 especially fortunate today to have with us Andy Winer, a longtime, very, very deeply appreciated friend, lawyer dispute resolution professional former chief of staff for Senator Brian Schatz, who as luck would have it was my daughter's high school classmate, and now the consultant to the governor and the point person on the Hawaii Victims Compensation Fund for the Maui Fire Victims and Claims and the community. Hey, I'm Tracy Wilkin, the longtime director of the Mediation Center of the Pacific and both the head and the heart of the mediation community here in Hawaii in so many ways that have served so many people and continue to. Tracy, Andy, thanks so very much for joining us. Hey, Andy, let's start with a hard question. Is it possible for you to give us a sense of what the core values of the Victims Compensation Fund project and work are? Yes, I think that's definitely possible, Chuck, and thanks for having me here today and for letting us talk about this important subject. The beginning of the Victims Compensation Fund really started on the day or two after the fire. The governor and I began having conversations about some of the issues that he was concerned about, both short and long term. And what became clear to me at least was that what he wanted to focus on was putting people first, that there were gonna be many, many things that we were gonna have to deal with as a state and as a community in dealing with the tragedy of Maui. But he wanted to make sure that front and center in all of that were the people, the victims that had suffered and had lost loved ones. And he wanted to try to find a way to address their situation first in a meaningful way. That is to some degree in stark contrast to some of the other fires that we've seen on the West Coast in particular where victims were largely ignored for large periods of time. So that was sort of the beginning sort of data point. But I think over and above that is that not only from the governor, but from all of the individuals that we've dealt with over the last few weeks and months has been a desire to make sure that we design a process that reflects the best of Hawaii, that really focuses on the values that we have as a state and one that is seeking to come up with a way to recognize the responsibility of the state. And when I say that, it's not meant to be who was at fault or who was liable, but as a state and as a community that we're gonna step up and take care of people that are suffering. And so as we proceeded with attempting to design a process to compensate those victims, sort of those two points, I think have been a couple of the things that have resonated not only with me, but I think with all of the people that have been involved in trying to design a program that can actually help bring justice and to restore the way that the community has dealt with these victims and how it is that as a state, we're gonna move forward. So those are the main philosophical course that we have, that this is gonna be a program that may not look familiar to people that don't live in Hawaii, but I would hope at the end of it, people from Hawaii look at it and they say, yes, we're proud of that. And this is how, as a state, we're gonna step forward and actually work to address what's happened as a result of the fires in Maui. And you raised a really, really important insight that's unique here. How does the fact that this is unlike New York City and the California wildfires and the British Victoria oil spills, this is a single community with a unique cultural history, including as the former capital of the monarchy and a very, very strong Hawaiian component culturally, as well as probably the most diverse population of any of the disaster areas in the US history. How do those things impact how you look at and deal with this? You know, I think that we share a common mentor, Justice Bert Kobayashi, was one of the founders of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Hawaii and I was fortunate enough to be what I consider a student of his when I was first starting a career in Alternative Dispute Resolution. And Justice Kobayashi was always an individual that wanted to make sure that the processes that we're adopting in Hawaii were actually going to fit the culture of the state. He believed very much that Alternative Dispute Resolution fit in this state better than probably any place else in the country. And so when we looked at the set of issues that came out of the terrible fires in Maui, I kept hearing that voice in the back of my head that you need to come up with solutions that are going to be appropriate for the community where this happened. And that those need to be kept in mind as you're coming up with processes. And so I think every single time I think that I've sort of hit a wall where I didn't think we were going to be able to make progress. Hearing that voice in the back of my head, but also hearing Governor Green saying, we've got to put people first when you combine those two things. It's an awesome responsibility to try to make sure that we're representing what Hawaii wants to be and should be. And I've tried to do that. And I know that the team that's working with the governor and frankly, the other parties that have been talking about it, I think that we've approached this in the spirit of a lo-ha. I think that there has been a great deal of effort made to be sensitive to the needs of the community and to come up with a set of solutions that are, as I said earlier, maybe a little bit odd to people that are not from Hawaii, but I think when we go through and explain them, it has very much a core of Hawaii and a very much a sense of the place where these fires took place. And so, we're still working on some of the details, but I would say that overall, when we've had conversations with others about what we're trying to do and conversations with people from Maui in particular, I think that we're on the right track. That's fantastic. And I want to get to the questions of what people need to know, but real quick before doing that, just Tracy has the mind and heart of dispute resolution, collaborative problem solving, ho-oponopono in Hawaii. What do you see as the unique factors here that really deserve priority and to be part of the cultural values and principles that embed this work going forward? Well, as Andy mentioned already, we have Lahaina, which is a unique community and a very strong community in itself. We've seen how they have come together and everybody throughout the state has come together to support them, but as the community themselves, they want to be empowered to help each other, to rebuild, they want a voice. And so dispute resolution processes give people that opportunity. And they have specific needs and desires and they've been through a lot of trauma. So creating dispute resolution processes that enable them to address their priorities, to work through these issues at a pace comfortable for them and to make sure that their needs that are important to them, not us outsiders see them are addressed to these processes. So I'm happy to see that we're looking at how to design a variety of dispute resolution processes because there'll be different issues that will and can be addressed through a variety of processes, such as the one that's being rolled out right now by Andy and the governor. And that's really important to understand that these are not just people, these are human stories. I was in line at the way to shoot a story yesterday and gentlemen next to me was from Lahaina. He had eight minutes to make it out and he made it out only because he knew all the back rows through the sugar cane fields and everything. The stories need to be respected. They need to be understood. They need to be honored because the stories are the people that makes Hawaii unique. So Andy, what two people involved in affected by the fires and the fire claims, what do they really need to know and understand most? So I think that there's a few things, Chuck and I preface all of this by saying that on November 8th, the governor did announce that we were gonna move forward with a recovery fund and that we were working on fleshing out the details and that is actually still occurring. And so as I talked to you today, there was not some immediate process that any victim or victim's family needs to engage in now. But I think that what we've tried to do is to give families a sense as to where things are going and when they're going and sort of what we're looking at as we move forward. Our hope is that sometime in early to mid December the governor will have additional details on the recovery fund as we finalize some of those discussions with the various parties that are gonna be contributing to the fund. Let me go through maybe a couple of the main points that I think hopefully reflect what I talked about earlier that we're trying to devise a program that fits not only the situation as far as this fire goes but also fits the culture of Hawaii and tries to reflect that in a way that allows victims and their families to have a certain amount of control over what they may wanna do moving forward. So first and foremost, the fund once it is up and operational will be completely voluntary, meaning that if you look at what it is that the state is offering together with the other parties that are gonna be participating in that fund that there's no mandatory requirement for a victim or a victim's family to agree to that process. And there may be very good reasons why individuals look at what is being put forward and they may decide that's not best for us, that they believe that being able to go to court and having their day in court is the most appropriate thing for them. And as far as the state and the rest of the individuals that have been involved in designing this program are concerned, that's fine. We want to provide options and to allow families to decide what works best for them. So that's one of the core principles of what it is that we're looking at. That the second core principle was to make or to create a process and to make it work in a way that would be expeditious and would be easy. That we didn't wanna create something where all you were doing is essentially substituting an administrative process or a litigation process. So that what we want victims to be able to do and their families is to be able to easily access an application form, to be able to easily understand what it is that they need to do in order to access the fund, that they know the steps in order that they need to fulfill in order to receive compensation and that there's also some opportunity if they do not have counsel and want to get advice that there was a way to access counsel pro bono. So when you put those factors together, I think that what you'll see when the program is put together is an announcement where you'll see something like a website with some very straightforward forms and also the ability to talk to the funds administrator. We're working to designate somebody that would be not an individual that is a state employee but somebody that is outside the state. The fund itself is going to be independently run by an administrator and will receive administrative support probably from a financial institution from Hawaii. And the idea would basically be that funds would be deposited in that fund. There would be instructions given to the administrator that the administrator would have a fair amount of discretion as it relates to how do you go about reviewing the documents? How do you go about addressing and communicating with victims? Although we expect the process itself to be relatively straightforward. In other words, if you submit your forms, you get whatever approvals need to come from the court and then you receive your check and your compensation. And so hopefully if we do this the way we envision we see this process taking somewhere between six and nine months from the time that we open up the fund as opposed to the years and years of litigation that a victim or a victim's family may be looking at. And once again to go back to the beginning point, if that's what a victim's family wants to do then we are absolutely fine with that but we wanted to provide them with that option. The last thing that I'm gonna mention may seem a little bit odd but I think it's an important point to make regarding what we're also looking to do. Anybody that decides to apply to this fund will have the right to be able to, if they would like, present their story to the administrator. Chuck, you talked in terms of like everybody has a story and we know that people that especially those who lost loved ones have stories that they wanna tell about their family members and they should have that opportunity. In some cases that can occur in a trial but in this setting where we're giving them the option to do something that's more expeditious, what they will have an opportunity to do if they choose to do so is to present that story to the administrator who will be more than happy to listen to them and to also I think give them a chance to explain the loss that they've suffered as a result of this terrible event that happened in Maui. So those are the main things I think that people should understand but again, I wanna make sure that everybody goes away understanding there's no deadlines right now, there's nothing that they need to do but we wanna make sure that they're paying attention and we will do everything in our power to make sure that when the time comes that we are communicating with those individuals that might be interested in accessing the fund. So we know that there are, for example, besides litigation there are and Tracy's are leading expert on it, mediation arbitration that can be done privately and confidentially. How does this program differ from such private confidential resolution processes? This program will be different in the following way. What you would normally see in a litigation matter, let's say is that you would have a plaintiff and a defendant. You might have more plaintiffs and more defendants but you would have a legal action that is brought in court and a mediator might get involved to help try to facilitate a settlement between those parties and they'll negotiate back and forth. Tracy and Chuck, you're both terrific mediators and so over a period of time, you know that that process sometimes can be long and sometimes it can be short and you need to spend the time that's necessary to get something done. This is different in that we're not really negotiating per se with the potential claimants into the fund. We're setting up a fund, we're gonna set parameters on the fund, we're gonna set an amount of compensation that a victim or an individual might decide that they want to access and then they can decide if they wanna do that or not but we're not engaged in a negotiation or a mediation per se as a result of this process. It's gonna be creating an opportunity for them to access funds. It'll be fully transparent in terms of what it is that an individual needs to do to access those funds and what rights they might be giving up as a result of accessing those funds but it is not a negotiation like you would ordinarily see when you're looking at a mediation. So that's the difference here. So what do you see as the stages and the people in different stages that you're anticipating serving? That's a great question. You know, I think that one of the questions that we have had a lot from the legal community but the community at large is, well, wait a second, there's lots of other claims that are out there. You know, we're talking about wrongful death cases and injury cases where somebody has been hospitalized or stopped medical attention but there are obviously thousands of other individuals that suffered as a result of the fires. You have individuals that lost their homes, they lost their contents in their homes, they lost their businesses, their businesses were disrupted and all of those claims that are out there at some point in time will likely need to be addressed. And I think the hope of the state and Governor Green is that in some sort of like organized manner moving forward that those claims will have an opportunity to be resolved. Going back though to what I said at the beginning in terms of the philosophy behind what the governor is doing, he wanted to put people first. He thought in his view was the people that are paying the ultimate price for what happened in Maui are those families that lost loved ones in the fire and those who suffered physical injury. And so this fund is going to focus on those elements and those claims. But we all recognize that there will probably need to be other dispute resolution mechanisms that are gonna get created in order to take care of the other claims that I mentioned that are still gonna be out there. So this fund is not going to address those but I think what the hope is, and I think I'm seeing this as we are working together with the various parties that are part of the fund or who'll be impacted by the fund is that you're already starting to see that it's creating working relationships between those individuals. And I think hopefully setting the table for us to move forward as a community to look at those larger and probably thornier set of issues that are gonna be coming down the line that we're gonna have to address. And so those of you who are watching this who are mediators and arbitrators and facilitators we're gonna need all of you. We're gonna need to spend time with the community in Lahaina, but also up in Kula. We're gonna need to spend time trying to figure out how do we come up with solutions that fit the culture of this state? How do we figure out like what is an appropriate amount of compensation? And how do we do it in a way hopefully by the time that we're wrapping this up that we can come out of it thinking, this was hard, this was very difficult, but as a family, we sort of survived this. And so when we decided to call the overall program the one Ohana fund, it was very deliberate because I think that we viewed that what we were doing that this isn't just defendants throwing money into a settlement pot. This is sort of a family that is coming together and time of tragedy to work together to deal with the problems that have come out of the fires on mouth. So that's where I believe we're going in. And the two of you I assume will be among hopefully many that will be stepping up to work on the remainder. I'm hoping that we're a little bit of a beacon that we're hoping that it inspires people to some degree and it then sets the table for us to go ahead and look at what other processes are necessary to take care of these complicated claims. And that's a really, really important insight because we certainly know that there are some people and there are some attorneys that are gonna wanna go full on litigation and could be years, lots of expenses, a very adversarial process. It's expensive, it's lengthy, it's hard on people. And the time factor here, there may be many, many people who don't have the time for recovery that those processes take. How does your process and how you see it evolving differ from that and offer something that is more expeditious, more cost effective, more objectively, maybe neutrally assisted and managed? So if I understand what you're asking, Sharpe, I think what we tried to do here to address what Tracy had to say, which is a really important point, is you have to understand that individuals are gonna view this situation differently. Not everybody grieves on the same schedule. Not everybody is gonna be ready at the same time to want to figure out how to engage with the legal system. And I think that when we started looking at this, the thing that we saw when we looked at some of the fires, for example, that took place in California, that element that really kind of made us really take a step back and say, we don't wanna do that, is that in California, it literally took years before they got to the point where they were even giving victims an opportunity to resolve claims that they wanted to do that. And for some individuals, I think that they're going to want to move on. I think that they're going to wanna have an opportunity to not be involved in a lengthy legal process and to give them that sort of control to us is in stark contrast to what we were seeing in California. We're already starting to hear from some number of attorneys who represent some of the families of those who lost loved ones in this fire. And they're not anxious to go and relive that necessarily in court. There may be individuals that are, that want to be able to go to court and to tell their story and to be able to explain why it is that certain parties should be held responsible. And again, we're not looking to take that away from them. But I think that what we wanted to do was to empower those individuals who did not want to go through that lengthy process, who don't wanna wait three, five, eight years before something ends to give them the choice and that they could decide among themselves what's best for us. And that element was not present in California. And when we were looking at like one of the things that we could do in the short term that we thought could at least help to help heal some of those individuals was to make sure that they are not forced into that sort of process in order to seek compensation if they think that that's what they wanna do. So I hope that's an answer to your question, but again, I think those were some of the elements of the program that we wanted to implement and implement quickly so that we can give people options. And that I think is the hallmark of what we're trying to do is to empower people to decide what's best for them. Well, and I think what you've just done that distinguishes Hawaii and this program and yourself as I know you and Tracy is that this is a people and community oriented cultural value oriented process that is responsive rather than adversarily directed as litigation is. And that distinction is an important one here, yeah. And I think that as we worked on designing this program those sort of factors were in our mind. We actually wanted to come up with a way that we were not forcing people to put on proof of how much money their loved one would have made if they had survived or what are the individual circumstances that differentiate them. I know people may want to do that. We wanna give them the chance to speak to the administrator about that, but we wanted to derive and to come up with a process that didn't require that amount of legal proof that you would see for example in a trial before a judge and a jury. We wanted to come up with a way to come up with fair compensation and to provide an easy way to access it in an expeditious way. That is what really drove a lot of what we were trying to do to give that option that would move along the process a lot quicker than I think any place else I think I've seen in the country at least so far especially for a tragedy of this magnitude. And what we're hearing is you're talking about something that is so classically core value connected to Hawaii uniquely. And that is a process based on people and that their connections, their communications are collaborative rather than adversarial. And so rather than the lengthy, expensive adversarial processes that can be divisive and really hard on people. I'm hearing that you're aiming for something that comes from and for the people that is more collaborative. That's more objective scientifically evidence based that's more neutrally expert evaluated that's assisted by Hawaii's wonderful resources like Tracy of trained neutral mediators and people who can administer these processes in ways that are people oriented. So how do you draw people to see and understand the value and benefits of that choice that you're offering as opposed to the litigation standard stuff? That's a really good question. And I think that one of the things that I think we've been talking about among ourselves is what is the best way to approach individuals that are potentially eligible to apply for this fund? I think that what we wanna try to do is in all likelihood do some sort of outreach individually to those families to find a way to talk to them either directly or through their counsel to make sure that they know what is there and to answer their questions in a private setting that gives them a chance to express their concerns about what it is that they're being asked to consider. And so as we work on the next steps in this process one of the things that we have talked about is what's the best way to reach the individuals that are likely gonna be impacted and are going to need to know about what is there. And so we're consulting at length with individuals from Maui or from Lahaina who know many of the families that have been impacted by this fire so that we can get their assistance to figure out the best way to communicate what it is that we're trying to do. So the governor may make an announcement and I think that's very important for the public to know but I think as far as the outreach to the individuals impacted by the fire who can apply, we actually wanna get to the point where we're talking to each and every one of them. Individually, we could do in theory I guess some large community meeting but I'm not sure that forcing somebody that's lost a family member to come before a large group of people is really the best way to allow somebody to heal. And so we're gonna look for opportunities to touch people one by one. The thing about this first fund that we're talking about is we have a general idea of how many people we're talking about. And although it is a tragic number, it is also hopefully a number where we can actually have individual conversations so that we can explain what we're doing, answer their questions and then let them make their decisions after they talk to their family members but also their lawyers if they wanna involve them as well. We're not gonna exclude lawyers from the process and if people want legal counsel, that's fine as well. And what we're hearing, which is unique to and culturally and emotionally and spiritually grounded in and appropriate to Hawaii is what you're putting together, the core values of it are not the go tell people this is what's gonna happen and see which side can impose their selective viewpoint or results on the other but the ask and offer process that Andy Weiner and Tracy Wilkin, two of the best I've ever seen in my 45 years at doing this is building something to approach people to ask what are your interests and priorities? Help us understand that. How can we put something together, design and offer it? That's going to be of the most help and service and with each of the groups not only the victims and those affected but the people who are being targeted as responsible. We have a utility that whatever your view has contributed huge value and played an incredibly crucial role in the development of this state and going forward has even a more core value responsibility as we shift to renewable energy to community-based energy programs and projects Kamehameha Schools whose role is hugely important to children, to families, to learning, to communities. All of those people, you're ask and offer approach. What are your interests and priorities? How can we work with you to put something together to best serve them in as expedited as cost-effective and as fair a way as possible? That I think as you knew, unique. That's not what 9-Eleven or the BP oil spills or roundup work. Those were litigation developed or litigation avoidance processes. So if you build it and they come how will you help them get there? So I think that what we talked about earlier was that we're trying to come up with a process that simplifies what an application looks like. We hope to have a website that is relatively straightforward has relatively few documents that will need to be completed. We will have the administrator available to be able to talk to individuals who apply or their counsel to answer questions. I think I mentioned earlier that we expect a financial institution to not only be holding the funds but to be providing administrative support. And I think what our hope is that we'll have a number of staff members that are trained who can answer the kinds of questions that people will have. On the website, we will have frequently asked questions so that they can take a look and see. For the most part, hopefully we've anticipated the questions and if we haven't, there'll be a way to communicate with the administrator and the people that are running the program. And then we'll also, I think, do some outreach with the plaintiffs lawyers. Obviously some of the individuals that be maybe attempting to access the funds are gonna be represented by counsel. As I said earlier, we're not seeking to exclude them. We're seeking to include them. And to the extent that they are going to be assisting with the preparation of documents to access the claims or the claims fund, we're gonna make sure that similar to individuals that they need to talk to the administrator or somebody that's administering the funds that there'll be an opportunity for them to do that. So, I assume that the governor, knowing just how he is personally will actually, I think, do some of the individual outreach. Having a physician as a governor in a situation like this I think is incredibly helpful. He has for lack of a better way to describe it a great bedside manner. And I think, and I can see that in certain circumstances that he will be a great communicator for us to be able to talk to people about what it is that we're trying to accomplish. But, we're also open to other suggestions. If anybody has thoughts on the best way to publicize or to make the program available generally to the people that are impacted, we're all ears. We wanna make sure that people are aware of it. They have a chance to ask the questions and then they can make a decision on what's best for them. And Tracy, I wanted to ask you, tell us a little bit about what dispute resolution resources which Andy has indicated are gonna be integral to helping to convene and manage these communications and processes. But what kind of resources and people do we have here and how might that be of value and service to this resolution process system? Well, Chuck, as you know, you and Andy are being some of the top dispute resolution experts in the state. We're very fortunate here to have a strong dispute resolution community. We have five community mediation centers throughout the state that have a large cadre of skilled mediators who do a lot of amazing work. We also have dispute prevention and resolution which is the largest for profit dispute resolution program in the state who has an amazing panel of mediators, arbitrators, facilitators. And then there's a lot of other independent people out there and there are individuals who have the skills who I know would be willing to step up to the plate to assist that are already working in the community in a variety of ways who have learned the skills even though they may not have the label of formal mediator facilitator, but they've gone through the training and they have the skills and they're able to use them. So I feel hopeful and excited that as we look at each of the areas and the issues from insurance claims, residential, commercial to landlord tenant issues and the variety of issues that need to be addressed that we can develop processes and that we will have the appropriate dispute resolution resolvers be able to step up and assist. And I know that people are already willing and able it's about looking at each of the issues and making sure the appropriate information is gathered to adequately and correctly address those issues in the process that's designed. And the key elements, you know, each process may look a little bit different as the program Andy has been describing but the key elements is people will have choices. They're empowered in the process, they have a voice and that is so critical right now. I mean, I can't imagine going through the trauma and as Andy pointed out, you know, everybody deals with the trauma and what they've gone through each in their own way. And we need to be respectful of that and build processes that are respectful whether people are participating with attorneys or whether they wanna participate on their own having appropriate language interpreters if English isn't their primary language having members of the community who they trust participate with them so that the processes that are designed are comfortable, they're welcoming and they empower them to have a voice and to have choices. And I know as we look at each of the issues and the timing is appropriate and designing that we will have many members of our community and the dispute resolution field who will be willing to step up and assist. And that's a fantastic vision. How do you and what is your confidence level that that can be done in ways that are really cost effective, affordable, low bono I think is the word you've used. For many of these claims are not gonna have a bunch of money for them. You've got death and injury claims that it may be million dollar claims and lawyers are gonna look at making money off those things but there are a lot of other stuff. What if there's no insurance or not enough insurance for the home or the business or the vehicle? What about if it's a problem like, oh, I lost all my documents, my immigration status my family status is jeopardized my employment status is jeopardized. What if I'm because I was economically devastated I'm at risk of foreclosure, eviction land or tenant problems and issues. How do we help design the people and the processes to be able to comprehensively welcome and respect and deal with all of those in a not only expedited but cost effective manner affordable manner, ideas? Those are really important points and are gonna take a lot of people coming together a lot of key stakeholders to talk about the issues and what it takes to design the right process. In some instances, as you say it'll be having adequate funding. And I know the state, the governor is looking at these issues now where do the funds come from to support people in these different situations? As far as the people assisting with the processes the neutrals, the dispute resolution professionals I think a lot of them would be willing to do the work pro bono. I don't think in every situation and it depends on the issues as you mentioned Chuck if it's a landlord tenant issue you need individuals who are versed not only skilled facilitators and mediators but are reversed in landlord tenant matters similar to eviction and the information that's needed to help people make informed decisions and negotiate needs to be pulled together. So it is gonna take a village to look at all these issues and make sure that the information that's needed is there and available and that the right dispute resolvers are there. And I wanna say, it will take a lot of work but I know it can be done. When we went through COVID and there was a moratorium on evictions there was, I know a lot of this came together whether it was attorneys, it was legislators it was judges, members of the community talking about what's gonna happen when that moratorium ends and the concern that there's thousands of evictions. And so similar, although this is much bigger we looked at what kind of process can we design to help landlords and tenants because landlords needed help as well as tenants to come together, be able to have a process that empowered both of them to negotiate to have outcomes that they needed. And through those discussions Act 57 was created and for one year, mediation was required when tenants and tenants had the choice they didn't have to mediate but landlords were required to participate prior to the eviction process. And as a result of that it was really the five community mediation centers throughout the state to put the program together once Act 57 was in place. And as a result, there were more than 1500 landlords and tenants that were able to reach agreements where payment plans were worked out. Tenants were be able to remain in the residence landlords were paid and it was developed quickly, respectfully and we reached out to a broad number of dispute resolution professionals who did it low bono and did it successfully. So based on that track record of success and how many members of the community stepped up to make it work. I know in my heart that we can design processes to help the people of Maui to be able to make choices and be empowered in a time that they must feel very out of control and having no power. So creating these processes just give them a little more control in their lives to help them be able to make a choice to address issues sooner so that they and their families can decide what their next steps are. And that's so critical right now. And you've raised a point that really is an especially thorny one, particularly for the entities that have been targeted and sued here is you've got an incredibly difficult causation situation with very, very high winds. 50, 70, sometimes 90 miles per hour together with very flammable grasses and utility poles that were aging that may have been energized that may have contributed to initiating fires. And you've got a whole bunch of other factors going on and you've got a lot of evidence that's gone destroyed in the fires. And how do you connect the funding and those really difficult causation allocation issues among those parties? So that's a very sort of difficult part of the work that we've had to do over the last few weeks. The challenge has been that we're seeking, one of the things we're trying to do is to move quickly. We're trying to actually stand up a program before the end of the year. That's four or five months after this fire took place. And one of the difficulties is that we don't have the benefit of discovery from a court case. And so we're not able to look at depositions or look at documents. And so we recognize that early on that was going to be a problem. We're not able to maybe provide some of the analysis that would make parties comfortable. But I think there were a couple of things that were driving the conversations that I think have been very productive. And I think some of that related to a shared desire by some of the parties you've mentioned, together with Maui County, that we understood that maybe this wasn't gonna be like the perfect process, but let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. And so, among ourselves, we were pretty candid in terms of how we looked at liability at this point. I can tell you that that was a factor, but it was by no means the only one. And I think that the parties that have been at the table, not only we're looking at who's right and who's wrong, but all of them, I think early on, wanted to do the right thing. They wanted to come up with a process that allowed these victims and these individuals to have an option to make a decision. And so I hope that when we make the announcements as to where the funding is gonna come from, I think we'll make it clear that in no way, shape, or form is anybody saying, okay, this is how this is gonna be for every other process that gets designed moving forward. I think that there were circumstances relating to wanting to move quickly. I think that the parties, I think we're listening very closely to Governor Green's leadership on the idea of putting people first. And so there have been some hard conversations. I think everybody has their own views, I think, in terms of how they might advocate if they were in court. But I think for the good of the community, the good of the state, people have put that aside in order to try to come up with a solution that provides options for those individuals that we think are the ones that really should have an opportunity to have their claims addressed first. And so, although liability was certainly part of the discussion point, it was by no means, I think, what you would normally see if it was a case that was in litigation and you'd had a bunch of discovery. I think that there was a desire to see these people get treated fairly. And so, the various contributions that are being made, I will tell people are not necessarily reflective of how any of us necessarily view how a case might ultimately play out if it goes to trial. Well, and you've raised a really important point. We don't want to get off into the weeds of legalism, but the joint is several liability factor in American law, very different. In Britain, right? If you could figure out party A, your X percent, party B, your Y percent, party C, your C percent, that's how it's gonna split up. We don't have that. If A has 75% liability, but only enough money to pay for 10%, the other 90% is gonna have to come from B and C even if they're only a smaller portion percentage libel. So that factor, as you wisely infer, drops out. And the idea of working collaboratively to preserve the long-term viability of all the entities, how do we keep and motivate the utility to play the role and have the viability to be what Hawaii really needs it to be in energy? How do we do that with Kamehameha schools in education and community outreach? How do we do that with other parties with the state, with the county of Maui? Any thoughts on that? Yeah, I think that that is exactly what we tried to do over the course of the last several weeks, is to recognize that there was certainly, like I said, there's a legal overlay here, but the four parties that you've identified obviously are poor entities in this state. I mean, the state of Hawaii, Maui County, our largest electric utility, our largest private landowner and also our largest charitable and philanthropic institution. Those are major entities in the state. And I think that in the conversations that we were having, that there was a recognition that there was a responsibility that transcended things like liability or insurance coverage. I think what we tried to do is figure out, like it was almost like, what can you do at this point in time? You know, let's figure out what is doable at this point in time and make it clear that it may not set precedent for things going forward. I mean, Maui County right now is obviously dealing with a terrible tragedy. Its government is overwhelmed and it's doing I think the best it can under unbelievably trying circumstances. And so to burden them in a way that they would not be able to take care of the direct needs of their people with something that the state in particular wanted to make sure was being looked at and addressed. And I think when you see how it is that compensation was derived for this pool, I think that the state looked at it as, we feel a responsibility to everybody but we want to make sure that the county and the county government is able to function in a way that it is able to do the rest of what needs to happen in the coming years. And so, that's one example I think of how it was that we were sort of viewing all of this, that there certainly was some awareness of what happened relating to the fire but that we all knew that there was a larger and greater important goal that was in mind here which is we're putting people first, we're putting this community first, we're coming up with a way to address their needs in a hopefully an expeditious way. And we all understand by the way that there's gonna be criticism of what it is that we're doing. There's gonna be people that are gonna say the state is paying too much or he goes not paying enough or whoever else is involved, we're gonna hear all of that. And I will say that maybe it's not perfect, I will not be so egotistical as to think that that is the case but I do think that what we did come up with was a fairly, we're coming up with what I think is a fairly elegant solution to a very, very difficult set of problems. And I think that in a year from now, my hope is is that the people that have been involved in this will look back and view it as some of the best work that they ever did in their career and that we did something that set a standard for how it is that we're going to like go forward as a state and as one family to be able to address what happened. So those things have been very much going through my mind but I think it's also been clear all of the other individuals and entities that are there I think have come with that sort of spirit. And I commend our partners that are gonna be willing to do this. This is hard. I mean, the people that are making these decisions are going to be criticized and yet they are willing to go forward. And I think that that is courageous but I also think it's leadership in a time when the state desperately needs leadership. And so hopefully, as I said earlier this becomes a beacon for how it is that we wanna come out of this and that we come out of this crisis feeling like the people of Hawaii came up with a solution that fit the times and fit the place and fit the culture of the state. That's what we're trying to do. And my hope is that, you know, we'll show the way. You know, it's not gonna be perfect but I think it's gonna be a reflection of something that the people of this state can be very proud of. And I think what you've just encapsulated maybe better than anyone I've ever heard is that what really makes this unique and distinct from all the others and from the litigation stuff and all that is this is a coalescing, a collaboration of people realizing that the only way to get through this as intact as possible each is to get through it as intact as possible all. And to understand, respect and honor each other's ability, value and importance to each other to be able to do that. You folks are doing that in a way that way different than 9-11 petroleum oil bills out of any of those. This is in many ways more complicated because of the fact that in some of those circumstances you had one party that was being looked upon to provide compensation here, we have many that in principle and in legal theory may actually need to be involved. And so almost by definition, we ended up having entities that work together and know each other but they are working together in sort of different ways and we're trying to get them and I think that we've succeeded in speaking with one voice. That's where we want to get to. We all understand that we have different interests. We all understand that we have different pressures but I think that what we tried to do was put those down at the door and walk in, let's sit down at the table, let's figure out what we can do that's gonna be meaningful and important for this state and actually address the needs of the people that are most in need. So that's what we attempted to do and I would commend the others that were a part of this. This wasn't just the governor, this was the mayor, this was Kamehameha schools, this has been Maui County and the mayor and so as I said, I expect that not everybody will look at this and stand up and cheer but in the end, I think that we've come up with an approach that in a few months when we give individuals the choice, I think they're gonna choose to participate, a lot of them will and I think that they will be some of the first people that will say at the end of all of this that we did our jobs, that we gave them what they needed to be able to get on with their lives in a way that they could control. That's what we wanted to get to and I think I am hopeful that we'll hit that mark. And what I love about the One Ohana name, I don't think it could be any better than that is it recognizes and honors. Yeah, perfect to Hawaiian culture. We come into this as One Ohana, the only way and the best way to get through this and out of this as resilient as intact as able to go forward with our best lives and choices as possible is as One Ohana together. You folks are doing that. Andy Weiner, Tracy Wilkin, two of the best of the best at not only enabling that for people in conflict and in disasters but modeling themselves professionally and personally, two of the finest people I've known role models for me in my 45 years of doing this stuff and Tracy, last thoughts and words? I really appreciate the opportunity to be here with you and Andy and I'm looking forward to watching as the process moves forward. Andy, last thoughts? Thank you for having us, Chuck. I'm looking forward to working with you and Tracy moving forward. I think there'll be a lot of opportunities to do that. Thank you for the opportunity to describe what we're up to and for your interest in this. And as I said, stay tuned. A few weeks from now, I'm hoping, you know, we'll be able to show a lot more and I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say when we do it. And I wanna with and for all of us take that message and pay it forward because I think we all wanna thank not only the governor who has exemplified this is what an emergency physician does in an emergency. The patient comes first, the patient's family and support group are the critical element of recovery and all the other resources have to be one Ohana to get through it. That's exactly what you folks are doing and exemplifying. And however one may view responsibility, liability, factors, things like that, that the Hawaiian electric companies and entity has for a long time contributed huge value and needs to be able to continue to contribute huge value to this community in order for us to come through it as one Ohana. That is certainly equally true of Kamehameha schools. It's equally true of the state, of the county and all of those who are impacted and affected. And I think we'll finish by saying there are none of us in Hawaii who are not impacted and affected some more indirectly than others. But if you're impacted in a way that when you're really thinking about this and hearing what Andy and Tracy are working on trying to ask an offer here, tears will roll down your cheeks as they are mine. Thank you Aloha for joining us. Thank you. Thank you Chair. One Ohana.