BEN
A Memoir, from Street Kid to Governor
By Benjamin J. Cayetano
A Sighting from The Catbird Seat
~ o ~
Excerpts from the book, “BEN”, by former Hawaii Governor, Ben Cayetano:
From the Foreword:
Candor is a notoriously rare commodity in political memoirs. That’s what makes Ben: A Memoir, from Street Kid to Governor as bracing as it is revealing. Ben Cayetano delivers not only an account of his political career but an unflinching look at the human being at the center of the action. This book is not a bland lesson in civics, but a revealing exposure of legislation as it is actually made in the political sausage grinder of compromise and betrayal, loyalty and courage, fear and rage....
When Ben and I entered the Legislature as freshmen in 1974, I was drawn to his sense of confidence, intellect and readiness to question received wisdom. I enjoyed his sardonic wit and ready, self-deprecating sense of humor, not always apparent to the public. It was the beginning of a 30-year friendship, both personal and political.....
He could and did work with, overcome or outflank representatives of every interest. He ran at every issue and never retreated from any conflict. His virtue was his vice. Whether by sheer force of stubborn will, or as a willing partner to those who recognized that an even-handed deal was the only way to get him to the table, Ben played the game straight.
The readers of this book will find that the same man reflected in these pages: a complex and compelling human being and a politician–honest, tough and smart.
Neil Abercrombie
U.S. House of Representatives
~ ~ ~
From the Introduction:
This I believe is the great Western truth: that each of us is a completely unique creature and that, if we are ever to give any gift to the world, it will have to come out of our own experience and fulfillment of our own potentialities, not someone else’s.
–Educator Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth
In writing this story, I’ve tried to stay true to Campbell’s belief. I share my opinions about the political, social and economic history of the times. ... The opinions, the interpretations I give here are based on my experiences in politics, my education and the life I’ve lived thus far. If there are errors, they are not intentional.
We are all creatures of our experiences. Our upbringing, parents, ethnicity and culture all shape us is some way, as do events that are not always under our control or foresight, and people–friends, relatives and even strangers who pop up sometimes unexpectedly to lend a hand or give advice and, because we admire and respect them, influence our lives. And good fortune–fate–plays a huge role in what we become and achieve. At least in my life it has....
Kalihi is where this story begins.
* * *
CHAPTER ONE
Life in Kalihi
Roughly translated, the Hawaiian word “Kalihi” means “place of transition.” I was born there on November 14, 1939. I grew up and lived there until I left for Los Angeles in 1963.
Today, much of Kalihi is light industry, but back then it was a predominantly blue-collar residential neighborhood. I drive through it occasionally, mostly out of nostalgia; everyone I knew has move out, so there is usually no other reason vor me to go there...
Kalihi was a good place to grow up. Its residents were friendly and helpful. Most did not lock their doors at night. Most were hard working. There was respect among them...
Most poor kids, I believe, don’t realize they are poor. They don’t miss what they never had or knew anything about–unless, of course, they can make comparisons or are told they are poor and try to figure out why.
I believe they do know, however, if they are happy or sad. I probably went through all of the emotions and developed the insecurities of kids whose parents are divorced–divorce carried a stigma back then–but I made adjustments in my social life to deal with it. Overall, I was happy growing up in Kalihi...
Dad worked as a waiter for the Outrigger Canoe Club, a private social club whose membership was limited to haoles and affluent Hawaiians. He worked there six days a week...
I knew Dad felt bad about his long work hours. Sometimes on a Saturday or Sunday, he’d take us with him to work, and we would go swimming or play on the beach while he worked. ... And on most Mondays, his day off, Dad would take Ken and me to the movies. We looked forward to it. Most of the time, we went to the old King Theater downtown to see cowboy movies. Those starring Hopalong Cassidy, the Durango Kid, Red Rider and Little Beaver, the Lone Ranger and Tonto, and Roy Rogers and his horse, Trigger, were among our favorites. ... Movies were simple in those days. The good guys always won....
* * *
CHAPTER FIVE
OHA and the Affairs of State
The hotly contested 1978 Democratic primary race between incumbent Gov. George R. Ariyoshi and Honolulu Mayor Frank F. Fasi dominated the news coverage. Ariyoshi’s narrow com-from-behind victory pretty much decided his reelection; he overwhelmed Republican John Leopold in the general election.
The most significant political event of the year, however, was the 1978 Constitutional Convention. A number of constitutional amendments were proposed, the most significant of which established the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). The Hawaiian cultural and historical renaissance had expanded into the political arena. Self-determination would from then on become the dominant Hawaiian issue confronting future political leaders...
The Trouble with Twenty Percent
The 1978 Hawaii State Constitutional Convention proposed 34 constitutional amendments, all of which were subsequently ratified by the voters. The convention was dominated by special-interest groups with different agendas. Public labor union delegates, for example, blocked efforts to pass amendments to establish initiative and referendum; establishment Democrats pushed through a “resign to run” amendment aimed at blocking Mayor Fasi from running for governor again.
Hawaiian activists managed to get five amendments relating to Hawaiian culture, history and governance passed, marking the transition of the Hawaiian Renaissance from issues of culture and history to self-governance and politics. The most important of the five amendments established the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA).
The amendment provided that a pro rata share of the revenues from the 1.4 million-acre ceded-land trust mandated by Section 5 (f) of the Statehood Admissions Act be used to fund OHA. Section 5 (f), however, does not specify a fixed percentage for any one of the five purposes. It leaves it to the State to manage and dispose of the income “for one or more of the foregoing purposes.” In other words, setting the prorata share was solely up to the State Legislature.
My personal view, shared by the majority of my committee and Judiciary chairman O’Connor, was that setting the pro rata share at 20 percent was like giving OHA a blank check. There would be little accountability. OHA, after all, was still a State agency...
At the end of the 1997 session, the Legislature approved Act 196, which set the pro rat share at 4 percent in addition to providing general operating costs, funds which OHA was required to justify like all other State agencies. (Henry) Peters supported the new law.
By 1980, however, Hawaiian activists began demanding that the pro rata share be set at 20 percent. ...
... the 20-percent pro rata share argument took on a life of its own among many Hawaiians. By the 1980 legislative session, Peters was converted to its cause and became its champion. A House bill (Act 273) was introduced to amend Act 196 and and increase the pro rata share to 20 percent. It would be the most difficult issue I had to address in the weeks ahead.
Although we followed the same conference format as we had in 1979, from the outset the budget conference did not go well. (Earl) Anzai was right; there was little chance that Peters would be as well prepared as he should have been to negotiate the budget and related bills.
For the first time, the conference negotiations were open to the public, and Peters’ inadequate preparation began to show. After a few conferences, I could sense the was getting frustrated and annoyed at having to turn to his staff for answers when my committee members or I asked questions about the House position of a bill. ...
The details of the bill did not seem to mean much to Peters. He had the analysis done by his staff before him and would use it to explain the House position or rebut a Senate position, more to impress the audience than convince us of the merit of his argument. I sensed that Peters knew what he wanted, and he would do whatever it took to get it.
About a week before the 60th and last day of the regular legislative session, he changed his negotiating strategy. He made it clear that he would hold certain bills unless the Senate agreed to the 20-percent pro rata share in the OHA bill. Among the bills Peters held hostage were the Supplemental Capital Improvement Bill, the Pensioners’ Bonus Bill and a bill for a work-training program for unemployed people called SCET.
To be sure, holding bills hostage was not a tactic invented by Peters. It was the nature of the bills he held hostage that indicated how far he would go to get what he wanted. It didn’t take long for groups of retired State workers to meet with me and express their concerns about the fate of the Pensioners’ Bonus Bill....
“Don’t worry, I’ll do everything I can to make sure the bill passes,” I vowed, “but you should also go talk to Representative Perers.”
If the Pensioners’s Bonus Bill died, 11,500 retirees and their families would be affected. “Man,” Anzai said, shaking his head, “How can Henry do this?”
“It’s easy,” I said, “if you don’t give a shit that people might get hurt.”...
Then came the threats and intimidation. In floor speeches, Anson Chong noted he had received a telephone threat and Abercrombie, who met with Hawaiian activists, derided their behavior and vowed that he would never be influenced by intimidation.
In politics, threats relating to controversial issues are a fact of life. ... Most of the threats I received were from guys who wanted to punch me out. But I never got any death threats until the OHA bill came up for hearing. One in particular warranted taking precautions.
“Yeah, we got another one today,” Anzai said. “This guy telephoned; he claims he’s a hunter and can drop you at 300 yards. He said he’ll nail you on the freeway when you drive home.... “
(Richard) Wong heard about it and arranged for the Honolulu Police Department to investigate and provide security for me....
“Ben, I don’t want you to meet with Henry alone, okay?” Wong told me one day.
“Is he upset with me?” I asked, even though I knew the answer.
“A little ... just stay out of his way and don’t meet with him along,” Wong replied.
“Dickie ... my name is not Mits Uechi. You tell Henry if he lays a hand on me I’ll have him prosecuted and I’ll sue his ass,” I said ...
The adoption of Act 273 was a major victory for peters and OHA. But Peter’s disinterest in detail cause im to overlook the unusual “severability” clause of the OHA bill we had inserted. Basically, the clause provided that Act 273 would be nullified in its entirety if any part of it conflicted with federal law....
(In September 2001, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that Act 304–Act 273 revised–was null and void because it violated federal law.)...
In March 1984, the Hawaii Supreme Court appointed Peters as a trustee of the multibillion-dollar Bishop Estate. Despite calls for his resignation, Peters continued to serve as Speaker while collecting a salary of about $900,000 annually from Bishop Estate. Finally, in 1987, Peters was pressured to step down as Speaker by a group of reform-minded House Democrats led by Richard Kawakami of Kauai and future Lt Gov. Mazie Horono.
Although he lost the Speakership, Peters was undaunted and continued to serve in the House, reinforcing his relationships with certain House Democrats by parceling out Bishop Estate contracts and jobs to them....
In 1994, Peters retired, culmination 20 years of service as a State legislator. Shortly thereafter, he became the dominant trustee for Bishop Estate. By 1999, however, Peer’s leadership style would prompt an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service that jeopardized the estate’s tax-exempt status, and a lawsuit by the State attorney general that would cost him and four other trustees their jobs and bring about major reforms to the estate.
* * *
CHAPTER TEN
HAWAI’I’S LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
...
Leasehold Conversion
In 1984, Hawaiians despaired as the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Hawaii’s 1967 Land Reform Act (more commonly known as the “leasehold conversion law”), a landmark law passed by the Legislature to break up the big estates’ stranglehold on private land in Hawaii. Many Hawaiians (except, perhaps, those who like tens of thousands of non-Hawaiians longed to own the land on which they resided) saw the 1967 Act as a threat to the Bishop Estate and its prestigious Kamehameha Schools.
When the Hawaii Supreme Court appointed (Henry) Peters to the Bishop Estate board of trustees, he became the first trustee who was also a member of the State Legislature. When asked, he refused to step down as Speaker; his trusteeship, he argued, was a “part-time job,” similar to jobs held by other legislators. The big difference, however, was that, as a trustee, Peters owed a fiduciary duty to the Bishop Estate, a higher duty than other legislators owed to their employers. Moreover, Bishop Estate was no ordinary employer; it was the biggest private landowner in the state, and its influence extended far beyond its primary responsibility to Kamehameha Schools and its beneficiaries. Most important, Peters’ compensation as a trustee was directly linked to the estate’s income.
Five years later, this potential conflict of interest would emerge in the bitter struggle over whether leasehold conversion should be made legal for condominiums, cooperatives and townhouses.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling upholding the 1967 Land Reform Act had encouraged owners of condominiums, cooperatives and townhouses to seek the same right of leasehold conversion given to owners of single-family homes. The sheer number of the lessees, of whom there were thousands statewide, created thedemand for a political solution that could not be ignored.
In response, (Governor) Waihee submitted a bill for a new leasehold conversion law for lessee owner-occupied occupants of condominiums, cooperatives and townhouses. He asked me whether I would take the lead for the administration and lobby for the bill at the Legislature. I would not have agreed if Peters had still been Speaker, as there was no chance he would have allowed the House to pass the bill.
But in 1987, Democrats Richard Kawakami and Mazie Hirono led a majority of House members who, keenly aware of the looming leasehold conversion issue and the political embarrassment that a Bishop Estate trustee who was the Speaker of the House, forced Peters to step down. Kawakami was elected Speaker. ... Unfortunately, in March, 1987, midway through the legislative session, Kawakami died of a heart attack...
Peters tried to regain the Speakership, but Hirono and others blocked him. Vice Speaker Daniel Kihano became Speaker....
The mild-mannered Kihano, however, was no match for the strong-willed Peters. Peters had lost the Speakership, but he still maintained a coterie of loyal followers for whom he had used his considerable powers as both Speaker and Bishop Estate trustee to liberally dispense favors in the form of jobs and personal services contracts.
It would be an oversimplification to say that Peters had bought their loyalty (“rewarded” might be more appropriate). He had won them over by the sheer force of his personality. Peters was a likeable, tough, fearless, street-smart and charismatic leader. One senator and former House member, Marshall Ige, went so far as to publicly and fawingly describe Peters as his “role model and mentor.” (In 2001 and 2002, Ige would fall into disgrace when he was convicted and sent to prison for extortion, tax fraud and other charges. “I just want to say that my family is being sacrificed to reelect Governor Ben,” Ige protested shamelessly after he was indicted by the attorney general. Ige was echoing the same charge Peters would make against me when I ordered the attorney general to investigate the Bishop Estate in 1998.)
From 1989 to 1990, Waihee’s proposed condominium leasehold conversions law was one of the hottest issues before the Legislature....
As a trustee, Peters owed a fiduciary duty to Bishop Estate. AS a representative, he owed a fiduciary duty to the people of Hawaii....
There were sound arguments on both sides, but Peters’ and the Bishop Estate’s take-no-prisoners, uncompromising stance did not address the hard fact that there were thousands of lessees who ... faced unaffordable increases in lease rents or the prospect of having to sell or lose their homes. Peters never proposed a reasonable solution–he wanted unconditional surrender....
Ideally, race should not have mattered, but the political reality was that pitting Hawaiians against any non-Hawaiian ethnic group over land issues was a sure formula for trouble, more so for haoles, who tended to be more outspoken and aggressive than local people and, as an ethnic group, were burdened with the baggage of the land-grabbing history of those who came before them.
It didn’t take long for the debates over the bill to degenerate into a “local-versus-haole” battle...
Mazie Hirono, the chairperson of the House Consumer Protection Committee, recalled how, after one particularly contentious hearing, Peters stopped abruptly as he was walking out of the hearing room and confronted a elderly haole woman who was standing by the door. Towering over her, he said, “Haole, you’re not going to steal any more of our land.” A horrified Hirono saw what happened, admonished Peters and apologized to the startled woman, trying to calm her....
Despite Peters’ opposition, the bill was approved by the House and passed over to the Senate, where President (Richard) Wong referred it to a committee chaired by Mike Crozier, a part-Hawaiian and another former House member who was closely allied with Peters.
When Wong referred the bill to Crozier’s committee, I knew it was finished. Nevertheless, I called Crozier to ask that he give the bill a public hearing and at least let the lessees have their say. He quickly disabused me of any hope for a public hearing.
“Eh, let me tell you something, your bill is dead,” Crozier said, obviously irritated that I had called.
“Mike, it’s not my bill, it’s the governor’s. I’m just the messenger. All I’m asking is for you to put the bill up for public hearing,” I replied.
“Eh, look, it’s dead, it’s dead, okay? Got it?” he repeated impatiently.
“Yeah ... I got it,” I replied, swearing under my breath.
Later, I met with my chief of staff, Nekoba.
“You don’t look too happy. What did Crozier say?” Nekoba asked.
“Oh, nothing much. He just told me to go fuck myself,” I deadpanned.
“No shit?” Nekoba replied, chuckling.
“That’s about what it amounted to.... Lloyd, I’m not going to waste any more time pushing for the damn bill. As long as Henry is in the House and there are guys like Crozier in the Senate, there’s no chance it’ll pass.”...
Stalemated at the Legislature, the lessees shifted their efforts to the Honolulu City Council. The Council sent through the same painful public hearing process, and in December 1991 it approved a City law that incorporated the provisions of Waihee’s bill...
Peters’ opposition to leasehold conversion did not stop with the enactment of the new City law. If anything, as an incident in Hawaii Kai would reveal, things got uglier.
The City law required lessees who wanted to buy their fee to hold a public hearing to show that they had met the legal conditions for leasehold conversion. Jane Sugimura, a leader of the lessees’ group, recalled one such public hearing in Hawaii Kai to which Peters brought in two busloads of Hawaiians, most of whom she believed were Kamehameha Schools alumni, wearing T-Shirts with the words Thou Shall Not Steal printed on the front.
“A lot of them were very big, tough-looking men,” Sugimura recalled. “They didn’t threaten anyone ... they just stood around watching us ... but some of the lessees felt really intimidated.”...
Shortly after the close of the 1992 legislative session, Peters announced his retirement. He had served for 18 years in the House and probably would have been a shoo-in for reelection. His tenacious and sometimes ruthless defense of Bishop Estate angered many non-Hawaiians, but, as one prominent Hawaiian leader observed, “ To the Hawaiians in his district he remained their champion.” In 1998, Peters would fight another battle–this time to save his position as a Bishop Estate trustee....
* * *
TO BE CONTINUED...
* * *
To order this book:
BEN: A MEMOIR, FROM STREET KID TO GOVERNOR
By Benjamin J. Cayetano
or