[ OUR OPINION ]
THE state Senate has good reason to dismiss a bill that tangles questions of conflict of interest by a House member and the side-stepping of city laws to benefit a hospital project. The outrageous measure should not have made it this far through the legislative session and lawmakers would be wise to let it die. Oshiro’s hospital exemption
is an unhealthy measure
THE ISSUE The Senate puts a hold on a bill that sets aside city laws for a hospital project and that raises conflict of interest questions.
Sponsored by Rep. Marcus Oshiro, the bill would have exempted a health center as well as a controversial Central Oahu housing development from all city planning, zoning and construction laws. It was sought specifically to circumvent city authority when it appeared that the City Council was balking at approving the project. Oshiro, board secretary for the nonprofit Wahiawa Hospital Association, contends he has a fiduciary duty to help get the health center built for the association's for-profit division. Oshiro, backed by House Speaker Calvin Say, claims that because his position is uncompensated, there is no conflict of interest.
Legislators walk a thin ethical line when they lobby for groups of which they are members. Although state officials and employees are barred from acting on matters in which they have financial interests, the law does not apply to legislators because it is seen as a restraint on their ability to vote freely on legislative issues. At the same time, individuals who sit on boards for nonprofit organizations have a fiduciary duty to protect their financial well-being, says Ethics Commission director Dan Mollway. This places Oshiro at odds with his dual positions.
The situation could be remedied by prohibiting lawmakers from such posts, but they argue that their participation brings them closer to their constituents. However, they should acknowledge that many organizations court legislators or other politicians only because of their positions of power. Sen. Les Ihara suggests a less severe solution: Forbid legislators from voting or introducing bills that would benefit groups to which they have ties. Lawmakers should adopt this rule.
The conflict problem is enough to derail the bill without the issue of legislative interference in city laws. If the bill passes, lawmakers can expect a host of project developers seeking the same favors. The measure should go nowhere but the trash bin.
BACK TO TOP |
TRAFFIC, noise and water availability are given as the reasons for denying a church a special permit to build a chapel on agricultural land on Maui, but the church insists that the rejection amounts to racial discrimination. Federal Judge Samuel King has urged a settlement of the church's lawsuit against Maui County, but the church's legal team seems intent on taking its cause to the U.S. Supreme Court. So be it. High court may need
to rule on religious law
THE ISSUE A federal judge has refused to dismiss a church's lawsuit alleging religious discrimination by Maui County.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C., law firm, is citing a three-year-old federal law protecting churches against government regulation in challenging the county's rejection of a special-use permit for the Hale O Kaula church. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act requires government to show a "compelling interest" -- a high standard to meet -- in supporting a decision that "substantially burdens" religious exercise. Maui County attorneys contend the law is unconstitutional.
The Maui church bought 5.8 acres about 10 years ago near the town of Haiku and built an agricultural building -- its belief requires food production for the congregation -- and minister's residence on it. It wants to add a second floor to the agricultural building to be used as a chapel.
The Maui Planning Commission rejected the church's application for a special-use permit for the chapel in 1995 and again in 2001. When about 40 members of the church's congregation gathered for worship under a tent on the church's land last September, county officials advised them that they would need government approval to make it a weekly event.
King declined to apply the religious land-use law in ruling last October that the county acted within federal and state constitutional bounds in denying the permit to the church. However, the judge declined last week to throw out the suit, saying the church may argue that its First Amendment rights had been violated.
"My clients are going to get their day in court to prove they were unjustly denied their ability to have a place to worship," said Becket Fund attorney Roman Storzer. The trial is scheduled for July. Storzer obviously wants a ruling that will uphold the religious land-use law, but he may have to take that issue to the highest court.
BACK TO TOP
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, Editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, Assistant Editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, Assistant Editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comMary Poole, Editorial Page Editor, 529-4748; mpoole@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
