Thursday, December 3, 1998

Lindsey report
harmed students

Lindsey's criticism of
Kamehameha students hurt their
self-esteem, a principal testifies

By Rick Daysog


A report by Bishop Estate trustee Lokelani Lindsey criticizing test scores and reading skills of Kamehameha Schools students offered an inaccurate picture of students' academic performance, according to the principal of the Kamehameha Secondary School.

In testimony before Circuit Judge Bambi Weil yesterday, Anthony Ramos said release of the so-called "Lindsey Report" angered faculty members and hurt students' self-esteem.

Some students questioned the quality of the school's education and wondered whether their entry into colleges would be affected by the study, he said.

"I think the impact was on their self-esteem," said Ramos, principal of Kamehameha Secondary School since 1977. "We were all taken aback by the report."

While several teachers and staffers have made similar remarks about Lindsey's December 1997 release of her education report, Ramos' testimony is significant because he is the highest-ranking school administrator to publicly criticize the study.

Lindsey's report said more than 30 students in the class of 1997 could barely read at 12th grade levels and that more than half of Kamehameha's graduating seniors did not score well enough in the Scholastic Aptitude Test to meet the minimum standards at the University of Hawaii.

The report also stated that the longer students stayed at Kamehameha Schools, the lower their scores on standardized tests.

Bishop Estate trustees Oswald Stender and Gerard Jervis are seeking removal of Lindsey from the estate's five-member board, saying she breached her fiduciary duties and is unfit to serve.

The two trustees argue that the Lindsey report is inaccurate and was used by Lindsey to deflect criticism.

Lindsey's attorneys have argued that she compiled the report to identify and solve academic and leadership problems at the Kamehameha Schools. Before releasing the report, the full board gave Lindsey permission to give her side of the controversy, they said.

Under questioning by Stender's attorney, Crystal Rose, Ramos said he told Lindsey that he didn't think Lindsey's report accurately reflected high school students' academic record.

He said students' test scores have been climbing steadily since 1981.

Ramos also testified that during the 1996-1997 year, teacher employment contracts were held up by Lindsey over concerns about teachers' evaluations and the appraisal methods used for those evaluations.

At the time, the evaluations were being conducted by school vice principals, who didn't have the time or the best expertise to do so, he said. Teacher evaluations previously were conducted by department heads.

Judge postpones
Stone’s arraignment

First, the court will hear motions to dismiss charges against Stone, Peters and Mau in an Oahu land deal

By Debra Barayuga


A Circuit Court judge has scheduled a hearing on a motion to dismiss a grand jury indictment against developer Jeffrey Stone that alleges he gave kickbacks to Bishop Estate trustee Henry Peters in a 1996 Hawaii Kai land deal.

Peters and businessman Leighton Mau, also named in last week's indictment, joined in the motion yesterday. They were scheduled to be arraigned today.

However, Circuit Court Judge Michael Town ruled yesterday that he will hear their motion to dismiss Dec. 15 and postponed their arraignment until after the hearing.

Cynthia Quinn, special assistant to Attorney General Margery Bronster, called Town's ruling for a hearing an "outrage."

His ruling has the potential to "bring justice to a grinding halt," she said. It would allow every criminal defendant to have an evidentiary hearing before an arraignment. Stone's attorney, John Edmunds, argued that under a 1981 Supreme Court decision, the attorney general and her deputies have no authority to prosecute the case and the arraignment should not continue until it has been established that she has the authority to do so.

In his motion filed Tuesday, Edmunds also argued that the attorney general has a conflict of interest in her role as prosecutor and parens patriae of Bishop Estate.

By bringing about the indictment, the attorney general has chosen to supersede the functions of the city prosecutor, the filing said. The attorney general can intervene only if there is compelling public interest to do so and if the prosecutor has refused to act or has a conflict of interest.

The attorney general had no authority, nor compelling reason why she should act as prosecutor where she is already acting as counsel in the civil suit against the trustees, said Brook Hart, Mau's attorney.

Renee Yuen, attorney for Peters, said the court should rule on the legality of the attorney general's actions before proceeding. If the attorney general acted illegally in using the grand jury to obtain evidence for the indictment, it would be harmful to proceed with the arraignment before a ruling can be made, she said.

Deputy Attorney General Larry Goya objected to the motion to dismiss, saying he needed time to respond. He said the indictment should be treated like any other case with no preferential treatment accorded the defendants and that the arraignment should continue as scheduled.

Edmunds said he expects to call Jeffrey Hazzard, a University of Pennsylvania law school professor and authority on ethics, and Attorney General Margery Bronster as witnesses at the hearing.

Bishop Estate Archive

E-mail to City Desk

Text Site Directory:
[News] [Business] [Features] [Sports] [Editorial] [Do It Electric!]
[Classified Ads] [Search] [Subscribe] [Info] [Letter to Editor]
[Stylebook] [Feedback]

© 1998 Honolulu Star-Bulletin