City Charter amendments might not carry the foundational gravity of state Constitution changes, but issues in play are typically hot topics that impact the day-to-day lives of Oahu residents. This year’s four Charter questions on the ballot touch on topical, often contentious, matters. With the exception of one, the proposed amendments are clear-cut and straight-forward (passage requires a simple majority vote, so blank and over votes don’t factor in).
Question No. 1 involves funding for climate-change response efforts, and deserves a “yes” vote.
It asks, in part: “Shall the Revised City Charter be amended to require that the City Council appropriate, without having to simultaneously increase real property tax rates to fund the appropriation, one-half of one percent of the City’s estimated real property tax revenues in each fiscal year’s budget and capital program, to be deposited into a Climate Resiliency Fund … ?”
Honolulu must have preparations in place for climate emergencies and the insipid crawl of changing conditions. As the state’s main economic engine, thanks in no small part to tourism, city stakeholders have a duty to bolster infrastructure, design mitigation strategies and establish fallout safeguards aimed at protecting critical assets.
Oahu is already grappling with fallout from rising seas — North Shore houses are in distress and Waikiki Beach facilities are in disrepair. Illustrating the perilous threat to isle residents, the Federal Emergency Management Agency recently remapped flood zones that bring more properties into the high-risk fold.
A conservative appropriation from estimated real property tax revenues is justified in this endeavor.
Question No. 2 aims to create a standalone Department of Emergency Management (DEM) not under the mayor’s purview, asking in part:
“Shall the Revised City Charter be amended to establish the Department of Emergency Management as an independent agency of the City Executive Branch by assigning the Department of Emergency Management a separate chapter in the City Charter similar to the chapters assigned to all other City departments … ?”
The Maui Emergency Management Agency’s (MEMA’s) disastrous response to last year’s Lahaina wildfire, which consumed nearly 3,000 structures and killed 102 people, prompts a closer look at Oahu’s ability to handle similar devastating crises. Enacting qualification requirements for agency leaders and other personnel, as part of this question proposes, would seem to be essential, and should already be in place as a matter of the appointment process — but breaking out DEM into its own entity gives pause.
Lahaina threw a spotlight on the shortcomings of an entrenched agency reliant on inexperienced officials. But DEM is not MEMA. Called the Oahu Civil Defense Agency until a 2007 Charter revision, DEM has proved capable of handling emergencies as a dependent agency under mayoral oversight. Establishing a new chapter in the City Charter invites unwarranted expense and risk of losing transparency into agency operations. Because the existing structure is working, voters should say “no” to this amendment.
Question No. 3 aims: “Shall the Revised City Charter be amended to establish an Ocean Safety Commission to review and make recommendations on certain activities of the Department of Ocean Safety and to appoint and remove the Chief of Ocean Safety?” The answer here is “yes.”
Upheaval in the lead-up to the creation of Honolulu’s new Department of Ocean Safety stresses the importance of a dedicated commission, which would prove effective guardrails while further insulating the agency from outside tampering. Prior to the department’s establishment, then-Ocean Safety chief John Titchen spoke loudly in favor of a commission before being unceremoniously suspended for reasons that are still not clear.
Further, a standalone commission offers oversight, public accountability and transparency benefits, similar to other city agencies such as the Honolulu Police Department.
Question No. 4 tackles the hot-button issue of Honolulu City Council members’ salary increases: “Shall the Revised City Charter provisions relating to the salaries for Councilmembers be amended to cap any annual increase at no more than five percent, require that any changes be tied to the average annual salary changes of city employees in the City’s collective bargaining units, and remove the Council’s authority to vote on its own raises?”
At first blush, the proposal appears to solve the controversial issue of exorbitant City Council pay increases. Delving deeper into the amendment’s language, however, divulges a virtually guaranteed annual salary increase for Council members without any accountability — a poison pill.
Using city employees’ wage hikes as guidance for Council raises is reasonable, but tying the two — meaning Council salaries will increase whenever employees receive a pay bump — is unacceptable. Under the proposed change, Council members will no longer be able to vote on their own raises, even to reject them, thereby relinquishing public accountability; that’s also undesirable.
A 5% pay cap is welcome — given the whopping 64% raise the Council got last year — but not at the expense of compulsory raises. Vote “no” and push for a more sustainable solution in 2026.
For more information on this year’s charter amendment questions, visit www8.honolulu.gov/elections/city-charter-info Opens in a new tab.
———
ON FRIDAY: Endorsements for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees.
