1. What was your biggest accomplishment this session?
My biggest accomplishment this session is in securing Pew Foundation funding to convene an Economic Summit on Early Childhood Investment and working with the Partnership for America’s Economic Success to gather industry leaders in common purpose to build Hawaii’s economic prosperity through investing in our youngest children. Good Beginnings Alliance submitted the proposal on behalf of myself and other organizations such as Enterprise Honolulu, HGEA, and the Workforce Development Council. In working directly with Pre-K Now and Voices for America’s Children, I better understand how to leverage national resources to develop Hawaii’s early learning system, and thereby positively impact the future, as well as our present workforce.

2. With which piece of 2009 legislation are you most proud to be affiliated and why?
I am most proud of HCR 65, the Resolution I introduced which will bring together hunters and non-hunters in a beginning dialogue about how to make public trails safer for everyone, including their dogs. Although the final version of the Resolution was a dramatic departure from the original language in the measure — AND resulted in heated debate through the Senate hearing process — I believe that the outcomes will eventually be positive for everyone involved. I am grateful to the concerned citizens in my District who formed a coalition with non-profit organizations and learned the arduous processes of a representative democracy. I am also appreciative of the hunters who came to the Senate hearing and voiced their concerns. Though often uncomfortable and fraught with animated responses, the Senate hearing offered a forum for comment and allowed the DLNR to see the necessity to be more proactive regarding safety on public trails. The situation as revealed by the Resolution is a work in progress for which there is not easy solution, however, the process of seeking a resolution has begun.

3. What was the biggest disappointment of the session and how might a similar disappointment be prevented in the future?
One of the biggest disappointments of the session was that we did not pass a good campaign spending reform bill.

The bill that got through at the last minute (HB 128) had the recodification changes as requested by the Campaign Spending Commission, however, it also proposed (with no justification) to eliminate the existing ban on contributions from bid contractors. Furthermore, HB 128 proposed to lift the ban on corporate contributions.
I introduced a floor amendment on the last day of session, which if passed, would have stopped HB 128 from going through so we could really work during the Interim to have bona fide campaign spending reform.

The background and justification for the floor amendment is as follows:
• The Campaign Spending Commission previously interpreted Hawaii law to require corporations to form PACs to make political contributions, and the CSC also limited the amount of corporate treasury funds to be deposited into the PAC to $1,000.
• Two corporate donors challenged the law in 2007.
• The appeal is pending and CSC is not enforcing the corporate contribution law, registration, or reporting requirements for PACs. Corporations are therefore free to use unlimited amounts of funds at this time.
• An earlier House bill was recommitted by House leadership because a majority of House members were not comfortable with either a proposed $50,000 or $25,000 limit on corporate contributions.
• HB 128 was amended in the Conference Committee, and there was insufficient time left in the Session to have substantive discussion

The proposed floor amendment would have continued the current ban on contributions from state and county contractors, whether the contracts are bid or non-bid.
With the court appeal pending, the Amendment also proposed to:

1) limit to $1,000 the amount of corporate treasury funds that corporations can deposit into their PAC’s during a two-year election period; and
2) require corporations to form a PAC from which they can make campaign contributions.; corporations would thus be required to follow registration and reporting requirements, and report contributions into and expenditures from the PAC

A similar disappointment could be prevented in the future by having substantive dialogues and discussions within the Caucus regarding content of specific bills and if more members were alert to last-minute insertions into proposed measures.

4. Debating which issue turned out to be the biggest distraction from your priorities?
The controversy around the sale of ceded (and public lands) was not so much distracting as it was demanding in terms of attention, vigilance, and perseverance.

On January 29, 2009 the Acting Solicitor General Mr. Edwin Kneedler filed a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court asking to participate in oral arguments in State of Hawaii v. OHA (No.17-1372/ as Amicus Curiae arguing that the Hawaiian people have no rights to the ceded land trust established by the Congress for their benefit in the Hawaii Statehood Act of 1959.

State of Hawaii v. OHA (No.17-1372) arose as a controversy between the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Governor, relating to revenues owed to OHA from the ceded lands trust. When the Hawaii State Supreme Court enjoined the State from selling ceded lands before addressing Native Hawaiian claims for a share of trust lands, the Governor filed an Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court alleging for the first time that Native Hawaiian rights to the ceded lands trust had been extinguished by virtue of the 1898 annexation of Hawaii. This issue was not briefed or argued by the parties.

The position of the U.S. Department of Justice, prompted by the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by Governor Lingle, is a radical departure from the process of reconciliation that the Dept. of Justice has undertaken since 1999 and which is ongoing.

Early in the Session, I went to Washington, D. C. on behalf of the Legislature’s Hawaiian Caucus to seek assistance from the White House, the Intergovernmental Offices of the Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Interior, and our Congressional Delegation to request that the Dept. of Justice withdraw its brief and petition to present oral argument against Native Hawaiians in this case. The Hawaiian Caucus, comprised of 28 members, six of whom are State Senators and twelve are members of the State House of Representatives, share a common commitment to addressing the needs of Hawaii’s indigenous people and supporting a political process for reconciliation between Native Hawaiians, the United States and the State of Hawaii. Most of our members are Native Hawaiian and several are not.

With the Governor appealing the ceded lands case to the US Supreme Court and then negotiating with OHA after the Supreme Court gave their decision to remit the case back to the Hawaii Supreme Court, the Legislature needed to be more attentive and stalwart with regards to the guidance offered by leaders within the Hawaiian community.

5. What’s one thing you wish voters better understood about you or the political process as a whole?
I wish that voters better understood how very much some of us appreciate citizen participation and organizational engagement.
The political process is MUCH more effective and hopeful when citizens are involved and working WITH us to formulate legislation that is coherent with a vision of thrive-ability and prosperity for Hawaii’s people. I also wish the voters knew how sincere and deliberate some of us are in our decision-making, as well as our desire to engage our colleagues in an authentic process of deliberation.