[ OUR OPINION ]

---

UH regents should
stick to making policy

THE ISSUE A collegiate accrediting commission has accused the University of Hawaii regents of micromanaging the system.

The University of Hawaii Board of Regents was not blameless in the evolution of bad blood between the regents and Evan Dobelle, who was fired as the university's president last month. An accrediting commission for junior colleges says the regents meddled too much with the university system's operations instead of confining themselves to policy issues. The question is whether political animosity led to micromanaging or whether Dobelle's successor must contend with further interference.

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges released a report criticizing the regents for "excessive politics," a criticism that also was leveled at Dobelle during the 2000 election campaign after he endorsed Democratic candidate Mazie Hirono. The commission's companion agency, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities, had issued a similar critique of the UH regents in April.

Dobelle's self-confident persona may have been as off-putting to the regents as his politics, but they focused their criticism on his spending for travel and entertainment. The board has not explained why it fired Dobelle except to say it was "for cause," relieving it from paying him as much as $2.26 million in severance pay. The reason for his dismissal and the evidence supporting it must not be hidden in a settlement being pursued by attorneys through mediation.

The polarization between the regents and Dobelle seemed to deteriorate into a cat-and-mouse game surrounding the regents' meeting at which he was fired. According to Chairwoman Patricia Lee, the regents rescheduled the meeting so Dobelle could attend and still maintain his travel plans; he then changed his travel plans in a way that came into conflict with the meeting. The regents were unfairly criticized for firing Dobelle while he was absent and supposedly could not -- and perhaps did not want to -- be reached.

The junior college commission's report said the regents were making decisions that "more appropriately" are delegated to the UH president. It recommended that the board "review its responsibilities to serve as a policy-making board and to assume its role in evaluating the president." Dobelle says the assessment was made by Barbara Beno, the commission's executive director, who observed a two-day board meeting in April.

"I've long maintained it has been an abusive relationship," Dobelle said. "Barbara Beno sat in the audience and saw it for herself."

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Saddam’s trial must
be a model of justice

THE ISSUE Saddam Hussein and his henchmen await trial for war crimes and genocide after being arraigned in an Iraqi court.

SADDAM Hussein, previously seen as a scruffy captive whose shaggy hair was disentangled in search of lice, has let it be known he will not sit quietly as evidence of war crimes and genocide is presented in an Iraqi court. Last week's highly controlled court session, likened to an arraignment, will be cited as support of his contention that the trial, in Saddam's words, "is all a theater." Evidence gathered through an exhaustive investigation and instantaneously televised proceedings will be needed to dispel that notion.

The charges against Saddam and 11 of his henchmen include acts of genocide against his own people spanning nearly two decades: execution of party leaders in 1979 after Saddam seized power; killing about 5,000 people, almost all civilians, with mustard gas and nerve agents in Halabja in 1988; murdering up to 180,000 Kurds in a scorched-earth offensive from 1986-88; and killing 60,000 "Marsh Arabs" and Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north in 1991, following the Gulf War.

Prosecutors will need to present not only forensic evidence about those inhumane acts, but proof that they were ordered by Saddam. In the case of the Kurdish offensive, Saddam claimed in court that he had heard of it by radio, suggesting he had not ordered it. A paper trail beyond testimonial evidence will be needed to prove the charges.

Saddam can be expected to put up a greater challenge to his leadership in the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which he adamantly characterized as an attempt to regain control of land that he argued was historically part of Iraq, and invading neighboring Iran in 1980, a war that left an estimated 1 million dead and killed as many as 5,000 with chemical attacks. Saddam maintained in court that he was merely acting "for the Iraq people." The prosecution would have served its purpose better by omitting the acts of war against Iraq's neighbors.

Saddam complained that he had been denied legal counsel prior to and during the court session, and rightfully so. The explanation that the session was merely an arraignment does not suffice, and the slightest sign that legal rights are being denied is liable to foster the insurgency.