Sunday, May 5, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1884

    Introducing Hawaii Reporter's New Education Column-The Special Education Advocate

    0

    ”’Dear Parents:”’

    We all have hopes and dreams for our children. Then, the day comes when someone — perhaps a doctor or diagnostician, tells us that we must face reality, reduce our expectations and just accept that our child may never be “normal” due to his or her disability. At first we grieve and then we graciously accept whatever help is offered, apologetic that our child is a burden. It may be months or years later when we may discover that our child is not progressing and not getting needed help to achieve independence. Worse yet, we find out that the authority to which we entrusted our child knew all along that appropriate assistance was not being provided.

    That is when we learn to fight.

    We fight for our child’s right to a productive, happy life. The first step in the fight is knowledge. We research the disability; we seek out expert diagnoses and best practices. And then, armed with irrefutable evidence, we take this information to school or other government agencies to seek cooperation. When faced with uncooperative bureaucrats, we then learn about federal and state law, as well as the intricacies of navigating the special education maze.

    The Special Education Advocate is a collaboration of parents, advocates, doctors and attorneys to answer the daily questions parents and providers have about the ever-changing rules and regulations of state agencies and suggestions on how to advocate for any special needs child.

    The goal of the Advocate is not to be adversarial. The goal is better outcomes for children through parent education and assistance. We welcome all of your concerns as you join our online support group.

    Introducing Hawaii Reporter’s New Education Column-The Special Education Advocate

    0

    ”’Dear Parents:”’

    We all have hopes and dreams for our children. Then, the day comes when someone — perhaps a doctor or diagnostician, tells us that we must face reality, reduce our expectations and just accept that our child may never be “normal” due to his or her disability. At first we grieve and then we graciously accept whatever help is offered, apologetic that our child is a burden. It may be months or years later when we may discover that our child is not progressing and not getting needed help to achieve independence. Worse yet, we find out that the authority to which we entrusted our child knew all along that appropriate assistance was not being provided.

    That is when we learn to fight.

    We fight for our child’s right to a productive, happy life. The first step in the fight is knowledge. We research the disability; we seek out expert diagnoses and best practices. And then, armed with irrefutable evidence, we take this information to school or other government agencies to seek cooperation. When faced with uncooperative bureaucrats, we then learn about federal and state law, as well as the intricacies of navigating the special education maze.

    The Special Education Advocate is a collaboration of parents, advocates, doctors and attorneys to answer the daily questions parents and providers have about the ever-changing rules and regulations of state agencies and suggestions on how to advocate for any special needs child.

    The goal of the Advocate is not to be adversarial. The goal is better outcomes for children through parent education and assistance. We welcome all of your concerns as you join our online support group.

    Introducing Hawaii Reporter’s New Education Column-The Special Education Advocate

    0

    ”’Dear Parents:”’

    We all have hopes and dreams for our children. Then, the day comes when someone — perhaps a doctor or diagnostician, tells us that we must face reality, reduce our expectations and just accept that our child may never be “normal” due to his or her disability. At first we grieve and then we graciously accept whatever help is offered, apologetic that our child is a burden. It may be months or years later when we may discover that our child is not progressing and not getting needed help to achieve independence. Worse yet, we find out that the authority to which we entrusted our child knew all along that appropriate assistance was not being provided.

    That is when we learn to fight.

    We fight for our child’s right to a productive, happy life. The first step in the fight is knowledge. We research the disability; we seek out expert diagnoses and best practices. And then, armed with irrefutable evidence, we take this information to school or other government agencies to seek cooperation. When faced with uncooperative bureaucrats, we then learn about federal and state law, as well as the intricacies of navigating the special education maze.

    The Special Education Advocate is a collaboration of parents, advocates, doctors and attorneys to answer the daily questions parents and providers have about the ever-changing rules and regulations of state agencies and suggestions on how to advocate for any special needs child.

    The goal of the Advocate is not to be adversarial. The goal is better outcomes for children through parent education and assistance. We welcome all of your concerns as you join our online support group.

    Potholes in Paradise-June 26, 2003

    0

    I had the dubious privilege of being stuck in traffic today. The reason for the traffic jam was the City & County of Honolulu Pothole filling crew at work.

    This was truly an inspirational sight to behold.

    There were these two men, dressed in their reflective gear, each with a shovel in his hand. They were standing behind an extremely large dump truck. Each one very deliberately took a shovelful of asphalt, and expertly covered a hole with this asphalt.

    Both men then proceeded to pat the asphalt down to fill the hole, and to smooth the surface. Shovels and shoes were masterfully utilized to accomplish this feat.

    After finishing, the intrepid workers stepped back a few feet and admired their work. When they were certain their job was up to snuff, they loaded up their shovels and drove this very large dump truck down the street to the next set of holes.

    Like magic, the traffic disappeared. As I drove past their work area, the sound of fresh asphalt hitting the bottom of my car made me cringe. Heaven only knows what the underside of my car looks like.

    Do these workers, their supervisors or the City & County of Honolulu administrators really believe that these patches will still be in place after the next heavy rainfall? If they believe that, they also must also believe in the tooth fairy.

    When I grew up on the U.S. mainland (granted, a long time ago), repair crews used “hot patches” to repair the roads. Their repairs stuck for years through some very severe weather. If you drove over one of these repairs, there were no sounds of anything striking the underside of your car. Has anybody in the City & County ever thought of using the “hot patch” technique?

    Granted it is very old technology. However, training can be accomplished rather quickly and the tools required are simple and can be towed behind City & County dump trucks. This method also would ensure the same crews would not have to patch the same holes every few months. Using “Hot Patch” technology might even cut down on the number of employees doing this repetitive work. These workers could possibly be used for other work classifications.

    Could it be that by using better “patching techniques” they may even save taxpayers some money? What a concept.

    ”’Jack Schneider, owner of JS Services and Honolulu resident, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:jschn@lava.net

    Potholes in Paradise-June 26, 2003

    0

    I had the dubious privilege of being stuck in traffic today. The reason for the traffic jam was the City & County of Honolulu Pothole filling crew at work.

    This was truly an inspirational sight to behold.

    There were these two men, dressed in their reflective gear, each with a shovel in his hand. They were standing behind an extremely large dump truck. Each one very deliberately took a shovelful of asphalt, and expertly covered a hole with this asphalt.

    Both men then proceeded to pat the asphalt down to fill the hole, and to smooth the surface. Shovels and shoes were masterfully utilized to accomplish this feat.

    After finishing, the intrepid workers stepped back a few feet and admired their work. When they were certain their job was up to snuff, they loaded up their shovels and drove this very large dump truck down the street to the next set of holes.

    Like magic, the traffic disappeared. As I drove past their work area, the sound of fresh asphalt hitting the bottom of my car made me cringe. Heaven only knows what the underside of my car looks like.

    Do these workers, their supervisors or the City & County of Honolulu administrators really believe that these patches will still be in place after the next heavy rainfall? If they believe that, they also must also believe in the tooth fairy.

    When I grew up on the U.S. mainland (granted, a long time ago), repair crews used “hot patches” to repair the roads. Their repairs stuck for years through some very severe weather. If you drove over one of these repairs, there were no sounds of anything striking the underside of your car. Has anybody in the City & County ever thought of using the “hot patch” technique?

    Granted it is very old technology. However, training can be accomplished rather quickly and the tools required are simple and can be towed behind City & County dump trucks. This method also would ensure the same crews would not have to patch the same holes every few months. Using “Hot Patch” technology might even cut down on the number of employees doing this repetitive work. These workers could possibly be used for other work classifications.

    Could it be that by using better “patching techniques” they may even save taxpayers some money? What a concept.

    ”’Jack Schneider, owner of JS Services and Honolulu resident, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:jschn@lava.net

    From Mixed Moving Feelings to Withholding of Affections

    0

    “Suzanne Gelb Image”

    ”Good News, Why the Tears?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    My family and I are relocating out of state because my husband has a good job offer. There are a ton of good reasons for us to move. So why do I feel sad about moving?

    Sad

    Dr. Gelb says . . .

    Dear Sad:

    Many people experience a natural type of separation anxiety when making a transition such as moving. There are numerous losses that can accompany relocating and it is important to grieve them. That is purpose of the natural emotion “grief” — to deal with the losses that are experienced during a lifetime.

    Relocating symbolizes a type of loss, no matter how much one may be gaining personally or financially because of a move. There is still likely to be a sense of loss and separation and it is important to grieve such losses and celebrate the changes.

    ”Off Limits, Why No Hugs?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    My teen-age daughter is undemonstrative to our family. She won’t let us hug her but she is lovey dovey with her friends. We’re a loving family and my husband and I believe in discipline and rules, but there has never been abuse or anything like that. I know my daughter doesn’t like our rules, but why would she make her parents/family off limits like this?

    No Hugs

    Dr. Gelb says . . .

    Dear No Hugs:

    One way that some parents have handled the challenge you describe has been to not make an issue about the withholding. This is because they believed that the alternative, disapproval, was what the child was looking for. In a rebellious and punitive way, the child was trying to get at their parents and punish them for what s/he considered to be unfairness.

    It is important that parents not allow such withholding to undermine their confidence about their parenting standards. Soon the child is likely to realize that the withholding behavior is their loss, not their parents’.

    ”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

    ”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

    ”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

    From Mixed Moving Feelings to Withholding of Affections

    0

    “Suzanne Gelb Image”

    ”Good News, Why the Tears?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    My family and I are relocating out of state because my husband has a good job offer. There are a ton of good reasons for us to move. So why do I feel sad about moving?

    Sad

    Dr. Gelb says . . .

    Dear Sad:

    Many people experience a natural type of separation anxiety when making a transition such as moving. There are numerous losses that can accompany relocating and it is important to grieve them. That is purpose of the natural emotion “grief” — to deal with the losses that are experienced during a lifetime.

    Relocating symbolizes a type of loss, no matter how much one may be gaining personally or financially because of a move. There is still likely to be a sense of loss and separation and it is important to grieve such losses and celebrate the changes.

    ”Off Limits, Why No Hugs?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    My teen-age daughter is undemonstrative to our family. She won’t let us hug her but she is lovey dovey with her friends. We’re a loving family and my husband and I believe in discipline and rules, but there has never been abuse or anything like that. I know my daughter doesn’t like our rules, but why would she make her parents/family off limits like this?

    No Hugs

    Dr. Gelb says . . .

    Dear No Hugs:

    One way that some parents have handled the challenge you describe has been to not make an issue about the withholding. This is because they believed that the alternative, disapproval, was what the child was looking for. In a rebellious and punitive way, the child was trying to get at their parents and punish them for what s/he considered to be unfairness.

    It is important that parents not allow such withholding to undermine their confidence about their parenting standards. Soon the child is likely to realize that the withholding behavior is their loss, not their parents’.

    ”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

    ”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

    ”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

    Jones Act Stranglehold on Hawaii Must End-Three Bills Introduced in Congress Today Will Bring Relief to Hawaii Businesses, Consumers

    0

    ”’Congressman Ed Case (Hawaii, Second District) today introduced three bills in the U.S. House of Representatives to end a century of closed market cargo shipping to, from and within Hawaii. The bills would exempt Hawaii and other non-contiguous U.S. locations from the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, which mandates that cargo shipping between U.S. ports exclusively utilize U.S., not foreign, vessels. Below is the speech he made with the introduction of what he deemed the United States Noncontiguous Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, Hawaii Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, and the Hawaii Agriculture/Livestock Shipping Open Market Act of 2003.”’

    Today, I introduce three bills to end a century of closed market cargo shipping to, from and within my isolated home state of Hawaii, as well as the other noncontiguous locations of our country. In doing so, we will break the stranglehold on the economies and peoples of these exposed communities which results from just a few shipping companies controlling the lifeline of commerce upon which our communities absolutely depend.

    These bills all amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act. That federal law mandates that all cargo shipping between U.S. ports occur exclusively on U.S., not foreign, flagged vessels. (A similar federal law of the same vintage, the Passenger Vessels Services Act, provides the same mandate for cruise line and other passenger transit; the same arguments as drive these three bills apply there, but that is another effort, already commenced through limited federal exemptions.)

    The Jones Act was enacted in a protectionist era under the guise of preserving a strong national merchant marine. But today it is just an anachronism: most of the world’s shipping is by way of an international merchant marine functioning in an open, competitive market. And those few U.S. flag cargo lines that remain have maneuvered the Jones Act to develop virtual monopolies over domestic cargo shipping to, from and within our most isolated and exposed locales: our island and offshore states, territories and possessions.

    My Hawaii is a classic example. Located almost 2,500 miles off the West Coast, we import well over 90 percent of our life necessities by ocean cargo. There are no doubt plenty of international cargo lines who could and would compete for a share of that market. Yet only two U.S. flag domestic cargo lines – Matson Navigation and CSX Lines (fka Sea-Land) – operate a virtual duopoly over our lifeline.

    While they are nominally subject to federal regulation, the fact of the matter is that cargo prices have gone in only one direction – up, and fast – and it is indisputable that there is no downward market pressure which would otherwise result from meaningful competition. These accelerating cargo prices are not absorbed by the shipping lines, but passed through all the way down the chain, to the transporters, wholesalers, retailers, small businesses, mom-n-pops, and ultimately consumers, of all of the elementals of life, from food, to medical supplies, clothes, housing and virtually all other goods. The result is a crippling drag on an already-challenged economy and the very quality of life in Hawaii.

    The broadest, deepest effects of the Jones Act on Hawaii result from its impact on westbound imports. But Hawaii is an export location as well, in key products such as agriculture and livestock. Here the Jones Act also effectively stifles meaningful competition in getting those products to their primary markets on the U.S. Mainland. Because the producers of these products and all that rely for their own livelihood on their successful export have to eat inflated shipping costs, these export industries, which any economist knows are the ultimate key to any economy’s prosperity, are also crippled.

    Let’s take a concrete example: Hawaii’s once-prosperous ranching/cattle industry, which is so key to the economic health and the very lifestyle of so much of the rural Second District which I proudly represent. That industry depends on getting its product, young cattle, to West Coast pens and transportation hubs in a cost-efficient manner.

    There are foreign cargo carriers that specialize, through custom cattle ships and overall sensitivity and adjustment to rancher timetables and needs, in such transport, but the Jones Act outright excludes them from the Hawaii-Mainland market. As a result, Hawaii’s ranchers are reduced to two crippling, cost-magnifying options.

    The first is to ship their cargo by foreign carriers to Canada, where they have to go through a myriad of bureaucratic, cost-magnifying gyrations to get their product eventually to their U.S. markets. The second is to beg for the goodwill of the domestic carriers, to whom this is simply a hindrance rather than a major commitment, to ship directly to the West Coast.

    And it shows: most of the cattle are first shipped from Hawaii’s Neighbor Islands, where the bulk of the cattle industry is located, to Oahu, in small “cow-tainers,” where they sit for days in Honolulu Harbor awaiting the return to the Mainland of one of the massive cargo ships designed and utilized for quite another purpose. The result (besides associated higher costs): in-harbor cattle waste disposal challenges; higher in-transit cattle mortality; lower-weight cattle delivery to market. That’s what happens when you try to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

    These three bills say: enough is enough. The first, the United States Nonocontiguous Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, exempts all noncontiguous U.S. locations, including Hawaii, from the Jones Act. (Frankly I question whether we shouldn’t outright repeal the Jones Act, but I leave it to my colleagues from the contiguous U.S. to evaluate that option; the consequences are especially acute in the noncontiguous US and that is my focus.) The second, the Hawaii Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, exempts Hawaii. And the third exempts Hawaii agriculture and livestock. Essentially, the bills are intended to lay out the options from broad to narrow; we can get into the issue at any level and work our way up or down.

    Let me address directly some arguments sometimes offered up by the domestic shippers in defense of the Jones Act: that it contains important labor and environmental protections that would be lost upon repeal. Of course, the exact terms of repeal are up to this Congress and administration, and all three of these bills propose to retain these important protections. Specifically, these bills provide that all foreign shippers operating under Jones Act exemptions must comply with the same labor, environmental, tax, documentation, U.S. locus and other laws as are applicable to non-U.S. flag ships and shippers transiting U.S. waters today.

    Mr. Speaker, these long-overdue bills are of the utmost importance to the localities which have long borne the brunt of the Jones Act. Sometimes it is difficult to pierce the veil of longstanding custom and understanding to see what should instead be, but clearly the time for these measures is overdue. I urge their passage.

    Mahalo (thank you.)

    Jones Act Stranglehold on Hawaii Must End-Three Bills Introduced in Congress Today Will Bring Relief to Hawaii Businesses, Consumers

    0

    ”’Congressman Ed Case (Hawaii, Second District) today introduced three bills in the U.S. House of Representatives to end a century of closed market cargo shipping to, from and within Hawaii. The bills would exempt Hawaii and other non-contiguous U.S. locations from the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, which mandates that cargo shipping between U.S. ports exclusively utilize U.S., not foreign, vessels. Below is the speech he made with the introduction of what he deemed the United States Noncontiguous Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, Hawaii Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, and the Hawaii Agriculture/Livestock Shipping Open Market Act of 2003.”’

    Today, I introduce three bills to end a century of closed market cargo shipping to, from and within my isolated home state of Hawaii, as well as the other noncontiguous locations of our country. In doing so, we will break the stranglehold on the economies and peoples of these exposed communities which results from just a few shipping companies controlling the lifeline of commerce upon which our communities absolutely depend.

    These bills all amend the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act. That federal law mandates that all cargo shipping between U.S. ports occur exclusively on U.S., not foreign, flagged vessels. (A similar federal law of the same vintage, the Passenger Vessels Services Act, provides the same mandate for cruise line and other passenger transit; the same arguments as drive these three bills apply there, but that is another effort, already commenced through limited federal exemptions.)

    The Jones Act was enacted in a protectionist era under the guise of preserving a strong national merchant marine. But today it is just an anachronism: most of the world’s shipping is by way of an international merchant marine functioning in an open, competitive market. And those few U.S. flag cargo lines that remain have maneuvered the Jones Act to develop virtual monopolies over domestic cargo shipping to, from and within our most isolated and exposed locales: our island and offshore states, territories and possessions.

    My Hawaii is a classic example. Located almost 2,500 miles off the West Coast, we import well over 90 percent of our life necessities by ocean cargo. There are no doubt plenty of international cargo lines who could and would compete for a share of that market. Yet only two U.S. flag domestic cargo lines – Matson Navigation and CSX Lines (fka Sea-Land) – operate a virtual duopoly over our lifeline.

    While they are nominally subject to federal regulation, the fact of the matter is that cargo prices have gone in only one direction – up, and fast – and it is indisputable that there is no downward market pressure which would otherwise result from meaningful competition. These accelerating cargo prices are not absorbed by the shipping lines, but passed through all the way down the chain, to the transporters, wholesalers, retailers, small businesses, mom-n-pops, and ultimately consumers, of all of the elementals of life, from food, to medical supplies, clothes, housing and virtually all other goods. The result is a crippling drag on an already-challenged economy and the very quality of life in Hawaii.

    The broadest, deepest effects of the Jones Act on Hawaii result from its impact on westbound imports. But Hawaii is an export location as well, in key products such as agriculture and livestock. Here the Jones Act also effectively stifles meaningful competition in getting those products to their primary markets on the U.S. Mainland. Because the producers of these products and all that rely for their own livelihood on their successful export have to eat inflated shipping costs, these export industries, which any economist knows are the ultimate key to any economy’s prosperity, are also crippled.

    Let’s take a concrete example: Hawaii’s once-prosperous ranching/cattle industry, which is so key to the economic health and the very lifestyle of so much of the rural Second District which I proudly represent. That industry depends on getting its product, young cattle, to West Coast pens and transportation hubs in a cost-efficient manner.

    There are foreign cargo carriers that specialize, through custom cattle ships and overall sensitivity and adjustment to rancher timetables and needs, in such transport, but the Jones Act outright excludes them from the Hawaii-Mainland market. As a result, Hawaii’s ranchers are reduced to two crippling, cost-magnifying options.

    The first is to ship their cargo by foreign carriers to Canada, where they have to go through a myriad of bureaucratic, cost-magnifying gyrations to get their product eventually to their U.S. markets. The second is to beg for the goodwill of the domestic carriers, to whom this is simply a hindrance rather than a major commitment, to ship directly to the West Coast.

    And it shows: most of the cattle are first shipped from Hawaii’s Neighbor Islands, where the bulk of the cattle industry is located, to Oahu, in small “cow-tainers,” where they sit for days in Honolulu Harbor awaiting the return to the Mainland of one of the massive cargo ships designed and utilized for quite another purpose. The result (besides associated higher costs): in-harbor cattle waste disposal challenges; higher in-transit cattle mortality; lower-weight cattle delivery to market. That’s what happens when you try to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

    These three bills say: enough is enough. The first, the United States Nonocontiguous Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, exempts all noncontiguous U.S. locations, including Hawaii, from the Jones Act. (Frankly I question whether we shouldn’t outright repeal the Jones Act, but I leave it to my colleagues from the contiguous U.S. to evaluate that option; the consequences are especially acute in the noncontiguous US and that is my focus.) The second, the Hawaii Shipping Open Market Act of 2003, exempts Hawaii. And the third exempts Hawaii agriculture and livestock. Essentially, the bills are intended to lay out the options from broad to narrow; we can get into the issue at any level and work our way up or down.

    Let me address directly some arguments sometimes offered up by the domestic shippers in defense of the Jones Act: that it contains important labor and environmental protections that would be lost upon repeal. Of course, the exact terms of repeal are up to this Congress and administration, and all three of these bills propose to retain these important protections. Specifically, these bills provide that all foreign shippers operating under Jones Act exemptions must comply with the same labor, environmental, tax, documentation, U.S. locus and other laws as are applicable to non-U.S. flag ships and shippers transiting U.S. waters today.

    Mr. Speaker, these long-overdue bills are of the utmost importance to the localities which have long borne the brunt of the Jones Act. Sometimes it is difficult to pierce the veil of longstanding custom and understanding to see what should instead be, but clearly the time for these measures is overdue. I urge their passage.

    Mahalo (thank you.)

    Finally – No Funding for Controversial Vision Teams-Mayor Cans Funding for Vision Teams, Neighborhood Board as Council Considers Two Proposals to Weaken Spending Powers of These Entities

    0

    After more five years of criticism for millions of dollars spent on random community projects, City & County of Honolulu Managing Director Ben Lee announced yesterday the city will no longer allocate funding to the city’s 19 visioning teams.

    Lee’s announcement came prior to the Honolulu City Council Budget Committee consideration of two related resolutions. The first would put a two-year moratorium on funding for vision teams and neighborhood board projects, and the second would require vision team and neighborhood board allocations be used for the maintenance of city roads, which according to a recent study, and Oahu’s drivers, are in dire need of repair.

    The announcement was well received by some of the 9 members of the Honolulu City Council, including Council Member Charles Djou who commended Harris for taking a “needed step in reforming the visioning team process.”

    Djou says over the past five years, vision teams have been responsible for a number of cost prohibitive projects, like the community signs in Nuuanu, which reportedly cost in excess $500,000, and have increased the city’s debt load.

    Other critics point to vision team projects such as the $150,000 “Welcome to Hawaii Kai” sign at the entrance of this East Honolulu community, as wasteful. Not only was the sign costly, but at just one year old, it is already deteriorating, cracking and in need of $18,000 in repairs.

    The vision team project across Kalanianaole Highway referred to as the “canoe halau,” similar to the one built under vision team instruction in Kailua, was criticized for its total cost and the fact that several of the canoes did not even fit within the structure that was designed and built.

    A third project under fire in Hawaii Kai is the so-called “traffic calming – tree beautification” project in the center of Lunalilo Home Road, complete with its own irrigation system. The neighborhood board, when informed of the project, unanimously voted to oppose it, as did citizens who attended that meeting. The city administration however announced it was not subject to scrutiny or approval by the neighborhood board as the visioning team initiated the project, and the city would go ahead. The initial contracts already have been let by the city.

    The 19 visioning teams, founded in 1998 by Harris, were supposedly set up to encourage citizens to get involved with local government and come up with projects to improve their communities.

    Each visioning team was allocated $2 million per year, with that amount dropping to $1 million in FY 2003-2004 because the Honolulu City Council cut the funding.

    But neighborhood board members who are elected, complained their authority was being undermined by vision team members who were not elected.

    The mayor, in a public relations move, allocated $1 million per year to each of the 32 neighborhood boards, leading some of the board members to stop their protests. But government watchdogs and some of the more fiscally astute neighborhood board members said the $1 million allocation was just adding to the city debt load. This neighborhood board funding, which dropped to $500,000 this fiscal year, also is being cut altogether next fiscal year according to managing director Lee.

    Criticism also came from those who regularly attended meetings and claimed members of Harris’ cabinet, city employees and architects, contractors and those who would benefit from the proposed projects, were making the major decisions, directing the meetings and ultimately acting in Harris’ or their best interest rather than the community’s.

    In essence they said the vision teams were a mechanism for the mayor to construct many new city projects with little oversight from the Council, yet the ability to blame the vision team leaders for the often excessive expenditures.

    Critics, including legislators, cited the fact that the vision teams exempted themselves from the state sunshine law, which requires specific procedures in announcing meetings, setting agendas and keeping minutes.

    Sen. Vice President Donna Kim, D-Kalihi, a former council member, proposed legislation two years ago that would have required these vision team meetings to be subject to state sunshine law, but the mayor, his cabinet and corporation council argued vehemently against the legislation and lobbied heavily for its defeat.

    Another common criticism: Vision teams gave the city government the excuse to condemn private property for the “greater good” of the community. For example, the city threatened to condemn the Aiea Sugar Mill property owned by then Crazy Shirts head Rick Ralston, and with the threat, led to the new buyers’ quick exodus.

    Ralston invested millions of dollars in the purchase and clean up of the property, which used to house the sugar mill in Aiea, a landmark in the community.

    But when Ralston moved to parcel the property and resell it to regain some of his losses caused by delay in construction of his store and by higher clean up costs of the contamination property, the Aiea Visioning Team voted to have the city condemn the property.

    The effort was headed by then city employee, now City Council Chair Gary Okino, who voted to have the city condemn the property so it could be turned into a community park.

    The announcement, and the city’s posting of its own logo on the property led to the buyers, many in escrow, to ditch their purchase and cut their thousands of dollars in losses put into designs costs before their losses increased.

    Ralston soon after had to declare bankruptcy and lost his once thriving company and his property.

    Managing Director Lee told the media that the city administration still wants vision teams to list with priority projects annually, which will be considered for inclusion in the mayor’s budget. But these projects will not longer have a guaranteed approval.

    Djou says he would prefer a moratorium on vision teams altogether, without the mayor’s proposed expansion of their scope and purpose.