1
1
2
3 SENATE/HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
4 THE 21ST LEGISLATURE
5 INTERIM OF 2001
6
7
8
9 JOINT SENATE-HOUSE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE HEARING
10 SEPTEMBER 17, 2001
11
12
13
14 Taken at the State Capitol, 415 South Beretania,
15 Conference Room 325, Honolulu, Hawaii, commencing at
16 9:13 a.m. on Monday, September 17, 2001.
17
18
19
20
21 BEFORE: SHARON L. ROSS, CSR No. 432
22
23
24
25
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
3 Senate-House Investigative Committee:
4 Co-Chair Senator Colleen Hanabusa
5 Co-Chair Representative Scott Saiki
6 Vice-Chair Senator Russell Kokubun
7 Vice-Chair Representative Blake Oshiro
8 Senator Jan Yagi Buen
9 Representative Ken Ito
10 Representative Bertha Kawakami
11 Representative Bertha Leong
12 Representative Barbara Marumoto
13 Senator Norman Sakamoto
14 Senator Sam Slom
15
16 Also Present:
17 Special Counsel James Kawashima
18 Mr. Robert Golden
19 Ms. Debra Farmer
20 Mr. Russell Suzuki
21
22
23
24
25
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
3
1 I N D E X
2
3 WITNESS: ROBERT GOLDEN
4 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
5 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA............. 8
6 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI......... 94
7 REPRESENTATIVE ITO.................... 108
8 SENATOR BUEN.......................... 109
9 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI............... 110
10 SENATOR SAKAMOTO...................... 116
11 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG.................. 123
12 REPRESENTATIVE MARUMOTO............... 126
13 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO...... 126
14 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA............. 130
15 SENATOR SLOM.......................... 145
16 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA............. 147
17 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI......... 149
18
19 WITNESS: DEBRA FARMER
20 EXAMINATION BY:
21 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA............. 154
22 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN............ 169
23 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO...... 175
24 SENATOR BUEN.......................... 182
25 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI............... 185
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
4
1 I N D E X, (Continued)
2
3 WITNESS: DEBRA FARMER
4 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
5 SENATOR SAKAMOTO...................... 190
6 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG.................. 196
7 SENATOR SLOM.......................... 198
8 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA............. 201
9 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI......... 212
10 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA............. 217
11 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI............... 226
12 SENATOR SAKAMOTO...................... 228
13 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI......... 230
14
15 WITNESS: RUSSELL SUZUKI
16 EXAMINATION BY:
17 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA............. 232
18 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN............ 261
19 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI......... 273
20 SENATOR BUEN.......................... 276
21 SENATOR SAKAMOTO...................... 281
22 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA............. 291
23
24
25
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
5
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Before we begin
3 the hearing, what we would like to do is first start
4 with a -- just a short moment of silence in light of the
5 events of September 11, 2001.
6 (A moment of silence observed.)
7 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you very
8 much. The Joint Senate-House Investigative Committee to
9 investigate the State's efforts to comply with the Felix
10 Consent Decree will now come to order. This is the
11 agenda of Monday, September 17th, 2001.
12 Co-Chair Saiki, will you please call the
13 roll?
14 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Co-Chair
15 Hanabusa?
16 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Here.
17 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Co-Chair
18 Saiki is present. Senator Kokubun?
19 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: Here.
20 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
21 Representative Blake Oshiro?
22 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO: Here.
23 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Senator Buen?
24 SENATOR BUEN: Here.
25 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
6
1 Representative Ito?
2 REPRESENTATIVE ITO: Here.
3 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
4 Representative Kawakami?
5 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: Here.
6 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
7 Representative Leong?
8 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG: Here.
9 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Senator
10 Matsuura is excused.
11 Representative Marumoto?
12 REPRESENTATIVE MARUMOTO: Present.
13 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Senator
14 Sakamoto?
15 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Here.
16 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Senator Slom?
17 SENATOR SLOM: Here.
18 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: We have 11
19 members present, one excused.
20 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: We have a quorum.
21 Co-Chair Saiki, would you like to make the
22 announcement regarding Representative David Pendleton?
23 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Yes.
24 Members, for your information, Representative David
25 Pendleton resigned from this Committee effective
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
7
1 September 4th, 2001; and as such, pursuant to Senate
2 Concurrent Resolution 65, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1,
3 which the Legislature adopted in the 2001 legislative
4 session, Representative Calvin Say has appointed
5 representative Barbara Marumoto to replace
6 Representative Pendleton.
7 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you very
8 much.
9 Members, we will now proceed to the agenda.
10 The first person who we'll call up to testify will be
11 Mr. Golden. Is Mr. Golden here?
12 Thank you, Mr. Golden. I would like to
13 administer the oath to Mr. Golden.
14 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Mr. Golden,
15 do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you
16 are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth,
17 and nothing but the truth?
18 ROBERT GOLDEN: Yes, I will.
19 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you.
20 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, we will
21 be continuing with the rules that we established the
22 first time we had testimony, which is that the Special
23 Counsel will begin; and then we will go to the members
24 with the same time limits. So, with that,
25 Mr. Kawashima.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
8
1 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: Thank you,
2 Senator.
3 EXAMINATION
4 BY SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA:
5 Q. Please state your name and business address.
6 A. Robert Golden. Business address is 600 block
7 of 18th Avenue, Kaimuki Middle School.
8 Q. And what is your position, sir?
9 A. My position is as director of the student
10 support services branch of the Department of Education.
11 Q. How long have you served in that position,
12 Mr. Golden?
13 A. Just a little over two years.
14 Q. If you might briefly, Mr. Golden, go through
15 the history of your employment with the Department of
16 Education. I understand you've been with the department
17 over 31 years now?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. And can you go over, perhaps, your history
20 with the department starting back when you were teaching
21 at Waialua?
22 A. I just said this recently. This could take
23 up the whole morning.
24 Q. Maybe you can make it short, please.
25 A. I started at Waialua High School in 1970 as a
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
9
1 teacher. I spent time there from 1970 to approximately
2 1984, I believe it was. 1984, I went left Waialua High
3 School. I then went to Mililani High School as an
4 administrative vice-principal, was at Mililani High
5 School for a period of approximately two years.
6 Sometime towards the end of 1986, I did spend
7 some time, relatively short periods of time, at two
8 elementary schools as acting principal. I believe it
9 was in 19 -- February of 1987, I was given a privilege
10 of serving at Kaimuki -- excuse me -- Wahiawa
11 Intermediate School as principal. 1989, I went to
12 Radford High School as principal. 1993, I left Radford
13 High School, went to the state office as a state office
14 specialist with various responsibilities.
15 Before leaving the state office, I did serve
16 a brief time -- it was a six, seven-months period -- as
17 the administrator for special education on an interim
18 basis. I left that position, went to Central District;
19 and I served as a district educational specialist for,
20 again, approximately two years. And I was asked at that
21 time to consider assuming a deputy district
22 superintendent's position, which I did, in 1997, I
23 believe it was, up until 1999 when I was transitioned
24 into my former -- my present position.
25 Q. As director of student support services, sir?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
10
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. Now, we -- quickly give us your
3 formal education starting with college.
4 A. I have a bachelor's degree in education. I
5 have a master's degree in education, both from Temple
6 University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
7 Q. All right. Now, in your position as director
8 of student support services, Mr. Golden, what are your
9 responsibilities?
10 A. It's broad responsibilities for student
11 support services overall. It's a major branch within
12 the Department of Education; and the branch constitutes
13 two major sections, one of which would be student
14 support services in general and the other branch -- or
15 the other section would be special education.
16 Q. You -- the work you do, sir, with the
17 department involves the Felix Consent Decree, does it
18 not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. To what extent does it involve the Felix
21 Consent Decree?
22 A. The Felix Consent Decree emanates throughout
23 the department as far as responsibilities. Being that
24 special education is a major section within the branch,
25 I think it's obvious that that -- that and also with the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
11
1 student support services branch, there are Felix-related
2 direct responsibilities in both sections.
3 Q. So, your responsibility -- your
4 responsibilities don't involve only the Felix children?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Am I correct?
7 A. No, it involves all children throughout the
8 entire Department of Education.
9 Q. Now, is your department, sir, involved with
10 the training and development of personnel who provides
11 special education services?
12 A. Certainly.
13 Q. And does your -- your department have
14 responsibilities for things such as teacher allocations?
15 A. There's involvement in teacher allocation;
16 and it's not -- I'm not involved -- I'm director of a
17 branch, not the department. So, it's a branch of the
18 department.
19 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, does your branch
20 become involved with monetary accountability, for
21 example?
22 A. There is quite a bit of funds that are
23 processed through and involved with the branch and both
24 sections, correct.
25 Q. In fact, you in your position, Mr. Golden, do
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
12
1 review these contracts you're talking about that involve
2 large amounts of money, do you not?
3 A. On occasion, yes, it does happen.
4 Q. Well, at one time, you were reviewing all of
5 these contracts, were you not?
6 A. I cannot say whether I was reviewing all of
7 them or not. There may be some that I just had no
8 knowledge of or possibly was not pertinent to my
9 particular branch.
10 Q. All right. Now, by the way, just for your
11 information, sir, you already gave testimony under oath
12 in these areas we're going to talk about -- some of
13 them -- last week when your deposition was taken in
14 another lawsuit?
15 A. I'm aware of that, yes.
16 Q. We have the transcript here. I may refer you
17 to it from time to time. I just want you to know we
18 have the transcript of that deposition with some
19 exhibits in it. We'll talk about it.
20 Now -- by the way, before you -- between the
21 time you testified in your deposition last week up until
22 today, have you had any meetings with anyone in
23 preparation for testifying before this Committee?
24 A. Yes, I have.
25 Q. With whom have you met?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
13
1 A. Superintendent of education, two of the
2 Deputy Attorney Generals, personnel within my branch,
3 and various other personnel within the Department of
4 Education.
5 Q. All at the same time?
6 A. All at the same time.
7 Q. And -- all right. So, who were these
8 attorneys from the Attorney General's office?
9 A. Russell Suzuki -- and I believe the
10 gentleman's name was Michael Meaney.
11 Q. M-E-E --
12 A. I'm not sure how you spell it.
13 Q. All right. All right. Thank you. Who all
14 from the department was there aside from the
15 superintendent?
16 A. Debra Farmer, the administrator for special
17 education; Laurel Johnston. Funny how fast the memory
18 goes, but --
19 Q. That's fine.
20 A. There was one or two other people there.
21 Q. All right. If you remember them during the
22 course of your questioning today -- your testimony
23 today, just tell me about it.
24 A. Sure.
25 Q. All right. Now, your understanding, sir,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
14
1 were the Deputy Attorneys General there serving in a
2 capacity that they were representing you?
3 A. In fact, I asked the question; and the answer
4 was that they would be representing me in my official
5 capacity.
6 Q. Today or at that meeting? Well, let me back
7 up, sir.
8 I understand at your deposition there were --
9 there was one Deputy Attorney General in attendance, was
10 there not?
11 A. There was more than one.
12 Q. And none of those Deputies Attorney General
13 represented you in that proceeding, did they?
14 A. I was told that they did not.
15 Q. All right. So, you had no representation
16 there?
17 A. I did not.
18 Q. Now, today, do you have representation, to
19 your understanding?
20 A. I -- the way I understand it, representation
21 is available.
22 Q. I see. I see. But you do understand that
23 during this -- the course of this meeting that you had
24 with these other people, that the Attorney General --
25 Deputy Attorney General that were there were there in an
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
15
1 official capacity?
2 A. Were they there in an official capacity?
3 Q. Yes, yes, to your knowledge.
4 A. Very much -- very much so, yes.
5 Q. Now, I'm not going to ask you questions that
6 will elicit answers that relate to advice given during
7 that conference, okay?
8 A. Understood.
9 Q. I'm just going to ask you factual things that
10 may have been communicated back and forth between the
11 department people, not with the attorneys. Can you --
12 do you understand my -- what I'm -- the parameters I'm
13 setting here?
14 A. Not fully, but --
15 Q. All right. Let me ask the questions, and we
16 can see. What I don't want to do, though -- if advice
17 was given by any attorneys, I'm not trying to get at
18 that advice, all right?
19 A. Okay. Got you.
20 Q. Was there only one meeting?
21 A. I attended two meetings.
22 Q. What --
23 A. Thursday was the latest of the -- the last of
24 the two.
25 Q. When was the first?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
16
1 A. It was -- it had to be a few weeks ago.
2 Q. Was that before the deposition that you gave
3 last week?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. And what is your understanding of that first
6 meeting two weeks ago -- what was that for?
7 A. I believe it was just for procedural aspects
8 of what would be involved in this particular
9 Investigative Committee and the process of the
10 Committee.
11 Q. Okay. What were you told about what was
12 going to be involved in that first meeting?
13 A. What was I told?
14 Q. Yes, not by the attorneys, by the way. And
15 attorneys were there at that first meeting, were they
16 not?
17 A. Yes, there were.
18 Q. All right.
19 A. So, can you be more specific?
20 Q. Well --
21 A. What was I told by whom?
22 Q. By anyone else in the department.
23 A. Directly -- I was not told anything directly
24 by anyone in the department.
25 Q. What was the gist of the conversations, then,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
17
1 that went back and forth between the participants of
2 that meeting other than the attorneys?
3 A. I believe it was really just speculative as
4 far as what the process would be and possibly what some
5 questions might be.
6 Q. All right. Do you recall anyone raising
7 issues or stating what some questions might be in that
8 first meeting?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What -- what areas or subjects came up during
11 the course of that discussion?
12 A. As I recall -- I can't remember the details,
13 but I believe there was -- there were some -- there was
14 some speculation regarding compliance, the legality of
15 compliance.
16 Q. Are you involved with compliance, sir?
17 A. I think the department is involved with
18 compliance, everyone.
19 Q. Are you involved with service testing, for
20 example?
21 A. My section in the branch and throughout both
22 sections in the branch are involved with service
23 testing.
24 Q. So, you are familiar with the processes --
25 A. Yes.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
18
1 Q. -- when we use the phrase "service testing"?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. We'll talk about that later.
4 Now, how about this second meeting that took place last
5 week Thursday? You say -- that would have been, what,
6 the 13th?
7 A. Yes, it was.
8 Q. And what transpired during that meeting in
9 terms of factual information going back and forth among
10 the participants other than the attorneys?
11 A. I really think the focus was on clarifying
12 which documents may be presented today and, basically,
13 who was going to bring them.
14 Q. Did you bring any documents, by the way, sir?
15 A. No, I did not; but I -- from what I
16 understand, three copies were made available and they
17 are here.
18 Q. Those are the documents you're talking about?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. I think Ms. Johnston gave them to us before
21 the proceeding started.
22 A. Yes, they are the ones.
23 Q. All right. What's your understanding of what
24 those documents are, just -- if you might described them
25 for me?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
19
1 A. To be honest with you, I have not seen them
2 directly. So, it would be a guess on my part.
3 Q. All right. Now, what about the testimony
4 you're going to give us -- strike that. Let me go back.
5 What about the testimony you actually gave on
6 Tuesday of last week, the 11th of September, was that
7 discussed in this meeting on the 13th?
8 A. No, it was not.
9 Q. So, what was discussed in terms of your
10 testimony today in this meeting on the 13th?
11 A. There was nothing specific to my testimony at
12 that time.
13 Q. All right. Just merely a discussion of
14 documents --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- that would be relevant to the questions?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, you mentioned, sir,
19 contracts -- as far as your oversight responsibility as
20 the director in this -- in the department that you
21 serve, you mentioned you had at one time the
22 responsibility of reviewing these types of contracts,
23 did you not -- did you not?
24 A. I believe what I had mentioned -- and you're
25 referencing now my prior deposition?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
20
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. I believe at a point in that deposition, I
3 had referenced that there was a process created, given
4 the transition that -- that is and was presently -- or
5 occurring at that time regarding the transition of
6 mental health services from the Department of Health to
7 the Department of Education, that a process and a form
8 was established so that certain contracts would come
9 across my desk for recommended approval or nonapproval.
10 Q. All right. Now, what kind of contracts are
11 you referring to, sir?
12 A. These would be contracts specific to service
13 provision for students in need of mental health services
14 that would have -- I'm not sure what the -- quite the
15 correct term would be, but outside the procurement
16 areas.
17 Q. All right. Now, do you recall the term
18 "targeted technical assistance"?
19 A. I do.
20 Q. When did you first become familiar with
21 that -- with that phrase?
22 A. Technical assistance -- whether the term
23 "targeted" was used -- I recall it being sometime -- it
24 was either late April or early May at a meeting that I
25 attended at the Department of Education.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
21
1 Q. That was late April, early May of 2000, last
2 year?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And who was in attendance at that meeting,
5 sir?
6 A. I was in attendance. Debra Farmer from my
7 office was in attendance as administrator of special
8 education. Dr. LeMahieu was in attendance. Dr. Ivor
9 Groves was there.
10 In fact, I believe the meeting was actually
11 initiated, if not called, by him. There was
12 representatives from the Department of Health who was
13 there at the time.
14 Q. Okay. Now, what -- in this meeting in late
15 April, early May, what was discussed with regard to this
16 phrase "targeted technical assistance"?
17 A. The discussion was basic to the fact that we
18 had complexes specified throughout the state that may
19 need or did need certain kinds of assistance in order
20 for them to move on and to be compliant according to the
21 Felix Consent Decree.
22 And there was -- the discussion ranged from:
23 Well, what could we do, what should we do, how should
24 this be prioritized?
25 And at one point, I had mentioned that this
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
22
1 was already being discussed, not that we were using the
2 term "targeted technical assistance"; but it was being
3 discussed in my branch with certain personnel that was
4 already involved with being out in the districts and the
5 complexes helping school principals, et cetera, et
6 cetera; that we felt that if they were shy of compliance
7 or in need of help, we took it as a requirement that we
8 really needed to do something to assist them.
9 The discussion was pursued further and I'm
10 not sure where it came from or how it came up but the
11 idea that, well, possibly external sources could be used
12 or should be used to provide targeted technical
13 assistance. So, it was discussed at that time.
14 Q. All right. And, again, if you might, sir,
15 what -- how would you then define or describe that
16 phrase "targeted technical assistance"?
17 A. And you're asking for my opinion or how it
18 was discussed at that time?
19 Q. How it was discussed, sir, at that time.
20 A. It was really open and vague.
21 Q. How about your understanding of it, your
22 opinion?
23 A. Well, targeted would be very directed to the
24 school level, the complex level; and that's really
25 face-to-face working with the people who are there
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
23
1 working with kids and for the very, very specifics of
2 what a complex and a school would need in order to meet
3 the needs of the youngsters at that school and complex.
4 Q. Okay. And these were -- would be provided by
5 consultants or people -- professionals who could assist
6 in these technical areas, right?
7 A. My view or someone else's view?
8 Q. Your view.
9 A. My view would be really all of the above, a
10 combination of both.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. I wouldn't be foolish enough to think that it
13 could be done or should be done strictly internally.
14 Obviously, you do need, quote, unquote, "expert" advice,
15 technical advice; but that should not be the entire
16 basis of providing that targeted technical assistance.
17 Q. Sure. When I -- the last several questions I
18 asked you, sir, you qualified them by saying "my
19 opinion" or what? Why did you make that qualification?
20 A. Because I wasn't sure where you were --
21 Q. Right.
22 A. -- what you were referencing. So, I mean, if
23 you were referencing what was already discussed at the
24 meeting, you know, I wouldn't want to presume that I
25 understood or thought what someone else would be
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
24
1 thinking.
2 Q. Right. I just wanted to see why you asked me
3 that. Thank you.
4 Now, who actually brought up this concept,
5 though, of targeted technical assistance in that meeting
6 in May 19 -- late April, early May, 19 -- late April,
7 early May of 2000?
8 A. I'm really not sure. If I had to take a
9 guess, I would probably think it was Dr. Ivor Groves.
10 Q. You know, by the way, sir, in your
11 deposition, there are a number of exhibits; and
12 Exhibit 2 is a chron that -- a chronology that you did
13 on or about October 17th of 2000. Would it assist you
14 to look at that chronology in terms of dates and -- of
15 these events? Because you do have a date down there as
16 to this meeting. I think you're referring to May 10th.
17 A. I haven't looked at that recently, but I'm
18 familiar with it.
19 Q. All right. The chronology?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. So that, in fact, that it -- I
22 will represent to you that the chronology of
23 October 17th, 2000 -- which we'll talk about later,
24 again, has as -- the meeting with Ivor Groves to discuss
25 possible Felix issues including what -- the phrase
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
25
1 "technical assist team" was May 10th. Does that sound
2 right to you?
3 A. It was around that time. I think I prefaced
4 that chronology by the dates would be approximate. So,
5 it was in and around that time.
6 Q. All right. So, as a result of that meeting,
7 then, it appears that a decision was made by those who
8 make the decisions that this concept of targeted
9 technical assistance would be something that would be
10 pursued?
11 A. No. A decision -- at least in my
12 understanding, a decision was not made. At least, I
13 didn't depart the meeting with a clear understanding
14 that that was the decision. In fact, I left the meeting
15 feeling that I needed to continue to pursue, I guess,
16 what you had referenced earlier, what my view of
17 targeted technical assist was; and that's what I did.
18 Q. Right. Hadn't you already been doing that,
19 sir, even before this meeting?
20 A. Not fully. It was really -- it was really in
21 a discussion stage, but I think it was -- I'm going to
22 use the phrase a "no-brainer" that we really needed to
23 do departmentally what needed to be done to support
24 these schools.
25 Q. Do you have an opinion, sir, as to why it was
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
26
1 in May of 2000 or thereabouts that this type of concept
2 is pursued -- understanding when the Consent Decree was
3 actually signed back in '93, '94, why it was six or
4 seven years later?
5 A. I have no idea. I don't think the meeting
6 was called for that specific purpose. In no way do I
7 believe that. The topic did come up.
8 Q. The topic of why it took so long?
9 A. No, the topic of targeted technical assist.
10 Q. Oh, I see; but it appeared that the concept
11 was one that you agreed with, though, was it not?
12 A. Yes, conceptually, yes.
13 Q. Conceptually.
14 A. Right.
15 Q. So, what happened next in terms of this
16 concept of targeted technical assistance? What happened
17 next in the process --
18 A. I'm going to ask you --
19 Q. -- timewise?
20 A. I'm going to ask you again. Timewise for me
21 personally or --
22 Q. For you personally, yes.
23 A. I continued -- actually, I went out and I
24 started to make appointments with various principals
25 that I was very familiar with that had been there, done
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
27
1 that, had a high degree of what I considered to be
2 expertise, school-level savvy, principals who were
3 regarded as being quite professional and being able to
4 go in and relate to other school administrators.
5 I spoke to -- made appointments with and I
6 spoke to other departmental personnel, program
7 specialists of various sorts, with the idea of putting
8 together at least a concept that could be presented. It
9 was never finalized, but at least being presented so
10 that we could take a look at internally using outside
11 technical resources to go in and assist these complexes
12 and schools in particular.
13 Q. Why was -- that concept you're talking about
14 that you started to pursue, why was it not carried out?
15 A. Why it was not carried out? I can't answer
16 that. I know what I was told.
17 Q. What were you told?
18 A. I made a specific -- it wasn't an
19 appointment, but I had a specific meeting with
20 Dr. Douglas Houck. And I asked Doug, "What's going on
21 with targeted technical assistance?"
22 And I shared with him what I was doing, and
23 he flat out told me that -- that I might as well stop
24 what I'm doing because that's probably not going to
25 occur.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
28
1 Q. When was this that you had this conversation
2 with Dr. Houck?
3 A. Again, I'm going with memory here and
4 approximate dates; but it was also sometimes -- I
5 believe it was late May of 2000.
6 Q. Late May, early June, 2000?
7 A. Sometime around there, yes.
8 Q. Okay. Now, let's go back, though, to what
9 you were doing to try and implement this process and to
10 try to assist schools with this technical assistance.
11 Now, were schools on a -- in a certain
12 district being targeted or schools throughout the state
13 that were not in compliance -- who was being targeted
14 for this service?
15 A. The ones that were identified were really
16 throughout the system. Maybe we could take a look at --
17 some particular districts may have had a higher number
18 of complexes than others; but, I mean, it wasn't
19 specific to any particular district. It was throughout
20 the state.
21 Q. The Big Island did up come up, though, as a
22 district, did it not?
23 A. Yes, it did.
24 Q. And why did it come up?
25 A. Just because of the particulars of service
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
29
1 testing results perceived need.
2 Q. Did they -- did the Big Island at that point
3 in time, in 2000, have a disproportionate number of
4 schools that were not in compliance?
5 A. Right offhand, I couldn't -- I couldn't
6 relate to that.
7 Q. But it appears, though, that the personnel --
8 that the people in authority were concerned about the
9 Big Island, though, among others?
10 A. To be honest with you, I believe all of us
11 were concerned about complexes on the Big Island.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. As we are with every complex.
14 Q. Fine. Now, you -- strike that.
15 Your concept about putting together a team
16 and talking to principals, talking to other department
17 personnel, program specialists, that concept was never,
18 as you say, put into effect, was it?
19 A. It was not.
20 Q. Oh, by the way, who were these principals
21 that you mentioned that you discussed the matter with
22 who were highly regarded, respected professional people?
23 A. Specifically you want their names?
24 Q. Are there many?
25 A. I can give you three right -- that I recall.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
30
1 Q. Please.
2 A. Sharon Nakagawa, principal at -- at the time
3 she was principal of Waialua Elementary School.
4 Mr. Raymond Sugai, principal at Pearl City Elementary
5 School -- Pearl Elementary School; and Myron Brumaghim
6 down at Nanakuli.
7 Q. And had these -- the schools in their
8 complexes, these three individuals that you named, had
9 they -- were they in compliance at that point?
10 A. I believe Nanakuli was the first, and they
11 were in compliance.
12 Q. And they were in compliance as of June, 2000?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. And so, you were talking to these
15 people because of their prior experience with the
16 compliance process?
17 A. Both that and their professionalism and
18 expertise as a school-level administrator, yes.
19 Q. Now, did -- I'm not sure if you mentioned
20 this; but part of the concept, as you described it,
21 though, it would include outside consultants, would it
22 not?
23 A. Yes, it would.
24 Q. And you already had some ideas, from the
25 meeting that took place in May of 2000, who some of
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
31
1 these consultants might be --
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. -- did you not? And how had you identified
4 these consultants, sir?
5 A. Well, one person that the department has
6 worked with closely, I guess, since the genesis of
7 Felix, was Dr. Judy Schrag. She was a member that was
8 brought in early on. This is -- if the date sticks in
9 my mind, I believe she was brought in in 1994. She was
10 a member of the original technical panel under Dr. Ivor
11 Groves. She has impeccable background and credentials.
12 So, of course, she would be one person that would be
13 foremost in my mind as far as providing assistance.
14 The other one -- ones would be Dr. Howard
15 Adelman, Dr. Linda Taylor out of the School of
16 Psychology at UCLA. We have a close, very close,
17 working relationship with them. They've been very
18 supportive.
19 Their model, so to speak, is the basis -- the
20 model from which comprehensive student support system
21 has emanated. We also have a very close working
22 relationship with a Dr. George Sugai out of the
23 University of Oregon that's been very -- very much a
24 prime mover and very influential in assisting us with an
25 initiative and present departmental target for effective
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
32
1 behavioral support.
2 Q. Thank you. Part of the reason that you
3 identified these professionals was because you were
4 aware of their reputation, of course?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you had worked with them before?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. They knew the system here in Hawaii?
9 A. Yes, they did.
10 Q. So that if they did provide services, you
11 would assume that they would provide services reasonably
12 and that -- services that would be cost efficient
13 because of their prior knowledge of the system?
14 A. I believe they would.
15 Q. Now, were they -- were any or all of these
16 ever retained to assist the department in this --
17 carrying out the targeted technical assistance?
18 A. Well, Dr. Schrag, as I mentioned, she was a
19 member of the original --
20 Q. Excuse me. I don't mean to cut you off, sir.
21 I meant after this period of -- in time of May, 2000.
22 A. I do not believe so, no.
23 Q. All right. And do you know why they were not
24 retained?
25 A. Well, I would -- it would just be speculation
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
33
1 on my part, no.
2 Q. But you --
3 A. Wait. Wait. For that particular purpose?
4 Q. Yes, yes.
5 A. No, that would be speculation on my part.
6 Q. All right. But in any case, sir, after that
7 meeting in May with individuals that you already
8 enumerated, the superintendent, the court monitor, DOH
9 people, Ms. Farmer, all of those people, you started the
10 process to perhaps have these consultants come to work
11 with you folks, right?
12 A. We were already in close working relationship
13 with Howard Adelman, Linda Taylor. We already were in
14 close working relationship with Dr. George Sugai. We
15 already had continual and consistent constant
16 professional relationship and advice/consultation by
17 Dr. Judy Schrag. So, it wasn't something that had to be
18 initiated. It was something that I think we just had to
19 move on further.
20 Q. Right. As you say, then, retaining these
21 individuals to assist you in this -- in carrying out
22 that targeted technical assistance would have been
23 fairly easy to do?
24 A. I think it would have been -- I don't think
25 anything -- when you're working with youngsters and
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
34
1 schools, complexes and districts across -- 186,000
2 youngsters, I don't think anything is necessarily easy;
3 but I think that it would have been quite fluid because
4 they were already there. They knew departmental
5 personnel, and they were -- they just knew what we were
6 about.
7 Q. I was referring, sir, to retaining them and
8 having them to agree to assist you in carrying out the
9 work. What I meant to ask you was: It would have been
10 relatively easy to retain them because of their prior
11 background?
12 A. I would hope that would have been the case.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. And I would expect that it is.
15 Q. However, at some point in time, though, after
16 May 10th of 2000, you were essentially called off of
17 what you were doing, were you not?
18 A. Well, I was given information and actually
19 told rather point-blank that the concept or the thoughts
20 or the option that I was at least enunciating was not
21 about to happen.
22 Q. And who told you that, sir?
23 A. Dr. Douglas Houck.
24 Q. And did he tell you why this concept was not
25 about to happen?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
35
1 A. Yes, he did.
2 Q. What did he tell you?
3 A. He told me that it would not happen as far as
4 what was being considered at the time because the
5 superintendent, Dr. LeMahieu, had another concept that
6 he was going to pursue.
7 Q. Did he tell you what that concept was, sir?
8 A. No, he did not.
9 Q. What -- did Dr. Houck tell you that -- give
10 you that information sometime in late May of 2000?
11 A. I believe it was, yes.
12 Q. I see your chronology here is a date --
13 approximate date, May 22, 23, "personnel from
14 superintendent's office informed SSSB director" --
15 that's you?
16 A. That's me.
17 Q. -- "not to pursue possibility of forming a
18 technical assistance team" and so forth. That's what
19 you were referring to, weren't you?
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 Q. And it says, "reason provided, superintendent
22 made a decision to contract an external group," in
23 parentheses, "(Big Island.)"
24 A. That's what I was told.
25 Q. That's what you were told. That's why you
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
36
1 made that entry in that chronology?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And, by the way, this chronology was provided
4 to personnel at the Board of Education, was it not?
5 A. It was.
6 Q. And at whose request was this chronology put
7 together and provided to members -- certain members of
8 the Board of Education?
9 A. The information that I had was that it was
10 coming from Board leadership.
11 Q. All right. We'll get back to that, sir.
12 Now, what -- in terms of -- what happened
13 next in terms of targeted technical assistance then?
14 You were called off and said not -- you know, don't work
15 on it. The superintendent had already made a decision.
16 In fact, Mr. Houck used words like "it was a done deal,"
17 right?
18 A. No, I don't believe -- I don't recall
19 Dr. Houck making that statement.
20 Q. It was your understanding, though, based on
21 what he told you, that it was a done deal, was it not?
22 A. It was my understanding, based on what he
23 told me, that the superintendent had made a decision to
24 implement another concept of targeted technical assist
25 other than the one that I was considering or thinking
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
37
1 about.
2 Q. Was the phrase -- the "fix is in" phrase in
3 that conversation with Dr. Houck?
4 A. No, I don't recall that that -- no, I do not.
5 Q. When you had that discussion with Dr. Houck,
6 do you recall these three terms, anyone saying the "fix
7 is in"?
8 A. With Dr. Houck?
9 Q. With Dr. Houck first.
10 A. No. Specifically with Dr. Houck, I do not
11 recall him using that term.
12 Q. You do recall, though, at some time in this
13 process of obtaining technical -- targeted technical
14 assistance for the Big Island, anyway, using the phrase
15 the "fix is in"?
16 A. It was referenced one way or another to me,
17 yes.
18 Q. By whom?
19 A. I had received two unsolicited calls
20 inquiring about targeted technical assist and a possible
21 contract.
22 Q. All right. Now, let's get this in the proper
23 sequence timewise, sir. After you were informed by
24 Dr. Houck in late May of 19 -- I mean, late May of 2000
25 that you ought not to pursue this possibility that you
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
38
1 were pursuing because the superintendent had already
2 made a decision, it was after that that you received
3 calls from other people, was it not?
4 A. It was in and around that time frame.
5 Q. And from whom did you receive telephone
6 calls?
7 A. Specifically?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. The first call that I had received was from
10 Ann Kokubun, district educational specialist from the
11 District of Hawaii.
12 Q. She called you?
13 A. Yes, she did.
14 Q. And who was the -- do you have another person
15 who called you?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Who was that?
18 A. Danford Sakai.
19 Q. And who is Mr. Sakai?
20 A. He, at the time, was the district
21 superintendent for the Island of Hawaii.
22 Q. Did these two -- well, strike that.
23 Were there other department people who called
24 you from the Big Island about this -- about this
25 targeted technical assistance?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
39
1 A. No, not that I recall.
2 Q. All right. Now, these two individuals who
3 called you, Ms. Kokubun and Mr. Sakai, they are
4 respected people in the education community?
5 A. Yes, they are.
6 Q. People of integrity?
7 A. Absolutely.
8 Q. And people that you look up to, you respect?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. And what did they tell you?
11 A. Well, the core initially was really one of
12 inquiry; and the question was posed to me if I was
13 considering contracting with a service provider for the
14 Big Island in order to do service provisions within the
15 schools with this transition of mental health from
16 Department of Health to Department of Education. And I
17 said no.
18 Q. And what else did they tell you, if anything?
19 A. That there was strong reservations. I was
20 provided a name of a service provider, an organization.
21 I had never heard of them before. That was the very
22 first time I did hear of them.
23 And the reason of the apprehension and the
24 nature of the call was really to see if my branch,
25 special education for students services, was contracting
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
40
1 a group to provide services; and at that time I had
2 never heard of them. I did not know of them; and I just
3 said, "No, we're not doing it."
4 Q. All right. Did it appear to you that these
5 individuals, Ms. Kokubun and Mr. Sakai, had information
6 to suggest that this group was going to be contracted
7 with by the department?
8 A. I'm not sure what information they had, but
9 what was being shared with me was that they were hearing
10 that something was afoot.
11 Q. And by the way, what's the name of this
12 service provider organization that was mentioned?
13 A. The one that was mentioned to me on the first
14 and the second call that I received was Na Laukoa.
15 Q. And you had never heard of that organization
16 prior to that time, had you?
17 A. Never.
18 Q. By the way, what you were doing, it appears,
19 in that 2000 period of time was making the transition of
20 students from the Department of Health care -- or
21 responsibility to the Department of Education
22 responsibility, right?
23 A. Say it one more time.
24 Q. I understand that in this period of time,
25 what the departments were trying to do was to transfer
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
41
1 the care of students from the DOH to the DOE. That was
2 one of the things you folks were trying to do?
3 A. In reference to mental health services, yes.
4 Q. Right, right. Now, so, obviously -- well,
5 strike that. Let me back up.
6 Now, did either one of these individuals,
7 Ms. Kokubun or Mr. Sakai, or both provide you with
8 information that they had about this organization that
9 you had never heard of called Na Laukoa?
10 A. By "information," you would mean what?
11 Q. Reputation?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Their abilities?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What did they say?
16 A. They were concerned that they lacked the
17 skills to connect with school-level personnel. They
18 felt that the approach, the demeanor, in working with
19 school principals and other school personnel was
20 abrasive, was disrespectful, and questioned the
21 qualifications, if not the provision of services that
22 this organization could have -- could provide.
23 Q. It appears -- it appeared to you, then,
24 Mr. Golden, that Ms. Kokubun and Mr. Sakai -- they were
25 both familiar with this organization?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
42
1 A. I -- that was my assumption.
2 Q. And it appeared also that they had had
3 experiences or knew of experiences with that same
4 organization?
5 A. Excuse me. One more time?
6 Q. It appeared to you that those two individuals
7 apparently had experience with this organization in the
8 past?
9 A. It was stated to me that they had firsthand
10 experience.
11 Q. All right. And you had no reason to question
12 or dispute their opinions, did you?
13 A. I had no reason to dispute them.
14 Q. All right. So, this happens in about late
15 May. Did you receive communication from anyone else
16 regarding this group now that we've identified as
17 Na Laukoa?
18 A. At what time?
19 Q. After May -- in or about May, June, July,
20 2000.
21 A. I don't recall any additional -- any
22 additional information or calls from other than the two
23 that I had already referenced in June and July.
24 Q. How about any conver -- telephone calls from
25 DOH providers -- or DO -- I'm sorry -- DOH personnel?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
43
1 A. I never did receive a telephone call from DOH
2 providers, no.
3 Q. What did you -- what information did you
4 receive, if any, about Na Laukoa from the people at DOH?
5 A. I did receive information -- this was more
6 towards -- and, again, I just cannot remember the
7 specific date/time reference; but it had to be sometime
8 in either later July, if not into the beginning of
9 August -- that there was concern expressed by Department
10 of Health personnel who had firsthand knowledge of
11 Na Laukoa. And what -- they had been contracted already
12 by the Department of Health and the concern was to the
13 extent that they were able to meet the needs of the
14 provision of services for youngsters under a Department
15 of Health contract.
16 Q. I see. And this took place in -- these
17 conversations took place in July and August, perhaps?
18 A. Yeah, it did.
19 Q. All right. But who -- strike that.
20 Who were these Department of Health persons
21 that discussed these matters with you?
22 A. I think the first time I heard strong
23 reservations was -- actually it was a meeting in my
24 office. We had a number of people from my particular
25 branch there; and, again, the discussion was pretty much
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
44
1 general about the transition that was occurring. And at
2 that time -- and, again, I -- if my mind serves me
3 right, I believe it was late July, somewhere around that
4 time. The person that I heard it from was Tina
5 Donkervoet, chief of child adolescence mental health.
6 Q. I saw the name in your deposition of Anita
7 Swanson?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was she involved also?
10 A. Not at that meeting, no.
11 Q. Did she provide you information regarding
12 Na Laukoa?
13 A. I can't say it was necessarily
14 information. She shared some comments with me at a
15 conference at the beginning of August that their -- I
16 took it as strong reservations about this particular
17 group.
18 Q. Now, as far as the comments made by
19 Ms. Donkervoet and Ms. Swanson regarding this same
20 group, were they consistent with what Ms. Kokubun and
21 Mr. Sakai had told you earlier in the year?
22 A. Absolutely.
23 Q. That they were not, as far as these people
24 were concerned, competent to provide services to the
25 Department of Education?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
45
1 A. I'm not sure if the word "competent" was
2 mentioned. As far as their ability to provide the full
3 services at a high level of satisfaction was discussed,
4 yes.
5 Q. The ability -- strike that.
6 I didn't catch the last part. You clarified
7 my question. Will you say that again, the answer --
8 A. Maybe you need to ask the question again.
9 Q. Okay. The question I asked you was whether
10 or not the information given to you would suggest that
11 this group, Na Laukoa -- I'm going to change the -- Na
12 Laukoa was qualified to provide services to the
13 Department of Education in this student mental health
14 care area?
15 A. Well, the qualification to provide those
16 services, I think -- I think -- may have been different
17 from a Department of Health perspective and a Department
18 of Education perspective. So, I can't speak
19 specifically to that qualification.
20 Obviously, it must have been deemed -- or
21 they must have been deemed qualified at some point in
22 time or another in order to have a contract with the
23 Department of Health.
24 What I'm expressing to you was that there
25 were reservations -- strong reservations as to the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
46
1 extent and dissatisfaction of those services as they
2 were provided.
3 Q. All right. All right. And from the
4 standpoint, if I might draw you back a bit, of what
5 Ms. Kokubun and Mr. Sakai was telling you, they were
6 telling you -- giving you information related to
7 Department of Education matters, were they not?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. And, again, as far as what they were telling
10 you, they had very strong reservations about this group
11 providing any services to the Department of Education?
12 A. Absolutely.
13 Q. All right. Now, we got a little bit ahead of
14 ourselves into July and August. Now, there were certain
15 things that happened, though, in June and July pertinent
16 to what we're talking about, Na Laukoa, right?
17 A. I have no idea what you're talking about.
18 Q. Okay. Let me be more specific. In or about
19 the week of June 26th of 2000, you received a request
20 from the superintendent's office to be at a meeting on
21 July 7th. Do you recall that?
22 A. I had received a phone message that there was
23 a meeting to be held July 7th in the superintendent's
24 office. My assumption was that the -- in fact, it would
25 be to discuss targeted technical assistance.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
47
1 Q. To discuss targeted technical assistance?
2 A. That was my impression.
3 Q. No decisions were to be made, to your
4 knowledge, in that meeting -- to your knowledge?
5 A. I had no information to base that on, no.
6 Q. Now, in your chronology, sir, Exhibit 2 to
7 your deposition, you have the specific date of
8 June 27th; and the entry there is "Federal Court
9 provides expanded," in quotes, "'authority' to
10 superintendent and DOH director." Do you recall that?
11 A. I recall it being there, yes.
12 Q. Why did you place that entry onto that
13 chronology?
14 A. At the time, I can't -- cannot recall.
15 Q. However, on July 6th, though, I see from the
16 chronology there's a meeting where you attend involving
17 DOE personnel?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. And that's immediately before the
20 July 7th anticipated meeting --
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. -- with the superintendent?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And in that July 6th meeting, what happened,
25 sir?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
48
1 A. The meeting was specific for the purpose of
2 taking a look at the process, the procedure, of looking
3 at various service providers that would be in the
4 community technically looking for or being secured to
5 provide services to youngsters with the transition from
6 the Department of Health to the Department of Education.
7 And the purpose of the meeting was really to
8 take a look at the process as may have been already in
9 existence to take a look at whether it had to be
10 relaxed, whether it had to be bolstered, to take a look
11 at what other kinds of things may or may not have had to
12 be done so that we were looking at making sure that the
13 school, the administrators, and the district
14 administrators were really securing the services that
15 were best needed to meet the needs of our kids.
16 Q. Best needed to -- best suited to meet the
17 needs of the kids, that was a primary focus, was it not?
18 A. It was one of the focus.
19 Q. Well, one other focus was maintaining proper
20 business procedures, right?
21 A. That was mentioned.
22 Q. The integrity of the process was discussed?
23 A. That was discussed.
24 Q. Securing the best providers available was
25 also discussed?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
49
1 A. Well, this group that was meeting would not
2 be securing those services; but in concept, that was
3 part of the discussion.
4 Q. That's what the -- this group that was
5 meeting would attempt to have as one of the goals of the
6 process, to secure the best providers available, right?
7 A. I think that would be the goal of any service
8 provision that serves schools.
9 Q. Sure. May I ask, sir, why on July 6th when
10 these issues are being discussed when -- I would
11 understand that the department would always have these
12 types of concepts in mind.
13 A. Well, I would agree with you; but we were at
14 a stage where the transition was -- again, this is not
15 a -- this is a major, major transition, a transition
16 that I think a lot of people really don't understand the
17 full impact of it; but this is a major transition for
18 school-level personnel. It never had to do this type of
19 service acquisition before.
20 So, it was incumbent, I think, on the
21 department to take a look at that and then to provide
22 any kind of recommendations, suggestions, revised
23 procedures that was really going to, No. 1, assist the
24 school-level administrators; and the primary impact is
25 so that we're really providing an array of services for
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
50
1 kids.
2 Q. Did you call this meeting on July 6th, sir?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. Who called it?
5 A. I'm really not sure.
6 Q. All right. Do you know when that meeting was
7 called, how long prior to July 6th?
8 A. I have no idea.
9 Q. Okay. Now, before we go to July 7th, sir,
10 we're talking about a period where on, as you put down
11 in your chronology, June 27th the "Federal Court
12 provided expanded authority to the superintendent and
13 the DOH director," right?
14 A. I believe that's when it occurred.
15 Q. And is it fair to say, sir, your
16 understanding, in a general way, what the Federal Court
17 did was to give the superintendent of the DOE and the
18 director of the Department of Health the ability to
19 supersede certain state rules, procurement rules, that
20 were in effect?
21 A. That's my understanding.
22 Q. Now, nonetheless, understanding that, sir,
23 will you agree that as far as you and the people who
24 were discussing these concepts on July 6th --
25 notwithstanding the fact that the Court had given
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
51
1 expanded powers to the superintendent and the director,
2 that both departments ought to follow the guidelines as
3 you set forth, as you already answered, in that meeting
4 of July 6th, those being proper business procedures,
5 integrity of the process, and securing the best
6 providers available?
7 A. That's my assumption.
8 Q. Right. And that's what came out of that
9 meeting on July 6th, 2000, wasn't it, that you would try
10 to follow rules that would hopefully carry out these
11 concepts?
12 A. That's my assumption of the outcome of the
13 meeting, yes.
14 Q. Now, what happened next on July 7th?
15 A. Well, as you had previously asked, there was
16 a request to have me attend a meeting at the
17 superintendent's office; and the topic was targeted
18 technical assistance. So, the meeting was called for
19 the morning, I believe, of July 7th.
20 Q. And you attended that meeting?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. And the superintendent was there?
23 A. He was.
24 Q. Dr. Houck was there?
25 A. He was.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
52
1 Q. Paula Yoshioka was there?
2 A. She was.
3 Q. And your understanding of that meeting was --
4 the meeting was that you would be discussing further
5 this concept of targeted technical assistance?
6 A. I entered the meeting with that concept, that
7 that was going to be discussed, correct.
8 Q. All right. During the course of that
9 meeting, though, soon -- fairly soon after it started,
10 that concept you had went out the window, didn't it --
11 didn't it?
12 A. The concept in my mind didn't go out the
13 window; but as far as what was going to happen for that
14 morning, at least conceptually in my mind, just did not
15 occur.
16 Q. What happened?
17 A. I was informed that there was to be a
18 presentation and that would take place on the fourth
19 floor in the budget conference room. And I had to ask,
20 "A presentation for what?"
21 And it was at that point where I was informed
22 that a service provider was ready to do a presentation
23 for targeted technical assistance.
24 Q. For where, sir?
25 A. Pardon me?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
53
1 Q. For what district or districts?
2 A. There -- no district specifically was
3 mentioned. It was just targeted technical assistance.
4 Q. All right. Did you ask anyone why this was
5 occurring?
6 A. I did.
7 Q. Who did you ask?
8 A. I asked both Dr. LeMahieu and Dr. Houck.
9 Q. And what did each or both of them respond?
10 A. Specifically, I don't recall the details; but
11 it was something along the lines that this was a service
12 provider who could provide services. Therefore, they
13 were making a presentation.
14 Q. But you questioned the issue -- the fact that
15 there was only one service provider presenting, though,
16 right?
17 A. I asked a question if it was going to be only
18 one service provider.
19 Q. And the answer was "yes"?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you inquire as to whether -- or why there
22 were not going to be other service providers?
23 A. I did not.
24 Q. So, what happened at this presentation --
25 strike that.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
54
1 I assume then you went upstairs to the
2 presentation?
3 A. That's what occurred.
4 Q. And the same individuals who were in the
5 meeting downstairs went upstairs also?
6 A. That's what happened.
7 Q. And then what happened during the course of
8 that presentation then? Will you describe for us?
9 A. A particular person was introduced who then,
10 in turn, introduced -- again, from memory, it was maybe
11 four or five -- at max, maybe six people at a conference
12 table. And there was an introduction of these various
13 people and that they would constitute a particular
14 program of -- to be made available to service youngsters
15 in schools.
16 Q. Well, they would constitute a group to
17 provide targeted technical assistance --
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. -- on the Big Island, were they not?
20 A. Again, I'm not sure -- I don't recall any
21 specific island that was isolated. It was more in
22 general of targeted technical assistance, period.
23 Q. I see. I see. So, what was your
24 understanding, then, as to what this presentation was
25 about?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
55
1 A. Targeted technical assistance, but it was --
2 that was my understanding that's what it was about.
3 Q. What was your understanding of what ought to
4 be the outcome of that meeting on July 7th and that
5 presentation?
6 A. To put it bluntly, I was looking for -- if it
7 was a presentation for assistance that was going to be
8 technically targeted for our schools and complexes, I
9 was looking for an outcome of substance that, No. 1,
10 that they understood what was currently being offered
11 and the current direction of the Department of Education
12 and, also, if there was any research based theoretical
13 models from which they would be coming from. That's
14 what I was looking for.
15 Q. Did you get what you were looking for?
16 A. I did not.
17 Q. Why didn't you get what you were looking for?
18 A. No substance was provided.
19 Q. Did you ask questions?
20 A. I ask two questions.
21 Q. What questions did you ask?
22 A. I asked a general question -- since
23 comprehensive student support system, CSSS, was the
24 current direction for all schools, all youngsters,
25 throughout the Department of Education, I asked if they
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
56
1 were aware of what was currently happening in regard to
2 the current theoretical model that was being used in
3 schools; and at that point, the four or five of the
4 people there representing the program had nothing to say
5 about that, really no response.
6 I asked the secondary question, if they were
7 familiar with the construct base that was utilized to
8 develop CSSS and the research that was provided out of
9 UCLA School of Psychology by Dr. Howard Adelman and
10 Linda Taylor; and no one knew who they were.
11 Q. You left shortly thereafter, did you not?
12 A. I'm not sure when it was. It was not too
13 much longer after that.
14 Q. The meeting was still ongoing, and you left?
15 A. To be honest with you, the meeting was -- I
16 use my own terms for this, but the meeting was fizzling.
17 So, I did leave.
18 Q. Well, the meeting fizzled because they
19 couldn't answer your questions about what you considered
20 to be very basic concepts of what they ought to be aware
21 of, right?
22 A. I don't necessarily -- I wouldn't classify it
23 as the meeting fizzled because they couldn't answer my
24 question. I think the meeting fizzled from the
25 beginning. It's just that they could not answer my
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
57
1 questions.
2 Q. And as far as you were concerned, though,
3 Mr. Golden, the fact that they couldn't answer your
4 questions, that in and of itself would suggest to you
5 that they would not be qualified to do the job that they
6 were being touted to be doing, right?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And, by the way, where was the superintendent
9 as this was happening?
10 A. He was there for most of the time. He exited
11 the meeting just shortly before I did.
12 Q. All right. Now, who -- who were the
13 individuals involved with Na Laukoa? You mentioned a
14 initial person who introduced others. Who are these
15 people?
16 A. I'm sorry. One more time?
17 Q. Yeah. Who are these individuals that you
18 mentioned were involved in the presentation by
19 Na Laukoa?
20 A. The one person who was introduced as the
21 coordinator/leader -- I'm not sure what the descriptor
22 was as far as her position; but she went on to introduce
23 the other members that were with her. And of that
24 group, I was familiar with only one person.
25 Q. And who was that?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
58
1 A. His name is Kimo Alameda.
2 Q. And how are you familiar with that person?
3 A. Well, once upon a time, he and I both worked
4 in the same district. He was a counselor -- in fact, he
5 was a counselor at my wife's school; and I knew him
6 through that context.
7 Q. And who was the -- who was the person you
8 referred to as a coordinator?
9 A. I think she was introduced as Kaniu
10 Stocksdale.
11 Q. Had you known Ms. Stocksdale before this
12 meet -- this presentation on July 7th?
13 A. Never met her before.
14 Q. All right. Now, did you understand that the
15 reason Na Laukoa was making a presentation on July 7th
16 was because they were -- they -- the group was being
17 considered as a group to provide targeted technical
18 assistance to DOE schools?
19 A. That was my assumption.
20 Q. In fact, you had a great concern about
21 whether or not Na Laukoa could provide appropriate
22 services to DOE schools, were you not?
23 A. At the time of the presentation?
24 Q. Start there.
25 A. It was definitely embedded at the time of the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
59
1 presentation, certainly.
2 Q. I'm sorry?
3 A. It was certainly -- that concept with me was
4 embedded at the time of the presentation, certainly.
5 Q. That concept didn't change at any time in the
6 future, did it?
7 A. No, it has not.
8 Q. In fact, you had some very strong objections
9 to that group providing targeted technical assistance in
10 DOE schools, did you not?
11 A. I think I've expressed that.
12 Q. And you actually expressed some of these
13 views in writing, did you not?
14 A. I have.
15 Q. And to whom did you provide those views in
16 writing?
17 A. Well, I attended the meeting on July 7th at
18 the invitation, shall I say, of the superintendent. And
19 I was asked to provide either a recommendation or a
20 nonrecommendation, and I did just that.
21 Q. In fact, you did it that very same day, did
22 you not?
23 A. I certainly did.
24 Q. And it is contained in a memorandum --
25 two-page document that's attached to your deposition as
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
60
1 Exhibit 1, a written memorandum to the superintendent
2 from you, "Subject: Na Laukoa program - targeted
3 technical assistance team." And you make it very clear
4 that you cannot recommend that group for the program; is
5 that correct?
6 A. It was my intention to make it very clear
7 that I would not recommend that program.
8 Q. And --
9 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: Sir, I think
10 we'll take a break for the court reporter.
11 THE WITNESS: You're in control.
12 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: A break?
13 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you. We're
14 going to recess for five minutes. Is that enough time?
15 Members as you know, the court reporter -- we
16 usually break for her on an hourly basis. The hour is
17 up. Please be back in this room by 10:19. Thank you.
18 And, Mr. Golden, you're not excused. You are
19 not excused.
20 THE WITNESS: I gather that.
21 (Recess from 10:15 a.m. to 10:27 a.m.)
22 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, we'll
23 now reconvene. Mr. Kawashima?
24 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: Thank you,
25 Senator.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
61
1 Q. (BY SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA) Mr. Golden,
2 you remember you're still under oath?
3 A. I remember.
4 Q. Now, by the way, Mr. Golden, were you at any
5 of the meetings you described earlier with the
6 superintendent and others prior to today -- were you in
7 any of those meetings told words to the effect of not --
8 "we are trying not to make the department look bad"?
9 A. No, not at all.
10 Q. Now, getting back to your July 7th, 2000
11 memo, then, there's a list of bullet points here for a
12 number of areas where you provide your rationale; and
13 you say, in short -- although there are about ten
14 bullets here -- for your unsatisfactory recommendation
15 of that group, right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. That group being Na Laukoa?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And if I might look at a few of them -- or I
20 should say mention a few of them, one of them is a very
21 limited -- one of them is a very limited perspective of
22 school-based services models, right?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. You write that their presentation lacks
25 substance?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
62
1 A. Right.
2 Q. You write that they had a condescending view
3 that they would, quote, "fix," unquote, what is broken;
4 although, there was no mention of criteria to gauge
5 success?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. And then you point out that there was no
8 sense or understanding relative to school-based services
9 locally or awareness of nationally recognized models on
10 school-based mental health in schools, right?
11 A. That's what I wrote.
12 Q. The presentation, that you point out further,
13 was "long on," quotes, "'ideals' but short on
14 understanding current practices"?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And there are others. I'm not going to read
17 them all, sir. As a result of which, though, you
18 conclude the memo suggesting again to the superintendent
19 that he looks to expand -- and you have that word
20 "expand" in larger type or highlighted type -- to
21 "expand our present connections with the likes of
22 Drs. Howard Adelman, Linda Taylor, George Sugai, Judy
23 Schrag," et cetera. You remind him of those people that
24 are available and who understand the Department of
25 Education system?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
63
1 A. I believe that was the last paragraph.
2 Q. Did the superintendent take you up on that in
3 terms of these people you recommended?
4 A. Take me up on it?
5 Q. Did he have you contact those people and try
6 to retain them?
7 A. There was never a discussion pertaining to
8 that, no.
9 Q. Okay. And after this memorandum that you
10 sent to the superintendent on or about July 7th, you had
11 other communication with the superintendent about this
12 very same issue, Na Laukoa, right?
13 A. I did have conversations with him, yes.
14 Q. Well, you had a telephone conversation on
15 July 12th, I think?
16 A. That sounds about right.
17 Q. And then you had a meeting with him on
18 July 13th?
19 A. Yes, it was not -- nothing formal, nothing
20 scheduled; but it just -- I happened to have been in the
21 office and we sat down for a few moments, yes.
22 Q. All right. And in those two contacts, one, a
23 telephone conversation on July 12th, two, an informal
24 meeting on July 13th, again, the superintendent was
25 trying to convince you that this group was, in fact,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
64
1 qualified to do what they presented to do, right?
2 A. My assumption was that's -- that was his
3 direction, yes, and that he felt that was the way to go.
4 Q. He didn't dispute your -- the bases for your
5 unsatisfactory recommendation, did he?
6 A. No. In fact, I think what -- the
7 conversation that took place on the 12th -- whatever
8 date that was -- after I explained to him where I was
9 coming from and the basis of why I did not provide a
10 recommendation, he seemed like he understood.
11 Q. And to your understanding, sir, if the
12 superintendent understood what you were telling him, as
13 far as you were concerned, there would be no way in the
14 world that the super -- the department would contract
15 with Na Laukoa to provide the type of services that they
16 were offering?
17 A. I can't answer that. I don't know --
18 Q. Why can't you answer that?
19 A. I can't ascertain what he was thinking.
20 Q. All right.
21 A. I have no idea.
22 Q. As far as you were concerned, if you had had
23 the decision-making authority in that instance to hire
24 or not retain -- or not to retain Na Laukoa, there was
25 absolutely no way in the world that you would retain
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
65
1 them for the services that they were offering, right?
2 A. I think that's why I sent the memo of
3 nonrecommendation, yes.
4 Q. Thank you. Na Laukoa was, in fact,
5 contracted with to provide services, though, were they
6 not?
7 A. That's my understanding eventually, yes.
8 Q. All right. We'll get to that shortly. You
9 mentioned a number of names of people who were there at
10 that July 7th presentation. Mr. Alameda, you mentioned.
11 You mentioned Ms. Stocksdale, right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Who was the coordinator?
14 A. Stocksdale.
15 Q. By the way, do you know how much that
16 contract was for that we're talking about?
17 A. Eventually -- eventually I did receive a copy
18 of the contract; and it was in excess -- I think it was
19 2.3 mill.
20 Q. All right. You also knew, though, on or
21 about July 7th what the breakdown of the budget was as
22 to what these people from Na Laukoa were going to be
23 paid?
24 A. What I had seen -- and if you're referencing
25 the prior deposition, what I had seen was: In the Felix
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
66
1 response plan, under Priority No. 3 -- I'm not sure, 3
2 or 4, whatever it is -- there was a figure indicated for
3 both the coordinator of technical targeted assistance
4 and also for 18 members.
5 Q. And that coordinator, we've identified as
6 Kaniu Stocksdale?
7 A. That's the way it was introduced to me.
8 Q. And what was the figure attached to that
9 name?
10 A. 170,000 -- it wasn't to the name. The name
11 wasn't mentioned. It was just the coordinator.
12 Q. To the title?
13 A. To the title.
14 Q. Of course, we know who that person was, don't
15 we?
16 A. I know the person who was introduced to me at
17 the time of the presentation.
18 Q. Thank you. How much was the amount attached
19 to that title?
20 A. As I recall, it was $170,000.
21 Q. I think you might have mentioned 175, or am I
22 wrong?
23 A. I could be off.
24 Q. Close enough. Somewhere in that vicinity,
25 $170,000 a year?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
67
1 A. That's my understanding, yes.
2 Q. Based on what you learned from the
3 presentation on or about July 7th, sir, did this person
4 have the qualifications to command a salary of $170,000
5 a year?
6 A. I'm going to mention it to you again that
7 based on the presentation that I took part in for the
8 amount of time that I was there, I put it in writing
9 that I would not recommend this group at all. So, I
10 would have to answer the same, that, no, it would not.
11 Q. In fact, I think you previously testified, as
12 far as you were concerned, that person wasn't worth $17,
13 correct?
14 A. Well, sometimes I might say things like that,
15 yes.
16 Q. You did, in fact, say that?
17 A. I did, in fact, say that, yes.
18 Q. So, then, we get -- we get to this later
19 period where you learn, though, that there is a contract
20 out there; and Na Laukoa is still involved, right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And the people who made the presentation are
23 still involved, right?
24 A. I can't say that for sure. To be honest with
25 you, I did not have any follow-up activities with that
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
68
1 particular program. So, specifically for the people who
2 were at that presentation, I know not whether they were
3 directly involved. I suspect that some of them may not
4 have been.
5 Q. You say you did not have any follow-up with
6 that particular program, Mr. Golden; but what you're
7 saying is that you had no further knowledge as to what
8 happened with regard to that contract, right?
9 A. The only thing that -- I did not have any
10 direct information about that, no.
11 Q. You did learn, though, that a contract was
12 let, were you not --
13 A. I think we all learned that.
14 Q. -- right?
15 And, in fact, what happened was -- well,
16 strike that.
17 If that contract was, in fact, entered into,
18 that would have been the type of contract that would
19 have normally come under your review, right?
20 A. I would have assumed so, yes.
21 Q. But it did not come under your review, did
22 it?
23 A. It did not.
24 Q. In fact, you were bypassed in the process,
25 were you not?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
69
1 A. Well, I just did not see it until after it
2 was done.
3 Q. In fact, the responsibility for that contract
4 that was ultimately entered into was given to
5 Dr. Douglas Houck?
6 A. I do not know. I'm not --
7 Q. Did you not learn that?
8 A. Pardon me?
9 Q. I thought you've already testified that you
10 learned that Doug Houck was given that responsibility?
11 A. I know that Dr. Douglas Houck was given
12 program responsibility for targeted technical
13 assistance.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. That's what I know.
16 Q. All right. Now, who, then, was the
17 contract -- the other party contracted with by the
18 Department of Education relating to Na Laukoa?
19 A. The other party?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Well, I eventually found that it was the --
22 PREL.
23 Q. PREL. "PREL" stands for?
24 A. Pacific --
25 Q. Resources --
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
70
1 A. -- Resource Educational Lab.
2 Q. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning?
3 A. That's probably much more accurate than what
4 I said.
5 Q. We'll call it PREL, much easier. PREL
6 actually entered into a contract with the Department of
7 Education, did it not?
8 A. That's what I learned.
9 Q. But PREL's contract, either because you
10 reviewed it or you learned indirectly, had as a specific
11 condition in that contract that Na Laukoa be retained as
12 part of the contract?
13 A. By the time I had the contract available to
14 me, at least to see it, it seems as though that was the
15 case.
16 Q. And, to your knowledge, Na Laukoa got the
17 same conditions that they had previously attempted to
18 get a contract with -- "previously" meaning on or about
19 July 7th?
20 A. Restate that.
21 Q. Well, to your understanding, the amount of
22 the contract that Na Laukoa had presented on or about
23 July 7th turned out to be the same amount that they were
24 subcontracted with by PREL later on?
25 A. I don't have details related to that.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
71
1 Q. This PREL contract, though, was entered on or
2 about August 28th, right? This is what you have in your
3 chron?
4 A. I would assume that it would have been about
5 that time.
6 Q. So, your last contact, then, with this matter
7 of Na Laukoa and that targeted technical assistance
8 contract would have been July 13th, your direct
9 involvement?
10 A. Actually my direct involvement was July 7th.
11 Q. All right. Your discussion -- your last
12 discussion about Na Laukoa with anyone was on July 13th?
13 A. There may have been another conversation
14 after that.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. Sometimes you're in the car, you're driving
17 along, cell phone goes off. So, you just can't record
18 it.
19 Q. So, six or seven weeks later, then, on or
20 about that time you find out there is, in fact, a
21 contract with PREL and Na Laukoa?
22 A. I can't remember when I actually found out
23 for sure. I don't recall the date. I don't recall the
24 time. To be honest with you, I don't even recollect
25 when I first laid eyes on the contract itself.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
72
1 Q. All right.
2 A. So, I don't recall.
3 Q. But you did apparently see the contract and
4 see that Na Laukoa was involved in that contract with
5 PREL?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. Providing the same services that they had
8 previously offered to provide?
9 A. Well, again, the services, at least at the
10 time of the presentation that we talked about a few
11 moments ago, was really not detailed at that time on
12 July 7th. So, by the time that it was embedded in the
13 contract, obviously, it was a little bit more meat on
14 the bones as far as some of the things that they would
15 be required to do.
16 Q. Do you recall seeing a budget -- a projected
17 budget that Na -- Pacific Resources had provided?
18 A. I did not, no.
19 Q. Did you see where Na Laukoa was proposing a
20 budget of over $116,000 for travel?
21 A. I don't recall seeing that.
22 Q. What -- to your knowledge, what would
23 Na Laukoa -- based on their presentation to you on
24 July 7th, what would be the need for Na Laukoa to travel
25 between the islands, for one, and, two, to the Mainland
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
73
1 to the tune of over $116,000?
2 A. I'm not being flippant with you, but your
3 guess would be as good as mine.
4 Q. Okay. Now, this process, then, that was
5 followed -- let's start with July 7th then. What was
6 being proposed, as you've already testified, that
7 Na Laukoa be contracted with to provide targeted
8 technical services for various complexes. The process
9 that was followed, sir -- certainly based on your
10 knowledge of the rules and regulations of the state
11 procurement system, what was being followed was
12 certainly in no way in accordance with the state
13 procurement system, was it?
14 A. Repeat your question, please.
15 Q. What was being proposed as far as entering
16 into a contract with Na Laukoa on or about July 7th, the
17 procedures that were followed, they were in no way
18 compliant with the State of Hawaii procurement rules and
19 regulations, were they?
20 A. I was not privy to any discussion as far as
21 the contracting of Na Laukoa. I was there, as far as
22 conceptually, for part of the discussion by way of the
23 superintendent's view of what targeted technical assist
24 was in his mind, his view of it and then, again, a very
25 nonsubstantive presentation by way of this service
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
74
1 provider. So, the actual details or the nitty-gritty of
2 the contract, I was not part and parcel to. I don't
3 have any information about that.
4 Q. I understand what you're saying. Let me
5 rephrase the question.
6 You were involved up to a point -- on
7 July 7th up to the point you walked out of the room,
8 though? You were involved with listening to a
9 presentation and, I think, as you testified earlier,
10 understood that the intent was to enter into a contract
11 with Na Laukoa, right?
12 A. I think the intent in my mind was that these
13 people were going to be secured to provide services,
14 yes --
15 Q. All right.
16 A. -- for targeted assistance.
17 Q. All right. And, therefore, a contract would
18 have to be entered into, right?
19 A. One would -- I guess it would follow along
20 that that would probably happen.
21 Q. And you were aware of at that time, after
22 spending 30 years with the Department of Education, that
23 there were certain rules -- procurement rules that need
24 to be followed to hire or enter into a contract with a
25 group such as Na Laukoa?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
75
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And as far as what you saw was happening was
3 in no way in accordance with those rules, were they?
4 A. Well, we were at a time when there was --
5 Q. Will you please answer the question, sir?
6 Were they in accordance with the rules as you understood
7 them?
8 A. At that time I really cannot say.
9 Q. You under -- you know what the procurement
10 rules were, though, for the State of Hawaii?
11 A. For the most part, yes; but the reason that
12 I'm asking you further is that we were also in a state
13 of transition where there were these extraordinary
14 powers. And I'm not sure whether that comes into play
15 at this time.
16 Q. I'm going to get to that. I'm going to get
17 to that. I'm limiting this question based on your
18 knowledge of the procurement system and what was -- and
19 based on what was being offered to you -- presented to
20 you on July 7th which you understood would result,
21 perhaps, in a contract.
22 Up to that point, what was happening was in
23 no way, shape, or form compliant with the procurement
24 rules of the State of Hawaii -- at that point now? Do
25 you agree?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
76
1 A. That -- I really cannot answer that. I
2 really cannot answer that.
3 Q. Take out of the equation, sir, the
4 extraordinary powers matter because I'm not talking
5 about that. Take that out of the equation. Can you
6 answer it now?
7 A. No, because we had departmental personnel
8 that does review on contracts as far as the business
9 procedures and the procurement procedures; and they are
10 much more in-depth than I am in securing whether they
11 are, quote, unquote, "kosher" or not.
12 Q. I understand that. I'm asking you, sir,
13 based on your knowledge and understanding -- having been
14 with the department for 30-plus years at that point, I'm
15 asking for your opinion based upon your experience,
16 knowledge being in the department. Would you agree with
17 my statement?
18 A. You're asking for my opinion?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. My opinion is that it -- I -- personally I
21 would have preferred more people to screen as far as
22 providing services.
23 Q. Now, these extraordinary powers you're
24 talking about, were they the ones that you reference in
25 your chronology as having been given to the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
77
1 superintendent and the director by the Federal Court on
2 or about --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- July 27th?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. June 27th? I'm sorry.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But, nonetheless, even with those expanded
9 powers, expanded authority, of -- as of that meeting on
10 July 6th, prior to the July 7th meeting, people in the
11 department of experience, of fairly high position, still
12 believed that proper business procedures ought to be
13 followed, right?
14 A. That was discussed. We've already talked
15 about --
16 Q. Still believed that the integrity of the
17 process should be maintained as much as possible, right?
18 A. We've already spoke to that.
19 Q. And still believed that securing the best
20 providers available ought to be done, right?
21 A. I think that's always the case.
22 Q. That wasn't being done on July 7th, was it?
23 A. Are you asking for a fact or my opinion?
24 Q. Your opinion.
25 A. My opinion is no.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
78
1 Q. Would you also agree, then, even though there
2 was a contract with PREL, that the concepts that you
3 were trying to have the department follow as of this
4 meeting of July 6th -- those concepts were not followed
5 in the contract with PREL either, right?
6 A. I can't -- I can't answer that.
7 Q. It appears that what happened, though, sir,
8 was that the PREL contract signed on or about
9 August 28th, 2000 was a clear attempt to circumvent
10 procurement rules and regulation?
11 A. I cannot respond to that.
12 Q. Why can't you respond to that?
13 A. Because I'm not the one who instigated or
14 started the contract.
15 Q. In your discussions with the superintendent
16 either on July 12th or 13th, you do recall saying words
17 to the effect of that you thought the -- quotes, the
18 "fix was in," end quotes?
19 A. I used reference to that, and that's what was
20 being expressed to me by prior calls that came to my
21 office.
22 Q. Who said that to you?
23 A. It was either or both Ann Kokubun and Danford
24 Sakai that it seemed as though that it just didn't come
25 across as being right, that there had been some
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
79
1 discussion about this apparently.
2 Q. Oh, you also were of the definite opinion,
3 Mr. Golden, that entering into a contract with Na Laukoa
4 to provide the services that the department was looking
5 for for its children, the students -- you also had a
6 strong opinion that it was not right that the State
7 enter into a contract with Na Laukoa either directly or
8 through PREL?
9 A. I was of the opinion that I expressed at the
10 superintendent that the process that was being utilized
11 at the time, based on what I had heard previously, based
12 on what I experienced by way of the presentation and the
13 other information that I shared with the superintendent,
14 that I felt that it was not right.
15 Q. And the information given to you previously,
16 as you testified just a minute ago, by Ms. Kokubun and
17 Mr. Sakai, words to the effect of the "fix was in," you
18 had no reason to doubt what they were telling you?
19 A. Absolutely not.
20 Q. And, in fact, the term "done deal" was also
21 used?
22 A. It may have been.
23 Q. And this was in May of 2000 well before the
24 July 7th meeting?
25 A. That's correct. Let me also state that at
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
80
1 that time, as I previously stated, that those calls were
2 based on what was being heard apparently on the Big
3 Island as far as rumor; and that's why they were calling
4 my office, to see if I was starting these contracts.
5 Q. I'm sorry. Was being -- what was being heard
6 on the Big Island?
7 A. The reason that the calls came to my office
8 was that apparently there had been speculation, rumors,
9 about a contract being -- the possibility of a contract.
10 That was the initiation of the calls originally to my
11 office, to see if it was coming out of my office. And,
12 again, that's the first that I had ever heard of the
13 group.
14 Q. I see. However, as time has proved, the
15 suspicions were correct, weren't they?
16 A. Quite possibly.
17 Q. Well, wasn't there an attempt initially to
18 contract directly with Na Laukoa?
19 A. Well, they were -- they made a
20 presentation -- and, again, as I repeat myself, they
21 made a presentation; and my impression was that it was
22 to secure services -- to provide services in schools.
23 Q. You -- in your opinion, sir, had you not
24 provided the nonrecommendation that you did, as set
25 forth in your memo of July 7th -- had you not done that
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
81
1 and expressed very clearly and strongly your opinions as
2 to why the state ought not to contract with Na Laukoa,
3 that -- there might have been a direct contract with
4 Na Laukoa?
5 A. That would be speculation on my part.
6 Q. In fact, you brought this issue to the Board
7 of Education, did you not?
8 A. I did.
9 Q. And you gave this memo -- and that's why you
10 did the chronology dated October 17th, 2000 -- to the at
11 that time chairperson, Dr. Mitsugi Nakashima?
12 A. It was intended for him. I did not hand it
13 to him directly.
14 Q. I understand. You handed it to a person from
15 the Board that requested that for the chairperson?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And you also talked to others -- well, you
18 did talk to Dr. Nakashima, did you not?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. You talked to Ms. Newton?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. You also talked to Mr. Taguchi?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. And you brought these concerns to their --
25 you brought your concerns to their attention?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
82
1 A. I did.
2 Q. And they were concerned about that, too, were
3 they not?
4 A. They all expressed a concern about that.
5 Q. About -- now, "about that," meaning the
6 department entering into a contract with Na Laukoa to
7 provide services?
8 A. They were -- they expressed a concern to me
9 about contracts.
10 Q. But that contract related specifically to
11 Na Laukoa?
12 A. Well, that's why I was there.
13 Q. Right. And you had told the superintendent
14 that you were going to do this, weren't you?
15 A. I did.
16 Q. You were up front with him, told him you were
17 going to go talk to people at the Board because of your
18 strong opposition to Na Laukoa?
19 A. I did tell him that.
20 Q. And he did not tell you not to, of course?
21 A. Not at all.
22 Q. But after you did, though, he contacted you,
23 didn't he? "After you did," meaning after you had
24 conversations -- after you provided documentation to the
25 Board of Education, you did receive a communication from
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
83
1 the superintendent, did you not?
2 A. It wasn't immediately after, but it did occur
3 after -- after the fact.
4 Q. And what communication did you receive from
5 the superintendent?
6 A. Initially it was a phone call concerning what
7 was provided.
8 Q. And was there displeasure indicated by the
9 superintendent?
10 A. I would say so.
11 Q. Strong displeasure?
12 A. I would say so.
13 Q. Did you remind him that you told him you were
14 going to do that?
15 A. I certainly did.
16 Q. What did he say in response to that?
17 A. Specifically I don't recall, but he was -- he
18 was not pleased with it. That may be obvious, but he
19 was not pleased with it.
20 Q. In fact, Mr. Golden, thereafter, as far as
21 your responsibilities with the department were
22 concerned, de facto they changed, did they not?
23 A. Pardon me?
24 Q. Your responsibilities changed, did they not?
25 A. My specific responsibilities have not
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
84
1 changed.
2 Q. The work that you would do in carrying out
3 those responsibilities, though, changed, did they not?
4 A. I don't think the work has changed.
5 Q. What happened? What happened? Tell us.
6 A. I would -- I would say the inclusion and
7 involvement that had been the -- in effect prior to
8 definitely changed afterwards.
9 Q. What --
10 A. That's my perception.
11 Q. I understand that. That's all I'm asking
12 for, sir; but your perception is based upon 30 years of
13 experience with the department, among other things?
14 A. 31 years.
15 Q. 31 years. And your perception after that
16 conversation with the superintendent, probably in the
17 period of October or so, 2000 -- your perception was
18 that things were passing you by, right?
19 A. I -- you know, I can't express it that way.
20 Q. Tell me how -- express it your way, sir.
21 A. Again, I don't want to get into a long,
22 drawn-out thing here. My specific duties and
23 responsibilities basically technically have been the
24 same; but as far as being -- and I'm just going to say
25 it -- but as far as being included in meetings and
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
85
1 discussions and possibly being involved in some, quote,
2 unquote, "discussions related to decision-making," no, I
3 think that certainly was curtailed and diminished after
4 the fact.
5 Q. Curtailed and diminished both, diminished
6 entirely?
7 A. Entirely, no.
8 Q. Well, in other words, sir, what was happening
9 was that you were left out of certain decisions that
10 prior to that time you had been a part of, right?
11 A. That I would have been a part of it, yes.
12 Q. That you would have been a part of. In fact,
13 might it be said that you were merely lowered in terms
14 of providing input?
15 A. I can't place myself in someone else's mind.
16 Q. No, no, in your mind.
17 A. In my mind, I think I was left out.
18 Q. Do you know why you were left out?
19 A. It would be speculation on my part.
20 Q. As a matter of fact, as a result of that type
21 of conduct or that type of thing -- action towards you,
22 you chose to retire early, did you not?
23 A. That's my decision.
24 Q. I understand; but that was, at least in part,
25 a part of your decision to retire early because of the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
86
1 manner in which you were being treated, right?
2 A. I'm going to tell you right now -- and I've
3 said this before -- my decision to retire is very much,
4 very much a personal decision; and I care not to make it
5 in a public forum.
6 Q. No, I understand that, sir; but you've
7 already testified to it in a deposition under oath.
8 That's a public matter. Do you understand that?
9 A. I guess that's what you're telling me.
10 Q. Yes, I'm telling you. So, at least a part of
11 that decision -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to invade your
12 personal matters but you've testified about it and I
13 need to ask you to discharge my obligations to my
14 clients.
15 Part of the reason why you retired early was
16 because of the manner in which you were being treated?
17 A. I'll put it this way: I'm choosing to retire
18 for personal and professional reasons.
19 Q. That's fine. Now, sir, in your opinion, why
20 did Na Laukoa get this contract that you felt they were
21 totally unprepared, unqualified to have?
22 A. I do not want to speculate on that.
23 Q. You would have to speculate?
24 A. I would have to speculate on that.
25 Q. You have a -- people have talked to you about
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
87
1 this matter, have they not?
2 A. Yes, they have.
3 Q. People have told you why, in their minds,
4 this whole matter occurred, right?
5 A. People in this department and other
6 departments talk about a whole bunch of things --
7 Q. A whole bunch --
8 A. -- but, yes, there's a number of
9 conversations that take place.
10 Q. And certainly the reason why this contract
11 was ultimately entered into in the way it was --
12 certainly it had nothing to do with Na Laukoa's
13 qualifications to perform that contract, right?
14 A. I was not the one who hired them. So, I know
15 there's a different point of view as far as targeted
16 technical assistance. There may be things that I know
17 not of, and there are. So, why somebody would make a
18 decision or other people would make a decision, again, I
19 was not included in that decision. So, I don't know.
20 Q. I understand. There are things you know not
21 of; and I think what you're saying is that unless you
22 know of these things, you would rather not testify about
23 them under oath, right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. But one of the areas that was communicated to
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
88
1 you regarding Na Laukoa and this contract had to do, as
2 you heard from more than one person, was because of the
3 superintendent's relationship with the coordinator of
4 that program?
5 A. Say that one more time.
6 Q. One of the things that you heard from more
7 than one person who gave you that -- gave you
8 information about Na Laukoa was that the contract with
9 Na Laukoa was entered into because of the
10 superintendent's personal relationship with the
11 coordinator of Na Laukoa?
12 A. The only thing that I heard was that he may
13 have known of this service provider.
14 Q. Ms. Stocks --
15 A. The service provider.
16 Q. Ms. Stocksdale?
17 A. The first time --
18 Q. Ms. Stocksdale, you're referring to?
19 A. She's the coordinator for that program.
20 Q. That's who you're referring to, though?
21 A. That's the program.
22 Q. No. When you say he may have known of
23 this --
24 A. He was -- and, again, this is just purely
25 speculation on my part, that he was familiar with
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
89
1 personnel from that program.
2 Q. Okay. Just a couple quick other areas, sir.
3 Oh, from a Big Island standpoint, do you
4 know, as a result of the contract with PREL, whether or
5 not any of the Big Island complexes came into compliance
6 as -- at a point in time after the services were
7 provided?
8 A. I would really have to defer to other people
9 in my office. Right offhand, I --
10 Q. Can't say? Someone is shaking their --
11 A. I'm getting a negative there, no.
12 Q. Okay. Are you aware of the contract that the
13 department has with Columbus Educational Services or
14 systems?
15 A. I'm aware that there is a contract. That's
16 about the --
17 Q. That's about it?
18 A. That's about it.
19 Q. How about Sunbelt Therapy, Sunbelt Staffing?
20 Do you know -- are you aware of those contracts?
21 A. Part of the Sunbelt contract -- I believe,
22 out of the Subpoena that I received, was a list of
23 contracts on there. I believe Sunbelt was the only one
24 that actually came through our office at some point in
25 time or other specific to occupational physical therapy
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
90
1 and speech language pathology. So, we had an addendum
2 added on to that or a revision of that original
3 contract; but it didn't originate from student support
4 services.
5 Q. I see. Columbus also didn't originate in
6 student support services?
7 A. No, it did not.
8 Q. Do you recall seeing the figure of $100
9 million --
10 A. I --
11 Q. -- being the contracted amount with Columbus?
12 A. I don't recall seeing the figure. I know --
13 just by being in the department, I heard figures in
14 around that range.
15 Q. You know that these numbers were amended
16 down, though, subsequently; but you're shaking your
17 head -- you're nodding your head up and down. You mean
18 "yes"?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. So, was, in fact, there a contract
21 with Columbus for $100 million?
22 A. I have no idea.
23 Q. All right. And you don't know what the
24 contract would have been for, though, would you?
25 A. That was not in our office. I have no idea.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
91
1 Q. What about service testing? You mentioned
2 that you had some knowledge about that.
3 A. Well, service testing, we had personnel in
4 our office specific to special education that that's
5 part of their specific responsibility.
6 Q. Do you have any specific responsibilities
7 with regard to service testing?
8 A. By way of director, it's more in a broad,
9 very general sense, but not specific, no.
10 Q. Do you -- would it be fair to say that then
11 you have no involvement with service testing from the
12 standpoint of complexes ultimately being found in
13 compliance?
14 A. One more time?
15 Q. Yeah. You have no responsibilities or
16 knowledge with regard to service testing from the
17 standpoint of these complexes throughout the state
18 ultimately being found in compliance?
19 A. I think I have responsibility because of
20 being branch director. I have a -- seated behind me, I
21 have an administrator for the special education section.
22 We have a program manager, an educational specialist,
23 that's given the duties specific to service testing.
24 I mean, that would be a bureaucratic answer;
25 but in a realistic sense, I think, by being a member of
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
92
1 this department, we all have responsibility with these
2 complexes achieving an appropriate rating with service
3 testing.
4 Q. Do you know why, sir, it appears that there's
5 been a flurry of activity recently where there have been
6 presentations provided by various complexes, all of
7 which have very quickly thereafter been found in
8 compliance?
9 A. The first part of your question again?
10 Q. Don't make me ask that again.
11 A. I'm going to do it.
12 Q. Are you aware of the fact that there has been
13 a flurry of activity relating to the service testing
14 process where presentations have been given by various
15 complexes -- two of which I am aware, Kaiser and
16 McKinley -- which very quickly thereafter they were
17 found to be in compliance?
18 A. I believe that they had previously been
19 scheduled.
20 Q. Do you know if it has anything to do with the
21 November 1 deadline that the Federal Court has set for a
22 number of schools to be in compliance?
23 A. That they were scheduled or that they have
24 been found in compliance?
25 Q. No, that that's why they're being found in
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
93
1 compliance, to meet that deadline.
2 A. I am not a judge of compliance.
3 Q. In other words, not because they were
4 qualified -- they may have been qualified a year ago;
5 but just because of that November 1 artificial deadline,
6 do you know that to be a fact or not? I'm not
7 suggesting it is.
8 A. I do not know that to be a fact.
9 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: All right.
10 That's all I have. Thank you, sir.
11 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, we will
12 now turn to each of you for questions. Again, I remind
13 you that we do have the ten-minute rule; and just as a
14 reminder as well, please permit the witness to complete
15 his answer before you ask yours and, for the sake of our
16 court reporter, try not to speak on top of each other.
17 We will begin in the following order:
18 Vice-Chair Blake Oshiro followed by Vice-Chair Kokubun.
19 Do you have any questions, Vice-Chair Oshiro?
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Okay. Vice-Chair
22 Oshiro asked to pass. So, we will put him on the bottom
23 of the list.
24 In his stead, Co-Chair Saiki will be asking
25 questions.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
94
1 EXAMINATION
2 BY CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Golden. I just -- my first
4 couple of questions deal with the Felix response plan.
5 You had mentioned the response plan had specified that
6 there be a technical assistance program implemented.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Do you know why -- why was that -- why was
9 that included as a goal within the Felix response plan,
10 technical assistance?
11 I think it was Priority No. 4 within the
12 DOE's response plan. Why was it included in there?
13 Well, are you familiar -- well, first of all,
14 are you familiar with how the response plan is
15 drafted --
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. -- as far as -- as far as who gets input,
18 what the process is for formulating that plan?
19 A. Yes, I am.
20 Q. Generally how does that work?
21 A. The plan in its entirety?
22 Q. Well, generally, what are the steps in
23 formulating the response plan? Who is involved in
24 providing the input to that plan? Who approves the
25 plan?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
95
1 A. I believe the plan was a departmental effort.
2 So, I can only speak specific to my branch; but we were
3 asked to submit information, request, particulars for
4 this particular plan, which we did. We have actually
5 areas of responsibilities throughout the plan, but it
6 was provided so that it could be coordinated into a
7 unified departmental plan.
8 Q. Okay. And the technical assistance project
9 was listed as, I believe, Priority No. 4 within the
10 plan?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. Why was this included as a priority?
13 A. My assumption was that it was included as a
14 priority or as part of this plan -- and I have to go
15 back to the meeting that was discussed earlier this
16 morning -- as far as providing specific technical
17 assistance to those complexes that were in need of --
18 because I think it specifies 14 to 15 complexes
19 statewide who were viewed as being in need of additional
20 assistance.
21 Q. Do you know who recommended that the
22 technical assistance program be included in the Felix
23 response plan?
24 A. I do not.
25 Q. Do you know why the salary level was set
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
96
1 within the response plan for the coordinator? And I --
2 Priority No. 4 states that the range for the salary be
3 between 150,000 to $170,000.
4 A. The first part of your question again?
5 Q. Why was the salary amount set within the
6 response plan?
7 A. I have no idea.
8 Q. Do you -- are you familiar with what the
9 salary level was for -- for each of the team members
10 within the technical assistance group?
11 A. I think on one of the documents that I
12 recall -- and, again, this is from memory now -- I think
13 there was a discussion for "X" amount of team members;
14 and then there was a total figure.
15 So, again, if you do some of the math, I
16 think it came out to be 100, 105,000. Now, I don't know
17 whether that's the case. I don't know if that's what
18 was actually carried out or if that was actually what
19 was implemented; but just doing simple math, that seems
20 like it would have been the case.
21 Q. Okay. But just to repeat, based on the
22 response plan, the projected salary for a team member
23 was approximately $105,000 per team member?
24 A. That's what I gathered.
25 Q. Okay. And do you know who recommended these
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
97
1 salary levels within the response plan?
2 A. I do not.
3 Q. Do you know if there are other items within
4 the DOE's response plan that sets forth specific salary
5 levels for coordinators or any positions?
6 A. There was one other area -- at once upon a
7 time I did have this readily available right on the tip
8 of my tongue; but one of the other areas -- there may
9 be -- it may be specified as 4-B in the plan itself
10 where we -- our office was -- was responsible for
11 securing the services or what was -- what's referred to
12 as five expert areas: Autism, reading, functional
13 behavioral assessment, et cetera, et cetera.
14 And not that a specific salary was mentioned
15 for each of those particular persons or positions, but I
16 believe that there was a range of salary that was left
17 available or at least was discussed.
18 Q. Okay. I wanted to back up a little bit
19 because you had mentioned in your testimony that you had
20 reported that before the contract with Na Laukoa was
21 finalized, that you had gone and talked with some of the
22 Board of Education members, you had talked with the
23 superintendent, you talked with some DOE personnel
24 regarding your reservations on the qualifications of
25 that provider. Did you talk to anybody else about your
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
98
1 reservations specifically within the federal monitoring
2 team?
3 A. Well, first of all, the way you've phrased
4 that question, I'm not sure when the eventual contract
5 was finalized. I have no idea about that; but to answer
6 the last part of your question, yes, I -- in and around
7 the same time frame that I spoke to Board members and in
8 and around the same time after I spoke to Dr. LeMahieu,
9 for whatever time it was, I did make a specific
10 appointment at the Felix monitoring office; and I did
11 speak with Dr. Ivor Groves.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know about when that meeting
13 occurred, just generally?
14 A. It had to be somewhere towards the end of
15 July.
16 Q. Okay. And why did you meet with him?
17 A. Why did I meet with him?
18 Q. Why did you meet with the monitor?
19 A. Dr. Groves wears two hats. One is the
20 federal court monitor. The other one is the person
21 who's -- I'm going to use the term responsible for
22 technical assistance.
23 I just felt it a responsibility on my part,
24 given the responsibility that I had -- have in student
25 support services branch, that I should let him know that
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
99
1 in my view, at least, for what it is worth, for what it
2 was worth, that this program was going to be possibly --
3 possibly servicing the needs of technical assistance
4 within our complexes and schools. And I thought he
5 should be familiar with that; and by having that
6 knowledge, I felt that he should be also responsible for
7 that.
8 Q. Okay. And what exactly did you tell
9 Dr. Groves at your meeting?
10 A. I told Dr. Groves basically the essence of
11 what I had heard from the Big Island with the phone
12 calls that I had had, not mentioning specific names, but
13 that I did hear that the service provider did not have a
14 sterling reputation and that I gave him the reference of
15 my own opinion, my own view, as a result of sitting on
16 this presentation panel and that they were severely and
17 sorely lacking in substance.
18 Q. Did you tell him that you had received
19 negative feedback from personnel within both the DOE and
20 the Health Department regarding that service provider?
21 A. I don't know if it -- if it was at that time
22 where I had actually heard from the Department of
23 Health. I can't say that; but I did tell him
24 definitely -- I'm sure, you know, that I did tell him
25 that at least from within the Department of Education
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
100
1 that I had heard negative reports.
2 Q. Okay. But, I guess, to sum that up, you
3 basically told him that you had reservations about the
4 qualifications of the provider; and the reputation of
5 that provider was not as positive as it should have
6 been?
7 A. I told him I had very strong reservations
8 about that.
9 Q. What was the court monitor's response -- what
10 was Dr. Groves' response?
11 A. He smiled and said "Thank you."
12 Q. Did he say anything else?
13 A. Not much.
14 Q. How long was your discussion with him?
15 A. Guesstimate?
16 Q. Guesstimate.
17 A. 20 minutes maybe, 15, 20 minutes.
18 Q. Were you doing most of the talking?
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. So, he just smiled and said, "Thank you"?
21 A. That's about it.
22 Q. And what did you say after that?
23 A. I left his office.
24 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not Dr. Groves
25 followed up on the information that you had given him
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
101
1 after your meeting?
2 A. I have no idea.
3 Q. Did you ever hear of any follow-up by the
4 court monitor?
5 A. Absolutely not.
6 Q. Do you know whether he report --
7 A. In fact -- in fact, that was the last time I
8 spoke to Dr. Groves.
9 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the --
10 Dr. Groves reported this information to the court
11 master, Jeff Portnoy?
12 A. I have no idea.
13 Q. Do you know whether he reported this
14 information to the judge?
15 A. I have no idea.
16 Q. Do you know whether he reported this
17 information to the Plaintiffs' attorneys?
18 A. I'm not being smart with you, but Dr. Groves
19 doesn't tell me who he talks to. So, I have no idea. I
20 would have no way of knowing that at all.
21 Q. Okay. But you never heard any --
22 A. I have heard nothing.
23 Q. Okay. What did you -- what would you have
24 ideally liked to have seen as a result of your
25 conversation with Dr. Groves?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
102
1 Well, first of all, let me ask this: Did
2 Dr. Groves have the authority, as court monitor, to put
3 a stop to that contract?
4 A. Do I think -- you're asking me if I think he
5 has the authority?
6 Q. Yes, with your -- within your own personal
7 knowledge, do you think he had the authority to put a
8 stop to that contract if it was true that the provider
9 was not qualified to provide those services?
10 A. I'm giving you my opinion now.
11 Q. Right.
12 A. Yes, I do think he has that authority.
13 Q. So, ideally, what would you have liked to
14 have seen as a result of your conversation with
15 Dr. Groves?
16 A. I did not leave his office with any warm,
17 fuzzy feeling and affirmation that the information that
18 I was providing to him was being considered. I did
19 not -- I did not get any verbal acknowledgment.
20 Q. At the time that you met with Dr. Groves, was
21 the Felix technical advisory panel still in place?
22 A. That, I cannot say. I don't know whether
23 that panel was still constituted in its original form;
24 and when it -- when it may have been disbanded, I'm not
25 sure.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
103
1 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with a woman named
2 Lenore Behar?
3 A. Yes, I am.
4 Q. Okay. And do you know what her relationship
5 is with the Felix Consent Decree?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. What is that?
8 A. She was originally -- this is dating back
9 some years; but she was originally -- before the Consent
10 Decree was actually consented as a decree, that she was
11 hired as a consultant by the Department of Health; and
12 she became one of the three technical assist panel
13 members under the Felix Consent Decree.
14 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not she was
15 involved with the formulation of this technical
16 assistance program as a part of the -- being a part of
17 the response plan?
18 A. I have no idea.
19 Q. Do you know whether or not Ms. Behar was
20 involved with the selection of Na Laukoa?
21 A. I have no idea.
22 Q. Do you know the status of her case in North
23 Carolina?
24 A. I -- just from what I read in the paper.
25 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: I'm sorry. I
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
104
1 went over my ten-minute time limit.
2 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm not keeping time.
3 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: We're giving you
4 a little leeway.
5 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: They're
6 cutting me a little slack here.
7 Q. (BY CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI) I just
8 have a couple of other questions.
9 Just generally with the scope of the
10 responsibilities of the court monitor, based on your
11 experience and based on your own knowledge, is the
12 monitor generally involved with selecting providers
13 specifically for certain kinds of contracts? Is that a
14 function of the court monitor's office?
15 A. I don't know of the technicalities of what he
16 is required to do by way of Federal Court. So, I mean,
17 if there's a -- if there's a document, a contract, for
18 Ivor Groves as to what he is or what he should not be
19 doing, I don't know about that. So, I can't answer
20 that.
21 Q. I just have one more last question.
22 Is it fair to say that your -- that in your
23 reporting -- I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that.
24 With respect to your meeting with the court
25 monitor, is it fair to say that that is an example of an
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
105
1 administrator going to the court monitor with specific
2 complaints or concerns of abuse or waste with respect to
3 the awarding of contracts concerning the Felix Consent
4 Decree?
5 A. My sole purpose was really to -- again, it
6 sounds -- my mother used to say, "You sound like a
7 broken record." So, I know I'm repeating myself a few
8 times here; but my sole purpose was to do whatever
9 needed to be done so that the service provision for kids
10 in school was at a level that they deserved.
11 And I wanted to report that since -- I just
12 wanted to report that to the people that I felt needed
13 to know what was being done.
14 Q. Well, is it fair to say, though, that
15 based -- that because you felt that Na Laukoa was not
16 qualified to receive this contract, that this was an
17 example of abuse or waste of taxpayer dollars?
18 A. I stated it as -- that I did not think that
19 Na Laukoa was up to the task based on what I had heard
20 and what I experienced, and this hiring of this
21 particular service provider should be looked into.
22 That's the extent of it.
23 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Okay. Thank
24 you very much.
25 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you. Next
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
106
1 will be Vice-Chair Kokubun followed by Representative
2 Ito followed by Senator Buen.
3 THE WITNESS: Do you mind if I mention
4 something? If we're going to -- I'm not sure if this is
5 going to go from one end to the other. If we're going
6 to do ten minutes apiece, I'm going to have to take
7 another break here.
8 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Okay. We can.
9 We would normally take one in ten minutes, but would you
10 like to take one now?
11 THE WITNESS: No, no. That's okay.
12 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Well, it may --
13 if Vice-Chair Kokubun rolls over, it may be a good time
14 to take one now. Why don't we take one now?
15 And I ask, Members -- we've been saying five
16 minutes, Members; and you've been taking ten. So, try
17 to be five so we're not too far off from ten. Thank
18 you. Recess until 11:18.
19 (Recess from 11:18 a.m. to 11:27 a.m.)
20 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, we're
21 calling the hearing back to order. We are picking up
22 with Senator Kokubun; and, Mr. Golden, you remain under
23 oath. Thank you.
24 Senator Kokubun?
25 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: Thank you,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
107
1 Co-Chair Hanabusa.
2 I really don't have any questions,
3 Mr. Golden. I just wanted to make a statement to clear
4 the air. One of the -- just for the record, you had
5 mentioned Ann Kokubun as being one of the DOE personnel
6 that had called you; and, in fact, that woman is my
7 wife. And despite being married for 25 years, she does
8 still maintain her strong-mindedness and her high degree
9 of integrity.
10 THE WITNESS: I sensed that.
11 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: And, you know, I
12 want to also point out for the record that these
13 occurrences happened prior to my appointment to the
14 Senate; and at that time, also, she also expressed her
15 high regard for you.
16 THE WITNESS: Pardon me?
17 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: She expressed
18 her high regard and respect for you and your work; and
19 that was, of course, prior to my appointment here. I
20 just wanted that to be part of the record. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: That's nice to hear.
22 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you. So, I
23 believe now it's Representative Ito. Do you have any
24 questions?
25 REPRESENTATIVE ITO: Oh, yeah. Thank you,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
108
1 representative -- Co-Chair.
2 EXAMINATION
3 BY REPRESENTATIVE ITO:
4 Q. Good morning. You know, you mentioned PREL.
5 And, you know, what is PREL? What is the mission of
6 PREL?
7 A. Actually I did not mention PREL.
8 Mr. Kawashima mentioned PREL.
9 Q. Okay. Well, do you know anything about PREL?
10 A. It's an educational lab federally funded.
11 They have the wherewithal, by way of a variety of,
12 quote, unquote, "experts" to provide various educational
13 services. PREL services throughout the Pacific. So,
14 depending on what its specific task is or what the needs
15 might be, PREL provides various services.
16 Q. So, PREL receives federal moneys and then
17 allocates this with, what, RFPs or contracts?
18 A. The technicalities of how they do it, I'm not
19 sure of; but I believe they have fairly substantial
20 funding through the feds. And as a result of that, they
21 provide services that's requested throughout the Pacific
22 area.
23 Q. Now, PREL has a board of directors. Is
24 anybody from the DOE on the board of directors?
25 A. I do not know.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
109
1 REPRESENTATIVE ITO: Madam Chair, can I
2 request the names of the board of directors of anybody
3 from the Department of Education?
4 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Sure.
5 REPRESENTATIVE ITO: Thank you. That's all
6 the questions I have. Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
8 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you.
9 Senator Buen followed by Representative
10 Kawakami. Senator Buen, do you have any questions?
11 SENATOR BUEN: Thank you.
12 EXAMINATION
13 BY SENATOR BUEN:
14 Q. Regarding the Columbus contract, does the
15 Department of Education have an obligation to meet in
16 hiring a certain number of teachers from the Mainland
17 through the contract?
18 A. That's the question?
19 Q. That's the question.
20 A. The answer is: That contract is not in my
21 particular branch. I think the answer really would be
22 much more direct and detailed to -- for you if it was
23 asked of someone else in the department. I don't have
24 specifics as far as the Columbus contract.
25 Q. Would you know -- or, to your knowledge,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
110
1 then, can you tell me, in all the years of work with the
2 department -- I suppose this question would be for the
3 personnel people; but to your knowledge, would you know?
4 Would you know that -- if there are only a certain
5 number of teachers hired to the contract?
6 A. The way you phrased your question with all my
7 years in the department, I'm sitting here -- by the --
8 minute by minute, I'm feeling older. I don't have any
9 details regarding the Columbus contract. So, I would be
10 remiss in even trying to answer that. I do not.
11 SENATOR BUEN: I don't have any other
12 questions.
13 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you,
14 Senator Buen.
15 Representative Kawakami followed by Senator
16 Sakamoto. Representative Kawakami?
17 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: Thank you, Chair
18 Hanabusa.
19 EXAMINATION
20 BY REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI:
21 Q. I would just like to ask, Mr. Golden, what
22 were your other areas of responsibility? You had ESL?
23 Was that under you?
24 A. Yes, ESL, 504, counseling, gifted and
25 talented, pregnant teen are those --
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
111
1 Q. Were all in your area?
2 A. A wide variety of programs under student
3 support -- that are in the student support section
4 outside of the other section of the student -- of
5 special education.
6 Q. Okay. You also had primary care?
7 A. Yeah, PCAP?
8 Q. Yeah.
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. And you also have the gifted and talented?
11 A. Yes, we do.
12 Q. Okay. I wanted to know: How much time did
13 you spend on this, in terms of special education, that
14 those other programs were neglected?
15 A. I don't know that we neglected any programs
16 in my view. There's obviously some things that you're
17 compelled to do and possibly spend, at time to time,
18 more attention on because of what's on your plate at
19 that particular time; but I see no programs within the
20 student services support branch that are more or less
21 off the table because of being neglected.
22 Q. Okay. So, you're saying --
23 A. In fact, seated behind me is Geraldine
24 Ichimura and she me cringe by me mentioning her name;
25 but she works very closely, very directly, with all of
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
112
1 the people in her branch regarding those programs that
2 you mentioned.
3 Q. I'm speaking of what you did for these
4 programs versus special ed. Did you spend the same
5 amount of time? Did you spend less time? You left it
6 up to your people in the field? Is that what it was?
7 I've heard comments that, you know, they
8 could do a little bit more in our areas, et cetera; and
9 that's why I'm mentioning it.
10 A. Yeah, I would agree with you that, you know,
11 we could all do a little bit more. I mean, there's no
12 two ways about that; but, again, sometimes, you know,
13 you have to deal with and work with and concentrate on
14 all programs but certainly you may have a particular
15 focus because of what's being demanded on a day-to-day
16 basis.
17 Q. And I guess, you know, part of the reason was
18 it was mentioned they don't see you in the field, this
19 kind of thing.
20 A. Pardon me?
21 Q. They don't see you as much in the field as,
22 perhaps, other people; and, you know, this gives a kind
23 of impression that, you know, you're spending more time
24 on other kinds of programs like special ed.
25 A. Yeah, I guess my response to that: It would
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
113
1 really depend on who you speak to.
2 Q. Okay. Does CSSS fall under you also?
3 A. Yes, it's in the student support services
4 branch.
5 Q. Okay. How did that link up with special
6 education and this continuum of care we're looking at,
7 et cetera?
8 A. It's not necess --
9 Q. Do you see us along that continuum?
10 A. Definitely. Student -- special education
11 does not necessarily link up with. Special education
12 services that are specialized for those unique needs of
13 those youngsters are part of the services that come
14 under the overriding umbrella of CSSS.
15 Q. Okay. I guess what I'm trying to say is that
16 when we look at the continuum of care, as you leave us,
17 do you feel that that will be in place as you look at
18 the whole scope of services that the department is, you
19 know, providing to schools?
20 A. As we speak right now, I feel more confident
21 than ever that those services will be -- they're
22 embedded in that continuum of care. And, again, the two
23 administrators sitting behind me, they need -- they
24 deserve the primary credit for making that happen.
25 Geraldine Ichimura is one of the originators
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
114
1 by way of concept and model of CSSS. In working closely
2 with Debbie Farmer, they've done an outstanding job
3 embedding that array of service under that umbrella.
4 Q. In the program, Na Laukoa, did you feel you
5 were alone in your stance when you were adamant that
6 this program should not go through?
7 Honestly, I mean, did you feel, you know, as
8 though you were the only one fighting for it?
9 A. I'll just put it to you bluntly. I mean,
10 I -- I'm the type of person where I'm not going to ask a
11 bunch of people to endorse a recommendation or
12 nonrecommendation or a memo that I sign. I did it
13 solely because of what my responsibilities were as
14 branch director.
15 So, if other people had similar views,
16 similar -- just views on this program, that may be the
17 case; but, you know, I certainly felt that it was just
18 something that I had to do as an individual.
19 Q. But you did say Dan Sakai and Ms. Kokubun --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- supported you? So, you called them?
22 A. No, they called me.
23 Q. They called you.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. So, you knew the -- there were people
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
115
1 in the field that were against that, that did not feel
2 that it could provide the kind of services you felt they
3 should have?
4 A. The comments and the testimony that I
5 provided is that the initial reservations/concern/issue
6 about this particular program was raised by those
7 individuals, yes.
8 Q. Was this group ever awarded a contract that
9 you know of?
10 A. With whom?
11 Q. With anyone in the state.
12 A. I think I mentioned previously that they were
13 under contract with the Department of Health.
14 Q. Okay. And what kind of evaluation were they
15 given?
16 A. You would have to ask personnel and the
17 Department of Health about that.
18 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: Okay. I guess
19 that's all I have. Thank you, Chair.
20 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you,
21 Representative Kawakami. Senator Sakamoto will be
22 followed by Representative Leong.
23 Senator Sakamoto?
24 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Thank you, Chair.
25 *
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
116
1 EXAMINATION
2 BY SENATOR SAKAMOTO:
3 Q. Mr. Golden, it's more fun when I see you at
4 Radford than see you here.
5 A. I would agree with you, Senator Sakamoto.
6 Q. Just to help us understand sort of a bigger
7 picture maybe, so, PREL received the contract; and they,
8 then, subcontracted to Na Laukoa -- Na Laukoa?
9 A. The details and the actuality of how that
10 occurred, I do not know.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. I cannot answer that.
13 Q. Okay. Assuming that's the case but -- a
14 contract was authorized and services were then
15 performed. Were the services intellectual services? In
16 other words, here's a technical paper saying this is
17 what we think should be done. Or were they personal
18 services where they received one-on-one mentoring or
19 did -- were there services directly to students that
20 needed to -- what kind of services were part of the
21 contract?
22 A. In general, I do not believe the services
23 were direct with student to student on a kid-by-kid
24 basis. I think it was more with the involvement of
25 school personnel, complex personnel.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
117
1 Q. Was that training or just holding their hand
2 or --
3 A. All of the above.
4 Q. Okay. So, for your -- from your knowledge,
5 it wasn't direct student services but would be helping
6 school personnel as well as Department of Health
7 personnel or --
8 A. I believe Department of Health personnel also
9 involved in what was being asked of the targeted
10 technical assist groups, yes.
11 Q. Okay. And as the work progressed, do you
12 know if this was a lump-sum contract or a
13 time-and-material contract where, as work was done,
14 billings were made or -- not to your knowledge?
15 A. I have no idea.
16 Q. So, although you sit on top of a branch that
17 deals with special education and deals with the
18 monitoring and service testing, you're not into the link
19 of how moneys were approved or paid?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Who would that be?
22 A. Again, the program manager for targeted
23 technical assistance was -- was Dr. Douglas Houck.
24 Q. Okay. So, from your knowledge, he would be
25 the one that would approve -- here's the first payment
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
118
1 of 200,000 or 400,000 or $600,000?
2 A. I believe the process would have been through
3 our business office, our budget office, and probably
4 followed procedures that would have been by way of other
5 contracts.
6 Q. Who would monitor how well the contract
7 proceeded? Even if you didn't approve it at the front
8 end and it subsequently was done, who would then
9 determine: Are they providing this better than I
10 thought? Or this is just as I felt; there are problems.
11 Who would make those judgments?
12 A. I really can't say. I don't believe it was
13 anyone within my branch.
14 Q. Not in your branch?
15 A. No, I don't believe it was.
16 Q. So, that might be school-level personnel or
17 someone above you or below you would make those
18 determinations?
19 A. I think it would have been technically
20 literally someone above me.
21 Q. Well, would it be the court monitor?
22 A. He may have had direct involvement. That's a
23 possibility.
24 Q. And the contract for 2.2 million, to your
25 knowledge, was fulfilled and ended?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
119
1 A. As we speak?
2 Q. As of this point. I assume -- because this
3 was several years ago. So, I'm assuming it was either
4 an annual or a two-year contract as opposed to a --
5 A. This has just been for this past year.
6 Q. Oh, okay. But this was dated 2000?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So, August -- okay. So, it may still be in
9 effect if it was longer than a one-year contract,
10 August 28th --
11 A. I believe it is.
12 Q. Okay. So, as of this point, are you
13 continuing to get feedback that this is, as we
14 suspected, not satisfactory; or what type of feedback
15 are you receiving currently?
16 A. I'm not playing a game with you, but directly
17 or indirectly?
18 Q. Well, first, directly, then secondly
19 indirectly.
20 A. I have received direct information that the
21 technical assistance that's been provided is lacking.
22 Indirectly, I have received information that the same is
23 true.
24 Q. Okay. In your initial questions -- one of
25 them, is it evidence based, research based? So, as of
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
120
1 this point, your findings or feelings that -- that
2 question still is not answered or do you have an answer
3 to that now based on what you've seen?
4 A. I don't have any information that changed my
5 thoughts or positions from the original position.
6 Q. So, on your list of -- I'm concerned if they
7 may not meet this -- so, basically, most of those or all
8 of those -- those are continuing concerns?
9 A. Yeah, I got to tell you just -- just by being
10 blunt, I really -- I have not been involved personally
11 directly with targeted technical assist --
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. -- throughout this year. So, it's just a
14 matter of what may come across my desk that I'm hearing.
15 Q. Okay. So, changing back to sort of a bigger
16 picture, since July 1st, we've transferred some of the
17 authority, some of the functioning to more of the
18 school-based behavioral health. Is it your
19 understanding that that is more evidence based than the
20 technical assistance that you've seen?
21 A. I'm not sure if evidence based is the way I
22 would express it. I believe what schools are doing now
23 is really implementing behavioral health services for
24 youngsters throughout the system that's more in tune
25 with an educational model.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
121
1 I know we've heard a -- it's been in the
2 media and we've heard an awful lot about that, but it's
3 where the services and the provisions is taking place at
4 school with school personnel and other related personnel
5 as needed; but it's not where you're taking the
6 youngster out of the school complex and putting him
7 someplace else or servicing the need someplace else.
8 Q. I guess the reason I was asking you, you have
9 certain concerns with the technical assist program. So,
10 I was leading up to: Now that it's school-based
11 behavioral health with the DOE hiring personnel, some of
12 the similar concerns, to me -- or questions would be
13 asked with this program. Are we meeting this
14 requirement? Is it better or worse, this requirement?
15 So, it's a global question. Now that we've
16 transformed -- transformed or are transforming --
17 obviously still in progress -- do you feel most of your
18 concerns that you raised with the prospective provider
19 at that time -- with the new transition, do you think
20 most of your concerns would be still "I'm concerned
21 about this transition"; or with the transition, would
22 you be saying "With the transition, my concerns for
23 providing services this way would be more satisfied or
24 are satisfied"?
25 A. Transition is a -- is really a mega
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
122
1 transition that has occurred. I mean, I could say in
2 very general and very positive sense that I think it's
3 being done successfully; and I think the successes that
4 are taking place now -- and maybe it harkens back to the
5 question that was asked previously about service testing
6 and, quote, unquote, "compliance."
7 My belief is a -- and it sounds like I'm a
8 company man here; but my belief is that it's really
9 taking place because of the collaboration that has taken
10 place between the Department of Ed and the Department of
11 Health. And those services that are being provided to
12 the youngsters at school, that's what's really making
13 the difference.
14 Q. Okay. I'm almost done.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. So, the Big Island complexes, have any of
17 them passed service testing?
18 A. Wai -- both on the Hilo side, Waiakea and
19 Hilo.
20 Q. So, do you expect, with or without the
21 technical assistance, good or bad, the other complexes
22 on the Big Island to be soon in compliance?
23 A. You know, I -- I wouldn't dare be predictive
24 about that because compliance is not -- is not a
25 responsibility -- and I don't want this to be taken the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
123
1 wrong way; but compliance, to me, is really a legal
2 thing. It's not a -- in my mind, it's just -- you know,
3 we need to do what we need to do to service the needs of
4 these kids. So, that would really be a SWAG on my part
5 to respond to you one way or another.
6 Q. Well, let me ask the question this way then.
7 Do you feel that the students on the Big Island -- all
8 of them, as Representative Kawakami mentioned -- that
9 CSSS is the whole spectrum and as well as the Felix
10 class children are being better served today and will be
11 better served a year from now based on what's in place
12 now?
13 A. I have no doubt that that will be the case.
14 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Okay. Thank you.
15 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you,
16 Senator Sakamoto. Representative Leong followed by
17 Representative Marumoto.
18 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG: Thank you.
19 EXAMINATION
20 BY REPRESENTATIVE LEONG:
21 Q. Mr. Golden, I'm looking over your list of
22 unsatisfactory comments. Because you felt so strongly
23 regarding the targeted technical assistance team as
24 lacking -- and, yet, when this was accepted and
25 contracted out, do you feel -- I know you said -- stated
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
124
1 that you had gone to certain people to voice your
2 opinion. Do you feel that you did all that you could to
3 let this information be revealed to the public?
4 A. To the public?
5 Q. Yeah, or to people to let them know -- I know
6 it was in this report; but do you feel that you could
7 have done more to let them know about this -- your
8 evaluation?
9 A. To be quite honest with you and to be quite
10 blunt with you, I don't know what else I could have
11 done.
12 Q. I see.
13 A. And, again, I've been telling people this,
14 that I don't have a white horse parked in a stall
15 downstairs. So, I'm not riding in as being chivalrous
16 or anything; but I expressed it very directly to
17 Dr. LeMahieu. As previously mentioned, I spoke to
18 Dr. Ivor Groves.
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. I spoke repeatedly throughout this last year
21 with my immediate supervisor, Diane Oshiro, as the
22 assistant superintendent; and I also spoke to Pat
23 Hamamoto, the deputy superintendent, about this. So,
24 check them off, all of the above.
25 Q. Then I have another question also. Were
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
125
1 there others of high caliber as you who felt the same as
2 you did about this program? And, also, if this program
3 had not been chosen, would there have been a recourse;
4 and what could they have used instead? Because I know
5 they indicated that only one had filed -- or one had
6 applied.
7 A. You're talking about the presentation?
8 Q. Yes, uh-huh.
9 A. I -- and, again, it would really be rampant
10 speculation on my part what somebody else feels, what
11 they think. You know, I don't know. You know,
12 day-to-day discussions, people will say things; but, I
13 mean, as far as making it more formal and putting it
14 into writing and having a conversation or discussion, I
15 don't know what was done.
16 If Na Laukoa was not part of this -- or PREL
17 was not part of this contractual agreement to provide
18 these services, your guess, as good as mine, would
19 probably be just as far as what would have taken place.
20 I have no idea.
21 Q. So, there really was nothing else? That's
22 what I was saying.
23 A. I did not see anything else at the time.
24 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG: Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
126
1 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Representative
2 Marumoto followed by Representative Oshiro.
3 REPRESENTATIVE MARUMOTO: Thank you, Madam
4 Chairman.
5 EXAMINATION
6 BY REPRESENTATIVE MARUMOTO:
7 Q. Good morning, Mr. Golden.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. Well, I'm wondering -- we had heard that
10 Na Laukoa had a contract with the Department of Health;
11 but did they -- this entity also have other contracts
12 with the Department of Education, to your knowledge, or
13 any other contracts with Camille Stocksdale?
14 A. I don't have any knowledge of any other
15 contracts with the Department of Education, certainly
16 not with my office.
17 REPRESENTATIVE: I see. Okay. Thank you.
18 That's all I needed to know.
19 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Okay.
20 Representative Oshiro?
21 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO: Thank you.
22 EXAMINATION
23 BY VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO:
24 Q. Mr. Golden, I just wanted to sort of
25 summarize some of the chronology that you've gone
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
127
1 through just so I can make it clear in my mind. So, I
2 guess I'm going to be putting out statements; and then
3 if you can agree or disagree or provide any
4 clarifications.
5 So, basically when you started out, you
6 talked about your role as a director; and that -- you
7 said as part of your role, you would review contracts
8 for support service providers whenever they were in
9 large amounts?
10 A. Generally that's correct.
11 Q. Okay. And then on or about May 10th of 2000,
12 you held a discussion with Deb Farmer, the
13 superintendent, Mr. Groves, and Department of Health
14 personnel about the concept of targeted technical
15 assistance?
16 A. That's the first time I believe it came up.
17 Q. Okay. And then thereafter, in about May 22nd
18 or 23rd, according to the chronology chart you provided,
19 you were told by a Dr. Houck that this, quote, "was not
20 going to happen" in terms of pursuing your targeted
21 technical assistance initiative?
22 A. He basically told me drop it.
23 Q. Okay. And then thereafter on or about
24 July 7th of 2000, you attended a presentation by
25 Na Laukoa; and during that presentation, you asked about
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
128
1 the CSSS theoretical models. And at that time, they
2 didn't have sufficient information as to what that kind
3 of initiative or directive was?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Okay. And then thereafter, on July 7th,
6 2000, you issued a memo providing about ten reasons why
7 you did not recommend a -- retaining the services of
8 Na Laukoa; is that correct?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Okay. And during this time you had also
11 heard that Na Laukoa was not able to provide the proper
12 services or was a -- had an inability to perform the
13 services which they were going to be retained for?
14 You've heard this indirectly or directly?
15 A. That's basically not what I heard. What I
16 heard was two people who raised the issue with me that
17 they had concerns about the possibility of the
18 contract -- or possibility of this program being
19 contracted because of concerns that they had as far as
20 their responsiveness and their behavior with the
21 schools.
22 Q. Okay. And despite all of these things, on or
23 about August 20th of 2000, a contract was entered to
24 retain the services of Na Laukoa or PREL or whichever
25 entity; would that be correct?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
129
1 A. When it was entered into, I don't know. It's
2 just that -- I believe that's the date on the PREL
3 contract.
4 Q. Okay. But in any event, this contract was
5 entered without your particular review in the process?
6 A. It was entered into without my review at all.
7 Q. And, lastly, since that time, I guess there
8 has been discussions you held earlier that you felt your
9 role in terms -- or inclusion or involvement in the
10 decision-making process has somehow been altered or
11 changed; would that be correct?
12 A. That's my perception.
13 Q. Okay. And, lastly, as earlier you stated
14 from, I think, when you were being questioned by
15 Representative -- by Senator Sakamoto, you said that you
16 heard directly and indirectly that technical assistance
17 has not been provided sufficiently as of this date?
18 A. I've heard that at different times, yes.
19 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO: Okay.
20 Thank you.
21 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Mr. Golden, it's
22 approaching 12:00. We still have about three more
23 questions to -- questioners to go. We are going to
24 break for lunch, and we will reconvene here at 12:45.
25 So, if you'll be kind enough to return.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
130
1 So, Members, we are breaking for lunch.
2 Reconvene at 12:45. Thank you very much.
3 (Lunch recess from 11:55 a.m. to 12:53 p.m.)
4 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, we are
5 reconvened.
6 Mr. Golden, I remind you you remain under
7 oath. At this time, I guess, Senator Slom is not back.
8 So, I will proceed with the questioning.
9 EXAMINATION
10 BY CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA:
11 Q. Mr. Golden, I would just like to clarify
12 certain things that you said. You mentioned the fact,
13 first of all, that you were asked to prepare the memo
14 of, I think, October 17th, 2000 for the Board of
15 Education; is that correct?
16 A. For the board leadership.
17 Q. For the board leadership. And I realize that
18 it was addressed to Dr. Nakashima?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. What happened to that after you forwarded it
21 to them? Did the Board take any action?
22 A. I really don't know. I do know that at one
23 point -- and I can't remember the date right offhand --
24 that there was a meeting between Dr. Nakashima,
25 Ms. Knundsen and Herb Watanabe and Dr. LeMahieu; but
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
131
1 that's about the extent of what I know.
2 Q. Would that contract, the Na Laukoa
3 contract -- if it had gone through normal channels,
4 like, with your review and so forth, would that have
5 required Board action from your experience?
6 A. Outside of the extraordinary powers that was
7 provided by the superintendent?
8 Q. Right, outside.
9 A. I'm not sure.
10 Q. So, in the -- in your position, have you ever
11 seen contracts that you've recommended go through the
12 Board of Education for approval?
13 A. Have I seen contracts go through the Board of
14 Education?
15 Q. Yes, or have you actually processed contracts
16 to the Board for approval?
17 A. I'm not -- could you restate that, please?
18 Q. Yes. Have you had contracts -- like,
19 consultants services such as the Na Laukoa contract
20 would have been, would something like that -- if it
21 processed through normal channels outside extraordinary
22 powers, like, through your office, would you have seen
23 that contract to the Board for final ratification or
24 approval?
25 A. I think by the time a contract would
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
132
1 hypothetically leave my office and go to the
2 superintendent's office or a business office, at that
3 point, I'm not sure what involvement or what contact or
4 what pass-through may have been with the Board of
5 Education. I'm not sure.
6 Q. So, you're not sure about that?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. So, the last you know is that there is this
9 memo you're asked to write. You write the memo. There
10 is this meeting that you think takes place between
11 Dr. LeMahieu, Dr. Nakashima, Karen Knundsen, maybe
12 Mr. Watanabe; but after that, you hear nothing about
13 your particular memo?
14 A. The meeting did take place.
15 Q. Did take place?
16 A. Yeah. I didn't think it took place. It did
17 take place; but after that night, I heard nothing else
18 about it.
19 Q. Were you asked to appear at that meeting?
20 A. I was asked to be present at the Board
21 offices. I was not -- I was not invited into the
22 meeting. So, I spent some time in the lobby while at
23 least the meeting was started; and then at some point in
24 time, I was told that, I guess, my presence wasn't
25 required, so, I could leave.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
133
1 Q. Who told you that the contract was eventually
2 let through PREL?
3 A. The contract --
4 Q. A Na Laukoa contract was let through PREL,
5 that PREL got a contract and through that, Na Laukoa was
6 hired. How did you come to that knowledge?
7 A. I'm not real sure where I first heard about
8 it, and I could really be wrong with this. So, it's
9 not -- I'm not real sure about this; but I think it was
10 on a subsequent call at some point in time that I did
11 have with the superintendent. And I think PREL was
12 mentioned.
13 Q. At that time, did you know or had any reason
14 to believe that the superintendent was also on the board
15 of directors at PREL?
16 A. I had no idea.
17 Q. You had no idea?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you know where the funding came from that
20 paid PREL that eventually pays Na Laukoa, the source of
21 that funding?
22 A. The only thing that I know -- and I think
23 it's on the first page of the contract -- that it was
24 Federal Impact Aid.
25 Q. Can you explain to me what Federal Impact Aid
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
134
1 is?
2 A. It's money that's provided to various
3 jurisdictions being -- this jurisdiction is a single
4 state system for education. So, it was provided to the
5 State of Hawaii; and it's for assistance in providing
6 educational services for -- per capita for the number of
7 military families and youngsters that are attending
8 schools in that particular jurisdiction.
9 Q. So, was this supposed to be like
10 reimbursement from the Federal Government for educating
11 the military kids? Is that sort of like --
12 A. That may be another way of saying it, yes.
13 Q. Is there any part of that that's supposed to
14 be specifically for special needs children or special --
15 A. I don't know. I don't know.
16 Q. And these federal impact funds, do you know
17 when that's received by the department?
18 A. I do not.
19 Q. Who would know more about federal impact
20 funds? If you were -- if I were to ask you, Mr. Golden,
21 tell me who to go talk to at the DOE for information on
22 federal impact funds, who would I see?
23 A. I think that would be with the budget
24 director.
25 Q. Is that Mr. Ito?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
135
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Have you ever had the opportunity to look
3 into how much federal impact funds are being used for
4 special education purposes?
5 A. No.
6 Q. How about anything within your branch, which
7 is a very wide branch, with -- how about for that? Do
8 you get a percentage, for example, of the funds that
9 come in?
10 A. No, there's -- not necessarily a percentage.
11 We did have available impact aid moneys to some degree
12 or another; and I had mentioned this previously, that
13 some of that -- some of those funds were used for a
14 particular program which is now a department target area
15 and that's where -- effective behavioral support.
16 A year ago we did use a portion of -- and it
17 was somewhere in the vicinity of 5 to $600,000 with that
18 particular target, and that's the extent that I know of
19 it.
20 Q. And who tells you that you have "X" number of
21 dollars for federal impact funds available to you for
22 your particular branch?
23 A. Well, the information concerning the amount
24 and the availability really -- really could come from
25 any variety of persons. It could come from the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
136
1 assistant superintendent, the DOTSS. It could come from
2 the budget director. It could come from the -- it could
3 be from the superintendent's office.
4 Q. Do you -- when you plan your budgeting for
5 the year -- and I assume that you do participate in your
6 budget process?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you assume a certain amount to be federal
9 impact funds or is this sort of something like, you
10 know, gravy later on that you may get this extra funds?
11 A. I wouldn't want to describe any of the amount
12 of moneys that we may get as "gravy"; but, no, it would
13 be part of -- the budget preparation would not include
14 specific amounts that would be coming from impact aid,
15 no.
16 Q. So, when you're told about this later on,
17 then you have this extra money that you might be able to
18 put into various programs that you've already budgeted
19 out for; would that be a fair statement?
20 A. Say it one more time.
21 Q. So, when you do get federal impact funds,
22 it's then -- you can then apply it to programs that
23 you've probably already budgeted out for?
24 A. It could either be that or for another
25 particular purpose that would be needed at that time
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
137
1 that had not been budgeted for.
2 Q. When you use federal impact funds, are you
3 told that there's a requirement to report on a special
4 form to the Federal Government or anything like that as
5 to what you used your funds for?
6 A. Not that I'm familiar with.
7 Q. Are you required to give a special report,
8 say, to the superintendent or to the budget directors to
9 what you did with those funds?
10 A. I think, just by way of normal budget
11 procedures, that there would have to be justification as
12 to what the funds had been used for. So, that would be
13 documented within our budget office.
14 Q. But it's not specifically for federal impact
15 funds?
16 A. No, it would just be -- I think there would
17 be a budget code that would identify the source of those
18 funds.
19 Q. Mr. Golden, you took us, I think, under the
20 examination of Mr. Kawashima, to the point where after
21 the July 7th meeting, you said you basically had nothing
22 more to do with the Na Laukoa situation. You did get
23 certain kinds of informal or -- direct or indirect, I
24 think, were your words, reports about how it was doing.
25 At any time did you have any specific
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
138
1 complaints or reports from people who would report
2 directly to you as to whether they were required to
3 render assistance to the Na Laukoa people to comply with
4 their contractual requirements?
5 A. I'm going to ask you to say that one more
6 time.
7 Q. Let me put it simpler. You've got all that
8 preliminary stuff.
9 At any time after the July 7th date that you
10 gave us, were you informed by anyone who reports to you
11 that they're required to assist Na Laukoa to fulfill
12 their contractual obligations to the Department of
13 Education?
14 A. There was someone under my supervision that
15 was being directed to assist in one way or another with
16 targeted technical assistance, correct.
17 Q. And who was this person?
18 A. That's Debra Farmer.
19 Q. And did she tell you what she was asked to do
20 to assist Na Laukoa?
21 A. I think it was a wide range of possibilities
22 dealing with specifics of program area, IDEA, a number
23 of different things.
24 Q. From the various things that Ms. Farmer
25 informed you that she was being asked to assist
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
139
1 Na Laukoa with, did that confirm or reaffirm your
2 conclusion that Na Laukoa was not qualified to do what
3 they were hired to do?
4 A. Yes, it did.
5 Q. After arriving at that conclusion, did you
6 then report this to the superintendent or anyone else?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. And who did you report that to?
9 A. I reported this to the deputy superintendent,
10 Pat Hamamoto, and the assistant superintendent, Diane
11 Oshiro.
12 Q. Was there any feedback to you from either
13 Ms. Oshiro or Ms. Hamamoto?
14 A. Yes, there was.
15 Q. And what was that feedback?
16 A. From whom?
17 Q. Either one.
18 A. Either one.
19 Q. Or both.
20 A. At a particular meeting, the discussion was
21 that Ms. Farmer had been asked to do a number of other
22 things related to targeted technical assistance that was
23 seemingly pulling her away from her -- and I'm using the
24 phrase -- and I know I'm using it loosely, but from her
25 "day job"; but she was being asked to do a number of
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
140
1 sundry different tasks.
2 And she had come to me and indicated that
3 this was getting a little bit too much. So, as a
4 result, I called for the meeting with -- at Hamamoto. I
5 called for the meeting with Diane Oshiro and explained
6 that she was being pulled every which way with this and,
7 as a result, some of her responsibilities and tasks that
8 needed to be done focus-wise program area really was
9 falling by the wayside.
10 Q. Did they respond to you about what would be
11 done to rectify the situation; or was it, "Well, she
12 just continues to do what she's doing"?
13 A. Well, one thing that was stated was that
14 Ms. Farmer was recommended to write a letter to the
15 superintendent asking to beg off involvement in
16 particular -- and I can't remember what it was called
17 right at the time, but some type of team or board that
18 was advising targeted technical assist. And Ms. Farmer
19 did that.
20 Q. And who was this advice from?
21 A. It was from Pat Hamamoto.
22 Q. Pat Hamamoto. And did Ms. Oshiro have any
23 reaction to what you were telling her about the problems
24 that Ms. Farmer was being faced with?
25 A. Ms. Oshiro's recommendation to me directly
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
141
1 was to -- more or less that's what the superintendent
2 wanted to do. That was what he was doing and that I
3 should look towards fulfilling targeted technical assist
4 within the branch and more or less just do it on the
5 side, just do it knowing that this other Na Laukoa was
6 already in existence.
7 Q. In other words, you had explained earlier how
8 you had gone out and tried to make contact with other
9 principals. And was it your understanding that
10 Ms. Oshiro was telling you just continue on what would
11 have been, like, your plan and let the superintendent
12 have his Na Laukoa on the side?
13 A. More or less.
14 Q. You know, with the Felix Consent Decree, we
15 have concepts called benchmarks within it that we have
16 to meet certain types of goals. Were there anything
17 like benchmarks as far as Na Laukoa's performance?
18 A. No, I have not seen any. I have not heard of
19 any, no.
20 Q. You have not heard of any?
21 A. No.
22 Q. How about anything like whether or not the
23 technical -- the targeted technical assistance is
24 assisting in the compliance efforts? Have you heard
25 anything like that, that they have actually assisted in
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
142
1 it, that we are reaching compliance thanks to their
2 efforts? Have you heard anything like that?
3 A. No, I have not.
4 Q. I want to clarify one thing that I believe
5 you said in response to Representative Leong.
6 Representative Leong had asked you if anyone else, I
7 think, had applied for this position that Na Laukoa
8 eventually secured. And I think the impression that we
9 might have been left with was that no one else applied;
10 but if I recall your testimony correctly, it's not that
11 no one else was -- had applied. It was basically just
12 that Na Laukoa was the sole presenter?
13 A. I would not know if anyone was able to apply.
14 So, I would not have that information. The only thing
15 that I know is that on the day -- it was July 7th -- on
16 the day of this presentation, there was only one
17 organization that was presenting.
18 Q. And that was Na Laukoa?
19 A. That was Na Laukoa.
20 Q. And as far as you know, you did not receive
21 any information directly or indirectly that there was
22 any other entity that was presenting at another date or
23 another place or anything like that?
24 A. No. My question really was: Will there be
25 anyone else providing a presentation information?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
143
1 And I guess my -- the inference was -- for
2 that day and what I had been told was no. So, I don't
3 know if there was any other organization -- any other
4 service provider that may have been provided the
5 opportunity to present at a later date. I don't know
6 that.
7 Q. But as of July 7th, you were told it was only
8 Na Laukoa?
9 A. That's what I was told.
10 Q. Was it your understanding that Na Laukoa was
11 going to provide the technical -- the targeted technical
12 assistance statewide?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So, not just limited to the Big Island?
15 A. No. My understanding was that it was going
16 to be within the 14, 15 complexes; and they were spread
17 out throughout the state.
18 Q. At any time did you receive or happen to come
19 across any document or information that said that
20 Na Laukoa had, in fact, provided technical assistance to
21 the 14 or 15 complexes that had been identified?
22 A. Repeat that, please.
23 Q. Yes. Did you ever come across any
24 information, whether by documentation, directly or
25 indirectly, that Na Laukoa had, in fact, provided
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
144
1 targeted technical assistance for the 14 or 15
2 complexes?
3 A. Before July 7th or after?
4 Q. No, after July 7th.
5 A. The only thing I could -- I could vaguely
6 even relate to that would be a quarterly travel report
7 that referenced what Na Laukoa had been doing.
8 Q. And that's that nonprofit that you mentioned
9 earlier?
10 A. Yes, yeah.
11 Q. And you said that it was federally funded.
12 Do you know whether any of those funds -- the federal
13 funds that PREL receives are from or through the
14 Department of Education?
15 A. I don't know. I don't believe it is. I
16 think it's separate.
17 Q. It's separate. So, the moneys that is given
18 to Na Laukoa, do you know if that's moneys of the
19 Department of Education that was then somehow granted to
20 or transferred to PREL that then paid Na Laukoa?
21 A. That's not something I would have privy to --
22 information.
23 Q. So, are you saying that it could be just
24 separate federal funds that paid Na Laukoa versus either
25 Department of Education funds or federal funds through
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
145
1 the Department of Education?
2 A. Again, I would not have any information at
3 all as to the specific nature of the funds and what was
4 changing hands.
5 Q. Who would know that information?
6 A. You got me. I'm not sure if it's within the
7 Department of Education or specific with PREL. I don't
8 know.
9 Q. But who would know if it's moneys from the
10 Department of Education that went to PREL to fund
11 Na Laukoa? Would that be our budget -- our budget chair
12 would know that?
13 A. I would think it would be the budget people.
14 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: My time is up,
15 and I see Senator Slom has returned.
16 Senator Slom, do you have any questions?
17 SENATOR SLOM: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
18 EXAMINATION
19 BY SENATOR SLOM:
20 Q. I do apologize, however, if I ask a question
21 that's already been asked since I missed the earlier
22 questions; but, Mr. Golden, this question about possible
23 other providers, did you subsequently at any time hear
24 from other providers that, in fact, they were interested
25 in this contract but were denied the opportunity to bid
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
146
1 for it?
2 A. Not at all.
3 Q. Nothing at all?
4 A. No.
5 Q. In hindsight, is there anything or anyone
6 that you feel that you might have talked to or brought
7 to their attention this contract that you had not?
8 A. Say it one more time.
9 Q. Looking back on what you did -- I mean, you
10 wrote the memo. You had very strong opinions and all.
11 Would you consider anyone else or any other agency or
12 any other individual that possibly you might have talked
13 to that might have taken a critical look at the
14 contract?
15 A. That's within the realm of possibility. I
16 didn't think of it, to be honest with you. Obviously, I
17 didn't pursue it beyond the Board of Education. I
18 thought that if -- to be quite -- really, to be honest
19 with you, I thought if something was going to be done, I
20 was speaking to the people internally within the
21 organization and amongst the Board that if it was to be
22 addressed, then I was speaking to the people who would
23 address it.
24 Q. Did you at any time seek any advice or
25 counsel about this matter specifically from the Deputy
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
147
1 Attorney Generals?
2 A. No, I did not.
3 Q. Did they offer any counsel after reading your
4 memo or after being aware of your position?
5 A. No, they did not.
6 Q. And then, finally, has anyone up until this
7 time shown you any reason to believe that your opinions
8 of adequacy and competency in your July 7th memo were
9 not correct as stated?
10 A. I haven't seen or heard anything, no.
11 SENATOR SLOM: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Golden.
12 Thank you, Madam Chair.
13 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you,
14 Senator Slom.
15 Mr. Kawashima, you have some redirect?
16 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: Just a couple.
17 EXAMINATION
18 BY SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA:
19 Q. In light of the questions that have been
20 asked, Mr. Golden, it is your opinion that the targeted
21 technical assistance as provided by Na Laukoa was a
22 failure, was it not?
23 A. I would state it that it hasn't been a
24 success.
25 Q. You do -- you don't recall using words to the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
148
1 effect that it was a failure?
2 A. I may have. I may have used more graphic
3 terms.
4 Q. And when you testified about Ms. Farmer being
5 taken away from her normal day job by being asked to
6 assist Na Laukoa in the performance of the contract that
7 was actually awarded to PREL, is it your understanding
8 that what Ms. Farmer was being asked to do was work in
9 an area or to assist in an area that involved technical
10 assistance?
11 A. My question would be technical assistance to
12 whom?
13 Q. To Na Laukoa.
14 A. I believe it was.
15 Q. So that what Ms. Farmer was doing was
16 providing technical assistance to a provider that in and
17 of itself was supposed to provide technical assistance
18 to the department?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Now, who asked Ms. Farmer to assist
21 Na Laukoa?
22 A. What was being related to me was that she was
23 getting calls from the superintendent.
24 Q. Directly from the superintendent?
25 A. Yes.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
149
1 Q. Did the superintendent, in your recollection
2 in the time that you worked there, get down to the level
3 of working with contractees of that type at that level?
4 A. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't dare to know -- in
5 fact, I don't want to know the details of his day-to-day
6 schedule. So, it would be a guess on my part.
7 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: Thank you. No
8 further questions.
9 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: In light of the
10 fact that this Committee was relatively good about
11 keeping within their time limits and in light of the
12 other questions, does anyone else have any follow-up
13 questions that they would like to ask?
14 Of course, Co-Chair Saiki does. That's why
15 he asked. Co-Chair Saiki.
16 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: I'll stay
17 within my ten-minute time limit.
18 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: All right. I'm
19 timing you.
20 EXAMINATION
21 BY CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
22 Q. I have a couple of follow-up questions,
23 Mr. Golden.
24 With respect to the Felix response plan, who
25 is ultimately responsible for ensuring that this
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
150
1 response plan is implemented properly?
2 A. Ultimately?
3 Q. Right.
4 A. I'm going to answer your question two ways.
5 I think ultimately the Felix response plan -- the
6 responsibility falls on each and every single member of
7 the Department of Education.
8 That's pretty -- in using my best French,
9 that's pretty damn broad; but I think if you're looking
10 for someone who ultimately is the pivotal focal point, I
11 think it would be the superintendent of education.
12 Q. That's with respect to the DOE response plan?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. There's also a Health Department response
15 plan, but collectively and speaking in general --
16 generally with respect to both response plans is -- and
17 I'll be more specific -- is the court monitor ultimately
18 responsible for ensuring that these response plans are
19 implemented properly?
20 A. Let me first clarify this in my mind with
21 you, that the Felix response plan is a Department of
22 Education document. So, that's why I'm referencing it
23 the way I am.
24 Your connection with the Felix court monitor,
25 Dr. Ivor Groves, I -- without any stretch of my
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
151
1 imagination, without any doubt, since we're talking also
2 about technical assistance here, I think that there is a
3 responsibility there, yes.
4 Q. Okay. I would like to -- I have a copy of
5 the response plan that was dated June 22nd, 2000; and in
6 there, there's Priority No. 4, which I had discussed
7 earlier. And that was the targeted technical assistance
8 task.
9 And in the response plan, I just wanted to
10 quote, "From the rationale for this task, it was the
11 projected need for a court order requiring that there be
12 technical assistance." And what this document states is
13 that there needs -- that there is a need to provide the
14 superintendent with authority to review proposals and
15 award a contract to the selected provider agency.
16 And it's proposals plural. It's not
17 proposal. But it gives us a sense that there needed to
18 be maybe some kind of procurement process or a request
19 for proposals to determine who the final recipient would
20 be. Was that ever accomplished? Was that ever done?
21 A. I did not have any part in that. So, I can't
22 answer your question.
23 Q. Okay. Well, the other thing that the
24 document states is that there is a recommended benchmark
25 for technical assistance.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
152
1 One of the benchmarks is that the service
2 testing is to demonstrate significant improvement on
3 14 identified complexes by May 25th, 2001. Who is
4 responsible for ensuring that that benchmark is -- or
5 determining whether or not that benchmark is met?
6 A. Determining whether a benchmark was met?
7 Q. Whether that particular benchmark was met by
8 May 25th.
9 A. Again, I think when you're referencing
10 benchmarks related to Federal Court, in my mind, at
11 least, the only one really who has the authority to
12 determine a benchmark being met or not legally, I
13 believe, is the judge.
14 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not this
15 benchmark was evaluated by the Federal Court or by the
16 federal monitoring team?
17 A. I have no idea.
18 Q. Do you now how we could determine whether it
19 was evaluated?
20 A. If it was evaluated?
21 Q. Right, by the Federal Court or by the federal
22 monitoring team.
23 A. I couldn't help you there.
24 Q. I had another follow-up question. Since the
25 Na Laukoa contract was funded through Federal Impact
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
153
1 Aid, I had a question about one of the consultants,
2 Lenore Behar.
3 My understanding is that Ms. Behar or
4 Dr. Behar was recently indicted in North Carolina on 44
5 counts of what -- I would assume on criminal counts
6 including the misuse of federal funds for projects that
7 she administers in North Carolina. Is that your
8 understanding?
9 A. I think I testified earlier or mentioned
10 earlier that basically what I know about Lenore Behar
11 and that involvement is what was reported through the
12 media.
13 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not Dr. Behar's
14 case in North Carolina involves the misuse of Federal
15 Impact Aid?
16 A. I have no idea.
17 Q. Do you know whether or not Ms. Behar received
18 Federal Impact Aid from the State of Hawaii through
19 contracts or through any other form of payment?
20 A. Again, I have no idea.
21 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Okay. Thank
22 you very much.
23 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Anyone else? If
24 not, thank you very much. You're free to go.
25 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Okay.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
154
1 Members, our next witness is Ms. Debra Farmer. I would
2 like to administer the oath at this point.
3 DEBRA FARMER: Sure.
4 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Do you
5 solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about
6 to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
7 but the truth?
8 DEBRA FARMER: I do.
9 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Okay. Thank
10 you very much. Let's ask Mr. Kawashima to proceed with
11 questioning.
12 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: Thank you,
13 Representative Saiki.
14 EXAMINATION
15 BY SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA:
16 Q. Please state your name and business address,
17 ma'am.
18 A. Debra Farmer, 637 18th Avenue, Honolulu,
19 Hawaii, 96816.
20 Q. And that is the address of the Department of
21 Education?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And how long have you been with the
24 department, ma'am?
25 A. Approximately 16 years.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
155
1 Q. And your present position with the department
2 is what?
3 A. Administrator of the special education
4 section.
5 Q. As administrator of the special education
6 section, what are your duties?
7 A. It is to ensure the provision of services for
8 special education students in the State of Hawaii, the
9 implementation of IDEA as well as Chapter 56.
10 Q. Those are broad explanations, right?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. What kinds --
13 A. Because there's a lot that comes under it.
14 Q. Well, please, endeavor to tell us --
15 A. What some of those --
16 Q. -- what you consider to be the important
17 ones.
18 A. Okay. Let me start by saying we need to
19 interpret the federal law. We developed a Chapter 56,
20 which is our administrative rules for the State of
21 Hawaii. Under those rules, we ensure that there are
22 procedural safeguards for parents in that we have a
23 complaints process, a due process, a fair hearing
24 process.
25 We also have established a data system which
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
156
1 we all know as ISPED. We also work through IEP or
2 Individualized Education Program issues, how to develop
3 an IEP, how to facilitate a meeting, how to encourage
4 partnership with parents at those meetings.
5 We also have the evaluation process for
6 identified children. In that, we also have the
7 obligation for Child Find, which we currently have our
8 Operation Search that's on our two-week statewide
9 campaign, our preschool program for special needs
10 children from three to five.
11 I think those are the high points.
12 Q. All right. To whom do you report in your
13 position?
14 A. Bob Golden.
15 Q. Now, you were here, I believe, Ms. Farmer,
16 the entire time -- it was a matter of hours, but -- the
17 entire time that Mr. Golden testified today?
18 A. I was.
19 Q. And I realize it was a fairly long time, a
20 lot of questions, a lot of answers?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. But is there anything, as you sit here today,
23 that Mr. Golden testified to that kind of stuck out --
24 sticks out in your mind as something that you would
25 dispute or disagree with? I'm not suggesting there is.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
157
1 I'm just asking.
2 A. No, I don't think so.
3 Q. All right. Now, you were in that meeting,
4 then, in May of 2000 where this matter of the targeted
5 technical assistance was raised?
6 A. I was.
7 Q. And it was raised by, I believe, the court
8 monitor, Ivor Groves?
9 A. It was, yes.
10 Q. From that meeting, I understand that people
11 were sent away to think about how they would implement
12 it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And were you working with Mr. Golden in
15 trying to involve resource people that had knowledge of
16 the department already, such as Drs. Adelman and Taylor
17 from UCLA?
18 A. Right, I was in discussions with Mr. Golden.
19 Q. And with -- I'm sorry. With whom?
20 A. Mr. Golden.
21 Q. All right. Did you actually do any of the
22 contacting of these individuals, though?
23 A. I did not.
24 Q. What did you learn as to -- well, strike
25 that.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
158
1 You did not retain Drs. Adelman or Taylor to
2 assist you, did you?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. Do you know why?
5 A. Do I know why I didn't retain them?
6 Q. No, why the department didn't.
7 A. It's just through conversations with
8 Mr. Golden or what he had stated.
9 Q. I see. How about Na Laukoa, then, ma'am?
10 Does the information you have about that organization
11 come from Mr. Golden?
12 A. No, it does not.
13 Q. Where does it come from? Let me step back a
14 bit.
15 Before any contract was let, whether it be
16 through PREL or PREL and Na Laukoa, before that point in
17 time, what knowledge did you have about Na Laukoa?
18 A. I did not have any prior knowledge of
19 Na Laukoa. I just knew that they were a provider for
20 the Department of Health.
21 Q. Ma'am, would it be a fair -- strike that.
22 Were you at that presentation on July 7th?
23 A. I was not. I could not make that meeting.
24 Q. Were you at the meeting on July 6th where
25 matters about how the processes would be set up and what
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
159
1 procedures would be followed -- these sort of things
2 were discussed?
3 A. I don't believe so, no.
4 Q. What then would have been your first
5 involvement with Na Laukoa?
6 A. My first involvement with Na Laukoa, it was
7 later as the contract was already -- no, I take that
8 back. When discussions about Na Laukoa -- I was in
9 discussions with Department of Health personnel about
10 Na Laukoa about whether they were suitable for this
11 task; and that was later on, maybe in July or August.
12 Q. July or August of 2000?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. Do you know that a contract was let to PREL?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. In August of 19 -- I'm sorry -- August of
17 2000?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. And I think the date we looked at or we
20 talked about -- does August 28th sound right to you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So, it was before the contract was actually
23 entered into?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Do you -- why was that that you were
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
160
1 discussing this matter before the contract was entered
2 into?
3 A. Because those discussions to use Na Laukoa
4 was already on the table or was discussed in the
5 department.
6 Q. Were you -- strike that.
7 I assume you were aware of Mr. Golden's
8 displeasure or nonrecommendation of that organization?
9 A. I was.
10 Q. And I assume he expressed to you why he could
11 not recommend that organization to the department?
12 A. He did.
13 Q. And you -- did you have any reason to dispute
14 his opinions?
15 A. I didn't.
16 Q. You mentioned Department of Health people.
17 Do you recall whom you talked with?
18 A. Yes. It was Tina Donkervoet, the chief of
19 CAMD.
20 Q. And was that in the July or August of 2000
21 period before the contract was let?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And what was the nature of your conversation
24 or conversations with Ms. Donkervoet?
25 A. We discussed, first of all, how that provider
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
161
1 was doing as a provider under DOH's contract and whether
2 they could meet the task of targeted technical assist.
3 Q. And what -- well, strike that.
4 Were there any conclusions that were drawn
5 from those conversations?
6 A. Yes, we -- we had concerns.
7 Q. Why did you have concerns, ma'am?
8 A. Because Ms. Donkervoet shared that she would
9 be speaking with that provider on oversight for their
10 contract and we both concluded that we may not -- they
11 may not be able to meet the task of targeted technical
12 assistance. They didn't have the depth of knowledge
13 that was needed.
14 Q. Now, Ms. Farmer, understanding that this
15 organization was providing services for DOH on the one
16 hand -- is that correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. But now was going to provide services for
19 DOE --
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. -- but were those services the same type of
22 services, though?
23 A. No, they were not.
24 Q. Then how would, in your opinion, the
25 information you were getting from DOH cross over to DOE
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
162
1 when Na Laukoa was purporting or offering to do work for
2 DOE?
3 A. Right. The services for DOH was direct
4 services to children. The services that would be for
5 DOE would not be to children. It would be to complex or
6 school-level people on technical assistance directly
7 related to compliance for service testing.
8 The concerns were depth of knowledge in
9 areas, also follow-through, administrative overview,
10 oversight, that type of thing. That's what our -- my
11 concern was.
12 Q. And those areas, depth of knowledge,
13 administrative oversight, were areas that, in your
14 opinion, would impact on Na Laukoa's proposed work for
15 the Department of Education?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. It appears, then, that Ms. Donkervoet was
18 involved with the oversight of Na Laukoa in its work for
19 the DOH?
20 A. Yes, she was.
21 Q. Who was -- to your knowledge, who was
22 supposed to provide oversight of Na Laukoa in its work
23 for the DOE, assuming it did work for DOE?
24 A. It would be the program manager.
25 Q. Who would that have been?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
163
1 A. That was Doug Houck.
2 Q. Do you have an understanding as to whether or
3 not having Mr. -- Dr. Houck be the oversight person of
4 Na Laukoa in the work that it did for DOE would have
5 been something that would have been assigned to him in
6 the normal course of his duties as opposed to it being a
7 special assignment?
8 A. I'm not sure if it would be a normal
9 occurrence in his duties, but it was assigned to him.
10 Q. I understand that, ma'am.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. In your opinion, based on your years of
13 experience at the department, to which person or
14 position would the organization have been directed to
15 for oversight?
16 A. It's usually where the funding comes from.
17 Q. And where would that have been?
18 A. That was in my section, special education.
19 Q. And Mr. Golden's section?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. But neither Mr. Golden nor yourself provided
22 any oversight on this contract with PREL that included
23 Na Laukoa?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. There's been testimony, ma'am, about
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
164
1 telephone calls you received from the superintendent.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And what were you asked to do in these
4 telephone calls with regard to Na Laukoa?
5 A. Do trainings in IDEA, Chapter 56, do
6 trainings in service testing. I met several times and
7 critiqued the various TACs on their plan for the
8 different complexes. We also met with Na Laukoa and
9 PREL several -- weekly, it seemed, at first to work out
10 what TAC -- what type of TAC their credentials would be
11 appropriate for which complex. It was quite
12 time-consuming.
13 Q. In the nature of what -- what amount of time
14 are you talking about, ma'am, a week, a month, two
15 months, your regular time?
16 A. Right. In the beginning, it was one or
17 two -- twice a week; and then it would last for either
18 half a day or all day, meetings. The trainings that
19 needed to be provided, I had to pull staff to go and do
20 trainings for IDEA, Chapter 56, service testing, IEP
21 development, things that -- technical assistance
22 expertise that was needed for them to help the
23 respective schools.
24 Q. Would it be a fair statement, Ms. Farmer,
25 that, in lay terms, essentially what you were being
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
165
1 asked to do was to teach Na Laukoa how to do their job?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you suggest to the superintendent that
4 this is what you were ending up doing?
5 A. No, I did not tell him that. I conveyed that
6 to my supervisor.
7 Q. And that was Mr. Golden?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you notice that after you conveyed that
10 to your supervisor, at some point in time -- brief point
11 in time after that, the telephone calls from the
12 superintendent started to either slow down or stop?
13 A. I don't recall if they slowed down or
14 stopped, but then we had a meeting to address my
15 concern.
16 Q. And what came of the -- strike that.
17 Who was at that meeting, ma'am?
18 A. Mr. Golden, Diane Oshiro and Pat Hamamoto and
19 myself.
20 Q. And what was the outcome of that meeting, to
21 your knowledge?
22 A. Basically that I would write a letter to the
23 superintendent asking to be removed from the management
24 team, which I was a part of, and that -- because it took
25 away from my obligations under IDEA as well as the Felix
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
166
1 Consent Decree in moving the state forward.
2 Q. Did you know, Ms. Farmer, that one of the
3 bases for the superintendent justifying going outside of
4 the department was that he didn't want people in the
5 department, such as you, who had a day job to do any
6 extra work related to targeted technical assistance?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what was happening, though, ma'am, was
9 the exact opposite, was it not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, what happened after you sent the letter?
12 A. I was -- I believe I spoke to the
13 superintendent. He basically then told me to -- you
14 know, that I didn't need to participate in the
15 management team and that there was only minimal contact
16 with the TACs or with PREL or Na Laukoa. So, he granted
17 my letter.
18 Q. Do you know if the work that you were doing
19 was assigned to anyone else in the department?
20 A. I don't know that, no.
21 Q. Now, in -- you didn't actually have a
22 conversation then with the superintendent about it. It
23 was a letter?
24 A. No, no. I spoke to him after he received the
25 letter.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
167
1 Q. I'm sorry.
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And you explained to him essentially what
4 you've told us today?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. And what was his reaction to that?
7 A. I think he was concerned that so much -- so
8 much of my time was being spent in servicing or giving
9 technical assistance. And as you had said, he did not
10 want that to happen; and he understood.
11 Q. Was -- did he appear surprised that Na Laukoa
12 was so deficient in its performance or its abilities?
13 A. Did he appear surprised? No, he didn't
14 appear -- no, but that would be a judgment call on my
15 part.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, you know, as a result --
17 well, strike that.
18 You do know that the program, if we might
19 call it, of providing targeted technical assistance
20 essentially was a failure?
21 A. Well, I think that's a subjective response.
22 I know -- what I do know -- the fact that I do know is
23 that three of the fifteen complexes that were -- had
24 TACs did pass service testing.
25 Q. Three --
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
168
1 A. Three of the fifteen, Kaiser, Aiea, and --
2 and --
3 Q. McKinley?
4 A. No, McKinley didn't have a TAC. Kaiser,
5 Aiea, and -- let me get my little -- Leilehua, Leilehua.
6 The other --
7 Q. Kaiser -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
8 I didn't mean to cut -- talk over you.
9 A. The -- now, I don't know if I can attribute
10 that to the TACs or I can attribute that to DOE, DOH
11 working hard. I don't know what I can attribute that
12 to. All I know is those three passed. The others still
13 have not. So --
14 Q. Do you recall Dr. Houck telling you that this
15 technical assistance was not working out, that it should
16 be allowed to die a natural death?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And do you remember telling that to
19 Mr. Golden?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. You disagreed with Dr. Houck?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 Q. Did you, at any time in your discussions with
24 the superintendent, ask him whether or not he had any
25 relationship with anyone at Na Laukoa who was a part of
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
169
1 Na Laukoa?
2 A. Did I ask --
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. -- the superintendent that?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. No, I didn't ask the superintendent that.
7 Q. Do you have knowledge from anyone?
8 A. I don't have personal knowledge, no.
9 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: All right.
10 That's all I have. Thank you.
11 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Okay. Thank
12 you very much.
13 We'll proceed with Members' questions at this
14 point, and we will be invoking the ten-minute rule for
15 members. We would like to begin with Senator Kokubun.
16 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: Thank you,
17 Co-Chair Saiki.
18 EXAMINATION
19 BY VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN:
20 Q. I wanted to inquire about this Office of
21 Special Education Programs. It's a federal program.
22 Can you explain --
23 A. It's a federal office.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. It's called OSEP, Office of Special Education
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
170
1 Programs. It's in Washington, D.C. That's what we call
2 "the feds" and they monitor and have oversight over all
3 states and they release federal funds to each state if
4 they're in compliance with IDEA.
5 Q. And are these funds different than what we
6 were talking about earlier about the federal impact
7 funds?
8 A. Yes, they're different.
9 Q. So, OSEP doesn't have any oversight over the
10 federal impact funds?
11 A. Not that I know of.
12 Q. Okay. What's the function of OSEP relative
13 to -- well, I guess, compliance with IDEA; is that
14 the --
15 A. Yes, yes. They have a five-year cycle where
16 they monitor states -- they physically monitor states
17 every five years. We have been monitored -- our last
18 time was in February of this year.
19 In between that time, they do a paper
20 monitoring where we must assure that we meet all parts
21 of IDEA; and that's how we receive our federal funds.
22 Q. Do they look specifically into compliance? I
23 mean, is that the function?
24 A. Yes, they do.
25 Q. Now, how would that coincide with what is
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
171
1 going on now with the Consent Decree?
2 A. The Federal Government or OSEP is very
3 separate from the Federal Court, and they make that
4 distinction. And we have been compliant with IDEA -- we
5 have -- let me take -- rephrase that.
6 We have never been noncompliant with IDEA
7 under OSEP. The State of Hawaii has always received
8 their federal funds. If they had found instances where
9 they had concerns, the state immediately addressed those
10 concerns; and we were found back into compliance. And
11 so, there was never a time when we were ever threatened
12 to re -- to not receive our federal funding. So, in
13 their eyes, we have been compliant.
14 Q. So, how does that -- you know, it seems so
15 contradictory in a sense, I guess. Maybe you can
16 explain to me how we're found in compliance by one
17 federal office and how the courts assume -- I guess,
18 through the federal judge is found to be noncomplaint?
19 A. Right. You know, when OSEP was here in
20 February, I know the auditor's office met with them. I
21 know many people tried to meet with them to ask -- try
22 and get answers to that very question. I don't know if
23 we can answer that.
24 They are separate from the court system, the
25 Federal Court system. And the state, back in '94,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
172
1 agreed to this Consent Decree. OSEP will tell you,
2 "That was your decision and we don't want to interfere
3 with a state's decision-making power." I think that's
4 maybe a legal question that is better answered by the AG
5 because I can't answer that myself.
6 Q. Can you give me an idea about the scale of
7 funding that --
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. -- the federal funding?
10 A. Last year, we received $50 million from the
11 Federal Government. This year, we're re -- we have
12 received 23 million. This is in Part B funds. That's
13 from 5 to 20. Our preschool, 3 to 5, we traditionally
14 receive approximately about $2 million yearly.
15 Q. Okay. Now, that's just for the DOE or is
16 that for the state -- is that for the DOH?
17 A. DOH receives no federal funds out of IDEA.
18 Q. Okay. I wanted to follow up on some
19 questions regarding the training that you were providing
20 to Na Laukoa.
21 A. Sure.
22 Q. Were you providing training to any other
23 provider?
24 A. Not from the state level. The districts
25 might have been. If they had trainings on IEP, they
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
173
1 might have invited their provider agencies to that
2 training; but at the state level, we were not.
3 Q. Okay. So, that distinguishes Na Laukoa from
4 any other kind of provider that you would provide
5 training to?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. I wanted to ask about service testing as
8 well.
9 A. Sure.
10 Q. I'm trying to get a clear understanding of
11 how this service testing model was developed; and there
12 was previous comments about Dr. Groves being a part of
13 that development of that service testing model. Can you
14 provide some insight on that?
15 A. I'll try. This is Dr. Groves' tool. He,
16 with Dr. Ray Foster, who also is employed by Dr. Groves,
17 developed this tool. It was piloted -- huh, I'm
18 thinking back in '95 time frame. It was piloted in
19 several complexes.
20 There were some adjustments made to that tool
21 at that time, and then he deemed that it would be
22 statewide. And the 85 percent compliance would be what
23 he has set as the monitor to -- for complexes to receive
24 compliance.
25 Now, there are two protocols. There's the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
174
1 school based as well as the coordinated services. The
2 school based is for more low-end kids that can be
3 managed at the school level while coordinated services
4 are for the high-end multiagency -- they're usually
5 out-of-home placement. They may be on the Mainland.
6 They may be -- you know, not managed at the school
7 level.
8 Q. And who owns this service testing tool? Is
9 there a copyright on it? Do you know?
10 A. It has his company name on it.
11 Q. Uh-huh.
12 A. Who owns it? I don't know who owns it.
13 Q. Okay. But the copyright is by --
14 A. His company.
15 Q. -- his company.
16 A. From Florida.
17 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: That's it for
18 me. Thank you.
19 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Okay.
20 Members, we've been going for about an hour; and we
21 would like to take a five-minute break and give our
22 court reporter a break. Thank you. We'll reconvene in
23 five minutes. Thank you.
24 (Recess from 1:46 p.m. to 1:55 p.m.)
25 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
175
1 Members, we would like to reconvene our hearing; and
2 we'll proceed with Members' questions.
3 And, Ms. Farmer, please remember that you're
4 still under oath.
5 THE WITNESS: I will. Thank you.
6 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
7 Representative Oshiro followed by Senator Buen.
8 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO: Thank you,
9 Co-Chair.
10 EXAMINATION
11 BY VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO:
12 Q. I just wanted to get some clarification on
13 some of the discussions you said you had with -- I think
14 it was a Ms. Donkervoet over at the Department of
15 Health?
16 A. Right, Tina Donkervoet.
17 Q. Okay. During the questioning from
18 Mr. Kawashima, I think you identified three areas of
19 concern you had, them being the depth of knowledge, the
20 administrative oversight, and the follow-through of the
21 Na Laukoa program; is that correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Okay. When it comes to the depth of
24 knowledge, particularly the CSSS program, do you know if
25 they had any sort of knowledge or any idea what that was
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
176
1 or what was involved in that kind of directive?
2 A. They didn't -- from my dealings with them, I
3 don't believe they had complete knowledge of CSSS. They
4 were -- in the presentations or in service, we were
5 explaining how -- the six levels of care and what CSSS
6 is, how special ed and 504 is part of that. So, I think
7 their knowledge was minimal.
8 Q. Okay. And, also, earlier you had stated that
9 you had to train them about -- and I believe the
10 acronyms you used were IDEA, IEP, and Section 56; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Chapter 56.
13 Q. Chapter 56.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you explain for us briefly what each of
16 those components are?
17 A. Sure. IDEA is the Individuals with
18 Disabilities Education Act. That's the federal law that
19 was reauthorized in 1997. From that, we developed -- at
20 each state was developed their own rules and
21 regulations. That is what Chapter 56 is.
22 In Chapter 56, it mirrors IDEA almost.
23 There's some areas where we go beyond IDEA because, as a
24 state, we chose to do that.
25 And IEP is the Individualized Education
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
177
1 Program. For every special education child, that
2 program needs to be developed.
3 Q. Okay. And you had earlier stated that you
4 essentially had to train them as to what each of these
5 components were in terms of their role as providing
6 technical assistance?
7 A. Correct, because they would be providing
8 technical assistance to complexes that were either weak
9 in several of these areas, that needed more support,
10 more explanation in these areas. So, they needed to be
11 up on what this information was.
12 Q. Uh-huh. And can you describe for us what was
13 involved in this kind of, I guess, quote, unquote,
14 "training" that you had to provide to them in terms
15 of -- I think earlier you had stated it would be
16 meetings for a day or a half a day. What would be
17 involved in those meetings? Would it be a lot of memo
18 writing or just discussions or what kind of training did
19 you actually have to give to them or what kind of
20 resources did you have to provide to them?
21 A. The training part was done by my staff on
22 IDEA, 56, service testing, things like that. The -- so,
23 I had to pull my staff off to do that type of training.
24 The technical assistance that I gave to the
25 TACs, they were instructed to write a plan for the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
178
1 complex that they were assigned to. So, I critiqued
2 that plan often and questioned them vigorously on where
3 they were going. When I identified that they did not
4 have a certain skill, I, you know, talked to PREL about
5 that they needed to have a skill developed.
6 Q. Okay. And just to be really, I guess,
7 forthright or blunt, what did the people or the
8 coordinators at Na Laukoa know? If you had to provide
9 them all of this kind of information, what did they
10 already know or possess that you didn't have to train
11 them?
12 A. Excuse me. I ask your patience. I'm getting
13 over a cold.
14 Q. Oh, take your time.
15 A. I was hoping this wasn't going to happen,
16 but -- your question was: What did they know?
17 Q. Yeah. I mean, considering that you had to
18 teach them or train them about IDEA, IEP, Chapter 56,
19 about all of the parts of providing technical
20 assistance, what areas of technical assistance were they
21 already familiar with or did they already know such that
22 you didn't have to train them?
23 A. I assume that they knew areas of mental
24 health since they were mental health providers. What
25 they lacked in was educational knowledge.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
179
1 Q. Thank you. Just briefly, you also mentioned
2 a couple of other areas of concerns you had, one being
3 administrative oversight; and the second being
4 follow-through. Can you explain or detail a little bit
5 more what was the basis for those concerns?
6 A. That was in discussions with Tina Donkervoet.
7 She shared that those were some of the challenges that
8 Na Laukoa was having with their contract with Department
9 of Health, follow-through, the oversight by the
10 coordinator or director of that provider agency with
11 their therapist; and so -- those were in conversations
12 with Tina.
13 Q. Okay. And moving on to another area, I think
14 if -- you were here for the testimony by Mr. Golden that
15 there had been some questions about -- I think it was
16 $116,000 in travel expenses; and he at that time didn't
17 have any idea what purpose would be fulfilled by such an
18 expense.
19 Do you, in the short time that you were
20 overseeing the Na Laukoa project, anticipate or see any
21 need for this $116,000 in travel expenses?
22 A. I did not get into the financial aspect other
23 than the money moving over. That was between PREL and
24 the program manager. So, I don't know what that
25 money -- how it was justified.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
180
1 Q. Okay. And, lastly, I just wanted to get some
2 clarification. I think when you were wrapping up your
3 testimony your -- with Mr. Kawashima earlier, you had
4 said something about Dr. Houck telling you that the
5 targeted technical assistance should, quote, "die a
6 natural death" or something to that effect. Can you
7 explain a little bit more?
8 A. Dr. Houck and I had discussions and I had
9 voiced some concerns of whether we were going to
10 continue this or whether we should end it and that's
11 when he said, "It should just die a natural death."
12 Q. And approximately what date or time was this
13 discussion with Dr. Houck? Was it after the contract
14 had already been --
15 A. Oh, yes, it was well after, well after. It
16 was in 2001.
17 Q. Oh.
18 A. Yeah, it was well after.
19 Q. Okay. And in terms of the letter that you
20 had written to Superintendent LeMahieu in terms of
21 asking for a withdrawal from the board for oversight,
22 what was the date of that letter and his decision?
23 A. The date?
24 Q. Well, just an approximation.
25 A. Well, it was -- must have been about October,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
181
1 October -- it was in the fall. It was in the fall
2 sometime. I don't know if it was Oct -- in the fall
3 sometime. And his decision was in the affirmative to
4 allow me to remove myself from that and concentrate on
5 the special education section.
6 Q. So, about -- what is your estimation on how
7 long of a duration you were actually actively
8 participating in the oversight of the program?
9 A. I need to clarify. I wasn't -- I wasn't
10 on -- having oversight over the program. I was a
11 participant -- an active participant in assisting them,
12 in critiquing the TACs, and in training the TACs; and I
13 say that must have lasted about -- a few months, like,
14 three, four months.
15 Q. But typically, though -- I think you had
16 summarized this earlier -- had you not been providing,
17 quote, unquote, "training" for them, part of your role
18 or the role of Mr. Golden would have been to do
19 oversight for such providers of technical assistance?
20 A. No. We didn't provide that technical
21 assistance for other providers. I said the districts
22 might. The districts might include them in trainings
23 that they have or meetings that they have; but at the
24 state level, we didn't provide that assistance for any
25 provider.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
182
1 Q. Okay. Who has that role of oversight of --
2 who had the role of oversight for Na Laukoa?
3 A. Dr. Houck. He was the program manager.
4 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO: Okay.
5 Thank you.
6 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you,
7 Representative Oshiro. Senator Buen followed by
8 Representative Kawakami.
9 SENATOR BUEN: Thank you, Co-Chair.
10 EXAMINATION
11 BY SENATOR BUEN:
12 Q. Ms. Farmer, can you tell me, I guess, when
13 was the contract with Na Laukoa signed?
14 A. I'm not sure. I didn't develop that
15 contract, but I believe it was in August sometime.
16 Q. August of 2000?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. So, it's been about a year since that
19 contract was signed; and for that year, there were about
20 two to four months that you provided training to
21 Na Laukoa?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Can you tell me, what were they paid for that
24 year's contract?
25 A. I don't know. I don't know what they were
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
183
1 paid because I didn't execute the contract.
2 Q. Can you tell me who knows that?
3 A. I would imagine PREL. PREL executed the
4 contract with Na Laukoa.
5 Q. Would you know that -- if this was federal or
6 state money?
7 A. It was impact aid -- Federal Impact Aid
8 money.
9 Q. Do you know -- what's the status of that
10 contract today?
11 A. I believe it's still ongoing until the end of
12 October.
13 Q. And do you know if that contract is going to
14 be renewed?
15 A. I don't know if it's going to be renewed. I
16 don't --
17 Q. Who decides that? Who will decide whether
18 that contract is to be renewed?
19 A. I guess it would be the superintendent.
20 Q. The superintendent. Would you know of any
21 other provider that you feel may be qualified to do the
22 job that Na Laukoa is presently doing?
23 A. Are you talking about mental health provider?
24 Q. Mental -- yeah.
25 A. I don't know if I agree that any mental
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
184
1 health provider is qualified because the issues we're
2 asking them are educational issues. We are asking them
3 to work with the schools on educational issues. I don't
4 believe any mental health provider might be qualified.
5 Q. When the training was discontinued after you
6 got an affirmative answer from Dr. LeMahieu, do you
7 believe that at that time that training was
8 discontinued, that Na Laukoa now was ready to provide
9 the services that they were supposed to?
10 A. I think some TACs might have had a basic
11 understanding of what was needed. I think other TACs
12 might have still needed more support.
13 Q. So, you feel that they were not really quite
14 ready to do what they were supposed to do?
15 A. I believe that they needed -- some needed
16 more support, in my opinion.
17 SENATOR BUEN: Thank you.
18 Thank you, Co-Chair.
19 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you,
20 Senator Buen. Representative Kawakami followed by
21 Senator Sakamoto.
22 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: Thank you, Co-Chair
23 Saiki.
24 *
25 *
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
185
1 EXAMINATION
2 BY REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI:
3 Q. Ms. Farmer, I wanted to ask, can you
4 articulate for us the new methodology for calculating
5 the number of special ed teachers in schools?
6 A. Sure. I'll try to do that. It's based on
7 where the special ed student is -- according to their
8 IEP, the placement of where they are and the support
9 that is needed in that placement.
10 That -- that way to count is figured into a
11 formula for the enrollment count, and that generates
12 three numbers. It generates how many special ed
13 teachers that school would receive, how many additional
14 regular ed teachers to assist with specially designed
15 instruction in the regular ed class of special ed
16 students, and educational assistance. The educational
17 assistance and the special ed teacher is the same count.
18 Q. Okay. So, would you say that if you had a
19 lot of special ed children, the count would be the same?
20 A. The same as what?
21 Q. As the regular teacher, as you said?
22 A. I don't understand the question.
23 Q. So, if you're using IEPs to wait, how is that
24 number arrived at, the total number of special ed versus
25 regular ed?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
186
1 A. This is regular ed over and above their
2 regular ed count. This is not the regular ed count that
3 they get for their school. This is what we consider
4 Article 6 to deliver specially designed instructions.
5 Q. So, you're getting -- they're getting "X"
6 number of regular ed teachers also? Is that what you're
7 saying?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Okay. Who audits the IEPS for accuracy, for
10 accountability, et cetera?
11 A. Who audits it? Well, we have a monitor -- a
12 statewide monitoring, if you're asking for that, or --
13 but I hear you're asking for something else.
14 Q. No, I want to know how -- how do you know how
15 accurate an IEP is in a school?
16 A. The IEP team makes that decision of how
17 accurate it is dependent on the needs of that student.
18 Q. Have you found -- and I say this because if I
19 knew you could get more positions, would there be a
20 possibility of manipulating that?
21 A. Of course. There's always a possibility.
22 Q. Have there been cases that you know of?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. I asked you that because I've heard of
25 cases. What have you done about it?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
187
1 A. We contacted the schools. We contacted the
2 districts. We brought it to their attention. If --
3 it's being handled by leadership, Pat Hamamoto, and the
4 district superintendent and that individual principal.
5 We may send people to review our baseline
6 data, which was done around this time -- well, a little
7 later, around November of last year, and what's
8 currently in the IEP now. We're not making judgment
9 calls of whether that IEP for that individual child is
10 correct or not. We're just making a call on the
11 staffing for that school.
12 Q. That's what I'm getting at --
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. -- the total staffing because there's
15 discrepancy there. The other question I wanted to ask
16 is the SSCs --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. You hired a bunch this coming school
19 year?
20 A. I believe there was, yes.
21 Q. So, there's one in every school?
22 A. At least. Some larger schools have more.
23 Q. And how were they selected?
24 A. How were the larger schools selected?
25 Q. How did they select SSCs?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
188
1 A. The principal selected the SSC.
2 Q. Okay. The schools -- individuals schools
3 selected them?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. Okay. My understanding is there's some who
6 will work 12 months of the year and others not. Why is
7 that?
8 A. Well, one allocated to every school needs to
9 work 12 months a year.
10 Q. Why do they have to work 12 months a year?
11 A. Because that's a court benchmark.
12 Q. But if there's no students in school, why are
13 they working 12 months? Who are they teaching?
14 A. Because they're work -- they're not teaching
15 anybody.
16 Q. Who are they overseeing? What are they there
17 for?
18 A. I know. They're there to input into ISPED.
19 They're there to -- in case a referral comes in, they're
20 the single point of entry. They're there to manage the
21 records.
22 Remember, there they're for all kids, not
23 just special ed kids. So, they're our single point of
24 entry for 504 as well as special ed children. So, there
25 has to be one SSC at every school that is 12 months.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
189
1 Now, if a larger school has more than one SSC, not all
2 of them will be 12 months, just one.
3 Q. Okay. So, you're saying, if I had six
4 students -- six in special ed, then I would still have
5 an SSC on board 12 months?
6 A. Yes, that was a court benchmark.
7 Q. And you're saying this is the court's
8 benchmark?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. It does not make sense to me that they're
11 paid $85,000 and they work 12 months.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Some of them with six kids or ten kids. It's
14 not right. What are we going to do about it?
15 A. Well, I think maybe the Leg should take that
16 up with the court monitor or the judge because that is a
17 benchmark. And I can refer you to which benchmark it
18 is.
19 Q. What number is it?
20 A. It's benchmark -- actually 1, "12-month
21 funding for identified student SSC positions will begin"
22 June -- "July 1st, 2000." It's Benchmark 1,
23 Paragraph 58 in the document.
24 Q. Paragraph -- okay.
25 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: Okay. That's all I
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
190
1 have. Thank you.
2 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you,
3 Representative Kawakami. Senator Sakamoto followed by
4 Representative Leong.
5 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Thank you, Chair.
6 EXAMINATION
7 BY SENATOR SAKAMOTO:
8 Q. Just following up on that -- on the last line
9 of questioning, it didn't specifically say the SSC had
10 to be one per school, did it?
11 A. In the write-up it did. I believe this is
12 just -- in the write-up it did, in the complete document
13 that went to court.
14 Q. That wouldn't be subject to the Legislature
15 because we're not part of the Consent Decree, right?
16 I guess your -- one of your previous answers
17 was possibly that's something for the Legislature to
18 consider. So, I'm trying to clarify, since the
19 Legislature is not part of the Consent Decree, isn't it
20 someone either in your shop or in the AG's shop that
21 would need to come to a revised agreement if, indeed, 6,
22 60, or 600, one, one, one -- doesn't make sense? Isn't
23 that more in DOE's court?
24 A. DOE or the AG's, I guess, you're correct; but
25 these benchmarks have been agreed to by the state.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
191
1 Q. I'm not disagreeing with that. Okay. Well,
2 let me change the line then.
3 When you were involved with the technical
4 assistance teams, is there one technical assistance
5 person per complex?
6 A. Only 15 complexes. Not every complex got
7 one.
8 Q. Okay. So, in the contract, each of the 15
9 had a person and --
10 A. I take that back. Sometimes it was a
11 part-time or was half a person depending on the needs of
12 the complex. It may not have been a full-time person.
13 Q. Okay. And who would -- who would say they're
14 doing their job, they're not doing their job, they
15 should get paid, they're not showing up, they're showing
16 up? Who makes those management decisions?
17 A. Their immediate supervisor.
18 Q. Who would be?
19 A. Na Laukoa.
20 Q. Which is under the PREL contract; but who --
21 from the side of the system that is receiving the
22 so-called assistance, who makes the determination,
23 satisfactory or not satisfactory?
24 A. Are you saying that -- who from the complexes
25 would say whether they were pleased with the service?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
192
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. Principals might call in, teachers, district
3 superintendents. District educational specialists would
4 make comments whether they were pleased or not.
5 Q. To Mr. Golden or to you?
6 A. To many people.
7 Q. Well, who formally should they have responded
8 to?
9 A. I suppose formally they should have responded
10 to the superintendent.
11 Q. So, I -- so, all contracts -- all people
12 should respond to the superintendent?
13 A. No -- well -- no, they should respond to the
14 program manager.
15 Q. Which would be?
16 A. Doug Houck.
17 Q. In the specific case on this contract, Doug
18 Houck should get the response from complex principals
19 that "my technical assistance person is doing a great
20 job" or somewhere in between?
21 A. Sure, sure.
22 Q. Okay. And who would determine if they get
23 paid or not?
24 A. Na Laukoa since Na Laukoa subcontracts to the
25 TACs.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
193
1 Q. So, Mr. Houck would sign off saying they're
2 due their next payment for completing services?
3 A. I don't know what process Doug used.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. So, I can't comment if that's what he did.
6 Q. Okay. So, someone else should know?
7 A. I guess Doug would know if he did that or
8 not.
9 Q. Okay. Changing to a different line, several
10 times, impact aid funds have been mentioned.
11 A. Right.
12 Q. It's my understanding that when we have
13 federal employees, military dependents, people working
14 on a federal basis, formulas are used to determine how
15 much impact aid our state would receive?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Is any of that specifically earmarked for
18 special education?
19 A. I'm not sure if it's specifically earmarked
20 for special ed.
21 Q. In the formula, there is an allowance for
22 special education. So, that would increase or decrease
23 based on how many special education children are marked
24 off?
25 A. Uh-huh.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
194
1 Q. But at least it's my understanding that the
2 money used to come to the general fund and the
3 department would get their budget based on an estimated
4 impact aid from the Federal Government. Do you -- is
5 that -- do you --
6 A. From the Federal Government or from the
7 Governor?
8 Q. Well, it used to come -- well, my
9 understanding, before the Legislature changed the law
10 recently, impact aid money used to come directly to the
11 general fund. Upon changing the law, the impact aid
12 money now goes to the Department of Education.
13 A. I'm not sure how I got the impact aid. It
14 just came into the section.
15 Q. Okay. Okay. So, the money that's
16 specifically from IDEA, the up to 40 percent, IDEA law
17 says the Federal Government will reimburse dollars for
18 special education over and above the regular education
19 costs up to 40 percent of that cost?
20 A. Correct, but that is not impact aid.
21 Q. No, I'm changing --
22 A. Okay. You're changing the subject. Okay.
23 Q. Because you weren't -- this is now on --
24 A. On IDEA funds.
25 Q. -- on IDEA -- on the up to 40 percent.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
195
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. And we've been receiving maybe 10 percent --
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. -- or in that neighborhood?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Is that the money that -- the OSEP money, is
7 that the money that they're saying you receive or not
8 receive or is that something else?
9 A. No, that's the money that I'm talking about
10 that we receive or not receive from OSEP.
11 Q. So, separate from impact aid, more related to
12 additional funds from IDEA, the Federal Government
13 maintains the lever on those funds?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And we're hoping that they would increase it
16 from the current levels higher so that we would get more
17 of those funds?
18 A. Correct.
19 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Okay. I just wanted to
20 clarify it. Thank you.
21 Thank you, Chair.
22 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you,
23 Senator Sakamoto. Representative Leong --
24 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG: Thank you, Chair
25 Saiki.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
196
1 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: -- followed
2 by Senator Slom.
3 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG: Thank you.
4 EXAMINATION
5 BY REPRESENTATIVE LEONG:
6 Q. When you talked about -- I think you
7 mentioned three complexes that passed, that got
8 compliance. You said Kaiser, Aiea, and Leilehua. Those
9 are three complexes, and they have the aide of the TAC?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Is that the same as the Na -- the same as
12 that Na --
13 A. Na Laukoa.
14 Q. Same as the --
15 A. Yes, it's from their --
16 Q. -- one and the same?
17 A. Yes, it's from their organization.
18 Q. And that means, then, that for our 15
19 complexes, that the rest does not get compliance; and
20 are they being assisted by the same organization, the
21 same group?
22 A. Yes, they are until the end of October.
23 Q. Until the end of October. Do you think that
24 they will get compliance?
25 A. Of course, they will.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
197
1 Q. I mean, we don't know; but, I mean, if
2 there's a doubt about their performance --
3 A. Well, you asked me if I think. I think
4 they're going to get compliance.
5 Q. You think they're going to get --
6 A. I am confident they're going to get
7 compliance.
8 Q. Okay. All right. So, they're working very
9 hard, diligently, on their --
10 A. They are working very hard.
11 Q. Okay. That's my question. And that would go
12 into effect for how long? How long will they be
13 operating?
14 A. Pardon me? You mean, the TACs?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Until the end of October. The contract runs
17 out in October.
18 Q. And all that money is being -- will be used
19 up by then?
20 A. Yes, I believe so.
21 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG: Thank you.
22 Thank you, Chair.
23 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you,
24 Representative Leong. Senator Slom followed by
25 Representative Marumoto.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
198
1 SENATOR SLOM: Thank you, Chair.
2 EXAMINATION
3 BY SENATOR SLOM:
4 Q. Ms. Farmer, just to clear up something for
5 me, that letter that was written to the superintendent
6 about taking you off the management committee, when was
7 that letter written again?
8 A. It was in the fall of 2000. I don't know the
9 date.
10 Q. Okay. It was in the fall. It was after the
11 July meetings, but you were not in attendance at those?
12 A. I was not.
13 Q. Okay. And whose idea was it to write that
14 letter?
15 A. It was at a meeting with Bob Golden, Diane
16 Oshiro, and Pat Hamamoto. I can't remember if it was
17 Diane Oshiro or Pat Hamamoto, but that was the consensus
18 at the end of that meeting that I should write that
19 letter.
20 Q. Did you raise any objections at that time?
21 A. You mean, in writing the letter?
22 Q. Uh-huh.
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you actually write the letter or did
25 someone suggest the language to be written?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
199
1 A. I wrote the letter.
2 Q. You wrote the letter. We were just talking
3 about the Kaiser complex. When did the Kaiser complex
4 come into compliance?
5 A. Kaiser was reviewed in January, 2001.
6 Q. Uh-huh.
7 A. They just recently did their compliance
8 presentation on September 11th, last week. So, they had
9 provisional compliance as of January, 2001 and they did
10 their compliance presentation last week and now they
11 have full compliance.
12 Q. There was a question earlier about
13 differences in compliance and acceptance and who makes a
14 decision. It was my understanding that, really, it's up
15 to the states. The states draft a letter or basically
16 say that they are in compliance?
17 A. I don't think it's the state. I think it's
18 ultimately the judge. The -- my understanding is the
19 monitor recommends compliance after the presentation,
20 and he gives the Plaintiffs' attorneys 30 days to
21 respond or bring up any objections to it.
22 If there are no objections, then, he
23 recommended -- recommends it to the Court; and from past
24 history, his recommendations have always held weight --
25 I mean, in the compliance. So, I assume that this one
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
200
1 would also follow.
2 Q. But I guess what I'm getting at is is
3 basically the compliance acceptance itself originates at
4 the state level rather than at OSEP? Is that a fair
5 statement?
6 A. Oh, I'm sorry. You're not talking about
7 Felix compliance. You're talking about compliance with
8 OSEP. I'm sorry. I'm on the wrong track here.
9 Q. Okay. Well, let's talk about both of them.
10 A. Okay.
11 Q. All right. In terms of OSEP, okay, where
12 does the compliance originate?
13 A. It originates from us, from the state. You
14 are correct.
15 Q. The state. Okay. And are you aware of any
16 state that actually has been denied funds?
17 A. I think I'm aware of some districts that have
18 been threatened funds removal, but no one -- I don't
19 know if they've followed through or -- you know,
20 followed through on any of them; but there's been some
21 that were threatened, yes.
22 Q. Because, again, it's been my understanding
23 that basically this is a pro forma, that if the state
24 says, in effect, that they are in compliance, that
25 that's good enough or has been good enough in terms of
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
201
1 funding, threats or no threats?
2 A. Except for every five years, they come and
3 specifically monitor us. Like, it was our five-year
4 cycle; and OSEP came this past February.
5 Q. Okay. And one final question: The training
6 that you did, that you directly participated in
7 yourself, was that done directly with the coordinator or
8 with other staff?
9 A. You mean, other of her staff?
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Yes, other of her staff.
12 Q. Did you do any training directly with her or
13 under her?
14 A. She was present during every training.
15 SENATOR SLOM: Okay. All right. Thank you,
16 Ms. Farmer. Thank you.
17 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you
18 very much, Senator Slom. Representative Marumoto has
19 passed. So, it's Co-Chair Hanabusa.
20 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you.
21 EXAMINATION
22 BY CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA:
23 Q. Ms. Farmer, you mentioned that you knew of
24 Ms. Stocksdale or Na Laukoa prior to the contract with
25 the Department of Education; is that correct?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
202
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And you said that they did something for the
3 Department of Health. Do you know exactly what they did
4 for the Department of Health, Na Laukoa and/or
5 Ms. Stocksdale, if they are two separate entities?
6 A. I believe they were an outpatient provider.
7 That's my limited knowledge of what they did.
8 Q. Let me ask you, what is an outpatient
9 provider?
10 A. They did -- for Felix class students, they
11 might have done an after-school program. They -- in
12 other words, they were not a residential facility. They
13 were not a -- they didn't address intensive-need
14 children. They were more an outpatient-type provider.
15 Q. Do you know for how long Na Laukoa provided
16 this outpatient service for the Department of Health?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Do you recall the first time that you heard
19 of Na Laukoa and/or Camille Stocksdale?
20 A. It was around the time that it came up that
21 they would be considered for targeted technical
22 assistance.
23 Q. So, prior to that time, you had not heard of
24 them?
25 A. No, I had not.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
203
1 Q. In your training of this organization, did
2 you ever have the opportunity to speak to Ms. Stocksdale
3 and learn more about her?
4 A. I've spoken to her before.
5 Q. Do you have any idea what her credentials are
6 in terms of training or education?
7 A. No, I don't.
8 Q. Do you know, for example, whether she has a
9 degree in education?
10 A. I don't know that.
11 Q. You don't know that?
12 A. (Witness shakes head.)
13 Q. Have you seen any document, I mean, you know,
14 that's made its way through the system that says this is
15 the resume of the coordinator that we're going to give
16 two-point-whatever-million dollars to? Have you seen
17 anything?
18 A. No, I have not.
19 Q. Have you heard of any discussions as to
20 whether -- what her qualifications are?
21 A. No.
22 Q. None at all. Do you know how many people she
23 had on staff at the time that you started to train her?
24 A. For this initiative?
25 Q. Yes.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
204
1 A. Well, the people that I've come in contact
2 with, there must have been about five or six.
3 Q. Was one of them Kimo -- I think his name was
4 Alameda?
5 A. Alameda, correct.
6 Q. And who were the others that --
7 A. Oh, I can't remember their names; but -- I
8 can't remember their names.
9 Q. Do you recall what kind of -- I mean,
10 Doctor -- I mean, Mr. Golden has testified that Kimo, I
11 believe, was a counselor before at the school that his
12 wife worked at.
13 How about the other five or six that you
14 trained? Do you know if they were teachers or if they
15 were counselors?
16 A. I don't know if they were teachers or
17 counselors. Kimo was the lead person that I was in
18 contact more often than ever with him.
19 Q. In your training of Na Laukoa, did you have a
20 sense that any of them had any inkling about what the
21 IDEA was or Chapter 56 or what the IEP process was?
22 A. Oh, I think they had an inkling; but I guess
23 the standard that I had held to be TAC, a targeted -- a
24 technical assistance for the complexes that obviously
25 were having difficulty, I expected more in-depth
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
205
1 knowledge of those areas because they needed to turn
2 around and assist the complexes that were struggling.
3 Q. And they did not have that in-depth knowledge
4 that you expected?
5 A. Not in education.
6 Q. You had a list in front of you where you said
7 three of the fifteen did pass; and you said Kaiser,
8 Aiea, Leilehua. And I believe Mr. Kawashima said
9 McKinley; and you said they were not provided --
10 A. They were not provided a TAC.
11 Q. Can you give us a list, if you have it before
12 you, of the 15 -- 14 or 15 complexes that were in need
13 of this special service and then tell us how many were
14 provided the TAC services?
15 A. I was trying to figure this out when I was
16 sitting there. I couldn't figure out the 15, but I will
17 give you the list of what I could figure out. Kaiser,
18 Leilehua, Kapolei, Aiea, Waianae, Kahuku, Waialua,
19 Mililani, Konawaena, Molokai, Kau, Kohala, Baldwin, and
20 Maui High complex. I couldn't figure out -- I believe
21 that's 14.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I couldn't figure out the 15th or it slipped
24 me, but three have passed so far.
25 Q. Are these the ones who have been provided
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
206
1 TAC?
2 A. Yes, these are the ones that have been
3 provided TACs.
4 Q. Have you had the opportunity to monitor or
5 come to a conclusion as to the extent of the services
6 that they provided to each and every one of these
7 locations?
8 A. No, I haven't. Now that I'm no longer
9 involved, I haven't monitored them.
10 Q. Is there anyone at the department who is
11 monitoring them?
12 A. You mean, like, monitoring the contract or
13 monitoring the effectiveness?
14 Q. Monitoring the contract -- right.
15 A. Again, I -- I guess it would be the program
16 manager. I'm not sure.
17 Q. I believe McKinley wasn't listed. Is there a
18 reason why?
19 A. These complexes were picked by the monitor
20 and he picked them because of their -- their extensive
21 needs; and he felt that these complexes needed
22 additional assistance, more than what the department
23 could provide. And that's why they fell into this
24 special group. McKinley was con -- not considered one
25 that needed more special assistance than the department
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
207
1 could provide.
2 Q. How about Hana?
3 A. No. See, I thought of -- it wasn't Hana. I
4 know -- and Lanai wasn't part of that either. So, I
5 know I'm missing one.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. Oh, Pahoa.
8 Q. Pahoa.
9 A. I'm hearing it's Pahoa.
10 Q. So, when we look at these -- I guess, these
11 lists, the various ones that we've seen, there's those
12 that have been in compliance, those that sort of are
13 marginal compliance, for lack of a better description,
14 and those that are like on the extreme right,
15 noncompliance. Are these in that -- or basically in
16 that far right-hand column?
17 A. These were the ones that were considered the
18 most needy by the monitor and needed additional
19 assistance.
20 Q. The magical November 1 deadline that we have,
21 are there any, quote, numbers of schools that we must
22 see in compliance by that day, according to your
23 understanding? Or do we -- must we see a shifting of,
24 like, schools from those that are not in compliance into
25 those marginal compliance? What's your understanding as
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
208
1 to what we must do by November 1?
2 A. By November 1, we need six more complexes to
3 reach provisional compliance. That would mean from
4 Waianae -- the new schedule -- the new schedule, before
5 November 1st, we have eight complexes that will be
6 reviewed. Out of those eight, six need to reach
7 provisional compliance. That means they must reach 85
8 percent in the various protocols -- monitoring
9 protocols.
10 Q. So, of this list -- for example, you
11 mentioned that Kaiser is in compliance now.
12 A. But that doesn't count to the six because we
13 already counted them.
14 Q. Oh, I see.
15 A. So, the -- I can read you the eight that's
16 coming up --
17 Q. Sure.
18 A. -- starting this week with Waialua complex,
19 Mililani; the week after, Kahuku, Maui High complex,
20 Roosevelt, Lahainaluna, Keaau, and Konawaena. Those are
21 eight complexes. Out of those eight, six must meet
22 provisional compliances.
23 Q. So, these complexes are not now in
24 provisional compliance?
25 A. No, they are not.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
209
1 Q. You were here during Mr. Golden's testimony.
2 He mentioned Drs. Taylor, Adelman, and Sugai basically
3 as people that -- or experts, consultants, that he felt
4 could have been consulted in terms of this targeted
5 technical assistance. Have you personally worked with
6 these individuals?
7 A. I have.
8 Q. Do you share his feeling that they could have
9 provided the targeted technical assistance for our
10 schools as well?
11 A. I think they could have provided the
12 conceptual basis. I think they could have guided many
13 of our personnel along. I don't believe they would have
14 rolled up their sleeves and actually gone out and worked
15 with the schools. I think they would have guided other
16 people to do that.
17 Q. Let me ask you this: Would you have had to
18 train them on IDEA, Chapter 56, and/or the IEP -- would
19 you have had to train them for three to four months as
20 you did Na Laukoa?
21 A. No.
22 Q. In fact, you consult with them, don't you?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. Now, the other thing that Mr. Golden
25 mentioned that I was curious about -- I don't know if
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
210
1 you recall his testimony when he said that he was told
2 basically to let the superintendent have his Na Laukoa
3 and just continue to do what he was doing because he had
4 those people that he felt could really assist their
5 peers, because they were principals in their own right,
6 in coming into compliance.
7 Have you ever had discussions like that with
8 Mr. Golden about, you know, just trying to help these
9 other schools get into compliance irrespective of
10 Na Laukoa?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. And do you know if, in fact, that did
13 continue, that you tried to get them to work -- giving
14 them assistance to come into compliance irrespective of
15 whether Na Laukoa is there or not?
16 A. That's right. We still did.
17 Q. You still did that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When Representative Leong asked you a
20 question about -- you know, that, in fact, they were out
21 there working and worked very hard for compliance and
22 that's why you believe everybody will be in compliance
23 by the end of October, were you referencing Na Laukoa's
24 efforts or the -- maybe all efforts including the ones
25 of everyone getting there and helping these schools into
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
211
1 compliance, irrespective of whether Na Laukoa was there
2 or not?
3 A. All efforts.
4 Q. All efforts.
5 A. Right.
6 Q. So, you weren't attributing that we would
7 reach the October 1st deadline -- I mean, October -- end
8 of October compliance of all schools simply through
9 Na Laukoa?
10 A. No, it's all our efforts, yes.
11 Q. Have you, in doing these efforts, crossed
12 paths with Na Laukoa?
13 A. I believe we have, yes.
14 Q. Have you had any indication that they were
15 not doing the job as you had hoped that they would?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And can you tell me why you feel that way?
18 A. Again, it goes back, I think, to their depth
19 of knowledge. The schools may have felt that some TACs,
20 not all, may not have had enough knowledge to help them
21 in the particular area that they were weak in; and
22 because of that, they could -- they weren't as effective
23 as they could have been.
24 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you very
25 much, Ms. Farmer.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
212
1 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you,
2 Co-Chair Hanabusa. I just have a couple of questions,
3 Ms. Farmer.
4 EXAMINATION
5 BY CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
6 Q. You had mentioned earlier in your testimony
7 that OSEP evaluates school districts every five years to
8 determine whether the district is in compliance with
9 IDEA, and you had mentioned that the most recent
10 evaluation of Hawaii was about a year -- was it a year
11 ago?
12 A. No, it was February, 2001.
13 Q. February, 2001?
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. Do you know what this determination was in
16 February?
17 A. Well, we actually don't have the official
18 report. There probably will be some findings but we had
19 to do an eligibility document and that is the assurance
20 to the Federal Government that we will comply with IDEA.
21 We have turned that in. We have received
22 part of our money, like all states have. We received
23 25 percent in August and the remainder 75 percent in
24 October, and we are assured that we will receive our
25 full funding and -- yeah.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
213
1 Q. Since the review is done every five years, is
2 it safe to assume that the prior review, review prior to
3 February, 2001, was in February, 1996 or around that
4 time?
5 A. Actually, it was in '95. We were supposed to
6 be reviewed in 2000, but they were backed up with
7 reviewing the states. So, we were moved to the next
8 year. So, the last time we were reviewed, it was in
9 '95.
10 Q. What was the evaluation in 1995? Are you
11 aware of what --
12 A. We were found compliant. There were a few
13 areas we needed to work on and we did and we received
14 full compliance after that.
15 Q. When was the review prior to 1995?
16 A. I'm not certain. I could find that
17 information out, though.
18 Q. Well, are you aware of what the findings were
19 of that prior evaluation?
20 A. The exact findings or whether we found --
21 Q. Or generally or were you --
22 A. Well, we were never found noncompliant by the
23 Federal Government.
24 Q. Okay. My second line of questioning deals
25 with something else that you said earlier; and this was
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
214
1 with respect to Chapter 56, that Chapter 56 goes beyond
2 the requirements of IDEA in some respects.
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. What are those areas where Chapter 56 goes
5 beyond IDEA?
6 A. In the eligibility area, the states were
7 given the opportunity to include developmentally
8 delayed; and we had a committee that met. And it was a
9 year-long process, by the way; and the committee felt
10 that this was a gap group of kids and that we should
11 include them in one of the 13 categories for
12 eligibility.
13 IDEA gave -- or REOP gave the opportunity to
14 the states that you didn't need to include that, but
15 some states chose to. Other states chose not to.
16 That's an indication where we chose to include that in
17 our eligibility document, and that goes from three to,
18 really, eight -- three years old to eight. And it's
19 really a gap group that it could be a developmental
20 process or a developmental delay, and we chose to
21 include that as one of our 13 categories.
22 Q. Is there a number of students that you can
23 fix to that category?
24 A. Oh, definitely.
25 Q. What's the number, generally?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
215
1 A. You know, I did this for the strike where we
2 had to identify how many kids per category. Roughly, I
3 believe there's a few thousand children that meet that
4 criteria.
5 Q. Does that mean that these -- that the kids
6 that fall within those categories would not fall in
7 other categories; or is it, like, a mutually exclusive
8 group of kids?
9 A. Oh, you might fall in other categories; but
10 this is the predominant. Like, you might have a
11 hearing-impaired child that's also blind -- well, no,
12 that's not a good example.
13 You might have a learning-disabled child that
14 may be -- may -- I'm trying to think of an example --
15 that may have some mental health problems; but their
16 predominant disability is learning disabilities rather
17 than emotionally impaired.
18 Q. I don't know if there's a way to explain
19 this; but in a typical case of a learning-disabled
20 student, what would the range of prescribed services be,
21 just generally speaking, in a typical case?
22 A. I don't think there's a typical case. A
23 learning-disabled child could range from auditory
24 processing, visual processing. It could be a dyslexic
25 child.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
216
1 And that's actually the beauty of IDEA.
2 There should not be pat strategies for -- dependent on
3 the category. It should be individualized depending on
4 their learning style and depending on their disability.
5 Q. Okay. So, aside from eligibility, what are
6 some of the other areas where Chapter 56 adopted broader
7 standards than the IDEA?
8 A. We also adopted broader in one part of the
9 discipline where we were actually more protective of
10 students.
11 Q. And what --
12 A. And those are the only two areas that
13 actually we went beyond IDEA.
14 Q. Okay. And what do you mean by being more
15 protective of students?
16 A. As you know, that we need to do a
17 manifestation determination. We need to do a functional
18 behavioral assessment, and we have to offer faith on the
19 11th day of suspension. We're asking that -- now,
20 anyway -- that functional behavioral assessments be done
21 a lot earlier than just when they're disciplined; and
22 that's really with our school-based behavioral health
23 because it's best practice. And -- but those are the
24 only areas that we went beyond IDEA. All the others, we
25 really kept with what IDEA intended.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
217
1 Q. Okay. And just to recap, with the adopt --
2 or the publication of Chapter 56, those are
3 administrative rules. So, those are rules that are
4 adopted by the department that's assigned by the
5 Governor?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. The rules are not approved by the
8 Legislature?
9 A. Correct.
10 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Okay. Thank
11 you very much.
12 Mr. Kawashima, is there any redirect?
13 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: Just a few areas
14 here.
15 EXAMINATION
16 BY SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA:
17 Q. You brought -- ma'am, you brought documents
18 or, perhaps, people with you brought documents this
19 morning with you. What were those documents?
20 A. I believe -- I didn't look into the
21 envelopes; but I believe they're what we were asked to
22 bring, the various contracts, copies of the contracts
23 that was on the Subpoena.
24 Q. Oh, I see. And what you brought then was
25 supposed to be responsive to the Subpoena that was
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
218
1 served on you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. And, to your knowledge, whatever
4 you brought was totally responsive to what was asked
5 for?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. One other area, ma'am, you were asked some
8 questions about service testing; and you testified that
9 the service testing instrument was developed by a
10 company. There was a company name on it. Do you know
11 who owns that company?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Who owns that company?
14 A. Ivor Groves.
15 Q. And anyone else, to your knowledge? Does
16 Dr. Foster, for example, have an ownership interest in
17 that company?
18 A. I don't know if he has an ownership or if
19 he's an employee.
20 Q. And that instrument was piloted, you say, in
21 1995 here in Hawaii?
22 A. I believe so.
23 Q. Was that testing instrument ever validated
24 anywhere before it was used in Hawaii?
25 A. I don't believe so.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
219
1 Q. You hesitated.
2 A. I'm -- because I know he has -- Dr. Groves
3 has worked in other states, but I believe those other
4 states are just beginning to use the service testing
5 instruments now. So, I believe it was piloted here in
6 Hawaii.
7 Q. To your understanding, then -- well, strike
8 that.
9 Is it your understanding, then, that
10 Dr. Groves used Hawaii to validate this instrument to
11 use elsewhere?
12 A. I don't know that.
13 Q. Do you know if he has charged the State of
14 Hawaii any amount for the use of his testing instrument?
15 A. I don't know.
16 Q. Do you know if he charges other jurisdictions
17 in which he is now working for this testing instrument?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Now, had you heard complaints by people in
20 the field about that service testing instrument that
21 Dr. Groves was utilizing?
22 A. In the beginning, yes.
23 Q. What kind of complaints?
24 A. That it was narrow, that the sample wasn't
25 representative. It wasn't a representative sample, that
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
220
1 it wasn't a statistically proven type of protocol or
2 even sample, that type of complaint.
3 Q. Did you agree with that -- with those
4 complaints?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. In other words, the sample size that was used
7 was too small -- statistically too small to give
8 meaningful results, right?
9 A. Correct. However, Dr. Groves will state this
10 was not a statistical review.
11 Q. How about complaints about people in the
12 field about what it took to pass the service testing?
13 Did you hear complaints about that?
14 A. Are you referring to the 85 percent?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Yes, there were complaints.
17 Q. That the goals -- or I should say what it
18 took to pass the test was a, quote, "moving target"?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you agree with those people in the field
21 who had those complaints?
22 A. It is a moving target, not only with service
23 testing.
24 Q. Has it ever stabilized?
25 A. No.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
221
1 Q. It's still moving?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. How are these -- you understand that there
4 were two complexes last week that were found in
5 compliance?
6 A. Three, I believe.
7 Q. Three?
8 A. Three.
9 Q. All of a sudden three at one time?
10 A. Because they did their presentation.
11 Q. Had they tried to give presentations before
12 this?
13 A. Actually they were scheduled, but then we had
14 the strike. And so, we had to --
15 Q. I see.
16 A. -- cancel them.
17 Q. I see. So that every complex that has had a
18 presentation in the last month, shall we say -- well,
19 this year -- has passed?
20 A. There was only one that didn't pass right
21 away.
22 Q. Which one was that?
23 A. But they eventually did pass. That's
24 Waiakea.
25 Q. How about Aiea?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
222
1 A. Aiea passed.
2 Q. Have you been privy to these presentations?
3 A. I do go.
4 Q. Recently have you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Last week did you go?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Did you notice a difference in the way the
9 panel members conducted themselves last week as opposed
10 to previously, say, six to eight months ago?
11 A. The panel members you're referring to,
12 Dr. Groves, Shelby Floyd, and Eric Seitz?
13 Q. That's correct.
14 A. Dr. Groves asked questions -- well, I guess
15 they asked questions. They -- the difference is that
16 now they expect current data. They specifically have
17 said they don't want any fluff, any marching bands
18 coming in or any singing kids. They don't want fluff.
19 They want just the facts.
20 And they want strategy -- they know that the
21 data will not be perfect because we're not a perfect
22 society; but what will happen -- what does that complex
23 plan to do to fix a certain problem? Like, if they had
24 a high suspension rate, what will they do to -- in the
25 next few months to bring that suspension rate down? And
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
223
1 that's what they're looking for.
2 Q. Ma'am, do you have an opinion as to whether
3 or not these complexes that passed the presentations
4 last week -- recently, in other words -- had anything to
5 do with the Federal Court sending down a directive that
6 these complexes must pass by a certain date as opposed
7 to them deserving it?
8 A. My opinion?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Well, of course, they deserved to pass.
11 Q. And it has nothing to do with what the Court
12 said?
13 A. Well, I -- maybe it might have something to
14 do with it but they worked very hard and they deserved
15 to pass.
16 Q. Okay. Well, one other question, ma'am: Had
17 you heard complaints that the sample of student files
18 selected for the service testing was not selected in a
19 random fashion the way it should be?
20 A. I've heard complaints in the field, yes.
21 Q. And you know -- do you know that to be
22 correct?
23 A. No, I don't.
24 Q. You've just heard complaints?
25 A. I've heard complaints.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
224
1 Q. You have not endeavored to attempt to
2 substantiate those complaints?
3 A. Oh, I have. My office works closely with the
4 Felix monitoring office as well as with DOH in
5 identifying a list of eligible students. Those -- that
6 list goes to the Felix monitoring office.
7 They have taken it very seriously when
8 complexes and principals and teachers are complaining
9 that it's not random. So, they have instituted where
10 someone in their office inputs the actual data into the
11 computer; and the computer picks the sample. It's not a
12 human person that picks it anymore.
13 Q. Has this been the procedure all the way back?
14 A. No, no.
15 Q. This procedure was put into place because of
16 complaints about the selection not being random --
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. -- right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And it wasn't random prior to that procedure
21 being put into place, to your knowledge?
22 A. Well, to my knowledge, it was random; but it
23 was human random. In other words, a human person picked
24 it. This way, they put that into a computer and let the
25 computer pick it.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
225
1 Q. Who was the human person that selected them?
2 A. I think a clerk in the Felix monitoring
3 office picked it.
4 Q. Well, have you heard the name Juanita
5 Iwamoto?
6 A. Right, I do know --
7 Q. Is it your understanding that she made the
8 selection?
9 A. It was not my understanding that she made it.
10 Q. Who, then, made it in --
11 A. I believe a clerk in her office made it.
12 Q. Do you know what safeguards that clerk
13 utilized to be sure that the selections were random?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. Do you know -- did you know that there was a
16 high percentage of those selections being, for example,
17 children with autism?
18 A. Yes, I do know that.
19 Q. That would make it very difficult for a
20 complex to pass, wouldn't it?
21 A. It would be a challenge, yes.
22 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: No further
23 questions. Thank you.
24 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you
25 very much.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
226
1 Members, are there any follow-up questions?
2 Representative Kawakami.
3 EXAMINATION
4 BY REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI:
5 Q. Just one last question I wanted to ask, and
6 it has to do with the testing. We now have a new
7 benchmark which is the reading assessment portion.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. I would like to know what tests are being
10 used and how far are we along on this testing?
11 A. The benchmark calls for one reading
12 assessment, and that's the Stanford Diagnostic Reading
13 Test. Every special ed and 504 child has been given
14 that assessment. It has been inputted into ISPED.
15 As -- this new school year, as their
16 plan's -- their IEP or modification plan's anniversary
17 date comes up, strategies will be inputted into those
18 plans to address that reading deficiency.
19 Q. Okay. The other test is?
20 A. That's the only one.
21 Q. I thought there were two tests.
22 A. Oh, SETAT.
23 Q. There must be an achievement test.
24 A. No, it's one for the younger kids, the
25 preschoolers.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
227
1 Q. Similar to achievement?
2 A. But it's the same -- but it's the same
3 company.
4 Q. I think it's the Stanford Achievement. One
5 is the diagnostic and one is the achievement, isn't it,
6 for the lower grades?
7 A. No, it's SETAT and SDRT --
8 Q. But it's the diagnostic?
9 A. -- but it's the same company, yeah.
10 Q. Okay. So, you're using the same test for
11 Grades 1 through 12; am I correct?
12 A. No, it's not the same. It's different forms
13 of the test. I think there's four different levels or
14 five different levels of the test, and it depends where
15 you are as a reader.
16 Q. So, am I to believe that all of the
17 youngsters have been tested?
18 A. All the special ed and 504 youngsters have.
19 Q. Okay. And you said the review will occur at
20 the end of what --
21 A. At their --
22 Q. -- the next IEP or --
23 A. The next IEP and modification plan, for this
24 school year, now they have to put reading strategies
25 into those plans to address those reading deficiencies.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
228
1 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: Okay. Thank you,
2 Ms. Farmer.
3 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you.
4 Senator Sakamoto.
5 EXAMINATION
6 BY SENATOR SAKAMOTO:
7 Q. We're using Ivor Groves' monitoring service
8 testing template. When we're done, which will be
9 sometime -- we will be done --
10 A. Soon.
11 Q. -- hopefully sooner than later -- will our
12 system continue to use Mr. Groves' service testing model
13 and template?
14 A. To a point. We've established a continuous
15 quality improvement model or a monitoring effort for
16 special education, and this is a yearly -- let's back
17 up.
18 In the past, we've done a three-year cycle of
19 monitoring where we've picked different districts and we
20 took a representative sample of schools in each
21 district. We have decided that we -- every year, we
22 will monitor every school, be it a paper monitoring or
23 do an actual visit.
24 What will be driving this monitoring will be
25 data through ISPED. We will look at reading scores. We
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
229
1 will look at suspension rates. We will look at
2 complaints, due process, attendance rates.
3 So, if -- red flags may go up for a certain
4 school; and if there's a lot of red flags, then we're
5 going to do a site visit. If there's not a lot of red
6 flags, if their data is in the appropriate range, then,
7 we'll do a paper compliance monitoring, something like
8 OSEP.
9 Service testing will always be here, and they
10 will be a part of the monitoring. Every complex must do
11 an internal review yearly, every complex. So, that's
12 going to be with us probably for a long time; but that's
13 not the only monitoring effort we're relying on.
14 Q. Is the current service testing -- does it use
15 outcomes of children --
16 A. Right.
17 Q. -- children improving?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. And so, what you're moving to is to more
20 heavily look at outcomes of how children have improved
21 or moved from level -- one level to another in CSSS
22 or --
23 A. It's outcomes for kids, right. The
24 difference is what we look at right now under Dr. Groves
25 is Felix kids. The monitoring effort we're developing
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
230
1 is for all special ed kids because we have a heck of a
2 lot of other special ed kids out there that are not
3 Felix but still we need to monitor their progress.
4 Q. And eventually all children?
5 A. All.
6 Q. So, all children can have an individual
7 education plan whether they're gifted and talented --
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. -- or any particular disability?
10 A. That would be the goal eventually under CSSS.
11 We're not quite there yet.
12 Q. And we will monitor internally --
13 A. Yes --
14 Q. -- and --
15 A. -- through the management system, which is
16 ISPED now; but it will be changed to a CSSS data system.
17 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Thank you.
18 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you.
19 Members, any other follow-up questions?
20 EXAMINATION
21 BY CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
22 Q. I have one question, Ms. Farmer.
23 A. Sure.
24 Q. Just a couple of minutes ago, Mr. Kawashima
25 asked you whether or not the Federal Court had made some
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
231
1 indication to their monitoring team that complexes be
2 found in compliance prior to the November 1st deadline.
3 Do you recall that question?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Your response was something to the effect
6 that -- that it might have something to do with what the
7 Court said. What did you mean by that?
8 A. Excuse me. I don't -- I don't understand
9 what you just said. So, could you repeat it?
10 Q. Well, your response was: It might have
11 something to do with what the Court said, referring to
12 findings of compliance -- recent findings of compliance.
13 Do you recall that answer?
14 A. No, I -- I don't.
15 Q. Well, do you know whether or not there has
16 been any suggestion or indication by the Court that
17 there would be findings of compliance at this point?
18 A. No, I don't know if he's ordered that.
19 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you.
20 Okay. Members, we'll be taking a five-minute
21 break; and we'll reconvene at 3:05. Thank you.
22 (Recess from 3:07 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.)
23 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, we'll
24 reconvene.
25 The Investigative Committee issued a Subpoena
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
232
1 to require the Attorney General or his designee to
2 appear as a witness before this Committee and to produce
3 certain documents. I see Mr. Suzuki is already at the
4 place. Mr. Suzuki, are you being going to be the
5 Attorney General's designee?
6 RUSSELL SUZUKI: Yes.
7 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you. We'll
8 have to swear you -- put you under oath.
9 Vice-Chair Saiki?
10 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Do you
11 solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
12 about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
13 nothing but the truth?
14 RUSSELL SUZUKI: I do.
15 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you.
16 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: We will begin
17 with Mr. Kawashima; and, Members, we'll follow the usual
18 practice.
19 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: Thank you, Madam
20 Chair.
21 EXAMINATION
22 BY SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA:
23 Q. Please state your name and address --
24 business address.
25 A. My name is Russell Akita Suzuki. My business
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
233
1 address is 235 South Beretania Street, Room 304,
2 Honolulu, 96813.
3 Q. And you are a Deputy Attorney General with
4 the Office of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii, are
5 you not?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And how long have you served in that
8 capacity, sir?
9 A. Since 1981.
10 Q. All right. Now, you have seen the Subpoena
11 that was served on the Attorney General or his designee?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you have seen the two exhibits that were
14 attached to the Subpoena?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You have reviewed those exhibits and have
17 endeavored to comply with them?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You brought here this morning -- you were
20 kind enough to give it to us -- turn it over to us
21 earlier today -- two boxes of documents that are there
22 over to the right on the table there. Would you mind
23 describing in as much detail as you can what is
24 contained in those boxes?
25 A. Yes, I will. I believe it contains six
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
234
1 folders. We separated out the folders as follows:
2 There are invoices of the Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing law
3 firm, the invoices of Eric Seitz' law firm, the
4 stipulations for the Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing law firm,
5 stipulations for the Eric Seitz' law firm, the
6 stipulation for Susan Cooper and the Protection and
7 Advocacy Agency and these other nominal plaintiff
8 attorneys in the lawsuit, and the request for payments
9 and a copy of the checks for Eric Seitz, Alston Hunt
10 Floyd & Ing, Susan Cooper, and the Protection and
11 Advocacy Agency.
12 Q. And what was the last one?
13 A. The Protection and Advocacy Agency.
14 Q. You -- strike that. The six folders that you
15 segregated these items into, is that the manner in which
16 these documents are kept there at the Attorney General's
17 office?
18 A. Generally, yes.
19 Q. When you say "generally, yes" --
20 A. The documents are kept in a combined file.
21 For example, the invoices, the stipulation, the request
22 for payment, and the checks are generally kept together.
23 What I asked my secretary to do was to separate it out
24 into the various folders for the convenience of the
25 Committee.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
235
1 Q. All right. Now, when you identified the six
2 folders, the first one was the Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing
3 firm, correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. The second was the Seitz firm --
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. -- or just Eric Seitz himself?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Then the next two items, three and four, were
10 stipulations. Three was stipulations with the Alston
11 firm. Four was stipulations with the Seitz firm. What
12 do you mean by these stipulations?
13 A. The process for the payment for the
14 attorney's fees is that -- that we have developed is
15 that on a monthly basis, the counsel for the Plaintiffs
16 submits their monthly statement of work done on the
17 Consent Decree, which we then review and then turn into
18 a stipulation which the Court then reviews and orders
19 the payment.
20 When we get the stipulation back, the state,
21 under the Consent Decree, has ten days in which to
22 process the payment of the stipulation.
23 That's when we -- we develop a request for
24 payment which we send to the Department of Education for
25 the amount with the attached stipulation as the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
236
1 encumbrance which is then processed through the
2 Department of Education and a check is issued. A check
3 is then transmitted to the attorneys, and we have a --
4 we keep a copy in our file.
5 Q. The -- strike that. Are you testifying, sir,
6 that all of these payments for attorney's fees that were
7 brought here today, as evidenced by the documents you
8 brought, are paid only by the Department of Education?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Not by the Department of Health?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you hesitated, Mr. Suzuki. Is there a
13 reason for that?
14 A. No, it's -- I'm just trying to think of
15 whether that's an accurate estimate. It is an accurate
16 estimate.
17 Q. Why is it that the Department of Health is
18 not assessed any of these charges?
19 A. The obligation under IDEA is the Department
20 of Education's obligation. The Department of Health is
21 a provider of related services to the department.
22 It would have been -- it could have been
23 done -- I mean, administratively it could have been
24 possible to split out the costs; but it was believed for
25 compliance purposes -- one of the biggest issues that
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
237
1 the Plaintiffs raised, not only for the providers but
2 for themselves, was the timely payment of invoices and
3 expenses for the provider services. That's why if we
4 had relied upon two different business offices, it would
5 have probably been an impediment.
6 Q. So, there might have been attorney's fees for
7 services that were provided really related only to
8 Department of Health matters; but still they were paid
9 under the auspices of the Department of Education?
10 A. Well, if you're talking about other than the
11 Consent Decree issues or hearing -- administrative
12 hearings and those matters, it's conceivable that the
13 issues that are involved in the hearings were more --
14 towards the Department of Health are being focused on
15 the nondeliberate services by the Department of Health.
16 However, ultimately it's the Department of Education
17 that's responsible under IDEA.
18 Q. I see. I didn't hear you -- or, perhaps, I
19 didn't listen carefully enough. The six folders then
20 only relate to attorney's fees related to Felix Consent
21 Decree matters?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. There are other attorney's fees that -- in
24 providing services to special education children
25 that you have brought with you?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
238
1 A. I did not bring those.
2 Q. But there are such documents that evidence
3 those types of attorney's fees?
4 A. Yes. Every administrative hearing or appeal
5 of those hearings where the state does not prevail or
6 where settlement is reached prior to the hearing or the
7 litigation conceivably would have a -- an attorney's
8 fees issues that would have resolved the payments issue.
9 Q. Through which department, section, division,
10 would those fees be claimed?
11 A. Those still are paid from by the Department
12 of Education.
13 Q. But not through your office?
14 A. Under the same -- if our office is handling
15 the case, those are the cases where an appeal is filed
16 at an administrative level; and an attorney is retained
17 by the parent. So, every case that involves our office
18 would have that process.
19 Q. I see. You don't -- you wouldn't consider
20 those attorney's fees we just talked about as being
21 related to Felix versus Cayetano then?
22 A. Those are generally -- more generally IDEA
23 or --
24 Q. I see.
25 A. -- Section 504 applications outside of the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
239
1 Consent Decree. Those are individual cases brought by
2 parents.
3 Q. Is that the reason why you did not produce
4 documents relating to those claims?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Maybe you can help us, Mr. Suzuki. What we
7 would like to know is every possible category of claims
8 for attorney's fees that are made pursuant to IDEA,
9 Chapter 504, any type of related matter, Felix -- of
10 course, you have that -- any related matter where
11 attorney's fees are requested and either paid or denied,
12 okay?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. Okay. Now, so, we have the Felix documents
15 which you brought?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If we were then to ask you for the -- due
18 process hearings, I've heard that term. Is that what we
19 would be talking about?
20 A. If you recall previously, there was reference
21 to Chapter 56 of the administrative rules. Those are
22 hearings pursuant to Chapter 56 as well as Chapter 53,
23 which is a Section 504 equivalent.
24 Q. I see. I see. And 53 and 56, then, would be
25 Chapter 504 and the due process hearing claims?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
240
1 A. 53 would be 504. 56 would be IDEA.
2 Q. Okay. Is that a proper term, "due process
3 hearings"?
4 A. That's the term of art that's been used by
5 the federal government. It's an administrative
6 contested case hearing.
7 Q. Okay. Now, are there any other categories of
8 attorney's fees other than what we've already described?
9 A. There is the potential. The other fees would
10 be for litigation filed under IDEA or 504 that could be
11 in the form of an appeal or of a administrative decision
12 in Federal District Court or State Circuit Court; but
13 there could also be an independent cause of action under
14 Section 504 for monetary damages.
15 Q. Have there been many of those?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Burns Vidlack, I've heard that name.
18 A. Burns Vidlack is a 1993 action, not within
19 the Department of Education; but I believe that's the
20 Department of Human Services litigation.
21 Q. So, these other categories you described
22 then, can you give me an estimate of the nature of how
23 many cases we're talking about that don't come under
24 either Felix or Chapter 56 and 53 types of hearings?
25 A. There's quite a few. I think that's -- you
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
241
1 know, because of the shifting provisions in IDEA and
2 1983, attorneys have brought a lot of these cases.
3 The problem with the Consent Decree is it
4 does not resolve the individual causes of actions that
5 individual students can bring; and, you know, our
6 problem has been because our system wasn't able to
7 deliver all of the services, then, there is all these
8 individual -- the Consent Decree addresses the systemic
9 class issue. And the individual claims are then brought
10 by individual parents on their individual child's claims
11 claiming violation of IDEA or Section 504.
12 Q. How would we get -- strike that.
13 Do you have those documents -- do you have
14 documents that evidence the attorney's fees for claims
15 in those individual lawsuits?
16 A. We have the same procedures in our office.
17 So, we probably have those information.
18 Q. In your office meaning the Felix section?
19 A. My education division.
20 Q. All right. And when you say "education
21 division," that encompasses Felix and other education
22 matters?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. So, if we were to ask you next for those
25 documents, you would have those also?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
242
1 A. Yes, just --
2 Q. And are they segregated?
3 A. I would just ask for patience in getting
4 those information. There are --
5 Q. Sure.
6 A. -- quite a few and we'd be going through all
7 the individual cases, but we can probably get them to
8 you.
9 Q. Thank you. How about the -- just for the due
10 process hearings, though? Would you have to go into the
11 individual cases to get those?
12 A. You know, I probably need to consult with my
13 secretary on whether we have a separate payment section
14 from those files or not or whether you have to go into
15 the individual --
16 Q. I see.
17 A. -- litigation file.
18 Q. All right. Do you -- can you give me a
19 reasonable estimate as to how long it might take for you
20 to get us those documents? Would you like us to serve
21 you a Subpoena on that?
22 A. That won't be necessary. I can make that
23 information available.
24 Q. Thank you. I tell you what, Mr. Suzuki, will
25 you call me and give -- discuss that with me once you've
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
243
1 discussed it with your secretary?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you. You understand the urgency
4 of why we need these documents?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 Now, getting back then to the six folders you
8 brought here today, am I to understand -- for example,
9 let's just pick the Alston firm because they're No. 1.
10 They submit these statements to you; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. That's No. 1 -- that would be in No. 1 -- in
13 Folder No. 1?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In Folder No. 3, though, are those then
16 different versions of those same statements or, I should
17 say, different bottom-line numbers?
18 A. Not necessarily. They basically -- I think
19 as the state has gone through the years in the Consent
20 Decree, we would have hoped that the participation of
21 the Plaintiffs' attorneys would have gone down.
22 Unfortunately because of our inability to get
23 control of the Consent Decree -- and we're heading
24 towards contempt and the motions -- the legal activity
25 by the Plaintiffs, instead of decreasing, have
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
244
1 increased. And we look at the fees and -- I look at the
2 fees in these two categories. One is the activity and
3 the time spent on the activity.
4 I think -- the Consent Decree requires active
5 participation by the Plaintiffs' counsel. They did
6 attend to the design of the Consent Decree and probably
7 at the -- the monitor's requirement of their
8 participation have caused, I think, an increase in their
9 activities and their participation probably to the
10 extent of at least three hours a day in some -- in many
11 instances regarding the Consent Decree activities,
12 attending service testing presentations, consulting with
13 their clients.
14 Q. You say that the increased involvement of the
15 attorneys has been due in part to a request by the court
16 monitor?
17 A. I think the monitor -- as we have not met all
18 of the requirements in the Consent Decree -- and I think
19 as situations arose, it became a matter of: If we were
20 held in contempt or if we were held in noncompliance,
21 what additional matters can we bring to the table to
22 satisfy the Plaintiffs' class in exchange for the
23 noncompliance?
24 I think, for example, the reading initiative
25 that's now included in IEPs were matters that were not
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
245
1 in the original Consent Decree but were matters that
2 were negotiated to be included in the Consent Decree and
3 the benchmarks, basically, because we were, at that
4 point in time, not able to comply with all of the
5 previous requirements.
6 These are additional -- I don't want to call
7 it concessions, but something like that that was
8 required above and beyond as -- I don't want to say
9 punishment, but as a consequence of our inability to
10 comply in a timely manner.
11 Q. Am I to understand, though, this reading
12 matter you just described was agreed upon because of
13 requests made by the Plaintiffs' attorneys?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And, to your knowledge, what experience,
16 education, or background would these Plaintiffs'
17 attorneys have to be able to recommend something like
18 that?
19 A. I think they were looking at the fact that in
20 many of the IEPs that they were reviewing, the reading
21 was one of the fundamental issues of why the child
22 wasn't making progress at that grade level. So, I think
23 it became from firsthand knowledge in working with all
24 of the cases that they were working with.
25 Q. Now, am I to understand, though, the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
246
1 reason -- and, please, Mr. Suzuki, correct me if I'm
2 wrong. One of the reasons why the attorney --
3 Plaintiffs' attorneys were involved in the process was
4 because of the complaints they were making and their
5 attempts to find the state in con -- in contempt?
6 A. I think recently that is the case. It's a
7 matter of not finding the state in contempt. I think
8 they were -- we were already at a point where benchmarks
9 weren't being met and the original provisions of the
10 Consent Decree weren't being complied with by admissions
11 of our own clients themselves indicating that they
12 weren't able to meet the benchmarks in a timely manner.
13 Our real fundamental impediments in the
14 Consent Decree, if I can identify the two, were
15 personnel issues regarding the inability to have
16 certified special education teachers hired by the
17 system; and the second was the slowness in getting the
18 computer system in place, the ISPED system, for the
19 operational. Those are critical issues by the
20 Plaintiffs in the --
21 Q. I understand. What was the involvement the
22 Plaintiffs' attorneys would have to do with assisting in
23 the resolution of these problems?
24 A. I think the issue was because we haven't met
25 those requirements, because we were, in their
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
247
1 estimation, not in compliance with the Consent Decree,
2 the issue was what would the consequence be?
3 And that's where the participation or the
4 negotiations with the monitor and the Plaintiffs were to
5 define: If we're not in compliance with the Consent
6 Decree, short of having a receiver or the contempt
7 proceeding, what would we be able to put on the table in
8 order to prevent the Plaintiffs -- or avoid the
9 Plaintiffs pursuing a contempt issue?
10 Q. And this -- this solution was, at least in
11 part, the suggestion of the court monitor?
12 A. I believe the court monitor insisted on the
13 parties at least coming to -- exploring the
14 possibilities of a consensus or an agreement as to what
15 would occur past the noncompliance, whether time lines
16 could be adjusted.
17 Q. I understand, Mr. Suzuki; but am I to
18 understand that the court monitor essentially proposed
19 that the Plaintiffs' attorneys now become more involved
20 than they were because you were not in -- not yet in
21 compliance and, perhaps, may face sanctions by the
22 Federal Court, including receivership?
23 A. I think the monitor was scheduling meetings
24 of the parties to determine whether that was a
25 possibility or not.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
248
1 Q. Well, you know, Mr. Suzuki, correct me if I'm
2 wrong; but what I understand you to say is that what the
3 court monitor was doing essentially was buying off the
4 Plaintiffs' attorneys?
5 A. I wouldn't say that. I think it's a matter
6 of -- because I would say that the State had -- had a
7 participation in that.
8 I mean, what we were trying to preserve was
9 the self-determination of the state. It was our belief
10 that to allow a monitor or receiver or federal takeover
11 of our school system would not be beneficial to the
12 state. We would lose control over the financing of the
13 system of care and that kind of thing.
14 So, I think the monitor was attempting to see
15 whether some kind of understanding could be reached
16 between the parties basically acting, I would say, as
17 sort of like a mediator between the two different
18 parties.
19 Q. Essentially a compromise?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I understand that you were involved --
22 and I also understand the concern about not having the
23 system placed in receivership. Nonetheless, what I do
24 hear you testifying to, though, Mr. Suzuki, is the
25 proposal to involve the Plaintiffs' attorneys at this
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
249
1 point where you are concerned about receivership and/or
2 other sanctions -- that it was the court monitor that
3 proposed getting the Plaintiffs' attorneys more involved
4 in the process?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And as they get more involved in the process,
7 of course, they get paid for their time?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And when did this increased activity start
10 then, sir?
11 A. Well, I suppose there were always those who,
12 from the onset, were claiming that the state could never
13 be in compliance to begin with. So, there was always
14 doubts.
15 I think, as we started to get probably two to
16 three years into the Consent Decree and benchmarks were
17 not being met from the onset, I think we always had
18 problems.
19 I think systemically our biggest problem was
20 getting the ISPED system up and running. It was
21 something that I think everybody expected would be
22 something that was doable, was not going to be that
23 difficult to do. Basically, it's developing a computer
24 system that could collect all of the data that was being
25 required; but we weren't able to do that.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
250
1 Q. I understand. Now, though, what -- we've
2 been using this term "Plaintiffs' attorneys." What are
3 the "Plaintiffs' attorneys"?
4 A. Shelby -- primarily Shelby Floyd and Eric
5 Seitz.
6 Q. And whom do they represent?
7 A. They represent a class of Plaintiffs; and
8 collectively they're called the Felix class, those
9 children between the age of zero to 20 who not only are
10 identified as special education eligible but also have a
11 mental health component to their disability.
12 Q. All right. And that class has been
13 certified?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. But these two people and/or their firms
16 represent a class of people?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you know when this compromise was entered
19 into by the various parties including the court monitor,
20 the Plaintiffs'attorneys, the State of Hawaii -- and
21 there are other organizations that were party to that
22 compromise agreement -- whether or not the
23 Plaintiffs'attorneys considered the matter of whether or
24 not it would be in the best interest of the class for
25 them to become involved that way and get more attorney's
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
251
1 fees?
2 A. I think you need to ask that question of
3 them. I think the Plaintiffs and the provider
4 organizations, I think, are very involved in directing
5 what the Plaintiffs do.
6 Q. It's my understanding -- Mr. Suzuki, if you
7 know, it's my understanding that the court monitor, Ivor
8 Groves, first became involved with Felix because he was
9 an expert witness for the Plaintiffs in that case -- in
10 this case. Am I correct?
11 A. I believe it's also because he had experience
12 in other jurisdictions in being a monitor --
13 court-appointed monitor.
14 Q. No, I'm not talking about the monitor part,
15 Mr. Suzuki. I'm talking about his involvement at all in
16 the Felix matter.
17 My understanding was that his first
18 involvement in the Felix matter was as an expert witness
19 retained by the Plaintiffs' attorneys to be an expert
20 witness in Felix versus Cayetano; is that correct?
21 A. I -- my recollection is not that clear. I'm
22 not sure if that's correct. The state's expert was
23 Lenore Behar.
24 Q. That's right. Do you know how, then, both --
25 if you might assume I'm correct, how both Ivor Groves
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
252
1 and Lenore Behar -- and I forget who the third person --
2 A. Judy Schrag.
3 Q. -- Judy Schrag became the technical
4 assistance panel?
5 A. I think --
6 Q. They have -- were representing, in a sense,
7 specific interests in the litigation?
8 A. Yes, I think when the Consent Decree was
9 negotiated, each side proposed one person for the
10 technical assistance panel; and the two then, I think --
11 Q. I see.
12 A. -- recommended the third.
13 Q. So, Ms. Schrag was the third that was picked
14 by the other two?
15 A. I believe so.
16 Q. All right. Has Judge Ezra made comments
17 about the amount of attorney's fees that are being
18 charged in this case?
19 A. Yes. On several occasions, he has raised
20 that issue. He was concerned about the
21 over-participation of the Plaintiffs in the Consent
22 Decree activities.
23 Q. When did he first raise that concern?
24 A. I don't recall. I think within the last year
25 certainly he's made that an issue.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
253
1 Q. At least once?
2 A. Yes, twice -- I think twice.
3 Q. Twice. All right. Do you know what the
4 nature -- and just roughly, Mr. Suzuki. I can't -- I
5 won't hold you to specific numbers; but do you have a
6 range of what we're talking about -- what numbers we're
7 talking about in terms of these -- these six folders
8 here that you brought? In other words, the total amount
9 of attorney's fees that -- in Folder No. 1 by the Alston
10 firm, how much was charged?
11 A. I think -- I think I can just give you a
12 guesstimate. I think Mr. Seitz charges about $6,000 a
13 month and Ms. Floyd, probably 12,000.
14 Q. What do they do for that, to your knowledge?
15 A. A lot of the time is spent with meetings,
16 meetings with the parties, meeting with the monitor,
17 attending service testing, attending presentations by
18 the department.
19 They also do investigate compliance issues.
20 Like, if a client were to raise a systemic issue
21 relating to compliance under the Consent Decree -- when
22 I say "systemic," I'm talking about things that go
23 beyond the individual client's interests or student's
24 interests.
25 Q. So, it would have to be systemic issues --
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
254
1 A. Right.
2 Q. -- otherwise, they wouldn't be able to --
3 A. Systemic issues are matters like more than
4 one occasion where the time lines for evaluations
5 weren't met, but these are -- these are issues where the
6 state had indicated that we were going to correct and
7 not allow it to happen, issues about evaluations.
8 And I would like to address one of the issues
9 that was raised previously today about the 12-month SSC
10 employees with the department. The reason for having
11 those individuals is, basically, during the summer,
12 there are administrative hearings that go on. There are
13 students that transfer from other jurisdiction. There
14 are changes or need to review IEPs prior to beginning of
15 the school year based on requests by the parents. There
16 are evaluations that are being conducted during the
17 summer, and the 12-month employee serves that purpose.
18 Our problems in the past have been a school
19 would -- or a parent would make a request for an IEP
20 meeting during the summer. Because the school is not in
21 session, that request would sometimes go to the
22 district. The district would then send it back to the
23 school. Nobody at the school is looking at it. Then,
24 we go beyond our time line. So, that's the reason.
25 It's to ensure that we are in compliance with the time
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
255
1 line requirements under the IDEA.
2 Q. You used the monthly figure, though -- for
3 example, the Alston firm, 12,000 a month. Does that
4 mean, I guess, mathematically $144,000 a year?
5 A. I suppose so.
6 Q. For how many years has this been going on?
7 A. Probably between -- well, when the initial
8 Consent Decree was entered into, we resolved the
9 attorney's fees --
10 Q. Sure.
11 A. -- in the order for the attorney's fees that
12 accrued up into that point. So, I would say subsequent
13 to that, so, from, perhaps, 1994, '95 to the present.
14 Q. Six or seven years?
15 A. Yes, so -- ideally we would have been out of
16 the Consent Decree. And, again, ideally as the Consent
17 Decree matured, the services or the participation of the
18 Plaintiffs' attorneys should have gone down if we were
19 moving towards compliance. Unfortunately it went up
20 because of noncompliance issues.
21 Q. Well, does it mean, then, therefore, that the
22 Alston firm has charged the Department of Education over
23 $1 million thus far, $1 million?
24 A. I'm not going to guess; but if that's your
25 calculation, then, perhaps.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
256
1 Q. Do you know if these firms that you
2 enumerated in these six folders -- well, the two firms,
3 the Alston firm and Mr. Seitz' firm -- charge for any
4 work they do related to Felix or special education in
5 any other category than these folders?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What categories?
8 A. They do take individual cases representing
9 individual students.
10 Q. And they decide which ones they're going to
11 take?
12 A. Well, I presume so. I guess the client goes
13 to them.
14 Q. Now, do -- if you might tell me, the due
15 process hearings, does a claimant have to prevail before
16 they get attorney's fees or not?
17 A. If we do it by settlement, then, it will be
18 part of the settlement agreement.
19 Q. If they go to hearing, does the claimant have
20 to prevail in the hearing before they get attorney's
21 fees?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So, even though they have a bona fide claim
24 and a good legal reason to do it -- they go through a
25 hearing, they loose, the hearings officer rules against
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
257
1 them, they get nothing?
2 A. They can appeal --
3 Q. Do --
4 A. -- which is what happens in many occasions.
5 Q. And in many occasions when they appeal, they
6 get attorney's fees paid to them, don't they?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do we know how much has been spent on
9 attorney's fees in these due process hearings,
10 Mr. Suzuki?
11 A. I believe it's a formidable amount. This is
12 one issue that we've discussed with Senator Inouye's
13 office as to, you know, what are ways that Congress
14 might explore in tackling this issue.
15 Q. Because a representative from Senator
16 Inouye's office came here a month or two ago and
17 interviewed a number of people, including your office,
18 right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In fact, he used to work for your office, did
21 he not?
22 A. He worked for me before.
23 Q. And he raised some issues because he knew
24 from his involvement that there were large amounts of
25 attorney's fees being requested and allowed as a result
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
258
1 of these due process hearings?
2 A. Correct. Hence, we were concerned as well.
3 Q. Sure. Now, when you say "formidable amount,"
4 Mr. Suzuki, what were we talking about, in the range of
5 how much?
6 A. Well, you know, it's hard to describe the
7 matter; but many times, the attorney's fees are higher
8 than the related services that the parties are
9 requesting.
10 For example, they could be requesting speech
11 therapy or additional mental health services; and
12 litigating that issue could result in not only -- even
13 if -- well, could result in the state being required to
14 provide compensatory services meaning services that we
15 weren't providing up until that point in time as a
16 compensation to provide the faith offering. And by
17 doing that, they could also -- let's say $2,000 worth of
18 additional mental health services could entail
19 attorney's fees of $7,000 or more --
20 Q. Well, what --
21 A. -- because of the time spent in the
22 administrative hearing or the litigation on that issue.
23 Q. What is the basis for the authority for that,
24 Mr. Suzuki?
25 A. For the --
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
259
1 Q. IDEA?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. For the attorney's fees?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The IDEA provides reasonable attorney's
6 fees --
7 A. To the prevailing party.
8 Q. -- to be awarded by the hearings officer?
9 A. No, the Court. They -- after they get their
10 success at the administrative hearing, they followed
11 action in district -- Federal District Court.
12 Q. Oh, I see. I see. So, the hearings officers
13 don't go and decide attorney's fees?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And was it in this context that Judge Ezra
16 then raised concerns about the amount of attorney's fees
17 that were being charged?
18 A. I think nationwide every state has that same
19 problem. I was just speaking to the consultant that
20 helped the Florida school district, and I think their
21 attorney's fees for one year was $10 million. And the
22 real issue here is: We need to start being successful
23 at the administrative hearings level, which means that
24 even before that, at the IEP level, we need to have
25 competent individuals who have the training and the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
260
1 ability to develop defensible IEPs that we can prevail
2 on.
3 Q. Are our attorney's fees within the realm of
4 $10 million --
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. -- per year?
7 A. I'm just talking about what one consultant
8 told me about one school district in Florida.
9 Q. And that's one district?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. We're not talking about a statewide system,
12 are we?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Have you described in every area where
15 attorney's fees can and are sought related to the IDEA
16 the rehabilitation act, our Chapters 56, 53? Have you
17 described them all for us?
18 A. I believe so.
19 Q. Thank you. I may be asking you questions
20 later, Mr. Suzuki. Thank you for coming and bringing
21 those documents.
22 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
23 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: I have no further
24 questions at this time.
25 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, we will
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
261
1 now open for your questions. The same rules apply.
2 First, Vice-Chair Blake Oshiro.
3 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO: I'll pass.
4 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: He passes.
5 Vice-Chair Russell Kokubun.
6 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: Thank you, Madam
7 Co-Chair.
8 I wanted to get an idea of the process and
9 the roles that different people play in this whole
10 approval of the attorney fees. Is that okay to ask at
11 this point in time?
12 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Uh-huh.
13 EXAMINATION
14 BY VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN:
15 Q. So, could you help me with that? The
16 Plaintiffs' attorneys go to a hearing. They spend time
17 dealing with their client. They submit a bill to you
18 stipulating what -- or indicating what time is being
19 spent for what purpose, and then what happens?
20 A. Okay. Well, I'll go before that. I think if
21 you're talking about a Chapter 56 or Chapter 53 appeal
22 or request for hearing, then the matter is: When that
23 matter is set for hearing before a hearings officer,
24 prior to the actual hearing, there is discussions
25 between the attorneys; and in consultation with our
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
262
1 clients, we would look at -- I think the attorneys from
2 our office look at the clients and ask them basically
3 two questions.
4 The first one is: Have we complied with all
5 the procedural requirements of IDEA and Section 504?
6 Because one of the real problems is often times there is
7 a procedural violation, such as failure to timely
8 notify, you know, those matters which could cause you to
9 lose a case.
10 Then the second is: Have we offered the
11 faith? Have we offered the free appropriate public
12 education?
13 If we've convened an IEP meeting properly
14 with all of the right people there and met all of the
15 time line requirements, then -- and we've met the
16 procedural requirements, then whether we have the offer
17 of faith there is a professional judgment that our
18 clients have to render to us and give us advice on it.
19 If there is a problem -- for example, if the
20 IEP requires, let's say, one hour a week of mental
21 health services and those services haven't been provided
22 because, for example, the state could not locate a
23 competent qualified provider because the services are
24 being required in, let's say, Hana or Kau, remote areas
25 of the state where professionals may not be readily
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
263
1 available, those are cases where we will probably lose.
2 They -- once we have an obligation to deliver
3 the services, we have to deliver it. So, in those kinds
4 of contexts, you would probably be looking towards
5 settling that kind of case. And in the process of
6 settling it, you would be discussing the amount of time
7 that the attorney had spent preparing the case up until
8 that point in time.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Once -- if -- if there's an agreement
11 between -- or if we realize that we will probably not
12 prevail at the hearing, then we would probably start to
13 discuss settlement with the opposing counsel.
14 If we get a settlement, then we would notify
15 the hearings officer and immediately attempt to process
16 the payment request and implement the settlement
17 agreement.
18 Q. So, when -- well, other than a settlement, I
19 guess -- you know, I guess I'm trying to get to an
20 issue, for instance, where one of the Plaintiffs'
21 attorneys provides services to their client, requires
22 "X" number of hours per month; and you mentioned, for
23 instance, for the Floyd firm, you know, for
24 approximately $12,000 a month on average.
25 A. Yeah, I think I need to clarify. Ordinarily
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
264
1 if an attorney, for example, attends an IEP conference
2 with their clients, they don't get attorney's fees for
3 that. It's only in a contested case proceeding or
4 litigation.
5 Q. They don't get any compensation for that if
6 it's not a contested case?
7 A. No. A party can bring anybody that they want
8 to to an IEP meeting. So, if a parent asks their
9 attorney to be there, that's their prerogative; but it's
10 not -- it's not a -- they're there not as an attorney.
11 They're there as a participant in an IEP meeting.
12 Q. So, not compensatable by this process by DOE
13 funds?
14 A. Yes, it's -- the attorney's fees starts
15 triggering when there's a request for hearing filed.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And that's considered litigation.
18 Q. Okay. So, an attorney will put in some time
19 and submit -- other than a settlement, just time that he
20 has spent on that case -- to who, to your office?
21 A. If -- yes, if an attorney is involved in
22 representing a student, yes.
23 Q. Okay. And after that, what you review --
24 someone in your office reviews it?
25 A. The attorney that's handling that case would
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
265
1 review it and --
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. -- determine, you know, if we can -- usually
4 the attorney's fees is in conjunction with all of the
5 other issues. You're resolving, for example, the
6 compensatory educational services or you're making
7 adjustments to the IEP or whatever depending on what the
8 demands are in the hearing request.
9 Q. Uh-huh.
10 A. Sometimes you do a global settlement of all
11 of the issues, which is with the attorney's fees as
12 well.
13 Q. Okay. So, it meets either some kind of
14 agreement in your office or --
15 A. In consultation with the client.
16 Q. Okay. Then who would review that submittal?
17 A. Generally it's the district superintendent
18 that basically says, "Go ahead."
19 Q. Okay. And --
20 A. And then the stipulation or settlement
21 agreement is entered into. The hearing officer is then
22 informed of the settlement so that the hearing doesn't
23 have to take place. The adjustments -- for example, if
24 it calls for another IEP meeting to be conducted in
25 order to incorporate adjustments of settlements made,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
266
1 that's done; and then their request for payment is
2 submitted to the district.
3 Q. So, the payment of that would come straight
4 from the district offices as opposed to --
5 A. In many instances, it's the district. If the
6 district doesn't have the funds or whatever, then, we
7 look to the state, the special education section.
8 Q. Okay. And what role, then, would the court
9 monitor play? Would the court monitor review any of
10 this?
11 A. No.
12 Q. He's out of the loop?
13 A. He's -- in fact, what we were talking about
14 is individual claims by class members; but that's not a
15 Consent Decree class issue.
16 Q. Oh, I see. I see. Is there a situation
17 where the monitor would review?
18 A. The monitor -- no, the issues -- the Consent
19 Decree attorney's fees are those -- are the ones limited
20 to Eric Seitz and Shelby Floyd --
21 Q. Uh-huh.
22 A. -- to a limited extent, Susan Cooper, who is
23 also a representative of the Plaintiff class; but other
24 than that, the monitor is not involved in -- in those
25 individual claims.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
267
1 Q. So, in terms of the monitor and/or the judge
2 signing off on the stipulation, is that -- where does
3 that come in?
4 A. The judge approves the stipulated payment
5 order, but that's after the parties have agreed to the
6 amount.
7 Q. Okay. So, up until that -- ultimately it's
8 the judge who says "yes" or "no" in that particular
9 situation in terms of granting the compensation?
10 A. Ultimately, yes, but I'm -- I'm not -- if
11 your question is: Is the Court going to routinely
12 scrutinize the stipulation? I don't think so. Those
13 are, you know, matters that the Plaintiffs and the
14 Defendants' counsel have stipulated, which means we've
15 agreed that we owe that amount of money.
16 I think the issues that the Court -- the
17 concerns that the Court have -- has, I think, is the
18 amounts -- you know, when you look at the billing, the
19 amounts of moneys that are being spent on attorney's
20 fees which, you know, I guess, realistically should
21 hopefully go to the servicing of the children; and
22 that's our hope as well.
23 I think -- my hope was that at this point in
24 time, we will be in substantial compliance with the
25 Consent Decree; and, therefore, the participation of the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
268
1 Plaintiffs would not be necessary.
2 Of course, if we go into receivership, I
3 think our argument also would be Plaintiffs'
4 participation would no longer be necessary and neither
5 would the court monitor's participation because the
6 special ed section of the DOE would be under the control
7 of the Federal Court.
8 But, you know, unfortunately were we were not
9 at the point where I would have hoped at being six years
10 into the Consent Decree -- and, you know, I'm not trying
11 to make excuses; but I think you need to understand the
12 historical perspective as well. Summary judgment was
13 entered against the state basically determining our
14 legal liability. We were not complying with IDEA and
15 504 back in 1993. The Consent Decree was negotiated
16 from that perspective. We were not in compliance. We
17 were found not to be in compliance.
18 From that point, we were negotiating how do
19 we become in compliance preserving the
20 self-determination of the state, so that we won't have
21 the Federal Court telling us how to do it.
22 Self-determination was that the Department of Health and
23 Education would determine for themselves how to comply
24 with the law.
25 Since the Consent Decree -- since the lawsuit
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
269
1 was filed, we've had, what, three superintendents and
2 three directors of health. We've also had numerous
3 other high governmental officials attempting to bridge
4 the two agencies.
5 And the real fundamental problem at the
6 beginning was: How do you get the Department of Health
7 and the Department of Education to work together, let
8 alone the issues of other agencies, such as Department
9 of Human Services, the judiciary, the family court,
10 imposing financial commitments on the system that were
11 appropriated or anticipated by the departments
12 themselves.
13 We tried throughout the years different ways
14 to bridge the gap or to get the departments to
15 communicate together. The Governor's office had at one
16 point in time the -- Linda Corbin's position was just
17 trying to bring the two departments together.
18 We've also went to phases where the
19 Department of Health's posi -- the Department of
20 Education's position was that they were not in the
21 business of providing mental health services and,
22 therefore, were strictly relying on the Department of
23 Health for providing those services.
24 Halfway through, we shifted gears and started
25 to do the school-based services, which I believe is the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
270
1 right way to go; but all of these changes, I think,
2 impacted on our ability to timely comply with the
3 Consent Decree requirements. I think we're on the right
4 track right now, but it did take a lot of changes within
5 the system.
6 Q. I appreciate your history on that; but I
7 guess what I'm trying to get my hands around is, you
8 know, what -- following up on the line of questioning
9 Mr. Kawashima had, there seems to be a number of
10 different attorney's fees that are being paid or
11 compensated for legal fees that are being paid --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- not only for the Consent Decree but for --
14 A. Individual --
15 Q. -- 504, IDEA, all of that. So, I guess, is
16 the Judge aware and/or the court monitor aware of the
17 comprehensive picture in terms of attorney's fees being
18 paid?
19 A. I'm sure -- I'm sure they're aware. I
20 think -- I spoke to the Attorney General recently, and
21 he mentioned to me that every governor in the state --
22 when he goes to the National Governors Association, that
23 special education and attorney's fees is top priority or
24 that's at the top of the list of everybody's concern.
25 And, you know, I think -- I think it is
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
271
1 unfortunate that -- it's probably going to require
2 Congress to be the one to act on this matter. We've --
3 from our discussions, we've asked Senator Inouye's
4 office to explore the issues of, perhaps, capping the
5 attorney's fees, building in a legal presumption of
6 validity of the faith that's developed to an IEP process
7 and, perhaps, even providing for attorney's fees to the
8 state if we prevail in these matters; but there needs to
9 be some kind of review of the attorney's fees issues
10 because, as I said, oftentimes the attorney's fees are
11 higher than the dispute between the parties.
12 Q. I know I've used up more than my ten minutes.
13 I think that's the issue for me that I wanted to get to,
14 which is what is the government's perspective on this
15 issue?
16 A. And I think the bottom line is: You know,
17 the attorneys in my division don't like to lose. We
18 don't like to give away attorney's fees as well; but
19 until we get the system working sufficiently or until we
20 can competently argue that faith has been developed and
21 delivered, I think that's where we have our
22 vulnerability is up to this point we need to have the
23 certified special ed teachers there so that, you know,
24 the services are being competently delivered. We need
25 to make sure we have the array of services for mental
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
272
1 health so that the children are being provided with
2 services. Once we can get those things in place, I
3 think it will be easier to defend these cases.
4 The next part would be training and giving
5 the teachers and the school officials the ability to be
6 confident in what they do. I think too often the IEP
7 process has been turned into an adversarial process
8 which school officials aren't accustomed to.
9 When you have an attorney or a psychiatrist
10 attending these IEPS, too often the educators defer to
11 the expertise of these individuals; and it does -- it
12 gets turned from an educational proceeding into
13 something else. And we need to instill confidence in
14 the school officials to not take a back seat to the
15 psychiatrist or to the attorney or to the applicant. If
16 we can do that, I think -- because too often, my
17 opinion, when I go to an IEP meeting, we have too many
18 silent participants. It's not their fault. I think
19 they feel intimidated. We've got to instill some kind
20 of confidence in them so that they can participate and
21 give their educational perspective in all of these
22 things.
23 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Co-Chair Saiki?
24 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: I just have a
25 short question, a couple of minutes. I'll yield eight
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
273
1 minutes of my time to Co-Chair Hanabusa.
2 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Before you go
3 there, Senator Buen is next, okay? Okay.
4 EXAMINATION
5 BY CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI:
6 Q. I was just flipping through a couple of the
7 time sheets and I noticed that there are individual
8 entries for specific parents who called the Plaintiffs'
9 attorneys with complaints or requests for assistance.
10 How is that -- why are those entries included in these
11 time sheets?
12 A. When those -- because they're members of the
13 class and they bring -- again, I think as I explained,
14 the issue is a systemic issue. It's a matter that goes
15 beyond the individual issues. For example, if a parent
16 complains because they went to the district office and
17 the district didn't have the form or whatever, those
18 are -- those are issues where it's not relating to an
19 individual issue. It's a matter of, as a class, we're
20 supposed to have all of those things done.
21 So, you know, that's the distinction. If
22 they're representing the individuals on an individual
23 case, then we would make a distinction on those.
24 Q. Well, is the -- is the Plaintiffs' attorney
25 charged with making sure that the parent who calls is
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
274
1 the parent of a class member before they provide the
2 assistance and before they bill for it?
3 A. I think you would have to -- yes, I mean,
4 if -- the class members of the, you know, children
5 between age of zero to 20 that have a mental health
6 issue that they're complaining about.
7 Q. Well, there are 12,000 class members in the
8 State of Hawaii?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Give or take 5,000 maybe?
11 A. Perhaps.
12 Q. Okay. So, if eight parents called the
13 attorney every day and talked to the attorney for one
14 hour per parent for a total of eight hours per day, you
15 could have a Plaintiffs' attorney charging $4,000 a day
16 in attorney's fees?
17 A. Well, that's a possibility. I think --
18 that's something that we would have to flag out and call
19 them on, if that's happening; and I don't believe that
20 that's the case.
21 Q. Well, that could have started to occur --
22 A. Of course, it could happen.
23 Q. We haven't really questioned that then. It
24 seems like everything in here has been approved.
25 A. Yes, I think that the Plaintiffs and us
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
275
1 pretty much discuss all of those issues. They're
2 generally either raised from the attorneys to the school
3 district or to the principal or to the superintendent
4 and his assistant or to us. If it's a class issue, we
5 try to see how we're going to resolve it or correct the
6 problem.
7 Q. Well, just one last question. I don't know
8 how you can make a determination from the time sheet
9 whether or not the parents who call are making
10 class-related or systemic-related complaints because,
11 for one thing, the time -- the time sheets -- the entry
12 is anonymous; and it's very vague as to what they're
13 calling about.
14 A. In many instances, we know what they're --
15 what that entry is because those matters are brought to
16 our attention for investigation or resolution as well.
17 We -- we are in constant contact with the Plaintiffs'
18 attorney. Whether that's good or bad, I'm not going to
19 make any editorial comments on that; but, you know, our
20 purpose is to identify the problems. And when you're
21 looking at a big system like the Department of Education
22 and the Department of Health, unfortunately, there's
23 numerous instances where you would not expect the
24 problems to keep repeating itself; but it does. And
25 when it does, you know, we need to know about it because
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
276
1 we need to make corrections and make sure that doesn't
2 continue.
3 Q. You know, I still don't know how you can make
4 that determination because there are multiple entries
5 from anonymous parents with very vague complaints
6 repeatedly throughout these time sheets. And, you know,
7 we're going to spend time going through all of these
8 time sheets over the next couple of weeks. So, I'm sure
9 we'll have more detailed questions after we've reviewed
10 them.
11 A. Okay.
12 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you
13 very much.
14 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Okay. Senator
15 Buen followed by Representative Ito.
16 SENATOR BUEN: Thank you, Co-Chair Hanabusa.
17 EXAMINATION
18 BY SENATOR BUEN:
19 Q. As the schools go into compliance, you were
20 saying that when we were not -- if it was in a graph
21 form, it was going up as far as attorneys getting paid.
22 Where is it now?
23 A. It's very high. In fact, the issue right now
24 is basically I think we're going down to the wire of the
25 showdown. It's like, you know, the contempt issue has
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
277
1 been litigated. What's going to happen because of that,
2 I think, is the $10 million question.
3 The activities by the Plaintiffs is
4 increasing because they're pushing towards a receiver.
5 And basically if we had the confidence and the ability
6 to look them in the eye and say "We're in compliance,
7 we're in substantial compliance and so, you don't" --
8 "you don't need to do what you're doing," that's one
9 thing; and I'm not sure -- you know, until we can get
10 all of the complexes -- I think Ms. Farmer testified
11 that we need to get six more into compliance before
12 November 1st.
13 If we can get those issues addressed, if we
14 can get the numbers of qualified -- and certified
15 special ed teachers in place, we'll be -- we'll go a
16 long way towards being able to be a little bit more
17 assertive and aggressive in defending ourselves; and the
18 problem is: When you're looking at it from the point of
19 contempt, noncompliance, that kind of stuff, it's very
20 difficult to raise all of these issues basically because
21 the ultimate sanction can be a takeover, can be a
22 receivership which we're trying to avoid, if possible.
23 Q. My next question is: Say, for instance, you
24 have a complaint coming from the Island of Molokai; and
25 let's say the Plaintiff prevails. The -- is a service
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
278
1 now being -- going to be provided for that child on
2 Molokai --
3 A. Yes, I think the --
4 Q. -- whatever the service that the complaint is
5 about that is not being served?
6 A. One of the -- one of the scariest things
7 that's happening is under the liability section of
8 Section 504, the Rehabilitation Act, is the standard of
9 what's called deliberate indifference.
10 What that means is that if a state is found
11 to be deliberately indifferent to its obligations to
12 provide the services that's in the IEP or modification
13 plan, for example, if we -- if it's in there and we know
14 we have that obligation but we're not delivering it,
15 there is the possibility of monetary damages and
16 punitive damages against the state; and that's an issue
17 that the state is appealing to the Ninth Circuit right
18 now.
19 Given the recent rulings by the United States
20 Supreme Court in Alden versus Maine, we -- based on -- I
21 don't want to go into all of the details; but basically
22 we're challenging Congress' powers to abrogate the
23 state's sovereign immunity for liability under
24 Section 504; but until we can do that, there is always
25 the exposure to the state that if we don't provide the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
279
1 services and the obligations that are in these plans,
2 that, you know, we could be found to be deliberately
3 indifferent and there could be liabilities on that.
4 Q. I suppose it must be tough, especially for
5 the remote areas in the state, like, Hana and Molokai
6 and Lanai, when it's difficult to get these services
7 provided in these areas and then the states do this kind
8 of --
9 A. Yes, I think -- I think if you understand the
10 dilemma that the state is in when the Consent Decree --
11 when the lawsuit was filed -- you know, the Felix
12 Consent Decree is not a -- conceptually is not a complex
13 thing to understand. What it is is that the state is
14 required to provide mental health as a related service.
15 Unfortunately what that means is that if our
16 state laws, our personnel laws, allowed us to retain
17 mental health providers where we could have them as
18 state employees, that would be the best thing.
19 Unfortunately the -- the salary scales for
20 those types of state employees, we can't attract them;
21 and that's why even the Department of Health who was
22 providing those services had to resort to consultants to
23 do it because the professionals are making more moneys
24 in the private sector than they would working for the
25 State of Hawaii.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
280
1 Until we can raise the salary so that you can
2 have these people as state employees and direct where
3 they can work, you know, or be able to pay differentials
4 to people that go to Kau or to Molokai or to Waianae,
5 I'm not sure how we're going to solve all of those
6 problems of getting services to those remote areas. I
7 think we're probably going to have to rely on, like,
8 some extended technology and have mental health services
9 done by computer, telecommunication, or something. You
10 know, it's, like, short of being able to have a person
11 fly there every day to deliver services, that might --
12 those things might have to be explored.
13 SENATOR BUEN: Thank you.
14 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Do you have
15 questions, Mr. Oshiro? No? I'm going to move to
16 Representative Kawakami. Do you have any questions?
17 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: I'll pass.
18 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Okay. Senator
19 Sakamoto.
20 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: I have a few questions.
21 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: You have
22 questions? Okay.
23 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Sure. I always have
24 questions for Mr. Suzuki.
25 EXAMINATION
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
281
1 BY SENATOR SAKAMOTO:
2 Q. I guess in the due process -- you know, many
3 cases went to due process. In businesses there's what
4 we call risk management where the attorneys then would
5 recommend or insurance people would recommend, "Here are
6 some things you should do to reduce the legal costs and
7 exposures." What have you done in that light?
8 A. I am -- the way that we can solve this
9 problem or at least address it is we need to have more
10 training. What we need to do is -- we need to have all
11 of our state officials and that -- what I mean is
12 accountability has to rest at the school level because
13 it's the principal that is in charge of the school.
14 When they have an IEP meeting, they need to
15 make sure that their staff is prepared and competent,
16 knowledgeable about the needs of the child, know it's --
17 you cannot have situations where a school official would
18 say, "I don't know this child" and -- you know, and that
19 kind of stuff. People need to review the educational
20 records and attend these IEP meetings and speak up.
21 You know, it's a matter of -- people need to
22 be honest about the handicap with the child. It's --
23 you cannot pretend that the child is a normal child.
24 The child is eligible for special ed because they have a
25 handicapping condition.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
282
1 Parents need to be explained that, in many
2 instances, the child may not be at grade level and may
3 not read at grade level because of the handicapping
4 condition. So, it's a matter of training people to be
5 more competent and have the self-confidence to
6 participate in these proceedings and not be intimidated
7 by it.
8 You know, it's supposed to be an education
9 law. It's supposed to be an educational proceeding. I
10 think too often it's being turned into a adversarial
11 legal battleground. That has to change. It can only
12 change if the principal takes control and makes sure
13 that it doesn't happen. The principal needs to make
14 sure that the school officials are not going to be
15 insulted or intimidated, that it's going to be a
16 civilized meeting; and until -- when you let the
17 meetings get out of control is where you have the
18 problem.
19 So, it's -- what we've been doing is -- and
20 we've -- what we've been proposing is to have a training
21 staff that goes out to prepare people -- when I spoke to
22 the consultant that helped the State of Florida, it's --
23 when you start winning cases is when you start getting
24 confidence in the system that it's being able to do
25 well.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
283
1 That's what we got to do. We got to prepare
2 our people at the IEP level and at the administrative
3 hearings level to be competent in what they do so that
4 you can convince the hearing officer that you've done
5 right and you know what you're talking about when you
6 testify. So, I think training is the key.
7 Q. Okay. So, in the last 50 due process cases,
8 how many have we won?
9 A. I don't keep that kind of statistics, but
10 we've won a few. I think the system has improved. For
11 example, recently the department instituted a process
12 where three hearings officers are submitted. The
13 Plaintiffs can eliminate one. The state can eliminate
14 one; and then, you know, the third would be the hearing
15 officer.
16 In the past, that wasn't an option. You had
17 no choice as to who would be the hearings officer. I
18 think better training of the hearings officers as well
19 is going to help improve the system.
20 Q. Short of going to the process hearing, have
21 we improved an alternative dispute resolution mechanism?
22 A. Yes. I think the -- the problem is if you're
23 looking to that as the solution, I think, because you
24 have the fee shifting provisions and the attorney's fees
25 provisions, there are some attorneys that are -- that
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
284
1 want to litigate no matter what because they want the
2 attorney's fees. So, mediation probably isn't what
3 they're looking for.
4 Q. But it may be -- what, the parents may be
5 willing to --
6 A. If -- if the parties come to the table
7 looking at what is the best interests of this student,
8 then it will work; and that's -- you know, that's not
9 always the case.
10 Q. Okay. Changing the line of thought a little,
11 when you talked about initially, you know, processing
12 and paying various invoices, have you ever rejected any?
13 A. Yes, and we've questioned.
14 Q. I guess -- and some are the legal ones.
15 Others are Department of Health invoices but the
16 Department of Education pays for it. Who -- I wonder
17 what legal premise we reject in saying a provider or an
18 attorney or someone else is not going to be paid.
19 A. I -- it's never -- I don't think it's an
20 issue of -- that the attorney or the proprietor is not
21 going to be paid. I think it's a matter of how much
22 they're going to be paid if we're not the prevailing --
23 or if we don't believe that we can prevail at the
24 hearing.
25 Certain attorneys in town associate
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
285
1 themselves with other attorneys and hire expert
2 witnesses from the Mainland and make these cases, which
3 are administrative hearings, into full-scale litigation.
4 I think unfortunately that puts the state in a
5 disadvantage because we don't generally hire that kind
6 of expert or spend that kind of money retaining experts
7 to go against their experts in these kinds of hearings.
8 In those situations, what we've got to try to
9 do is encourage the department's own people -- and the
10 Department of Education has competent, qualified people
11 within the department. We have people with doctorates
12 that can be expert witnesses in developmental
13 disabilities and a lot of the disciplines; but
14 unfortunately they're reluctant to testify, mainly
15 because of the intimidation and the grief that goes
16 through having to be in that kind of a situation.
17 Educators generally aren't that -- don't have
18 that kind of training or personality to be that way.
19 They're kind and accommodating people, generally; and I
20 think what we need to do is to train them to be able to
21 wear both hats. In some situations, you can be that
22 way; but when this situation changes, you got to be able
23 to be tougher and more assertive and that kind of stuff
24 too. That's training.
25 Q. Since we've moved to school-based behavioral
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
286
1 health where the school has -- or the DOE has experts
2 now -- so, is your recommendation to hire feisty,
3 grouchy experts or --
4 A. No, I think -- I think if the principals take
5 on the responsibility of maintaining control of the
6 process, then the other officials can be nice and kind
7 and caring and whatever; but somebody needs to be in
8 charge. And that's -- you know, whether it be the
9 principal or the principal's designee.
10 Q. And now that your department -- your group or
11 branch or your education division has more personnel, is
12 the department now feeling that they have adequate legal
13 help from you and your people or are they still
14 complaining that the AG isn't giving us service?
15 A. I haven't heard that recently. I hope that's
16 not the case. I think we've tried to accommodate
17 everybody. Unfortunately, the aggravation that we have
18 is when we get called to go to an IEP meeting or to go
19 to a prehearing because of administrative breakdowns
20 where the notification doesn't come in a timely
21 manner -- but other than that, we try to accommodate to
22 the extent that we can.
23 Q. Okay. So, finishing up, then, of the due
24 process hearings that go against us, how many of these
25 you feel are procedural -- we have not done the right
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
287
1 procedure versus philosophical where it's a -- really
2 we're arguing or the difference is what type of
3 treatment or really a disparity in -- great disparity in
4 level of treatment?
5 A. Many of them are procedural, and let me
6 explain how we get into that kind of predicament.
7 Oftentimes -- for example, when you're at an IEP meeting
8 and the department tries to bring closure to the IEP --
9 you know, one of the misconceptions at the school level
10 is that you have to get consensus, that everybody has to
11 agree; and that's not the case.
12 The obligation under IDEA is that the state
13 must offer faith. Basically, you listen to all of the
14 parties; but ultimately the department needs to come to
15 a conclusion as to what will our offer be?
16 Too often what happens is that a -- for
17 example, a parent would say, "I cannot tell you today.
18 I'm going to take it home and think about it and I'll
19 get back to you tomorrow or some other day."
20 Well, it's oftentimes that tomorrow never
21 comes. It becomes a delay tactic to cause the state to
22 become in procedural violation because as time goes by
23 and the meetings get continued and continued and
24 continued, if you believe that you have to have
25 consensus, you -- and unless you agree to everything
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
288
1 that the parents want, you're not going to get
2 consensus.
3 You know, you cannot let those matters just
4 keep dragging on and on and on. I heard the other week
5 from a school official on Maui that an IEP went on for
6 six months. That's not supposed to happen. If it's
7 allowed to happen because the school official didn't
8 have the ability to control the IEP properly, to make
9 sure that, you know, issues don't get continued, that
10 you bring closure and we offer faith.
11 Q. So, at this point -- you know, hearing what
12 you're saying, have you established a specific guideline
13 policy so that those types of problems won't reoccur in
14 the future?
15 A. Yes. I think the first thing is to make sure
16 that everybody believes or isn't under the mistaken
17 belief that you have to have consensus because that's
18 critical. If everybody still thinks you have to have
19 consensus, then, you're going to have these procedural
20 violations.
21 Q. I guess it's just the short question of --
22 so, you feel you've delineated those things and
23 communicated that to the department?
24 A. I think so. I think unfortunately -- even my
25 experience has been even though you do that, there's
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
289
1 still down the road going to be a situation where that's
2 not -- it's not going to happen and where we still have
3 that problem.
4 It's very difficult to make people think that
5 way. I think unfortunately -- for example, if you have
6 an advocate attending the meeting and say, "No, that's
7 not true, you don't know what you're talking about" or
8 something like that and challenges the principal, unless
9 the principal fully believes that they're correct -- no
10 matter even if they say, "Well, Russell Suzuki said that
11 that's what it's supposed to be" or whatever, if they
12 don't for themselves believe then, they may get swayed
13 by the advocate or the attorney that's intimidating.
14 Q. Do they have a hot line they can call you
15 right there and say "Russell" -- serious.
16 A. I wish they would. I think --
17 Q. Can you establish one?
18 A. Yes, we -- there is the ability to get in
19 touch with us on that kind of stuff.
20 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Thank you. Thank you.
21 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, with
22 your indulgence and my apologies to Mr. Suzuki, the
23 court reporter needs a break. We still need to go into
24 executive session. So, what I'm going to propose is
25 that we go into executive session, give the court
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
290
1 reporter time to rest up; and we'll finish up with
2 Mr. Suzuki after that.
3 So, at this time, I'll say that the Co-Chairs
4 move that this Committee reconvene in executive session
5 to consult with the Committee counsel for purposes of
6 matters relating to Subpoenas, witnesses, and testimony.
7 Is there any discussion? If not, since my Co-Chair is
8 not here, I am going to take the roll.
9 Again, this is the motion for executive
10 session. Let's see. Co-Chair Hanabusa is aye.
11 Co-Chair Saiki is excused. Vice-Chair Kokubun?
12 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: Aye.
13 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Vice-Chair
14 Oshiro?
15 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO: Aye.
16 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Senator Buen?
17 SENATOR BUEN: Aye.
18 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Representative
19 Ito?
20 REPRESENTATIVE ITO: Aye.
21 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Representative
22 Kawakami?
23 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: Aye.
24 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Representative
25 Leong is excused. Senator Matsuura is excused.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
291
1 Representative Marumoto?
2 REPRESENTATIVE MARUMOTO: Aye.
3 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Senator Sakamoto?
4 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Aye.
5 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: And Senator Slom
6 is excused. We have the necessary number of votes.
7 Members, please convene next door -- next
8 door for executive session.
9 Members of the public, we will be back
10 hopefully no later than ten minutes from now. We are
11 just in a recess for executive section. Thank you.
12 (Recess from 4:38 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
13 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, we're
14 reconvened. Thank you, Mr. Suzuki. We hope our court
15 reporter is recuperated. I understand that
16 Representatives Marumoto and Ito have no questions; is
17 that correct? Thank you. I have some.
18 EXAMINATION
19 BY CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA:
20 Q. Mr. Suzuki, the funds that are paid for the
21 attorney's fees you said are from the Department of
22 Education, correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Are there any federal funds in that amount?
25 A. I don't know.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
292
1 Q. You don't know. So, it's basically --
2 A. I believe it's from the state appropriation.
3 Q. So, when we look at the attorney's fees, it
4 doesn't come from a certain category, EDN 150 or
5 anything like that?
6 A. I think it's from EDN 150.
7 Q. So, if there are some federal funds that just
8 get meshed up into EDN 150, you don't know whether
9 federal funds are used?
10 A. Do not.
11 Q. I also understand from your testimony that if
12 there is a stipulation signed for a particular payment
13 and then signed off by the Court, that that means that
14 the Attorney General's office has reviewed the billing
15 and deem it to be appropriate; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And I assume, then -- you also were
18 nice enough to produce to us checks -- copies of checks;
19 and I assume that this is the evidence of the payments
20 of the -- by the Department of Education to the
21 Plaintiffs' attorney --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- is that also correct?
24 So, we can assume that if the check is here,
25 that, in fact, it's been -- by way of an order, that the
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
293
1 judge has signed off on it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So, just for the process, you receive the
4 bill from the Plaintiffs' attorneys. You review the
5 bill. You and the Plaintiffs' attorney, whichever one,
6 enters into a stipulation for the amount. It goes to
7 Judge Ezra. He signs off. It comes back to you, and
8 then the check is cut; is that correct?
9 A. We do a request for the payment and send it
10 to the Department of Education.
11 Q. Now, I have some questions -- I've only gone
12 through some of the more recent bills; and I'm kind of
13 curious. What I'm looking at is dated with a cover
14 letter of March 9, 2001 from Ms. Floyd to you; and I can
15 make the representation that I believe that there is a
16 check payment. So, this one has been paid for. In
17 here, there are various initials of persons. Like,
18 "SAF," I believe, is Shelby A. Floyd. Does that sound
19 right?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And Ms. Floyd is billing at a rate of $250 an
22 hour; is that also correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And there's an initial "KAL." I don't know
25 who "KAL" is, but it's billing at a rate of $85 an hour.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
294
1 Do you know who KAL is?
2 A. I believe it's staff in her office.
3 Q. Like, a paralegal?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And there's initials "WMK" at $110. Do you
6 know who that is?
7 A. I believe that's an associate.
8 Q. I see the name W. Kaneko in the body. Is
9 that Bill Kaneko as far as --
10 A. I believe so.
11 Q. There's also someone with the initials "DMF"
12 billing $135 an hour. Do you know who that is?
13 A. I believe that's another associate in her
14 office.
15 Q. Do you know who that --
16 A. I can't recall the initial -- the name.
17 Q. Okay. In my review of this particular bill,
18 what struck me as unusual is that "KAL" is billing us to
19 track bills; and these are legislative bills, as I can I
20 understand it. Is that also your understanding?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And "WMK" is billing us for monitoring Felix
23 hearings regarding certain Senate bills, I guess, House
24 bills as well as -- for example, there's an entry for a
25 tele -- some kind of conversation with Co-Chair Saiki.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
295
1 Do you recall that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you tell me why the Attorney General's
4 office believed that it's appropriate use of, I guess,
5 Department of Education funds to pay for the Plaintiffs'
6 attorneys tracking of legislative bills as well as for
7 conversations with, for example, Co-Chair Saiki?
8 A. I think the issue at the Legislature was
9 twofold. One was whether the commitment to fund the
10 Consent Decree requirements as recommended by the
11 director of health and the superintendent was going to
12 impact on our ability to comply with the Consent Decree.
13 And the issues of -- so, basically, that was
14 it. It's a matter of -- during this past session, there
15 was a high concern about the Legislature's questioning
16 of the department's requests for funding for the Felix
17 Consent Decree initiatives. And whether or not the
18 state was going to be able to get those funds hinged
19 upon whether the Plaintiffs were going to pursue the
20 receivership or contempt issue.
21 Q. I mean, I can understand your particular
22 concern with that issue given the fact that you're the
23 Attorney General; but why is it that it's appropriate
24 for the state to be paying for the Plaintiffs' attorneys
25 to track these bills and to have conversations with
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
296
1 members of the Legislature?
2 A. It was the Plaintiffs' position that the
3 ability of the state's departments to comply with the
4 Consent Decree hinged upon the ability to get the
5 necessary funds to implement the Consent Decree.
6 The monitoring was for the purpose of whether
7 to pursue the contempt or to pursue the receivership
8 issue. I think all of the parties were concerned about
9 the -- whether the Legislature was committing -- had the
10 desire -- or commitment to the Consent Decree or not.
11 And, you know, those are the basis for their monitoring
12 on that.
13 Q. Was this an agreement between yourself, the
14 monitor and/or the Court and/or the master that this
15 would be a permitted cost from the -- on the Plaintiffs'
16 part? Because I believe you testified earlier that you
17 kind of know what's being requested because you sort of
18 talk about it. So, was this something that you-all
19 discussed and decided that this would be appropriate?
20 A. I knew that the Plaintiffs were monitoring
21 the legislative proceedings.
22 Q. And did you also know that they would be
23 billing the state for it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that was okay with you?
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
297
1 A. I think the -- you know, I don't know if you
2 can say "okay." I did have concerns about it. I think
3 the issue is -- at that point in time, our purpose or
4 our interest was to make sure that we could comply with
5 the Consent Decree and to the extent that -- if -- I
6 think if we were to seriously or aggressively challenge
7 on those issues, you know, in some -- to some extent,
8 what we were trying to do was gather the consent or the
9 support of the Plaintiffs and not have a very
10 adversarial situation where we would have to not only
11 confront them on the attorney's fees issues but also on
12 the compliance issues.
13 Again, if we were at a point where we were --
14 where we believed that we were in substantial
15 compliance, we believed that we had the support of the
16 Legislature, we believed that we had the commitment of
17 the executive branch, I think it would be a very
18 different situation. I think the uncertainty about
19 whether we would have to pursue defending the contempt
20 issue, the receiver issue -- all of those factors, I
21 think, come into play. You know, I wish we were in a
22 better position to be able to be a lot more aggressive
23 on those issues. Unfortunately it was my judgment call
24 that we weren't.
25 Q. Maybe I'm not hearing you correctly; but what
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
298
1 I'm almost hearing you saying is that because you felt
2 that we were not in compliance and because you didn't
3 want to pick unnecessary fights with the Plaintiffs who
4 you felt were in a better position than you, that you
5 decided that we would just sort of pay their attorney's
6 fees and maybe they won't be as mad with us. That's
7 kind of what I'm hearing you say. It's almost like,
8 well, we'll placate them by not challenging attorney's
9 fees.
10 A. I'm not sure if that's what I'm trying to
11 convey. I think it is a factor -- or was a factor.
12 Our heads were under the guillotine. I mean,
13 you know, the pressure was from the Court, from the
14 monitor, and getting our own clients to take seriously
15 the contempt issue, getting the department to move.
16 You know, if we were able to get the
17 departments to move quickly, competently, it was my
18 desire that we would get out of the Consent Decree and
19 that all of these issues wouldn't be issues. It's very
20 difficult to move a department or two departments like
21 that and --
22 Q. So, the inability of the departments to move
23 forward towards compliance or take it more seriously is
24 what's resulting with, in essence, these funds of money,
25 these large sums of money, going out in terms of
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
299
1 attorney's fees because it sort of keeps the Plaintiffs,
2 I guess, happier that they're getting paid without
3 having to fight you in Court as to whether we should pay
4 for tracking legislative bills or for talking to us.
5 A. Well, you know, I -- when the Consent Decree
6 was -- a couple of years into the Consent Decree, we
7 raised the issue of: How do we establish that we're in
8 substantial compliance with the Consent Decree?
9 My recommendation to the departments was that
10 we needed to create our own methodology. How do we
11 establish that we are in substantial compliance
12 independent of the monitor because the monitor is going
13 to have his own protocol, his own objective or
14 subjective evaluations as to whether we're in
15 compliance.
16 I had urged the departments to develop our
17 own protocol so that when it comes to this position in
18 time where the monitor disagrees or the Plaintiffs
19 disagrees as to whether we are in substantial
20 compliance, we would be able to produce our own
21 statistics or documentation or whatever to establish the
22 contrary. Unfortunately, that was deemed to be too
23 costly or too time-consuming or -- you know, we --
24 basically we weren't able to juggle two balls in the air
25 at the same time.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
300
1 So, we concentrating -- concentrated on
2 relying on the monitor's protocol, relying on the
3 monitor; but when you do that, you are basically at
4 their -- at the monitor's graces.
5 Q. And we're paying for it.
6 A. And the monitor makes the determination and
7 the Plaintiffs, of course, because you don't have
8 independent validation on those matters; and you know --
9 Q. Has your strategy worked? Do you feel that
10 payment of their fees without asking any questions and
11 just basically passing it through has bought you time
12 and bought the departments time who don't want to listen
13 to you and say let's move on to compliance?
14 A. You know, you're putting words into my mouth.
15 I didn't say that. We do question certain billings. On
16 the matter of the legislative matter, I did not
17 challenge them on that. Hindsight, I guess if I had
18 known that you would have been critical on that issue, I
19 might have addressed it further; but I didn't. And
20 that's my fault.
21 Q. Well, there's a May 15th, 2001 bill; and
22 there's somebody who's -- and it isn't me -- who's
23 written on the side "why" next to payment --
24 A. That's -- that's me. I'm sorry. That's my
25 writing.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
301
1 Q. So, you did -- you did have concerns about
2 this?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You didn't have it in the earlier month,
5 March; but you seem to have it in May?
6 A. I think it was -- I wrote it down in May.
7 It's always been on my mind.
8 Q. Let me ask you something else: There's a lot
9 of travel costs for Ms. Floyd, it looks like, and also
10 lunch and dinner meetings and all of that that we've
11 paid for. Was that an agreement, that we would pay for
12 her travel expenses from -- most of this is from Kona
13 which is where I believe she now resides. And the
14 Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing firm is really located in
15 Honolulu, Hawaii. Was there an agreement that we would
16 pay for her travel back and forth?
17 A. Well, whenever there's meetings in Honolulu
18 called by the monitor, service testing, those are
19 issues -- you know, I think what I tried to explore is
20 the possibility of having either Mr. Seitz or Ms. Floyd,
21 one or the other, attend service testing presentations.
22 In the most recent one last week, Ms. Floyd
23 wasn't able to attend one of the service testings; and
24 she had requested that the service testing be canceled.
25 It proceeded without her participation, but she did
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
302
1 complain about it. And, you know, I think it's a matter
2 of, can we raise those issues? We've allowed that
3 practice to occur; and, unfortunately, I think that both
4 Mr. Seitz and Ms. Floyd believe that they represent
5 different segments within the Felix class and would
6 argue that they deserve separate representation.
7 Q. So, the bottom line is that you've -- it's a
8 practice that you've agreed to. So, that's why we pay
9 for all her air travel?
10 A. Oh, we didn't -- we didn't agree that she
11 would move to Kamuela, but she did.
12 Q. Well, that's my point. I don't believe she
13 was in Kamuela at the time the Felix Consent Decree was
14 entered into, but I guess -- it's almost like she moved
15 with our concurrence and we would pay her to come back
16 to Honolulu.
17 A. She didn't move without our concurrence, but
18 she did move.
19 Q. And then the -- have you reviewed the billing
20 as to, when she comes to Honolulu, whether she's billing
21 us what we call -- attorneys call "portal to portal," in
22 other words, from the time she leaves her home until the
23 time she goes back?
24 A. No, I'm sorry. I didn't go into that
25 scrutiny.
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
303
1 Q. As Vice -- as Co-Chair Saiki has said -- I
2 think it was Co-Chair Saiki -- we just received these
3 billings, so that we will be reviewing them, I guess, in
4 detail and see; but as far as I know, your billing --
5 what you provided to us ends in June of this year; is
6 that correct?
7 A. I'm not -- I believe so.
8 Q. And if, in the meantime, additional types of
9 billings are received that you do pay for or you process
10 or just in receipt on your office, will you be kind
11 enough to forward that to the Committee?
12 A. Yes.
13 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Thank you.
14 Is there any other -- Mr. Kawashima, do you
15 have anything else?
16 SPECIAL COUNSEL KAWASHIMA: No, no, Madam
17 Chair.
18 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Members, any
19 other questions, follow-up questions? Representative
20 Saiki? No? Thank you.
21 Now, I'll turn it over to my Co-Chair.
22 Thank you, Mr. Suzuki.
23 THE WITNESS: You're welcome.
24 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Okay.
25 Members, we -- at this point -- before we adjourn, we
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
304
1 would like to request your consideration of the
2 authorization of further Subpoenas for investigation.
3 We given you a written list of individuals, and I'm
4 going to read it into the record very quickly.
5 The individuals are: Albert Yoshii, the
6 former director and Felix contract -- former director in
7 the Department of Education; Danford Sakai, the retired
8 superintendent of the Big Island; Kate Pahinui, project
9 director of Ohana Project; Ronald Higashi from the
10 Susannah Wesley Community Center; Angelina Lee, a former
11 MST therapist; Margaret Pereira, a former MST therapist;
12 Jeannie Ragaz, former MST therapist; Kevin Richard,
13 former MST therapist assistant; Kevin Wu, former MST
14 therapist; Henry Thomas, psychiatrist with the
15 Department of Health; Ken Garner, clinical psychologist;
16 Greg Terry, an MST therapist; Lynn Becca, MST therapist;
17 Carol Matsuoka, MST coordinator; Charl Finai, MST
18 coordinator; Mike Steward, Department of Health Family
19 Guidance Center at Diamond Head; Richard Kravetz,
20 president of Alakai Na Keki; Linda Hufano,
21 vice-president of Alakai Na Keki; Kaniu Stocksdale --
22 I'm sorry -- Kaniu Kinemaka-Stocksdale from Na Laukoa;
23 Don Burger from PREL; Karen Ehrhorn, PREL; Patricia Jean
24 Dukes, Loveland Academy; Daniel LeGoff, Dr. Dan
25 Incorporated; Margaret Koven of Loveland Academy; Chris
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
305
1 Shyne from Loveland Academy; David Drews, Diamond Head
2 Family Guidance Center; Dr. Kimo Alameda from the Family
3 Guidance Center in Hilo; Patrick Jichaku, clinical
4 psychologist with the Health Department; Tammy Bopp from
5 the Department of Health Family Health Services; Sue
6 Brown from the Department of Health Family Services;
7 Loretta Fuddy, deputy director at the Health Department;
8 Mitsugi Nakashima, former chairman for the Board of
9 Education; Diane Oshiro, assistant superintendent for
10 the Department of Education; Galen Onouye from the
11 Department of Education; Eric Seitz, Plaintiffs'
12 attorney; and Shelby Anne Floyd, one of the Plaintiffs'
13 attorneys.
14 And the documents that are -- we may request
15 the production of documents from any of these
16 individuals relating to the following entities:
17 Loveland Academy, Central Pacific University, Sunbelt
18 Staffing Solutions, Sunbelt Therapy Services of America;
19 and Columbus Educational Services.
20 So, the motion is to approve the issuance of
21 further Subpoenas as to these individuals. Is there any
22 discussion? If not, we'll take a roll call vote.
23 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Co-Chair Saiki?
24 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Yes.
25 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Vice-Chair
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
306
1 Kokubun?
2 VICE-CHAIR SENATOR KOKUBUN: Aye.
3 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Vice-Chair
4 Oshiro?
5 VICE-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE OSHIRO: Aye.
6 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Senator Buen?
7 SENATOR BUEN: Aye.
8 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Representative
9 Ito?
10 REPRESENTATIVE ITO: Aye.
11 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Representative
12 Kawakami?
13 REPRESENTATIVE KAWAKAMI: Aye.
14 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Representative
15 Leong?
16 REPRESENTATIVE LEONG: Aye.
17 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Senator Matsuura
18 is excused. Representative Marumoto?
19 REPRESENTATIVE MARUMOTO: Aye.
20 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Senator Sakamoto?
21 SENATOR SAKAMOTO: Aye.
22 CO-CHAIR SENATOR HANABUSA: Senator Slom is
23 excused, and Co-Chair Hanabusa is aye. Co-Chair, the
24 matter is adopted.
25 CO-CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE SAIKI: Thank you,
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
307
1 members. Okay. Members, we're ready to adjourn. Thank
2 you very much for staying at this point in time, and
3 we'll adjourn our hearing. Thank you.
4 (The hearing was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090
308
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2 STATE OF HAWAII )
3 ) SS:
4 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU )
5 I, SHARON ROSS, Notary Public, State of Hawaii,
6 do hereby certify:
7 That on Monday, September 17, 2001, at 9:13 a.m.,
8 the hearing was taken down by me in machine shorthand
9 and was thereafter reduced to typewriting under my
10 supervision; that the foregoing represents, to the best
11 of my ability, a true and correct transcript of the
12 proceedings had in the foregoing matter.
13 I further certify that I am not attorney for any
14 of the parties hereto, nor in any way concerned with the
15 cause.
16 DATED this 28th day of September, 2001, in
17 Honolulu, Hawaii.
18
19
20 SHARON ROSS, CSR NO. 432
Notary Public, State of Hawaii
21 My Commission Expires: 4-8-05
22
23
24
25
RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090