Hawaii’s primary land-line telephone utility is going through some serious financial turbulence right now, and the public deserves a clear picture of what’s happening.

Unfortunately, nobody is championing that cause in the review of a proposal to take over the utility, now before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
Sandwich Isles Communications Inc. wants to buy Hawaiian Telcom Inc., and made a $400 million bid in competition with the phone company’s own $460 million reorganization plan.
The state Public Utilities Commission has maintained a standard practice of allowing companies to submit financial data under a protective order shielding it from view.
But how is the public to gauge the ability of Sandwich Isles, known primarily for service to Hawaiian homelands, to sustain the critical service of the statewide telephone utility?
Critics already question whether a firm with a customer base of 2,000 and dependent on heavy federal subsidies, as Sandwich Isles is, can serve Hawaiian Telcom’s 500,000 residential and business customers.
The Advertiser echoes this concern and has asked the commission to modify the protective order. There’s good cause: The PUC is bound by the state public records law.
The PUC should evaluate more carefully which data in the financial reports filed annually by utilities really need to remain confidential to protect the firm’s competitiveness, rather than issuing blanket protective orders.
And in bankruptcy court, a deal of this magnitude needs to be vetted with as much openness as possible.
Sandwich Isles president Albert Hee has said the company would publicize appropriate financial information if so ordered by the bankruptcy court.
But it’s troubling that Sandwich Isles, which wants to run a public utility, has been hesitant about making its records public up to this point.
What needs to happen is that the court and the commission take steps to enhance the transparency of the process, by amending the protective order and ensuring more public disclosure of financial information. While there may be a valid argument for the privacy of some financial data, there can’t be a blanket blackout.
At the very least, the commission must provide more information than was seen in the heavily redacted financial reports it did release. The public deserves better.