Posted on: Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Letters to the Editor

Let's stop wasting HPD's time, resources

In this time of tight city and state budgets, it's a shame to see uniformed HPD officers sitting and standing in our courts' hallways when we need them out on the streets and highways. They are simply cooling their heels while they wait to appear before a judge to reiterate what they have already said in their written reports, which in 44 other states is all that is needed.

This antiquated system is a huge waste of police officers' time and a waste of our tax dollars. Worse, it provides the bad guys with one more loophole to slither through so that they may get to their next victim, which might be any one of us or most likely our visitors.

We almost put an end to this waste of time when a majority of Hawai'i's voters voted for the Information Charging Amendment to our state Constitution. This enlightened amendment was overturned because of a technicality, and now it is up to the Legislature to put it back on course. Senate Bill 2861 needs to be passed now to accomplish this much-needed authority.

My company deals with thousands of visitors every day, and one of their main concerns is street crime. For example, visitors who are victims of street crime often do not return to Hawai'i to appear in court and once again be traumatized. Information charging helps to prevent this breakdown in our legal system. It is pretty clear that our current system works against the victim and in favor of the criminal. Why are we one of the few states in America that still uses our archaic system?

Education reform proposals don't cut it

"Let's just do it" is a rash exhortation to be wielded by a governor and speaks volumes about the depth of recent proposals to "reform" education.

Education reform is not easy work and you don't get silver bullets. There are certainly things we need to fix with our educational system, but these proposals do little to address them.

A model that centralizes administrative functions (e.g., payroll, budgeting and accounting, facilities planning, large-ticket purchasing) needs to remain firmly in place. What should move toward the schools (not arbitrary local boards) is curriculum development, school-level planning and professional development to match any particular demographics of a community.

Much of this infrastructure is in place with the DOE's shift to the complex model, but remains to be implemented. It is an elected school board — accountable to the public — that sets the stage for this to happen.

So we have an elected board, a complex model with the potential for local control (seven complexes for O'ahu, I believe), and a centralized administration that can leverage economies of scale and ensure funding equity to students.

Yes, there is a lot of work to do, but "Let's just fix it" smacks of breaking apart something we don't want to seriously deal with and sidesteps the responsibility of all of us (politicians, union leaders, parents, teachers and administrators) to roll up our sleeves and do the tough work.

Should pedophiles, terrorists be ignored?

Shame on your faceless editorial writers who would characterize persons who cooperate with law enforcement officials as snoops and snitches. Would you really prefer that pedophiles and terrorists be ignored if computer repairmen noted child pornography or bomb-making instructions?

I suppose your next editorial would castigate the gas station owner in Florida who had the videotape of the recent kidnapping of the 11-year-old girl.

After all, he didn't have search warrants for all the persons appearing on the tapes. Stay tuned.

Shame on House for blocking people's vote

I don't understand the logic of House Democrats who defeated Gov. Lingle's plan to allow voters to decide whether we should have locally elected school boards (HB 2332). According to Rep. Roy Takumi, "The majority of members (of the House) felt that governance wasn't the real issue."

If that is truly the case, then why did Takumi and his fellow Democrats advance other constitutional amendments relating to school governance? One proposal would expand the statewide Board of Education from 13 to 17 members, and the other would create local councils at every school. These proposals may or may not be good ideas, but the Democrats felt that the people should be allowed to decide on only their bills. Why not let the people decide on the governor's bill as well?

If the Democrats believe that the people were smart enough to elect them to office, then they are smart enough to have a say in how their children are educated.

There are enough people in this state who feel that education decision-making and resources should be brought to the local level where the parents and education professionals are located. Shame on Takumi and his fellow Democrats for not allowing the people to vote on this issue.

Let parents choose what's best for children

From the U.S. Bureau of Education in 1914 (as quoted by Sheldon Richman): "The public schools exist primarily for the benefit of the State rather than for the benefit of the individual." From the U.S. Declaration of Independence: " ... all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ... "

It appears that our Department of Education and HSTA are trying to "pursue happiness." But whose happiness? Are they not happiest when money flows into the system from the government and unhappiest when asked for indications of student achievement and teacher productivity?

The pursuit of happiness is individual. Part and parcel of individual happiness is integrity — a subject largely missing in government-owned and -operated schools. Pertinent is a quote from David Spohn, president of the National Education Association on Oct. 3: "We expect parents to work in the best interest of the kids. We're working in the best interest of the teachers."

The obvious conclusion is: Put parents in charge. Let them choose what is best for their children. Free them to find ways to instill integrity. To put it another way, separate school and state.

There, I said it and I am happy. I hope some of you are, too.

Duplicated services might be necessary

The bottom line is that our highways are not safe. Racing and excessive speeding have created a feeling of uneasiness to those merely wanting a nice drive home late at night or early in the morning.

It is unfortunate that it takes the death of a loved one to create a sense of urgency, but loved ones have been lost needlessly on our highways, and prudence demands that something be done about it.

If duplication of services is what is needed to ensure public safety, then it should be done. The recent tragedies did not have to happen. They weren't destined to happen. Perhaps they could have been prevented in a number of ways.

I don't presume to know the answers, but I'm positive that if I ever lose someone dear to me on the highway because of someone racing, I don't want to hear that it was because of an unwillingness to duplicate services.

Change the law, but don't confiscate cars

News has it that legislators want to confiscate cars from speeders. How absurd!

First of all, cars do not cause speeding; it is the drivers. Laws need to be changed to discourage speeding, but taking a car away from a driver is no less effective than taking dope away from an addict — a Band-Aid effect.

If you want to be effective, change laws so that drivers convicted of specific types of offenses will get mandatory jail time. If the law is changed, then anyone caught speeding 30 miles per hour or more would be tried for an intent to cause bodily harm or property damage. Then you have merit for prosecution and jail time. That way the driver pays the penalty, and the car can stay parked.

Modifying cars doesn't translate into racing

To say that all people who modify their cars are racers is like saying that all people with guns are murderers. You would think that in this day and age, common sense would be somewhat standard.

Yes, some of us do modify our cars without the intention of using it to kill a mass amount of people. And since we are on the subject, racing accounts for only a fraction of deaths here on O'ahu; the real problem is with drunk driving. Drunk driving kills an astronomical number of people every year, yet when people here on O'ahu get caught for drunk driving, they get a slap on the wrist.

As my mother told me, always think before you open your mouth, so for those of you who think that stopping racing will dramatically stop traffic fatalities, wake up and educate yourselves. I am not condoning racing, but let's be fair — don't single out a group just because they are easy targets. Instead, let's try to come up with a solution that will actually curb all types of traffic fatalities.

Rare opportunity now to protect North Shore land

The Friends of Pupukea-Paumalu project seeks the fullest possible protection of the resources of the 1,129-acre property known as Pupukea-Paumalu on O'ahu's North Shore. The private-public partnership is being assisted by the North Shore Community Land Trust and is supported by a diverse group of local and international businesses, community and environmental groups, government officials and Hawaiian organizations.

There is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for protection because the Pupukea-Paumalu property is for sale after years of community planning and organizing. The state Legislature (HB 2759 and SB 3128), the City and County of Honolulu, Hawai'i's congressional delegation, private parties and various government entities are working to provide financial and other support for a public purchase and permanent protection of the property.

The community is moving fast because without public action, the property could be purchased by those who do not share the vision of resource protection and stewardship. In the past, hundreds of luxury homes have been proposed for the property.

The North Shore community and supporters envision Pupukea-Paumalu as a public educational and agricultural area with world-class views, hiking trails, room to roam for neighboring Boy and Girl Scout camps, and community facilities next to Sunset Beach Elementary school.

Properly stewarding the land will protect the rural quality of life on the North Shore as well as enhance the experience the North Shore provides to millions of visitors each year. Stewardship will also work to assure that the ocean, waves and beaches residents and visitors enjoy will be clean and free from urban-type runoff and pollution.

As measures providing resources for acquisition move forward, the protection effort is reaching the critical mass of people, support and financial resources needed to act on this opportunity for future generations of North Shore residents, for the people of Hawai'i and for the people of the world.

Thank you to Mayor Jeremy Harris, Sen. Bobby Bunda, Rep. Michael Magaoay, Hawai'i's congressional delegation, and the many others who are providing leadership for this important initiative for the benefit of the public. You can learn more at www.northshoreland.org.

Gay marriage issue misstated

I am not sure whether Bill Stonebraker Sr. meant to mislead readers with his assertions or whether he was simply unaware of his mistakes, but some clarity is needed nevertheless (Letters, "Same-sex marriage, civil unions same thing," Feb. 24).

"Seventy percent of Hawai'i" did not vote against the idea of placing "homosexual unions on par with heterosexual marriage." Hawai'i voters were never faced with the issue as described. Rather, Hawai'i voters passed a constitutional amendment giving the state Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

And this was not passed by 70 percent of Hawai'i but by 70 percent of the approximately 45 percent of the voting-age population who actually turned out to vote in the 1998 election. Consequently, it was only about 32 percent of the voting-age population who voted to amend the state Constitution. We were left with the dreaded tyranny of the minority that can occur when legislators abandon the hard work that goes along with tough decisions, opting instead to take the path of least resistance, a "will of the people" route.

The final insult is the continuing myth of "landslide victory" perpetrated and perpetuated by the likes of Mr. Stonebraker.

As for the claim that "legislators who insist on instilling their own agenda apart from the people's will should be removed immediately," Mr. Stonebraker needs to remember that we do not elect our public officials to legislate according to public opinion polls. If the "will of the people" was used to make legislation, the civil rights battles of the '60s never would have occurred.

In the past, the will of the people has been used to justify atrocities ranging from lynching to prohibitions against inter-ethnic marriages. We owned slaves, and women could not vote; such was the will of the people.

We elect our representatives to do the laborious work of researching issues and making judgments in the best interest of their constituents. Such judgments — when well researched and well considered — might conflict with the beliefs and opinions of constituents who have not studied the issue in depth or, worse yet, have been influenced by a barrage of emotional, psychological or pseudo-logical messages presented by well-funded influence groups on both sides of an issue.

No, Mr. Stonebraker, show me a legislator who acts solely on the people's will, and I will show you a legislator who absolutely should be removed.

The same goes for judges. We expect them to examine, interpret and apply the law without prejudice. We do not expect them to apply the law according to the will of the people. I suspect if you poll a few of the judges who have ruled in favor of gay marriage, you will find them personally opposed to such unions but unable to find a legal reason to prohibit them.

If citizens such as Mr. Stonebraker really wish to be outraged, they need look no further than the fact that we have a president who makes statements such as "marriage is a sacred institution" and "we will do whatever is necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage." Whether something is "sacred" or possesses "sanctity" is a judgment to be made by religious authorities, not sitting presidents. Protecting sacred institutions solely for their sacredness is not the job of the federal government.