Aloha,

This November voters are going to be asked several important questions on a variety of issues that relate both directly and indirectly to your City government.  At the forefront of this, for many of you, is the proposed amendment to the City Charter regarding the City’s fixed-guideway project.  Remember that, with respect to proposed amendments to the City Charter, only “yes” and “no” votes are counted – blank votes do not count. 

                                    CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

A second and, arguably, more important question is whether or not a Constitutional Convention (“Con-Con”) should be convened.  The State Constitution requires that this question be placed before the voters every ten years.  In very simple terms, a Con-Con consists of elected delegates tasked with a single purpose; the review and proposal of amendments to our State Constitution.  Those who oppose the convening of Con-Con argue that since the State legislature has the power to propose constitutional amendments a Con-Con is an unnecessary and expensive undertaking.  In some respects, this argument is perfectly valid, but this argument doesn’t address situations where changes are needed to the existing structure of the relationship between State and County governments. 

We must first remember that, unlike the Federal Constitution, the State constitution is an exclusive document; it dictates what powers are not reserved to the government.  As a result, the bulk of the counties’ powers are limited to what the State legislature allows.  Quite often the City finds itself unable to undertake initiatives without the direct authorization of the State legislature.  Whether or not you support this existing structure you should understand how it affects you as a City rate and taxpayer. 

                                    LAWS APPLYING ONLY TO HONOLULU

When one reads through the Hawaii Revised Statutes, there is a phrase that is often found in laws which reads along the lines of: “Except in counties where populations are greater than 500,000.”  While the State Constitution allows the legislature to enact laws to address “issues of statewide concern,” the use of this boilerplate language allows the legislature to create laws that are applicable only to the City and County of Honolulu.  If the laws which include this language are truly matters of statewide concern, why craft them to be applicable to only one county?  Quite often the use of this population-specific language bears no rational relationship to the law – it simply appears to be the legislature’s way of indirectly legislating activities within the City and County of Honolulu which would otherwise be under the control of the City & County of Honolulu.         

The most recent example was the State law which authorized the Councils of the respective counties to enact a .5% surcharge on the General Excise Tax for the funding of transportation improvement projects.  All counties, except those “with populations greater than 500,000” were authorized to enact the surcharge and expend the money for transportation improvement projects as they saw fit.  For those counties whose populations were greater than 500,000 (at the time the law was enacted) the use of those funds was greatly restricted.  So when people ask why the City doesn’t just use the surcharge proceeds for more buses, more roads, improvement of the roads or other similar projects, the answer is simple – the legislature did not allow us that degree of autonomy.  It would have been far more appropriate for the State to afford the City and County of Honolulu the same kind of discretion it allowed all the other counties – namely, using the surcharge proceeds for whatever the Council decided was the best transportation improvement project. 

The State legislature also determined how much the City should pay the State for collecting these monies – an arbitrary amount of 10%.  Considering conservative estimates put the aggregate gross total of monies collected at $2.6B (in 2006 dollars), $260M (2006 $’s) will go to the State.  I feel it would have been more appropriate for the State to simply annually bill the City for actual cost of “collecting” and remitting the surcharge proceeds.  This month I will be introducing a resolution asking the State legislature to correct this gross inequity and provide that the City pay only the real costs of collection – after all, State Law prohibits the City from charging citizens service fees greater than the actual cost of the service and I see no reason why the State should not have to operate under the same principle.  Yet this is just one example of situations that exist where the State has all but completely restricted the ability of City lawmakers and government to use monies collected from our citizens and visitors as we see best. 

It is my hope that the voters will opt to convene a Con-Con and that the counties will be given the legislative and fiscal autonomy necessary to work in the best interest of our respective citizens and visitors.  Moreover, the vestment of such would make it far easier for your elected officials to be held accountable for their actions as your representatives. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me.