Colleen Hanabusa

In her four years in the nation’s capital, Colleen Hanabusa got to know some parts quite well, including parts underground. She rode the Metro regularly, surely never anticipating that she’d be out of office and landing on the board tasked with creating the equivalent in Honolulu.

Hanabusa, the former member of Congress and recent addition to the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation board, is no stranger to the hot seat, and the city’s over-budget, delayed rail project is generating more heat than ever.

Her history as state Senate president still brings down criticisms of past dealings: She still defends, for example, controversial tax credits for Ko Olina projects as being good for the area’s development. Check the record, she’ll say.

And now she listens to anxious people who approach her in parking lots and checkout lines feeling shaky about the rail.

She’s chairing the HART oversight committee and believes fears will be assuaged if these people see her questioning every change order and unpacking every scary cost projection.

“Someone jokingly told me, ‘We went from half-hour meetings to an hour and a half. We think it’s you,’” Hanabusa said.

Perhaps it’s not surprising, but for someone who promises not to dodge questions, she sidesteps the one about another run for office with practiced deftness (“I don’t know. I tell people I never say never… there’s a whole bunch of different avenues that I can do.”)

Those avenues since her return to Honolulu have included teaching law classes and practicing her profession, most recently representing the teachers union in the ethics dispute over teacher-chaperoned trips.

And at 64, she also has just plain daily life in Nuuanu with her husband, retired sheriff John Souza, and their border collie. She cooks the dog meals of chicken and Okinawan sweet potato.

“I know my place in my family’s pecking order: It’s my husband and it’s my dog and it’s me,” she said. “So in my spare time I make sure that the dog is happy.”

QUESTION: Do you miss being in D.C.?

ANSWER: You know, you miss it in a different sense, because I think I’m the kind of person who’s always enjoyed whatever I was doing.

So I enjoyed being a lawyer, I enjoyed being in the Senate, and I also enjoyed being in Washington. But a lot of it was because the issues kind of followed. …

Even in Washington, you never lose sight of the most important thing, which is how does this impact Hawaii? And what can we do to make things different, to change things if we can? And it’s based on relationships — no different than when we were in the Legislature …

Q: Did you have to come down from that? I hate to use the word “detox.”

A: (Laughs) “Detox” — that’s probably a good word, for Washington especially.

I don’t think so. I think because I just started to do things right away.

And the irony of it all was that people were reaching out to me primarily as an attorney first, more than anything else …

And, of course, my area of expertise has always been labor. So it’s like you don’t lose a step.

Q: Was the rail appointment something you had to think about?

A: My husband says this is the stupidest political decision I could possibly make.

Q: Why do you think he said that?

A: I think it’s because of the controversy surrounding rail — it’s almost like there’s no upside to it, in his mind.

To me, the reason I jumped at the opportunity is because the rail actually has so many issues I’ve dealt with. When I first started practicing law, I did construction litigation … Looking at concrete, we’re looking at psi (pounds per square inch), the strength of concrete, how it’s made.

So these kinds of things are of interest to me, simply because that’s what, I would say, I grew up with, in the legal field.

And in addition to that, there are other parts of it. … I’m the only person on HART who signed the Full Funding (Grant) Agreement when we were in Washington …

I’m probably the only one who thinks it’s fascinating that there’s a batch plant that makes its own concrete, where they prefab the pillars, and all of that …

And the funding part. I was in the Senate when the GET (general excise tax surcharge) actually passed, and watching how that has evolved, the discussions, who said what. Those are things you get to see, the actual application.

Q: But do you hear what your husband is saying? Are you concerned with all the cost overruns and the traffic?

A: I’m concerned about the issues. But the reaction to me being on HART has been … “We’re supporters of rail, we like rail, we like the idea. We aren’t quite sure now, but we think that if you’re there, we think we might be able to like it again. Because we think you’ll be up front with us.”

And it’s very strange, the perception, because I don’t think it’s that anybody else is not (up front). It’s just that maybe they just think I’m outspoken and loud, or something, that they think I’ll have answers …

My reputation has been that you may not agree with me, but the one thing I won’t do, is I won’t not answer your question.

Q: How do you understand the critique about corruption on this project, that with all the money sloshing around rail, it’s all about political influence?

A: The answer that I have for people is that, you know, it is the largest construction CIP (capital improvement project) in the history of the state. And that’s one of the reasons why I wanted to be on HART, and understand how this project not only has come to be, but also how it’s going to execute for the period of time that I’m on the board …

I tell people that … yeah, it’s a lot of money. But what we owe them is an explanation when they want one.

But more importantly than that, the sense that if, for example, a change order is approved, or if there is a cost overrun, or a time overrun, that we each have a clear understanding as to why. And when we vote, whichever way we may vote, there’s a basis for them and they can at least trust that we have done our homework, and this is what it is.

Nobody likes cost overruns … You hear all these numbers, because numbers are easy to throw out, because there’s no way to disprove it at this stage, until the actual final check is paid.

So I think that the most important thing is they have trust in the fact that I’m there not to just sit there and vote yes, or whatever it is. It’s to ask the hard questions and to make that decision, hopefully in the best interest — or some people will feel it’s in the best interest.

I’ve been in politics long enough to know if we’re doing good 50 percent of the time — 50 percent of the people may agree with you — you’re doing good. What you gotta worry about is when no one agrees with you; then something is wrong.

I think that there are those who will always oppose it, for whatever reason; there are those who will always support it, for whatever reason. But I want to talk to those in the middle, those who have legitimate concerns …

Q: Do you hear from people who think the full rail system is too much for Oahu, that we should stop it short?

A: Of course. That’s the conversation. And I’ve told people I did not like the steel-on-steel methodology. But the people voted.

Q: Where were you on the technology?

A: I believe that the technology we should have considered was light rail. And I know people are split on all of that. But that was my personal view.

But notwithstanding, the people voted for steel-on-steel, the system we have.

So I don’t believe that we can stop, because of the fact that it is a function of the Full Funding Grant Agreement. And in order to do that you would have to get to the point where the federal government is going to allow us to say, “OK, this is it! We’re folding our tents and we’re ending here.” I don’t think that’s a possibility.

It also makes you wonder about what it pencils out to be. In other words, when you look at a system to move people, and you’re going to move them from East Kapolei to Middle Street? … I just don’t think that is a possibility.

Q: You don’t think that would be worth it?

A: I don’t think that would be worth it. But notwithstanding, it is what it is. If the City Council does not move forward to extend the GET, … then who knows? We’re going to be dealt a hand, and we’re going to have to play.

Q: Most people are thinking the Council will extend it. Are you …?

A: It’s an election year. (Laughs.)

Q: Well, there’s that.

A: There’s that. And sometimes that does a lot more than anything else. I would like to think that they’re inclined to do it, and they’re inclined to finish this project.

But the one thing I will tell you is I’ll never guess how a legislator’s going to vote on an issue such as this.

There may be external factors that we’re not aware of. Because I would think that if they were going to do it, they would have done it by now.

Q: Do you think your long association representing labor weights your opinion or your actions in some way?

A: No, because … when I represent the unions, it’s because they need for me to represent them — you know, there’s an issue there.

You know, I’ve had ups and downs in terms of endorsements from unions. So, it’s not true that they are always with me.

Q: Well, to state the obvious, the critics say unions would favor this because of jobs, and more change orders and extending and spending.

A: I think the critics should look at my voting history. I did civil service reform. I did the creation of the EUTF (Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund). It upset a whole bunch of unions when we did that.

If you’re running for state office, that’s usually not something you would do. … Those were things that were necessary to be done.