[ OUR OPINION ]

If budget is flawed,
mayor should fix it

THE ISSUE Mayor Harris has said he will let the city budget pass without his signature even though he thinks it is an illegal document.

IF Mayor Harris believes the budget the City Council has approved is illegal and vulnerable to lawsuits, he has a duty to seek remedy, not so much to prove his point, but to protect taxpayers. If he is merely firing another volley in a protracted war of words with the Council -- and its budget chairwoman in particular -- he does a disservice to residents by casting a cloud over the legislative budget process.

Harris last week allowed most of the $1.2 billion operating budget to become law without anointing it with his signature, contending that the Council stepped into his territory when it transferred jobs and salaries from one city department to another and created new positions. He was backed by Corporation Counsel David Arakawa, who also would not sign off on the budget, saying he had been unable to certify it as a legal document.

The mayor, who earlier had threatened to take the Council to court, said he chose not to do so to avoid disrupting city operations and a potentially costly legal battle. However, Harris maintained that the problems with the budget leave the city open to legal challenges from taxpayers, city workers and others.

"There's nothing to stop that. Virtually any taxpayer can sue," Harris said, seeming to invite action that could result in a chaotic mess.

A reading of the City Charter indicates the mayor and his legal eagles may be correct in their assertion that the Council exceeded its authority. To get around the problem, Harris said he simply will not enact the transfers and the new positions.

Nonetheless, the charter states that Harris, as the city's chief executive officer, must "enforce the provisions of this charter, the ordinances of the city and all applicable laws." If he believes the budget is flawed or illegal, he is required to take corrective action. By leaving the door open for others to challenge the Council's acts, Harris courts a situation that could place city functions in disarray.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Restore civil liberties
choked by Patriot Act

THE ISSUE The City Council has voted in favor of a resolution joining the state Legislature in calling for repeal of the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

AS the Honolulu City Council was giving preliminary approval to a resolution calling for Hawaii's congressional delegation to vote for repeal of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft was calling on the press and television to dispel fears about the antiterrorism law. He asked for the media's help "in portraying accurately the U.S.A. Patriot Act." Ashcroft's own soothing description of the law requires that the media do so.

The Patriot Act, enacted only six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, broadened the federal government's ability to spy on American citizens. For example, it allows the FBI to force doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities and Internet service providers to reveal records of their patients or clients.

However, Ashcroft told a group of editors, publishers and television executives, it "simply does not allow federal law enforcement free or unfettered access to local libraries, bookstores or other businesses." Such search warrants must be approved by a judge, he explained. He did not mention that authorities are not required to show the judge "probable cause," as required for searches under the Fourth Amendment, or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, only that it is related to a terrorism or foreign-intelligence investigation.

The Patriot Act also allows authorities to use roving wiretaps, listening in on conversations between any people on any telephone. "This is a time-tested, law-enforcement-honored, court-sanctioned and understood technique which is now being extended into the arena of terror," Ashcroft told the media folks.

Indeed, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created a Fourth Amendment exception for probable cause in using a wiretap to gather foreign intelligence, but not for domestic criminal cases. The Patriot Act expanded that exception to cover routine law enforcement, effectively shattering Americans' protection against unreasonable searches.

In addition, the Patriot Act allowed federal agents to round up non-citizens without affording them access to attorneys or open hearings. The Justice Department's own inspector general has reported "significant problems" in the treatment of 762 immigrants arrested after the 2001 terrorist attack and the detention of many for weeks without charges. Hundreds were deported for minor visa violations.

The Patriot Act is due to expire at the end of 2005, but Ashcroft is calling for its expansion and indefinite extension. Congress instead should allow it to expire on time, if not sooner.