EDITORIAL
City Charter: 'Yes' on 1 and 2, 'No' on 3, 4

Among the dozens of races and other issues to be decided on the Nov. 2 general election ballot are four questions that ask for changes to the Honolulu City Charter.

While these matters seem technical, they would make major changes in the way things work around City Hall.

The Advertiser supports two of the proposed amendments and recommends a "no" vote on the others. In order, these amendments are:

Vote 'Yes'

Question 1: This would place all employees of the Neighborhood Commission, other than the executive secretary, within the civil service system. Today, all members of the commission — which handles the nuts and bolts of our neighborhood board system — are patronage appointees.

Converting these workers to civil service status would provide continuity and expertise, year-to-year. The executive secretary, the senior policy-making person on the commission, would continue to be appointed by the mayor. It deserves your support.

Question 2: This would require that at least five of the nine appointees to the advisory Neighborhood Commission be former members of a neighborhood board.

By requiring a majority of the board to have experience in the trenches, the city would get more experienced and informed advice, while still keeping spots available to newcomers. Vote "yes."

Vote 'No'

Question 3: This would allow the City Council to appoint a "temporary" replacement for a council member who is called to active duty out of state for a half-year or more.

With an increasing number of National Guard and Reserve members being called to active duty in Iraq and elsewhere, this is particularly important.

Under the current system, if the vacancy is less than a year, the council selects a replacement. If the vacancy is more than a year, a special election is called.

While we respect those who choose to serve in the Guard and Reserves, we do not believe they should be entitled to "hold" their elected office indefinitely. Residents of those districts deserve to get the representation they voted for, or be given a chance to select their replacement if significant time remains. We suggest a "no" vote.

Question 4: This is a two-part amendment. The first would step up the pace of meetings of a City Charter Commission to every 10 years after a year ending in the numeral "4." Members of the commission would be appointed sometime between November of that year and the following Feb. 1.

That part makes sense and would give us a long-overdue charter commission next year.

But the second part of this amendment would allow the appointment of the members of next year's (2005) charter commission to be made by the incumbent mayor and council.

It seems only fair that the next mayor, who would be most directly impacted by the commission, should have a say in its membership. (Six members are chosen by the mayor, six by the council, with the 13th chosen by the first 12.)

Because this amendment would cut the incoming mayor out of the process, we urge a "no" vote.