Editorial: Term limits for city prosecutor

Oahu voters should take heed of these instructions when filling out their ballots: “Vote both sides.”

On the other side of the ballot are four proposed amendments to the Honolulu City Charter. They would set term limits for the Honolulu prosecutor, establish a commission to advise the city on matters affecting youth, and give greater autonomy to the Honolulu Ethics Commission.

We recommend voters choose yes for all four.

The first proposed amendment would limit the city prosecutor’s term to two consecutive full four-year terms, similar to the mayor and City Council members. This one is a no-brainer.

For nearly 40 years, Honolulu has had only three prosecutors — Charles Marsland, Peter Carlisle and Keith Kaneshiro. Incumbency had its advantages, especially in this below-the-radar office, and voters chose the names they knew.

But it should be obvious by now that leadership in this office needs to be refreshed from time to time.

The current elected prosecutor, Kaneshiro, has been on paid leave since March 2019 because he is a target of a federal corruption investigation. Definitely not good for the city’s top law enforcement officer. Fortunately, he’s not seeking re-election.

The two candidates who would succeed him, Steve Alm and Megan Kau, have run robust, refreshing campaigns promising to reform and revitalize the Prosecutor’s Office. They have properly brought the role of the office out of the shadows and into the sphere of public debate, where it belongs.

The purpose of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney isn’t just to convict and punish criminals. It’s to seek justice, as its website says. Yes, justice can mean going after the bad guys. It also can mean seeking rehabilitation instead of incarceration; choosing not to charge certain cases; and providing more accountability and open honesty regarding the department’s operations. The latter was sorely lacking with Kaneshiro and former deputy prosecutor Katherine Kealoha; she was put in federal custody after being convicted of conspiracy and obstruction charges.

Term limits means more candidates campaigning for the office, keeping these important policy issues in the realm of public discourse.

Proposed amendment questions 3 and 4 ask the public to vote on giving the Honolulu Ethics Commission more control over its budget and staffing. The commission plays an important role, serving as the public’s watchdog over ethical behavior in government. Amendment question 3 asks if the commission should have control over its own budget, after approval by the City Council. This makes sense; the commission needs to be able to act more independently. Currently, the commission’s budget is controlled by the city’s Department of Corporation Counsel, which represents the mayor, City Council and city employees — the very people who may come under scrutiny by the commission for ethics violations.

The other amendment would free the commission from the rigors of the city’s job classification specification plan — giving it flexibility to describe positions, hire and retain specialized staff — as well as set salaries, within limits. While it’s not yet clear how this would affect the commission’s operations, the specialized nature of its work warrants such flexibility.

Finally, amendment question 2 asks voters to allow the establishment of a Youth Commission to advise city officials on issues concerning children and youth. The commission would comprise 15 members, ranging in age from 14 to 24, with two-year terms. It’s a good idea; too often the opinions of youth are given token attention, if that. A formal body could amplify the emerging voices of our islands’ future leaders.