• Since there are many legislators on both sides of the aisle who are lawyers, why didn't they think of the legal ramifications of the bill before approving it?

• If the van cam program was initiated as a trial, why did the Department on Transportation sign a three-year contract? A shorter contract would have been preferable.

• According to a story in the April 11 issue, "Governor ends van cams," the possible $8 million contract settlement includes "the development of sophisticated technology used in the camera program." Why did the DOT sign a contract for untested and unproven technology?

• If a legal settlement in excess of the $5 million van cam revolving fund is reached, the DOT should be responsible for the excess. Let the director of the DOT look for the funds in existing DOT programs. Why go to the Legislature to ask for money that isn't there?

In these lean times, it is unconscionable to waste any more money on an ill-conceived, poorly managed program.

Bill Doi
Kailua

Dire warnings about handguns ill-founded

I found the April 14 editorial on "hidden arms" rather amusing. The author should seriously consider a move to Hollywood in order to put such a fine imagination to good use.

The author's wonderful imagination is at its finest when describing the horrible acts that would occur if citizens carried concealed firearms: "Road rage, workplace rage, campus rage and domestic rage could easily explode into gunfire." Fact is, a majority of people who hold concealed-carry licenses are honest citizens, not misfits who would be involved in the previously mentioned scenarios.

While we are on the subject of hypothetical situations, imagine if the Xerox incident had never occurred. The tragedy could have been ended far sooner, or possibly avoided completely, had another employee been armed.

Impossible, you say? Earlier this year, two students using personal firearms stopped a shooting at a Virginia law school; they also managed to overpower the gunman without firing a single shot.

The author also mentions studies by John Lott in support of concealed-carry and other studies against it. Where are the facts? Here are some for you: Each year, firearms are used over 2 million times in self-defense situations; women are 2.5 times less likely to be injured if carrying a concealed weapon.

By the way, most arguments against concealed-carry have been proven to be inaccurate, if not totally false.

Why not focus our attention on getting rid of illegal guns and the criminals who use them? Criminals are constantly being handed additional rights, while honest citizens continue to watch their freedom and safety disappear.

Arian Yee

Concealed handguns won't make us violent

Regarding the April 14 editorial "Hawai'i is doing fine without hidden arms": The right to carry concealed firearms has been granted to law-abiding citizens in over 30 states.

In none of these states has there been an epidemic of the use of handguns; in fact, those licensed to carry concealed handguns have proven to be among the most law-abiding citizens, and violent crime rates have gone down in each state.

Yet, in Hawai'i, we are told that if we are granted the same right to carry, "Road rage, workplace rage, campus rage and domestic rage could easily explode into gunfire." What is wrong with Hawai'i's law-abiding citizens that makes us so different from those on the Mainland? 

Arthur Y. Sprague

State librarian wrong in statement on fines

Virginia Lowell, state librarian, in the April 11 issue, accused me of "casting aspersions" and lifting data "out of context." Coincidentally, her attack mirrored Gov. Cayetano's earlier press release.

At a Ways and Means Committee hearing prior to her letter, Lowell threatened that "the libraries would be shut down" without the Senate's raid on the Hurricane Relief Fund — also pushed by Cayetano.

In answer to questions from Maui's Sen. J. Kalani English, Lowell backed down on her political rhetoric and also showed her ignorance of rural and Neighbor Island library facilities. She offered nothing positive for those of us who publicly reiterated our strong support for not only keeping libraries open, but making them more user-friendly and accessible.

Ms. Lowell is wrong in stating I said only collecting $4.3 million in overdue fines, as documented by the state auditor, would cure fiscal and management problems of our library system. I did say collection is a good place to start as part of more than $220 million reported by the auditor that could be saved for the budget, but I clearly repeated my support of libraries having a high fiscal priority.

My criticism is with questionable library management. There were no "gratuitous aspersions" against librarians. Several librarians — and more patrons — have told elected officials they are offended at Ms. Lowell's political posturing and management skills.

State Sen. Sam Slom
R-8th District, minority leader

Explanation is needed on renaming of tunnels

Regarding the renaming of the H-3 tunnels: A good man devotes his career to public service, culminating in a well-deserved honor. More than anything, having the H-3 tunnels named after him made it all worthwhile for Tetsuo Harano.

But in a baffling move as a lame-duck governor, Ben Cayetano renames the tunnels. Without public notice. Without even informing the Harano family.

That's not right. Nothing against the man for whom Cayetano now honors. But doesn't Harano — and the taxpaying public — deserve an explanation?

I've known the Harano family since childhood, and they would be the last ones to make a fuss over this.

What's going on, Governor? Wouldn't you want to be told if your name were stripped from a project dedicated in your honor?

Dalton Tanonaka

Cleansing of council

Two down; three to go. Is there any other state where over half of the council members of the major city have ethical or legal problems like ours do?

Donald C. Blaser

Quartzite stone is slippery when wet

Barbara Kim Stanton of the Office of Waikiki Development wrote a good letter on April 11 regarding the changes to Waikiki being justified. As a resident of Waikiki, I do appreciate the improvements here.

However, I have to differ regarding her statement about Kalakaua Avenue sidewalks being covered with the highly regarded quartzite, being nonslip, water-absorbing stone. I know that the new stone on Kalakaua Avenue's sidewalks are slippery when wet.

About a year ago, I slipped and fell on the sidewalk between the Arco Service Station and the Waikiki Terrace Hotel. Other than a skinned right elbow, dirty pants and a hurt ego, I was all right.

Since then, I avoid Kalakaua Avenue on rainy days and step over water puddles on dry days. Frankly, I hope these stones are not used on any more sidewalks.

Anita Graf

Career women can still look to adoption

I've been struck by what got left out of the recent flurry of articles, in newspapers like The Advertiser, about the "Childlessness (that) haunts some career women," as your headline of April 14 reads. What is missing in all these articles, except for a drib here or a drab there in a sidebar, is adoption. 

I am an over-40 professional woman and a mother, by adoption, of a 2-year-old boy, whose presence has enriched my life — and that of my husband — beyond measure.

Yes, infertility and the various invasive tests and treatments that surround it can lead to great suffering. But such pain need not be the end of this particular story.

It's time that journalists balance their scary accounts (perhaps intended to scare "ultra-achieving" women) with some mention of the beautiful families created by adoption. 

Susan M. Schultz
Kane'ohe

$50,000 could have been put to better use

I am going to get it now, but I had to write.

I love dogs and was raised on a farm. But for the Humane Society to waste $50,000 to rescue one dog, and couldn't, is wrong.

I am sure people would say, "What if it were your dog?"

My answer would be to use the money on better things.

Animals — cats and dogs — are being killed every day due to overpopulation and no homes for them.

What is crueler?

Think how many neuterings and spayings could have been done with all that money. A lot.

It appears people worry more about animals than homeless human beings. The waste of the money is a disgrace, but the non-caring for the homeless is many times worse.

Daniel Munn

Humane Society did right thing on rescue

I totally support the actions of the Hawaiian Humane Society in its plight to save "man's best friend" despite the cost. It won't stop me from donating to future fund-raisers.

In many households (as in mine), dogs are more than man's best friend; they are family.

The decision by the Humane Society to conduct a rescue mission displayed its true aloha for all animals.

I hope Natalie Lau (Letters, April 9) doesn't have a pet, and if she does, the Humane Society ought to check up on her to ensure it isn't being treated like "a dog is a dog is a dog."

Paul Pedro Jr.

Public decisions must be public

It is remarkable how different events can show the same phenomenon: Public officials sometimes choose the convenience of making closed and immediate decisions over the importance of getting wide input.

For instance, the City Council just decided to appoint Darryln Bunda to fill the seat of the recently departed Rene Mansho. Council members did this in private before allowing any public input.

Ms. Bunda may be highly qualified. However, the council should have taken a little extra time and trouble to publicly solicit nominations and then hold the hearings. This would have broadened the pool of qualified potential appointees and been a small step toward restoring the council's tattered reputation. No such luck.

Meanwhile, the state Legislature is considering this year's rules for conference committees. Last year, the leadership approved rules that allowed any committee chair in a conference committee to veto any bill. This gives each chair unprecedented power. Each one can stop a bill that has been approved repeatedly by several committees in both houses and passed three votes by all the members of both houses.

There is a proposal to allow a majority of committee members to overrule the chair's veto, but in fact committee members almost never go against their chairs.

Instead of putting the fate of all our laws in the hands of a few, all our elected representatives and senators should have an equal say in conference committee decisions, without extra-constitutional vetoes. It might be a little less convenient and a little slower, but it would result in having more views represented and getting better decisions.

Finally, there is one example in which things were done right. Recently, the state House leadership rightly refused to bypass its normal procedures to pass a Senate bill on union health plans. Representatives deserve praise for ensuring that all committees, members and the public have a full opportunity to consider and comment on all bills before they are passed.

These examples show the same temptation for public officials to expedite decisions by keeping them in a few hands. It does make things easier and quicker for them. But the fact is that we get better decisions if we get the broadest possible information by having the greatest possible input from legislators and the public.

Government should not be run for the convenience of public officials. Instead, they should try to make the best possible decisions by getting the broadest, best information and including as many people as possible in decisions. And we the public should support having all our government processes as broad and open as possible.