2000-03-25 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

minutes 03-25-00Page 13 of 34 RAY: I just want to reiterate that this doesn’t change anything that is existing, these two proposals. It just clarifies. It doesn’t make any change in terms of the jurisdiction. I mean we could just as easily not put these in, but we’re trying to responsibly reflect reality, so that’s also something we’re dealing with. Okay, Keiko. IRVINE: Could I ask a question, John, of our Council? We would have to take all of the powers away from the Planning Commission and make them strictly advisory if we wanted them not to have this Coastal Zone Management power, is that correct? YUEN: That’s correct, yes. IRVINE: Thank you. RAY: Okay. Keiko Bonk. BONK: Good morning Charter Commission members. I’m Keiko Bonk, here today representing myself. I’d like to thank you all for the time to speak. I’m here today because this Commission is proposing a series of frightening Charter Amendments which, I believe, are designed to show up the crumbling system of political control that has become known as the ‘old boys system of big money politics’. These amendments that I’m concerned with would make it harder for the general public to participate in government, and reduce the accountability of elected officials. Here’s how. The biggest obstacle to participation in our political system today is the cost of running for office. The cost continues to go up, making it harder and harder for ordinary citizens to get elected. To serve your community as an elected official, you must become a full time professional fundraiser. For instance, our current Mayor had to raise almost $11,000 every month of every year of his first four-year term to get elected to a second term. That means over a half a million dollars, $534,000 or so to be more accurate. Amendment number 2 calls for the creation of three island-wide Council seats. This amendment would turn back the clock and halt the progress that has been made since 1990, when the voters approved district races. Specifically, it would make it impossible for reform oriented politicians, whether they’re Green, Democrat, or Republicans, who are not indebted to the ‘old boys’ style of politics, to ever gain a majority on the Council because they won’t be able to afford to participate in the $11,000 a month campaign funding game. I’m against Amendment 2 for this reason. It would take us back a decade, back to a style of politics which wouldn’t have allowed people like myself, or Curtis Tyler, or Julie Jacobson, or Nancy Pisicchio, or Dominic Yagong, to ever run on this island. Amendment number 10. I’m against Amendment number 10, which would give the Planning Commission, a body appointed by the Mayor, the power to, quote, enact rules and regulations having the force and effect of law. Laws are supposed to be passed by the elected Legislative Branch of our government, i.e. the Council, not appointed officials. I’m adamantly opposed to this Amendment number 10. As it is right now, the Planning Commission has powers which I don’t think they should have. They have the power, for instance, to decide on large land use decisions, for instance, determining where golf courses are going to be, and also being able to permit things called special kinds of lodges, which actually can be rather large, almost hotel-like, structures. In other words, they could put together by special permitting already, major developments without any of us, other people in the government process, the Council for example, getting involved in the procedure. If anything, this body should be an advisory only body, if you want to make an amendment. Amendment number 6 gives similar powers to the Department of Public Works, none of whom are elected. Giving elected powers to appointed bodies, as I mentioned just prior to this, is not a good policy. Amendment number 1 calls for switching to non-partisan elections, which would significantly increase the cost of running for office. Rather than running one limited Primary Election and one full scale General Election, most elections would require two full scale elections. For those who are part of the ‘old boy system’, this is a rather good thing. For those who aren’t, it means they will be shut out. It also means that candidates will have even less contact with the grass roots. Contrary to the popular belief, political parties have been a giant thorn in the side of the ‘old boys’ for decades. The rank and file of most political parties are more progressive than most of the candidates. If you don’t believe me, read the platforms written by the members, not the politicians. The ‘old boy’ politicians have to use up enormous resources to maintain control of parties, often having to compromise on issues they would rather simply avoid. In non-partisan races, candidates can more easily avoid hard subjects, or even outright lie, because there’s no one that they are obligated to trying to hold them accountable to a platform. If you think our Council has problems, try looking at the non-partisan Councils in this state, or for that matter, around the country. On Oahu, three of the Council members are in trouble with the law. As many problems as we have, we have a higher voter turnout and participation than the vast majority of the country, especially when compared to non-partisan races. Non- partisan races reduce the seriousness of political discussion, encourage short-term thinking, and reduce the amount of citizen input into the electoral process by turning elections into media-driven, personality based, popularity contests. Under the file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-25-00.html7/1/2011