Posted on: Sunday, March 6, 2005

ISLAND VOICES

By Patricia Saiki

As a member of the 1968 Constitutional Convention, it was an honor to help write our state's first constitution since statehood. At the time, Democrat John A. Burns was governor and the Convention elected Hebden Porteus, a Republican, to be its chairman.

The Convention selected committee chairs with no partisanship involved, and everyone was committed and dedicated to create the best document on behalf of the people of our great state.

It was based on the concept that because the Neighbor Island counties are separated by water with different financial bases, a truly strong centralized government would be preferred with a strong governor at its helm. This would ensure efficiency and fairness in dealing with the many and disparate needs of the state. This strong governorship is the envy of the other states in the union where the leader is sometimes a mere figurehead without the authority and the means to effectuate change.

A strong governorship also means accountability and the people can point the finger at who is responsible if things don't work out. It didn't matter then, as it should not matter now, which political party held the office. The governor should have all the powers that go along with the office.

It has now come to my attention that for whatever reason — partisanship, jealousy, pique or frustration — the Democrat majority in the Legislature is bent on attempting to take control of the government by amending the state Constitution and changing the laws to restrict the authority of the governor.

There are bills that prohibit the transfer of funds between state programs and agencies without the approval of the Legislature, limits put on the governor's ability to restrict or withhold funds already budgeted and appropriated without a public hearing, and a bill to ignore the governor and the finance director when it comes to the use of federal funds are all designed to weaken the powers of the governorship and make decision-making more cumbersome.

The authority to make appointments is basic to the role of the governor. The governor sets the direction of the state, and much depends on the quality of the choices made. The Senate, under the state constitution, has the right to advise and consent and is a player if it chooses to be.

The attempts to amend the constitution range from creating advisory councils to select candidates to the Board of Regents (the recommendations limit the governor to the choices made), to the creation of a separate Board of Regents for the UH Community Colleges along with a selection commission. Another constitutional amendment provides for the election of Supreme Court justices, and another for the election of the attorney general.

The most onerous measures introduced are blatant attempts to control executive communications. Some require all executive orders to be sent to the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House. There is even a bill requiring legislative approval before the Department of Human Services can seek a Medicaid waiver.

Having served a total of 14 years in the state Legislature, two terms in the U.S Congress with a total of 24 years in state and federal governments, I am not naive as to the reasons for the introduction of these measures. Some are "Look, we're here and want your attention" bills; others are seeking sincere changes and want honest discussion.

Most of the measures will not pass, but the public must be aware of what the ones that do pass can do to our government and to our state constitution. Having a popular Republican governor must irritate and gnaw at the hearts of my Democrat friends, but, hopefully, their reason for getting elected — the promise of honesty and integrity — will prevail as the session progresses.