Editorials
Wednesday, January 5, 2000

Clayton Hee’s return
as chairman of OHA

The issue: Clayton Hee is back as chairman of OHA after three years in the minority.
Our view: The OHA trustees have to stop their incessant bickering if they are to fulfill their mission.

IS the Office of Hawaiian Affairs going around in circles? The return of Clayton Hee as chairman of the OHA board of trustees after three years in the minority prompts that question. The election was the fourth reshuffling of offices in as many years. It's deja vu, all right.

Trustee Louis Hao, who abstained in the vote on Hee's election, told him, "The irony is the people who put you in the position you're in are the same people who took you down."

Also abstaining was Mililani Trask, whose tasteless criticism of Senator Inouye may have done more damage to OHA's image than any other incident in the agency's stormy history.

Ousted Chairwoman Rowena Akana did not attend the meeting Monday. She blamed powers in the Democratic Party for her ouster. In view of the fact that Trask was Akana's ally, that seems plausible. Akana's response to the furor over Trask's remarks was to criticize trustees who leaked her comments to the news media.

Akana's explanation for refusing to attend the meeting was that she did not "intend to be part of the circus" -- indicating that the feud goes on.

The new majority, in addition to Hee, is comprised of Colette Machado, Haunani Apoliona, "Frenchy" DeSoto and Hannah Springer.

DeSoto acknowledged that she had had many differences with Hee in the past -- she succeeded him as chairman in 1997 after helping oust him -- but both had agreed to focus on the needs of the Hawaiian people. Whether this alliance endures could be a critical question.

The board is currently short one member. The bickering trustees have been unable to agree on a replacement, leaving it to Governor Cayetano to fill the vacancy.

OHA has been riven by dissension on the board for much of the time since its creation in 1980. Although a degree of conflict is probably unavoidable, in OHA's case it seems excessive.

The result is a loss of confidence among its constituents and reduced effectiveness in performing the agency's mission.

In addition to its internal problems, OHA faces a major challenge in the lawsuit filed by Harold "Freddy" Rice challenging the Hawaiian-only restriction on OHA trustee elections. A decision on the case is expected in the spring from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hee says he hopes his mistakes during his former tenure as chairman will help him improve his performance this time.

Hee says he hopes to restart negotiations with the state over revenues from ceded lands. In the past he has proposed that the state transfer title to certain lands to OHA, including Diamond Head, in lieu of payments for revenue owed to the agency.

FOR the sake of OHA and the Hawaiian people, who are its constituents, we hope he succeeds in restoring a sense of purpose to the agency. But that will require a greater degree of cooperation and willingness to submerge personal animosities than OHA has seen in recent years.

---

OSHA’s onerous rule
on working at home

The issue: The federal Labor Department has ruled that employers who allow employees to work at home are responsible for health and safety violations in the home work site.
Our view: Employees should take responsibility for conditions in their homes.

CONGRESS should intervene to countermand a Labor Department ruling that makes employers who allow employees to work at home responsible for health and safety violations in the home work site. This is not only unreasonable; it would discourage a trend toward working at home that should be encouraged.

The Washington Post reported that the decision covers millions of people -- not only the estimated 19 million adult workers who regularly telecommute from their homes to their jobs, but also millions more who work at home occasionally.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued the advisory in response to a request from an employer in Texas. The advisory is not a proposed rule but a declaration of existing policy the agency deems to be in effect.

The decision means employers are responsible for ensuring that employees have ergonomically correct furniture as well as proper lighting, heating, cooling and ventilation systems in their home offices. The company must also provide training to comply with OSHA standards.

OSHA says it has no intention of conducting inspections at private homes, as it does at employer work sites. Nor will it require employers to routinely inspect home work sites. But it will hold employers responsible for any illnesses or injuries that occur.

Charles Jeffress, assistant secretary of labor in charge of OSHA, said, "If an employer is allowing it to happen, it is covered."

THIS imposes an unreasonable burden that employers may not be willing to assume. They cannot readily control work conditions in the home, and may respond by forbidding work at home.

If employees want to work at home they should take responsibility for their work environment. If they don't have enough sense to provide a safe environment for themselves the employer shouldn't be blamed.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor