He's an effective representative

Regarding the Sept. 8 Volcanic Ash column by David Shapiro, "Be wary of the incumbents," I take personal umbrage with Mr. Shapiro's characterization and singling out of Sen. Cal Kawamoto. I applaud Clarence Nishihara's quixotic quest to unseat the 10-year veteran of the Senate Transportation Committee, but I do not recall seeing him at the Democratic Party State Convention in May.

Mr. Shapiro says, "If we can think of positive things incumbents have done for the district and the state, then fine, they deserve continued support." perhaps that is true for Sen. Kawamoto.

The sanctions that the Campaign Spending Commission placed on Sen. Kawamoto were eventually settled. He has been amply chastised and is repentful.

Sen. Kawamoto is a champion of the Filipino immigrants and World War II veterans, transportation and military affairs and does bring home the bacon.

Voting against them as a matter of principle

I'm stunned and embarrassed to be actually agreeing with David Shapiro in his Sept. 8 column, "Be wary of the incumbents." An editorialist wants to be stimulating and controversial, but being too much so can be job threatening. It's trendy to say, "Think outside the box," but you scare people when you actually do so.

In fact, most of us do not know what we are voting for, so we go with the familiar name. And even if we do know, there are no guarantees. Politicians can do a 180-degree change of mind, and practice makes perfect at lying, fudging, obfuscating, equivocating, etc.

I always vote for the one least likely to win. The one with the least money. The one with the craziest ideas. The one nobody ever heard of. I do this to, as Shapiro says, "give the benefit of the doubt to the challenger," and to counter complacency, which I see as a big obstacle to fair government. If a pot's contents aren't boiling, they're festering.

Special interests and a $1.9 million loan

Duke Bainum "loaned" his campaign $1.9 million in his run for mayor. He claims that this will allow him to put the "people's interest in front of special interests." I have a couple of questions.

First, what is a special interest? Are the labor unions that supported Bainum's campaign special interests? Is the Sierra Club a special interest? Is a "supporter" someone who endorses Bainum and a "special interest" someone who endorses his opponent?

Second, if this loan is to be repaid, Bainum will have to hold after-the-fact fund-raisers. But wait, if he's already won the election, then this is not so much a donation to his election campaign as it is some assistance to help the new mayor repay his campaign debts.

Of course, there's also the scenario where he doesn't expect his campaign to pay him back —in which case this wasn't a $1.9 million loan but a $1.9 million campaign contribution. If this is the case, why not be honest for a change and call it what it is?

Unique plant facility must be reopened

The members of Lyon Arboretum Association, a non-profit organization whose mission is to support the educational, research and outreach programs of the UH Lyon Arboretum, share the concerns of the community that this community resource is now closed to the public.

We understand the University's concern over potential health an safety issues at the Arboretum, but are hopeful that at least some portions of the Arboretum can be re-opened to the public as soon as possible.

In the meantime, the Lyon Arboretum Association is seeking a new location for its popular pre-Christmas November plant sale.

The Lyon Arboretum is a botanical gem in the heart of Honolulu. More than that, it is a repository of rare and endangered native Hawaiian plants, housing a one-of-a-kind propagation facility and seed conversation bank for some of the rarest plan species in the world, most found only in Hawai'i.

Its educational outreach programs have brought thousands of children and adults from Hawai'i and around the world a deeper awareness and appreciation for Hawai'i's natural and Native Hawaiian heritage.

We are hopeful that members of the community will work with their neighbors, our legislators and the university staff and administration to facilitate at least the partial reopening of the Lyon Arboretum as soon as possible.

Hannemann is all talk; Bainum gets it done

When it comes to the words honesty and trust, when it comes to whom do we believe to have these qualities in the mayor's race — Duke or Mufi? — if The Advertiser were to really research which of these two fits those two words, the verdict should be very clear that Duke Bainum would hands down be the only choice.

Many years ago a poll was conducted as to whom the public would respect and trust. Lawyers, politicians, teachers, nurses and physicians were at the top of the list.

Many say they walk the talk and many, too many, only talk the talk. Unfortunately, Mufi is a great talker. One only has to look at the district he represented during his short term on the City Council. Have any of our disgraceful roads from 'Aiea to Pearl City been repaved? No.

Has he improved the quality of life for residents in his district in regard to more police? No.

Does he have state government experience in the legislature? No.

Does experience count in these important areas in becoming a mayor? Yes.

I know Duke Bainum is an honest and trustworthy physician. He honorably served his constituents in the legislature and was a proven council member for two terms.

Change is inevitable if we are to improve ourselves. Duke has come to the forefront on this issue alone, but not Mufi.

Don't we want our government to be more accountable, and reduce all the problems that have plagued this present administration with regard to non-bid award tie-ins to job awards that gives us flawed work and astronomical cost overruns?

It is easy to ride the train when you can influence the train conductor. But Bainum can't be influenced. He drives straight on the tracks.

Kaneshiro has true commitment to public

Your Sept. 6 comparison of both candidates for prosecutor ("Rivals both vow to fight ice") gave a revealing insight as to the motivation and style of both men.

Incumbent Peter Carlisle wants to be re-elected because "this is good work that is worth doing, and I enjoy it."

Keith Kaneshiro, our former prosecutor, is seeking "to make a real difference against our crime and drug problems by using my extensive experience enforcing the law and protecting public safety."

In other words, Carlisle wants the job because he likes it. Kaneshiro wants to better protect our community against crime and illegal drugs.

Facts surrounding creation of Drug Court are disputed

Tom Koenig's Sept. 12 letter regarding Drug Court is such an outrageous distortion of truth that it compels my response.

First, it should be noted that Mr. Koenig was hired as a deputy prosecutor by Charles Marsland, a man he campaigned for and who I defeated in the 1988 race for prosecuting attorney. Despite his allegiance to Mr. Marsland, I retained Mr. Koenig, along with 80 percent of the deputy prosecutors hired by Marsland.

Mr. Koenig's contention that he was "removed" as the Drug Court prosecutor is blatantly false. To the contrary, he abruptly and voluntarily quit, abandoning a murder case he was assigned to take to trial. His departure left this important case at the last minute with another deputy prosecutor, who had to prepare it from scratch.

Mr. Koenig also attempts to blame the Drug Court prosecutor who succeeded him for problems in implementing Drug Court. In fact, the only complaints I received from the Drug Court were against Mr. Koenig himself.

I am disappointed with these desperate "untruths" from Mr. Koenig and his boss, Peter Carlisle, who also falsely claimed on a recent radio debate that retired Judge Marie Milks started Drug Court.

The race for prosecuting attorney should serve to educate voters on the issues of law enforcement and crime. Let's stick to the facts, not falsehoods and distortions, so voters have an honest and fair comparison of the candidate.

Council supportive of nondisclosure

This responds to your Sept. 6 editorial "Tax-break estimates must be made public," and the Sept. 2 article "Tax break estimates can be kept secret." For your information, the Council on Revenues, rather than the Department of Taxation, decided not to release the data requested by your reporter, Sean Hao.

The tax credit data requested by Mr. Hao was part of a March 2004 handout report from the Tax Research and Planning Office to members of the Council on Revenues for purposes of deliberating general fund tax revenue forecasts. While the council reviewed these data on March 10, these estimates were not officially adopted by the council on that day and are not an integral part of the forecasts.

As such, these data and forecasts are not "Council on Revenues forecasts of tax credits." In fact, in March, the council decided to retain its general fund forecast of December 2003, a forecast made when the tax credit data table was not available. Thus, releasing data not consistent with the official forecasts is simply to mislead and to confuse, rather than to inform, the public.

Contrary to your implication, the reason the council refused to release the data is not the fear of "ridicule" regarding the methodology to generate the data. In fact, we had earlier provided Mr. Hao a similar tax credit data table that was consistent with our March forecasts. As discussed in many council meetings as well as in the council's transmittals to the governor, although the council considers the tax credit forecasts provided by staff to be useful in understanding one of the many factors that affect tax collections, these forecasts are subject to a large degree of uncertainty.

The council, however, concurs with the Office of Information Practices' opinion that the non-disclosure privilege protects "against any confusion of the issues and misleading of the public that might be caused by dissemination of documents suggesting reasons and rationales that are not in fact the ultimate reasons for an agency's action."