Editorials
Thursday, January 28, 1999

Legislature should OK
pay raises for judges

HAWAII state judges have been denied a pay raise for eight years, but that could change if the Legislature signs onto what appears to be an agreement between Governor Cayetano and the judiciary. The judiciary concedes that the judges' pension benefits should be pared back in exchange for salary increases, meeting the governor's concerns behind his veto of proposed pay increases in 1997.

Salaries now range from $81,780 for district judges to $94,780 for the chief justice, significantly below the national average. Several judges have chosen to leave the bench for better pay in private practice. Recently Circuit Judge James Aiona cited the relatively low pay as his primary reason for turning in his robe.

An added incentive for judges to resign could be their ability to draw retirement benefits after 10 years on the bench, regardless of their age, adding to whatever their earnings might be in private practice. This is one of Cayetano's main concerns.

The Legislature in 1997 eliminated the "high three" pension perk for its own members but protected judges' ability to draw pension benefits at an early age. Court Administrator Michael Broderick now proposes that be changed so judges cannot become eligible for retirement benefits until they reach age 55.

This would not be a sacrifice for current judges, because the Legislature is constitutionally forbidden from tampering with their pension agreements. The change would affect only future judges. However, eliminating the perk of early retirement pay would necessitate healthy pay increases to lure qualified candidates for future judicial openings.

Even with budget constraints, the state can afford sizable pay increases for judges, since they number only 73. Now that the judiciary has agreed to meet Cayetano's objections, the Legislature should approve raises along with changes in the pension plan.

East Timor

THE economic collapse followed by rioting and political turmoil has prompted the Indonesian government to change its position and raise the possibility of independence for East Timor. The former Portuguese colony 1,200 miles east of Jakarta has been the scene of sporadic rebellion and repression since it was occupied by Indonesian forces in 1976.

This is a welcome development. Until now the government had rejected repeated international appeals to permit the mostly Roman Catholic people of East Timor the right of self-determination. But with Suharto, who had ordered the occupation of half of the island of Timor and refused to relinquish control having resigned as president, the new regime is now suggesting that independence could be an acceptable option.

Information Minister Yunus Yosfiah quoted President B.J. Habibie as saying that Indonesia's highest legislative body could take up the issue of independence later this year if the East Timorese rejected the offer of limited autonomy.

Foreign Minister Ali Alatas said independence "is the last alternative if the people of East Timor continue to reject our offer for special autonomy."

Representatives of the Timor independence movement were skeptical that Indonesia would relinquish control. However, Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio, whose government is involved in peace talks on East Timor, described the Indonesian statements as "a positive contribution to move (the issue) forward."

Indonesia, with its economy in shambles, is struggling to control rioting against Chinese and Christian communities by the mostly Muslim Malay majority. In addition, Habibie faces student demonstrations calling on him to step down. Under these difficult circumstances, holding onto East Timor in the face of international criticism must seem relatively unimportant. East Timor's prospects for independence suddenly look brighter.

Clinton impeachment

THE votes in the Senate rejecting dismissal of the charges against President Clinton and summoning witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial fulfilled predictions that the Republicans would have their way on these issues. The decisions prevented the struggle over the Clinton presidency from reaching an early end but gave no indication that the final result would be Clinton's removal from office.

Both 56-44 votes were along party lines with a single exception, Wisconsin Democrat Russell Feingold, who voted with the Republicans. The votes showed the Republicans were still well short of the two-thirds majority, 67 votes, that would be needed to convict Clinton.

The Republicans reduced their list of witnesses to three -- Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend, Vernon Jordan, and White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. They will give videotaped depositions and may be called to give live testimony.

Republicans hoped for adoption of a plan that could end the proceedings in 10 days if the White House did not call witnesses, but nothing is certain except that the public wants the whole business to go away.

There was a strong case for dismissal of the charges on the grounds that they did not rise to the constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and that the evidence was weak. However, even if the president's acts fell short of that standard, there is much sentiment that he deserves to be rebuked. Moreover, Senate Republicans were reluctant to repudiate the findings of their House colleagues by voting for dismissal and cutting the trial short.

Having refused to resign, Clinton has given the Republicans the opportunity to put the country through this ordeal. Even though the president is likely to retain his office, the process will do irreparable damage to his effectiveness.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

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