`Broad potential’
By ddepledge
The Sierra Club Hawaii chapter has written a letter to state House Speaker Calvin Say complaining about his bill to exempt some state and county construction projects from environmental review.
The bill is part of a broader effort by lawmakers to streamline state construction and help with job creation and economic recovery. It had been referred to the House Economic Revitalization and Business Committee, the House Energy and Environmental Protection Committee, and the House Finance Committee, but it has since been re-referred only to the House Finance Committee.
From Robert Harris, the Sierra Club’s director:
The Sierra Club, with its 10,000 members and supporters, objects to the re-referral of HB 1893. ␣is bill statutorily exempts many state and county projects from undergoing a public environmental review; something that has not been done in the thirty-year history of our environmental review law.
Despite the broad potential impact of HB 1893 — potentially impacting how millions of dollars is invested in Hawai‘i — it was recently removed from two subject-matter committees and referred to just the House Finance Committee. In other words, the public will have but one opportunity to comment on the bill. And the subject-matter committees, with the expertise in these issues, will be denied the opportunity to substantively consider the bill.
You publicly stated that expediting construction projects is as one of your top priorities this year. Accordingly, the decision to re-refer HB 1893 appears to be an attempt to get around the normal legislative process so as to favor bills you support. We trust you agree this is an inappropriate way to govern the House of Representatives.
We do not need to choose between our economy and our environment.
Sources familiar with the issue say that House leaders believe the bill is drafted narrowly enough to warrant the single referral to House Finance.
Political Radar
February 14th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
“We trust you agree this is an inappropriate way to govern the House of Representatives.” You think? Everyone knows that it’s the Speakers-way or the highway. Most likely the EEP Committee would not have had the stomach to vote this puppy through – Sooooooooo, the Speaker does what the Speaker wants to do. And will anyone in the House stand up on the floor and say otherwise? Not likely. But if you add up the disidents with the Repubs who fancy themselves as being more green than the dems anyway. Might make for an interesting floor session The Repubs can embarrass the Dems and trump them on concern for the environment and concern for good honest government process. But at the end of the day the Speaker will have his way with the environment and with the House. Just the way it is.
February 14th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
This re-referral is totally unjustified and a breach of ordinary legislative due process. (And, for that matter, undermines legislative due diligence).
Sierra Club is exactly right on this. The legislative process is set up so legislators with an interest in a particular subject seek to become assigned to a subject committee aligned with those interests. In time, the legislators develop a deeper understanding of the area of their responsibility and, hopefully, can see how a proposed law would impact other legislation in the field. They also develop relationships with members of the community knowledgeable, and/or interested in the same subject area.
Hearing before the subject committee give members of the public an opportunity to voice their views and, perhaps, expertise on the wisdom of the proposed legislation. Bills which will have an impact upon the budget are also required to be heard by the Finance committee.
This proposed bill will have a significant impact on a broad range of governmental activities and deserves careful consideration from the appropriate committees. And, because of its anticipated impact, the PUBLIC deserves an opportunity to testify– and listen to the testimony of others– to ensure the bill’s implications are thoroughly considered.
This move by the Speaker is a blatant attempt to evade democratic, public scrutiny of the bills merits. We can all use the excuse of the recession to justify special, emergency “shortcuts” for bills we favor. But that excuse should not cause us to rush forward with bills which do not benefit from full consideration.
If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right.!
Sorry, Mr. Speaker. But this move is wrong.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Says who?
February 16th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
This is yet another example of how, when push comes to shove, being chair of a “B” bracket committee is pretty much window dressing. The “real” decisions get made in the referrals and in “the committee of last resort” – Finance.
It may also be another example of Speaker taking the heat off junior chairs who can’t handle it McKelvey is a nitwit and Coffman is a can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees type for whom a little bit of info/power is a dangerous thing. Speaker probably figured that these two couldn’t be trusted to get something done (whether it favored business or environmental groups). Problem solved: straight to Finance where the big kids can do the heavy lifting.
Part charade. Part necessity. All theater.
February 16th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Seems “missionaries” are still preaching on should or should not be done on an Island. By making Hawaii like the Mainland we will not last and become a Rapa Nui.
February 17th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Ohia,
I think you are being way too harsh on Denny Coffman, who I consider an intelligent, very decent and humble man. I know Denny pretty well, from before he was elected to the Lege. I have not been tracking environmental bills closely this session, but I still think he is one of “the good guys.”
Angus can use some polishing.