SOMEONE UP THERE IS LISTENING

SOMEONE UP THERE IS LISTENING: The mockery of ethics that is the Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE- just click the link for our coverage of their many foibles) has been a source of laughs-o-plenty for those like us who have a perverse sense of humor.

But that could end- or at least be curtained- if a bill in the state legislature, set for a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday, 2/1/11) at 2 p.m., passes this year.

County ethics board members are selected, not for their sense of ethical stridency but, often for being so personally conflicted that their decisions have to apply to themselves, necessitating twisted logic in clearing county officials and employees even when a child could see the ethical violations.

And of course they are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council- the very people upon whom they could potentially sit in judgment.

That would change if House Bill HB468 becomes law.

In proposing the law the bill explains that”

Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii provides in pertinent part: "Ethics commissioners shall be selected in a manner which assures their independence and impartiality." Each member of the state ethics commission is appointed by the governor from a list of two persons nominated by the judicial council. The Hawaii supreme court appoints members of the judicial council, which does not include legislators. In contrast, members of the Honolulu ethics commission are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Honolulu city council, both of which are subject to oversight by the county ethics commission.

The legislature further finds that, in order to effectuate article XIV of the Hawaii State Constitution, the process for selecting members of county ethics commissions should not involve persons who are subject to regulation by ethics commissions.

The purpose of this Act is to provide standards for the selection of county ethics commissioners to ensure their impartiality and independence.

The bill “provides standards for the selection of county ethics commission members to ensure their impartiality and independence” by creating an independent body to select BOE nominees.

It proposes amending Chapter 46 of Hawaii Revised Statutes to say

(a) Each county shall cause to be adopted a charter amendment for the creation of an independent body that shall select members of the county ethics commission. Members of the independent body shall not be subject to confirmation by the county legislative body and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the ethics commission of their county. To ensure minimal involvement in the process by persons over which the commission has oversight, members of each county ethics commission shall be appointed:

(1) From a list of nominees selected by the independent body; or

(2) In accordance with comparable alternative selection methods as provided by county ordinance.

(b) Each county shall have a selection process in place that meets the criteria for any appointment made after the effective date of this part.

It also includes criteria for the independent body to use in their selections:

Character of county ethics commissioners. A county ethics commissioner shall be selected on the basis of integrity, impartiality, and independence, as reflected by, among other things, the background and experiences of the person and the absence of potential conflicts of interest; provided that county ordinance may provide for additional criteria.

While it won’t change who ultimately selects the board members- it’s kind of hard or even impossible to have appointment processes that fully omit elected officials- it will make the list of prospective nominees subject to public scrutiny and independent selection.

We are kind of concerned about the line that provides for a “comparable alternative selection methods as provided by county ordinance” and would like to see it, if not deleted, at least clarified so as to make it clear what “comparable” means.

Please take the time to send testimony even if it’s just one line saying “I support this bill.” Though you may not think so, they really do listen sometimes. And they certainly won’t if no one sends in any testimony.

Time is of the essence. Testimony should be emailed to JUDtestimony@capitol.hawaii.gov

Use the subject line: Testimony on HB 468, 2/1/11, 2 p.m., JUD Committee hearing

As with all House testimony make sure you include:
The testifier's name with position/title and organization;
The committee the comments are directed to;
The date and time of the hearing;
The measure number.

Few have forgotten the BOE and the KC Lum fiasco where a complaint by the chair of the council was used to railroad a police commissioner resulting in Lum’s departure.

And many remember what happened to Rolf Bieber who was refused re-appointment after trying to bring some ethical standards to the BOE.

Although this bill won’t solve all the problems with the BOE it would strengthen the independence of the board members and provide for public input on the selection as well as set standards for the independent body to use in their picks.

The companion Senate Bill SB214, has not yet scheduled for a hearing.

Also on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting are two other bills of note that we whole-heartedly support.

HB 638 (Status) Relating To Elections:
Provides for instant runoff voting for all elections in which no primary election is held; authorizes the chief election officer or the county clerk to use the instant runoff voting method in special elections that would normally require a separate runoff election if no candidate received a majority of votes.

And one more, near and dear to our heart.

HB 640 (Status) Relating To Public Agency Meetings
Requires any action taken in an executive meeting be reported when the board reconvenes at the open meeting.

Testimony on these two can go to the same address, substituting the bill number in the subject line.

PRETTY RANK

PRETTY RANK: Hear that sound? It’s the roar of poll-addled 1st congregational district Democratic progressives falling over each other to abandon Colleen Hanabusa in favor of Ed Case so as to make sure Republican Charles Djou doesn’t win the special election to place their butts in now gubernatorial candidate Neil Abercrombie’s former U.S. House seat.

Yet apparently most of them are dragging themselves with a knife to their own throats a la Cleavon Little’s “nobody move or the sheriff gets it” scene in Blazing Saddles, bemoaning how they are forced to vote for a pseudo-Democratic DINO because, not just are they good little democrats but due to a series of circumstances that have conspired to force them to acquiesce to their own threats upon themselves.

In case you haven’t seen the polls- and why should you read them if you don’t live in “urban” Honolulu?- two polls, one by local news outlets and another by the Democratic National Committee have shown the two Democrats splitting the vote in the winner-take-all, special-mail-in election show Case with either a six or 14 point lead over Hanabusa respectively.

Even the usually politically astute blogger reporter and sometimes political staffer Ian Lind headlined a piece yesterday entitled 1st District–If Hanabusa can’t win, I would prefer Ed Case over Djou.

The forty comments that followed typify those in other articles and popular political blogs, blaming and bemoaning Neil Abercrombie for resigning, the winner take all election, the outside influences and money and any of a dozen targets.

Even President Obama is playing the game taping a robo-phone-call message that, although it doesn’t specifically mention Case, reminds voters not too subtly that he needs a Democrat in the seat implying “so vote for someone who can win”.

The one target for blame the Democrats leave out is of course themselves.

For many years third party and independent candidates have been given the shaft by the very election laws passed by the duopolists with Democrats and Republicans who can’t agree on anything except the fact that they’ve got a good thing going in playing salugi
with the votes of anyone not willing to play the game by their “heads I win, tails you lose” rules.

It’s not like a solution to the vagaries of plurality-based, on-and-off elections like these congressional fill-ins and “top two” non-partisan elections- the type we have in local elections non-partisan balloting in Hawai`i, where if no one gets 50% in the September “primaries” the top two vote-getters go to a November runoff- hasn’t been suggested to them for many years.

It’s called ranked choice or Instant Runoff Elections (IRV) and while it’s not quite sweeping the nation it’s gaining ground, especially in California where, while the state parties go back and forth between open and closed primaries, it’s the way many local jurisdictions including San Francisco hold their elections.

Here’s how it works in a 100 word explanation we’ve kept filed away for a decade now.

Each voter has one vote, and ranks candidates in order of choice (1, 2, 3, etc.). The counting of ballots simulates a series of run-off elections. All first choices are counted, and if no candidate wins a majority of first choices, then the last place candidate (candidate with the least first-choices) is eliminated. Ballots of voters who ranked the eliminated candidate first then are redistributed to their next-choice candidates, as indicated on each voter’s ballot. Last place candidates are successively eliminated and ballots are redistributed to next choices until one candidate remains or a candidate gains over 50% of votes.

It not only allows the voters to vote for whomever they want without playing the “I’d better go with the crowd to make my vote ‘count’” game- one we gave up years ago refusing to play the “spoiler” game- it allows them instead to pick the candidate they really want to see in office because if their candidate is eliminated their “next best” vote counts, thus avoiding the dizzying self-fulfilling prophesy of bandwagoning.

Is there anyone out there- other than a party boss- who wouldn’t rather vote for the candidate they like most while not having to fear electing the one they like least?

Not only does IRV make for a fairer election it also saves the cost of a top two runoff.

It also has a sister ranked choice system called Single Transferable Voting (STV) which allows for a similar- though a little more complicated-to-compile- ranking system for multiple seat elections such as the seven at large councilmember elections on Kaua`i.

If the Democrats do lose the special 1st CD they will have no one to blame but themselves for ignoring IRV lo these many years until it’s finally come around to bite them in the ass.

And if it does and Republican Djou wins they’ll probably still be pointing fingers rather than using their vast advantage in the legislature and county councils to pass new voting procedures that insure that it’s the voters who determine who wins, not the parties.

-------

For those who have turned to Peer News’ new Civil Beat and found out you have to shell out $20 bucks a month and a pay pals account to “enter”- although there is a one dollar 15 day trial offer now- and have given up since the “news” articles are unavailable after their official launch yesterday, we’ve got a couple of links to news stories courtesy of former local newspaper reporter extraordinaire Mike Levine who is covering land use there.
Honolulu Civil Beat — First Edition!: http://bit.ly/aaMeoS

Nonprofits Can't Escape GET, Despite "Tax-Exempt" Status: http://bit.ly/aoMFt1

Six Years After Plan, Homeless Problem Even Worse: http://bit.ly/dox96k

Are Honolulu Rail Job Projections On the Right Track?: http://bit.ly/9xBI40

Mike does promise neighbor island news including Kaua`i in the future

-------

We’re off “on assignment” as they say and will be back Monday.