Letters to the Editor

Modern foibles testify to Wright brothers' feat

I have to laugh; we've explored the moon and now we have a probe on its way to Mars, yet we can't get a replica of the Wright brothers' airplane to fly.

But, that's not the funny part. The funny part is that 25 years ago on the 75th anniversary of the first flight, we failed to fly a replica plane.

I was there with friends and a camera ready to record the event in Kill Devil Hills, N.C. It was cold, it was windy, just like on that first day in 1903. I was holding my breath with anticipation knowing that it could fly, it should fly. But, it didn't fly. Two attempts were made and it wouldn't fly.

Fearing possible damage to the delicate airplane, the promoters decided against a third attempt. The crowd was disappointed, but we laughed and cheered as we applauded the pilot. The experience put into perspective what the Wright brothers were up against; can you imagine where we would be today if they had given up?

We just might have to bring back van cams

Your editorial and James Roller's thoughtful letter propose some solutions for the continuing tragedy and loss of life caused by speeding. You overlook one solution that did work — the despised and hated van cams. Yes, everyone whined, everyone hated them, but they worked.

Shortly after the van cam program started, drivers suddenly started driving a lot slower and a lot more civilly. If driving slower saves lives, then that is always a good thing, even if it bruises the egos of those who feel they have a god-given right to speed and drive dangerously. Roller is right. Crushing fines and strict enforcement for a start.

Kudos for supporting Big Island rural health

The state Hawai'i Rural Health Association, the state Office of Rural Health and the Hawai'i Island Rural Health Association send a heartfelt thank you to all who attended and supported the Hawai'i Rural Health Association 2003 Annual State Conference, "Rural Health at Work in Communities," hosted on the Big Island.

Your evaluations reflected your appreciation of the array of presenters showcasing what rural health associations have done, are doing and will continue to do for you and your community. All aspects of our state (culture, economy, education, science and technology) are interdependent to the health of our communities. Your continued participation is essential in nurturing collaborations to promote healthy communities.

Special thanks to the sponsors who made this successful event possible: Earl and Doris Bakken Foundation, Hawai'i Community College (Rural Development Project), Hawai'i County Office of Aging, Hawaii Electric Light Co., Hawaii Medical Services Association, the state Department of Health's Injury and Prevention Control Program, the state Office of Rural Health and the University of Hawai'i-Manoa's John A. Burns School of Medicine.

Widespread composting just may be way to go

Regarding Vincil Wayne Hazelbaker's Dec. 16 letter, I totally agree about composting our waste material on farm land, unused state land and private lands to produce humus to enrich the soil. It would help if each of us could compost our own waste material in our own yards with the proper guidelines. We will see how well our plants will grow.

Relying only on commercial fertilizers will eventually leach the soil and contaminate our water system. It would help educate the public if our newspapers, magazines, radio, television and educational programs in schools show people how to compost waste material and how each individual can help.

I hate to envision our future generations of children and adults living on landfills. It is not healthy.

Story more an editorial masking itself as news

Your Dec. 19 front-page story about the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barring the illegal detention without counsel of Jose Padilla brands the action as a "blow against the war on terror."

However, this amounts to nothing more than an editorial masking itself as news. It's entirely possible that Padilla was up to no good, but he is entitled to the legal protections of the Sixth Amendment like any other American citizen. This court ruling is an important first step to overturning some of the many unconstitutional laws enacted after 9/11.

Let electricity bills be responsibility of schools

In your analysis of the Cooper-Ouchi Report on state education costs, you correctly observed that the cost of electricity at schools should not be considered as central office costs.

These costs should be considered school costs to properly reflect the division of costs between schools and the central office.

However, there is another more compelling reason why these costs should be decentralized to where they are incurred.

Past efforts to reduce these costs through conservation and installation of energy efficient equipment at the schools have been less than successful. This is because any savings in electricity costs brought about by efforts at the school level go to the central office, not the school where the savings are achieved. Human nature guarantees that this approach will not work.

This problem could be easily solved by transfer of money to pay electricity bills to the schools. Empower the school principals to manage their costs and keep any monetary savings that are achieved by their conservation efforts.

This would be a win for the schools, for the taxpayer and for the environment.

Openness in reviewing Senate rules applauded

The state Senate, with Senate Resolution 147, appointed a special committee to review Senate rules on decision making by Senate standing and conference committees. This, in itself, was a hopeful sign, but the committee went further and scheduled not only hearings on the resolution itself, but followed it with a hearing on its draft report a month later.

This unprecedented openness in reviewing Senate rules gave the public the opportunity to identify rules and practices that they considered detrimental to the democratic process in developing state policies.

With reasoned and detailed discussion, the committee's report defines the problems as reported by some of the senators and by the public, and proposes certain amendments to the current rules for consideration and discussion by the whole Senate.

We view the top issue, the much-maligned "chair veto" in conference committee bills that goes against the principle of majority rule, as taking away the right of residents of each district to equal voice in the Legislature. We understand the need for giving certain leaders the powers needed to maintain order and to organize the body to ensure that the people's business is completed on time. But on all votes that determine whether the bills advance toward final adoption or not, every legislator's vote should carry the same weight.

Our one disagreement to the draft report was its justification for the deferral of bills by standing committee chairs, which essentially kills those bills without the votes of the committee members. Much to our delight, the final report addresses our concerns and proposes amendments that are acceptable as a first step.

Our hope is that the committee's openness continues in the Senate when the members review the committee's proposals and consider amending its rules.

Portrayal of HPD settlement misleading

As a 30-year veteran of the Honolulu Police Department, I have demonstrated through my actions, not just my words, my deep respect for and loyalty to the department and its many dedicated police officers.

Anyone who questions my loyalty has not worked with me, seen my performance appraisals or sat through the 80-plus depositions in my lawsuit against HPD wherein not one person identified unethical conduct by me (except for one officer I have accused of misconduct, who accused me of smoking in the office after hours).

It is my loyalty to the department and to the people of this state that compelled me to file my lawsuit, and to write this response to Chief Lee Donohue's Dec. 17 letter.

Violations in CIU

I filed the lawsuit to bring to light an unacceptable situation. It is well known in the department that the chief's loyalty is limited to a select group of individuals, including his son. Some of his select group include the Criminal Intelligence Unit officers I have identified in my lawsuit as having violated the rights of an indicted defendant, having jeopardized a federal case against a high-profile defendant and as having inappropriately close relationships with organized crime.

These CIU officers, to gather intelligence to assist a friend who was associated with organized crime (and also indicted), after being told by the U.S. attorney's office and FBI not to meet with a federally indicted co-defendant without her counsel present, went ahead and interviewed her surreptitiously (there is no HPD report or paperwork regarding this interview).

After I learned that the interview had taken place, I informed the FBI and U.S. attorney's office. It was the right thing to do, and I do not regret it.

When the U.S. attorney's office demanded a complete tape of the interview, these same CIU officers turned over a redacted copy without identifying it as such. The truth about how these officers tried to "doctor" the tape before turning it over is all part of the record of my case. Within weeks of my whistleblowing, I was transferred from CIU for not being "faithful to (Capt. Milton Olmos) and the chief."

My job is to "understand" (and engage in) the cultivation of good intelligence from reliable sources, including persons associated with "the criminal element." Unlike the people identified in my lawsuit, however, I do not believe that an effective intelligence officer needs to break the laws to enforce them.

Taxpayers lose

Chief Donohue continues to defend these individuals and the way they gather intelligence, at great cost to the taxpayers and, ultimately, to the public, the same public he is sworn to protect.

The chief says he and the others did nothing wrong; yet the city and its insurers paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay me for the violations of my rights, and the city, with the help of the chief's lawyers, spent an additional tens of thousands of dollars to keep the records of my case sealed from public view.

In fact, even after the settlement the city continues to pay lawyers to keep the facts of my case secret. The chief has not requested unsealing these records, even though it would mean the public seeing the facts and determining for itself who is telling the truth.

Goal accomplished

My decision to agree to the settlement was a very difficult one, but I believe my main goal behind filing the lawsuit has been accomplished: bringing public attention and scrutiny to conduct within CIU.

The chief's portrayal of the settlement is both self-serving and misleading. Donohue and Olmos were dismissed from the lawsuit in their individual capacities only as part of the overall settlement, including the payment of monies, just as the city will ultimately be dismissed.

It is unfortunate that the emphasis here is to spin the case rather than confront the problem. Most importantly, there is no part of the settlement that prohibits me from returning to CIU, and the chief has not been truthful on this count either.

Despite this obvious posturing, my respect for and loyalty to the department and the public have only been strengthened by this experience and the support and encouragement other good law enforcement officers have given me throughout this litigation. I sincerely thank them, and repledge my continuing loyalty to them, as well as to the public I am sworn to protect.