Posted on: Thursday, April 28, 2005

EDITORIAL
Regent choice should be left to governor

In theory, the new system proposed by the Legislature for the selection of University of Hawai'i regents has substantial logic.

In an effort to take "politics" out of the selection process, the Legislature proposes a constitutional amendment that would create an "advisory" council to screen and nominate potential candidates. Both national and local observers have said this plan is a promising way to elevate the quality of regents and to eliminate some of the politics that has tainted UH operations in the past.

But the devil is in the details. The proposed legislation to implement the amendment makes it clear that this "advisory" council would have a strong and binding impact on who is selected to be a regent. The governor would be required to choose regents from the list submitted.

And the proposed membership of the committee, instead of being broad based and non-partisan, would be tailored to special interests and political power bases.

To some degree, the plan models the thinking that created the Judicial Selection Commission. The commission, set up following the 1978 Constitutional Convention, was supposed to get "politics" out of the selection of state judges.

But there are substantial differences between the selection of judges and regents that deserve note. The choice of judges, particularly at the district and circuit court level, should be as nonpartisan as possible.

With regents, the issue is more subtle. One would expect to see regents who are in general philosophical tune with the appointing authority. But if the implementing legislation moves forward as currently written, it has the potential to inject more, rather than less, politics into the system — politics of the wrong kind.

It surely would hamstring the governor from freely imposing policy choices on the university through selection of regents.

If this commission is properly constituted to involve a variety of voices, and if it operates in a truly advisory capacity with the goal of finding people who would serve the best interests of the university, then it makes sense.

But if it has a controlling voice in choosing our regents, and if its membership is tilted in such a way as to shortcut the governor's policy choices, it should be rejected.