This could be the best year in a long time for the future preservation of Falls of Clyde. While there is still a lull here in Hawaii, there is an active and growing plan coming together to return Falls of Clyde to her original home in Scotland.  David O’Neill of the Old Gorbals Heritage organization is garnering support and putting together the resources needed for restoration of our historic ship. It is naturally a slow process, but the environment for preservation of historic vessels in Scotland and throughout Europe is much stronger than we have here in Hawaii. The people with skills for a restoration are also readily available there. Friends of Falls of Clyde is providing as much information as needed to help their plan come together. Our role here will be to raise funds to prepare the ship for her long journey to Scotland.
Meanwhile, we have had no feedback so far after our lengthy meeting in December with Mike McCartney, the Governor’s chief aide. It has been posted on Facebook and in an article in the Hawaii Free Press that a Minister of the Scottish Parliament has written to Governor Ige requesting his support for the repatriation of Falls of Clyde to Scotland. Hopefully he is wise enough to see that this is a win-win situation that can help to change the negative image of the State’s lack of commitment to historic preservation.

. We looked forward on 12 December 2016 to celebrate the 138th birth date of the launching of Falls of Clyde. However, Harbors Division declined to give access because it was not for maintenance work. A small group gathered pierside, where we were allowed access, and President McEwan gave his words of appreciation for the ship followed by his annual whisky blessing.  
A meeting with Governor Ige was arranged by community activist and preservation champion, Michelle Matson. Just before the meeting date set for 28 December, we received notice that our appeal of the hearing Decision & Order from August, which was heard in November by DOT Director Fuchigami, did not overturn the original decision. Again, the technical argument of the State held sway over our argument that the basis for the Harbors Division’s impoundment was arbitrary and based upon a prejudiced position.
Our meeting on 28 December ended up not being with the Governor, as he had more pressing matters. However, were did meet with his Chief of Staff, Mike McCartney, for 1 ½ hours, which we felt was a positive sign. He made positive comments about both sides needing to improve communication and find ways to collaborate. Our focus was on the work being done in Scotland to put together a viable plan to bring Falls of Clyde home to where she was built as the best way to see that she is preserved and restored at this point in time. We have received reports of forward movement in Scotland and hopefully will have a firm commitment in early 2017. We made the point to Mr. McCartney that, even though DOT is sticking with their technical position, the Governor can decide that moving the ship to Scotland is a way to meet the needs of the Harbors Division, so giving Friends of Falls of Clyde back control so that we can work to prepare the ship for her trip home makes sense. McCartney said he will be meeting with Harbors Division and we will hear more after that. We do hope at some point we will be able to make our case directly to the Governor.
Now that a stressful 2016 has drawn to a close, Friends of Falls of Clyde wants to send a mahalo nui to all of our supporters who signed the petition and wrote to Harbors and the Governor. We wish you all a very Happy New Year/Hau`oli Makahiki Hou!

. The November 22 hearing was held at the Dept. of Transportation before the DOT Director. We argued that the State’s preservation law applied to the impoundment action taken by the Harbors Division and that their action was in violation of the law and made the impoundment illegal. We also contested several comments of alleged fact upon which the hearing officer based his decision. The Director took the testimonies under advisement and said he would make his decision, but gave no specific timeframe.
During the testimony we were able to reinforce the Scotland initiative to bring Falls of Clyde home to Scotland. We are hoping that this will be a common sense resolution that can get Harbors to retract the impoundment and give us a permit while we raise funds to help the Scots and prepare the ship for her long voyage home. We are also hoping to get a meeting with the Governor to make our case with him. It is hard to believe that the State would not support this effort, which meets the Harbor Division’s goal.

Since the last log post, we have had some movement in a positive direction. First, the naval architect from JMS Naval Architects & Salvage Engineers, David Forrest, conducted an updated condition survey of Falls of Clyde, which showed virtually no deterioration from their 2013 survey. They again declared that the ship is not a safety hazard. We provided a copy of the survey report to Harbors Division, Department of Transportation, Department of Land & Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, and U.S. Coast Guard. Based on the positive result, we have also requested that Harbors retract the impoundment and reinstate the revocable permit. A copy of the letter to the Harbors Division is included.
There is also a growing and viable initiative going on in Scotland to return the ship home to Glasgow. Saving and preserving Falls of Clyde is the most important goal of Friends of Falls of Clyde. If the Harbors Division is determined to have her removed from Honolulu Harbor, Scotland will be the perfect home. Obviously many moving parts need to come together to make this a reality, but we believe bringing her life full circle is a story that will resonate with people worldwide and ensure success.
We also took the opportunity to challenge the Decision & Order by the hearing officer on the impoundment. We set forth some legal and procedural issues and are looking forward to the next hearing now set for November 22.
This is the most positive situation we’ve had in the past year and a half of dealing with the stress we’ve felt from the actions of the Harbors Division. Perhaps cooperation is a possibility now.
.

October 28, 2016
 
Darrell T. Young, Deputy Director
Davis Yogi, Harbors Administrator
Dept. of Transportation, Harbors Division
79 S. Nimitz Hwy.
Honolulu, HI 9613-4898
 
            Subject: Falls of Clyde Status
 
Dear Mr. Young and Mr. Yogi:
 
The condition survey conducted on Falls of Clyde on October 11, 2016 by the JMS Naval Architect is attached for your files. As you can see from the report, there has been effectively no change since the 2013 survey, which we provided and was satisfactory to our insurance underwriters.  As is clearly stated in the Executive Summary to the survey, the ship is not a safety hazard as we have continually communicated to the Harbors Division. If there are any questions regarding the state of the ship, you are free to contact Mr. Forrest directly.
 
I believe that you are aware that there is now an active initiative in Scotland to return Falls of Clyde to her original home port. Friends of Falls of Clyde supports this effort, which is consistent with our Option 1 in the plan we submitted to the Harbors Division on July 29, 2016. This shows that there is support internationally for the preservation of this historic maritime landmark. We believe that local cooperation in helping to make this work will be a positive step to bolster our reputation on historic preservation, which is currently tarnished because of the actions taken to date.
 
Friends of Falls of Clyde respectfully requests that impoundment be retracted and a new revocable permit be issued. We are willing to discuss a reasonable berthing fee as a non-profit organization. Our plan going forward will be to work with our Scottish supporters to move the ship in 2017.
 
Sincerely
 
Bruce McEwan, President

As the saying goes, the other shoe has fallen. We received the Decision and Order (D&O) from the Hearing Officer and he decided in favor of the Harbors Division. We were very disappointed, but not surprised because we thought the decision would be made based on a narrow interpretation of the issues. However, we disagree with some of the facts that were relied upon. The D&O stated: “Indeed, the State continually communicated and met with the Petitioner in an effort to resolve the State’s long-standing concerns regarding safety issues, the Vessel’s seaworthiness, and the need to repair portions of Pier 7.” What are the facts? First, every time the matter of safety was raised, there was never a specific reason for Harbors Division’s allegation. When the Revocable Permit was terminated, safety was not even mentioned. How could there be such important safety issues if they could never articulate what they are? The issue of seaworthiness was never raised. Under maritime law, a vessel is seaworthy if it is reasonably fit for its intended use. Falls of Clyde is a stationary museum ship, therefore, it is fit for its purpose. There was never any long-standing concern for seaworthiness that the Harbors Division ever raised with us, which would have been a moot point based on the definition of seaworthiness. Finally, the repair of Pier 7 was never raised until the letter terminating the Revocable Permit. 
Unfortunately, however the Hearing Officer got those “facts” from Harbors Division, they were given to undermine Friends of Falls Clyde’s efforts to get the impoundment reversed  and the Revocable Permit reinstated.
The only positive part of the D&O was the Hearing Officer not considering our arguments based on Federal and State historic preservation laws. He stated that they were not relevant to the impoundment. It is our position that when the Harbors Division takes their next step to move toward their goal of removing the ship from the harbor that those laws will be relevant.

We submitted our legal position to the Hearing Officer as directed, as did the Attorney General. As previously commented, the AG took a straight technical position based on the Revocable Permit, whereas we focused on the arbitrariness and bad faith of the decision made by the Harbors Division. From our perspective, it is clear that the actions taken by the Harbors Division have intentionally undermined the mission of the Friends of falls of Clyde. We now await the Hearing Officer’s decision due September 21.
On the positive side, President Bruce McEwan was recently in Scotland and made the trek to the Falls of Clyde. It was an awesome experience because Falls of Clyde is a power unto itself and is a source of the hydroelectric power in the area. Hearing the roar of the Falls of Clyde shows its power just as we experience the mana of the ship, Falls of Clyde, when we are aboard. Here is a picture of the Falls of Clyde.

This was the day that Harbors Division held the administrative hearing where we attempted to make a case for reversing the impoundment and having the revocable permit reinstated. A news release has been issued and will be posted on the website and Facebook to communicate to all of our followers. While this was a bit of a perfunctory process, we were able to make our case, albeit not a technical one that the Harbors attorneys made.
What Friends of Falls of Clyde now needs is to have as many people as possible add their names as supporters and to sign the petition and send notes to the Governor’s office. We need as much community show of support as possible. Since Falls of Clyde has an international reputation as an outstanding historic maritime artifact, we also need national and international followers to weigh in with their support.
We are at an urgent stage in our mission and will need supporters to provide us with ideas for people who may be able to influence the Harbors Division and/or be able to provide financial support or direct us to people who have financial resources and want to support our mission.
Harbors knows that we are not about to roll over and we are ready for a fight. Come join us to battle the bureaucracy!!

The website has been updated to show the world the plan that was submitted to DOT-Harbors Division, which they have rejected. Take an objective look and see what you think. Remember that they know what our mission is which is the focus of the plan, but they insisted on having the second contingency as their out. Their last minute change to have us give them an immediate removal action totally undercuts their credibility to objectively assess the original intent of the plan. Click on the plan cover to read it.
We have also posted a complete audio interview that President Bruce McEwan conducted with KHON2 TV. While only a few seconds commenting on Friends of Falls of Clyde’s plan to challenge the impound decision at an administrative hearing, the entire interview really gives the detail to our argument and puts the Harbors Division’s approach in perspective.  http://www.friendsoffallsofclyde.org/uploads/3/1/6/1/3161140/khon_interview_august_13_2016.m4a
 

We are doing the battle of the TV spots. The Harbors Division has publicly announced their denial of our plan. They are apparently using a comment in the JMS insurance survey to allege the ship is in poor condition and, therefore, unsafe. The irony here is that this report was easily accepted by our insurance underwriters. Harbors Division is, of course, not citing the Executive Summary: “The Falls of Clyde is in remarkable condition for a 135 year old vessel.”  “The ship is fit for its intended purpose as a moored museum ship.” As we have repeated over and over with evidence, there is no safety issue. I made the point in my interview that poor condition does NOT equate with being unsafe. The reality is Falls of Clyde is in better condition in 2016 than she was when she arrived in 1963. Saying something is unsafe is not proving it.
In the KHON TV news spot, Harbors Division was quoted as saying they denied the plan because it did not have an immediate plan for removing the ship. How stupid is this for a plan that has three options, which all are set to be completed one way or another in 2017. Where does immediate fit in?
We will continue to challenge the decision to impound and seek reinstatement of the revocable permit. Where is due process for a nonprofit citizen of Hawaii? We continue to urge supporters to send your opinions to the Harbors Division, Department of Transportation, Governor’s Office.
This is truly a situation where a nonprofit is being targeted because we do not have the resources of a big company that would probably be throwing lawyers at the Harbors Division if they were treated like we are being treated.

Even knowing that Harbors Division is focused on removing Falls of Clyde from Honolulu Harbor, we were still hopeful that our plan would be accepted. The Deputy Director added a last minute requirement to include details on where we would berth the ship outside of Pier 7 and the details of the towing arrangement we have made, including how we will fund it. Since this information was NOT communicated to our representative at the last Harbors meeting, the email from the Deputy Director came in too late for us to get into the plan. However, the plan did include the contingency that we were exploring alternative berthing at a mainland location. We also covered the towing issue by confirming we had a towing agreement as part of the drydock plan. We felt this was enough to make the plan acceptable.
However, on August 10 the Harbor Police showed up at President McEwan’s residence to deliver a letter from the Deputy Director informing Friends of Falls of Clyde that the plan was not accepted and included a notice to remove the ship in 72 hours or it will be impounded. The reason for not accepting the plan was based on the same items that were sent in the email. We immediately responded via email pointing out that the reason for the denial was not relevant to the plan itself, since the towing information would only apply when the ship was taken to drydock or removed from the harbor, plus pointing out the pieces that were in the plan.
We are looking into an appeal process related to being impounded. The reason for the impoundment is that we are berthed illegally. We are berthed illegally only because the Harbors Division terminated our revocable permit. By accepting the plan, they would need to reinstate the permit or issue a new one for the period of the plan. How is it fair for the agency to terminate the permit for one alleged and unproven reason and then not accept the plan based on irrelevant requirements?
We are looking for some balanced, positive media coverage to alert the community to what is happening and to find some authority who can see the logic in our plan and that it meets the requirements set by Harbors, even though acceptance was never defined.
Right now we need our challenge with Harbors Division broadcast far and wide and comments sent to the Department of Transportation, Harbors Division website hidot.hawaii.gov/harbors.