With less than three weeks left until the filing deadline, the latest Office of Elections Candidate Filing Report of Friday May 18, makes for interesting reading and rife speculation.

At the top of the ticket for the County is the Mayor’s race and the contenders so far remain unchanged.  Derek Kawakami, Debra Kekaualua, Leonard Rapozo Jr., Melvin Rapozo, and Clint Yago have all pulled papers and filed.

Councilmember and former Mayor JoAnn Yukimura who has announced her candidacy for this seat, and whose signs have been popping up around the island, has not yet taken out nomination papers to run.   All candidates have until June 5th to formally file their nomination papers.

Kauai Senator Ronald Kouchi and Kauai County Prosecutor Justin Kollar are both in the middle of 4 year terms and not up for re-election.

The list of candidates for the Kauai County Council continues to grow.  Twenty-four individuals have “pulled papers” indicating an interest in running, with fourteen of these (indicated in bold) having “filed” indicating they are in active campaign mode.

Dominic Acain, Arthur Brun, Bob Cariffe, Mason Chock Sr., Felicia Cowden, Bill Decosta, Norma Doctor Sparks, Luke Evslin, Victoria Franks,  Richard Fukushima, John Hoff, Cecelia Hoffman, Shaylene Iseri, Joseph Kaauwai Jr., Ross Kagawa, Arryl Kaneshiro, Kipukai Kualii, Nelson Mukai, Wally Nishimura, Adam Roversi, Roy Saito, Shirley Simbre-Medeiros, Milo Spint and Harold Vidinha.

Projecting forward, the field of Kauai County Council candidates is destined to be a large one.  With fourteen candidates having already filed, plus the high likelihood that all  incumbents (in italics) will eventually file, translates to 17 confirmed candidates with 17 days still remaining for new candidates to jump in.  Clearly the fact there are 3 “empty seats” up for grabs due to the departure of three incumbents, continues to motivate new candidates and this in my opinion is a good thing.

For the State House of Representatives, the three incumbents: District #14 Nadine Nakamura, District #15 James Tokioka and District #16 Daynette “Dee” Morikawa are so far running unopposed.  Most students of government and politics would say that competition is a good thing, and it is likely that at least one of these incumbents will have a serious challenger.

The final day for filing papers as a candidate in any and all races is not until June 5, and consequently all of the above is subject to change.

There remains a sense of dissatisfaction among many with the candidate choices available so far.  This feeling seems strongest among those citizens concerned about the impacts of unrestrained growth.  The unrelenting traffic, the astronomical rents and the crowded beach parks are constant reminders of the unavoidable impact the visitor industry has on our island.  Yet there is little mention of this issue by most candidates, let alone proposals for potential solutions.  The “M word” is avoided like the plague with incumbents and challengers alike sticking to the premise that there is little the County can do and that a moratorium on growth is outside the realm of County options.

There are of course options the County could pursue to aggressively address all three core issues of traffic, affordable housing and degrading public facilities at our beach parks.  There are also strategies the County could pursue to limit growth, based on the availability of infrastructure and thus force new growth into existing urban areas.

These are not new problems but they have now reached a tipping point, where the publics frustration is at a peak, and where political action is therefore possible.  In the world of public policy and politics, most would say the issue of growth management is “ripe” for political action.  Actually, it is over-ripe and will soon begin to reek with the odor of rotting vegetables.  I digress.

This ripeness of the issue presents an opportunity for new candidates especially, to distinguish themselves.  Those who are willing to discuss the issue and who demonstrate a willingness to consider the tough choices necessary to begin managing our islands growth, are in my opinion the candidates to watch and support.

Election years always represent an opportunity for change.  Now is the time when residents must obtain commitments from those seeking their votes.  Now is the time for residents to frame the debate, force a public discussion on the issues that matter most to us, and then select those candidates, committed to working on solutions.

The challenges and impacts of seemingly unrestrained growth compounded with an infrastructure that is woefully inadequate, must become the defining issue of this election.  Trust me on this one.  When the people lead, government will follow.

The passage yesterday of SB3095CD1 marks an auspicious moment in the legislative history surrounding pesticide regulation in Hawaii. Now on its way to the desk of Governor David Ige, SB3095CD1 contains a “first in the nation” ban on the use of chlorpyrifos, phased in gradually over 4 years.  Chlorpyrifos is a Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP), a neurotoxin that was originally developed to be used as a nerve gas in World War II and is highly dangerous to children and pregnant women. Chlorpyrifos is used through-out Hawaii in industrial agriculture.  In addition the measure contains a statewide RUP reporting mandate and other important protections.

These two components, a ban on chlorpyrifos and robust reporting of RUP usage alone represent a dramatic improvement to existing Hawai’i laws.

A bit of history and context is in order.  As most who follow this issue already know, after several years of mounting health concerns, school children getting sick, sea urchins dying and community lawsuits being filed, on June 26, 2013 Bill 2491 was placed on the Kauai County Council’s agenda.  Bill 2491 required the disclosure of RUP’s, buffer zones around sensitive areas, and a health and environmental impact study. In the interest of full disclosure, Bill 2491 was co-introduced by myself and Councilmember Timothy Bynum (now deceased).

Without exaggeration, Bill 2491 generated more testimony and more public participation in the process than any measure ever proposed in the history of Kauai County. It was passed into law with a 6 – 1 vote by the Council, then vetoed by Mayor Bernard Carvalho and then overrode by the Council, becoming Kauai County Ordinance 960 on November 16th, 2013.

Rather than comply with the new County ordinance requiring full disclosure of their RUP use and modest buffer zones around schools and other sensitive areas, the large chemical companies based on Kauai at the time (Syngenta, DOW Chemical, DuPont and BASF) quickly filed a law suit against Kauai County.

On August 25, 2014 the courts struck down Kauai County Ordinance 960 with U.S. District Court Judge Barry M. Kurren ruling that it unlawfully preempts state law governing pesticide use.

“This decision in no way diminishes the health and environmental concerns of the people of Kauai,” Kurren wrote. “The Court’s ruling simply recognizes that the State of Hawaii has established a comprehensive framework for addressing the application of restricted use pesticides and the planting of GMO crops, which presently precludes local regulation by the County.” – Civil Beat.

Following passage of the Kauai Bill 2491 on November 16th, 2013, – Hawaii County (via County Council action) on December 5, 2013 and Maui County (via citizen ballot initiative) on November 4th, 2014 both also passed County ordinances attempting to regulate the large agrochemical/GMO companies.  The industry quickly filed suit against both Hawaii County and Maui County as well, with the Courts eventually ruling that the Counties did not have jurisdiction in this area.

Thus began the past 4 years of effort attempting to pass state legislation regulating the use of Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP’s), culminating yesterday in the vote to approve SB3095CD1.

For those of us who have been working hard on this issue over the past 5 years or more, yesterday’s vote marks a significant milestone in our efforts.

SB3095CD1 contains 6 main components:

1A ban on the use of the RUP and neurotoxin chlorpyrifos. This ban takes effect immediately however temporary permits will be granted allowing continued use for up to 4 years, at which time no new permits will be issued and no chlorpyrifos will be allowed in the State of Hawaii. The practical expected impact of the ban’s 4 year implementation will be a gradual decline in use, culminating in a complete ban after 4 years.

2The mandatory statewide reporting of annual RUP use to the State Department of Agriculture (SDOA) that includes: RUP product used, amount of RUP used, and the date and location of the usage.

3Annual Public Summary Reports of statewide RUP usage by County reporting the types, amounts and area of the applications.

4A prohibition against using RUP’s within 100 feet of school grounds during school hours (excluding termite fumigation).

5The SDOA will conduct a pesticide drift monitoring study to evaluate pesticide drift at three schools within the State.

6Approximately $700,000 in general funds are being added to the SDOA annual budget, plus two additional positions. These are intended to support the increased pesticide oversight and the drift monitoring studies.

While many of us who have been working hard on this issue for the past years would have preferred various aspects to be stronger, it is without question that the sum total of the above components represent a strong and meaningful step forward in securing increased health and environmental protections.

The ban on chlorpyrifos alone will have tangible health implications and the statewide reporting provisions have the potential to generate long term, consistent data necessary for those seeking to research the issue to determine specific impacts. The summary data by County will allow residents the information needed to make a more informed decision as to where they choose to live, work, play or go to school. Clearly the 100 feet buffer zone around schools is inadequate and must be expanded in the future but it is more than we have in place now, which is zero. The drift monitoring study if done correctly has the potential to yield much needed data but for its results to be credible will require significant forethought and careful planning. Of course the additional financial and personnel resources provided to the SDOA will be hugely helpful in their efforts to properly manage the use of RUP’s while protecting health and the environment.

The multi year effort needed to accomplish the task of bringing SB3095CD1 this far has been daunting and there are many, many people that deserve to be thanked and recognized for their work.

Most of all we must thank the people in the community who stepped up to tell their stories year after year, share their concerns and insist that lawmakers do what they were elected to do: keep bad things from happening to the community. Without their hard work and persistence, we would not have reached this milestone in protecting the health of our families and the fragile environment in which we live.

Also, I would be remiss if I did not recognize and thank Representative Dee Morikawa, as this would not have happened without her personal effort and diligent work that resulted in bringing the various stakeholders and legislators together.

Gary Hooser     http://www.garyhooser.com

The 2018 legislative session is coming to a close with the final day of the legislative session being Thursday May 3, or “sine die”.

Most of the thousands of Bills that started the process in January are by now already dead, having never been scheduled for a hearing, and or being heard and then deferred into oblivion. Those measures that remain alive have two paths open to them: (1) the House or Senate can “Agree” to a particular draft, put an end to further discussions and amendments, have final votes on the floor and send the approved Bill to the Governor for approval or veto, or (2) the House or Senate can “Disagree” and force the Bill into what is called a Conference Committee, for further discussion and possible amendment, or to simply die a quiet death in the back rooms of the Capitol.

At the risk of increasing the readers cynisism and distaste for politics and the political lawmaking process, my thought is that a dose of reality is in order.

Any time a Bill is passed into law, someone’s ox is gored. There is always some stakeholder, some interest group, or some individual constituent who does not like the Bill and wants it killed.

Consequently, these next 20 days represent the final home stretch when attempts are made to kill various Bills, while advocates scramble to protect those same measures and get them passed into law.

Of course, legislators who are working on behalf of those interests groups seeking to kill the various measures also face repercussions if they are “found out” and it is discovered that they are responsible for killing a Bill that so many have worked so hard to pass. Needless to say the process is fraught with political land-mines and as a result there is endless creativity in the manner in which something is killed, and the degree of stealth and denial of the legislative assassin.

Here is a brief list of common ways a legislator might attempt to kill a Bill and come out smelling like a rose, or at the minimum with plausible deniability.

1) The Poison Pill – The introduction of amendments framed as “strengthening the Bill” but in effect will make the measure unpalatable to the greater majority, and thus cause the Bill to die. In this case, the legislator can/will claim that they were a champion and only trying to support the cause, but in reality they were sabotaging the Bill and attempting to gain favor with both opponents and advocates.

2)  The Floor Fallacy – A commitment to vote in support of a measure “if it gets to the floor”. The unvarnished truth is that 95% of Bills that get to the floor will pass. The support that is needed from legislators is help in “getting it to the floor”, as once it does get there almost everyone will vote in support. Many legislators will beg off with the rationale that “I’m not on the committee…” however each has a voice and each can speak out on the issue, lobby the committee chair, it’s members, and leadership of the body.

3)  Conference Committee –  Conference Committee is the final legislative destination where Bills that successfully navigate all the other committees in both the House and the Senate often end up. This “joint House/Senate committee” is where the “differences” between the “House and Senate versions” are supposed to be resolved.

ALL OF THE SERIOUS DISCUSSION THAT OCCURS IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IS DONE IN PRIVATE, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

* Because the discussions in Conference Committee are done behind closed doors, it is impossible to determine responsibility for any negative outcome.

* Any of the “Chairs” on either side (of which their could be 3 or 4 on each side (House/Senate), can block the process simply by not signing a hearing notice, thus not allowing a hearing to be scheduled.

* The “Poison Pill” strategy is often used here so those desiring to kill the measure can claim the high moral ground when they know perfectly well the opposing side will not accept the changes.

* There is no obligation by rule that the two sides must reach agreement, so either side can just continue to find areas to “disagree” and thus never reach a conclusion.

* Either the House or Senate leadership can simply refuse to appoint members to the conference committee, their position being “take it or leave it”.

* No public testimony is allowed. However, for those that have open lines of communications with the legislators, there are private and back door channels.

• The rules of the House/Senate indicate “Chairs shall provide 24 hours public notice for the first meeting of the Conference Committee…”. Once the first meeting is scheduled, “public notice” might be a little as a few hours or even less for subsequent meetings. This process effectively prohibits 1/2 of the state’s population who reside outside of Honolulu from participating in any meaningful way, as even a witness to the process and in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

Legal Note: The Hawaii State Constitution – Article 3, Section 12 states in part:

“Every meeting of a committee in either house or of a committee comprised of a member or members from both houses held for the purpose of making decision on matters referred to the committee shall be open to the public.” Obviously a process that gives only 24 hours notice and allows private meetings between legislators to discuss “decision making on matters referred to their committee” does not meet this provision of the Hawai’i State Constitution.

Further info:

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/docs/2018_Joint_House-Senate__Conference_Procedures.pdf