Anderson, Aiona are weak
on the substantive issues
Do Anderson and Aiona have any original ideas or issues they want to convey to their constituents? If they do, I have not heard them.
Is their opposition to same-gender marriage as profound as it gets with these two? Let's face it, it's downright opportunistic to constantly be harping about this very emotional issue.
In contrast, Young and Shon have been campaigning on substantive issues, such as their plans to save the Sandy Beach coastline from development and to put more resources into our public schools.
We need to elect politicians based on their record of service and their vision for the future. Voters should not elect politicians based on their convenient support of hot-button issues.
John F. Signor
University women endorse
candidates for state BOE
Although the American Association of University Women does not endorse candidates in partisan races, the BOE race is nonpartisan.
Considering that education is a major concern in Hawaii, the Honolulu branch of AAUW decided to look at this race more closely. An endorsement committee was formed and, after the primary, an extensive questionnaire was sent out to each candidate.
The questions covered the subjects of censorship, library problems, flight from public to private schools, domestic violence, sex and AIDS education, math and science teacher shortage, teachers exit into administration and sexual harassment.
We were heartened by the responses but disappointed that, of the three incumbents running on Oahu, only Lex Brodie took the time to respond.
After studying the responses, it was decided that any of the following candidates present AAUW concerns: Anderson, Brodie, Linville, Kam and Toguchi.
Nancy Walter
President
Honolulu Branch, A.A.U.W.
Ikeda: I had nothing to do
with pushing waivers
Your story also failed to identify the amendment as originating solely with Rep. Ron Menor's House Consumer Protection Committee. I had nothing to do with that amendment. In fact, the only persons testifying in support of the changes were the Hawaii Association of Realtors, the Real Estate Commission and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Their recommendations were incorporated into the new amended bill.
Why Rep. Menor agreed to make these changes is a proper question to ask. However, to disparage me for taking advantage of this amendment, which I had no part in originating, is uncalled for.
More important, the article gives the impression that legislators exempted themselves. The bill does not exempt legislators. It allows for an exemption of a licensee who, in the commission's sole determination, is found to be a "participant in Hawaii public or community service at any time during the renewal period to which the waiver applies or eight years of such service, is involved in real estate laws."
So, the commission could rightfully determine that my years of legislative service do not constitute "public service'' or that I was "not involved in real estate'' during that period.
Thus it is not only premature to print a story falsely premised upon a determination of a state agency yet to be made, but the Star-Bulletin's actions to impugn my integrity by alluding to some conspiracy that is solely in the mind of your reporter based upon facts conclusively demonstrating the exact opposite to be true, make me question the propriety of the story and the intent behind it.
Sen. Donna R. Ikeda
Eighth Senatorial District
Menor: Opponents had
time to respond
Public records of the CPC Committee's deliberations show that concerned parties, and representatives of the real estate industry, had ample opportunity to comment. The facts are:
The bill was given a full public hearing as early as April 5, 1995.
The Real Estate Commission, which includes representatives from the real estate industry, recommended inclusion of the waiver language and offered justifications for the waiver on policy grounds.
The Hawaii Association of Realtors (HAR), which represents the real estate community, strongly supported the Real Estate Commission's recommendations.
Neither the commission nor HAR expressed any reservations. Had they done so, I would have recommended deleting the provisions.
The CPC Committee adopted the waiver based on supporting testimony. No one testified against the measure.
After the bill passed out of committee, there was still ample opportunity to comment on it.
A second reading was held on April 7 and a third reading on April 10, with all 51 House members voting aye.
A Senate-House conference committee was scheduled and publicly announced beforehand.
The Senate passed the bill April 28.
On May 1, 1995, the measure passed in final reading.
Representatives of the real estate community had 24 days to review the bill and voice concern. In addition, objections could still have been heard and responded to during this past session.
In fact, the House CPC Committee did consider a Senate bill to clarify the requirements for the waivers, at which time both the Real Estate Commission and HAR again submitted testimony. Neither asked for a repeal of the exemptions.
Now that I am aware objections do exist, serious consideration will be given to repealing the waivers during the next session.
Rep. Ron Menor
39th Representative District