By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

Within the confines of Gov. Linda Lingle's Cabinet, there was heated discussion last week about what to do with an "omnibus" education bill passed by the Legislature.

Veto it, on grounds it really does nothing to reinvent education in Hawai'i? Sign it, despite its flaws, with hopes that improvements could be made later? Or is there a third way?

Some Cabinet members warned, Lingle says, that simply walking away from the bill was a nonstarter. The public has come to believe that something must be done on education this year.

But Lingle also was convinced that the measure sent to her by majority Democrats would not do enough to truly change our public school system. Here's how she put it in her veto message:

"While not wanting to paint the bill with too broad a brush, it does not reinvent education," she wrote. "It mainly protects the status quo ... "

So Lingle adopted a novel concept — a "soft veto" that rejected the legislative effort but offered a detailed "bipartisan" alternative.

Early reaction to this proposal was polite, but it seemed clear that most of the key legislators involved in the education issue weren't biting.

For instance, Lingle said the legislative proposal to shift control of 70 percent of education spending to school principals is not enough. It should be at least 90 percent, she said, since the 70-percent figure basically represents fixed costs over which principals would have little control.

But House Education Committee chairman Roy Takumi argued that even at 70 percent, there would be great flexibility, because principals could shift salary money from one assignment to another depending on the academic needs of the school. And at 90 percent, he said, principals would be forced to make spending decisions on such dicey areas as special education that require specialized, centralized administration.

Lingle's greatest objection was to the Legislature's proposal for elected school "councils" — a kind of school-based board of directors representing school constituencies — that would have substantial budget authority and would set basic spending and educational policy in consultation with the CEO-like principal.

This would pile bureaucracy on bureaucracy and would disenfranchise principals, she argued. Takumi countered that this is precisely the management model used in charter schools, which Lingle enthusiastically supports.

There's more, but you get the picture.

Essentially, the difference between the two sides is trust — or lack of it — in the ability of the Department of Education to truly embrace and make change.

The Democrats in the Legislature appear to believe the department can change.

Lingle appears to believe that the greatest interest of the department and its backers in the Legislature is to protect the status quo.