Voters should look closely at amendments

For Honolulu voters already fatigued by this election season, the general election ballot will provide no relief. And we’re not talking about Clinton and Trump.

Perhaps the most daunting challenge voters will face are 20 proposed amendments to the Honolulu City Charter — yes-or-no questions, some straightforward, some impenetrable, culled from 154 proposals given to the Honolulu Charter Commission.

It will be tempting to skip over them. Don’t.

Tucked away in those questions are proposals for significant changes to the city’s primary governing document that will affect how Honolulu is managed for at least the next 10 years.

Voters will need to do their research. One good place to look is honoluluchartercommission.org. In the meantime, between now and the election we will offer our analysis and recommendations of some of the more important proposals.

>> Amendment No. 9: Establishes a Honolulu Zoo Fund containing a minimum of one-half of 1 percent of estimated annual real property taxes.

This proposal addresses the major reason the zoo lost its accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums last March: A lack of consistent funding.

The zoo has long struggled with lack of resources and a revolving door of executive leadership; losing its accreditation only exacerbates the problem.

A zoo without accreditation can lose access to important resources, including the ability to breed and bring in animals from elsewhere. An organization that cares for living animals, including exotic species needing specialized treatment, can’t live hand-to-mouth.

While the fund won’t solve all the zoo’s problems, it will clear up a major one. And if the zoo can’t regain its accreditation by July 1, 2023, the fund would be repealed. Vote yes.

>> No. 15: Increases the term limit from two to three terms for the mayor and City Council; establishes a three-term limit for city prosecutor.

Right now there is no term limit for prosecutor, and the mayor and Council members are held to two four-year terms. Proponents argue that it takes longer than two terms for political leaders to overcome the learning curve and reach peak effectiveness. Continuity on major initiatives would be improved.

However, longer terms also would lead to more entrenched incumbents, supported by special interests that would gain even more influence and power over the city’s growth and development.

It’s good to shake up the leadership at Honolulu Hale on a regular basis. It’s only unfortunate that voters can’t choose to impose a term limit on the prosecutor separately. Vote no.

>> No. 13: Establishes the Grants in Aid Fund as the sole source of city-funded grants for most federal income tax-exempt nonprofit organizations.

The fund, through its advisory commission, provides grants to worthy organizations based on objective criteria that apply to all applicants.

This amendment is a good-government initiative that attempts to eliminate the dubious practice of city agencies or City Council members directing money to favored organizations while skirting the fund’s formal vetting process. The Council can still exercise its spending authority by deciding which of the commission’s recommendations to approve. But the amendment will curb the ability of government officials to promote themselves or buy political support with taxpayer money. Vote yes.

>> No. 7: Establishes an Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency as a way to promote environmentally sound practices.

Yes, the city should be promoting sustainability and stewardship of our natural resources as much as it can. However, using the City Charter to create another agency, particularly an office with no clearly defined duties, seems unwise.

City officials should be able to advance the same goals by simply incorporating the values of sustainability into their policies and planning.

Vote no.