World recognition was justly deserved

We should be very proud of Kawai Nui's new international designation.

The ladies of the League of Women Voters of the early '60s are due credit for Kailua's Kawai Nui Marsh purchase. They were instrumental in leading the fight to purchase the marshlands. We owe our thanks to them, as well as to the City Council members of that time, for their kokua and vision of this treasure not becoming a developer's paradise by purchasing this huge area for $1 million.

At that time, not all agreed that it was a bargain, but the ladies asked only that it be saved at that time, with further plans for the marsh to come much later. The main thing was to "hold the marsh" from any development. That was a huge sum of money in the early '60s.

We also owe our gratitude to Hawai'i's Thousand Friends and all of those who have joined since that time to continue the work that has made the designation of Wetland of International Importance, one of only 21 in the United States, under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty designed to identify and protect the world's most important wetlands.

It is a gift as well to O'ahu residents as a habitat for endangered species and providing protection of the many cultural sites. As time goes by, this rare area will also offer recreational and educational opportunities that were envisioned by its original sponsors. Please remember them with your gratitude as well.

Recycling center at UH works well

At the risk of overloading our favorite recycling site, I'd like to thank the people who operate the recycling program on the UH campus on Sundays (except this coming Sunday, due to commencement).

With our few cans/bottles, we minimize our wait time by separating and counting our containers before we get there. We then notify the helpful staff of our counts and we quickly (within five minutes) leave with our "loot."

Mahalo for permitting us to do our part in recycling in an efficient manner.

It looks as if Bush ploy will fall flat

There is hope.

It appears that the American public is rising up against George W. Bush's attempt to destroy the Social Security system, the most successful social program in the history of our young country.

Polls now show that most Americans do not want to overly burden their children and grandchildren, and do not want to deprive the working class of the safety net that is enjoyed by so many of our fellow Americans.

Most people, surveys show, do not want to let future generations gamble away their retirement in the stock market, where some win and some lose. If they invest and lose a third of what they would have paid into Social Security, they might not be able to live on the remaining two-thirds.

And many have suggested that it would be better to enact a new law making it illegal for Bush and others to "borrow" from the funds that have been paid into the Social Security system. After all, it is not the fault of those who have paid into Social Security (and who expect to have that as part of their retirement) that Bush has run up the record debts and record deficit spending.

Property tax bills are mailed twice a year

This is in response to a recent letter to the editor from Mr. George Horibata, who expressed his concerns about being charged a penalty and interest for making a late payment on his property tax bill. He stated that he would have paid the bill on time had he received the bill.

In speaking to Mr. Horibata, I reconfirmed that the address on his tax bill was correct and in fact this was the first bill he did not receive in over 10 years.

For many taxpayers, the real property taxes are paid by their mortgage company, but those who are responsible for paying their taxes directly should expect to receive their tax bills twice a year. Real property tax bills are mailed to property owners on or about Jan. 20 and July 20 of each year.

Taxpayers who do not receive their tax bills in a timely manner should call the Treasury Division or the Real Property Assessment Division and request a copy of their tax bill or simply ask for the tax amount due so that they can make the correct payment.

Consultation process at UH was flawed

The weeklong sit-in at Bachman Hall ended with the Save UH/Stop UARC Coalition asserting a crucial gain. This was an important step in the process to kill the proposal to establish a University Affiliated Research Center at UH. I have been involved in the movement to study and halt the project since early this year.

A main reason for the occupation was that the consultation process has been seen by many students, faculty and community members as flawed and insufficient. Interim President David McClain has indeed admitted that the provisional approval of a UARC by the Board of Regents last November was insufficient and premature. He has agreed to most of the coalition's demands.

Time constraints with the end of the semester and the real possibility that a UARC contract could have met final approval during the summer also contributed to the urgency to act. Given their concerns about classified military research, the coalition felt the only alternative in demanding accountability was to take tangible nonviolent action to publicize the issue.

The many involved remain steadfast in their resolve to ultimately end the UARC and bring real peace and justice to our university.

Others will be protected in 'Peter Boy' file release

We appreciate the media attention to the Department of Human Services' recent release of the "Peter Boy" records, which we hope will help to resolve this tragedy and prevent similar tragedies from happening.

In the May 3 Advertiser article ("Help offered on 'Peter Boy' case"), it says that we are redacting references to Peter Boy's siblings from these records. I want to clarify that we are also protecting the identities of others involved in this case.

By law, we must redact the names of foster parents and those who report abuse or neglect of children to our agency. We are also redacting the names of all department employees to protect them from vigilante justice. The one threat we received so far is enough.

Child Welfare Services staff have objected to their names being disclosed in these records on the Web site. Their concern is valid. The records may incite harassment of CWS social workers without all the facts being known.

CWS staff have a very difficult job. Every case involves tensions between keeping children safe from harm and preserving families and providing opportunities for rehabilitation. No one knows what will happen in the future, but CWS staff, like all participants in these cases, use their best judgment to evaluate and decide what is in the best interest of the child.

We intend to release the rest of the CWS records in the "Peter Boy" case by the end of this month. We hope these newly disclosed records will rekindle the pursuit of justice in this case and reveal the perpetrators, who have, for the past eight years, avoided prosecution, and others who may be hiding behind the past secrecy of these records to avoid accountability.

We also hope that this disclosure will provide valuable lessons to strengthen the state's child welfare system and better protect children from abuse and neglect.

Regent screening council needed

The April 28 editorial "Regent choice should be left to governor" failed to address the fact that the existing constitutional provisions that provide that regents are now appointed directly by the governor, subject to Senate confirmation, hark back to the time when the University of Hawai'i was a state agency required to deposit all of its revenues into the state general fund and when it was dependent on appropriated funds for its expenditures.

At that time, the UH president was a de facto member of the governor's Cabinet.

Some five years ago, the state Constitution was changed to provide autonomy for the UH system. This was one of the signal achievements of Dr. Ken Mortimer's presidency and gave the university its own legal personality, enabling it to raise its own funds and to enter into a public-private partnership, both with the state and with the private sector. The proposed constitutional amendment and enabling legislation reflect this important and new realty by making the governance of the university more representative of its constituencies.

The editorial states that this legislation "surely would hamstring the governor from freely imposing policy choices on the university through selection of regents." This analysis is entirely correct because the new legislation recognizes that the autonomy status of the university — as opposed to its previous status as a state agency — makes the imposition of policy by the governor on the university neither appropriate nor useful.

The enabling legislation for the constitutional amendment provides for an advisory council that will propose candidates for the Board of Regents to the governor. This council will include representatives appointed by the faculty, students and alumni, as well as the governor and the Legislature.

Although the chair of the Board of Regents has stated that the Association of Governing Boards "cautions against screening bodies that are composed of special interest representatives," in my view, as I have testified before the House and Senate, the screening board does not represent undesirable "special interests," but actually represents the vital interests of the university. If these interests are not represented, then whose interests? Surely not the political interests of the regents or the governor!

Furthermore, this legislation has received the strong endorsement and support from the organizations that represent the university faculty, students and employees, as well as the Faculty Retirees Association, and I believe that it will create a sense of ownership of the university among the UH stakeholders and interested parties.

It will also assist the governor in finding qualified candidates for the Board of Regents and, above all, will remove politics from the governance of the university.