Lineup
By ddepledge
The state House has approved its new leadership and committee chairmanship lineup, revealing the power-sharing agreement that ended the leadership stalemate on Wednesday afternoon.
The House has expanded its leadership to include four additional majority whips and has increased the number of committees from 18 to 20.
Dissidents hold two leadership posts — up from one — and seven committee chairmanships — up from four last session.
Here are the leadership posts and committees the dissidents received:
*Majority Floor Leader — Rep. Cindy Evans
*Majority Whip — Rep. Mele Carroll
*Culture and the Arts — Rep. Jessica Wooley
*Education — Rep. Roy Takumi
*Energy and Environmental Protection — Rep. Hermina Morita
*Hawaiian Affairs — Rep. Faye Hanohano
*Higher Education — Rep. Scott Nishimoto
*Judiciary — Rep. Gil Keith-Agaran
*Tourism — Rep. Tom Brower
Here is the remainder of the lineup:
*Speaker Calvin Say
*Vice Speaker Joey Manahan
*Majority Leader Blake Oshiro
*Majority Whip Pono Chong
*Majority Whip Ken Ito
*Majority Whip John Mizuno
*Majority Whip James Tokioka
*Agriculture — Rep. Clifton Tsuji
*Consumer Protection and Commerce — Rep. Robert Herkes
*Economic Revitalization and Business — Rep. Angus McKelvey
*Finance — Rep. Marcus Oshiro
*Health — Rep. Ryan Yamane
*Housing — Rep. Rida Cabanilla
*Human Services — Rep. John Mizuno
*International Affairs — Rep. Karen Awana
*Labor and Public Employment — Rep. Karl Rhoads
*Legislative Management — Rep. Kyle Yamashita
*Public Safety and Military Affairs — Rep. Henry Aquino
*Transportation — Rep. Joe Souki
*Water, Land and Ocean Resources — Rep. Jerry Chang
Political Radar
January 21st, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Thanks for posting this.
While I am happy so many of the dissidents got committees, as I look over the assignments, I recognize the real power will remain overwhelmingly with Speaker’s group.With Marcus holding Finance, Herkes at CPC and Jerry Chang controlling Water, Land and OCean, it seems he has his bases covered.
Judiciary is, of course, an “A Bracket” committee. But I don’t think the policy differences coming out of JUD would be very different if the Chair were a Speaker loyalist. Gil Keith-Agaron was not on my origianl list of possible JUD chairs, but I gotta kick myself for overlooking him. He is bright and level-headed, very good at listening to a wide variety of people from across the spectrum. I suspect the committee will move ahead guided mostly by consensus.
Derrick does not list the vice-chairs. While I was initially feeling quite “Kumbayah” when the settlement was first announced, as assignments have leaked out, it appears that the two leading dissidents, Scott Saiki and Sylvia Luke, are being excluded from the generalized “sharing of power.” I understand neither of them got so much as a vice-chair out of the deal. I give them credit for leading the struggle which lead to more inclusive leadership. But I regret that Speaker was unable to give them something to harness their considerable talents. And as a demonstration he held no hard feelings. It would have been a gracious gesture.
Sylvia and Scott deserve credit for urging their team to accept the deal, even if they were personally punished under its terms.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Kolea, salient points as usual. Say’s side seems to have insisted on being punitive and petty with Luke, Saiki and Takai ending up with nothing.
So much for inclusion and collaboration.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:53 pm
I agree! It was shocking for all the double Vice Chairs, that the Speaker had to be so petty, mean and small to punish Rep Luke and Rep Saiki by excluding them so harshly. Just makes you look bad and them look good, Calvin!
January 21st, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Kolea, please check out the House website, to see the Vice Chairs. You will really get a feel for just how mean-spirited and tiny Calvin was when you see all the doubles. Reps Luke and Saiki went up a whole heck of a lot in my estimation for what they did, and will now endure.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:53 pm
You may all be right that Calvin was “petty and punitive” in excluding Sylvia and Saiki. But you should not assume that to be the case solely from their absence in the committee lineup. For one thing, as leaders of the dissidents, their place, if anywhere, was somewhere in leadership or in an “A” bracket committee, and not as a testimony-collating vice-chair or chair of a created as window-dressing. With Speaker prevailing, the people who stuck by him were clearly going to get the best assignements, rightly or wrongly. I can’t imagine that either Sylvia would settle for a “lowly”, learn-the-ropes vice-chair of a B/C bracket committee or as 12th Majority Whip. Plus, unlike Sylvia, Saiki is of the small-minded “fine, I can’t play in your sandbox, then I won’t play at all” mentality. And, frankly, he is too lazy and too ineffective to lead Judiciary; people I know in his district haven’t seen him in years and have no idea what he does.
So, again, you may be right that there is/was a desire to punish the dissidents’ leaders, but the lineup alone is not enough to determine that to be the case.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Lets stop dope shipment out #1export is grass let all get together and keep the dope on the island why do we want to share our poision with other states& country srop mafia & drug cartel let keep hawaii paradise
January 21st, 2011 at 10:10 pm
They all oughta’ just get to work already. Posing time is over.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:23 am
Yoshi,
Thanks for the pointer. I just reviewed the committees as you say and notice how many members serve as vice-chairs of two committees. I suppose it would be bad form for one of them to ask to be relived of their second vice-chair workload in favor of Sylvia, Scott or Mark?
I did not use words like “petty” to describe the Speaker’s committee assignments. I will limit myself to saying it would have appeared gracious to have given them some responsiblity. I also happen to think the House and the state are being deprived of their talents. But I have read my Machiavelli. If Speaker thinks an example must be made of them in order to discourage “rebellion” in the future, that’s his call. It is not as if he crucified them along the Appian Way.
But I think this last uprising is taken by many as a sign the Speaker should be looking towards retirement. I say that wothout malice and despite a personal fondness for the guy. I just think there comes a time when power has to be turned over to a new set of leaders and when so much effort is spent to thwart change, maybe it is sign, even if you are successful, that a new order is trying to be born.
When Civil Unions passes this session, a good part of the credit belongs to Speaker Say, even if some folks want to dispute that. He had agreed to support it in the 2009 session and helped it pass out quickly to the Senate, where the Senate President, for reasons STILL unclear to me, played stalling games. In 2010, an election year, he defaulted to the flip side of his earlier agreement:”We can pass this in a non-election year, but don’t ask me to expose my members in an election year.”
Say will undoubtedly support quick passage of the bill this year. And his role in passing the bill should not be overlooked because this year we have a Democratic governor willing to sign the bill into law. That will be a part of his legacy as Speaker.
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:37 am
Yoshi, I wouldn’t be so quick to jump to the conclusion that Luke and Saiki were punished. They may actually have turned down offers, which they have done in the past. Like ohiaforest says, they might not have wanted to take positions that may have been “beneath” them. They seem to have been very content in their (non)roles over the past several years.
I really think you’re of the mind that Say is a bad guy, but you’re not getting the whole picture.
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:54 am
ohia, I suppose the only way to really know is to ask Luke, et. al., if they were asked to consider any assignment.
But it does make you wonder when you see that the vice-chairs of judiciary and consumer protection are both chairs already. I wonder if Saiki or Luke were asked to vice-chair those committees and they turned it down. If they did, then they were being childish about the whole thing.
However, if the past is any indication, they weren’t asked. If true, it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that Say or his hard core supporters were anything but vindictive and spiteful despite the homilies uttered after it was settled.
And, again, if true, it wouldn’t be shocking if we see a repeat of this in two years.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:12 am
Kolea, another perspective on the civil unions bill has to include the point that historically it’s more of Say’s side that opposes it.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:27 pm
As for whether Luke, Saiki, and Takai would have taken Vice Chairmanships, maybe not. But, with 5 Majority Whips, one has to ponder whether at least one of them could have been offered something like that. Nothing in that line-up happened without Calvin Say’s intent, but Earl, you miss the point, or maybe I did not make it very well. Calvin Say intended them to be in exile, and I think that he made a mistake in exiling them because it makes him look bad. If he got manipulated into that situation, then his Bad, as he had the power and control to avoid it. But, do you really believe that he was manipulated into that, for a second. No.
My opinion is that Calvin Say gave rein to his Old-Style inclinations to punish, and did it with the State and even the Nation watching. AP reported on the organization, for heaven’s sake! You have to admit that there is at least the appearance of people being kicked when they are down. That does not sit well with me, no matter who is being kicked and who is doing the kicking.
BTW, the word around is that the flip occurred because Calvin Say had a credible challenger who was backed by the pro-Civil Unions people.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:43 pm
charles,
I’d point out that this isn’t the first time chairs had also been vice chairs. Sometimes, members had also been vice chairs of multiple committees (in the past, I believe even Saiki and Takai had that distiction). Not really commenting on the “punishment” angle, but just saying this is not without precedence.
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Charles, it’s hard to say which is the case but I do agree that the struggle to organize this year and in 2007 is an indication that change at the top is not far off. Like lawmaking generally, change is incremental, but it seems that the handwriting is on the wall and will soon cover it.
That being said, I’m not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the vice-chair appointments at JUD and CPC. The CPC VC is surely curious inasmuch as Yamane is Chair of Health and, as a social worker, has no particular insight on CPC issues of which I am aware. I suppose that CPC’s jurisdiction over insurance provides a segue from Health, which has jurisdiction over health care and will send many bills to CPC. There’s also probably not many that could work with the curmudgeonly Herkes, so that may be a factor. Yamane may have been willing, or wanted, to take it on because of his ambitious, self-important nature and because of his penchant for seeking the best deal for himself; he was a holdout after the 2006 election and secured Health over its then vice-chair, the insufferable John Mizuno, by committing to Say only at the end.
As for JUD, Rhoads reportedly would have been tabbed as Chair had the seat not gone to the dissidents, so his appointment there is not a surprise. It also dovetails with his LAB chairmanship, a committee that will send many of its bills on to JUD. Finally, it gives Speaker a set of eyes and ears near the top of that committee to keep tabs on what’s going on.
It may also be that when one is a “back-bencher” for so long, one can not effectively make the transition to leadership, even in a minor role. Newt Gingrich fell on his face in short order after leading the takeover of Congress in 1996. If one can’t handle having complete control, one may be just as unable to share control. There’s something liberating about sniping from the woods. Look at Fred Hemmings. He could hurl invective bombs with impunity because he actually have to DO anything or prove that his ideas could or would work.
And so it goes.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Some things have become clear.
1. Almost nothing has changed in the House, as the Speaker can choose where any bills go as he sees fit therefore all of this talk about committee chairs is somewhat silly,
2. Rep. Evans was involved in the move to replace Say, because she is not included in leadership discussions almost ever, in fact they are scheduled around her and she is not in the Speaker’s inside group. She is also not in Luke’s camp so, pretty worthless position, her demand to be Majority Leader (as an anti-Civil Union, borderline neocon) would be like Mazie asking to be the Speaker (last year before the flip),
3. Judiciary was vacant and the Civil Unions measure has to be passed this year (Dem Gov, Senate votes there, only need simple majority in House) so this wasn’t much of a political football or a plum anyway (the new chair is a good guy, smart), have fun with Hee,
4. Speaker Say already is telling people he wants another 2 years as Speaker, 4 years ago he said it was his last term to many around the Capitol, this will surely happen if he still has a pulse,
5. Majority Whips as a position are a joke, totally no function, next year there may be 43 of them…
6. When Takamine was bounced from Finance a couple of years ago he was offered the Human Services Committee, therefore offers are obviously sometimes meant to be cruel, though in truth with healthcare reform and the needs our state has, human services is actually an important committee. B/C committees determine the future values of the state, A committees are powerful but mostly about ego
7. Saiki and B. Oshiro may not be able to work together again after this, and certainly the only way there will be new leadership is through attrition
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Frankly, you gotta think the dissidents were kinda bs-ing in their written letter. If education reform was so essential and not moving in previous legislatures, howcum Roy Takumi– with all his tired pro-HSTA/pro-HGEA positions and old thinking about our public school system– really move the reform agenda forward. Expect to see a bill handcuffing the administration into re-appointing the same elected BOE members, or letting the status quo stakeholders have a BIG SAY in whose names get screened up to the Governor. If the dissidents are serious, they should be voting against Takumi proposals.
January 24th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Just a footnote to the “punishment” angle: Ken Ito, former chair of Water/Land and one of Say’s most reliable foot soldiers, was “stripped” of his committee chairmanship and given one of the 5 “useless” Majority Whip positions. Punishment? Dunno. Don’t think so. So maybe others who lost positions or didn’t get new ones are in that (non-)position for other than punishment reasons.
January 24th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
So do we just ignore that selections were made, not based on merit, but on how the selections would personally affect the individual? The corruption is systemic.
January 25th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Karl Barth, so Takumi’s position as the key legislator supporting an appointed school board (which some Dems didn’t support) and which was vehemently opposed by HSTA and then by HGEA shows his pro-HSTA/HGEA sentiments?
Got it.
And Act 51 was “old thinking” about our school system?
Got it.
@Earl, while there have been exceptions (for example Blake Oshiro vice-chairing JUD while still being majority leader) can you name me, say, two other instances where chairs ended up vice-chairing major committees? I will trust your historical perspective since I’ve only been following the legislature for around 30 years so I don’t go as far back as you do.
@ohia, if you use your logic that there is a nexus between Health and Consumer Protection or Labor and Judiciary, then you may as well have a lot of morning bracket chair committee vice-chair afternoon committees that have relevance. My observation (and that’s all it is since I don’t know what happened) is that it just seems odd that chairs ended up vice-chairing committees when you have people like Luke, Saiki, Takai, etc., not even vice-chairing anything.
January 25th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
@short term, I wouldn’t exactly call the speaker’s whimsical style of appointing leadership corruption, but it certainly is designed to serve his interests more than what makes sense for the entire body, much less the state. I believe this is one of the points the dissidents were making.
@Barth, not all dissidents are created equal. There were two groups: Takumi’s 3 and the rest with Luke. Takumi may have signed it, but the dissident letter was from his “group”.
@Charles, I agree wholeheartedly with you about Luke, Saiki and Takai being punished.
@Ohia, Ito’s hit retirement age. After 16 years at this he’s not getting any better at it. Don’t you think he’d prefer to swing clubs and lift a glass of amber? BTW are you a Say apologist or merely a symapthizer?
January 26th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Charles,
30 years is a long time – I go a while back, but you sir have me at a disadvantage on that one!
To name a couple of examples, just last year Ken Ito both chaired WLO and vice-chaired Judiciary. I believe Nestor Garcia also chaired Public Safety while he was vice-chair of Higher Education (about ten years ago?). I know there are a few others, but they really escape me right now. There are, however, a lot more instances with folks vice-chairing two committees at once than the chair/VC combo, I’ll admit.
January 27th, 2011 at 8:00 am
@Earl, I guess that’s my point. It’s highly unusual to have chairs also vice-chair committees especially the significant ones. It looks, prima facie, that it’s an attempt to continue to punish Luke, et. al.
May be true, may not be true. But given the bad blood that apparently exists, my money it’s the former, not the latter.