The questions surrounding building the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea could not be more profound — the future of world astronomy and Native Hawaiian religious and cultural practices.
After lengthy delays, hopes rose with the appointment of a hearing officer on March 31 and the launch of a new contested case hearing shortly thereafter. Finally, it seemed, the process was back on track.
Well, never mind. Lawyers for the competing sides have spent most of their time bickering over procedural issues and potential conflicts of interest, mostly involving objections to the hearing officer, retired Judge Riki May Amano.
The state Board of Land and Natural Resources, which oversees the permitting process, needs to resolve these issues swiftly and get the hearing back on track.
If that means replacing Amano with another candidate on BLNR’s list, so be it — even if the work done so far will have to be revisited.
Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and the other petitioners who are trying to stop TMT have petitioned for Amano’s removal, saying her family membership in the ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center of Hawaii makes her impartiality suspect.
And in an unusual turn of events, both the University of Hawaii at Hilo and the TMT project developers also asked that Amano be replaced, for other reasons.
Both the TMT developers and UH-Hilo acknowledged that Amano, an experienced and accomplished jurist who is from Hawaii island, was qualified to serve. But UH-Hilo said that recent revelations that came to light after Amano was appointed — that she is working as a mediator on a case involving UH-Manoa — could be fodder for the petitioners to “repeat their mantra of failure to disclose, prejudice and the appearance of impropriety.”
It’s a valid, if bitterly expressed, concern. The Hawaii Supreme Court, in invalidating an earlier permit for TMT, said that the permit process requires the “appearance of justice,” and “prohibits decision makers from prejudging matters and the appearance of having prejudged matters.”
And Mauna Kea Anaina Hou has not been shy about leaving no stone unturned in raising objections that could cause more delays.
In addition to questioning Amano’s impartiality, the petitioners challenged the process by which Amano was chosen.
They also objected to the participation of Christopher Yuen, a member of the board and hearing officer selection committee, who made comments in an interview 18 years ago about the impact of telescopes on Mauna Kea, to the effect that it won’t make much difference to have “a few more telescopes up there as long as you site them properly.”
UH-Hilo said the petitioners’ “baseless objections” are “designed to stall the contested case hearing for as long as possible.”
Maybe. It’s not lost on anyone that TMT’s developers have said they will seek another site for the $1.4 billion telescope if the issue isn’t resolved by the end of this year or early next year.
And there is much to be done. At least 23 individuals and groups have petitioned to be parties to the contested case hearing, most of them seeking to protect Native Hawaiian cultural and religious practices from the depredations of a major construction project on a sacred mountain. Whether they all should be allowed to participate needs to be sorted out; if their interests are substantially represented, they don’t all need to join.
Even though time is short, BLNR nonetheless must take a hard look at the objections raised by the petitioners, and take action if necessary, to make sure the Supreme Court’s decision is not breached. The stakes are too high.
TMT would be the most powerful optical telescope on the planet, allowing scientists an unparalleled ability to study our solar system and “forming galaxies at the very edge of the observable Universe, near the beginning of time.” TMT is also expected to generate many economic benefits for Hawaii, including $1 million per year for science, technology, engineering and math education on Hawaii island.
Both sides have a lot at stake at the top of Mauna Kea. It’s time to settle the issue.
