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.

 Friends of Falls of Clyde met our deadline to submit a plan to DOT-Harbors. Our challenge was to submit a plan that is “acceptable” to the Harbors Division. There are quotation marks around “acceptable” because it was not defined specifically by them, which makes it difficult for us. We believe we have provided the detail necessary. We focused primarily on our mission to preserve Falls of Clyde. However, Harbors required us to also include a contingency to move the ship out of the harbor, which is their goal. We have provided information to try and allay their concerns about the ship being a safety hazard to the harbor.
re to edit.

We believe that out supporters need to know how we are approaching the Harbors Division so we are including a copy of the cover letter below that went with the plan.
Friends of FaIIs of Clyde is pleased to submit the enclosed plan of preservation that we believe you will find acceptable as it brings a definite timeline for the future of our National Historic Landmark Falls of Clyde. The future of Falls of Clyde is being approached from two different perspectives by our respective organizations. The mission of Friends of FaIIs of Clyde is based upon our fiduciary responsibility to preserve the ship. DOT-Harbors's position is to remove the ship from the harbor.
 
In the current plan, we provide support for our position that the ship does not provide a safety concern in the harbor. At some point in time, should you provide us with detail about a specific safety concern, we will most certainly work to remedy it.
 
Your July 25, 2016 e-mail stated that "A plan that simply requests additional time to seek grants and funds is not acceptable." Our plan does, in fact, include our need to continue to raise funds to get the ship into drydock. As we have communicated previously, we believe the ship must go into drydock before she can be·moved safely out of the harbor. Under your position, when the time comes to move the ship out of the harbor, we assume you want to make sure it can be done safely. This means that fundraising must be part of the plan.
 
The opportunity to submit this plan gives us hope that Friends of Falls of Clyde and DOT­ Harbors can work together to meet our diverse, but complementary, goals that Falls of Clyde will

be in a safe condition before her future is finally determined. We have included a timeline that has measurable milestones each month and we will provide reports to the Harbors Division if needed.

When we went down to work on the ship this morning, we were surprised to find this notice from the Harbormaster. It took us most of the day to find out what was happening. It became obvious that the extension we received from the Deputy Director to get our plan in by July 29 was not passed on to the Harbormaster because he thought we were supposed to have moved the ship by July 15. They also made reference to a Korean tourist falling through the deck. It did not take us long to realize this was a reference to a 2007 incident when Bishop Museum owned the ship. What is this all about? They will come and inspect the ship on July 22, so we should be able to clear the air.

As previously mentioned, we need to build up our supporter group to the 1000s, so please sign up at our website: www.friendsoffallsofclyde.org. Pass this on to all of your friends.

Friends of Falls of Clyde decided to submit our draft plan a bit early for review and comment by DOT-Harbors. After receiving it, they called a meeting with our attorney board director and provided feedback that they want more detail in the plan and a schedule showing how we will raise the money for the drydock plus a contingency if we cannot raise the money. They extended our response time for the plan to July 29. We are working on the required details.
We have set up a supporters’ site on our website and need as many people as possible to put down their names to show that we have growing support for our preservation work.