Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Wednesday, March 15, 2000Conference committee
votes should be publicGOVERNMENT business is much easier to conduct behind closed doors, without public scrutiny, but secrecy is unacceptable as a matter of public policy and law. Attorney General Earl Anzai reminded the Legislature of that last week but legislative leaders are clinging to the notion that openness is too difficult to achieve. A court order may be needed to open the doors fully.The issue: Republican Party leaders have filed a lawsuit to require that votes in House-Senate conferences be taken in public.
House and Senate members have habitually met secretly in joint conferences to work out differences in similar bills that have passed both chambers in order to produce a single version of the bill for enactment. In recent years some of the sessions have been opened to the public but decisions on compromises are still made in private.
Anzai issued an opinion on March 7 that such secret decision-making violates a 22-year-old provision of the state Constitution. The opinion concludes that conference committees should take action only when a quorum is present and only by voting during public meetings.
Senate President Norman Mizuguchi wrote a letter to House Speaker Calvin Say favoring "procedural changes that will improve public participation" but suggesting it would be difficult to fully comply with the constitutional requirement. Say has indicated he will wait for a court order before agreeing to open the doors to joint conferences.
State Republican Party Chairwoman Linda Lingle and state Rep. David Pendleton filed a lawsuit this week in state court seeking an order that the Legislature comply with the open-meetings provision of the Constitution. "This back-room decision-making has gone on for too long," Lingle said. "Ten years ago the House was told by its own attorney that voting must take place in public. This kind of secret voting is not only unconstitutional, it's against the rules of both the House and the Senate."
Mizuguchi's letter to Say cited problems in schedule changing and being able to assure attendance by the two Republican senators to all joint-conference meetings as reasons for refusing to comply with the open-meetings requirement.
House and Senate rules may need changing to accommodate notification for rescheduled meetings, but closed sessions are not an alternative.
Legislative leaders' refusal to respond to Anzai's opinion by opening their doors is an affront to the democratic process. They should begin immediately to adopt the public voting rule while working to devise a system of quickly informing the public about rescheduled sessions.
Hawaiian task force
HAWAII'S congressional delegation is taking an important but risky step in forming a task force to seek a consensus on federal legislation to achieve sovereignty or self-determination for Hawaiians.
Senator Akaka, who will lead the effort, said the top priority of the group would be to develop a "legislative response" to the main issues left by the Rice vs. Cayetano Supreme Court decision invalidating the Hawaiians-only restriction in voting for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Akaka said the underlying issue remains, "How do we best fulfill the responsibility of the federal and state governments to native Hawaiians?"
That issue not only remains but has assumed greater prominence in the backlash against the high court decision. The four-member Hawaii delegation filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the state's position in that case. The formation of the task force follows through on that commitment.
A spokesman for Akaka said the task force will work with the state, the Hawaiian community and the community at large in an attempt to reach a consensus that could result in federal legislation. And it does appear that any remedy would require an act of Congress. In addition, any changes in the status of OHA would require amendments to the state Constitution.
Senator Inouye commented, "Somebody may say, 'Who do you think you are to form this task force?' But we can't sit around and wait for someone to act. The anger that the court's decision caused in many Hawaiians cannot be allowed to fester."
Of course Inouye himself took a hit recently from OHA Trustee Mililani Trask, who called him a "one-armed bandit" in accusing him of scheduling Senate hearings to coincide with federal hearings on Hawaiian grievances.
There was an outpouring of support for Inouye after that attack, but his involvement in the task force could inspire additional criticism. There could also be complaints that this is an issue that should be left to Hawaiians; the only Hawaiian member of the delegation is Akaka.
However, Inouye has a long record of achievement in winning congressional approval for programs benefiting Hawaiians, a record that none can match. He has earned a role in attempting to find a solution to this problem.
Reps. Abercrombie and Mink are similarly supportive of Hawaiian causes and might make valuable contributions.
The Hawaiian community itself must provide the foundation of support for any proposed solutions. Certainly the congressional delegation cannot provide all the answers alone, nor does it pretend that it can.
Still, this commitment could be essential to the achievement of the goal of greater self-determination for Hawaiians.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert 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
