Senators may urge
Con Con on ballot'This is simply an issue of fairness,'
By Craig Gima
says the Judiciary panel's chairman
Star-BulletinThe people, rather than legislators, should decide whether a constitutional convention should be held. That's what Senate Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley says, and that's why his committee is expected to recommend during a hearing tomorrow that the question of whether to hold a Con Con be placed on the November general election ballot.
"This is simply an issue of fairness," Chumbley said.
"This is an opportunity for the public to have a say on their document, which is the Constitution. Shall there be a constitutional convention, yes or no?"
If the measure passes the Legislature and voters approve a Con Con, the next Legislature would have two years to decide when and how a convention would be held and to appropriate money to pay for it.
A convention could be held as early as next summer, but Chumbley noted that would require a special election for delegates which could cost $3 million.
"It could be possible that the election of delegates will not take place until the general election in the year 2000," he said.
A constitutional convention may not be held until 2001, and voters may not get a chance to vote on amendments to the Constitution until 2002, Chumbley said.
"Is there anything fundamentally flawed with our Constitution that we have to do that immediately?" Chumbley asked. "The answer to that is probably no."
Labor unions, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and those in favor of same-sex marriage are expected to lobby against a constitutional convention.
Labor unions are concerned a Con Con could result in the loss of rights and benefits provided for in the state Constitution.
OHA officials are afraid that the organization could be eliminated or that entitlements will be cut, and gay-rights advocates fear a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage could be passed.
Gov. Ben Cayetano estimated a Con Con could cost $15 million and believes it is not needed. But, he said, he will not veto a measure to put it on the ballot.
Last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a state Supreme Court ruling on the 1996 Con Con vote.
Yes votes outnumbered no votes in the 1996 election.
But the Supreme Court ruled blank and torn ballots essentially count as no votes on the Con Con question.
When the blank ballots were counted, the Con Con did not pass.
Convicted to pay fee
By Craig Gima
for violence?
Star-BulletinWithout the help the state gives to victims of violent crimes, Julie Owens says she'd still be having nightmares and flashbacks of being kidnapped, beaten and stabbed by her estranged husband. Owens said the experience shattered her emotionally, physically and financially.
Money from the state Criminal Injuries Compensation Commission paid for therapy and medical expenses not covered by insurance and helped put her life back together.
The commission is funded by tax money from the state's general fund but is trying to become self-sufficient because of a cut in its operating budget.
A bill moving through the Legislature would allow judges to impose a compensation fee on all convicted defendants.
The money would go into a special fund to pay for the commission's operating expenses.
The measure was to be heard by the House Finance Committee today.
"We believe the fund should be paid for by perpetrators rather than taxpayers," said Estra Quilausing, administrator of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Commission.
But Quilausing said a House amendment to the bill, giving judges the option of not imposing the fine, could trip up the commission's first steps toward weaning itself from state funds.
"By making it discretionary, we wouldn't have the monies to become self-sufficient," she said. Quilausing said the fees must be broad-based, because the commission pays out even though the perpetrator may never be identified or prosecuted.
But House Judiciary Chairman Terrance Tom (D, Kaneohe) said no other criminal fines imposed by the court are mandatory.
"I've always supported the programs of CICC. I really do. I think its an excellent program, but I don't think showing support means changing your whole scheme of sentencing, imposition of fines and other monetary awards in order to make something mandatory when the whole scheme has been discretionary," he said.
The Judiciary also argued against making the fees mandatory.
Michael Broderick, administrative director of courts, expressed concern about increasing the number of fees that the Judiciary has to collect without increasing the resources of the court to collect the fees.
Under the bill, defendants convicted of a petty misdemeanor would pay a minimum fee of $25.
Those convicted of a misdemeanor would pay at least $50, and the fees for felonies would range from $200 to $2,500.
Quilausing said if just the minimum fee were imposed and collected, the fees could raise more than $450,000 a year for the commission.
If the fees are discretionary, the money raised would be considerably less, and Quilausing is afraid it will not be enough to allow the commission to continue its operations.
The commission's operating budget is about $244,000 a year. It will be cut in half next year and eliminated in the year 2000.
"After that we are either out of business or on our own," said Paula Chun, chairwoman of the commission, during a hearing last month.
The Legislature is also being asked to appropriate $1.187 million next year to a fund that compensates victims.
Quilausing said a combination of fees, restitution, fines, penalties and civil recoveries may eventually allow the commission to pay for both its operation and the victim's compensation fund.
Senate Judiciary Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley (D, Kihei) said even with the fees and a restitution bill moving through the Legislature, he's not sure if Hawaii's commission will be able to be entirely funded by perpetrators.
"If that's the case, a choice we need to make as a policy decision is how do we compensate victims," he said.
Senate holds hearing
By Craig Gima
on campaign reform
Star-BulletinIn politics, like in baseball, it's not over 'til it's over. Despite proposed changes in a campaign finance reform bill, Republicans say they are wary of what kind of bill will emerge when a House and Senate conference committee meets to decide whether limits on the amount of money political parties can give to a candidate will take effect this year or during the next election period.
"I'm keeping my eye on the ball, which is the original bill," said Donna Alcantara, the state Republican party chairwoman. "A lot can happen between a proposed Senate draft and the signing of the bill."
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the draft bill at 9 a.m. tomorrow. The Senate draft does not impose restrictions until after this year's gubernatorial election, while the House version would put them into effect this year.
Republicans have dubbed the House bill the "Stop Linda Lingle" bill because it would limit the amount of money Lingle and other Republican candidates can receive from the party during the upcoming election. Lingle has raised far less money than Gov. Ben Cayetano.
Supporters say it closes a so-called "soft money" loophole in campaign finance laws.
"I had hoped they (the Senate Judiciary Committee) would go with the House position," said House Speaker Joe Souki (D, Wailuku). "When you get a cancer, you don't wait until the thing spreads, you get rid of it."
The Senate is proposing the limits on the amount of money parties can give to candidates take effect next year.
The Senate proposal also adds new disclosure rules on campaign donations that would take effect during this election.
"I think it's the public's right to know where candidates are getting their money and how their campaigns are being financed particularly when you come to the last crunch periods of campaigns," said Senate Judiciary Co-Chairman Avery Chumbley (D, Kihei).
"In those last few weeks before a primary or before a general election, historically large sums of money have come into the campaigns."
The Judiciary Committee is proposing to add three new provisions to campaign finance reporting laws.
Under the Judiciary Committee proposal, candidates who receive aggregate contributions of $2,000 or more from a single donor must report the name, address, occupation and employer of the contributor within 15 days of receiving the donation.
Under present law, the first campaign finance report during an election year is not due until Aug. 25 and donations during the last two weeks of a campaign are not reported until after the election.
The Senate proposal would require candidates to notify the Campaign Spending Commission of contributions of $500 or more within 24 hours of receiving them during the last days before the election.
The Judiciary Committee is also proposing that those who make independent expenditures of more than $1,000 on behalf of a candidate make disclosures to the Campaign Spending Commission.
"Full disclosure under the existing laws is often too late for the public to make informed decisions on where the candidates are getting their money," Chumbley said.
"Sunshine is clearly the best disinfectant."
LEGISLATURE UPDATE
A calendar of tomorrow's hearings -- to be held at the state Capitol, 415 S. Beretania St., unless noted. Hearings marked with an asterisk will be aired live on Oceanic Channel 54 and TCI Cable 54:
HOUSE
Agriculture: Decision-making on resolution requesting establishment of a task force on importation of microorganisms for research and commercial use. Hearing on resolutions requesting a plan concerning water bird management on Kauai and requesting plan to suppress the gorse shrub. Decision-making to follow, 9:30 a.m., Room 423.
SENATE
making to follow, 1:30 p.m. Decision-making at 1:45 p.m. on gubernatorial nominees Frederick R. Warshauer and Marie Patricia Morin to the Endangered Species Recovery Committee, Room 225.
