Issue: representation in County Council

[james weatherford]

OK, could someone please lay out in good, clear, words without hyperbole the issue regarding apportionment and "Puna" representation in the County Council.

To me, plenty of the words here on this issue come across as parochial whining and lacking constructive substance -- if the people making those words would rather project a different impression, then please explain the above.

Be told: I am not convinced that Waa Waa and Volcano, and Keaau Ag lots and Kehena Beach, and Fern Forest and Hawaiian Paradise Park are all so homogeneous -- as well as being so different from Pahala and Panaewa -- that "Puna" is so well differentiated for purposes of representative democracy.



James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[Rob Tucker]

I haven't made too many comments on this issue yet but as I understand it it comes down this way.... and my understanding comes from reading Brenda Ford's Bill 276 and talking with Bob Jacobson about it.

The last reapportionment effort involved apparent partisan manipulation to the benefit of Hilo. Nothing unusual in past politics about that. The present "commission" was somehow created in a manner that provided for, or allowed, closed door meetings - something which lends itself to funny business. Subtle moves to consolidate one area's power to the disadvantage of another's tended to happen with little public awareness. The dry business of reapportionment makes for dull reading.

Basic criteria for reapportionment were ignored in 2001 as per Brenda Ford. The result being that Puna ended up with what could be termed one full council member and two council members who have a "minority" or small portion/interest in Puna. That could be measured as less "clout" than it might have provided.

Bill 276 was intended to re-create the commission under the County Charter amendment and in so doing bring it under the Sunshine Law. This has been interpreted to mean there would be less opportunity to disenfranchise or marginalize districts such as Puna. Same could be said of Hamakua if Hamakua had as large a population increase.

The bill does not, as written, guarantee Puna an additional full seat. It is subtly written to reduce the history of maximizing Hilo's power.

Now James, as to your statement about the relationship of Waa Waa to Volcano there's not much to say. The various districts are what they are. It might be that, on this island, seventy or more districts might make more sense to you.

It seems to me that BIL 276 was simple enough to understand if merely on the correcting the name of the commission. It attracted a majority of votes but fell one vote short of the 2/3 needed for passage. That has been interpreted as Advantage Hilo.

I will admit that I do not fully understand how the current commission is able to operate and meet privately without public scrutiny. More study needed. But if it is true that they are able to work in private I think Brenda Ford's bill was well intended and to good purpose.

[james weatherford]

Thanks, Rob.
Some of the words you express help me.

First, as to how any previous reapportionment has been done, I am sure crooked fingers were in the pie. As a standard, keep it open and participatory. This is not my over riding concern at this juncture (borrow that trouble later!)

It is the "benefit of Hilo" and "marginalize ... Puna" that I really do not think is clear.

"...various districts are what they are...seventy or more districts..."

If by "district" you mean "Puna" , "Hilo" etc, then those districts, I contend, have little real meaning in terms of political representation.

"Hilo", as used here, might really mean Waiakea, where a council seat has been centered for some years, and that council district included other disparate precincts that have never coalesced voting power.

This is the way gerrymandering works:
get one highly homogeneous community (contained within a few precincts) with just enough votes to elect and then tack on a couple of other precincts with very different demographics so as to make the total numbers but still retain the electoral majority in that community on which the gerrymandered district is centered. The 'tack' on precincts in Council District 3 (now Yoshimoto, formerly Arakaki) are Keaau, Orchidland, etc.

Nothing in the hype about poor li'l Puna versus high-'n'-mighty Hilo truly addresses gerrymandering.

This is my point: While people scream about "no Puna representation" and "Hilo manipulation" the powers that would-be go ahead with gerrymandering and the alleged "Puna" / "Hilo" nexus becomes irrelevant. Plenty of gerrymandering can be done within Puna and/or Hilo - and it will be done if the limit of focus is on Puna and Hilo.

Rob, your post does not convince me that "Puna" and "Hilo" are units/concepts/terms useful for looking at where and how democratic representation is to be achieved.






James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[Rob Tucker]

Well James, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just explaining my understanding of the issue.... and my understanding is subject to modification as I learn more. I will guess that other interpretations are out there. I'm still interested in hearing a more thorough interpretation from Emily Naeole.

Meanwhile the crux of the bill, I believe, is to bring the process into the open instead of keeping it behind closed doors.