Editorials
Tuesday, February 10, 1998ONE of the proposals of the Economic Revitalization Task Force is that members of the state Board of Education be appointed by the governor. The House Education Committee has approved placing the proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot. If the measure is approved by the Legislature, voters will have an opportunity to provide the governor with the authority he needs to be in charge of the state's largest department. School board members
should be appointedGovernor Cayetano's efforts to bring efficiency and cut spending in state government has been limited because of his inability to order changes in education, even though its funding comes from the state budget. The schools superintendent doesn't answer to the governor but to the Board of Education, whose members are elected.
BOE chairwoman Karen Knudsen opposes the concept of an appointed board, maintaining that it would be highly political and partisan. It already is. Current board members are elected largely due to the political muscle of the Hawaii State Teachers Association. Consequently, while Knudsen says elected members are strong advocates of education, they are even stronger advocates of teachers. The two advocacies don't always coincide.
Hawaii is unique in the respect that schools are part of the state system and not operated at municipal or county levels, as they are elsewhere in the country. The House committee understandably rejected a task force recommendation to establish separate school boards for each county. Only one board is necessary to operate a system as long as it remains a part of state government.
As it is now, however, the school system is operated parallel with other state departments, almost as a separate branch of government with its own executive and legislative sub-branches. Its separate status is a major hindrance to the governor's ability to perform his role as the state's CEO, improve the public school system and help bring Hawaii out of its present economic doldrums.
HAWAII'S state judges have gone without pay raises for the past eight years, most recently because of a conflict over their early-retirement benefits. Governor Cayetano vetoed pay raises for them last year because of the side issue, which needs resolving so judges can expect normal hikes in their salaries. Judicial pay raises
The Legislature last year eliminated the "high three" pension perk for its own members, but they still are allowed to draw retirement benefits after completing at least 10 years of service, regardless of their age. Legislative pensions, when based on at least three years of employment in the executive branch of the city or state, resulted in windfall pensions at an early age.
Those windfall pensions still exist for state judges who complete 10 years on the bench, regardless of how young they "retire" to re-enter private practice. The main argument against eliminating that provision seems to be that doing so would violate contractual obligations to present judges.
If that is the case, then the system should be changed for future judges, allowing them to begin collecting retirement pay at the same age as other state retirees or at least, as Cayetano has proposed, at the minimum age of 55.
Hawaii's salaries for judges, ranging from $86,780 for trial judges to $93,780 for Supreme Court justices, are significantly below the national average, even without taking into account the state's high cost of living. The salary levels do little to attract highly qualified lawyers to the bench.
The state's economy has been cited for too many years as a reason for denying pay raises to judges. However, keeping the salaries at present levels has been essentially symbolic, as the amount of funds it represents in the state budget is relatively small. The Legislature should eliminate youthful retirements for future judges and submit a package of pay raises that is agreeable to the governor.
THE executive board of the Hawaii High School Athletic Association has reversed itself for the second time in two weeks -- and, for the second time, made a wise decision. In a press released issued late yesterday afternoon, Wally Fujii, vice president of the HHSAA board, announced the reinstatement of the pilot state high school tournament for girls wrestling. It will be held concurrently with the boys wrestling tournament -- at UH's Stan Sheriff Center from Feb. 27-28 -- as had been originally scheduled. Wrestling with Title IX
The powerful and low-key HHSAA has been much in the news lately, due to some controversial decisions. First, the organization -- which oversees all state high school sports tournaments -- changed the site of this month's girls statewide soccer tournament from Aloha Stadium to Maui War Memorial Stadium. Parents, players and coaches from Oahu balked at the move, and gender-equity leaders questioned its fairness. Governor Cayetano strongly suggested the HHSAA reconsider, which it did. The event will be held on Oahu from Feb. 25-28.
Then the HHSAA axed the girls' wrestling tournament, which had been approved last year by athletic directors, when it was a mere three weeks away. Again, outraged participants and their supporters voiced their disbelief that the board was treating female athletes so shabbily. The news that the girls' tourney has been reinstated should restore the peace, at least temporarily.
Did the HHSAA realize that its actions were fodder for a lawsuit over violation of Title IX, the federal law that girls should have the same opportunities as boys in athletics? Could that be why Colleen Sakurai, of the law firm Sakurai & Sing, has been made an ex officio member of the board? What do you think?
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
