Editorials
Wednesday, February 4, 1998STATE and county governments have operated for nearly a year under threat of further litigation if they dare privatize services. Legislators who last year lacked the nerve to change the law to allow privatization chose to shelve the proposed revision, assigning it for study. The studies are complete, and legislators no longer can allow this thorn to remain embedded in Hawaii's limping economy. Legislature must
permit privatizationThe state Supreme Court last March, in a suit brought by the United Public Workers led by Gary Rodrigues, invalidated the privatization of a Hawaii County landfill operation, using language that froze all state privatization efforts and county plans on neighbor islands. The ruling also posed an indirect threat to privatization of county services on Oahu. State civil service laws and merit principles, the court ruled, combined to block any move to transfer services historically performed by government workers to the private sector.
The ruling effectively prohibited Hawaii from embarking on a method used by state and municipal governments nationwide to improve efficiency and reduce the size of bureaucracies. A state that has led the nation in the cost of doing business for three years running and ranks last among states in economic, job and personal income growth can hardly afford this hindrance.
The Governor's Economic Revitalization Task Force recommended implementation of "public-private competition through a managed process," timid words for privatization. The Legislative Reference Bureau, in a comprehensive study, warns in stronger language that failure to allow privatization "has the potential to aggravate the state's already dismal economic condition." It urges the Legislature to "remove the legal cloud" created by the high court's decision "to allow for greater competition between the public and private sectors."
Mainly, the Reference Bureau says, state law needs to be changed to create flexibility without undermining Hawaii's civil service and merit system. The question is whether legislators have the backbone to make the necessary changes and incur the wrath of the government employees unions.
TO no one's surprise, Rep. Ed Case is killing his Hawaiian autonomy bill in the face of overwhelming opposition. Hawaiian organizations staged a 24-hour vigil at the state Capitol and packed a hearing on the measure last Saturday. Hawaiian autonomy
Predictably, no other legislator stood up to support Case against the onslaught. He said he conferred with other members of the Hawaiian Affairs Committee and also with Hawaiian members of the House who unanimously urged that the bill be held. The Democratic majority members of the committee agreed to hold the bill in committee "and leave the discussion of the issues at this point to the Native Hawaiian community."
That was the main objective of opponents: to say that autonomy or sovereignty is a Hawaiian issue to be decided by Hawaiians; non-Hawaiians are not welcome to join the discussion.
This view is short-sighted, because nothing can be achieved by the Hawaiians on the issue without the consent and support of non-Hawaiians, who are, after all, the vast majority of the state population. And of course there is the federal government, which would have to approve any change -- and would be unlikely to do so unless the rest of the community supported it. It would be naive to assume that non-Hawaiians would automatically endorse whatever the Hawaiians proposed.
Case's bill called for establishment of a nonprofit private trust to take over responsibilities and assets of all Hawaiian programs, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. It could make sense to consolidate these programs, but for his pains Case was unfairly called a racist and accused of interfering with the sovereignty movement.
A. "Frenchy" DeSoto, chairwoman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, said she was pleased with Case's decision and commented, "If there is a single lesson to be learned, it is that Hawaiians must be involved in decisions which affect their lives." Case certainly would agree, but he also wants non-Hawaiians to participate.
Case's main objective was not to promote one solution to the sovereignty issue but to open the door to public discussion. Hawaiian activists closed that door -- slammed it closed. But it will have to be opened someday if anything is to be changed.
IT isn't certain that the Clinton administration will launch another round of air attacks on Iraq, but Israelis are taking no chances. Fearing missile attacks, they have rushed to gas-mask distribution centers, inquired about protection from chemical and biological weapons and checked their air-raid shelters. Israelis' fears
Their fear is founded on history. During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and Haifa. Although casualties were few, hundreds of homes were destroyed. Then-President Bush prevailed on Premier Yitzhak Shamir to refrain from retaliation, of which Israel was fully capable, because Arab nations might have deserted the coalition.
This time the situation is different. Because the Arabs apparently would not participate in attacking Iraq, Israel would be free to launch its own response.
The government of President Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to play down the likelihood of Scud attacks and calm the citizenry. Netanyahu, who had previously warned that Israel was prepared for any attack, declared, "We assess that the chance of an attack by Iraq against Israel is extremely small."
However, Israelis have reason to be wary. Saddam is capable of anything, and other Arab nations have shown in the past that they would rejoice at Israel's destruction.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
