such as the military, a local chamber of commerce and the Hawaiian Humane Society.
Assembling reams of authoritative scientific evidence, Chris and her coalition of concerned residents began plodding through endless legislative and regulatory board meetings. They found themselves continually blocked by duplicitous bureaucrats using obviously bogus studies to derail their efforts. Chris exposed the maneuvers for what they were: old-fashioned bureaucratic turf protection, and she pointed the finger at the people responsible. It's called accountability ... something that is sorely lacking in Hawai'i. Their dishonest high jinks could not stand the light of day and, finally, we have a major positive change in the pet quarantine system that will make it much easier for everyone to travel back and forth to these Islands.
Were feelings hurt and sensibilities offended during the process? Yes. Would the needed change have occurred without this confrontation? No way.
In the same vein, the article also criticizes me for supporting an extreme "Three Strikes and You're Out" law. Using the same misleading tactics as the opponents of quarantine reform, Polhemus throws up bogus objections to that tried and proven reform, wrongly suggesting that shoplifters would be going to jail for life and that our crowded prisons could not handle the strain of more prisoners.
His overwhelming concern for the physical comforts of incarcerated, violent, career criminals instead of the safety of Hawai'i's residents is, at best, misplaced. His claim that "Three Strikes" only benefited California jail builders is completely wrong.
Crime in California has dropped by a third since the passage of the three-strikes law in 1994. Homicides were down 50 percent during the first four years after the law's passage. Return to jail by released inmates has also dropped 25 percent. There was a documented exodus of repeat offenders out of California. This reduction in crime, accompanied by a "thug boycott" of California, meant that no new prisons were needed since 1994.
Now, is that the kind of change that might be worth discussing in Hawai'i? Will it be labeled confrontational and abrasive to point out the inaccuracies of Polhemus' opposing arguments?
Polhemus, after condemning us for implying dishonesty on the part of others, then hypocritically attempts to discredit me by bringing up the controversy that engulfed me as insurance commissioner of California in 2000.
Yes, something went wrong with the disbursement of money from independent charitable foundations set up by department attorneys to handle money from settlements reached with insurance companies involved in the 1994 Northridge, Calif., earthquake, one of the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history. The job of coordinating the activities of these foundations was delegated to a trusted deputy who betrayed me and the people of California by stealing money for himself. He has since pleaded guilty for his crimes. Political enemies seized on this golden opportunity to undermine my reputation and divert attention from my department's solid accomplishments. The political controversy that ensued made it impossible to continue functioning in office.
Despite all the white-hot, partisan rhetoric and lurid allegations, a careful examination by the authorities showed no wrongdoing on my part, and the investigation was publicly ended more than a year ago. This is not just "claimed" by me, as Polhemus states, it is documented fact. In addition, he neglected to mention that the settlements that ignited so much controversy have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional money going to Northridge claimants, making it one of the biggest insurance settlements ever negotiated by any California insurance commissioner.
The courts also have upheld the settlements as legal, equitable and similar to settlements negotiated by the state attorney general. Finally, all civil litigation against me, and these settlements ginned up by my trial-lawyer opponents, have been summarily dismissed by the courts.
Hawai'i is a kind and caring place with a unique culture. My family loves the more tranquil way of life, and we have made a new home here. It is in our nature to be involved, and we will continue to speak out on issues we care about.
Being respectful and collaborative also is in our nature, and we are eager to work with all parties if we see situations where our talents might help solve challenges facing Hawai'i. But Hawai'i's residents should not shun vigorous — and, especially, honest — debate. Do we want Hawai'i to be more like California?
No. We just want to be part of making Hawai'i an even better place to live.
