 Think Tech Hawaii. Civil engagement lives here. Aloha, and welcome to Talk Story with John Wahey, one of the more interesting issues that's going around the legislature right now is the question of whether or not we should have another constitutional convention in the state of Hawaii. The law requires that every 10 years, that question be asked, and the public has a choice of either approving the, having a con con or not. Now, the last con con that Hawaii had, constitutional convention, was in 1978. And it's been over 40 years since the voters have approved another one. Maybe for good reason, maybe not. But our guest today, Dr. Jim Sean, was a delegate to the 1978 Constitutional Convention. And so was I. And so, as a fellow delegate, we are here today to discuss that. Now what's interesting about all of this is that Dr. Sean is probably one of the more forward thinkers in Hawaii at the moment, and he has some interesting ideas about what we could discuss at a constitutional convention if we ever had one. Welcome, Jim. Glad to be here. I appreciate your coming by, and you know, you and I were in the 1978 Constitutional Convention. That's right. Yeah. And you look much older than you didn't. The convention. Yeah. I had longer hair. Yeah. Jim, you know, both of us had some. Well, it's been 40 years. Yeah. And you and I bumped into each other on what I'm calling the con con circuit. Yes. People are inviting us to give speeches and talk about whether or not we should have one. And you're here. What do you think? Well, if I think back of 1978, how it's different, right? Right. There was a tremendous amount of social activism where people joined groups. Okay. They joined groups around issues, land use, say Hawaii, Holy Wai'kani Valley, you know. There was a planning movement. The environmental movement had arrived in Hawaii, you know, obviously the native Hawaiian Renaissance. The native Hawaiian Renaissance, right? That's what was going on. Right. And you had a lot of these things, open government, a distrust of government because of Watergate to some extent, right? And a generation, us, who thought it was our turn. Yeah. You know, I forgot about that. That was right after Watergate. It was right after Watergate. And everybody wanted to say it was time for the professionals to step aside. That's right. That's right. And I still don't quite understand how we got most of the professionals to step aside for us, but we did, right? Yeah. The 1970 Constitutional Convention had, I think, six formal politicians or formal politicians. That's right. That's right. And so that activism, there was no internet. This is something that is difficult for people to understand that there was no internet. There weren't even computers, hardly at all. Right. Type, type, type, type. Right? Were they computers? Probably not. Maybe DOS. Yeah. The nerds had computers. We didn't have computers. Well, the government had computers. So if we wanted to communicate and organize, we had to do it face to face. You had to join. There was a glue to it, right? This is, fast forward now, the Arab Springs of the world, the flash mob organizing, the fact that students could organize millions of people in Washington in a couple of weeks. Fantastic. Yes. Fantastic. But the nature of that organization is very different, right? They are not joining. It's kind of like, I like on Facebook, I'll go, right? Okay. Okay. So the level, it's very broad but not necessarily deep in terms of organizational structure, right? So for the first question. There's some spontaneity to it, too. Great spontaneity. Whether it has longevity, we don't know, right? To some extent, the Bernie movement, echoing the original Obama movement, had this grassrootsy internet dynamic, right? But now, the question is, can or should social media be somehow part of our thinking for what 21st century government and democracy should be? That's really the question. But before we get to that question, me, for our viewers, okay, why don't you tell us a little bit about what happened at 78 as contrast to the social movement phenomenon of today? Well, so 78, you get elected. You walk into a building. I walk into a building. I have my environmental hat on and my open government sunshine hat on and union-friendly but non-union member at that point. Just kind of a student. Some of a typical... Typical... A little bit left to, you know... That's right, that's right. Social activism. Gung Ho going to change the world, make my mark, right? Right. I had already worked at the legislature and I'm a little atypical in that I had done some of the legislative reference bureau studies on constant provisions to lead up to it. So you were ready. You were informed as far as you could be in doing that. So I'm not that typical because I think a lot of people ran. The other thing that happened on Oahu was the neighborhood board movement. People forget that there was an enormous amount of organization creating neighborhood boards in leading up to 78. This is 40 years ago. People don't realize that it was... Those were the years when the neighborhood board began. That's right. We were involved with creating a neighborhood board in Waikiki and not only did we have to create it, we had to decide how to vote on it. In 1978, because we had condos, we allowed people to vote in their condo corridor. You know, you come down from the elevator and you could vote. Right. So in the condos, that was very good. You think we could do that today? You know, think about the convenience. How easy would that be? How easy would that be? Right. But today, one of the changes is the fact that a majority of the people seem to vote by absentee ballot. There is a huge absentee ballot vote. Back then that... No, no, no. And nowadays, the only real total absentee ballot election is for neighborhood boards in the state actually. It doesn't mean that they get enormous turnout, right? And I think that's an important dynamic, is that as we think about how to make democracy more accessible and more in tune with our sensibilities and the millennials and all that, it's not the same as turnout. Well, let me ask you a question. So you walk into a building, you're sort of a young progressive, I would say, if we were using today's terms, maybe liberal of yesterday, you walk in there, what are your expectations? What are you trying to accomplish? For me, I wanted to marinate the Constitution with ideas and securities for environment, a right to an environment, a healthful environment. I was stunned pleasantly to see that New York state had put all the boundaries for the conservation lands in the Constitution. Really? We could not change the conservation land boundary without changing the Constitution. Which by the way, folks, is the document that should be the hardest to change, of all the legal documents that we allow to run our lives. That's right. I also was one of those who wanted initiative referendum and recall, the big eye, which was initiative. The democratization of government. That's right. That's right. Having worked at the legislature, I knew that the final bill setting on that legislature's desk for only 24 hours was not enough. Even the staff couldn't read it. So my little thing was, make it 48 hours, at least, so everybody could read the darn bill. Well, it makes sense, doesn't it? And the open primary and these things were part of it. So you came in expecting to democratize government and also committed to protecting the environment. That's right. How successful were you? I think there was kind of a C-plus maybe success because of something that somebody, a very well-known activist, Pete Thompson, told us. He said, you guys aren't going to do anything new. Whatever you do has already been won in the streets, right? Right. And his point is that it is really a social change that often gets ratified in a constitutional convention. So now you have to ask, what are those social changes, those tectonic planes? Okay, here we are 40 years later. Yeah, right. And the question's up again. Yeah. Okay? Now, one of the things that I feel, anyway, is that when we're discussing whether or not we should have a content, we have this tendency to look back. That's right. And see what happened in 1978. That's right. And I'm not so sure that's the best way to do an analysis. Whatever happened then was maybe unique to that time. But now, am I thinking incorrectly on this? Those of us who love history are thinking correctly because there's a context for everything, right? And there are lessons for everything, right? And people will say, well, it's always been this way and it might not have been, right? Exactly. So, and human behavior and political behavior often doesn't change that much. But I would argue that the social media has changed democracy very fundamentally in many ways these days. The social media, by the social media, you mean like Facebook and yeah. Okay. So, do you think, and this is a question that occurred to me, do you think that some of the achievements of the social media may have been what you were trying to accomplish back in 1978? I mean, or just in a different way? In terms of your democratization of government or democratization of society? Not yet because I don't think that there's a direct link between the social media and the demonstrations we see and changes in laws yet. Okay. And as I think the students over the weekend pointed out again and again, until we change the vote, that connection might not be made. Okay. And so, you might be able to bring a lot of people out with great enthusiasm. Now, I think it is instructive that the Women's March, which was a social media-driven thing, right, has generated an incredible number of young women running for office at the grassroots level in every state. So that's much closer to what you might see as what you were trying to achieve? I don't know that I would have anticipated it that way because I saw government as a kind of fixed thing that needed to be opened up rather than taking over. Taking over. Exactly. Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah. Taking over, yeah. But, you know, it's not only in America. I mean, all over the world, especially where there are despotic governments, social media seems to be the trigger that allows people to, you know, organize. Yeah, and I think one of the things that makes me a little uncomfortable is that when you destroy institutional and umbrellas that keep people with different views, when you break that up, what do you have left? And the example, I think, is very true of what happened in Eastern Europe. All right. The Soviet Union broke up. It wasn't, ah, freedom, it was genocide, one group after another. Right, the Balkans. The Balkan wars. It's still going on. It's still going on. The decline of the nation's state has had unintentional negative consequences for certain populations, right? Or, and at the same time, maybe opened up opportunities for others. No doubt. No doubt. Because, you know, they were the Arab Spring, for example. And what that means for the Kurds. That's right. You know, who would be unthinkable that they would even have a position of autonomy at one point in time. Absolutely. But, okay, bringing back that to Hawaii, I mean, would that open up something maybe for Native Hawaiians or others? I do think so. But I think that in, I'm not obviously not part of the Native Hawaiian community, so I don't feel I have the right to advise, but I have an opinion. But you are a PhD. We need your advice. Oh, please. Political science, you know. Well, yeah. So, it seems to me that a feature of a parallel state, a sovereign state, could integrate this notion of a social media citizenship, right? Okay. So, when you separated, right now, when we think of a separate state or county or we think of land, right? Right. Everything is land. The sovereignty seems to be land-based. And, you know, obviously the connection with the Aina is an important one, right? But the connection with the culture, right, need not be land-based. Okay. If it's not land-based. And if it utilizes new forms of interaction and telecommunication and voting online and things like this, the Native Hawaiian community could actually be in the forefront of democratic reform. Democratic reform, not based on any particular geographic location. I mean, you're still talking about the islands. That's right. But not necessarily in the box. That's right. That's right. And then you begin to see where informational, educational, communication benefits of that citizenship, right? Well, it's kind of exciting because, you know, that there are about 500,000 Hawaiians in the world today. Yes. And over a half of them, or just about a half of them, live elsewhere besides Hawaii. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, these are the issues of the future. Now, we are going to take a small break, I think, right about this time, and we should be back in a minute. Now, when we come back, I am actually looking forward to discussing what would someone in the 21st century look at doing in a constitution, I mean, as opposed to those of us back in 1978. What are the reforms of tomorrow, or today, actually? Okay. We'll be right back. Hello, everyone. I'm DeSoto Brown, the co-host of Human Humane Architecture, which is seen on Think Tech, Hawaii every other Tuesday at 4 p.m. And with the show's host, Martin Desbang, we discuss architecture here in the Hawaiian Islands, and how it not only affects the way we live, but other aspects of our life, not only here in Hawaii, but internationally as well. So, join us for Human Humane Architecture every other Tuesday at 4 p.m. on Think Tech, Hawaii. Welcome back to Talk Story with John Wahee and our special guest, Dr. Jim Sean, who was a 1978 constitutional delegate, along with myself, I might say. And for those of you who have been listening to our show thus far, if you want to call in with a question, the number is 808-374-2014. Jim, this is an exciting, exciting time for all of us, because the world seems to be, depending on your point of view, you know, on one hand we seem to be fragmenting. You know, everybody's walking the streets with their little cell phones and not paying attention to anybody else. And yet, it's also a time when we seem to be in constant communication with something. I mean, whether it's the internet getting information, whether it's the ability to talk to people or do what the students did, you know, put a call. Let's all go to Washington and say no more guns, you know? You know, one thing that strikes me, and maybe this is looking back, I don't know, you know, of what it used to be, right? But it seems to me that good government is thoughtful, factually based government, right? That's the ideal, isn't it? So, in an age where we're twittering each other, these are not deep thoughts. No, no. Hence, well, the President of the United States. Yeah, so one of the challenges is, how do you create contexts where decisions are made and there's thoughtfulness and knowledge? Well, is that an advantage of having people all come together in a forum like the Constitutional Convention? Well, the Constitutional Convention, I think, might contribute to that. Okay. But here's an idea. Actually, my very first proposal in 1978, which got nowhere, I mentioned the creation of neighborhood boards, right? Right. You know, my idea is that wherever neighborhood boards are created by counties, that they would have real power to expend money for capital improvements. Okay, so the idea... I would give them power, right? So, now if you go to a neighborhood board meeting, there's a lot of talk, it's great communication, no power. Well, what about the power to slow down development? Or the power to make people, you know, come and pay homage, so to speak. That's right. And I see that as... But that, to some extent, is already there, right? Well, that, to some extent, is like maybe so indirect that actually it might not be...it might be counterproductive. Yeah, I think that one of the reasons why some voted for Obama and Trump is in impatience. Come on! We can't get anything done. A decision can't get made. Why is it, you know, in World War II, we're cranking out an airplane every day, right? Why does it take so long to bring an issue to resolution, to make a decision about this or that? And to do it in a context where there's a safe place to discuss it, right? And so that, you know, that Alvin Toffler wrote an interesting book called The Third Wave, where he talked about the big city developments and legislatures and symphonies are all elements of the big industrial state, right? But with satellites and with the internet, you can now have Gandhi in his village with satellites, right? Right. And talking to somebody right there in the corner of Maui. But also right there. There's a grassroots authenticity to that. And we now have the ability to create enough safeguards that we can let people make decisions in a more decentralized way, where we've been afraid of this. So, okay, one of the big things about things that are discussed whether or not we should have another convention is the cost. That's right. So, you know, you seem to be implying that there could be a more cost efficient way of having participation than the type of convention that we went through. Of course. Even in the pretty internet days, myself and a senator had inter-island public hearings at the ledge, right? On health issues, right? You mean video. Video cast. No, well, telecast. Telecast, telecast. All right. Well, anybody now, you know, Lahaina, we could do that because it was a hardwired system when we went to a building, right? Now you can do this. Well, what about the concept, that old idea that, you know, don't shoot until you see the white of their eyes? Yes. The need for interpersonal connection. Is that something that senior people like ourselves hold dear and young people may not? Well, I don't think it's either or. But I think what it is right now is that the low-hanging fruit of easy communication, I see you face-to-face, right? We can have this discussion and you can be on another island and it's like we're right next to each other. And people are comfortable with that these days. People are comfortable with that. The con con, you know, how many people could come down and testify? Yeah, those that were not otherwise fucking biased. They were not working, right? And we're still stuck in that, right now. So the overcoming time. Or lobbyists. Lobbyists lay everywhere. Overcoming time and place can make it a much more citizen-centric issue. And we also have the technology to be doing polling daily on issues. What do you think of this, Hawaii? Broom. Broom. You know, I mean, that kind of immediate feedback. Most legislators, even if they're close to their district, right? Right. They have no idea what their constituents think on 90% of the bill. Well, we do live in a totally different world. And communication systems of today are so much more advanced than what we were used to, as you correctly pointed out. The internet itself didn't exist. Now, if you were going to go into a con con in 2018, what would be your issue? What would you take into the constitutional convention? Well, for one thing, I would look at a few of the functions of government, whether or not it's still necessary to say the counties cannot raise money unless we give them permission. I might give the counties more flexibility and autonomy. I would also give the Board of Education more flexibility and autonomy. You know, that's going contrary to where we just took away the elected Board of Education. I'm not talking about election or not. What I'm saying is that there's a constitutional amendment proposed for raising additional money for education, right? And basically, it says the legislature could do this, right? Should we give them the own ability to tax? Yes. I actually proposed that when I was in office, which was about 30-something years ago. We are so afraid of someone else who has power and authority, right? Not all power and authority, but this hoarding of the power in one central place I think is out of tune with the upcoming citizens of our state. I think they're impatient. They say, why can't I be part of the solution? Why can't I participate? Why can't we do it on Maui? Why can't we do it on Maui? Well, this is one of the most interesting discussions we've had. Okay. And I want to thank you so much for bringing a modern view of what a constitutional convention could be like. And as I said, you know, we need more discussion on what does, and really, not only what a constitutional convention might be like, but what democracy should be like in the 21st century. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Dr. Sean, we appreciate having you with us.