Sign our petition calling for a criminal investigation into Corporation Counsel Moana Lutey and others. 

Councilmember Alice Lee told the Maui News that she did not lead the effort to remove Kelly King as Council Chair.

Then who did?

No other Council Member was listed as the author of the resolution to remove Kelly King as Council Chair.
Only Moana Lutey’s name is associated with the resolution.

Why would Moana Lutey want to see Kelly King removed as Council Chair?

Maybe it’s because Kelly King promised to file charges with the Hawaii State Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Moana Lutey for Professional Misconduct over Lutey’s choice to ignore the County Council’s vote to withdraw the Injection Well case and instead represent to the Supreme Court only the Mayor’s opinion.

A similar suit with the Second Circuit Court naming Moana Lutey for refusing to get the Court’s opinion about the Mayor’s authority to overrule the Council before she represented to the Supreme Court was filed by State Rep. Angus McKelvey, Maui Tomorrow, former Maui County Council Member Joanne Johnson Winer; former Maui County Ocean Safety captain and waterman Archie Kalepa; and Native Hawaiian rights activist Ke`eaumoku Kapu.

Regardless of what side of the Injection Well debate the Council Members may be, they all have a responsibility to uphold the Council’s legitimate vote.

Lawyers at Council Services stated that Moana Lutey and Mayor Victorino are overreaching in their opinion of the Mayor’s authority to override the Council’s vote.

Members who voted against the County Council securing its own legal representative to contest Moana Lutey and the Mayor have sold out the citizens in favor of off-island financial and political interests.  Their misrepresentation sets a new precedent that will have lasting negative impacts on the Council’s ability to represent the people’s best interests.

Sign the petition to investigate and remove Corporation Counsel Moana Lute, who after 20 years of serving special interests is so professionally compromised that she can no longer possibly serve the public’s best interests.

Take control of Maui County back from the lawyers!

AFFIDAVIT OF JO ANNE JOHNSON WINER

I, JoAnne Johnson Winer, state as follows; 8/7/15
1. I am a citizen of the United States of America, a resident of the County of Maui, State of Hawaii and I am over 21 years of age.

2. As a resident of West Maui, I was elected to the Maui County Council on November 2, 1999 and served for ten years until reaching term limitations and I currently serve as Director of Transportation for the County of Maui.

3. On or about 1999, I hired Kathy Kaohu as my executive assistant to the Maui County Council. Ms. Kaohu is currently an executive assistant to Maui County Council Member Don Guzman. She also assisted me in research on issues while on the Council and on issues related to “deferral agreements.”

4. On or about late in 2000, my office was contacted by West Maui resident Christopher Salem regarding questions and concerns over the proposed design for a County of Maui Capital Improvement Project for Phase IV of Lower Honoapiilani Road relating to public safety, environmental impacts and view planes, since the project ran adjacent to his property.

5. In cooperation with Austin, Tsutsurni Associates, Inc. (project consultants for Phase IV) and County Project Manager Joe Krueger, Mr. Salem volunteered his professional knowledge and expertise to help create a more sensitive and safe redesign of the Phase IV roadway improvements, which I believe are still on file with the County.

6. As a member of the Maui County Council, I approved the expenditures for this Phase IV Capital Improvement Project during our annual budget hearings as a part of our annual budget process. During this process, I understood from the information provided that the project would begin in 2002 and the construction would take about a year.

7. I do not believe that Council members were aware at the time the funding was approved that the Department of Public Works had failed to acquire the numerous land rights and necessary easements to initiate the field construction of the Phase IV roadway upgrades. To the best of my knowledge the Phase IV Capital Improvement Project is currently stalled and I am unclear if approvals and/or funding are in place.

8. In late 2000, Mr. Salem also brought to my attention outstanding obligations owed to the County ofMaui from developer contractual agreements commonly known as “3 Lots or Less” roadway improvement “Deferral Agreements.”

9. We met with Councilmember Riki Hokama to determine if his historical knowledge could help us to understand this process and how these obligations could still be outstanding. Councilmember Hokama was not aware of who was tracking these obligations and was also concerned about these obligations. He did not want to use public monies to pay for improvements that were the responsibility of either developers or owners.

10. Since Mr. Salem owned a property along Phase IV of Lower Honoapiilani Road he shared his firsthand knowledge of how this worked with us. He advised us that in accordance with terms of a “3 Lots or Less” subdivision agreement recorded on his land title by our attorneys in Corporation Counsel, the original developers deferred the cost of roadway and drainage improvements. Mr. Salem explained that this obligated current and future property owners within the 3 Lot subdivisions to pay to the County of Maui their “pro rata” share of the Phase IV Capital Improvement Project.

11. I later learned from Mr. Salem’s ongoing inquires and notices to our County departments, the Department of Corporation Counsel, Department of Finance, and Department of Public Works that no department was assigned to track the collection and assessment of an unknown quantity of developers contractual financial obligations owed to the County ofMaui. As a result, it was unknown how many of these agreements existed or how much money might be owed to the County of Maui. I believe I also received a letter from Public Works confirming that no records were being kept by their department of these agreements.

12. Through this process I also learned that subdivisions of 4 lots of more were required by ordinance to mitigate the impacts of their developments by installing complete roadway and drainage improvements along their frontages without any form of deferral or developer exemptions available.

13. I recall receiving a copy of a letter sent from Mr. Salem to Mayor Alan Arakawa alerting the administration that public funds were likely being used to pay for private developer’s financial obligations without any form of reimbursement to the County of Maui, since deferral agreements were not being tracked.

14. From 2002 and for years thereafter, I continued to raise my concerns in annual Maui County Council budget hearings regarding how these deferral agreements actually obligated the County ofMaui to pay for and incur private owner’s financial obligations.

15. Prior to my tenure as a council member, I learned that the first three phases of Lower Honoapiilani Road had been upgraded and improved as County of Maui Capital Improvement Projects with County of Maui and Federal funds. However, no funds were provided through deferral agreement collections.

16. As I came to learn over time, on these 3 phases, the County ofMaui paid with public taxpayer funds the entire costs of developer’s roadway frontage and financial obligations without making any attempts to notice or collect upon the development debts owed.
17. My numerous inquiries to then Department of Public Works Director Milton Arakawa, requesting a list of developer’s subdivisions that were subject to assessment and collection throughout Maui County, failed to achieve any results.

18. In 2007, out of frustration, I proposed legislation to the members ofMaui County Council to Title 18 that was adopted (I think it was ordinance 3 513 and Bill Number 77) by Maui County Council in 2007. I believed that by doing so, it would limit the expenditure of public funds on private developer’s or owners financial obligations that had been ongoing since 1974.

19. On October 12, 2009, I proposed further language to a proposed Title 18 bill that would insure that financial obligations set forth in previously executed and recorded “deferral agreements” would be assessed and collected by the County of Maui.

20. The resulting Ordinance 3731 was enacted and insured that proper advanced Notice oflntent to Collect would be sent by the director authorized to administer the developer agreement at the commencement of future funding of roadway Capital Improvement Projects and at the time land right of way acquisition was initiated by the County ofMaui.

21. Ordinance 3731 insured that developers and their heirs would be obligated to pay a pro rata share of roadway capital improvements in order to prevent those costs from being shifted to Maui County taxpayers.
22. In compliance with the adopted ordinance, I recall that Director of Public Works, Milton Arakawa, then sent letters ofNotice oflntent to Collect to multiple property owners along the Phase IV Capital Improvement Project of Lower Honoapiilani Road, including Mr. Salem.

23. Director Arakawa informed property owners that the County would ask them for a payment of the pro rata share of costs of the Phase IV roadway improvements as per the terms of their deferral agreements. Director Arakawa also notified the property owners that Phase IV construction would now commence in 2012.

24. Director Arakawa, I believe also informed the affected property owners that their pro rata share would likely be determined in consultation and agreement between other property owners within their subdivision. However, I could never fmd any authorization within our legislation that would allow such a notice and determination.

25. It was not until November of2010 that Public Works Director Milton Arakawa finally disclosed to the County Council that he believed there were perhaps as many asl800 open-ended deferral agreements affecting the land title ofthousands of properties in Maui County that had been executed and recorded by Corporation Counsel. This was very disturbing to many of us.

26. I was also made aware by Mr. Salem that Director Arakawa had informed the property owners in Mr. Salem’s subdivision that 5 property owners from two separate overlapping 3 Lot subdivisions were obligated to pay a pro rata share of the 3 Lots or Less Subdivision Agreement. Mr. Salem asked me if I was aware of how this could happen and I advised him that I knew of no ordinance adopted by the Maui Council that would allow two separate overlapping subdivisions of the same parcel of land to twice defer their roadway infrastructure and financial obligations and I had no explanation as to how this could even happen.

27. In early 2011, I met with Mayor Alan Arakawa and Mr. Salem and I was instructed by Mayor to work with Corporation Counsel Attorney Ed Kushi and Mr. Salem to see if there was a possible formula or process for assessment and collection of the deferred developer financial obligations that the Mayor might present for consideration to the Maui County Council. The knowledge that both Mr. Salem and I had of the subject matter was why I believe we were asked to come up with some possible suggestions to the Mayor.

28. The effort to provide input never came to fruition since Corporation Counsel advised the Mayor that our input was not needed. I was also questioned by Corporation Counsel as to why I was even involved in this matter inasmuch as I was no longer a Councilmember. I explained that I had specific knowledge of the issue and felt that I could contribute to resolving the matter to the benefit of all concerned. I am aware that after Corporation Counsel countered Mayor Arakawa’s directive, Mr. Salem took it upon himself as a private citizen to meet with Council members and their assistants to draft legislation to adopt a fair and reasonable process for collection and assessment of the developer’s deferred financial obligations.

29. I read what I term the “Fairness Bill,” prepared with assistance from Mr. Salem in cooperation with Council Member Elle Cochran’s executive assistant Jordan Molina. The bill provided what I thought could be the start to achieving a fair and responsible process for collection and assessment of developer’s deferred financial obligations. Mr. Salem advised that the bill also appeared to have support from members of the Maui County Council. I do not know what happened to the legislation beyond what I was told by Mr. Salem.

30. I am unaware if the Department of Public Works or Corporation Counsel ever addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Salem regarding the five owners with two overlapping three lot subdivisions. There should be some type of response as it does not appear to be allowed under our county ordinances. If it is not legal, then how can Corporation Counsel allow it to be permitted?

31. Corporation Counsel informed Mr. Salem, and I believe, during public testimony, our County Council as well as the general public, that releasing copies of the developer contractual agreements would be “an interruption of a legitimate government function”. I did not agree with this interpretation.

32. I recalled reading in a Maui News article that Public Works Director David Goode publicly stated that Corporation Counsel deemed the “Fairness Bill” illegal. From what I understood, the “Fairness Bill” was reviewed by Council Services attorneys prior to being forwarded to the County Council for consideration and no issues regarding illegality were raised.

33. I question whether or not a written memorandum was ever issued by Corporation Counsel to the members of the Maui County Council explaining why the “Fairness Bill” was unlawful or inconsistent with the 2010 Ordinance that was approved by Corporation Counsel. This was always a part of the standard procedure when I was on the Council.

34. During my years of public service as a Council Member of the County of Maui, the attorneys in Corporation Counsel always led me to believe that the “3 Lot or Less” contractual agreements drafted and recorded by the Department were collectable debts owed to the County of Maui.

35. Why the Fairness Bill that was submitted was not considered or an alternate proposal drafted so that monies owed to the people of Maui County were able to be collected? I was disturbed with the way Mr. Salem’s integrity was questioned and how his motivation to resolve this issue was portrayed both privately and publicly during the discussions surrounding the bill.

36. I believe Mr. Salem’s efforts in seeking responsible government over the past fifteen years were on behalf of the best interests of the citizens ofMaui County. From what I personally witnessed, his dedication and commitment to the youth programs of West Maui has been exemplary despite the suffering his family has endured and continues to endure by bringing these issues into the public light.

37. It was recently brought to my attention that Public Works Director David Goode advised that the County of Maui “may or may not” be collecting upon the developer contractual obligations previously noticed for collection to property owners by Public Works Director Arakawa. I do not agree with this position as it contradicts the intent and stated language of ordinance 3 731 that was publicly adopted by our Maui County Council. Consistent with all legislation adopted by the Maui County Council, Ordinance 3731 was reviewed and approved by Corporation Counsel and is a law.

38. I have reviewed a letter from Director Goode, which was approved by Mayor Arakawa on January 9, 2012, wherein he stated his department has completed the cataloging of all known deferral agreements and it is his intent to work with the Department of Finance and Corporation Counsel to arrive at fair formula for calculation and assessment and notify the affected land owners of their required contributions.

39. I have also reviewed a letter from Director Goode on Apri116, 2012, which provided the projected revenues from collection of developer deferral agreements on affected parcels along the South Kihei Road Capital Improvement Project.

40. I also reviewed a recent document showing Mr. Salem’s analysis of the developer deferral agreements on residential, commercial, and industrial properties recorded by the Department of Public Works and Corporation Counsel throughout Maui County.

41. Why are public officials not bound to follow ordinance 3 731 which required that Notices oflntent to Collect deferred developer contractual financial obligations were distributed? Why does it appear that the County is shifting private obligations to the public in violation of the County Charter?

42. An additional concern is the obligation to insure that there are no unfulfilled SMA Permit obligations wherein developers have failed to complete their roadway improvement and drainage mitigations that also may end up being paid for with County funds during Capital Improvement Projects. What is being done to insure that these obligations and being met and who is tracking them?

43. During a Maui County Council Infrastructure Management meeting on February 1, 2010, Attorney Galazin of Corporation Counsel informed the Council members of the different situations in which a developer may have to pay for roadway improvements and drainage mitigations, including obligations set forth in subdivision applications and SMA Permit studies and applications.

44. As I learned during the final years of my tenure as a Council Member, the Planning Department was not tracking SMA requirements that would insure compliance of developers in completing their SMA Permit roadway and drainage mitigations. They appear to rely solely on the integrity of developers and complaints from citizens to administer developer compliance.

45. I am deeply concerned that the SMA permitting process has become a means for private developers to skirt their infrastructure and environmental mitigation responsibilities, since enforcement may be absent or selective.

46. During my latter days as of member of the Maui County Council, I became aware that developers of Olowalu Mauka subdivision had failed to complete their subdivision obligations and environmental mitigations conditioned in an SMA Major Permit issued almost 10 years prior and as a result a lawsuit was filed by a private resident who was sold a property in the developers Olowalu Mauka subdivision.

47. My understanding was that the Olowalu subdivision received final subdivision approval from the County even though there were incomplete SMA Permit conditions. This occurred during the very same time period that Mr. Salem raised his concerns that developer’s “3 Lots or Less” contractual agreements executed by Corporation Counsel were not being kept track of, assessed, or collected upon. Mr. Salem also complained that his 3 lot subdivision was being re-subdivided a second time by Developer Lot 48A, LLC in violation of the Maui County Code and the SMA Permitting process.

48. As I learned from being called as a witness in legal arbitration proceedings involving a dispute over Developer Lot 48A, LLC’s obligations to pay their pro rata share of the Phase IV Capital Improvements affecting the land title of Mr. Salem’s property, the County Department of Public Works signed off on Developer Lot 48A, LLC’s oceanfront subdivision with what I viewed as an incomplete and unfulfilled SMA Permit during the same time period whereby the same county department granted the Olowalu subdivision approvals with unfulfilled SMA Permit obligations.

49. I also learned that the Developer Lot 48A, LLC’s attorney was working for the County of Maui Department of Corporation Counsel at the same time she was employed by Lot 48A, LLC in the legal proceedings. I saw nowhere in the procurement reports that this was disclosed to the members of the Council. I also learned Developer Lot 48A, LLC’s SMA Permit studies were not provided to the arbitrator and they included the disputed roadway and drainage improvements to the frontage of Mr. Salem’s property along of Phase IV of Lower Honoapiilani Road.

50. When I was infonned that the former land planning finn of a county official was the same SMA consultant retained by the County of Maui to complete the SMA environmental studies and permitting for Phase IV of Lower Honoapiilani Road as well as being the SMA Permit consultant for the Developer Lot 48A, LLC for the resubdivision of the “3 Lots or Less” subdivision I became extremely concerned. This is the same subdivision in which Mr. Salem owned an original parcel of land abutting Phase IV of Lower Honoapiilani Road. To my knowledge there was no disclosure made to this effect.

51. I witnessed Mr. Salem’ s vehement protest and complaints that the overlapping subdivision of the original “3 Lots or Less” subdivision by Lot 48A, LLC required developer Lot 48A, LLC to obtain a SMA Major Permit through public hearings. My belief is that the one time exemption from an SMA Major permit was exhausted on the original 3 Lots or Less Subdivision. I still question how this could happen if laws are in place to protect the rights of the public?

52. Mr. Salem further argued that the engineering valuation for the Lot 48A, LLC’s SMA permit underestimated the impacts of the oceanfront subdivision and costs associated with the development to intentionally avoid environmental studies and public review. Even after my inquiries to the Planning Department about this issue and also the SMA requirements I do not believe this has ever been resolved or investigated.

53. I was made aware that deferral agreements recorded by Corporation Counsel on Mr. Salem’s property along with Director Arakawa’s written notice to Mr. Salem caused residential appraisers and real estate brokers to refuse to represent his property for sale.

54. I was also advised that Mr. Salem attempted to pay the County ofMaui a pro-rata share of the “3 Lots or Less” subdivision agreement to try to remove the open ended lien on his property during an open escrow even though it was developer Lot 48A, LLC’s obligation to do so. I was told by Mr. Salem that Corporation Counsel refused to accept his payment or remove the lien on his property to facilitate the escrow.

55. I remain dedicated to the people ofMaui County and I truly believe that our citizens expect all public officials to protect their interests and act with integrity.

56. As a former member of the Maui County Council, I witnessed time and again where private citizens were forced to uphold the ordinances adopted by the Maui County Council to protect citizen’s individual and public property rights, when this should in effect be the obligation of the County ofMaui.

57. I have gone through Mr. Salem’s lengthy and detailed timelines and also his analysis of what has taken place and I would agree that what he has uncovered appears to reveal a failure to enforce laws uniformly, collect monies due the County, adhere to SMA and subdivision laws and disclose possible conflicts of interest. These issues should be thoroughly investigated and resolved, which I believe Mr. Salem has attempted to do on a number of occasions.

58. Mr. Salem should not be punished for shining the light on these issues but thanked for having the courage to bring them to the County in the first place.

59. I am prepared to testify under oath to the events described in this affidavit to insure that the public’s trust is fairly represented.

NOTARY CERTIFICATION Flyuza Wasaho Notary Public, State of Hawaii

John-Bull English is in the Primary Election as a Democratic Candidate running for State House Rep District #13.

John-Bull is the new leadership we need to represent the people’s best interests, not big business.

Contribute here:

Visit John’s Website

Maui Causes is producing a documentary on the destructive impacts that unregulated overdevelopment has had on Maui’s Shoreline.

Our extensive research has uncovered public documents that clearly show how politically appointed county officials systematically manipulate Federal shoreline management regulations and County ordinances to allow certain private land developers to circumvent public input, avoid building environmental protections and low-income housing, and to unlawfully redirect hundreds of millions of State and Federal STIP funds and Maui taxpayer dollars to pay for private infrastructure improvements.

Systemic loopholes within the existing Maui County Code (that allow outright fraud to go unchecked) non-enforcement of clear violations of permits and ordinance conditions (a “culture of Leniency” as one past Planning Director put it), repeated abuse of discretion by Department Directors (which a sea of attorneys in Corporation Counsel defend at all costs, in defiance of their ethical duty to serve solely the public interest) have, over time, destroyed ours reefs, destabilized our shoreline, drained our tax coffers, and weakened our resident community.  

Our research reveals that a Deferral Agreement program, created in 1974 to help parents share land with their children, was secretly used by the Administration for decades to allow select developers to shift their financial obligations onto the public.

The public first learned in 2001 that the County had never created any mechanism to track or ever collect on the amounts deferred and that for decades developers were allowed to simply walk away from their obligations. The Departments of Public Works and Corporation Counsel flagrantly continued to write new Deferral Agreements, with no plan to ever collect on them, until 2007 when Council Member Joanne Johnson forced an end to the program. Years later, no collection mechanism has yet been created and only just recently has Council Member Guzman proposed a new administrative fund to receive and disperse the dollars, should the collection of the amounts due to the county ever occur.

At the request of Council Member Elle Cochran, Maui Causes recently gave a 45 minute presentation to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee on the cumulative value lost to the public, and the damage done to our shoreline because of these secret exemptions.  Link to that presentation:

Our presentation was based almost exclusively on public documents, including emails, obtained through Freedom of Information Requests and was fully vetted by Council Member Cochran’s staff. We did slip into our presentation a short description of the proof we have uncovered of fraud perpetrated by licensed land development professionals who submitted falsified Order of Magnitude Estimates as part of SMA Minor Permit Applications, so that their clients could avoid public input, costly environmental protections (in violation of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act) and even having to pay annual County park fees. We shared with the committee documents that reveal instances where permit applications were submitted and subsequently approved by the same individual who left his land development job to go to work for the County as a Deputy Director.

We are currently investigating a new, secret giveaway to developers that was created by the 2015 Upcountry Water Bill. All public discussions of the Bill stated an intention to benefit only families on the Upcountry Water Meter Waitlist, however the language that Corporation Counsel inserted into the bill at the last minute didn’t include any geographic specificity or “family” conditions to the new Roadway Exemption for 2-Lot-or-Less Subdivisions that was written into Title 18 of the Maui County Code.

But for recent Freedom of Information Requests, the public and even our Council Members would not know that exemptions, worth millions of dollars, have already been given away to commercial developers islandwide, with hundreds more conditional subdivision approvals currently in the County’s developer giveaway pipeline.

We bring all of this to the public’s attention at this time because Maui County is about to engage in a purging of the very email system that has produced much of the proof we have acquired of these secret actions by the Administration. June 1st is the stated day that all emails 3 years or older, and not previously identified by staff to be saved, will be deleted, wholesale, effectively covering the tracks of misdeeds done that we as citizens have every right to investigate.

There are two in-depth investigations we believe should be pursued by the highest authorities:

*  The first is for racketeering, where licensed land development professionals submitted fraudulent permit applications, to benefit their clients financially, at the expense of Maui’s taxpayers and the State and Federal governments. This they did in coordination with politically appointed Department Directors. Together, this cabal has for years and is still today obstructing any investigation by illegally withholding public documents that reveal fraud, going even so far as to actually manufacture new documents to try to cover their tracks.

*  The second is our “Mauigate”, as Corporation Counsel is currently using public monies to defend the Directors and their own illegal cover-up of the racketeering.

Please join Maui Causes in our attempt to save Maui County from this indiscriminate data purge and the suspension of our rights, as Whistleblowers, to hold the Administration accountable for their actions.

Reach us at info@mauicauses.org or at (973) 271 0788

Sam Small
Executive Director, Maui Causes  www.MauiCauses.org

Axel Beers, the new Editor of MauiTime Weekly wrote an excellent piece on the Administration’s shenanigans. Beers questions whether the process of law is being followed or managed properly and says “Individual county employees should not have the power to decide what has, or what may someday have, informational value without appropriate oversight.”  Click here to read it:

Is the county trying to cover its tracks with a mass email purge?

The Case for Better Management of Tourism
This brief was prepared for the Hawaii Economic Association panel, Rethinking Hawaii Tourism: 21st Century Solutions for 21st Century Challenges, with Frank Haas, Paul Brewbaker and John Knox.

While there are remarkable economic benefits from tourism generating significant revenues, governments largely do not invest in managing environmental, social, or cultural environmental impacts as part of the cost of doing business in destinations around the world. – Megan Epler Wood, Director International Sustainable Tourism Initiative Harvard University

Maui Pono Network

“Empowering community action in service to the common good”

First Meeting:
Monday, March 19th, 7pm – 9pm
Ahimsa Sanctuary Farm, 4505 Hana Hwy, Haiku

Featured Speaker: Alika Atay

Did you vote for the GMO Moratorium?
Where you disappointed that your vote was not upheld?
Will we allow Maui to become the next Oahu or will we come together for the ‘Āina and the people?
The upcoming 2018 county elections are critical. Now is the time to support and elect representatives who serve the common good. We can also amend our county charter to create a more accountable and transparent governance. For example an amendment could mandate a professional County Manager to oversee Maui’s $800 million budget.

Be a part of shifting Maui from plantation era, big money interests to progressive leadership for the people and the ‘Āina.

Come together for the launch of the Maui Pono Network and be part of the power of community collaberation for peaceful change.

Inspiring speakers include progressive County Council Member Alika Atay, Maui Pono Network Director Paul Deslauriers (Grassroots organizer for 34 years and author of three books on the subject.), SHAKA co-founders Satya and Bruce Douglas, and more.

“Maui Pono Network

Our Mission:
Empowering community action in the spirit of Aloha
for the common good of the ‘Āina and all People.

Strategic Vision

Co-creating an culture of Aloha in Action. By electing representatives who serve the common good and by changing the system, we will eliminate major blocks to affordable housing, raising the minimum wage, sustainable development, producing abundant nutritious food, and reclaiming and restoring the land. The Maui Pono Network is dedicated to this transition.

Goals

Goals for the first 9 months (March – November 2018)

Ensure that the majority of elected Maui County Government seats are filled by the Ohana Candidates who will support the common good.
Increase voter registration and absentee ballot use, and provide information about the Ohana Candidates county wide.
Hold two large community music events, regular committee meetings, and potluck gatherings to support the candidates.
Help change the County Charter with amendments such as having a professional County Manager for county operations instead of a Mayor.
Develop a community network and membership.
Create media and social media campaigns with video spots, promotional features, and an informative website.
Produce a one hour, weekly show on AKAKU, “The Pono Network”, featuring and learning from local grassroots organizations and people who are serving the common good.

Goals after the election
Support sustainable development in balance with environmental needs
Increase affordable housing
Develop solutions to homelessness
Increase local nutritious food supply and food security
Increase Minimum wage

Transition to the Common Good

“Common Good” in Hawaiian is “Pono Mau”. The Hawaii State Constitution, Article 11, the “Public Trust Doctrine”, describes this common good that the residents are entrusted to uphold. Pono is used in many ways on the Islands to mean things that are right, good, balanced and correct, It is also a commonly recognized term on the mainland. To “make things right and in balance” for the people, the land, water and the resources of Maui County requires a deep systemic change involving stages.

An important stage is Maui county government. Maui is on the brink of gaining enough county seats so that its governance serves the common good instead of big money interest. Certain charter amendments would empower the voice of the people and ensure our resources are used wisely. The 2018 election cycle is critical for Maui’s future.

This change can be far reaching as residents can protect their health and environment instead of allowing outside interests to harm the people and land for generations while profiting only a few. Removing key blocks in our system opens up a new possibilities. The totality of the vision is expansive: transparent political governance, fair monetary exchange structure, wise environmental management, abundant nutritious food, free health care for all, improved education, and comprehensive social services. These are our rights as citizens. There are many proven effective models already exist. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do, but the present system prevents this from happening.

The disenfranchisement of the Maui’s citizens and the existing power of corporate control became very evident when the SHAKA Movement petitioned a ballot initiative and won the vote, the first ever in Maui. The citizen’s vote resulted in a Moratorium on GMO activities until those activities could be proven safe. The big money interests disavowed the citizens’ vote and went to a California judges resulting in corporate control by Monsanto trumping citizens’ demand for their health and well being.

Several SHAKA founders, Paul Deslauriers and others are coming together for the next wave of a deeper systemic change that enhances the common good. Maui has been the spearhead in confirming what is possible for the other Hawaiian Islands. Let us take it to the next level.

Structure

Steering Committee: This collaborative team steers the organization through its development. Representatives from each committee, as well as key contributors, will be a part of a team with a common focus and core values. Group size limited to 12.

Advisory Committee: Supporters who hold great wisdom and who are willing to share it at appropriate times.

Working Committees:
Community Networking: Outreach to groups, social service organizations, and clubs. Develop membership and a presence at gatherings. Participate in celebrations such as Earth Day.
Meetings/Events: Organize two large events: one for young voters prior to the primary; the second for the community at large prior to the election. Hold regular committee meetings and potluck gatherings to get the candidates known. Generate voter registration and petition signing.
Media: Access social media, produce video spots, create flyers that support candidates, and activate an effective media strategy. All outgoing representation to be approved by committee.
Akaku Weekly Televised Series: “The Pono Network” TV Show on Akaku is focused on grassroots organizing and local solutions. Important insights provided during each show can be used for personal growth, community initiatives, and system change.
Fundraising: Use various platforms.
Charter Amendments: We can also amend our County Charter to create a more accountable and transparent governance. For example an amendment could mandate a professional County Manager to oversee Maui’s $800 million budget.

Membership: The foundation of an organization is comprised of its members, and those who participate in the network. Members have a say as to who holds leadership positions. Membership demonstrates grassroots participation and ownership. Membership helps hold those in leadership to standards. Membership sets the stage for non-profit status.

The Maui Community: Community is the power we are tapping into. Information sharing, potluck meals, music events, and inspirational speakers are sources that unite community and tap a potent force for change.

Contact for Info: (808) 264 3536

GRAPHICS YOU CAN DOWNLOAD, PRINT AND SHARE…
Launch Poster-1 4up
Launch Poster-1

Please sign our petition and make a contribution the help spread the word.

Hundreds of Millions of Dollars is missing from Maui’s tax coffers because Mayor Arakawa and his lawyer, Pat Wong refuse to collect on the thousands of Deferral Agreements that the County has extended illegally over the years to private developers, sometime two or three times on the same property.

We also now have clear evidence of collusion in the Planning Director’s acceptance of fraudulent Special Management Area Permit applications to allow licensed consultants and their developer clients to intentionally avoid both public review and the cost of environmental protections, in violation of Federal Coastal Zone Management Laws.

All of this systematically sucks our tax money out of the budget to the benefit of private developers, while our environment suffers ongoing harm.

Over the years Individual County Council Members have tried to stop this abuse but the Mayor’s lawyers have stonewalled them all.

So, just as in Montana Beach, Palama Drive, and Olowalu, where only citizen action brought corruption to light, a private citizen has now filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the departments of Corporation Counsel, Public Works and Planning for fraud and their ongoing cover up of that fraud, which includes obstructing access of public documents to citizens and Council Members, and lying in their declarations to Court Judges.

Without doing any investigation into possible wrongdoings, Mike White, as Council Chair and Chief Procurement Officer, has taken it upon himself to approve spending our tax dollars to blindly and vigorously defend the Administration’s acts.

With little hope that the Current Council, under Chair White, will ever do the job the people need them to do to protect our interests and our environment,  Maui Causes conceived and has executed a public petition calling on the County’s Independent Auditor to assess our financial loss, make the legal determinations that will facilitate millions of dollars of financial recovery, and identify what administrative loopholes to close in order to shut this Good Ol’ Boy exploitation down for good.

Our petition asks the auditor to addresses both 3-Lot-or-Less Subdivision Deferral Agreements and SMA Permit abuse, as they are both areas where those in-the-know know, no one has been watching. Dollars to donuts if the auditor looks at a parcel with multiple overlapping deferral agreements and an SMA permit application with an order of magnitude statement just below the threshold to get an SMA Minor permit instead of an SMA major, that order of magnitude statement will be fraudulent.

Maui Causes brought our petition to Council Member and Chair of the Litigation Committee, Don Guzman, who embraced the idea, at least in part, proposing to the council a resolution also asking the County Auditor to investigate, but only the deferral agreements.

Maui Causes was proud to submit to the Council nearly 1500 signatures in support of our petition, which we feel helped propel the Council to approve Guzman’s resolution 9 to 0. Even Mike White embraced the idea of the Council pawning the issues off onto the County Auditor.

Maui Cause has launched a crowd funding campaign so we can continue to collect signatures on our petition for a deeper, more through investigation, which we will soon present to the County Auditor for his consideration.

With your help we can end the decades of corruption and use these issues to help launch of our next petition to put on the ballot a revision to our County Charter that will change the structure of our county government so that it better serves the people’s and our environment’s best interests, rather than allowing big money and Good Ol’ Boys to exploit us all.

Dear Council Member Guzman,                                                                         10/25/2017

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me Oct 9th to discuss the liabilities transferred to taxpayers from private developers via the thousands of uncollected “Three Lots or Less” subdivision infrastructure deferral agreements and apparent SMA (Special Management Area) permit manipulations.

To recap: Public Works Director David Goode essentially admitted in public testimony to the Budget and Finance Committee on April 19, 2012 that by writing overlapping deferral agreements on certain parcels repeatedly, Public Works and Corporate Counsel violated the clearly stated requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance that deferrals are to be a one-time event: “The land so subdivided shall not thereafter qualify for this exception with respect to any subsequent subdivision of any of the resulting parcels.”

The transcript of Goode’s testimony reads: “…some deferral agreements, three lots, had another future three lot and a future three lot, so it got subdivided again and again, had different deferrals. And in some cases especially in West Maui, the original three-lot subdivision was a huge piece of land that went halfway up the mountain, and so there’s a possibility there’s going to be some deferral agreements where theoretically there’s 1,000 different owners and they each owe us $25. I mean it’s getting… it potentially is getting really crazy as it relates to us trying to administer it.”

Goode’s “crazy” comment fits, especially since a well-intended code amendment in 2010 only addressed part of the problem and actually made the situation worse.

Before 2010 the county just ignored the agreements it wrote, doing its own roadway improvements and not bothering to collect on any of the deferrals. SInce the 2010 amendment however, if the county does a start an improvement project they are required to issue a “Notice of Intent to Collect” to property owners.

The problem is that the notice triggers the conversion of what was a slumbering, undefined and easily ignored “encumbrance” on a landowner’s title, into a full-fledged, yet still undefined “lien”, with no set dollar figure, that needs to be satisfied before any Real Estate transaction can be completed. What was missing from the amendment was any scheme to assess values or any mechanism to actually collect and release the liens.

Dealing with an undefined lien is an impossible situation that would bankrupt almost any landowner; an assessor can’t make an assessment, so they can’t refinance nor sell their property and there’s no way to pay off the lien to clear their title even if they had the cash to do so.

It appears that at least two roadway improvement projects that the county saw the need to initiate were killed rather than deal with the fallout created by continuing to send out open-ended Notices of Intent to Collect. How long can the county and the County Council, ignore these problems?

Council Member Cochran attempted to pursue the matter with Goode back in 2012 but ultimately hit a brick wall with a response coming from the Mayor’s Office stating that ”After our meeting with our Corporation Counsel on this issue, we are unable to respond at this time on the matter as we are 1) researching the applicability of certain agreements on the ability to seek compensation, and 2) working out a formula for compensation on certain agreements. Rest assured we (Departments of Public Works and Corporation Counsel) are actively working on this issue… ”

Now, five years later, Public Works and Corporation Counsel still have done nothing to resolve any of the deferral agreements. Thousands of homeowners still have no way to remove these open-ended encumbrances from their titles and roadways are deteriorating and flooding because the County is avoiding much-needed improvements.

On March 22, 2014 Goode publicly set the stage for the County’s continued inaction by writing a Viewpoint for the Maui News. Goode relates what County Ordinance 18.20.040, in effect from the 1970’s up to 2007, requires of subdividers: “If the subdivider elected to defer the improvements, he/she would be required to compensate the County of Maui for the cost of the improvements when performed by the county. To ensure that this was done, the subdivider was required to enter into an agreement to compensate the county for the improvements when performed”

Later in the same editorial Goode completely misrepresents the ordinance and casts uncertainty upon the requirements made of the subdividers when he ignores the consistent use in the language in the ordinance of the word “shall”. Goode wrote “As explained, the agreements state that if and when the County of Maui does a capital improvement project along a roadway fronting a property that has one of these agreements recorded against it, the county may recover the costs of doing those improvements that were specifically deferred.” The actual ordinance never once includes the word “may”, only the word “shall” is used.

Goode wrote that should anyone, “wish to legally challenge the agreements, they may do so, but will be unsuccessful as the agreements were authorized by law.” Clearly Goode is wrong. The deferral agreements that were applied over and over again to the same original parcel, in direct violation of the ordinance, actually violate the law and are likely not legally enforceable at all. Whether Public Works and Corp Counsel knew they were writing unenforceable agreements is another question.

One possible avenue that Maui Causes is considering is to petition the County Auditor to assess the amount of recovery to the taxpayers that has been lost by not collecting on these deferral agreements and how to recover that value. But perhaps asking the auditor to spend time and taxpayer’s dollars to assess deferral agreements is premature. Perhaps the action should be instead to demand through the Mayor’s office, that Corp Counsel do what they said they were going to do back in 2012, to make a determination as to which, if any, of the deferral agreements can be collected on and, if so, what the calculation of those collections would be.

Is this a demand that can reasonably come from your office?

Council Member King brought this matter forward in May of this year and it was redirected as Item 32 of the Infrastructure Management Committee, waiting to be scheduled by Committee Chair Cochran. Meanwhile I can share with you that a grassroots initiative is rapidly gaining traction that would launch a class action suit which, in addition to Corp Counsel, would also name the County Council negligent for not adopting a formula to assess, collect and clear these encumbrances from thousands of homeowner’s titles. To facilitate being able to act on Item 32 and to protect the reputation of the Council, I think it prudent to demand Corp Counsel make the determinations they promised back in 2012 and place the burden of inaction squarely back onto the Administration.

Deferral agreements aside, Maui Causes still intends to create a public petition of the County Auditor to assess the losses to the taxpayers that appear to result from exploitations of loopholes built into the administration of SMA permits, and inappropriate permit exemptions issued at the sole discretion of the Planning Director, a political appointee of the Mayor. It seems to us that Public Works and Planning facilitate well-connected private developers using these loopholes and exemptions to subvert County zoning ordinances, shift financial burdens from private developers onto the backs of taxpayers, and avoid installing such things as storm water retention ponds, the lack of which does irreparable and incalculable harm to our beaches and reefs with every heavy rain.

Olowalu is a recent example of a private developer being brought back almost 10 years later to fulfill their SMA permit obligations which fell through the cracks when they thought no one was looking. We believe the thousands of exemptions and SMA permit minors issued by politically appointed Directors, which denied citizens of our rights to public hearing, shoreline preservation, public right of ways and even park fees, should be audited. The Council needs to act to ensure all developers meet their obligations and, as well, enact legislation to close the loopholes and bring a more appropriate level of professional oversight and checks and balances to the politically appointed Planning Commission, to stop future abuses.

Thanks so much for your attention to these important matters.

Sam Small
Executive Director, Maui Causes
www.MauiCauses.org

Evolving out of Vote Yes Maui, the Community Outreach arm of the SHAKA Movement, Maui Causes has been working for years to promote Progressive and Environmental Causes on Maui.

Our Facebook page and weekly TV show on AKAKU Ch 55 give voice to our community’s leaders not found in the Corporate Controlled media on Maui.
We also now produce the Kimokeo Foundation Talk Story show on Akaku.

We exist through your contributions – Please CLICK HERE Make One!

Mahalo and Aloha

Terez Amato ran for State Senate in 2014 in the South Maui district against incumbent Roz Baker. Terez’s campaign did extraordinarily well for a first time candidate and she’s contemplating running against Roz again in 2018.

Just a few months ago Terez was paralyzed by a stroke that is most commonly fatal. She’s the 1% of survivors of this particular brain aneurism and its a testament to her will and dedication that, not only is she working and progressing daily to regain her full mobility, but she seems more committed than ever to be of service to the people our community and take control of Hawaii Politics out of the dominating hands of big business interests represented faithfully by Senator Roz Baker.

Let Terez know you support her and her political agenda to empower the people of Hawaii.

Mahalo!

https://www.facebook.com/TerezAmato

Hometown
Kihei, HI

Affiliation
Democrat, The Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii

About
2014 Hawai’i State Senate Candidate (D), District 6: South and West Maui

Biography
Terez Amato grew up in South and Central Maui. As a hardworking, single mother of four, she believes in our basic human rights to clean air, clean water, and locally grown food. Her vision is for a sustainable Maui nui where education, health care, and preserving the rights of all citizens and workers is both progressive and rational.

Working in a small family business from a young age, she learned the importance of integrity and always doing her best when serving others. Terez Amato’s honest, thoughtful, and responsive approach to issues and considering the good of all—especially the future of our children—defines our future Senator’s campaign.

Political views
Liberal

Activities
Please support the campaign!
VOLUNTEER for Terez! EMAIL: campaign@TerezAmato.com
DONATE: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/terezamato
OR Please send checks payable to
FRIENDS OF TEREZ AMATO
47-732 Hui Kelu St. Suite 4
Kaneohe, HI 96744

About Me
Terez Amato WILL ALWAYS
• work for the people of Maui, not corporations or lobbyists
• support Maui’s workers and local businesses.
• protect our people and environment from toxic pollution and corporate abuses.
• fight for clear labeling of our food.

Terez Amato WILL NEVER
• take money from corporations or lobbyists.

WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE !

Photo by Brooke Everett

Slapping WESTPAC, that “greenwashing” group The Nature Conservancy, and Gov Ige in their respective faces, Hawaii’s Supreme Court just unanimously agreed that “DLNR’s practice of blindly doling out aquarium collection permits without studying environmental impacts is illegal,” said Earthjustice attorney Summer Kupau-Odo in a press release.  “The law demands and Hawaiʻi’s people have every right to expect more from the agency charged with conserving our natural resources.”

And we have more to expect from both Gov Ige and Collenne Hanabusa who have both shown how truly dedicated they are to preserving Corporate Entitlements regardless of the loss to our communities. Hanbusa pushed for and Ige took the bait when he vetoed Senate Bill 1240, which the legislature recently approved, trying at least to do right by our dwindling natural resources.

The state Attorney General’s office is reviewing the decision to determine what action the state will take in light of the ruling. “Today’s ruling from the Hawaii Supreme Court reverses all lower court decisions since 2012 and more than 60 years of previously unchallenged practice by the Department of Land and Natural Resources,” Attorney General Doug Chin said in a statement.

And it’s about time.

U. Hawaii law professor David Callies revealed a stunning statistic back in 2012. He noted that the Hawaii Supreme Court “has managed to find in favor of Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Earthjustice … 90% of the time, 70% of those decisions overturning the [Hawaii] Intermediate Court of Appeals.”

But any batting average only becomes meaningful after you have enough times at bat to reveal the trend, in other words, 90% of just a few is still just a few.

To us that high score underscores just how out of control in favor of corporate exploitation the DLNR has been for decades and that better balanced management needs to better protect what’s left of our precious natural resources.

Photo by Brooke Everett

June 14, 2017  Former Maui official claims her firing was retaliatory
By Nelson Daranciang Posted June 14, 2017

The former Maui County highways chief says in a federal whistleblower lawsuit that she was fired for reporting and investigating county worker abuses, including the repairing of private motor vehicles at county facilities on county time and with parts purchased using county pCards.

Lesli Lyn Otani says in the lawsuit that she was chief of field operations and maintenance for the county’s Department of Public Works when she reported the alleged abuses to the department’s director, David Goode, and deputy director, Rowena Dagdag-Andaya. Otani says Goode ignored her reports, tried to discourage her from investigating them, then fired her after she took her concerns and findings to the county’s Department of the Corporation Counsel.

Otani returned to her previous job as a county civil engineer. She is suing the county, its Department of Public Works and Goode. Otani filed her lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Tuesday. She says the Corporation Counsel has placed six employees of the highways division on paid leave while it investigates her reports.

The administrative investigation of the Public Works Department uncovered other alleged misconduct by two former employees. The county prosecutor charged Raynard Oshiro, a former district supervisor, and Lea Cadiz, a former Oshiro subordinate, with theft in December for allegedly taking uncharged vacation. Oshiro retired in 2015 after 38 years of service with the county. Cadiz was fired.

Otani says she was promoted to highways chief in April 2016 after the previous chief, Brian Hashiro, retired amid allegations that he used his county pCard to outfit the Wailuku base yard with a commercial-grade kitchen. She says she immediately started receiving reports of other alleged worker misconduct, including employees being forced to repair private vehicles at the Makawao Garage on weekends with parts purchased on county pCards, one employee driving an unmarked county vehicle for personal use and the undervaluing of county vehicles at trade-in.

She said when the county bought a new bulldozer, a supervising employee had the old one turned in to the dealer for zero trade-in value. The dealer then sold the old

bulldozer for $15,000 to $30,000. Otani says Goode extended her six-month probation in September, then fired her in March. She said during her probation Goode undermined her authority in front of her subordinates, which encouraged one to refuse to do the work necessary to clear debris from a September flood. She also said Dagdag-Andaya disclosed to others matters they discussed in a confidential conversation.

Maui County spokesman Rod Antone said the county does not comment on pending litigation, and he declined to comment on Otani’s claims.

A Case of Illegal Agro-chemical Experimentation Without Informed Individual Consent on Maui and Molokai
by Lorrin Pang, M.D., M.P.H. and David Klein, B.S., Ph.D., Naturorthopathic Doctor Maui, Hawaii, USA

Physicians Coalition for Responsible Agriculture on Maui (PCRAM) https://www.facebook.com/groups/100764643749895/

To safeguard the public’s health and respect individuals’ rights, we do not want to allow
exposure of unknown (experimental) harm to individuals without their informed consent. This
has been happening for longer than a decade as experimental genetically modified organism
(GMO) agro-chemical testing conducted by Monsanto has resulted in pesticide chemicals
drifting and flowing into Maui’s and neighboring island Molokai’s communities with unknown
health effects. The potential harm from pesticide drift and polluted overland runoff and
groundwater infiltration from these activities is the issue in question. In principle, this is
ethically wrong because it knowingly violates individuals’ rights to choose to be free of the
risks of such experimental activity.   MORE BELOW:

A Case of Illegal Agro-chemical Experimentation Without Informed Individual Consent on Maui and Molokai by Lorrin Pang, M.D., M.P.H. and David Klein, B.S., Ph.D., Naturorthopathic Doctor Maui, Hawaii, USA Physicians Coalition for Responsible Agriculture on Maui (PCRAM)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/100764643749895/

Primary Principle

To safeguard the public’s health and respect individuals’ rights, we do not want to allow exposure of unknown (experimental) harm to individuals without their informed consent. This has been happening for longer than a decade as experimental genetically modified organism (GMO) agro-chemical testing conducted by Monsanto has resulted in pesticide chemicals drifting and flowing into Maui’s and neighboring island Molokai’s communities with unknown health effects.

The potential harm from pesticide drift and polluted overland runoff and groundwater infiltration from these activities is the issue in question. In principle, this is ethically wrong because it knowingly violates individuals’ rights to choose to be free of the risks of such experimental activity.

Terminologies

It is necessary to clearly understand the meanings of the germane terms and compare this issue to other past examples. For example, what did we do when we did not fully know the harm of cigarettes, second-hand cigarette smoke, flu vaccines, disinfectants in public drinking water, and prisoners on death row who need a “better” lethal injecting drug that causes less suffering?

What Does “Experimental” Mean?

“Experimental” means unknown. This can be unknown benefits and unknown harm. Some public health interpretations compare potential benefits to risks. There may be a different risk benefit ratio for each different type of individual (children, asthmatics, elderly, etc.). Many experiments are great—they turn out well. This is what moves medical science forward. However, proof of success after an experiment is over is never an excuse for not having obtained informed consent from individuals prior to the start of the experiment. This kind of hindsight argument is not valid since there are many examples when things did not turn out well. Test subjects must be fully informed of the risks and given the opportunity to opt-out. Even when things do turn out well, without prior informed consent, the project and those associated with it are unethical.

What Does “Informed Consent” Mean?

“Informed” Defined
“Informed” means explaining at an eighth grade level of understanding the risks (potential and known), benefits (potential and known), the actual experiment activity (randomized, controlled or blinded), and how subjects will be monitored under both good and bad outcomes. When something is not fully known (e.g., health effects of mixtures of chemicals, or distances that drift will occur and produce health effects), subjects must be told how much we do know, and how we know this. Another key disclosure is the individual’s alternatives to not participating in the experiment. This can be specific to (1) the subject (e.g., he will be given standard care with no retaliation for non-participation, etc.) or (2) to society in general (e.g., there may or may not be alternative drugs, each with their own good and bad points—toxicity, cost, ease of administration). Finally, there is disclosure of the sponsoring agencies, who must be readily available at any time to answer questions to prove that the experiment’s information is valid and that the experiment’s guidelines are followed.

“Consent” Defined
“Consent” by each individual who participates in experiments must be given freely and in private. The experiment information can be provided en masse; however, questions must be allowed to be raised in private by each individual. Records must be kept of those who participate and those who decline. Records of whether or not a person participated should be kept private, but sometimes this is impossible. There must be no enticement or coercion (retaliation) directly or indirectly based on participation. It must be clearly stated that once subjects have entered an experiment, they can freely choose to quit at any time for any reason.

Experiment Considerations

Even before seeking informed consent to enroll subjects, the whole experimental process (including informed consent procedures) must be approved and monitored for compliance. This is the role of Institutional Review Boards (IRB). Experimental activities which do not submit for IRB approvals cannot argue that they do not have IRB “disapproval” and they are, therefore, ethical. On the other hand, IRBs cannot claim that they only review what is formally submitted to them. If an IRB hears of a questionable unethical experiment, it is obliged to follow though with its formal assessment, otherwise, unethical experiments would be conducted by simply skirting the IRB application process.

Institutional Review Board Oversight

Oversight of experiments performed on any world citizen must be carried out by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the sponsoring agency(s) and/or by a community IRB to review all activities. IRBs insure that the experiment information is valid and that the procedures will be adhered to by those in charge. In general, IRBs will determine (1) if the activity is ethical at all, (2) if the experiment’s scientific merit outweighs the risks. If these criterion are met, then the IRB will determine whether or not an informed consent is needed on an individual basis.

IRBs must evaluate informed consent forms (when deemed necessary). If there are two levels of IRBs involved in a study, the approval of both are needed to proceed. In U.S. research circles, we used to argue that local IRBs should review first so as not be influenced by the decision of the higher IRB authority. There is the possibility of implicit enticement and/or coercion in the recruitment of potential subjects in such settings as prisons, military, elderly, refugees, etc. In such cases, it can be difficult for IRBs to assess informed consent procedures and determine if they are valid or not. IRBs will require the opportunity to review forms of those who refused to participate in experiments after being informed. IRBs will also conduct sample spot check interviews of those who consented in order to confirm that there was a true understanding of the experiment risks and potential benefits, and no coercion or enticement. Once a study is underway, an IRB will monitor those test subjects who have chosen to leave the study for any reasons, and periodic reports will be made to assess the experiment’s safety. IRBs will also sample and spot check those who remain, to insure that they are free to leave for any reason.

It is possible that one can ethically conduct human experimentation without an IRB if one simply interprets and follows accepted ethical guidelines (i.e., the Nuremberg/Helsinki Accord). Conversely, an IRB which strays from international guidelines (perhaps due to political or financial influence) can do more damage than good. As pointed out by the framers of the Helsinki Accord, there are numerous cases where regulatory bodies (including the courts) biased the judgement of ethics because of unintentional or intentional inappropriate arguments (e.g., national security, economic stability, advancement of science, tacit consent, etc.). Yes, informed consent is very important. It is tantamount to the difference between organ trafficking and organ donation.

Informed Consent Exceptions

Why is there no explicit informed consent requirement for some known potentially hazardous activities (e.g., smoking and drinking water systems), while there is a requirement for others (e.g., flu vaccines and cancer chemotherapy trials)?

Example 1

If the safety or harm of an activity is known to a reasonable degree of certainty, then the activity is not an “experiment” and needs no informed consent. These are examples of “nonexperimental” hazards: water boarding (other than individual variation of response), marketed products after clinical trials (such as Narcan for suspected opiate overdoses), over-the-counter drugs, and volcanic lava fumes emissions when downwind closer than a certain distance. Sometimes the effects are very bad, misused, and in and of themselves unethical, but they are known and do not fall under “experimentation.”

Example 2

If a certain activity’s effects are unknown (or not known well enough), but a reasonable person has been informed of the risk AND can avoid exposure, then there is tacit agreement that those participating give “informed consent” and the others who don’t want to participate can simply avoid exposure. So, after intense public education there may be no need for informed consent in this situation. For example, first-hand cigarette exposure (but not second-hand smoking effects), lava emissions at greater than a certain distance, municipal drinking water additives when purer bottled water is available from another source (as in Flint, Michigan), and tourists risk warnings for such events as lava flows, vog drifts, rough surf conditions and shark sightings at beaches. When people can avoid a situation of risk but the risk is not so obvious, then we should consider explicit informed consent. Examples are: vaccines, GMO food which “looks” like other foods (hindsight of claims of GMO food safety is no excuse for not having gotten upfront informed consent), drinking water with undisclosed additives, cancer chemotherapy, and invisible chemical exposure.

Example 3

An interesting paradox occurs when (1) there is known harm (non-experimental) to some and unknown harm to others AND (2) a person cannot reasonably avoid exposure. This points to a case we have faced on Maui where sugarcane burn smoke drifts into the surrounding communities really affecting those close by and possibly affecting those farther away (after decades of practice, this will cease at the end of 2016, for economic rather than ethical reasons). This raises the question: should we be given the opportunity to give informed consent or should the sugarcane company just be ordered to stop the activity under the threat of suit for damages? There was a similar situation cited as an example of unethical conduct (“That Time Scientists Tested Sulfuric Acid on Prisoners for No Reason”: http://io9.gizmodo.com/that-time-scientiststested- sulfuric-acid-on-prisoners-1565474612). In 1907 “negro prisoners” in Louisiana were openly experimented on to see how much sulfuric acid in their molasses they could tolerate. There was no attempt to hear their objections (consent) because “it would not do any good if they did.”

Example 4

Another paradoxical case that the islands of Molokai and Maui face is of utmost concern: pesticide drift from nearby experimental agro-chemical fields. The question arises: If harm of chemical mixtures and drift at great distances is unknown (experimental), and people cannot avoid exposure (unlike distributing bottled water to families in Flint Michigan), then shouldn’t each individual within any drift range be asked to either give informed consent or to opt out of exposure? If everyone gives valid informed consent, then the activity can continue. But if just one exposed person decides to avoid exposure, then the ethical thing to do is to stop the activity. One’s right to have his/her choice respected in this decision is not overruled by the majority decision, nor can it be nullified by legislative or judiciary bodies. Most absurd, in the context of the experimental setting, is the argument that others have the right be profitable at the expense of chemicals drifting to others.

Field researchers have been faced with similar situations where the majority have asked for a study when a few refused. When a testing agency could not respect the wishes of the few, the experiments were cancelled by the IRB. Obviously, the economic scale and potential economic value of the experiment should have no bearing on the ethical decision for the individual, especially when the economic advantage to the subject is minimal. One senses this wrong when there are great enticements offered to subjects to enter experiments.

The Legal Impermanence Issue

We should bear in mind that the recent media, court and legislative wrangling to determine who has the authority to make decisions on experimental agro-chemical activities on Maui may have resulted in an ephemeral decision. For example, the Hawaiian county island of Kauai’s previous precautionary GMO measures are now being reversed by a newly elected county council. In all of this confusion we have forgotten the rights of the individuals to choose for themselves and their children. There is absolutely nothing like an informed, concerned, engaged community to police its own rules of ethical individual rights. Ironically, we also should not have blind faith in those who framed the rules of the Helsinki Accord. Bodies can change and become corrupted. But it was this body which codified, introduced and gained recognition of the rights of the individual regarding human experimentation.

Maui Opted Out

The Maui County vote in 2015 to moratorium experimental GMO field practices was our de facto informed consent opt-in/opt-out exercise. We informed our legislators of our choice: to opt-out. During the campaign leading up to the vote, coercive (loss of jobs) and enticing (economic stimulus to the economy) arguments were made. Those tactics would not have been allowed if an IRB had overseen this vote. Often those supporting the moratorium were accused of fear mongering—but fear, no matter how “unscientifically” based, is a valid personal reason for individuals to opt-out of experimentation. Voters freely chose what “science” they wanted to believe, if any. They voted confidentially, free of personal coercion or enticement. The optout vote prevailed despite coercive propaganda enticement from different sectors of the business community which made claims of economic damage and job loss.

In addition to the human risk, many voters were also concerned about the risk to the environment and to non-GMO crops. Whether or not these concerns would be “legitimized” by an IRB focusing on human risk is unknown. Issues were raised largely unfiltered.

In the end, the moratorium vote was ruled invalid after Monsanto took the case to federal judges who ruled that states have jurisdiction over pesticides and Federal Agencies have authority over experimental GMO field activities. The issue of individual ethics and risk of experimentation was not allowed to be raised. U.S. county, state and federal review bodies were made aware that pesticide drift constituted an experiment, but they chose to avoid this framework (ethics). In fact, some governmental officials have intentionally excluded arguments of human health risks.

Individual Rights Preside

In matters of safeguarding the public’s health, we must always consider each individual’s point of view when deciding if his or her safety should be sacrificed for the greater good. It was wrong that the Nazi doctors during the Nuremberg trials tried to justify their experimental actions with their claims that medical knowledge gained from unethical experiments could benefit other Nazi soldiers and all future mankind. The claim of benefit is certainly true but the means of getting this knowledge was grossly unethical. The potential benefit is a wrong justification; in our world’s legal system, individual ethical rights come first. One has a “gut” feeling for the rights of the individual. It follows the Golden Rule. Are those in power deciding the fate of individuals just because they are in power? What if the roles were reversed?

The Violation Of Our Individual Rights Is Clear

A good test to see if we are acting free of bias when applying the above ethical criteria is to change the parties involved. For example, suppose that an enemy regime is experimenting on our citizens (taken prisoner) for the sake of national security, as did Germany’s Nazis. Then consider our own country’s agencies or its private corporations experimenting on our own citizens for the intended purpose of increasing the world’s food supply. Now ignore who runs the experiments and consider who are the subjects and what is the objective of the experiment. Some situations seem more unfair than others. However, under the guidelines of the Helsinki accord they all abuse individual rights if there is no informed consent…..and this is what is happening on Molokai and Maui.

Mounting World Opinion

Our Hawaii situation regarding pesticide use on GMO experimental fields was raised at the Hague Tribunal where Dr. Pang presented our case in October of 2016. A ruling will be made in April of 2017. Our position has been accepted for presentation at the International Public Health Forum (to be held in Melbourne, Australia in May of 2017). To enforce this clear violation of our citizen’s ethical rights and to uphold the county’s and state’s charge to safeguard the welfare of its people, we will ask the World Medical Association (who follows guidelines of the Nuremberg/Helsinki Accord) for a ruling on Maui’s case of agro-chemical experimentation with regard to the ethics of this situation when framed as an “experiment,” which it truly is. Now and hereafter, this issue must be raised on a grassroots level and the agencies in charge will have to address these concerns and the World Medical Association’s ruling. As always, we will put our faith in the opinion and actions of an engaged public. Let this paper serve as a catalyst for public discussion and action. Our inalienable ethical rights, the integrity of U.S. health safeguard laws, and lives are at stake.

Please support our cause by joining the Physicians Coalition for Responsible Agriculture on Maui on Facebook and contacting us.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/100764643749895/ For more information, please watch Dr. Pang’s video: “Ethical Violations of Pesticide Use in Hawaii on Experimental GM Fields” https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGCC6WKByX89-_LZ7Swp7tg 77

About the Authors

Lorrin Pang (writing here as a private citizen) was born and raised in Honolulu. He was an honors graduate from Princeton University with a degree in Chemistry. He received M.D. and Master Public Health degrees from Tulane University (New Orleans). He holds a Board Certification in Preventive Medicine. Dr. Pang worked for 20 years with the U.S. Army’s Walter Reed Overseas Research Laboratories, assigned to Bangkok, Rio de Janeiro and Geneva, developing drugs and diagnostics for tropical diseases. He was a consultant to the World Health Organization from 1985 to 2005 for tropical diseases. In the year 2000, Dr. Pang retired and moved to Maui taking the position of the District Health Officer. He has had approximately six dozen papers published in peer reviewed medical journals covering rabies, HIV, malaria, hepatitis E, and most recently dengue. From the years 2007 to 2009, Dr. Pang was selected to America’s Best Doctors Listing (comprising 3% of our nation’s physicians). Since 2013, he has worked (1) as a reviewer for research proposals for the U.S. Congress, (2) as a consultant to the DNDI (an international group developing drugs for neglected diseases), and (3) has been a visiting professor of medicine for Federal University of Brasilia. Contact: panghi71@gmail.com

David Klein is a six-year resident of Maui. He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Northeastern University and worked eight years in the field of environmental engineering in New Jersey, New York and California. He also holds a Ph.D. in Natural Health and Healing and a Naturorthopathic Doctor degree from the University of Natural Health. He directs the Colitis & Crohn’s Health Recovery Center, is the author of the bestseller, Self Healing Colitis & Crohn’s, and enjoys permaculture farming with his wife Annette. Contact: dave@colitis-crohns.com

Dear organic farming friends of the world!

We are “Jadam,” a group based in Korea that promotes “Ultra-low cost” organic farming.
After decades of research and studies, Jadam has come up with a system of organic farming
where the farmers can make their own fertilizer, microbe input, and even pesticide.
The making of, and use of inputs are extremely easy and effective, and have been open to the public.

Free event with Keali’i Reichel, Bishop Silva of Honolulu and more.  Hosted by Mary Omwake.

Maui Seasons for Peace – Interfaith Service Ceremony

Fri, 11 Dec 2015 @ 7:00 PM – 8:30 PM HST

UH Maui College Pilina Multipurpose Bldg
310 W Kaahumanu Ave.
Kahului,HI 96732

Maui Seasons for Peace invites you, friends and family to attend its interfaith ceremony on December 11, 2015 at the University of Hawaii Maui College Pilina Multipurpose Room from 7:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

One of Maui Seasons for Peace signature yearly events is to honor Peace Heroes of Maui. These are individuals, groups or organizations that are contributing to the well-being of our community and making a positive difference. We are proud to annouce that this year we will be presenting the Peace Hero Award to: Kealii Reichel, Jonathan Keyser and Ian Romanchak of Kula Native Nursery, and Kainoa Horcajo.

Maui Seasons for Peace Program

Maui Seasons for Peace –

This Friday at 7:00 PM – UH Maui Pilani Room

Free event with Bishop Silva of Honolulu, Keali’i Reichel, Ram Dass, Bodhi and Leilah Be.

Hosted by Mary Omwake.

Honoring Peace Heroes Keali’i Reichel, Kainoa Horcajo and Maui Native Nursery.

By Jay Syrmopoulos, Guest Blogger

Doctors are sounding the alarm after noticing a disturbing trend happening in Waimea, on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. Over the past five years, the number of severe heart malformations has risen to more than ten times the national rate, according to an analysis by local physicians.

Pediatrician Carla Nelson, after seeing four of these defects in three years, is extremely concerned with the severe health anomalies manifesting in the local population.

Nelson, as well as a number of other local doctors, find themselves at the center of a growing controversy about whether the substantial increase in severe illness and birth defects in Waimea stem from the main cash crop on four of the six islands, genetically modified corn, which has been altered to resist pesticides.

Hawaii has historically been used as a testing ground for almost all GMO corn grown in the United States. Over 90% of GMO corn grown in the mainland U.S. was first developed in Hawaii, with the island of Kauai having the largest area used.

According to a report in The Guardian:

In Kauai, chemical companies Dow, BASF, Syngenta and DuPont spray 17 times more pesticide per acre (mostly herbicides, along with insecticides and fungicides) than on ordinary cornfields in the US mainland, according to the most detailed study of the sector, by the Center for Food Safety.

That’s because they are precisely testing the strain’s resistance to herbicides that kill other plants. About a fourth of the total are called Restricted Use Pesticides because of their harmfulness. Just in Kauai, 18 tons – mostly atrazine, paraquat (both banned in Europe) and chlorpyrifos – were applied in 2012. The World Health Organization this year announced that glyphosate, sold as Roundup, the most common of the non-restricted herbicides, is “probably carcinogenic in humans”.
Waimea is a small town that lies directly downhill from the 12,000 acres of GMO test fields leased mainly from the state. Spraying takes place often, sometimes every couple of days. Residents have complained that when the wind blows downhill from the fields, the chemicals have caused headaches, vomiting, and stinging eyes.

“Your eyes and lungs hurt, you feel dizzy and nauseous. It’s awful,” local middle school special education teacher Howard Hurst told the Guardian. “Here, 10% of the students get special-ed services, but the state average is 6.3%,” he says. “It’s hard to think the pesticides don’t play a role.”

To add insult to injury, Dow AgraSciences’ main lobbyist in Honolulu, until recently, actually ran the main hospital in town. Although only 1,700ft away from a Syngenta field, the hospital has never done any research into the effects of pesticides on its patients.

Hawaiians have attempted to rein in the industrial chemical/farming machine on four separate occasions over the past two years. On August 9 an estimated 10,000 people marched through Honolulu’s main tourist district to protest the collusion of big business and state putting profits over citizens’ health.

“The turnout and the number of groups marching showed how many people are very frustrated with the situation,” native Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte said.

Hawaiians have also attempted to use a ballot initiative to force a moratorium on the planting of GMO crops, according to The Guardian:

In Maui County, which includes the islands of Maui and Molokai, both with large GMO corn fields, a group of residents calling themselves the Shaka Movement sidestepped the company-friendly council and launched a ballot initiative that called for a moratorium on all GMO farming until a full environmental impact statement is completed there.

The companies, primarily Monsanto, spent $7.2m on the campaign ($327.95 per “no” vote, reported to be the most expensive political campaign in Hawaii history) and still lost.

Again, they sued in federal court, and, a judge found that the Maui County initiative was preempted by federal law. Those rulings are also being appealed.
Even amidst strong public pressure, the chemical companies that grow the GMO corn have continued to refuse to disclose the chemicals they are using, as well as the specific amounts of each chemical being used. The industry and its political cronies have continually insisted that pesticides are safe.

“We have not seen any credible source of statistical health information to support the claims,” said Bennette Misalucha, executive director of Hawaii Crop Improvement Association in a written statement distributed by a publicist.

Nelson pointed out that American Academy of Pediatrics’ report, “Pesticide Exposure in Children”, found “an association between pesticides and adverse birth outcomes, including physical birth defects,” going on to note that local schools have twice been evacuated and kids sent to the hospital due to pesticide drift. “It’s hard to treat a child when you don’t know which chemical he’s been exposed to.”

Sidney Johnson, a pediatric surgeon at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children who oversees all children born in Hawaii with major birth defects says he’s noticed that the number of babies born here with their abdominal organs outside has increased. This is a rare condition known as gastroschisis and has grown from three per year in the 1980s to about a dozen now, according to The Guardian.

Johnson and a team of medical students have been studying hospital records to determine if any of the parents of the infants with gastroschisis were residing near fields that were undergoing spraying during conception and early pregnancy.

“We have cleanest water and air in the world,” Johnson said. “You kind of wonder why this wasn’t done before,” he says. “Data from other states show there might be a link, and Hawaii might be the best place to prove it.”

It was recently revealed that these chemical companies, unlike farmers, are allowed to operate under an antiquated decades-old Environmental Protection Agency permit. This permit was grandfathered in from the days of sugar plantations when the amounts and toxicities were significantly lower, and which allowed for toxic chemicals to be discharged into water. Tellingly, the state of Hawaii has asked for a federal exemption to allow these companies to continue to not comply with modern standards.

The ominous reality of collusion between these mega-corporations and the political class in Hawaii has seemingly left the citizens of the state with virtually no ability to safeguard their children’s health. We tread dangerously close to corporate fascism when profits are put above the health of the people.

Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, free thinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has been published on BenSwann’s Truth in Media, Truth-Out, AlterNet, InfoWars, MintPress News and many other sites. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.

In the wake of a faulty, manipulated ruling from Judge Mollway that attempts to invalidate Maui's voter's voice, We Stand For Democracy and prepare to appeal to a higher and, hopefully, less biased court.