Letters to the Editor


Making parents pay for kid's mistake is wrong

The bill being proposed by the City Council to have parents pay for graffiti done by their children is wrong.

The decisions made by the child are independent, and this bill will not make a significant impact on the child. If his/her parents pay the fine, there may be the tendency for the child to once again commit the same offense without a second thought.

Perhaps there are other alternatives. For instance, have the offender do community service to repay the damages, or even erase the graffiti. There should be a direct correlation between the actions done by an individual and their consequences.

I have been taught that I am responsible for my actions. I think that the individuals who spread graffiti should accept responsibility for their actions, also.

TINA TAMAYOSHI
Sacred Hearts Academy



Blanco's dual roles may be legal, but still bothersome

Diane Chang in a recent column about Joe Blanco (March 22) wrote that while Sen. Malama Solomon saw a conflict in UH Regent Blanco's serving as an executive assistant to the governor, the Hawaii State Ethics Commission did not.

The State Ethics Commission only has the authority to interpret and enforce the State Ethics Code. The conflict of interests law in the State Ethics Code only prohibits conflicts between one's official position and generally a private financial interest in a business.

Though the State Ethics Commission has stated that there is not a conflict between Blanco's serving as a regent and being employed in the governor's office, this opinion is limited to the scope of the conflicts law currently on the books.

Other individuals, including Solomon, may find Blanco's two government positions troublesome. They may even term these problems as conflicts of interests. These personal views, however, should not be confused with the State Ethics Commission's interpretation of state law.

Your readers should know that situations that are in compliance with the state's ethic laws may still be troublesome to others. The fact that the Ethics Commission interprets its laws in one way does not negate another person finding the situation to constitute a conflict of interest.

DANIEL J. MOLLWAY
Executive Director
Hawaii State Ethics Commission



Soldier showed courage in stand against U.N.

Three cheers for Army Specialist Michael New, formerly stationed in Germany. It took a lot of courage for this young soldier to stand up to the military brass and let them know that it is not legal to make American service personnel wear the uniform of a foreign government, i.e. the U.N.

I hope his actions will force us all to rethink the current misguided foreign policy thathas our troops engaging in conflicts that have nothing to do with protecting our vital interests. Michael New is right to believe that the United Nations charter is in direct conflict with the United States Constitution.

JACK O'KEEFE
Kapolei

Editor's note: This letter was signed by seven other Oahu residents.



Employers get protection from strikers' jobless claims

Your editorial, "Unemployment pay" (March 1) gives the incorrect impression that striking workers willfully use unemployment insurance benefits to finance a work action against their employers. Eligibility for unemployment benefits has always been based on involuntary joblessness. Hawaii's courts have determined that a deadlock in collective bargaining constitutes an involuntary layoff of the worker since the employer is refusing to show good faith in resolving the disagreement.

For fairness and to compensate for the fact that an employer's trust fund is charged for the cost of benefits, the court created the rule of 20 percent. That is, if the strike reduces business activity by 20 percent or more, the employer should not suffer such additional costs, and striking workers become ineligible for benefits.

It is understandable that some employers and those who oppose collective bargaining might say such a system is unfair. From a balanced point of view, however, it might also be said that it is unfair to deny a minimal livelihood to workers who are being forced to have their concerns addressed through the strike process.

LORRAINE H. AKIBA
Director
State Department of Labor
and Industrial Relations




Text Site Directory: [News] [Business] [Features] [Sports] [Editorial] [Community] [Info] [Stylebook] [Feedback]