Pubdate: Fri, 12 Feb 2016
Source: Honolulu Star-Advertiser (HI)
Copyright: 2016 Star Advertiser
Contact: 
http://www.staradvertiser.com/info/Star-Advertiser_Letter_to_the_Editor.html
Website: http://www.staradvertiser.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5154

DITCH THE SECRECY ON POT LICENSES

The people in the know clearly know the crucial fact about the new 
medical marijuana dispensary enterprise: It's going to be big 
business - very big.

That, as well as the fact that only eight licenses will be awarded, 
has turned those permits into valuable commodities.

And it's turned the process of selecting the licensees into a matter 
of public interest - one that should be done with as much 
transparency as possible.

Unfortunately, the state Department of Health, which is administering 
the fledgling program, has decided that the best course to fairness 
is to sequester the people making the decision: its review panel. In 
this way, DOH officials have said, the panelists would not be open to 
influence.

In practice, it seems unlikely that this approach would dispel the 
appearance of possible corruption or influence. Neither does it fill 
outsiders to the process with confidence: They have no way to know 
the credentials or the possible conflicts of the people reviewing the 
applications.

The list of applicants includes some very well-connected people in 
the islands, and it's hard to fathom how the identity of at least 
some of the panelists would remain under wraps until the selections 
are expected in mid-April.

In the absence of fact, people will speculate that the word will have 
gotten out, and that the fix was in.

It would be impossible to overcome all suspicion about a contentious 
decision such as this, but the way to increase public trust is to do 
as much as possible in public view.

That is the reasoning behind Hawaii's open records law, and behind a 
letter sent to the Health Department by attorney Jeffrey Portnoy, on 
behalf of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.

Portnoy wrote in the letter that the decision to hide the names is 
"in blatant disregard" of that law, the Uniform Information Practices 
Act. Such government records are deemed public access unless 
restricted by law, he wrote; the newspaper is seeking either release 
of the names or relief through the courts.

Portnoy cited an opinion issued by the state Office of Information 
Practices that the open records law creates a "presumption that those 
records are public unless a statutory exception to disclosure is applicable."

"Nowhere does UIPA allow a government agency to keep government 
employees' identities secret just because the agency is afraid of 
some unspecified 'external influence and disruption,'" Portnoy wrote.

In addition, even if the panel's key discussions occur in private 
under legitimate exceptions, it would benefit the public to allow a 
comment period, as occurs in many government administrative reviews. 
The public could supply further information about applicants that 
should be taken under advisement.

The department issued a statement on Wednesday, indicating that it 
would release the names of the panelists after the licenses are 
awarded. But that is too late to convey any faith in the process.

State Sen. Josh Green acknowledged the intent of concealing names was 
to shield panelists from lobbying by interested parties.

"But we all know in certain circles that information will get out and 
they will get lobbied," Green said, "so it's better that it's totally 
transparent and everything is done above board."

That is the only rational way to assess the reality of business and 
politics in this state, where the powers that be circulate in close 
proximity. Information has a way of getting around within "certain 
circles," information the broader public has a right to know.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom