Tuesday, July 22, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 66 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Letters to the Editor

For Friday, November 11, 2011

LAST UPDATED: 08:42 p.m. HST, Nov 14, 2011

Don’t defile isle schools with ads

Recently, the state Department of Education announced that it would support a plan to allow limited ads on school campuses in order to fund Hawaii’s public school system.

A decision to invite corporations into the classroom is injudicious and an admission of an unsettling reality: Our state is willing to expose one of its last sacred public institutions to corporate America for a check.

As a former middle school teacher, I understand that our schools are facing hardships in order to provide quality education for our children. However, in-school advertisement is not the fiscal answer.

Before our state converts schools into corporate billboards, the DOE should consider this: Where will corporate influence stop if big dollars are at stake?

Ads have no place in our schools.

Zach DiIonno


How to write us

The Star-Advertiser welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (~150 words). The Star-Advertiser reserves the right to edit letters for clarity and length. Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published. Letters must be signed and include your area of residence and a daytime telephone number.

Letter form: Online form, click here
E-mail: letters@staradvertiser.com
Fax: (808) 529-4750
Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210, Honolulu, HI 96813


HART is, indeed, being diligent

We appreciate former Gov. George Ariyoshi’s support for rail and its importance to Hawaii’s future (“Leave no stone unturned before passing rail’s point of no return,” Star-Advertiser, Nov.9).

Unfortunately, there were errors in his commentary.

The bidder selected did comply with the request for proposal, which required bidders to be licensed at the time of the award.

The contractor’s qualifications were also carefully considered.

The state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs upheld the city’s procurement process, and found it to be proper and in accordance with state law.

A state Circuit Court judge also ruled in favor of the city, in response to an appeal filed by a losing bidder.

Additionally, the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation board reviewed the contractor’s finances and will have a third-party review of the contractor’s bonding documents. Bonds provided by the contractor guarantee contract obligations will be met.

The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation is committed to delivering a world-class transit system and will continue to be diligent in its procurement on behalf of taxpayers.

Simon Zweighaft
Chief project officer, HART


UH doesn’t have to hike tuitions

It makes no sense to keep raising tuition at the University of Hawaii and pass on the added cost to students.

I would offer another option: As professors with Ph.D.s retire or leave, they should be replaced by instructors with masters degrees. Professors, at a lesser amount, are needed to teach and mentor graduate students. Instructors can teach undergraduates, which they already do at community colleges and Manoa. Professors and instructors should be required to teach five to six classes a day. Those who publish should be given appropriate bonuses or royalties. As this transformation occurs, tuition should be reduced accordingly.

Russel Noguchi
Pearl City


Aquarium fish overharvested

Looks like state Department of Land and Natural Resources aquatic biologist Alton Miyasaka neglected to review department reports on aquarium trade impacts before issuing his statement that “tropical fish are being taken sustainably” (“Aquarium fish industry proposes collecting rules,” Star-Advertiser, Nov. 4).

Either that, or “sustainable” now includes the concepts of collapse, extinction and major degradation.

Since 1998, at least 15 University of Hawaii, Chaminade and DLNR experts have reported that the aquarium trade is major source of real and potential coral reef degradation on Oahu. They’ve described aquarium overharvesting to the point of fishery collapse on reefs between Honolulu Airport and Kaena Point. They’ve described many endemic species threatened with extinction by the trade. They’ve shown that aquarium targeted species are down by 90 percent on collected versus protected reefs.

If that’s DLNR Chairman William Aila’s definition of sustainable, we’re in trouble.

Rene Umberger
Director, For the Fishes, Kihei


Waianae farm has broad effect

First lady Michelle Obama is visiting MA‘O Organic Farms on Saturday. Dennis Egge claims the farm only caters to the wealthy 1 percent (“Organic farm caters to the rich,” Star-Advertiser, Letters, Nov. 9).

MA‘O's produce is available at the Waianae Farmers Market — which accepts EBT cards — and Tamura Superette, also in Waianae. Not just at Alan Wong's.

More important, MA‘O guides Waianae youth through high school and provides full scholarships for them to pursue a college education.

The farm also strives to preserve the Hawaiian culture, build a sustainable economy and ultimately empower the Waianae community. I’m not aware of any other local farm that strives for or does this much.

This is not the behavior of an organization that serves just the 1 percent.

Liberty Peralta

 Print   Email   Comment | View 66 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Nevadan wrote:
Aloha Russel Noguchi: I agree with you that something must be done not to continuously punish students with excessive tuition increase. However, it is not the teaching aspect that needs remedy. It is the "mismanagement" of management. The UH administration is wasteful, especially at the top. UH is Hawaii's flagship institution. Its reputation depends on the professors who perform research. They must have enough time to do their research. Teaching one course is par for the course nationally. It is not unusual for these professors to put in 60 hours per week. We need put the blame where it belongs: administration. Let's hear from UH professors.
on November 11,2011 | 02:10AM
LittleEarl_01 wrote:
I disagree! Professors are paid to teach, not to do research. Most teaching responsibilities, which are the duty of professors, are handled by teaching assistants. Research is usually paid for by grants, which means double pay, their UH paycheck and the money they skim off of the grant (first hand knowledge). If they want to do research, do it on their time, not the students dime. Teaching one or two classes a week isn't giving the students or the UH their fair share.
on November 11,2011 | 03:36AM
Nevadan wrote:
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. The reputation of a university is based on research of their professors (and their graduate students). A typical research grant is ~$500K for 3 years. One grant typically supports one to two students, summer salary for the prof, travel to meetings, university's cut, etc. The university's cut is not insignificant. Grants are extremely competitive. If a professor picks a non-performing student, that grant would be gone at the end of the 3 years. Your reference to "double pay ...do research on their own time..." indicates you have exactly zero knowledge of what you are talking about. You probably never attended a university.
on November 11,2011 | 05:29AM
Buckykat wrote:
Russell's letter was one of the most amusing letters I've read in a long time. Our son graduates from UH this year, and a good share of his classes were NOT taught by teaching assistants but rather by the full professor. While some of the majors could probably be handled by Masters level professors (anything that ends in *studies), the hard majors require more expertise in their field.
on November 11,2011 | 07:26AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Thanks for keeping the record straight.
on November 11,2011 | 07:43AM
susmoore wrote:
No, you are absolutely wrong! A UNIVERSITY is a research institution and professors are paid to do Teaching, Research and Service. Also, please get your facts straight about salaries -- grants do NOT mean double pay! Federal law only allows 2 months of salary to be paid to any professor and this would be the 2 summer months for which they are not paid by the University. It is a shame that people like Mr. Noguchi believe that UH Manoa should be turned into a community college. Does he realize that Manoa faculty bring in hundreds of Millions of dollars of funding each year that contribute to the State's economy? Probably not. These grants pay for goods and services directly as well as salaries for graduate AND undergraduate students and technicians, all of whom pay taxes and buy local goods and services.
on November 11,2011 | 12:09PM
tiki886 wrote:
Obama is trying to buy your vote so all you have to do is borrow as much as you can because he'll make sure you don't have to pay for the loan. Then you, the professors and the adminstration can all walk away as winners!
on November 11,2011 | 03:42AM
ISCREAM wrote:
PAYGO...pay as you go...this should not be tax supported.
on November 11,2011 | 08:21PM
Kalli wrote:
Simon Zweigart, a highly paid consultant formerly from Parsons Brinkerhoff seems to know what is best for rail so all you guys who don't know as much as he does should just keep quiet. Simon knows one thing, rail is a big paycheck for him and his cronies at HART. When will HART publish a list of employees and their salaries? I know many of Mufi's former employees now work for HART like Bill Brennan so what is the big secret?
on November 11,2011 | 05:50AM
KeithHaugen wrote:
Ask also about the millions being spent to build their offices, furnish and staff them, travel and other expenses to educate the HART member about rail, and the all of the secret rail-related dealings going on right now in OUR City. We need a sunshine law, or some to investigate HART AND Honolulu Hale.
on November 11,2011 | 06:25AM
wondermn1 wrote:
IRT Simon, HART is looking only at lining their pockets with Gold, anyone who looks can see this is a boondoggle project that has had major conflicts of interest from day one. From back room deals that are staggering in magnatude. From the type of Rail choosen,to the contractors to build it, to the routes it appears to be taking, to the city council, mayors office, department of transportation, etc, etc, etc. This whole project stinks and the people of Honolulu are quiet when they need to be screaming mad. These idiots are going to spend 5,6,7 Billion & probably alot more and only the choosen few say much about it. Everyone on this Island deserves to have a new Vote and if the city council won't allow that it makes you wonder why. Perhaps the cushy side jobs that Nester Garcia has, perhaps the fact that the director of transportation has family working with Parsons Brinkerhoff as well as Parsons Brinkerhoff 's ringers on HART like good old boy Simon . WE NEED TO STOP THE RAIL IN ITS PRESENT FORM AND THINK . Is there a better way, is there a better route, is there a less intrusive way to build a transportation system, do we allready have a great bus system ???????STOP THE RAIL, WE DON'T WANT IT WE CAN'T AFFORD IT AND WE WON'T RIDE IT.THINK PEOPLE We have about a million people on this little island and only a small fraction, perhaps 2 or 3 % will ever use this Boondoggle HEAVY CEMENT STATIONS WITH STEEL ON STEEL, LOUD, NOISY,AND EXPENSIVE TO BUILD AS WELL AS MAINTAIN
on November 11,2011 | 07:36AM
wiliki wrote:
Nope. Rail will solve our future traffic congestion problems. Without rail, we have no future.
on November 11,2011 | 09:37AM
Kuniarr wrote:
The thing about the concept that rail will solve our future traffic congestion problems is that it is based on the assumption that thousands of drivers would leave their cars behind and take the train. That assumption is contradicted by the fact that cities with a rail system more elaborate than the single 20-mile stretch of rail have traffic congestion much worse than the H1gridlock in the morning and afternoon.
on November 11,2011 | 11:31AM
pakeheat wrote:
Here we go again wiliki, how is rail going to solve our congestion problems? You mean to tell me that with rail will end congestion? B.S. With rail, our pocket book will become even more thinner, LOL. You think 5 billion dollars and counting won't affect people lives, come on wiliki, wake up from your dreams? Every time when you and I buy something, .5% is taken away, and on top of that we haven't heard how much the maintenance and operational costs will also affect us.
on November 11,2011 | 11:35AM
wiliki wrote:
No dreams about facts. Projections of HART for future ridership are based on surveys
on November 11,2011 | 02:42PM
nitestalker3 wrote:
surveys are like political polls taken over the phone or on the street corner...they don't mean cr@p.
on November 11,2011 | 03:21PM
Buckykat wrote:
Surveys of perhaps more developers? How many more people can we fit on this island without starving all of us out at the next dockworkers' strike?
on November 11,2011 | 06:01PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
on November 11,2011 | 06:41PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
on November 11,2011 | 06:41PM
pakeheat wrote:
bogus surveys wiliki, LOL.
on November 11,2011 | 06:59PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
on November 11,2011 | 06:39PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
on November 11,2011 | 06:41PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
on November 11,2011 | 06:41PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
on November 11,2011 | 06:42PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
on November 11,2011 | 06:42PM
Kuniarr wrote:
The letter of Simon Zweighaft, Chief project officer, HART claiming that Ansaldo, "The bidder selected did comply with the request for proposal, which required bidders to be licensed at the time of the award" is contradicted by the fact that Ansaldo was fined $150,000 by the State for submitting a bid with proper contractor's license.
on November 11,2011 | 06:03AM
KeithHaugen wrote:
That's pretty typical of the double-talk we hear from the Mayor, C&C, Gang of Three, HART, in their never-ending desire to force a railroad down our collective throats, even though they know that the majority of O`ahu residents, taxpayers, voters don't want the proposed railroad, won't (or won't be able to) use it, and can't afford it. It's the kind of misstatement we have come to expect from the few who want the train so badly they will say anything, do anything, legal or otherwise, to get it.
on November 11,2011 | 06:20AM
hybrid1 wrote:
The mayor double talks all the time. He declared that "Rail is fiscally irresponsible" as shown on video at fixoahunowdotcom.
on November 11,2011 | 06:47AM
wiliki wrote:
This is nitpicking. Clearly Ansaldo is a contractor. It rectified the problem when it discovered it needed a local contracting license. This is a tempest in a teapot. Effectively, it paid more than $150,000 for the local license. City came out ahead on that one.
on November 11,2011 | 09:41AM
nitestalker3 wrote:
hmmmmm...nitpicking. i thought part of the rfp included the requirement that bidders had a local license. that would mean ansaldo bid without a license purposefully and with malice aforethought. either that or they don't know how to read english.
on November 11,2011 | 03:24PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Just like some of those who don't want the train will say anything. "majority of Oahu residents, taxpayers, voters"... hmmmm, based on what? Use facts for the argument. If they are strong enough, you change minds.
on November 11,2011 | 03:28PM
LemonySnickets wrote:
LemonySnickets wrote: "Ansaldo Honolulu JV has agreed to pay the state $150,000 to settle two cases alleging that the company didn't have a contractor's license — as required by law — when it bid for the rail contract." http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/10/21/13411-ansaldo-state-reach-deal-on-licensing-violation/ Yet? on November 10,2011 | 09:10AM
on November 11,2011 | 08:00AM
aiea7 wrote:
Apparently you are unable to read carefully. - it states that the bidder must have a contractor's license at the time of the award of the contract, not for at the time for submission of the bid. The fact that the contractor was fined is a separate matter, unrelated to the procurement process. No wonder Lemon S. is poking fun at you, apparently, you cannot understand plain english.
on November 11,2011 | 08:11AM
Kuniarr wrote:
aiea7, you are correct concerning the matter of a fine being a separate matter. However to say that I am unable to read carefully is repudiated by my comment which states the reason for the fine, i.e., submitting a contract without a proper contractor's license. Moreover, aiea7, If you read carefully the post is of LemonySnickets, LemonySnickets actually does not poke fun at me but in actuality confirms the validity of my comment by quoting from Google the news item from Civilbeat.Com that confirms the validity of my argument that Simon Zweighaft is contradicted by the fine imposed by the State on the basis of the fact that Ansaldo did not have the proper contractor's license when it submitted its bid. It is not fitting nor proper to insult me by saying that I cannot understand plain English. If you read the fine print on the guideline for those who post comments on this website, it says "keep your comment civil and in good taste".
on November 11,2011 | 09:08AM
aiea7 wrote:
The bid document stated that a contractor's license was required at the time of the award of the contract, not at the time of bid. Ansaldo was following the bid requirements. If there was anything wrong, then the bid instructions were wrong - you cannot hold Ansaldo for something, when they were following the bid instructions. Hence, Ansaldo may not have had a contractors license at the submission of the bid, did not disqualify them from bidding, but the had since obtained contractor's license when the contract was awared. This is why the appeals board and courts have upheld Ansaldo's bid and contract award as valid. There is no contradition, only on your mind. You are merging two different issues into one, and that is not correct. This really shows your lack of understanding of the issue and your ability to comprehend english.
on November 11,2011 | 12:56PM
Kuniarr wrote:
It was not civil nor in good taste to insult me by saying I cannot understand plain English or by saying that there is no contradiction, only in my mind. The Regional Industries Complaint Office (RICO) which handled the complaint against Ansaldo has this to say: (Source- http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/10/21/13411-ansaldo-state-reach-deal-on-licensing-violation/ ) The state admits in its press release that "although Ansaldo was licensed prior to submitting Best and Final Offers and before a contract for the Rail Project was awarded, the company was not licensed when the bidding process initially began." “As with similar cases RICO has handled in the past, RICO took into consideration that, in these cases, no consumers were harmed and a contractor’s license was in hand before a contract was signed or ground was broken,” RICO Supervising Attorney Daria Goto said in the press release. “The amount of the fine reflects the size of the project and the fact that Ansaldo was in the beginning stages of the bidding process when it obtained a license.” The settlement is "a reminder that a contractor’s license is required to bid and perform contracting work in Hawaii,” Verna Oda, executive officer for the Contractor’s License Board said in the release." But please keep in mind, aiea7 that we are engaged in an intelligent debate where I give no offense nor should you take offense for an opinion that is different than yours or mine. Making a remark twice that is not civil nor in good taste is inappropriate. There is a fine print above that warns those who post comments in this website about "account suspension or deactivation"
on November 11,2011 | 02:47PM
Kuniarr wrote:
In short, according to RICO, RICO took into consideration that (1) no consumers were harmed and (2) a contractor's license was in hand before a contract was signed or ground was broken. However the settlement was still a reminder according to RICO that a contractor's license is required to bid and perform contractor work in Hawaii. (source given above).
on November 11,2011 | 03:40PM
Anonymous wrote:
My comment should read "without proper contractor's license."
on November 11,2011 | 06:05AM
bender wrote:
re: HART is being dilligent. About the only dilligence I've seen in the entire rail fiasco is the single minded concentration of ramming this down our throats. More to the point of the letter writer. If the former administation, the current administration and now HART were really looking out for the taxpayers interest, then they would have widened the playing field so that more bidders could have been accomodated. The rules for bidding in this project seems to have been tailor written to suit the Ansaldo bid. It may be a moot point but having a rule that says you don't have to have a license unless you are awarded the contract seems to be suited to ensure Ansaldo received special treatment. And again, if HART were truly interested in protecting the taxpayers of Honolulu they would not let a contractor with such a bad track record submit a bid, let alone award them the contract. There is simply too much that stinks about this part of the contract that would convince the average person that it is on the up and up. One other thing, the letter writer is feeding at the trough so it is understandable that he would say everything is hunky dory. To do otherwise might jeopardize the gravy train.
on November 11,2011 | 06:06AM
Kauikalewa wrote:
Ads in schools should be about getting an education. Ads in schools should be about the US academic standings against other nations. We should show students where they stand against other states, other schools and internationally. Then we provide more. It's about quality instruction with the right technology to do the job with the right intensity. Students internationally choose to spend more hours studying than is required or offered in the US and Hawaii. If a North Korean student studies from 8 am to 4 pm, then goes to study hall, has dinner in school and goes to tutoring until 10 pm, how does that measure up to what we offer students locally? Longer school days and a variety of staff and specialists would make the difference with the mix of technology and core materials that are Tier 1, 2, and 3 defined will change the statistics immediately. Better than consultants, Danielson and Ads. It isn't rocket science. It's about Data Driven Instruction with the right tools and staffing to do the job.
on November 11,2011 | 06:47AM
Toneyuki wrote:
North Korea? Seriously? That's the best thing you could try and use as a comparison? Let's see, in NK they indoctrinate their people, then they must serve in the military for 10 years, then they can go back and live in poverty for the rest of their lives. Not a good comparison.
on November 11,2011 | 05:41PM
lee1957 wrote:
I have absolutely no confidence in HART when the chief project officer pens a letter insisting they are being diligent, and that the winning bidder complied with the request for proposal, which included being licensed to do business in the State. He is completely silent on the fact that Ansaldo paid a $150,000 fine to the State for not having a license. Further, while using the litany of legal decisions upholding the Ansaldo decision, and the fact that the board reviewed Ansaldo's finances (apparently not very well given more recent announcements) he failed to mention their omission in reviewing past performance. This selective presentation and twisting of facts has been rampant since Mufi was in charge.
on November 11,2011 | 06:49AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Dear Rail Opponents, Give it up. As long as the State and C&C is controlled by the same old political interests and there is no meaningful opposition political force, things like the rail project will be slipped by, dropped on, or force-fed to the public. With one party rule and no meaningful opposition to force strict public scrutiny of such project's finances and cost/benefit, you might just as well grab a shovel and stand in the path of an avalanche. This fact seems obvious, and especially ironic, since some of you who are so strongly against the rail fiasco, but at the same time, strongly supportive of Hawaii's political status quo.
on November 11,2011 | 07:26AM
Buckykat wrote:
Regarding ads or sponsorships in schools, I'm all for it, particularly at the university level. Our daughter talks about all the technology that was available to her in a California State tech school in the construction management department because of sponsorship of various companies. The companies also have a symbiotic relationship with the school in providing jobs for new graduates. Does the author object to having Microsoft donate, for example, 100 new computers to a school loaded with Windows and other Microsoft software?
on November 11,2011 | 07:34AM
rosa wrote:
To Simon Z: Why did Ansaldo have to pay a fine if they were properly licensed as you say? Also, HART better look at what is happening to Italy's economy. Will Ansaldo go bankrupt too? Please explain in detail how bonds will not increase the time and cost of rail construction if Ansaldo goes bankrupt. You should listen to people like governor Ariyoshi who knows more than you think.
on November 11,2011 | 07:53AM
soundofreason wrote:
"The bidder selected did comply with the request for proposal, which required bidders to be licensed at the time of the award.">>>>Then the $150,000 fine by them was paid..........why?
on November 11,2011 | 08:00AM
aiea7 wrote:
M. Dilono, what is wrong with exposing our children to corporate America? Don't they get a healthy dose of it watching television, reading the newspaper, shopping, etc. After all, advertising is part of life. Further, the DOE wants to have limited advertising in schools, not to have billboards all over the campus, etc. And the type of ads will be restricted to promote positive attitudes by the students. Your disagreement is based on erroneous assumptions, you need to understand the issue before your rant and rave mindlessly.
on November 11,2011 | 08:05AM
mrluke wrote:
Wishful thinking on your part. Experience tells us that those ads are just a foot in the door. Just a matter of time before those "restricted" ads become full blown commercialization.
on November 11,2011 | 08:18AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
Could you elaborate on the "experience" you are referring to? I'm having a hard time coming up with an example that is appropriate or relevant to the "positive attitude" messaging referred to by the DOE.
on November 11,2011 | 03:24PM
Kuniarr wrote:
aiea7, one of the requirements for those posting comments on this website is to keep it civil and in good taste with account suspension and deactivation invoked. It is inappropriate to insult someoneposting an opinion in the Letters to the Editor simply because that opinion does not agree with yours. .
on November 11,2011 | 08:10PM
ISCREAM wrote:
What'sa matter you all kind of sensitive? If you can't stand the heat...get out of the fire.
on November 11,2011 | 08:20PM
aiea7 wrote:
waipahu - You have always posted comments that are either wrong or misinterpretation of the facts and issues and you make it like you are correct. But in many instances, it is not correct. If you are stating an opinion and I disagree with it; that is okay. But you cite examples, etc. to prove your point but most of the time they do not support your arguments because you do not seem to understand the issues you are trying to argue. This is the part LS and others who have attacked your comments; you read a lot of things on the internet but half the time you misinterpret or misunderstand the real issues and make silly comments. Really, I am not trying to denigrate you - after I saw the back and forth between you and LS, where he/she pokes fun at you, I felt someone needed to tell you the truth. You did not even understand why LS was making fun of you.
on November 11,2011 | 08:47PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
I'm wondering if Kuniarr/Waipahu/Cl*ff actually has purchased the Star-Advertiser and is asserting a new "authority"?
on November 12,2011 | 09:31AM
Kuniarr wrote:
ISCREAM, DowntownGreen and aiea7: - Simon Zweighaft, Chief project officer, HART claims that the"request for proposal, .... required bidders to be licensed at the time of the award.". My comments repudiates that very claim by citing official press releases from the State as well as from the Regional Industries Complaint Office (RICO). In fact the very reason why the protest against Ansaldo was rejected is not because of a provision in the bidding document that a license is required at the time of the award as claimed by aiea7 but because RICO "took into consideration that (1) no consumers were harmed and (2) a contractor's license was in hand before a contract was signed or ground was broken". To farther emphasize the reason of the State in its press release for fining Ansaldo, RICO emphasized that in rejecting the complaint against Ansaldo for not having a contractor's license before bidding by virtue of (1) and (2) above, RICO stated that a contractor's license is required to bid and perform contractor work in Hawaii.
on November 13,2011 | 02:43PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Source: http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/10/21/13411-ansaldo-state-reach-deal-on-licensing-violation/
on November 13,2011 | 02:53PM
kauakea wrote:
The UH should price its product more like the private colleges do. They should set a high price and then rebate to those who can't pay via scholarships. (Look at Harvard which has both high tuition but high financial aid numbers.) This is the way to simultaneously maximize income and equity.
on November 11,2011 | 08:18AM
mrluke wrote:
Harvard is a private institution with some of the wealthiest contributors and endowments available for financial aid. UH, on the other hand, is mostly supported by us taxpayers.
on November 11,2011 | 08:25AM
islandsun wrote:
Mufi and his clowns forced this rail to satisfy construction union interests. Carlisle is doing the same. Lets send Carlisle back to the mainland next time around. Lets make sure Mufi is never gets in office again.
on November 11,2011 | 09:24AM
wiliki wrote:
Great that we get the straight facts from HART staffers like Simon Zweighaft. HART is structured like the PUC-- a non-political body to operate the rail and bus system.
on November 11,2011 | 09:35AM
FrankGenadio wrote:
Second try after several refreshes. You are kidding, aren't you? Mr. Zweighaft is a senior member of InfraConsult and periodically has a letter supporting the project. Perhaps it might be useful for all of the posters to learn exactly how much he receives from InfraConsult's five-year, $36.7 million rail contract, awarded to it as the ONLY bidder in 2010. Full disclosure: My salary for the past three years, as a backer of urban mag-lev (which was not allowed to compete for this project), has been ZERO dollars per year. How about it, Mr. Zweighaft?
on November 11,2011 | 11:28AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Simon Zwighaft, HART chief project officer, was not straight when he wrote "The bidder selected did comply with the request for proposal, which required bidders to be licensed at the time of the award." For in truth and in fact "the bidder selected" (Ansaldo) "didn't have a contractor's license — as required by law — when it bid for the rail contract." This according to a press release from the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.
on November 11,2011 | 01:14PM
wiliki wrote:
This is nitpicking and not a problem. Ansaldo has paid dearly for such a small mistake. The city came out way ahead on the local license boo boo.
on November 11,2011 | 02:46PM
rosa wrote:
Hey Brah, you better start nickpicking when we're talking 5-10 billion. NO STONE SHOULD BE LEFT UNTURNED, ESPECIALLY THE SMALL ONES.
on November 11,2011 | 06:51PM
polekasta wrote:
Yeah, HART is structured like the PUC. The PUC is supposed to look out for the best interest of the public, but in reality, they look out for the best interest of themselves and big bussiness. How many times has HECO asked for a rate increase and the PUC has allowed some kind of rate increase? Yeah, HART is only looking out for what's best for them.
on November 11,2011 | 08:49PM
KeithHaugen wrote:
The misstatements from the guy who is being paid to be pro-rail are just what we expect. He is clearly being bought and paid and has no concern or regard for the people of Hawai`i who are paying his salary and who will pay dearly for his mistakes.
on November 11,2011 | 06:47PM
ISCREAM wrote:
There is nothing wrong with students paying for their college education. I say pay what it costs...how typical of the "local" mentality...don't have the money...no work harder...lower the standards.
on November 11,2011 | 08:15PM
Latest News/Updates
Wassup Wit Dat!
Silver Pockets Full

Political Radar

Political Radar

Island Crafters
Christmas in July

Political Radar
IBEW endorsement

Warrior Beat
Travel day

Small Talk
Counting coins