Ige withdraws Ching nomination at the 11th hour

With the Capitol filled with red-shirted opponents of the Carleton Ching nomination to chair DLNR and voters glued to their Akaku and Olelo TV, the senate went into a long recess directly after President Donna Mercado-Kim called the Ching confirmation agenda item.

Speculation grew and an hour after convening, Kim announced that the governor had withdrawn the Ching nomination.

By that time there were 8,545 signatures on a petition asking the senate not to confirm.

Red-shirted opponents of the Ching confirmation wait to enter the Capitol building
Red-shirted opponents of the Ching confirmation wait to enter the Capitol building

We’ve been told that supporters of the Ching nomination may have had the votes to pass it but that there was just too much downside to going on the record with a public vote. Supporters knew this was an issue that would haunt them – especially after Ching messed up which he was sure to do.

Those voting no on the nomination had the possibility of vetos and defunding hanging over their heads.

We’ve heard that after the senators couldn’t figure out how to confirm Ching without going on the record with their votes, the Majority Leader, Sen. Kalani English prevailed upon the governor to withdraw his controversial nomination. This was a wise course of action given that few nominations engender so much controversy and split the senate so evenly.

UPDATE: Hawaii News Now is reporting that two yes votes switched to no at the last moment and the no votes had the majority 13-12 at the very end.

UPDATE 2: Reports from two different sources say that the yes votes switched as early as Tuesday night and that, in fact, the governor did not have the votes needed.  Even more reason to withdraw and save the senators voting yes from voter retribution.

Letter from Sen Russell Rudermann re Ching confirmation

From Sen Russell Rudermann:

Thank you for writing. During the Water and Land (WTL) hearing, I voted against the nomination of Carleton Ching and will do so again when it comes up for a floor vote by the full Senate. Below is the text of my comments I gave at the WTL hearing, which I thought I would share with you now:

In about a hundred votes on appointments, I have only voted “no” once and have never spoken against one. I take the situation seriously and feel the need to carefully explain my vote. It is not easy to oppose a nomination. But when I feel it will harm the future of our state, it is my job to rise above expedience and have the courage to do so. Doing this job and taking seriously our responsibility to be a check and balance against mistakes by another branch of gov’t, can be uncomfortable, but not doing it is inexcusable.

Mr. Ching is a genuinely nice guy. He’s very likable, has a good heart, and is obviously of high integrity. If confirmed I will work with him in good faith and support him in every way. But that is not the point. The question we face, which we are charged by the constitution to answer, is he qualified and capable of doing this important job?

I accept that I might not politically like a nominee, but he or she may still be qualified. This is not the case here. In this case, as an environmentalist, and one of the thousands who care so deeply about not only Hawaii’s short term economy, but about its long-term sustainability and unique natural resources, I must speak out about the great harm that confirming this nominee would bring. Not only potential harm to the environment and Hawaii’s precious shared resources, but also certain harm to the public trust in our government.

The comparison to PLDC is unfair: this is the PLDC times 10. Instead of a branch of DLNR devoted to development instead of preservation, we are now looking at refocusing the entire department through a lens of development instead of stewardship and preservation. Did we learn anything from that episode? How important is stewardship of our public lands to the people of Hawaii? Did we hear the outcry, or must we repeat history because we failed to learn that lesson?

I can find no better words to describe the situation than those of Mr Randy Awo, 27 years serving DLNR, culminating a head of DOCARE: “The nominee’s entire career track has been the polar opposite of DLNR’s mission.” He wisely pointed out that we cannot separate what someone does from who he is.

No one’s preparation for such a job is complete, of course there will be a learning curve for anyone. But, we require subject matter expertise in every other department’s director. Would we hire a Tax director and ask that she learn accounting on the job? An A.G. w/o legal expertise? A Transportation director w/o transportation experience? Of course not. Yet in this case we are asked to approve a nominee with no experience, commitment or aptitude for the job. In such a complex and important department the lack thereof is a huge disqualification. Today we confirmed two Directors, each of whom had decades of specifically relevant experience in the subject matter.

To think that such subject matter experience and knowledge is not needed in this case, is to display a lack of concern for preservation and conservation. It displays a surprising dismissal of the concerns of those who care about our environment and cultural heritage.

It’s been said that no subject matter knowledge is needed; simple management experience is sufficient, then the nominee can learn on the job. But this nominee’s management experience in no way compensates for a complete lack of subject matter knowledge. Most of his experience is lobbying and development, not management.

The nominee has several times referred to land as a “Piece of dirt”. Not Aina, not land, not an important resource, but as a commodity to be used and profited extracted from it. Make use of it or let someone else do so. No concept of preservation, or the importance of maintaining this finite resource for future use. I find this telling. I find it deeply troubling and indicative of the narrow mindset of a developer versus a conservationist, nor even of someone who has a balanced view of such issues.

Endangered species – nominee says we must “evaluate, prioritize, & try to save the most important ones.” And this is true. But to a biologist, or conservationist, or a lover of God’s creation, there are no unimportant species. There is no ‘balance’ or sweet spot to be found in protecting endangered species. The right thing to do is to fight for each and every one. Just like ‘pieces of dirt’, once they are gone, they’re gone forever.

Where is a sense of stewardship, which is at the very heart of DLNR’s mission?

Advocacy for groups opposed to preservation and conservation is what comprises most of the nominee’s life experience – attempts to distance himself from those efforts is curious after longstanding commitment to those efforts. Claiming he was largely unaware of LURF and BIA’s efforts in the exact opposite direction is not acceptable.

Once again, a very nice guy, likable, with a good heart, and I am sincere in this. He’s good at what he does –this is not the point. It’s not sufficient. Sudden awakening to concern about the future is welcome but not sufficient to qualify. Willingness to abide by the law is welcome but not sufficient. Qualifications are required, and profoundly lacking. I’m glad he wants to work for Hawaii’s future, but his qualifications suggest a very different position would be in order.

If there were no better qualified applicants, then the answer is to cast a wider net. The assistance of the environmental and preservation community could have been sought, but was not. Several DLNR division leaders could be promoted, some are in this room, some not, resulting in a boost in morale instead of the demoralization this nomination will cause. We would then have someone with knowledge of the organization, the laws under which it operates, and its core and mission.

I again reference Mr. Awo- he was not only one of the most eloquent testifiers you heard from but by far the most qualified. He describes the level of concern within the department over this nomination is unprecedented. And the inappropriateness of this nomination as being on an entirely different level from any other previous nominee, and any previous director. My own discussions with staff in the Department, who are of course unable to express their views, confirms this.

DLNR’s mission is “Enhance, protect, conserve and manage Hawaii’s unique and limited natural, cultural and historic resources held in public trust for current and future generations of the people of Hawaii nei…”

Carefully absent is a mandate to develop, profit from, or treat as a commodity, or as expendable, Hawaii’s shared resources.

Endorsement of this nomination, aside from other appointees, comes almost exclusively from the development community. This glaring fact is really as important as the rejection by the preservation community in arguing for the rejection of the nomination. This is not a development department. This nomination is anathema to a commitment to the department’s mission.

The distrust and disillusionment of those who hope for a more fair, honest and open government is palpable. I need not point out the perception of revolving door among lobbyists and important positions of public trust. We all know how that works, and today we expect better.

What do we do with 90+% opposition from the public? If we remove development interest groups and appointees, the opposition is 98%. How cynical and arrogant would we be to ignore this? Mr Awo described the attempts to marginalize the opposition as irresponsible. I agree. Those who volunteer their time to work for the environment are not special interests! It is disturbing to hear the nominee characterize them as such.

I stand with those who genuinely take the DLNR’s mission statement to heart. Those of us who have demonstrated a commitment to environment and preservation are united that this choice is not only wrong, but disastrously wrong. We are united as no other issues other than the PLDC has united us, and for the exact same reasons.

As Mr. Awo implored us to do, I urge my colleagues: put aside political expedience and do what’s right for Hawaii now.

If we take our duty to advise and consent seriously, if we care about good government and public trust, if we care about the will of people we were elected to represent, or if we take the stewardship of Hawaii’s precious resources seriously, then we must reject this nomination.

Mahalo,
Russell
Senator Russell Ruderman
Hawaii State Senate

Wednesday's Ching vote still in doubt but could be "no"

With senators like Lorraine Inouye and Kalani English hiding out and ducking their constituents’ calls, the epic fight between power and duty will play out at tomorrow’s full senate vote with an edge-of-the-seat denouement.

Ige has pulled out all stops, hinting at withholding funding for big projects like the Kihei High School, and getting Ways & Means chair Jill Tokuda to threaten future appropriations.  Ige built friendships in the senate where he had been known as an amiable figure.  However, he’s quickly using up his accumulated goodwill, trying to push through an appointment that has met with almost universal condemnation from the voters.

This is not the Ige that the senators knew in the senate.

Senators who give in to Ige’s pressure tactics are gambling that the voters will forget their vote before the next election.  But they need only to look at the example of Malama Solomon who was on the wrong side of the PLDC for this head-in-the-sand approach to lose its attraction.  As Sen Russell Rudermann reminded his colleagues:

The comparison to PLDC is unfair: this is the PLDC times 10. Instead of a branch of DLNR devoted to development instead of preservation, we are now looking at refocusing the entire department through a lens of development instead of stewardship and preservation.  Did we learn anything from that episode? How important is stewardship of our public lands to the people of Hawaii? Did we hear the outcry, or must we repeat history because we failed to learn that lesson?

Senators who vote their conscience might see their CIP projects withheld or could find Sen Tokuda following through on Ige’s dirty work, blocking their projects. How likely is it that Sen Tokuda will risk her own career and follow through on this threat for Gov. Ige?  Would she even keep her chair position if she does?

Gov Ige has put his senate friends in a precarious position.  He’s asking them to risk their reputations and reelections to back a candidate that everyone agrees is not qualified.  The eyes of the media and voters are on them and tomorrow there’s will be no hiding any more.

UPDATE: Sen Roz Baker says that Gov Ige and Chair Tokuda are not making threats to withhold funding.

 

Can Ching's personal charm overcome his laziness?

The Star Advertiser wrote a hard-hitting editorial challenging the senate to do the right thing by the state and vote down the Carleton Ching nomination for DLNR Chair.  They put the blame for this massive public outcry squarely on Gov. Ige for his poor choice in a nominee.

“Environmental groups came out four-square against Ching’s nomination the moment it was announced. In one voice, they expressed the unassailable position that — while Ching may have skills that befit a manager, garnered throughout his business career — the nominee’s resume showed scant evidence of interest or experience in natural resource management.”

We would take issue with the statement that Ching may have management skills as he so embarrassingly showed while tap-dancing away from WTL Chair Thielen’s astute questioning.  Again and again he professed ignorance of the activities of the two developer/construction industry lobbying groups he oversaw as both a director and VP.

He denied supporting the PLDC and claimed not to know that LURF was advocating to the BLNR and the legislature over an 11 month period for keeping the PLDC.  He denied even knowing why LURF was advocating for the PLDC.  He answered Sen Thielen’s questions with, “I don’t even know.”

So we have an man who for a year was ignorant of what the organization he directed was doing?  Not only is that poor management, it is a breach of fiduciary duty….if true.

This lack of interest and downright laziness has continued during the vetting process.  Two months ago he met with Maui environmental and Hawaiian leaders and was roundly criticized in the media for being completely clueless about the public trust doctrine, water hierarchy and general natural resources law in Hawai’i.

But weeks later he held another talk story and it was clear that he had not studied up on these glaring deficiencies and still didn’t understand the key principles underlying DLNR’s mission.

And now, even later, he still demonstrates this lack of knowledge.  This is a man who is either intellectually unable to learn or is too lazy to put in the effort.

Clearly the senators should vote down this nomination.  Why is there any doubt they will?  Here’s why.

Ige, while promising to listen to the people, has decided to ignore the voters and push through his very bad nominee.  He’s calling in his markers and imposing on decades of friendship with senators.  And he’s holding the purse strings.  He’s able to threaten recalcitrant senators with withholding their CIP and he’s able to reward those senators who put aside their duty to the state and do him a favor with more funds released to their districts.

This is hard ball.  And Ige through Sen Tokuda is bringing the big guns to get the senate to vote his way.

Meanwhile conservation and Hawaiian groups are gearing up for their own form of hardball.  As they did with Pono Chong, Mufi Hannemann and Malama Solomon, they’re promising to work as hard as it takes to defeat any senator who votes yes on this confirmation.

A facebook page and a website (DLNRsellouts.wordpress.com) name those who have voted in favor of Ching’s confirmation, candidates are being recruited based only on rumors that a senator might vote yes and foot troops to canvass voters come election time and remind them of this vote are already signed up.

Senators are caught between a rock and a hard place.  On one side a governor threatening their CIP.  On the other an enraged citizenry determined not to forget.

Will the senators have the guts to do the right thing?