City Charter change would lock grip of political elites
Oahu voters next month may be deciding not only who will lead the city for the next four years, but also for the following four years through 2024.
That’s because of controversial proposed City Charter amendment No. 15, which would perpetuate our political elite by extending term limits for City Council members and mayor from two consecutive four-year terms to three.
It’s a bad idea that was resoundingly rejected by voters when term limit changes were last put on the ballot in 2006.
Looser term limits lock in the game of musical chairs in which entrenched politicians sitting on fat special-interest bankrolls shuttle back and forth between the City Council and state Legislature, with little opportunity for newcomers.
Five of nine current Council members are former state legislators, and a like number of legislators are former Council members.
Rep. Romy Cachola and Sen. Donna Mercado Kim bounced from the Legislature to the Council and back to the Legislature when they hit term limits.
Proponents of Charter amendment No. 15, championed by City Council-appointed members of the Charter Commission, claim it’s about improving continuity in city government, but that’s laughable with today’s dysfunction at Honolulu Hale.
The mayor and Council are political competitors more than collaborators for a better Honolulu, battling fiercely over everything from rail to homelessness to community grants, with little being accomplished.
Do we need continuity of such futility, or do we need fresh thinking focused on solid solutions instead of tired political games? The best chance of electoral competition, for Council seats especially, is when incumbents hit term limits.
This amendment is about career continuity for professional politicians: If it passes, the four Council members assured of re-election this year get at least one more gift term, as do the five members running in 2018.
It greatly benefits Council Chairman Ernie Martin, who ducked running for mayor this year and hinted at a 2020 run instead.
If the Charter amendment passes, he’d be spared unemployment for two years with his 2018 term limit gone “poof.”
Mayor Kirk Caldwell can’t be blamed for Charter amendment No. 15, as three of his Charter Commission appointees voted against it, but he could benefit politically the same as Martin.
Caldwell once had ideas of running for governor in 2018 when Gov. Neil Abercrombie would have hit his term limit, but after Gov. David Ige upset Abercrombie, he wouldn’t see an open seat until 2022.
Assuming he gets by Charles Djou this year, a bonus mayoral term would keep him visible if he still has designs on Washington Place.
Eighty percent of Honolulu voters had it right when they enacted term limits in 1992 to discourage such entrenchment, and it would be a mistake now to make city elected office even more of a closed shop.
Reach David Shapiro at volcanicash@gmail.com.
38 responses to “City Charter change would lock grip of political elites”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Right on Mr. Shapiro! You hit it out of the park on this one!
Does this mean Ann Kobayashi will be on the City Council for another 20 years?
They’ll just stuff her and mount her head to the wall of the council chamber
Ha!
Bt Caldwell will be Mayor for life.
Now, if the amendment would LIMIT the terms, that would be a good idea. Also, allow State gambling and legalize pot would help our incarceration problem. Trump says they should both take a drug test before their debate–I think all politicians should be drug tested before taking office.
What drugs are you testing for?
Proponents…claim it’s about improving continuity in city government…
Continuity is the problem, whether it’s in local or national office (especially the Congress). If these politicians want lifetime tenure, they should pursue the civil service bureaucracy route, not elected positions.
The current administration is not finished with their creation of a Gotham-like city. Dark and seedy is on the horizons! Makes for some great fiction writing…….
City and State of Hawaii should be one administration. We do not need those two constructions fleecing taxpayers with duplicating stuff.
Yes, let’s have lifetime officer holders by all means. BTW, what happened to the idea that politicians would not take advantage of Charter changes made during their terms.
Caldwell wants to be mayor forever especially since he cut a deal with Ige. Trash this charter amendment or regret it later.
A
M
E
N
Why aren’t these proposed City Charter changes better publicized? The SA should be running a daily voter educational series, to help the voters to better understand these charter proposals.
Agreed. One opportunity to learn more is a forum which will be held at the Waikiki Community Center Thursday morning at 10 a.m. to noon. Commissioner Waihee and I will discuss the proposed amendments and the process used to create them.
and, you should have received a mailer from the city. the pamphlet explains each charter proposal and provides a sheet to record your preference to take with you into the ballot.
I never received anything
It’s available here – http://honoluluchartercommission.org/.
The pamphlet says almost nothing. It doesn’t discuss pros and cons.
The SA will publish a voters’ guide weeks after absentee ballots are sent out. They do that all the time.
This is SCARY in so many ways.
The people of HNL cannot be duped by the fancy lawyerspeak writing of this amendment to confuse when it comes time to vote NO on #15!
NO on 15 and
NO to a second, much less THIRD term for mayor KROOKWELL
#20: no. section (a) would make all books and records of all city departments open to the public.
there is no exemption for the police department records of reports in open unsolved cases and juvenile arrest records.
#7 and #8: no. section 7 creates a new city office of climate change, sustainability and resiliency. section 8 creates a new department of land management responsible for the protection, development and management of city lands.
no to any new office or department that would siphon off $1 million at least each year from the city’s already strained budget which means higher taxes for residents of oahu. no to more bureaucracy.
Actually, #20a would bring the county law in line with the state law. It does not go beyond what the state requires.
“section (a) would make “all books and records of all city departments open to the public.”
the charter amendment does indeed go beyond state law by making “all books and records of all city departments open to the public.”
the city is already required by state law to provide information to the public. state law does articulate exemptions, the amendment has none.
since public access to city books and records is already informed by state law, amendment #20 is redundant and not needed. vote no.
Thats $1 million EACH!
Hey I like term limits, let’s get them at the federal level too. We have them for the president why not for congress? Let’s go senators, pass a term limit bill for all of congress.
Never! Never! Never! They ake too much money for not much work.
#6 Yes
Rest: No
#1 yes – makes it clear when the police chief may be suspended or fired and lowers the bar to do so
#2 yes – it allows the ethics commission to set staff attorney fees that are comparable to other city attorney salaries
#13 yes – it will disallow the council from putting grants in the budget that have not been vetted.
The problem with the 2016 Charter Amendments is that there are too many of them this election year. Charter Amendment #15 is buried deep among the 20 proposed amendments. Unless one sifts through each one thoroughly beforehand, the inclination is to just ignore them in totality. Of course, this sets up the chance of amendment 15 being passed if self serving individuals mark “yes” in mass. Why were so many amendments proposed this time? Was it to mask the unfavorable ones within the total?
Good question.
Term limits are an affront on democracy. Rather than the general population deciding on who will lead the government, government itself says who is to run. Makes zero sense. What I would like see happen is a lively and active press that covers various candidates in detail. Sadly we don’t have that so exactly is what is to be accomplished by having term limits? Nothing except Meet the New Boss, same as the old boss….
One term is too many for most to these characters
I have been extremely disappointed with the city council, term limits need to stay in place. Now we just need to vote in people who are nit self serving.
That is an impossible request.
Cannot think of anything worse than “continuity of government”, as they say. Professional slackers – YIKES!
just say NO to all amendments. its that easy.
This is just the beginning!