image above: Burial site at Honokahua on Maui. For more about this site click here.
A Repatriation in Progress If someone wanted beach front property on the side of Kealia Hill, where the Catholic cemetery is because it had a nice view, and had money to put down, would they dig up all the dead people and plop down a million dollar mansion. I know that people would be up in arms if they were told their family or loved one had to be moved and repatriated because someone else paid for the property and has the right to build a home. After all, it is a nice view and whoever paid for it, paid for it fair and square, and went through the more than fair due process at the planning commission. And everybody knows the planning commission always makes the right decisions, all the time, 100% guaranteed. Right? The archaeologist they are using yet again is, Nancy McMahon, who has been caught up in a law suit regarding her work with the State Historic Provision Division and the Burial Council." Nancy McMahon who was running a website advertising a 4x4 tour of ancient cultural sites as a side business, charging passengers of her excursion $150. On the website it says "Turn the clock back a thousand years on our Hummer expedition into Kauai's ancient rain forests. You will see historical sites; xperience the unforgettable feel of a rain forest, view spectacular waterfalls and secluded pools. See the lush tropical jungles the way ancient Hawaiians did." (http://kauaihummersafari.com/) Some of these sites she gives tours on can only be accessed with use of 4x4 Hummer, off road vehicle. Her business venture was exposed through a series of online blogs that began criticizing her work with the burial council and SHPD. Other allegations arose with other defendants including state workers, which the plaintiff says had pushed through reports to speed developments in getting past through the burial council and into the planning commission. I wonder if the planning commission is aware of Nancy McMahon being implicated in this case as a defendant, and if they have contacted any off island burial council's where there are other archaeologists who can take up the work in this Wainiha case. It seems with Nancy and SHPD caught up in this suit that someone at the planning department might see her interest in any cases regarding SHPD and the burial council as a conflict of interest being a defendant in a current case regarding her moral work ethic as a state archaeologist. The burial council does not have notes of their public meetings posted online since October 2007, a clear representation that posting their minutes to keep their public informed have not been a top priority in this case of the Wainiha residential lot. They have obviously worked speedily in resolving the issue to let the planning commission ok the project. I’d like to know where the minutes from November and December are with this decision to OK the project and move forward. The meeting's minutes read from Oct. 4th 2007 concerning Wainiha residential lot: Informational update and presentation by Scientific Consultant Services regarding the burial treatment plan. Council discussion and recommendation on the measures proposed in the burial treatment plan. Council determination to preserve in place or relocate the previously identified Native Hawaiian burials located on this residential lot. Where is the public access to the Scientific Consultant Services findings and their idea for a burial treatment plan in their minutes? Where are the lineal and cultural descendants that should be having the say before any SCS findings make a final decision regarding what be done with the kupuna iwi and the respective site in Wainiha? And who's really showing concern about such a huge burial site in Wainiha? Concerned not only for the kupuna iwi at rest, but more so the process that should be in place to help protect those iwi at all cost from being disturbed. And let’s not forget Waipouli and use it as an example for how the process and concern those kupuna should have had. |
see also:
Island Breath: McMahon's Hummer Safari 11/13/07
http://www.kauaihummersafari.com/ This one works the other onedoesn't; it show this:
but we can't find the HomePage you've requested. It's possible that:
· | The address was entered incorrectly. Check your spelling and try again. | |
· | The .Mac member of this name has either created a page and removed it or has never published a HomePage. | |
· | There is no .Mac member of this name. If you'd like this member name for yourself, sign up for a .Mac account right now and have your own HomePage in minutes. |
SUBJECT: HAWAII CORRUPTION
SOURCE: ELAINE DUNBAR inunyabus@gmail.com
POSTED: 13 NOVEMBER 2007 - 8:30am HST
Like a bad penny, Awana is now turning up all over
image above: website of "Kauai Hummer Safari". Owned by "archaeologist" Nancy McMahon
by Doug on 8 November 2007 at http://poinography.com A lawsuit filed by a former state archeologist terminated from the Historic Preservation Division may get interesting. A few articles scratch the surface (West Hawaii Today, Star-Bulletin, and Advertiser), but Ian Lind gets to the heart of the matter and posts the actual lawsuit and exhibits. First, a few internet-related aspects of the suit. One of the defendants named in the suit, an archeologist at the Historic Preservation Division named Nancy McMahon, runs a tourism concession on Kauai called Kauai Hummer Safari. Turn the clock back a thousand years on our Hummer expedition into Kauai’s ancient rain forests. You will see historical sites [ahem]; experience the unforgettable feel of a rain forest, view spectacular waterfalls and secluded pools. See the lush tropical jungles the way ancient Hawaiians did. I was not aware that ancient Hawaiians cruised around the jungle in paramilitary 4X4s? Heh. Next, it mentions another defendant, Ashley Chinen, who "wrote on internet blogs that were published throughout the state of Hawaii." The plaintiff is going after AC for "false, hurtful, and malicious statements" made in that blog comment and he intends to show that he was defamed by that and other similar comments. Uh, okay, good luck with that… Interesting, but let us plow onward. Have a look at the more explosive allegations in paragraphs 143 through 155 (transcribed here by hand, so hopefully there are few/no typos): 143. Defendant AWANA would regularly make phone calls to Defendant MELANIE CHINEN to tell Defendant MELANIE CHINEN what projects to fast track and what projects to hinder. 144. Plaintiff knew that Defendant AWANA regularly called because on several occasions Plaintiff heard Defendant AWANA on the phone and numerous times Defendant MELANIE CHINEN would refer to Defendant AWANA as the one who called. 145. At other times Defendant MELANIE CHINEN would refer to such calls as "from the Governor’s office." 146. After such conversations, Defendant MELANIE CHINEN would say that the governor’s office wanted the approval of certain projects to happen quicker. 147. As set forth above in 30, Plaintiff often objected to such approval based on ethical and legal reasons. 148. When Plaintiff objected, Defendant MELANIE CHINEN said or implied that Plaintiff would not be working at SHPD unless he became a "team player." 149. On or about April, 2006, Plaintiff was called in Defendant MELANIE CHINEN and introduced to her "friend" Defendant LAURA THIELEN. 150. Defendants asked Plaintiff if he could provide an archeological report that would help a piece of land be rezoned without difficulty. 151. Defendant MELANIE CHINEN had not asked Plaintiff to research the land and he had no reason to know anything about the archaeological features on the land. 152. Plaintiff stated that he would have to do a survey according to the laws and regulations and would have to see if the land had any archeological features before he could sign a report. 153. By their body language and voice tone, Defendants were not pleased with Plaintiff’s answer and asked him to leave the office. 154. Defendants ha ve consulted and communicated at other times to discuss fast tracking projects. 155. Defendants had a common plan of using SHPD to fast track or stall projects for political reasons, often violating state statutes, state administrative rules, state ethics, professional archeological standards, and/or Hawaiian cultural values. If the plaintiff is able to prove any or all of these allegations, then it will be interesting to see if Awana implicates Governor Lingle in any of this. Lots of other interesting nuggets throughout that lawsuit, too, for those of you with a spare hour to kill. |
Comments