Kau residents spoke loud and clear to interviewers from James Kent and Associates. They told of threats and intimidation connected to the development dispute at Punaluu Black Sand Beach. But apparently six of the nine Hawaii County Council members don’t want those voices to be heard.

Kent representative, Kevin Preister presented his report to the Hawaii County Council Sept. 19. The report was commissioned by Mayor Harry Kim and approved by the Council at a July 25 meeting in hopes of bringing about “mediation.” It contains the results of 551 confidential talk story interviews of Kau residents conducted between Aug. 11 and Sept. 7 and, after suggesting several avenues for mediation of the Punaluu dispute.

Read the report here: Kau Listening Project Report

Kau has a decades-long history of blocking development proposals. The Kent report shows that only about 20 percent of Kau residents are ready to accept development at Punaluu without question. Another 20 percent are against development under any conditions and 60 percent are willing to discuss the possibilities. It should be easy for anti-development activists to win public support. But ironically, the threats and intimidation interviewees describe as coming not from the developer and his supporters but from Kau Preservation, Inc (KPI).

KPI purports to be anti-development, but has presented its own plans for extensive construction at the site. KPI earlier spearheaded unsuccessful efforts to take Punaluu kuleana plots adjacent to property owned by Kau Preservation leaders Winifred Pele Hanoa and Ralph Palikapu Dedman. Dedman is a convicted drug dealer.

To see Dedman's record, go to Ralph Dedman Criminal Report

KPI’s threats were not just directed at Kau residents. According to the report, leaders of Kau Preservation, Inc. warned their followers not participate in the interviews. The report goes on to say Kent and Associates personnel were told to “stay away” from a taxpayer-funded festival controlled by Kau Preservation. At the last minute, two Kau Preservation leaders did meet with Kent and Associates interviewers, giving comments which seem to confirm the dozens of detailed stories of fear and intimidation contained in Section Five of the report. (pgs. 76-94) Condemning the report in testimony before the Hawaii County Council Sept. 19, Hanoa claims, “No one has ever personally threatened Kau people. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald is basically printing false accusations, and the Kau police department has no history of Kau Preservation of being accused of harassment. I'm tired of being accused of being the bad guy.”

Link to Sept. 15 Hawaii Tribune Herald article here: http://tinyurl.com/2mrr2e

Contradicting Hanoa, the report explains: “There were over 15 stories of physical and mental intimidation and violence that were related to the field team. These stories have been sent to the proper authorities.” (p 91) The Kau Preservation Web site even demands the home of one of its opponents be bulldozed. http://www.kaupreservation.org/id1.html (then scroll to bottom)

In denouncing Kent, KPI allies admitted that the report was damaging. Council member Angel Pilago, PASH suit plaintiff, gave the Kent report highest praise of all: "You've done more damage in the last few months than in many, many years."

Puna councilmember Emily Naeole, deeply involved in the 1990s Puna anti-geothermal protests led by Ralph Dedman: "To me, this is crap.”

Councilmember Bob Jacobson, sponsor of Kau Preservation’s resolution 169-07, which in original form would have taken the kuleana plots of Pele Hanoa’s neighbors: "I'm amazed that you printed all that ….This is just paper to be recycled."

Stacey Higa, mayoral candidate and head of the Council’s old-boy “Hilo faction” said, “This (report) doesn’t heal the community.”

“Heal the community” has been used in previous Council testimony and public hearings as what some say is a code word for “submit to Kau Preservation Inc’s demands.”

Pilago, Naeole, Jacobson, and Higa were joined in condemning the report by Brenda Ford, and Donald Ikeda. Only Council chair Pete Hoffman, and council members Dominic Yagong and J Yoshimoto had anything good to say about the report.

Faced with claims that he was lying or slanting the report, Preister said he “stakes his professional reputation” on the truthfulness of the report’s account of the 551 Kau interviews. Firing back at the Council’s KPI supporters, he said, “For you as leadership to not recognize dysfunction in the family ….” He did not finish the sentence.

KPI’s Council supporters Pilago and Naeole apologized for claiming the Kent Report statements were a false account of the interviews. Instead the Council opponents of the report claimed it did not conduct any "mediation." Preister pointed out that his contract does not ask him to conduct mediation. The report does in fact present avenues and methods for breaking down the fear and intimidation created by Kau Preservation. But the Council is split 6-3 in favor of silencing Kau residents.

After hearing the report, the Council voted 5-3-1 to approve resolution 169-07 allegedly to negotiate purchase of 150 acres at Punaluu. KPI testimony before the Council and comments by Councilmember Jacobson suggest the real push to take the land may come from the office of Hawaiian Affairs, not Hawaii County. OHA has put Ralph Dedman’s Pele Defense fund in charge of managing their recent acquisition at Wao Kele O Puna. As a result of Dedman’s anti-geothermal protests, the 20,000-plus acre site on the slopes of Kilauea was transferred to OHA ownership. Electricity that could have come cleanly from hot rocks under the earth is produced instead by burning oil and coal. This places anti-geothermal protesters among the state’s largest sources of air pollution.

Preister’s findings testify to the condition of public hearings in Hawaii. “Formal meetings don’t work for two reasons: They are not part of the cultural practices of much of the population, and the disruptive tactics by the few have made people feel unsafe. … the tactics of Kau Preservation leadership created fear among the citizens for their safety, and a reluctance to go to formal meetings where confrontation rather than talk story is routine.”

The report notes there is no effort yet to complete the Kau Community Development Plan and suggests a modified method of conducting community meetings. It concludes: “It must be stressed that this process is designed to create safety for participants so that final choices represent the best possible course of action for the greatest number of people. From the chat sessions, to the neighborhood sessions, and particularly at the regional meetings, facilitators must protect against the domination by the few. Facilitators can be trained about how to respectfully listen and take input from all and not allow any one individual to monopolize the group or pressure its members to act in a certain way. In this way, the democratic process is strengthened.”

Preister explained: “It is difficult to tell the truth.”

Andrew Walden is the publisher and editor of Hawaii Free Press, a Big Island-based newspaper. He can be reached via email at mailto:andrewwalden@email.com

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

Guest Commentary...