Dobelle refused to answer to his bosses

When one is earning $442,000 of public money, he should expect to be held to the $442,000 accountability level. The UH Board of Regents, a group of Hawai'i's finest citizens, are ultimately responsible to the taxpayers of Hawai'i and the university's students. They are not paid for their service. Our very reasonable system of accountability balances money against good sense to make the best decisions for the public.

President Evan Dobelle had bosses, and they were the regents of our university. He was not free to behave as he wished. The fact that he clearly avoided his evaluation meeting with the regents, a meeting scheduled months in advance and rescheduled to accommodate him, is pretty clear that he was at fault. How many meetings can any of us duck with our boss before we are fired also? If you're making $442,000 of taxpayer money, I think that you miss none.

Ten regents voted unanimously to fire him. Those 10 regents have the authority and responsibility to act in the best interests of the state. Attempting to blame the governor for this one is rather laughable if one simply examines the composition of our Board of Regents.

The renegotiated cost to taxpayers is $1.8 million. That is a lot of money, but is a small cost against the size and importance of our state's university system. Another viewpoint: This reflects how urgently the regents believed we had to be rid of him.

The regents acted with guts, knowing that President Dobelle might earn some misplaced sympathy.

Slow trucks should stay off the freeway

Regarding all the letters about traffic flow on the freeway: One matter about slow traffic has not really been addressed. I cannot understand why large trucks are allowed to use the freeway when they are unable to go even the minimum 40 mph.

I am not talking about oversize machinery being hauled around. I am, however, talking about average cement mixers and tractor trailers that c-r-a-w-l up the hills of the Moanalua Freeway and H-2 at 20 mph, sometimes in the fast lane. These vehicles should stay on H-1 or Kamehameha Highway. If they are doing a delivery to Moanalua/Red Hill, then they can go through Salt Lake. Otherwise, they should be off the freeway or given a citation.

Any vehicle doing 40 mph or less should, at the very least, stay out of the fast lane, heeding the signs that clearly state that slower traffic should stay to the right.

Arrogance typical from this City Hall

Your Aug. 14 editorial regarding the Ala Wai project says you are perplexed by the administration's reluctance to call a halt in the face of public furor. What's so perplexing about this?

This is typical of the arrogance that emanates from City Hall, from the mayor down to all his spokespeople. And it fits with his stated policy of making it as uncomfortable as he can for the motorist in an attempt to focus the conversation on his version of mass transit.

Both mayoral candidates have stepped forward in support of the residents of the affected area. Hopefully, whichever one is ultimately elected will insist on more thorough planning for projects such as this. Who knows, he may even be able to get the traffic lights synchronized while he's at it.

Mayoral candidates dodging real issues

It would appear that my vote is up for grabs, as neither mayoral candidate has answered questions concerning issues that I believe impact our community at the very fabric of our well-being: the war on drugs; the homeless epidemic; the unprecedented amount of mentally ill living among us; little hope, or a detailed plan, for conservation or recycling; the traffic nightmare we have found ourselves in.

Politicians are well groomed at the art of dodging real issues for which they have no answers.

I don't know about you, but all I see is the same old/same old that we endured last election. Is there none among us who really takes to heart the term "public servant"?

Let's hear Duke, Mufi on Natatorium issue

The City Council's idea of tearing down the deteriorating pool structure of the Waikiki War Memorial Natatorium makes more sense than the mayor's idea of repairing it.

It also makes sense to maintain the facade of the Natatorium, keeping faith with the World War I veterans. If the veterans were aware of the condition the Natatorium is in now, they would probably agree with the City Council's idea, not the mayor's.

I wonder where the two mayoral frontrunners stand on this issue. It would be interesting to learn what their thoughts are. As an independent voter, I would like to know.

Review of water book was not a diatribe

My comments on Lawrence Miike's book "Water and the Law in Hawai'i" were not a diatribe. They were a measured critical response to a book that's unsatisfactory for reasons I stated clearly in my review of July 18.

I am sorry to learn, though, that Miike was misled by his publisher. As someone who's dabbled in the book trade, I understand that publishers have a responsibility to promote vigorously each and every title they allow into print. Believing in their hype, however, is counterproductive. The result is often a hurt and disappointed author.

Miike refers to my response as "emotional." Unlike the reviewers who read the book in manuscript for the University of Hawai'i Press, I am not an expert on water law. I do, however, have a grasp of the key issues relating to the protection of our water resources. I have read the State Water Code that was cobbled together in 1987 and remain concerned about its shortcomings. Moreover, I am familiar with the actions of the state Water Commission and am not surprised that the Hawai'i Supreme Court has found it necessary to rebuke the commission for its decisions on the Waiahole Ditch dispute.

Finally, I think it's unfair of Miike to associate The Honolulu Advertiser with the views I expressed in my review. The views were my own. The Advertiser is capable of commenting on water issues in its own right.

Public-service ads could enlighten ignorant drivers

As the ongoing and intense debate on driving practices in Hawai'i suggests, different drivers have different agendas. Since moving to Honolulu 13 years ago, I have been struck by the sharp divide between remarkably inconsiderate drivers and overly cautious and polite drivers, both of whose viewpoints have been expressed in these pages.

But why is the determination of good driving left up to public debates by drivers with conflicting viewpoints about what constitutes good driving? Shouldn't it be determined by experts who are knowledgeable of both the laws and safe driving practices?

In fact, the cautious, polite and inconsiderate drivers are all frequently in violation of actual traffic laws, which they are apparently either ignorant of or don't understand the reasons for. For example, how many drivers know that they are supposed to pull out into an intersection when making a left turn at a traffic signal? When I first came here I thought it must be illegal because so few people followed the rule, which helps keep traffic flowing. I was astonished to see it on the driver's license exam.

Many, if not all, of our traffic problems are the result of people simply being uninformed about actual laws and safe driving habits. My solution: educate drivers about proper driving behavior with a series of televised public-service announcements sponsored by the appropriate state agencies. These could be in the form of humorous cartoons that illustrate the consequences of a particular improper practice. (Imagine a series of cars, driven by increasingly impatient drivers, piling up behind a car whose driver placidly waits at a traffic signal with his left turn signal on, refusing to pull into the intersection as the light changes to yellow.)

Viewers could be invited to send in their own suggestions and questions, which would be researched and answered by experts, then turned into ads, perhaps crediting the person who suggested it, to encourage community involvement. A companion Web site could also be created and announced in these ads.

Such publicity would engage the public while educating it about safe driving habits and, if widely aired, would dramatically improve traffic safety and decrease traffic congestion on our streets and highways. Most of all, it would reduce road rage (and editorial-page rage) between those with conflicting notions about "good driving."

Keep gambling out of Hawai'i

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal (July 19) refutes his allegations that Hawai'i is losing big money in revenues by not allowing legalized gambling and that gambling would create more employment. The editorial states: "The experience of states that have already legalized slots and casinos demonstrates that proponents tend to overestimate the economic benefits of gaming while underestimating the costs and unintended consequences. ... A 2002 report by Creighton University economist Ernest Goss found that 24 out of 57 counties in the U.S. experienced job losses as a direct result of casino development."

Tanouye downplayed the significance of "negative influences cited in the past" such as increased crime, "social ills" caused by gambling and "financial misfortunes of those addicted by gambling." The reason the Hono-lulu Police Department opposes legalized gambling is the very real prospect of increased crime.

To suggest that social ills caused by gambling can "be better treated with the revenues from gambling" makes no sense at all because it has been documented that social problems increase rapidly when legalized gambling is introduced to an area. And "financial misfortunes" would become rampant.

The Wall Street Journal editorial states, "Studies on the social costs of legalized betting have found that compulsive gamblers, upon whom casinos rely for 25 percent to 50 percent of their revenues, also tend to borrow money and not pay it back, commit credit card fraud and insurance fraud, kite checks and go bankrupt. It's been estimated that problem gamblers cost the U.S. economy around $80 billion per year."

Why should we have to establish enforcement agencies, as suggested by Tanouye, to control the myriad problems we would create ourselves by legalizing gambling?

Social gambling is permitted by law here. But Hawai'i would not benefit from an "attraction" like legalized gambling with its attendant problems, identified by Tanouye. Tourists and the majority of kama'aina don't want Hawai'i to become another Las Vegas. Support candidates who want to keep legalized gambling out of Hawai'i.