I’m getting lots of calls from folks asking my opinion about the 4 proposed Charter Amendments,. and since this is after-all an opinion column, here goes:
I’m voting yes on Question 1: Relating to Prosecutor Vacancy
As we saw during the most recent “special election” the money and effort utilized seemed excessive and unnecessary. This change makes sense.
I’m voting no on Question 2: Relating to an Electric Power Authority
I don’t understand why we would want to eliminate our future choices. There appears to be no harm or cost in preserving this option so I see no sense in getting rid of it.
I’m voting no on Question 3: Relating to the Salary Commission
I fully confess to my own bias here, as I believe that in general “Boards and Commissions” should serve primarily in an advisory role. Those elected to public office may accept or reject those recommendation, or perhaps amend and accept. The fundamental decision-making authority on matters of public policy, including those that have budget impacts should be held and exercised by those elected to do so — not an appointed commission.
I’m leaning toward voting no on Question 4: Relating to Surety Bonds
Currently, certain officers and employees are required by existing charter language to be bonded and insured. If this measure passes, apparently that requirement will be eliminated. Whether removing the existing provision will reduce public protections, I do not know.
Below is the exact official language provided by the County intended to explain what voting yes or no would mean for the 4 Charter questions https://kauaiballotinfo.com.
As I initially dug through the info it became clear to me that “words matter” and the official words chosen to describe the impact of a yes or no vote — appear to favor the yes vote perspective. To demonstrate how the inclusion or exclusion of a few words does indeed matter, at the bottom of each question below I’ve included my thoughts marked by an asterisk * with suggested changes to the language underlined.
Question 1: Relating to Prosecutor Vacancy
Shall the County Charter be amended to require that future elections for Prosecuting Attorney occur at the same time as the County’s regularly scheduled elections?
Voting yes on this question would allow a first deputy prosecutor to serve as Prosecuting Attorney until a new Prosecuting Attorney is elected in a regularly scheduled election.
Voting no on this question would continue to require the County of Kauaʻi to hold a special election should a vacancy occur for Prosecuting Attorney if a vacancy lasts between one year and 18 months.
*This language seems straightforward and clear.
Question 2: Relating to an Electric Power Authority
Shall the Charter be amended to remove Article 30 which allows the County Council to create an electric power corporation?
Voting yes on this question would repeal Article 30 to avoid any duplication of services and limit the unnecessary growth of government.
Voting no on this question would allow the County Council to create an electric power authority corporation —
a separate, independent unit from the County government that would be responsible for Kauai’s electricity —
similar to KIUC.
*This language could have been written like this:
Voting yes on this question would repeal Article 30 and take away the current authority the County has to create a power authority should the need arise in the future.
Voting no on this question would continue to allow the County Council to create an electric power authority corporation – a separate, independent unit from the County government that would be responsible for Kauai’s electricity – similar to KIUC should the need arise.
Question 3: Relating to the Salary Commission
Shall the Charter be amended to give the Salary Commission the authority to establish the maximum salary for elected and appointed officials?
Voting yes on this question would allow the Salary Commission to establish the maximum salary for elected and appointed officials, which includes department heads and deputies.
Voting no on this question would continue to allow the County Council to reject all or portions of recommendations and findings made by the Salary Commission.
*This language could have been written like this:
Voting yes on this question would take away the power of the County Council to reject the recommendations and findings made by the salary commission.
Question 4: Relating to Surety Bonds
Shall the Charter be amended by removing the portion of section 19.17 that requires surety bonds for certain officers and employees?
Voting yes on this question would give the County flexibility in purchasing insurance and/or surety bonds by eliminating a provision that requires the purchase of surety bonds.
Voting no on this question would require the County to purchase surety bonds for certain officers and employees.
*This language could have been written like this:
Voting no on this question would ensure that certain officers and employees of the County continue to be covered by surety bonds as is now required by the charter.
After reading through the alternative language – does your opinion change? Do you find yourself rethinking how you’d like to vote? Whatever you choose, please vote!
•••
Gary Hooser is the former vice-chair of the Democratic Party of Hawai‘i, and served eight years in the state Senate, where he was majority leader. He also served for eight years on the Kaua‘i County Council, and was the former director of the state Office of Environmental Quality Control. He serves in a volunteer capacity as board president of the Hawai‘i Alliance for Progressive Action and is executive director of the Pono Hawai‘i Initiative.
