Why KAHEA did not meet with UH to consult on Mauna Kea "master plan"

The University of Hawai`i has been shopping around its master plan for Mauna Kea, unironically titled, “E Ō I Ka Leo” (listen to the voice). Today, October 26th is the deadline to submit comments. Click here to see our comment. Earlier this month, UH hosted a livestream event at which Greg Chun (executive director of the UH Hilo Center for Mauna Kea Stewardship), Jim Hayes (planning consultant) and Doug Simons (director of UH Institute for Astronomy) responded to questions that were submitted and pre-selected before the broadcast. KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, a longtime Mauna Kea advocate, submitted critical questions asking for more transparency in the master plan review process. The two-hour event was essentially a chance for UH to get their propaganda across with the veneer of public participation. However, even the comments were disabled on the broadcast video, preventing another avenue for community engagement. Throughout the two-hours, UH reps read and answered what sounded like soft-lob questions that they could have very well written themselves. The exceptions were the critical questions submitted by KAHEA, which seems to be the only questions that were attributed to a person or group. After the forum, KAHEA was approached by UH contractors “to address any questions you may have regarding the draft plan and discuss your views on the plan’s framework.”

We’re not going to meet with them and here’s why:

(1) UH has done nothing to earn our trust and we don’t want the meeting to be mischaracterized as agreement with the plan, as has been done before. In their August 2020 report to the Board of Regents, the UH Center for Maunakea Stewardship administrators paraded around their “consultation” with KAHEA and Kia`i Mauna as if either group’s input had been meaningfully included in some way. Nevermind that we had nothing but critical feedback for them, their takeaway was that we talked at them and that alone validated their process and justified their decision.

(2) The proposed plan is disingenuous in asserting UH took a comprehensive look back and listened to kiaʻi feedback. The plan includes: a) the Thirty-Meter Telescope, and b) continuation of UH and industrial astronomy on Mauna Kea into the foreseeable future. The Kia`i Mauna’s primary messages have been: #1 Aʻole TMT, #2 Mauna Kea is sacred, and #3 No general lease renewal because UH has been a dismal manager. Their draft plan reflects none of these views. Yet, UH is coming around again to ask us to consult on a process that they are so bold to say publicly will help them prepare for another 65-year lease? What more could we possibly say that has not already been said and ignored?

(3) We know UH will not address our questions because their “master plan” already presumes the answer is UH can “management-plan” its way out of accountability for a history of admittedly poor management for which it has yet to answer. No matter how we respond, we will merely become one of the checked-boxes in a consultant’s “community outreach” report. This is wrong. Worse, it reinforces the distrust and cynicism in interpersonal relations that erodes the possibility for anyone to listen or be listened-to when it comes to Mauna Kea. The University plan asserts it would be irresponsible to NOT plan. And we agree! The difference is we think the only thing they should be planning for is their departure in 2033.