Why the Wars Roll on

Post Date September 06, 2009

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category Military Appropriations, Earmarks, Military-industrial-academic complex, The Military in Hawai'i (All Islands), War and Peace

This article points out that Senator Inouye receives $160,000 from corporations outside his district that have an interest in war expenditures. The map is pretty telling of the powers and interests that influence decisions about war, peace and militarization. Many of these companies are the same ones that benefit from the earmarks for missiles defense, PMRF and the UARC/Project Kai e’e related programs.

>><<

Why the Wars Roll on: Ban Campaign Money From Outside the District

Friday 04 September 2009

by: Ralph Lopez, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

As public opinion tips against the US military presence in Afghanistan, and Congress talks about “doubling down,” as the pullout from Iraq is accompanied by steadily increasing violence, and talk turns to slowing or halting the pull-out, the question the anti-war public must ask itself is: What now? War funding for Iraq continues despite two consecutive Democratic majorities elected expressly to stop it. Obama’s high-stakes 2008 Super Bowl ad blared “Getting Us Out of Iraq,” and it worked. He was elected. But the cold hard fact seems to be emerging that, regardless of public opinion, the wars will roll on.

The occasional heroic Congress member or senator will call for a timetable, an exit plan or a halt to war funding, but despite lots of heat generated in the debate, the war bills seem to pass at the end of the day. This is because incumbents’ real constituents are no longer the people who live in the district. The real power, the money which pays for television ad blitzes and the all-important donations to the local Little League, comes from far away.

Very few people know that on average 80 percent of their Congress members’ and senators’ campaign funds come from outside the district, and largely from outside the state. They come from industries like defense, telecommunications and financial services. What do they get for these contributions, even in cases when the Congress member votes against those contributors’ positions on certain bills?

The 1976 US Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which equated money with “free speech,” affirmed your right to buy your own congressman. But it did not explicitly affirm your right to buy mine. Since that decision, the amount of money in politics has skyrocketed and is at all-time highs. Also at record-breaking highs are the pay-offs, like bailouts for the auto and financial services industries.

The savings and loan bailout of the nineties, at $200 billion, was chump change compared to the $700 billion TARP slush fund of today, which rewards financial services companies for the subprime mortgage fiasco. In searching for an answer to how the $3 trillion Iraq war can drag on despite three years of Democratic majorities in Congress elected to end it, follow the money.

The citizen’s watchdog group MAPlight.org has found that congressmen who voted for TARP, the “Troubled Assets Relief Program,” received nearly 50 percent more in campaign contributions from the financial services industry (an average of about $149,000) than congressmen who voted no. Legislators who voted for the automobile industry bailout in 2009 received an average of 40 percent more in “contributions” from that industry (the less politic call them “bribes”) than those who voted against it. And House Energy and Commerce Committee members who voted yes on an amendment in 2009 favored by the forest products industry, to allow heavier cutting of trees, received an average of $25,745 from the forestry and paper products industry. This was ten times as much as was received by each member voting no. This pattern repeats itself over and over.

True, contributions don’t guarantee a particular legislator will vote your way. But neither will he or she filibuster your bill or go on TV to ask rude questions about impacts to taxpayers or consumers. Arguably, that could be called hush money.

What we have arrived at is a system of industries, defense, financial, telecommunications, health insurance, trail lawyers and the rest, looking to appease those who, as Richard Nixon said, can do something for them, or something to them. Take one example: Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who chairs the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. This is the final hurdle for war appropriations bills after they pass the House. No war bill gets to the president’s desk until it gets past Inouye, who can stop it cold, send it into perpetual conference committee loops or change it in a dozen ways. As one might guess, money comes pouring in to Inouye from defense contractors from across the country:

Campaign contributions to Sen. Daniel Inouye from the defense industry, ex-district.

Inouye takes in $160,000 from corporations not in his district that have a financial interest in war. Double Medal of Honor winner Gen. Smedley Butler said after World War I, “war is a racket.”

How do we change this? We can call for reform which forbids money from outside the district. If money from PACs or individuals is to be equated with “free-speech,” then let it be confined to its rightful boundaries. There are now “free speech zones” for anti-war protesters, who welcome some public figures into town. So, the idea of geographically restricting some speech in the public interest is well established.

By halting money from outside districts, connections between business interests and committee members will be by coincidence, not forged as unholy alliances, which may conflict with the interests of real constituents. The influence of the defense industry over key committee members and House and Senate leaders will be diluted. The principle of Buckley v. Valeo, that money equals free speech, remains intact. But congressmen will still answer to constituents, the way they are supposed to. Of course, citizens are always free to work their hearts out for whomever they want.

When two-thirds of the nation’s wealth is owned by just ten percent of the population, as is the case in the United States, that ten percent has a lot more money to give than the other 90 percent: therefore, the interest of society in limiting the corrupting influence of money across geographical boundaries is clear. MAPlight.org found that money travels outward from wealthy zip codes to poorer ones.

If congressmen were not meant to represent geographical constituents, the founders wouldn’t have drawn district maps. Campaign finance is now a frenzy of interests shopping for committee members and chairpersons across the country. The industry determines which committees are targeted. The reason incumbents no longer pay attention to constituents who are overwhelmingly against bailouts, or strongly anti-war, is that their real bosses will always give them enough money to bury any challenger in a blizzard of negative TV ads.

Why should Boeing Aircraft (maker of the Apache helicopter,) which doesn’t even have a shop or an office in my district, be allowed to give money to my congressman in Boston? (It does.) He shouldn’t be worrying about what Boeing thinks. He should be worrying about what I and my neighbors think. Without any extraneous distractions.

If there is one thing congressmen hate, it’s being embarrassed and tongue-tied in public. If he or she won’t go to the mat to end the wars, or for any other issue important to the district, then ask your representative what’s the deal with that contribution from the real estate company in Arizona. Or what have you. If your congressman is using your district’s leather seat (it belongs to the district, not to any one person or set of outside interests) in that historic, marble-filled chamber to represent you, vigorously, then there’s no problem. If not, further questions are in order.

Source: http://www.truthout.org/090409A

UH lab receives explosive research contract

Post Date December 04, 2008

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category The Military in Hawai'i (All Islands)

UH lab receives explosive research contract

By: Kris DeRego

Posted: 12/3/08

University of Hawai’i scientists are developing a new method for detecting improvised explosive devices, thanks to a lucrative grant awarded to the college’s Applied Research Laboratory.

The 18-month contract, sponsored by the U.S. Army, allocates $980,334 for researching the use of multiple optical methods to detect the chemical signature of improvised explosive devices prior to detonation. Roadside bombs are the leading cause of death for American troops serving in Iraq, triggering approximately 70 percent of the war’s 4,207 casualties, according to Pentagon estimates.

“IEDs have taken a heavy toll on both soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Jim Gaines, UH vice president for research. “Having a reliable method of standoff detection would provide much greater safety for both civilians and military personnel.”

Optical remote sensing is favored as a way to detect chemical signatures in water and the atmosphere. Until recently, however, optical technology suffered from high operational costs and poor performance in environments with impaired visibility.

“Optical methods have proven problematic in the past,” said Benjamin Dunley, a weapons development consultant for Lockheed Martin. “Recent advancements in the fiber optics industry have reduced costs, though, and made creative innovations, like signature-based radiation scanning, more feasible for defense contractors.”

Seven UH scientists will partner with investigators from Arkansas State and Florida A&M universities to conduct the explosives detection studies, said university officials, who emphasized that no explosive materials will be employed by researchers or stored at campus facilities during the experiments.

The contract is the second task order awarded to the Navy-affiliated Applied Research Laboratory, which was established in 2007 to perform basic national defense research. In September, the laboratory received $850,000 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to examine the impact of ecological variations upon discarded munitions at Ordnance Reef off the Wai’anae coast.

UH administrators hope that successful completion of both task orders will initiate funding for similar projects in the future.

“This could be the first in a sequence of task orders if the initial studies prove interesting,” Gaines said. “That could, in turn, enhance the university’s budget and the local economy.”

The Department of Defense restricted total research subsidies to $26.2 million and renounced classified research for the first three years of the Applied Research Laboratory’s existence. If the pace of contracted research remains steady, the Naval laboratory should reach its $26 million target by 2011.

Not everyone agrees that the explosives detection contract is beneficial to UH, however, despite revenue shortfalls resulting from budget cuts and sharp enrollment declines at most UH campuses, including UH Manoa. Some critics feel that the research grant violates the core academic values associated with higher education.

“This IED detection task order is aimed at improving the U.S. military’s ability to sustain its occupation of other people’s countries,” said Kyle Kajihiro, program director for the American Friends Service Committee. “This is not the mission that UH should serve.”

According to Kajihiro, university scientists could be contracted to perform military research without the Applied Research Laboratory.

“Under normal circumstances, the university would have to compete for money,” said Kajihiro. “The Naval laboratory allows the military’s pork pipeline to flow directly from congressional earmarks to the university, giving military-linked researchers their own private ATM.”

University officials maintain that the benefits of the contract extend beyond the college’s finances, however, and address the military’s need for enhanced protection.

“The research is consistent with the university’s mission of solving society’s problems,” said Gregg Takayama, UH director of community and government relations. “The primary beneficiary will not be UH Manoa, but the civilians and military personnel who regularly face injury and death from hidden explosive devices.”

Source: http://www.kaleo.org/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=72e6931c-0957-4e4c-b116-ff32ff377e19&page=2

UH-Navy Corruption Flies Under the Radar

Post Date October 29, 2007

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category DMZ-Hawai'i / Aloha 'Aina In the News, Military Appropriations, Earmarks, Military-industrial-academic complex, The Military in Hawai'i (All Islands)

Under the Radar

On September 27, 2007, the University of Hawai‘i (UH) Board of Regents approved a new contract for a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), a classified Navy-sponsored research center at the University of Hawai‘i (UH). The UARC resurfaced two years after a coalition of students, faculty and community allies occupied the UH President’s office for a week in protest of such a plan. Opposition from the major UH constituencies including Native Hawaiians, students and faculty led interim Manoa Chancellor Denise Konan to reject the UARC on the Manoa campus. But UH President David McClain overrode Konan to administer the UARC at the UH system level.

While UARC proponents say the contract is a vehicle that could bring in $50 million over five years, opponents argue that it represents the encroachment of the “military industrial complex” into UH, violates its core values as a Native Hawaiian place of learning and turns the Manoa campus into a U.S. Navy lab.

The Administration has said that the UARC will not accept classified projects in the first three years, yet the base contract assigns “secret” level classification to the entire facility, making the release of any information subject to the Navy’s approval. Among the concerns is that the growth of secret non-bid contracts under the UARC increases the risk of corruption, abuses of power and lack of accountability.

An Illicit Creation:

This article is drawn from the new report The Dirty Secret About UARC that uncovers the hidden origins of the UARC based on a two and a half year investigation involving federal and state freedom of information requests, interviews and attempted interviews with key players, and background research about federal contracting, congressional appropriations and defense technologies. The saga of the scandal began as early as 2001 with two Navy grants to UH that have been embroiled in a Navy criminal investigation and an aborted $50 million Research Corporation of the University of Hawai‘i (RCUH) proposal to the Navy called “Project Kai e‘e” (meaning tsunami or tidal wave in Hawaiian), which was intended to become the UARC. The results of the Navy criminal investigation are not known at this time.

The UARC was born from questionable contract activities involving Navy admirals, Naval research
program managers, UH researchers, military contractors, high ranking UH and RCUH officials and congressionally earmarked programs that have been the subjects of federal investigations. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the termination of the Project Kai e‘e proposal and the UARC’s creation by sole source award of a monopoly contract have raised serious questions about the legality and ethics of the procurement.

Furthermore, government secrecy has denied the public access to contracts and financial information, thereby making it impossible to assess the legality of the UARC process and evaluate the risks and potential impacts of undertaking a UARC. To critics of the UARC, the obstruction of public information and accountability amounts to a de facto cover-up. Ironically, the secrecy masking the UARC’s troubled beginnings illustrates the dangers critics have warned about.

The criminal investigation stems from complaints filed with federal authorities in the summer of 2003 by a UH Facilities Security Officer Jim Wingo, a whistleblower who accused Mun Won Fenton, an Office of Naval Research (ONR) program manager and the Navy’s designated “point of contact” for the creation of the UARC of “1) abuse of authority, 2) significant mismanagement of classified contracts, and 3) potential leaks of classified information, classified information lost, compromised, and unauthorized disclosure.” Fenton oversaw several military sponsored research grants and contracts to UH worth several million dollars. She has not returned repeated telephone calls for an interview.

Wingo’s complaint also implicated three of these Navy-sponsored grants and contracts:

Theater Missile Defense: awarded to UH in July 2001 for sensor integration research related to Theater Missile Defense. Initially valued at $238,000, the grant was increased several times to a total of $645,862. Electrical engineering professor Audra Bullock was the Principal Investigator (PI).

High Frequency Scanned Array: awarded to UH in March 2001 for research related to an advanced radar system (UESA) in the amount of $246,375. The grant was increased to a total of $1,462,759 with a promise of an additional $50,000 future funding. However the project terminated early and $9,547.61 was eventually returned. UH professor Michael DeLisio was the initial PI, until electrical engineering professor Vassilis Syrmos took over after December 2001.

Next Generation Radar: a contract awarded to RCUH in December 2002 related to “Sensor Integration and Testbed Technologies.” The award was valued at $1,163,028 with Vassilis Syrmos as the PI. It involved continuing research on the UESA radar, which was called the “Next Generation Radar”.

On March 2, 2005, the Ka Leo o Hawai‘i newspaper broke the story that the Navy Criminal Investigation Service was investigating Fenton and several Navy grants and contracts with UH. It reported that funds granted to UH by the Navy were allegedly used improperly to prepare another RCUH proposal, which is now known to be “Project Kai e‘e.” While the UH Administration denies any wrong-doing on the part of UH faculty or that the criminal investigation has any connection to the UARC, mounting evidence firmly links the UARC to this corruption scandal.

Early Warning Signs: Modular Command Center and Tactical Component Network

Sometime in 2000, Fenton and Rear Admiral Paul S. Schultz, commander of the Amphibious Group ONE sought to establish a network-centric warfare program on Kaua‘i based on a new and controversial technology called Tactical Component Network (TCN). Because TCN was perceived as a threat to the established Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system, the Navy may have blocked any contracting related to TCN.

According to John Monacci, the program manager recruited by Fenton to head the TCN project in Hawai‘i, Fenton and Schultz sought to bypass normal procurement channels to establish the TCN system in Hawai‘i, initially using UH research grants as cover to avoid resistance from hostile Navy officials. Monacci says the strategy was to “disguise” the TCN demonstration as “CEC pre-planned product improvements.” The TCN was installed on ships under Schultz’s command to undergo testing and evaluation at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on Kaua‘i. Schultz named his particular application of the TCN the “Modular Command Center” (MCC).

According to Monacci, Fenton lobbied Senator Daniel Inouye to secure funding for these programs. On July 27, 2000, the Senator announced that he had successfully secured Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations
totaling $150.5 million for PMRF programs. This included $10 million for “CEC improvements,” $11.5 million for “Theater Missile Defense new sensors,” $10 million for “UESA signal processing,” and $10 million for “Tactical Component Network demonstration”.

Irregularities in Hiring and Appropriations:

Only three days into her new job at UH in 2000, electrical engineering professor Audra Bullock met Fenton, who invited her to submit a research proposal to the Navy. Looking back on the fateful meeting, Bullock ruefully joked, “I probably should have stayed home that day.”

According to Bullock, Fenton asked her to write a laser sensors research proposal that was part of a larger Tactical Component Network proposal. Bullock said she was told that the grant was intended to initiate a working relationship between ONR and UH that could lead to an Indefinite Deliverable / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) capacity contract. IDIQs are a type of non-bid monopoly contract that has become widely abused since 2000, according to a 2004 Report of the House Committee on Government Reform. The UARC is a sole source IDIQ contract.

After Bullock received the initial grant, Fenton added funds to the grant that more than doubled the award. Bullock said that Fenton then directed her to hire John Monacci as the program manager. As the Principal Investigator (PI) for the project, Bullock was supposed to manage the finances and personnel as well as oversee the research work performed.

However, according to Monacci, “Audra Bullock didn’t oversee anything;” she was “a very nice person” who was “naïve to how Fenton was using her.”

Monacci said that he actually worked under Syrmos and was managed by Fenton and Schultz. Monacci’s job was to install a TCN system on several ships and units under Schultz’s command including the USS Essex, USS Blue Ridge, and an AEGIS cruiser along with ground units from the Marine Corps and to test the system at PMRF on Kaua‘i. This project matches the description of the “CEC pre-planned product improvement” in Department of Defense budget justification sheets, which was identified as a Congressional earmark.

Bullock said that several months later, Fenton instructed her to hire two others from the Pacific Missile Range Facility: Debby Gatioan and John Grandfield. At the time, Bullock expressed concerns to Fenton about having to hire additional employees who were unrelated to her research project. Further, Bullock was concerned that she did not have sufficient funds in the grant to pay two more people. According to Bullock, Fenton promised that Gatioan and Grandfield would be moved off the grant as soon as other funding came through. Gatioan’s job as “UESA Administrative Specialist” and Grandfield’s as “UESA Electrical Engineer” were unrelated to Bullock’s laser sensors research.

Bullock said that in her final report to her sponsors she indicated that she only directly oversaw approximately $150,000 out of the total $645,862 grant and she did not supervise the work of the personnel that the Navy directed her to hire.

UH records show that there was a modification to Bullock’s Grant in July 27, 2001 adding $309,862 to the award. On June 25, 2002 there was another modification adding $100,000 and extending the Grant until May 31, 2003. UH has refused to release Bullock’s actual grant contract, reports or finances.

According to Monacci, Fenton and Schultz were assembling a team to run the MCC/TCN integration program and develop a much larger sensor integration proposal, which came to be called “Project Kai e‘e.”

Monacci said that when Admiral Schultz wanted him to hire another Navy associate John Iwaniec on the TCN grant, he refused because he believed the request was improper. Monacci claimed that since he did not cooperate, Fenton pressured Syrmos to terminate him. Monacci was fired in December 2001. Syrmos said that subsequently, Fenton directed him to hire Iwaniec onto the UESA grant.

The Rise and Fall of Project Kai e‘e:

During his employment on Bullock’s grant, Monacci wrote a concept paper for a multifaceted “Pacific Operations Institute” based in Hawai‘i that would integrate research, testing and evaluation and business development. According to Monacci, it was the initial concept that gave rise to the UARC, the Hawaii Engineering and Design Center and the Hawaii Technology Development Venture.

Fenton revised the plan and renamed it the “Pacific Research Laboratory” (PRL). Fenton’s draft insisted, “Contracting… Provide fast/efficient streamlined contracting for DoD customers… THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CORE COMPETENCE OF PRL!!!”

Once the overall concept for a federal research center was sketched out, Monacci began writing a sensor integration proposal to be submitted by RCUH in response to a Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) solicitation Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) N00421-01-R-0176 for “Sensors Integration and Communications Technologies.”

The RCUH proposal incorporated proposals prepared by seven UH faculty and compiled by Syrmos. Monacci also incorporated proposals from several defense contractors, including Oceanit, ORINCON, Solipsys, Cambridge Research Associates, SAIC, SYS, and WR Systems.

ORINCON (prior to its acquisition by Lockheed Martin) was a local defense contractor that developed network centric warfare technologies, including a proprietary system called “Web-centric warfare.” Larry Cutshaw, the Director of Business Development for ORINCON, is married to Kathy Cutshaw, UH Manoa Vice Chancellor for Administration, Finance, and Operations, who negotiated the first proposed UARC contract.

Cambridge Research Associates (CRA) produced battle-space visualization software called “PowerScene” that was being utilized in sensor integration testing. Both “Web-centric warfare” and “PowerScene” turned up later in a press release from Senator Inouye as programs eligible to compete for UARC funding.

Oceanit was a company involved in the UESA program and other missile defense projects on Kaua‘i. Prior to being hired onto Bullock’s grant, Debby Gatioan worked for Oceanit and was a Navy point of contact for an industry briefing related to the above mentioned “Sensors Integration and Communications Technologies”
solicitation.

RCUH and its Executive Director Harold Masumoto were key players in moving this project along. Masumoto, the consummate political insider, has through several UH administrations worked behind the scenes to shape key UH decisions. At the June 1, 2001 RCUH Board of Directors meeting, he reported “RCUH’s assistance is needed by the Navy for missile program project at PMRF because of the classified nature of the work to be done.”

Then at the October 4, 2001 RCUH Board of Directors meeting, Masumoto reported, “This may become a major project – about $50 million if funding comes through. As more of these types of projects become reality, there may be a need for a separate entity to manage them because of their focused objectives.”

RCUH and Funding Anomalies:

Established by the State legislature in 1965 to support research activities at UH, RCUH was exempted from various state laws governing procurement and personnel in order to provide more flexible and expedient administrative and financial services than a typical state agency could perform. While it fulfilled important and legitimate functions for researchers, RCUH also gained a reputation for lack of transparency and accountability. In a 1993 report the State Auditor found that RCUH “operates with little accountability and oversight by either the university or its Board of Directors.”

Around May 2003, Bullock asked Masumoto to remove Grandfield and Gatioan from the contract payroll, which he agreed to do. But some time later, Bullock received a notice from RCUH for an unauthorized payroll transaction. She complained to RCUH and was told that Brenda Kanno, the RCUH Executive Secretary, authorized the payroll transaction with funds from another, unspecified source. Bullock said this transaction came as a shock to her, who as the principal investigator was supposed to authorize all payroll transactions on her grant.

In fact, RCUH employment records show that Gatioan and Grandfield were employed by RCUH under job descriptions created for Bullock’s grant long after the grant itself had expired, while the funding sources for their payroll changed several times. Both Gatioan and Grandfield were moved off of the College of Engineering funding on September 15, 2002, which corresponds to the timeframe when Project Kai e‘e was abandoned.

The minutes of the March 2002 RCUH Board of Directors meeting stated: “Executive Director Masumoto reported that we should know within a month or so whether this project will be funded for $48 million over a five-year period. The project is related to missile defense and is basically in support of the Pacific Missile Range Facility. This is a direct project (not a UH project) in which RCUH is the applicant for the funds. The intent is that RCUH will “incubate” the project and then later there will be a new home base for it. The long-range objective is to make this a federal research center similar to national labs such as Sandia, etc. There is great potential for this project.”

Five months after Masumoto’s optimistic forecast, Project Kai e‘e was abruptly and inexplicably aborted. The minutes of the September 27, 2002 RCUH Board of Directors meeting contained only a terse and vague statement about its cancellation: “ONR Project – The proposal for Project Kai e‘e was withdrawn due to circumstances beyond our control. RCUH will pursue other avenues of funding for these types of projects.”

“Things began to fall apart,” explains Monacci. He said that Schultz’s superiors at NAVSEA shut down the MCC/TCN program in Hawai‘i. John Grandfield said he believed that the proposal was withdrawn to avoid RCUH being implicated in possible illegal activities.

Monacci said that Schultz was demoted to a desk job. Admiral Schultz’s service transcript indicates that he was reassigned to be Commander, Military Sealift Command (Special Assistant) from April 2002 to June 1, 2003, at which point he retired at the reduced rank of Captain. Thus far, the Navy, RCUH and UH have failed to respond to freedom of information (FOIA) requests to produce documents related to Project Kai e‘e.
Current RCUH Executive Director Mike Hamnett said that the proposal files for Project Kai e‘e were shredded and thrown away.

Masumoto said in an interview, “Project Kai e‘e, project whatever, I don’t know what the hell they are anymore… You got to understand people like me. I don’t speculate in answering questions to people like you. Okay? You can’t quote me because I’m not going to tell you anything that you can quote me on.”

Moving Towards UARC: Secrecy and Deceptions

Once Project Kai e‘e was scrapped, Masumoto shifted gears to directly pursue the UARC designation, preparing the documents for Senator Inouye’s staff and pitching the UARC to then UH President Evan Dobelle and UHM Chancellor Peter Englert.

In a 2005 public meeting on the UARC, Englert denied that there was any connection between the UARC and the investigation of the Navy grants. He also denied having any dealings with Masumoto or Fenton about the UARC. He was not telling the truth. In a December 6, 2002 letter to Cohen, Englert wrote: “Currently we are working with Ms. Mun Won Fenton at ONR… to create a preliminary management plan that will serve as the road map of the University’s core competencies. Furthermore, Mr. Harold Masumoto, Executive Director of the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii, has briefed Mr. John Young, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, on our intention to apply for a UARC at UHM.”

Under Masumoto the UARC plans moved swiftly, but turbulence from the unseen events that had led to the cancellation of Project Kai e‘e continued for months afterwards. By 2003, the relationship between Fenton and Syrmos grew unbearably strained when Syrmos allegedly refused to go along with changes Fenton wanted to make. Gaines said that he believed Fenton classified several projects in order to remove Syrmos from them.
According to Syrmos, in the spring of 2003 several pieces of information were classified on the Next Generation Radar project. Heightened security restrictions in the wake of September 11, 2001, ensured that Syrmos, as a foreign born researcher, would not easily attain security clearance. As a result, he was temporarily forced off the UESA and Next Generation projects. On May 13, 2003, Masumoto hinted to the RCUH Board of Directors that there were problems brewing: “Security Issue – We have a situation where a project started as an unclassified project, but the Navy has now decided to classify it. Issue is safeguarding the appropriate data and allowing access to cleared employees only in a secure facility.”

Irregularities in the classification procedures prompted UH Facilities Security Officer James Wingo to file complaints with federal authorities in July 2003, which led to the investigations reported in the Ka Leo paper
almost two years later.

Although Iwaniec and Gatioan were still employed under their original job descriptions, the source of their payrolls switched to PICHTR on July 15, 2003. Several days later, on July 22, 2003, Masumoto resigned from RCUH and assumed a full-time role at PICHTR.

But Masumoto maintained a hidden hand in the UARC process. On July 1, 2003, he signed a $60,000 consultancy contract with RCUH to help secure the UARC for UH. After extending the contract to June 30, 2005, and with several months remaining on his contract, Masumoto abruptly terminated the agreement and his security clearance on March 31, 2005 shortly after news of the Navy criminal investigation broke.

Irregularities in UARC Designation for UH

Opponents of the UARC point out that contrary to Federal Acquisition Regulations and Department of Defense guidance requiring competition in the awarding of UARC contracts, NAVSEA awarded the ARL/UH without any competition. In other recently created UARCs, the Army, NASA and the Department of Homeland Security used extensive competition in selecting the recipients of the contracts.

Before a Hawai‘i State Senate committee Syrmos testified that the UARC was competitively procured through a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), a widely distributed competitive procurement announcement. When an audience member challenged his statement, Syrmos corrected himself and said that there was a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued on September 24, 2004. This wasn’t true either. A presolicitation Notice dated September 24, 2004, stated: “The Naval Sea System Command intends to award a sole source contract for up to 315 work years to establish and further solidify a strategic relationship for essential Engineering, Research, and Development capabilities…”

In the case of the UH UARC, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) UARC managers were forced to contrive a justification to procure a new UARC that they neither needed nor wanted. Furthermore, despite Freedom of Information requests filed nearly two years ago, NAVSEA has failed to provide the required justification and certification for the sole source procurement of the UARC to the University of Hawai‘i. Fenton and Schultz have not returned repeated phone calls for interviews. Senator Inouye’s office has not responded to requests for information.

Kyle Kajihiro is program director for DMZ Hawaii. For his full investigative report, The Dirty Secret About UARC, go to stopuarc.info. Email: kkajihiro@afsc.org.

October 9, 2007
Kyle Kajihiro

Source: http://www.haleakalatimes.com/2007/10/09/under_the_radar/

Anti-UARC coalition delivers scathing report on corrupt origins of the UARC

Post Date September 29, 2007

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category DMZ-Hawai'i / Aloha 'Aina In the News, Military-industrial-academic complex, The Military in Hawai'i (All Islands)

HONOLULU ADVERTISER
September 26, 2007

Military Research on Hawaii Campus Opposed

By William Cole

Opponents of a U.S. Navy-affiliated research center proposed for the University of Hawai’i yesterday decried the center, which would conduct research for the military, as “rotten to the core” ahead of an expected final vote by the Board of Regents tomorrow in Hilo.

“What is happening is that defense research is being channeled right into the heart of the university,” said Noel Kent, an ethnic studies professor at UH. “The whole way in which the university conducts defense and secret research is being changed dramatically, and this is what we oppose.”

About 40 opponents of the University Affiliated Research Center plan, some carrying green “Save UH, Stop UARC” placards, held a news conference at Bachman Hall, the university’s administrative office.

Some alternately shouted “Hewa!” and “Shame!” when the university wouldn’t open locked doors to allow opponents to drop off copies of an 84-page report titled “The Dirty Secret About UARC” compiled by Kyle Kajihiro.

“We want them (the Board of Regents) to know what they are getting into,” opponent Ikaika Hussey said.

Three UH security guards were posted in the Bachman Hall courtyard where the UARC opponents gathered. A university public affairs representative eventually appeared outside to deliver the report.

Carolyn Tanaka, UH vice president for external affairs and university relations, said the Board of Regents plans to take up the UARC, also called the Applied Research Laboratory, as the first agenda item tomorrow during the 9:30 a.m. meeting at UH-Hilo.

“Anybody who wants to talk will talk,” Tanaka said.

Critics are concerned about weapons research and a shift away from core values, while proponents argue that a University Affiliated Research Center would bring millions in research money and prestige to the university.

Johns Hopkins University makes about $300 million a year as one of four Navy UARCs, said Jim Gaines, UH system vice president for research.

He hopes UH could eventually reach the level of the University of Washington, which does $50 million to $70 million annually in Navy research.

“It is something that could be a major expansion (at UH) in the future,” Gaines said last week, adding that the research would train students to be part of a high-tech workforce.

The Navy-affiliated research center was provisionally approved by the UH Board of Regents in November 2004, but controversy and negotiations with the Navy over a final contract have kept it off the table.

Kajihiro, program director for the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker peace and social justice organization, and member of Save UH/Stop UARC, said questionable practices began as early as 2001 with two Navy grants to UH that became embroiled in a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation. The results are not known.

An aborted $50 million Research Corporation of the University of Hawai’i proposal to the Navy called “Project Kai e’ e” was intended to become the UARC, Kajihiro said.

UH newspaper Ka Leo O Hawai’i reported in 2005 that Navy investigators were looking into allegations that UH’s research corporation diverted funds from one project to write a proposal for another. Kajihiro said that new project was Kai e’ e.

“What we found is that the UARC is rotten to the core,” Kajihiro said. “What’s most disconcerting is that the secrecy surrounding those contracts is preventing the public from understanding what went on and how this UARC was created.”

UH’s Gaines said Kajihiro “has raised this repeatedly. … Our position on this is, there’s nothing there.”

Gaines said he’s aware there was a Navy investigation because the service requested documents on certain research projects, including one managed by UH’s research corporation, which facilitates research for the university.

“They asked for documents and we supplied them everything we were asked for, and that’s it,” Gaines said.

The UARC would be funded for three years, with an option for renewal for an additional two years. It’s estimated that a maximum of $10 million per year in unclassified “task orders” by the Navy and other federal entities would be funded.

Gaines said UH already has 1,600 military and federal research projects worth $400 million. Five are classified.

Gaines estimates the startup costs for the UARC will be about $1 million, and within a year that money will be recovered through fees and charges to the contracts.

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.

© COPYRIGHT 2007 The Honolulu Advertiser, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The Honolulu Advertiser. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

Source:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/NEWS01/709260398/ 1001/NEWS01

Did the fight to stop the UARC fail?

Post Date February 01, 2006

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category DMZ-Hawai'i / Aloha 'Aina In the News, Military-industrial-academic complex, The Military in Hawai'i (All Islands)

Game Over

Did the fight to stop UARC fail?

Chris Haire
Feb 1, 2006

Some six hours into the public testimony before the University of Hawai’i’s Board of Regents, the moment arrives. Hope dies. It’s a moment that has been long in coming.

Now it appears there is nothing anyone can do to stop the University Assisted Research Center from dropping anchor at University of Hawai’i-Manoa. Not the loose coalition of faculty, students and members of the public. Not Chancellor Denise Konan. Not even Interim President David McClain. The only group who has any control over the fate of UARC is the Board of Regents. And they’re not likely to tell the U.S. Navy that UH is an unfriendly port. After all, that body, featuring executives at the Bank of Hawai’i, Central Pacific Bank, Maui Petroleum and other businesses, knows all too well the power of the dollar.

After the tense moments at the start of the meeting, through the grueling question-and-answer session with Konan, through the impassioned but rambling tirades of anti-UARC activists and on through the cool and collected arguments of the program’s technorati supporters, it feels as if UARC will in fact become a reality. At least that is how it appears watching Hina Wong, who is standing at the podium in front of the board, the Hawaiian flag by her side.

The flag wasn’t there before. In fact, for the entirety of the meeting, the flag was stationed in the back of the Manoa Campus Center Ballroom behind the board. How did it get where it is now? Simply put, she took it. Wong marched around the velvet rope that separates the audience from the board, walked over to the flag and carried it away.

As Wong begins her speech, it is clear that the final death rattle has begun after several hours of fever dreams and tremors. The sound is unpleasant. It is uncomfortable. It is unfortunate. Wong says that she will not wish the board ‘aloha.’ She says that she is not an American. She says that UARC is hewa. She says that the University of Hawai’i is not pono.

When Wong finally walks out of the ballroom carrying the Hawaiian flag, it is less a march of defiance than an unintended funeral procession, except that no one walks behind her. Many still believe UARC can be stopped. And they are clutching their beliefs like a child holds the body of a decapitated Raggedy Ann doll. Many cheer as Wong exits the hall.

Not surprisingly, Board chair Kitty Lagareta doesn’t. She doesn’t even appear fazed by Wong’s action. She doesn’t even acknowledge it. She simply calls the next speaker and gets on with the business at hand, bringing an end to this seemingly never-ending meeting. It has nearly an hour of life left in it. Its pulse is still strong.

Earlier it appeared that the Stop UARC crowd had all but secured a victory. Chancellor Konan gave the proposal a thumbs down. The UH Faculty Senate gave the research center a kick to the curb. The student body gave it the middle finger. Depending on who you talked to, the supporters were either too few or too timid. Either way, they kept a low profile.

Outside of the ballroom, a table is covered with fluorescent yellow printouts. They read, ‘Save UH. Stop UARC’ and ‘Hewa,’ Hawaiian for ‘wrong,’ ‘evil,’ ‘sin.’ For a recommended $10 donation, interested parties can purchase a T-shirt featuring a soldier pointing a rifle at a student sitting behind a desk. Inside of the ballroom, there are printouts, published reports and pencils imprinted with the words, ‘Save UH/Stop UARC.’ Two banners are hung up on the wall. One reads, ‘Not here. Not there. Not Anywhere.’

As for the supporters of UARC, what do they have? There are no banners. There are no T-shirts. There are no pencils. They have no presence. With this kind of support one wonders how the UARC proposal has gotten along as far as it has with so few public advocates.

Perhaps it’s because the Stop UARC crowd has a better argument on their side. Perhaps it’s because they have already won the debate. Their argument is rather straightforward:

A vote for UARC is a vote against academic freedom. Under the proposed UARC, professors will be forbidden to share some of their research materials with their peers, a practice at the heart of scholarship. Among those materials that aren’t classified, the military will decide what is too sensitive to be released and what is not. They alone make the call.

A vote for UARC is a vote against equal rights. Unlike UH, the Navy-controlled UARC could conceivably bar anyone who admitted they were homosexual. One lawyer has suggested the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy would violate Hawai’i state law and open the door to a lawsuit.

A vote for UARC is a vote against peace. Consider this: If UARC is a military-assisted research center and if the military’s purpose is to prepare for and wage war, wouldn’t the center’s reason for existence be essentially one and the same? Does UH want to be so closely tied to the military? Does it want to be responsible, as some critics have charged, with developing the weapons of the future?

A vote for UARC is a vote against native Hawaiians. In this day and age when the issue of native sovereignty is not only a common topic of debate but, thanks to the Akaka bill, a possible reality, a move to further expand the grip the U.S. Armed Forces has on Hawai’i, will be viewed unfavorably by many in the native Hawaiian community, especially those who still bristle over the role the U.S. military played in overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawai’i. It is best perhaps for the university to avoid earning their ire.

However, there is one thing the supporters have on their side-the Navy’s word that they will shuffle $50 million into UH coffers. But even that argument holds only so much water. After all, UH will have to spend $3.5 million to get the program up and running. Even worse, there is simply no guarantee in the UARC contract that the Navy will put up the money. In fact, the $50 million figure touted by UH officials isn’t anywhere in there. What is mentioned instead is a deal to provide UH with funds for 1,000 staff hours, whatever that might be worth.

In the end, the chips are UH’s to bet. It appears to be a gamble the board is willing to take.

The meeting gets off to a shaky start. Ikaika Hussey, a Stop UARC volunteer and the leader of the anti-Akaka bill group Hui Pu, steps up to the podium and asks Chairman Lagareta if he can read a statement from Stop UARC before the hearing begins. Lagareta informs him that the meeting hasn’t begun yet. Hussey asks again, saying that he doesn’t want to interrupt the meeting. Lagareta says the meeting has to start now. Hussey refuses to leave the podium. He speaks. Lagareta bangs the gavel once. He continues to argue. Lagareta bangs the gavel in quick succession. She calls the meeting to order. Hussey remains at the podium.

Throughout the entire exchange, Chancellor Konan has been standing at the podium beside Hussey, awaiting her chance to speak. After a brief introduction by Lagareta, Hussey relinquishes his hold on the podium.

Konan begins. It’s not a pretty sight. She isn’t a particularly polished public speaker. She stammers. She’s shaky. Her tone is monotonous. Judging by the glazed eyes in the audience, she might as well be reading from the phone book.

The chancellor says she believes UARC will undermine the faculty’s faith in the governance of the university. She laments the amount of wasted time, money and energy the entire discussion has taken. She encourages the board to put their time and energy into developing other less controversial projects.

However, she also mentions how the university gets a substantial share of its revenue from research money. Tuition revenue and state funds can’t cover the bills. Of the top 100 researchers who bring in money for the school, Konan says, the vast majority support UARC. According to one speaker later in the meeting, 70 percent of all engineering research at the school is funded by the Department of Defense. It is a nasty realization. UH is addicted to research money, and the DOD is their dealer. Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that junk is junk.

And while Konan mentions the issues that have been raised by the students, faculty and public-a loss of academic freedom, fears about being in bed with the military, offending native sensibilities-she also brings up one of the more curious concerns of the pro-UARC crowd: Some faculty believe that a decision to ban the military-assisted research center would interfere with their academic freedom to engage in the type of research UARC would engage in. It is the same sort of mental gymnastics performed by Judge Roy Moore and his posse when they argue that their right to religious expression is censored when they are forbidden to place the Ten Commandments in public buildings. It is doublespeak.

If the board announces that they have voted in favor of UARC, there is a good chance these two points will be mentioned-the university’s dependence on research money from the U.S. government and the Orwellian version of the academic freedom argument.

But in the end, no matter how sound the board believes their arguments to be, they cannot flatly dismiss the concerns of the faculty, the students and the public. There will have to be a compromise.

During Konan’s Q&A session with the board-in which Lagareta and company fail to ask the chancellor how the approval of UARC might be affect campus life, how it would stifle academic freedom, how it could infringe upon the rights of homosexuals, how it would give UH a more prominent role in weapons research, how it would offend the feelings of some native Hawaiians-it becomes clear exactly what that compromise will be, that is, if the content of the board’s questions can offer any indication what their intentions may be:

UARC will be moved off campus.

Feel free to curse or cry, applaud or breathe a sigh of relief. You have choices.

Some might consider the Stop UARC crowd a rude bunch. During testimony, they heckle. They shout. They chant from time to time. This is to be expected for the most part. In fact, it’s par for the course in the world of protest. We’ve seen it all before. It’s a flashback. Like one UARC opponent says, ‘Welcome to 1966.’

However, their most striking example of rudeness is their predilection for wasting the time of the board. Over and over again, anti-UARC speakers speak well beyond their allotted three minutes. And each and every time, Lagareta has to ask them to wrap it up. And each time, she is given promises that the speakers are on their last sentence or their last paragraph. More often than not, the speaker is lying. They have no intention of shutting up.

The same can’t be said of the engineers who come to speak on behalf of the research center. They don’t lose their cool. They don’t talk about the ’60s. They rarely go over their time limits. Their message is simple-UARC will bring the University of Hawai’i money and prestige, it will encourage the best and the brightest teachers and students to come to Hawai’i, and it will help to ensure that the best and the brightest here now do not leave. These points are repeated over and over again, calmly, without passion and with respect. And unlike the collection of English professors, law students and other liberal arts faculty and students, the steady stream of engineers that dominate the middle portion of the hearing are the very people who will ultimately work with UARC. After all, no one asks a Comp 101 teacher to help them design a new laser-guided missile. They don’t even ask them to write the instruction manual.

Each time one of the engineers gets up to speak, it’s another nail in the coffin of the opposition. For a time, the pounding is relentless.

The development of Agent Orange at UH. The testing of Sarin gas on the Big Island. The discovery of depleted uranium at Schofield. The bombing of Kaho’olawe. There are many other reasons why the University of Hawai’i might want to decline the Navy’s offer. More than one speaker brings up these cautionary tales. But is anyone listening?

However inclined the Board of Regents is to hearing history lessons, we can’t be certain. But there is no excuse for them to ignore the wishes of the majority of their faculty and students.

Let’s consider for a moment that the unlikely happens-let’s consider that the Board of Regents doesn’t vote in favor of UARC. Will these engineers who did not raise their voices until now launch a protest? Will they stage sit-ins? Will they create websites, make T-shirts and shout ‘hewa’ at their fellow faculty? No. They’ll cut their losses and get back to their research. They don’t like to waste time. They don’t like to waste energy. They are efficient. Perhaps the board should consider this most of all.

After all, it is not the engineers, it is not the representative from the Chamber of Commerce and it is not the software entrepreneurs that remain in the ballroom as the meeting crawls to the finish. It is Ikaika Hussey and the other UARC opponents that stick around. They have passion. They have the will to fight. And sometimes it gets the better of them. The Board of Regents shouldn’t hold that against them.

Source: http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2006/02/game-over/

Costs of UARC outweigh pluses

Post Date October 25, 2005

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category Military Appropriations, Earmarks, Military-industrial-academic complex, The Military in Hawai'i (All Islands)

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Oct/23/op/FP510230312.html

Posted on: Sunday, October 23, 2005

COMMENTARY
Costs of UARC outweigh pluses

•	Previous editorial: UARC should proceed under careful scrutiny

By Karl Kim

// < ![CDATA[
// < ![CDATA[
// preset the variables to keep from getting js errors if the get content fails
var topixcats = [ ];
var topixcrawled = 0;

// Retrive js variables from topix

Crawl Rate Exceeded

Your IP address is exceeding Topix.net’s crawl rate of 1 per second.

Please limit yourself to this rate.

If you are not using a robot, or believe you have reached this page in
error, please send mail to feedback@topix.net.

Thank you.

//
// ]]> // < ![CDATA[
// 0 )
{
document.write(‘

‘);
document.write(‘

‘);
}
// ]]>

‘);
document.write(‘

RELATED NEWS FROM THE WEB
Latest headlines by topic: ‘); document.write(‘
‘); for( i = 0; i < topixcats.length; i++ ) { document.write('• ‘ + topixcats[i].name + ‘ ‘); } document.write(‘
Powered by Topix.net

‘);
document.write(‘

The plans to create a University Affiliated Research Center, a “contracting vehicle” for facilitating research funds from the military, may have started off as a well-intentioned effort to enhance research at the University of Hawai’i.

But upon deeper inspection and consideration of our university’s mission, purpose, and needs, it has become clear that the UARC is not right for us.

While one can blame the clumsy and heavy-handed process that was deployed to advance this proposal, there are also some fundamental inconsistencies, flaws and problems created by the blind pursuit of this initiative.

To begin, the UARC is not consistent with our values and core commitments to public higher education and the unfettered exchange of knowledge and ideas. Taking “task orders” from the military is not what a great university should be about. Creating an environment where the research agenda is set not by faculty and students but instead by the military or corporations or others outside academia is against the true purpose of a university.

UARC is not about academic freedom. If faculty members want to do research on topics related to military hardware or warfare, they are free to do so. UARC is really about an institutional commitment to serving the military.

If the UARC is accepted, the university would be giving unprecedented access to our resources, facilities and intellectual power to the military. This sort of cozy relationship may indeed enable more money to be funneled more easily to research enterprises, but it also circumvents many of the long-standing processes of peer review, institutional due diligence, and academic management of research and scholarship.

There are legitimate concerns about the health, safety and welfare of our community associated with laboratory research.

It is for this reason that many of the safeguards and time-consuming review procedures have been established. We need to protect not just our faculty, but also students, staff and the broader community. Other UARCs at other universities have been set up at secured, controlled off-campus facilities, rather than merely immersed within the existing campus as the UH’s proposal calls for doing.

Because of the requirements of up-front investment and commitments necessary to implement the UARC, many fear the displacement of space and other resources. Instead of investing funds used to promote this agreement on classrooms, lecturers and other academic needs, the administration has focused on future promised returns rather than meeting current crucial needs.

The administration acts as if there are no opportunity costs associated with the UARC. In addition to its failure to describe how the institution as a whole will be made better off with a UARC, there has been no systematic assessment of alternatives.

It is as if the UARC is the only opportunity available. What if, instead, a comparable level of resources and human effort were spent in pursuit of sustainable development, agriculture, international education or even to improve student housing?

Just because other universities set up UARCs 50 years ago doesn’t make it right for us today.

There are few schools anywhere in the world with our potential to become a truly international place of learning and scientific and cultural exchange. No one has assessed the impact of doing more military research on our international missions.

With an increase of classified, secret, proprietary and sensitive research, what will happen to our international graduates students and faculty and visitors to our campus?

Many people fear that this proposal reflects a fundamental shift in our priorities. The arts and sciences need to remain at the core of our university. Many believe that UARC is a harbinger of things to come. It’s not just doing more military research that people object to. It is also the secret way in which this proposal has been advanced, without real consultation, public deliberation and convincing justification.

In more than two decades as a faculty member, researcher and administrator, I have seen this university in good times and bad. The best of times occur when we can come together as a community of scholars and thinkers to share diverse ideas and perspectives across boundaries, cultures, disciplines and backgrounds.

Education must be inclusive. Our major priorities must be directed toward broadly-based and supported initiatives that respect our unique location, history and connections.

We also have a responsibility to honor the indigenous people and promote social justice for Native Hawaiians.

We can build a positive future. We can celebrate our diversity and build on our strengths, including our unparalleled natural environment and tradition of outstanding Asia-Pacific scholarship.

We can, as the strategic plan approved by our Board of Regents states, “develop the Manoa campus into a Hawaiian place of learning, open to world culture, informed by principles of sustainability and respect for indigenous knowledges and practices … “

And we can do it without the UARC.

Karl Kim is professor and chairman of urban and regional planning at the University of Hawai’i-Manoa, where he previously served as the vice chancellor for academic affairs. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.

University vulnerable to pitfalls of secret experiments

Post Date March 27, 2005

Comments 0 Comments

Author Laurel Mei-Singh

Category DMZ-Hawai'i / Aloha 'Aina In the News, Environmental Impacts, Military-industrial-academic complex

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2005/03/27/editorial/special2.html

Sunday, March 27, 2005

University vulnerable to pitfalls of secret experiments

By Beverly Deepe Keever

Special to the Star-Bulletin

It was 37 years ago that James Oshita and William Fraticelli were regularly drenched with the cancer-causing Agent Orange on the Kauai Agriculture Research Station.

They performed the core part of the University of Hawaii’s contract with the U.S. Army to test the effectiveness of the herbicide laden with dioxin, one of deadliest of chemicals, that was then being sprayed in South Vietnam to defoliate its wartime jungles.

Their saga and the Agent Orange experiment are now being recounted amid the controversial question of whether Hawaii’s only public university should enter into a new kind of contract for military research, this time with the U.S. Navy, specifically to establish a University Affiliated Research Center, to which the Board of Regents has already given its preliminary approval. It’s a watershed, which-way question for UH — and, as UH goes, so goes the state.

Oshita and Fraticelli marked their bulldozers with flags to serve as targets and stayed there while the planes swooped down to spray the defoliants. “When the plane came to spray, someone had to guide him,” Oshita told a reporter in a Page 1 report in the campus newspaper, Ka Leo O Hawaii, on Feb. 3, 1986. “We were the ones.”

Testing was done without warning UH employees or the nearby Kapaa community even though in 1962, just months before being assassinated, President Kennedy was told that Agent Orange could cause adverse health effects, U.S. court documents show. And a 1968 test report written by four UH agronomists said that on Kauai Agent Orange, alone or combined with Agent Pink, Purple or Blue, was effective and “obviously may also be lethal.”

When the testing finished in 1968, five 55-gallon steel drums and a dozen gallon cans partially filled with the toxic chemicals were buried on a hilltop overlooking a reservoir. There they remained until the mid-1980s when the Ka Leo reporter’s questions led to their being excavated, supposedly for shipment to a licensed hazardous waste facility. They left behind levels of dioxin in some soil samples of more than five times normal cleanup standards.

The barrels were then placed in a Matson shipping container. There, instead of being shipped out of state as promised, they sat for another decade. Then, in 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health discovered that UH had failed to dispose properly of the hazardous materials and included this infraction along with a Big Island one in a $1.8 million fine against the institution. In April 2000, the barrels were finally shipped out of state.

Oshita and Fraticelli have since died. A year after his Agent Orange work, Oshita was diagnosed with liver dysfunction, bladder cancer, diabetes, chronic hepatitis and a severe skin disease called chloracne. Fraticelli died in April 1981 from lung and kidney cancer; he also had bladder cancer and a brain tumor, court documents indicate.

Since 1984, with the settlement of a $180 million class- action lawsuit, 10,000-plus Vietnam veterans receive disability benefits related to Agent Orange, which has been linked to various cancers, diabetes and birth defects. Earlier this month, a federal judge, citing insufficient research data, dismissed a case filed on behalf of 4 million-plus Vietnamese claiming that Agent Orange had caused their ailments.

The legacy of the Agent Orange experiment and its aftermath exemplifies how UH was duped into conducting military research that the U.S. government knew could create adverse health effects, how the costs and risks of such research were latent for years and how UH demonstrated decades-long disregard for environmental and health hazards.

UH’s Agent Orange experiment was not secret. The student journalist found a thick report about it in Hamilton Library. But some of the Navy’s research now being debated at UH would be secret, a condition that the Faculty Senate on the Manoa campus voted down in terms of withholding publication of scholarly discoveries.

But even the Navy’s unclassified, non-secret work within the UARC has raised two broad concerns among faculty: the anti-business restrictions governing privileged information accessible to researchers, and murky legal issues.

Those favoring the Navy contract note that it proposes a ceiling for UH-M over five years, the normal duration of a UARC, of a sum of up to $50 million. This amount of about $10 million annually is small compared to the $54 million received by UH this fiscal year alone from Pentagon research and is but a fraction of the $160 million the Penn State University UARC received in one year.

Another advantage cited on the Manoa chancellor’s Web site is “our faculty will not have to write specific proposals for funding.” Instead, faculty will pick and choose — or opt out of — work on “task orders” from the Navy or other Pentagon sponsors. Others argue, however, that working only on this military-initiated to-do list will squelch faculty initiative and innovation.

Several faculty have noted that the “research” performed by the UARC through Navy “task orders” is distinctly different from the faculty-directed research that UH researchers currently pursue in an open academic environment. UARC activities must be aligned with the Navy’s war-fighting mission through the approved core competencies, and because the UARC acts as a trusted agent of the government, are also subject to extremely restrictive regulations managing conflict of interest.

The UARC would give rise to a whole new bureaucracy, according to a posting on the Manoa chancellor’s Web site (see box on F5). The UARC would be an organized research unit that reported to the vice chancellor for research and graduate education and would be managed by an executive director to be selected from a national search. A director would head each of UH’s four research specialities in ocean science; astronomy; advanced electro-optics and sensing; and senors, communications and information technology. Another director of business and admini- stration would oversee UARC operations. These administrators would work in leased space at the Manoa Innovation Center.

Unclassified research would be conducted on the Manoa campus but classified research would be performed on military facilities in the state or on the mainland. More bureaucracy will be needed to screen personnel for security clearances required for classified research.

Instead of providing an economic stimulus for the state, some faculty delving into operations of the proposed UARC find a restrictive, anti-business environment.

In scanning conflict-of-interest and other regulations, they found in effect a firewall circumscribes the UARC. Those accepting UARC funding are barred from working with local industry in ventures outside the UARC or in licensing their intellectual property in work outside the UARC in areas in which they may have gained information giving them a competitive advantage, regardless of whether that information is classified.

Researchers accepting UARC funding also are barred from submitting new proposals, entering collaborative relationships, undertaking consult- ing work or continuing work outside the UARC in their specialties that might benefit from their access to information within the UARC that is generally unavailable to the public. Moreover, they found, these restrictions will continue for three years after they leave the UARC.

None of these restrictions is explained on the chancellor’s Web posting, although Vassilis Syrmos, technical officer for the UARC proposal, spoke at length in an interview published March 2 in Ka Leo that certain conflict-of-interest restrictions would apply to those who accept UARC funding.

“Trying to predict the effect of the UARC on potential licensing income is almost fruitless,” Richard F. Cox Jr. of UH’s Office of Technology Transfer and Economic Development said in an e-mail last week. He estimated UH would bring in about $900,000 in licensing income for the year ending June 30.

Others raise murky legal issues. Some question whether the Navy met the legal requirements of open announcement in approving the UARC at UH-M and thus in providing adequately fair competition to other qualified universities. For example, the Army, NASA and the Department of Homeland Security have all recently established new UARCs and federal research centers through open announcements and national competition. And the same statutory authority cited to establish UH-M’s UARC was found as insufficient justification for awarding a UARC contract to Johns Hopkins University by NASA without full and open competition, that agency’s inspector general found.

Such broad agency announcements serve not only a legal requirement. They also contain critical information on the purpose of the UARC, a description of the mission and type of research, the constraints and restrictions on qualified and successful applicants, and important evaluation and selection criteria to be included in the proposal. Thus, the UH-M UARC omitted critical information on the actual faculty and staff who would perform the research and important industrial affiliations that is normally required in such proposals. Without such a broad agency announcement for the Navy UARC, neither the public nor the UH faculty have the guidance needed to determine exactly what their participation would involve, what they will be asked to do for the Navy or what the Navy will be doing, perhaps near their own neighborhood.

In addition, the Navy is conducting a potentially criminal investigation into allegations of mismanagement of classified military contracts by UH and its affiliated Research Corporation, Ka Leo O Hawaii reported on March 2.

Mismanagement of federally funded research and misstatements in applying for that funding is viewed seriously. A federal judge took the unusual step of sentencing to three months in jail a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and fining him $10,000 for lying on a grant application he made to the National Science Foundation.

In handing down that sentence, as reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education on Jan. 25, 1999, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker said, “Within the academic community, those who follow the rules must be assured they are not chumps, fools, or suckers.”

As important as these issues are, many faculty have expressed as their greatest concern the absence of a forum for the community and campus and the general lack of faculty consultation to examine these questions in detail. In a meeting with faculty on March 16, Chancellor Peter Englert apologized “for not having come forward or having made this particular presentation a little bit sooner.” But the stipulation that full consultation take place with concerned stakeholders was directed by the Board of Regents in its November 2004 meeting, and efforts to establish a UARC at UH-M date from September 2002. Given the history surrounding Agent Orange, many faculty feel that UH should be very careful to examine all such questions with complete openness and good faith.

Beverly Deepe Keever is a University of Hawaii-Manoa professor of journalism. She discusses federal information policies related to U.S. Pacific nuclear weapons tests (1946-62) in her newly published book, “News Zero: The New York Times and the Bomb.”