Governor needs to explain reasoning behind veto
SB2874 sought to: “Amend(s)the composition of the state Board of Land and Natural Resources by requiring that at least one member shall have a background in native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices, who shall not be the same member with a background in conservation and natural resources.”
I could be wrong, but it appears that only one member is even required to have a background in conservation and natural resources. Really? To be on the Board of Land and Natural Resources, a person does not need to have either a background in conservation/natural resources or Native Hawaiian traditional customary practices?
Introduced in late January this year, the bill received a unanimous (25 Yes / 0 No) vote for passage by all entities upon final reading (April 21), and sent to the governor that same day.
On June 23, the governor issued his intent to veto the bill, and did so on July 8.
The Hawaiian Islands are small, isolated, geographically unique environments that continually face challenges from overuse, overpopulation and exponential growth in industry and tourist-related business.
In such a unique, fragile geographical place, it would seem logical that all members of the board be required to have either a background in conservation/natural resources or a background in Native Hawaiian traditional practices . . . at a minimum.
I ask again . . . why?