Editorial

Beam Us Up, Scotty: There’s No Intelligent Life Here

A hidden agenda? Many people who oppose the notion that a spaceport should be built in Ka’u have claimed that there is a “hidden agenda” in the state’s undying efforts to get a private developer to undertake the project. The “hidden agenda” takes several shapes: potential military use, or possibly a foot in the door for enterprises even less desirable than the spaceport.

After reviewing many aspects of the state’s efforts to get this project off the ground, Environment Hawai’i can understand their suspicions. The fact of the matter is that the overt justification for the spaceport is so anemic, no one in their right mind could devote as many resources to its development as the state has done to date.

One is left with just two possible conclusions. The more charitable is that there is a hidden agenda.

The state should be flattered.

The Hard Sell

The Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism has used the Arthur D. Little study of 1987 as a basis for its pursuit of the spaceport. Readers of that study will find that the spaceport is not identified there as the most promising aspect of space-related enterprises for Hawai’i. (This same report, for example, describes the potential for a space theme park as “very strong.” While “Hawai’i is in an advantageous position to serve the growing market for commercial launch services for small and mid-sized payloads,” the report said, “current worldwide launch capacity appears to be sufficient to meet expected demand for launch services over the next 10 to 15 years.”)

The state has pressed ahead with its spaceport development plans, however, touting Ka’u’s unique (to the United States) capability to support launches of payloads into equatorial as well as polar orbit.

Should the Ka’u spaceport be developed, one can only wonder how it could compete in a super-saturated world market. The advantage of companies launching from U.S. soil is at best marginal, especially if that advantage is associated with high costs that can be avoided at other sites.

One possible justification for the Ka’u site, given in the Arthur D. Little study, is “the need to develop alternative launch sites for national security.”

But the state has steadfastly maintained that there will be no military use of Ka’u, and, short of military use, it is difficult to see how commercial launches meet the “national security” standard. (Deke Slayton, credited by some as being the father of the Ka’u spaceport notion, went on to forge an alliance with a crematorium that sought to launch “cremains” into orbit. Even less frivolous uses – such as that sought by Motorola, which wants to put enough communications satellites into orbit so that no corner of the Earth will be out of reach of its cellular telephone network – can hardly be deemed vital to the nation’s security.)

The state’s assertions of Ka’u’s desirability to commercial developers have not been drowned out by the thundering of their Gucci shod feet beating a path to DBEDT’s door, even though the state’s efforts to attract such developers have been enormous, if the space czar’s expense account is any indication.

Far from beating off suitors, the state appears to be flinging itself onto anyone, holding back little in the hope of some small bone of recognition. The fruits of these undignified entreaties are poor enough witness the exchange of letters with Lockheed. When they are trotted out as trophies of the hunt, it is enough to make one cringe in embarrassment.

Conversion for whom?

That much-trumpeted exchange of letters bears a little more scrutiny than it has received to date. The state agrees, in its letter, to do exactly what it is doing or planning to do anyway: that is, it will prepare an environmental impact statement, help with land consolidation and permitting, develop the needed infrastructure, and the like.

Lockheed agrees, basically, to do what it has been doing all along, too: that is, it will keep on watching the state work.

The letters contain one new wrinkle, though. Lockheed requests state support in its attempts to obtain federal funds, including defense conversion grants, for spaceport development. And it wants that support to be exclusive – that the state “work solely” with Lockheed so long as Lockheed is interested in the spaceport project. Mufi Hannemann, director of the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, agreed to the request without qualification.

The pursuit of defense conversion grants promises to be one of the hottest contests in Washington in the next year or two. Almost half a billion dollars has been set aside for this program, which sailed through Congress as a means of helping displaced defense workers – such as the several thousand workers in California whom Lockheed has laid off in the last couple of years.

By agreeing to support Lockheed exclusively in its request for conversion grants and other federal funds, has the state foreclosed other possibilities? So it would seem. What has the state extracted from Lockheed in return? Well, there’s the letter – the first tangible evidence, apart from his bills, of Hayward’s work on the state’s behalf. Perhaps, for a desperate DBEDT, the letter is enough.

Conflicting Interests

Speaking of the admiral, he insists that there is no conflict between his work on behalf of Lockheed and his work on behalf of the state. His work for Lockheed is not for the Advanced Missiles & Space division, he told us, and even if it were, “there wouldn’t be a problem.” Hayward claims his associations with Lockheed and other companies allow him to do the state’s work at greatly reduced cost, since those other companies bear some of his travel expenses and lodging costs.

OSI’s Director Ken Munechika was unaware of Hayward’s involvement with Lockheed, despite it showing up prominently on many of Hayward’s bills. Like Hayward, however, Munechika has no problem with Hayward’s association with Lockheed. “Well, we’ve been trying to bring developers on board,” he told Environment Hawai’i.

Even a deputy attorney general with the state scoffed at the suggestion that Hayward’s association with Lockheed might pose a problem. “What’s the conflict?” he said.

Let us spell it out:

The state’s interests are not synonymous with those of developers. The state – as Hayward may be surprised to learn – has interests that are not identical to those of the Military Affairs Council of the Chamber of Commerce, that diverge from those of Lockheed, Litton, General Dynamics, United Technologies Corporation, and so on. The state is charged with protecting the interests of and advancing the welfare of its citizens; all others take a back seat.

In this regard, the concerns of Hawai’i’s people and their expressions of the kind of life they wish to lead should be every bit as important as the desires of landowners to increase the worth of their holdings or of businesses to see their bottom line rise.

When someone is entrusted – as Hayward has been – with negotiating agreements on the state’s behalf, there is a presumption that he or she will be vigorous in defense of the state’s interest. That vigor can only be compromised if the state’s agent has been or is being paid by the other party or someone closely allied with that party.

Hayward would not disclose his list of clients to Environment Hawai’i, and became incensed when we had the nerve to ask. Munechika told us it was nothing short of “tragic” that we would even pose such questions.

Perhaps Environment Hawai`i lacks the authority to demand an answer from Hayward. Surely, though, someone at the state should be asking how deep are his ties, if any, with other potential partners of the state in the spaceport development.

Then there is the obvious question: For all the money that the state has paid to Hayward – about $700,000 in stipends, travel and entertainment reimbursements since 1989 – could it not have found someone willing and able to take the job on fall-time, and thus avoid altogether, or at least dramatically minimize, the possibility of conflicting interests? Surely there must be someone out there willing to slum it for the good of the state.

Perfunctory Approvals

After his stint as an admiral, Hayward may be unused to being held to account for his activities. With Munechika having risen in his military career to the rank of lieutenant colonel, it may be that he is no more accustomed to challenging a superior officer than Hayward is in answering to an officer of inferior rank.

Whatever the relationship between those two, it is impossible to think that Hayward’s activities receive much, if any, critical oversight.

Hayward’s requests for travel are perfunctorily approved. Except for one occasion, when Hayward requested reimbursement for a $200 Radio Shack dictaphone, his invoices are not questioned. If Hayward says he is on the state’s business, that claim is taken on faith.

Hayward alone seems to know who is on the advisory board to the rather fanciful, if not completely fictional, Hawai’i Space Development Authority. And even he has difficulty keeping track, as our report shows.

The attorney general has opined that there is nothing illegal about the authority, even if its name suggests powers that it does not have. If the attorney general is going to regard this as a legally constituted advisory board, pursuant to Chapter 201-7, however, then compliance with the state’s open meetings law would seem to be mandatory. Whenever requests for notices of meetings have been made to the Office of Space Industry, they have been in vain. To date, not one person requesting such information has been apprised of the board’s meetings. Requests for minutes, agendas, and the like have been just as fruitless.

The state cannot have it both ways. If the board has the semblance of legitimacy implied by the cover of statute, then its meetings must be subject to the same standards to which all other such boards are held.

Ideological Overtones

Yet another example of poor oversight of Hayward’s activities may be found in the state-sponsored U.S.-Japan Cooperation in Space project. The state has been paying the freight for meetings, conferences, secretarial expenses, and postage for the privilege of claiming this project as its own. Hayward, meanwhile, has placed it under the aegis of a program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank known for the extremely conservative views of the scholars it supports.

“What’s wrong with that?” Hayward asked when we raised this matter with him.

Once more, we will spell it out. The institute is a private organization of a definite ideological stripe. To put the state in the position of supporting any organization with an ideological bias – right, left, or dead-on center, for that matter – does injury to the belief that the state should steer clear of involvement in any endeavor that has such great political and ideological overtones.

The Number to Call

A reader has suggested that Environment Hawai`i publish the telephone numbers of agencies responsible for overseeing the subjects of our reports. In the case of the spaceport, readers may call the following offices in Honolulu. The Office of Space Industry, at 586-2380; the DBEDT director’s office, at 586-2359; and the governor’s office, at 586-0034.

Mahalo Plenty

Environment Hawai`i thanks the Hawai’i La’ieikawai Association for a generous and especially well-timed grant.

We also thank the many readers who have responded quickly and generously to our annual renewal appeal. Your renewals, contributions, and kind words are all appreciated deeply.

Last but not least, we wish to express our gratitude to the Hawai’i chapter of the American Planning Association, which has honored our editor with its media award for 1992-93.

Volume 4, Number 1 July 1993