honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Sunday, June 20, 2004

Dobelle debacle all about politics

By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

In his provocative 1996 book, "Who Runs the University?" David Yount begins and ends with an intriguing quote from longtime university administrator Richard Takasaki.

Decision-making at the university, Takasaki pointed out, has its own unique quality. It is not "a matter of consensus in the collegial model, or a matter of direction as in the bureaucratic model, but a matter of negotiations, bargaining and conflict resolution through a political decision-making process."

Takasaki's description, Yount wrote, is perhaps the best answer possible to a question posed by then-U.S. Rep. Patricia Saiki:

"Who the heck runs the university?" Saiki once asked. "Is it the academic leadership? Is it the Board of Regents? Or is it the politicians downtown?"

A little consideration of those two quotes might go a long way toward explaining how the administration of UH President Evan Dobelle imploded last week with his brisk and very public firing by a unanimous Board of Regents.

At some point, the regents will come out with some kind of explanation of the reason they let Dobelle go. The speculation is that the answer will revolve around money and the way he spent it, on large salaries for his closest aides and on trips, parties and activities that left some of Manoa's more sober souls shaking their heads.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but more than once, it was pointed out that Dobelle drove a sleek and very expensive Porsche rather than the staid four-door Buick sedan or some such more appropriate for a university president.

But this is largely style. The underlying explanation for the Dobelle debacle is politics, pure and simple.

Whose politics, you ask? Everyone's.

All public universities are political to one degree or another. But UH has had a reputation, well-deserved, as being more political than most. In fact, it was observations on the distinctly political nature of the university by accrediting organizations that led directly to the so-called "autonomy" movement.

So, despite autonomy and a general recognition that UH would do better without excessive political meddling, politics remains at the center of both its opportunities and its troubles.

Part of this is wrapped up in modern Hawai'i political history. After statehood, with Democrats freshly and firmly in control of local politics, there was a determination to make things better for local folks who had been largely shut out of Island society.

A key focus was education. The late Gov. John Burns put a laser beam of attention on UH, promising to build its reputation and its capabilities so that Island youngsters would have an opportunity for a first-rate college education at home.

Money poured into the university, which happily accepted it along with the political attention it brought. So long as everyone was on the same page, the close relationship between the academic and political worlds hardly mattered.

Consider this: In those early days, the Legislative Reference Bureau, the "think tank" of the Legislature, was essentially a UH operation, staffed by university professors.

Town and gown were marching in the same direction.

But as the state and the university matured, there was a natural inclination on campus to break away from direct political control. The first snipping of the control strings began in the mid-1970s, when then-Gov. George Ariyoshi granted the university a measure of budget autonomy.

But politics was always there. After all, UH was too big a game to be left entirely alone by the powers that be.

As administrations came and went, key players — almost always Democrats — would move from the Capitol to the campus, where they would find useful employment and ways to keep a political eye on things.

One way in which the political world kept a hand in the academic world was through the Board of Regents. Whatever qualities they might have brought to the board, the majority of regents carried with them a measure of loyalty to the appointing governor.

So, when Gov. Linda Lingle had her chance to appoint regents, it was hardly surprising that many of her choices had ties not just to the Republican Party or the administration, but to her political campaign as well.

This was little more than continuation of a tradition.

Then into this situation steps Evan Dobelle.

While Dobelle was nominated for the job by a diverse selection committee, there was no question in anyone's mind that he came with strong — indeed, vital — political connections.

The most important, of course, was to Sen. Dan Inouye, whom Dobelle got to know while serving in the Jimmy Carter administration.

Along with longtime Inouye confidant Henry Giugni, Dobelle moved in the world of politics, protocol and fund-raising that makes Washington work.

Dobelle made no secret in Honolulu of the likelihood that those friendships and associations would pay off for the university as he worked to build both its physical and academic reputation.

The new president's strong Democratic Party connections were fine as far as they went, but things became a bit painful when the governorship awkwardly slipped into Republican hands.

Painful may be too mild a word. Dobelle made the decision (a decision he now says he regrets) to endorse Lingle's Democratic opponent, Mazie Hirono, in the waning days of the campaign.

That decision has been widely criticized, not only by outsiders such as accrediting committees, but by Dobelle's friends and supporters.

It royally irritated Lingle, who was pleased to tell reporters she hung up on Dobelle when he made a courtesy call to tell her of the pending endorsement.

There has never been a clear explanation of why Dobelle chose to take this political risk. He says he was attracted to Hirono as a forward-looking Democrat and, more importantly, as the first potential governor of Hawai'i who was a UH graduate.

Others speculate Dobelle was asked to make the gesture by power brokers within the Democratic Party, such as Inouye.

Whatever, the relationship with Lingle was soured.

It was in this context that the Board of Regents, now dominated by Lingle appointees, became increasingly critical of Dobelle and the way he handled his office.

The regents have insisted that their measure of Dobelle was not colored by politics, and one has to take them at their word.

They also insist they were not taking direction from Lingle or her staff. In fact, Lingle says, she had no advance word of the firing.

If that is the case, then the governor has a serious bone to pick with her appointees. It is almost inconceivable that someone on the board did not give the governor a heads-up that a decision of this magnitude was pending.

In politics, perception is a good part of reality.

And like it or not, the firing of Dobelle has heated up the perception, both here and across the country, that politics has become once again the driving force in University of Hawai'i affairs.

Dobelle will have to take some of the blame for this. He blazed into office full of energy and ideas but also clearly identified as a political persona.

The tougher task ahead will be for Lingle and the regents, soon to be almost all Lingle appointees.

They will have to find ways to demonstrate — to the academic community, to the community at large and even to academic circles elsewhere — that the University of Hawai'i is more than a political playground for competing power players.

Given the current circumstances, that will be a difficult sell but more than worth the effort.

Or, they could simply announce that, hey, the Democrats had it for 40 years, now it's our turn.

And that would be sad.

Jerry Burris is editor of the editorial pages of The Advertiser. You can reach him through letters@HonoluluAdvertiser.com.