Concerned that her recent recant of statements regarding Micah Kane has made her out to be "one liar," Puna Councilwoman Emily Naeole hoped to clarify the incident and address negative public comments being made about her.
In an interview conducted the afternoon of October 8 at the BIW office, Naeole presented her account of the previous week's conversations with Kane.
According to Naeole, Kane called her the afternoon of October 2. Although he was unable to reach her, she returned his call and the two began a conversation about the upcoming vote on the superstore ban.
"He wanted to share his mana`o with me about it," she said. "He wanted to tell me he never liked my vote and was trying to encourage me not to join the ban."
Naeole said she didn't say much to Kane at this time, "I just listened."
By the next morning, October 3, Naeole was ready to discuss the matter so she called Kane.
"I wanted to ask him where the money was going because I been living in Hawaiian Homelands for 22 years and I never see nothing."
In response, she said, "He got a little bit huffy."
Naeole described what happened later as a heated exchange, in which Kane talked about the a`ama crab syndrome -- a somewhat common way Hawaiians use to accuse each other of trying to keep their peers from succeeding. When these crabs are trapped in a bucket, they will pull down any that try to escape.
"I told him this is not Hawaiians against Hawaiians; it's superbox stores against Hawaiians. I told him he had the wrong priority."
Naeole also insists that part of the mana`o Kane shared was that if she did not change her vote -- Naeole had already voted for the ban in a previous council committee meeting -- there would be repercussions.
"I can't remember what he wen say, exactly," she said. "But he brought up my lease, he said 'something has come up about your lease' . . . I remember him using the word 'yank.'"
After the conversation, Naeole went to the meeting where the matter was going to be voted on by the council.
While many testified that day, Naeole recalled Patrick Kahawaiola`a statements as those that most affected her. The arguments he made in favor of the ban echoed those she had made to Kane earlier. "That's when I bust out my mana`o," she said in reference to her public accusation that Kane had threatened her. "I'm a really honest person and I just brought it out."
"Then Mr. Dayton of the Advertiser talked to me," she explained. "He said Micah called me and said he never said that."
In response to an email query sent out after our interview with Naeole, Kevin Dayton stated that he called Micah's public information officer Lloyd Yonenaka the afternoon of the council meeting about something unrelated to the council. "(Yonenaka) then told me Micah wanted to speak with me because he was concerned about Emily's comments. I interviewed Micah about those comments, and then went down to the council to watch the latter part of the Superstore debate and to interview Emily about her exchange with Micah."
Dayton's account confirmed earlier statements by Kane about the origins of the call. The DHHL administrator also revealed that it was Billie Baclig, who called him from the meeting and informed him that Naeole had made the accusation.
"Why would I say something so wild lidat, out of the blues," Naeole asked. "I'm not one liar."
As for the events leading to the recant, Naeole explained that around lunchtime on October 4, Kane called her to speak to her directly about her comments.
"He said, Council lady, I never told you that, I never said that about your lease. I had someone here who heard the whole thing." To which Naeole replied, "I no go church for nothing."
According to Naeole, Kane said he would take action against her if she did not recant her statements. "That was threat number two," she said. "The whole time, I was thinking about the things I was asking for, for the kupuna housing, the homeless shelter . . . I kept thinking I am going to shut down this opportunity if I don't do what he says."
Naeole said that she agreed to the retraction because she was "thinking of the people in need."
While the Puna councilor does not want the issue to drag on, she characterizes her recant as a backing down, an act of humility, rather than an admission that she had been dishonest.
"I did feel threatened," she said. Because Naeole's home was built without permits she feels vulnerable.
In a phone interview, Kane responded to Naeole's most recent comments by flatly denying her account of the October 3 conversation between them. "We never discussed her lease," he said repeatedly. While Kane said he could not recall details about the conversation, he said it was brief and although he agreed that it was heated, he said he was not angry, but rather concerned. When asked if he called Naeole to get her to change her vote, at first he said he did not. "I called her to explain the commission's position." Later Kane admitted that that was a purpose for the exchange.
Although Naeole said she put her statements to Kane in the context of a homesteader, Kane said he did not even know she had a lease until he read the newspaper articles covering her recant.
On October 5, the Hawai`i Tribune Herald ran an article which quoted Naeole as saying "We was both kind of flying off the handle . . . It seems like it was all a big misunderstanding."
Kane insists there was no misunderstanding; he said he has proof in the form of another individual who was present during the conversation who could testify that Naeole's lease was never discussed . . . "that I was not talking to her as a homesteader." Kane would not reveal the person's name, however he did say , "if she has to, she will come forward."
Several times during the interview, Kane said he would take further action "legal or otherwise" if Naeole were to "recant her recant." When asked if this statement constituted a threat, Kane laughed slightly. "It wasn't a threat, it was fact." When asked what he meant by the word "otherwise," he said if he had to make public statements against Naeole he would. "I have to defend the integrity of the department," he said.
Kane suggested that Naeole was under a lot of pressure at the time, he believes she is still struggling with the decision. It is interesting to note that although Naeole had been trying to contact Kane regarding issues under the jurisdiction of his department for several months, she had gotten no direct reply and had never heard from him until the issue of the superstore ban came before the council.
The way the vote was taken, it was four in favor and four against by the time council chair Pete Hoffmann called for Naeole's vote.
"I was the deciding vote," she recalled. "They thought I was going to say, 'okay, Wallyworld, go for it,' but I never."
The freshman council woman from Puna says that as long as she has been a homesteader on the Maku`u tract, only one member of that community has gotten any funds from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. "Ann Nathaniel's brother, Ron Kaipo, he the only one," she claimed. "The rest of us had to scrape by with our own money."
Naeole ended her interview by saying she wants to get together with Lingle and Kane to discuss the issue of why her district's Hawaiian Homeland projects have been shortchanged. Like many Hawaiians, Naeole is not in favor of the department courting big developments like the Wal-Mart superstore it is currently in negotiations to build. She wants the focus to be on getting Hawaiians on to the land which is the stated purpose of the DHHL.
Kane defended the department's record. "We are the largest developer of affordable housing in the state," he said.
The measure over which the discussions with Kane occurred bans the construction of superstores on DHHL lands only. It is meant as a direct challenge to the department, with the councilors taking a stand against any more commercial development on lands set-aside for Hawaiian homesteading.
Kane said he would be "absolutely happy" to discuss Naeole's concerns with the governor, but only after the two had achieved clarity on her allegations.
Meanwhile other questions linger. Even Naeole wants to know why the other reporters at the meeting did not cover the story. Did they think the fact that Naeole had, as one media observer put it, "publicly accused a cabinet-level official in the Lingle administration and the former state GOP chairman of threatening to misuse his government power by taking punitive action against her if she didn't change her council vote" was not newsworthy?
kawehi wrote on Jan 13, 2009 4:00 PM:
Aloha 'Ohana,
Micah Kane is not the only one working for Lingle the Bush regime and who has that attitude...I believe you when you say, that two threats were made by and the word "yank" I believe was truly used. Ask me how I know. Micah has been known to; "offer," "give," can only use "muscle" to control "the dumb Hawaiian
Foreigners who "bought" land from the state all have clouded title along with all who come thinking they bought American land...when infact, it is Hawaiian land. They are the ones who are going to get really "