Brainstorm! Challenge

---

Senators don't care about 'little people'

The people of Hawaii should know that both their great senators, Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka, voted "no" on the "Laci and Connor" law that would treat an attack on a pregnant woman as two separate crimes. I thought the Democrats were for the "little people." Actions speak louder than words. I would like to know their rationale behind this vote.

Joanne Fichtman
Honolulu

Hold off on Kuhio plan until funds are in hand

Your March 27 editorial advocates proceeding with the Kuhio Avenue improvements because they are tied to the city's Bus Rapid Transit plan. I am wondering how the reduction of traffic-carrying capacity contributes to BRT. It would seem just the opposite.

As your editorial says, the federal share of this project, although promised, is not in place. What if it doesn't materialize?

Maybe Kuhio Avenue needs a facelift, but so do all of our roadways. We can debate the merits and drawbacks of this project forever, but if it is going to happen we should make sure those federal dollars are in our pocket before proceeding.

Bill Nelson
Haleiwa

Lingle should avoid even hint of cronyism

Governor Lingle gave herself difficult goals when she promised to bring honesty and integrity back to government. That includes even the appearance of dishonesty or cronyism.

I bet most citizens suspect cronyism when campaign contributors get government appointments, contracts or jobs. So the governor's promises should have dictated that no contributors would receive such benefits, unless the awards come from disinterested third parties. This should hold true for Democrats as well.

In Sunday's edition, the Star-Bulletin quotes Lingle as saying, "People can see the benefit. They contribute money. I win the election and they can see the kind of changes they want ... so it makes them willing to contribute."

If that's true, then contributors already have received benefit and any contract awards, appointments and jobs should come only from third parties who have no knowledge of the identities of contributors.

Kenneth L. Barker
Honolulu

Governor Lingle is not attempting to micromanage education reform

While listening to Rick Hamada's radio show Monday, I was disappointed by the comments of Rep. Scott Saiki, who accused Governor Lingle of trying to "micromanage education."

Even though Saiki professes to care deeply about education, he couldn't find time to attend the Department of Education's March 27 Education Summit. Had he attended, he would have heard the governor say, "I'm not an education expert, and frankly I don't want to make education decisions for our state."

Her intent is to act as a catalyst for change so our education system can "move up to the next level of proficiency."

Governor Lingle wants to decentralize the system so principals control at least 90 percent of education funds. She also wants communities to have a greater say in decision-making by electing local school boards. If that happens during this legislative session, the governor said she would gladly turn her full focus to other matters, such as further invigorating the economy so the state can afford much-needed programs and pay raises for teachers.

Saiki's radio comments revealed he does not understand the state education budget. It's not difficult to figure out how much money principals would control under the governor's plan. It is simple arithmetic. Just take the total operating budget line of the DOE and multiply that by 90 percent. The 90 percent figures were staggering -- more than $1.6 billion. Moreover, Rep. Galen Fox provided the hard numbers for three schools in Saiki's district, which were most impressive.

If the Legislature adopts such a plan, principals would have far greater decision-making power. Principals know the needs of their schools better than anyone, and they should be given a chance to succeed.

We are encouraged to hear that members of the DOE are warming up to this approach, and it is possible to allocate a minimum of 90 percent of total operating funds to principals, to be spent by the principals. The alternative plan proposed by the Legislative majority would allocate only 75 percent.

Saiki and the House majority are recommending that federal dollars should not allocated to principals or controlled by the schools. But these federal dollars are earmarked to support school activities, so principals should have a say in how they are spent. When you add the federal dollars to the aforementioned 75 percent, along with the state funds the House proposes to give principals, then we are very close to the 90 percent of the total operating budget Governor Lingle proposes.

Clearly, the governor does not want to micromanage education. She wants principals and the public to make key decisions about reform. That's not micromanagement -- that's responsible leadership.

Perhaps Saiki was criticizing the governor merely to be provocative. But surely he realizes that the issue here is our children's future. Please don't undermine education reform with political gamesmanship when so much is at stake.

Lenny Klompus
Senior adviser, communications
Office of the Governor

It's not really about the kids, is it?

Why is it that the Department of Education is only now coming up with substantial changes to its bureaucracy? Our kids have been at the bottom of the barrel for years. Could it be that the superintendent and the Board of Education are suddenly feeling cornered? Why would Pat Hamamoto want to change the setup of the BOE when the board members are the ones who promoted her and gave her a big, fat pay raise? Why would any of the principals stick out their necks and voice an opinion different from the superintendent? And why would any of the over-worked teachers bother to differ from their union think tank?

If it really was about the children, classrooms would be in as good condition as the state Capitol, campus restrooms would be clean and well-stocked with toilet paper and paper towels; there'd be up-to-date text books and sufficient school supplies. Schools would follow the same calendar year and have uniform dress codes. Soda machines and junk food would have no place on campus. And finally, academics would be a priority on campus and at home. Is that really so difficult? Perhaps our centralized BOE is more interested in trying to protect its "rice bowl."

A.K. Carroll
Kailua

Treat speeders like hardened criminals

"Bring back the van cams." That's what one elected official and some citizens want (Star-Bulletin, March 23). Why? Because a few drivers have no regard for life. I don't remember the van cams operating from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., when the reckless drivers are out running up and down the freeways.

You stop reckless drivers with more police officers and stiffer penalties. Anyone caught traveling 20 mph faster than the posted speed limit should:

>> go straight to jail for a minimum of seven days;
>> have their driver's license taken away for a minimum of one year;
>> have the car confiscated.

If an accident is involved, the driver should be charged with a felony and required to make full restitution (including any money the insurance companies paid out) before applying for another license. If he is caught driving anything during this period, he should be charged with a second felony. After the year or full restitution, whichever comes last, the driver should be required to retake the driver's license exam.

You go after the reckless drivers where and when they are on the roads, not the person trying to get to work on time and traveling 6 mph over the freeway speed limit.

Frederick Dowdell
Mililani

Don't expand powers of optometrists

Optometrists in Hawaii are trying to convince the Legislature that they are qualified to prescribe oral drugs and treat glaucoma, a potentially blinding disease (SB 2259 and HB 1797).

The effort of the medical community, including the ophthalmologists (eye doctors who have medical degrees), to defeat these bills and prevent a potential public health problem, has been viewed by certain legislators as merely a turf battle. This is an unfortunate misconception by these lawmakers, who also have urged ophthalmologists to find a compromise position. Ophthalmologists, by virtue of their four years in medical school prior to specializing in ophthalmology for three years, are fully qualified to prescribe oral drugs. Because of the potential of developing resistant organisms and drug reactions, the prescription of oral drugs should be left to medical doctors.

Eye MDs have far superior training when compared to optometrists in the management of glaucoma patients. The public would be best served by utilizing the most qualified personnel -- ophthalmologists -- for the management of this disease with its potential of vision loss.

Malcolm R. Ing, M.D.
Chairman Division of Ophthalmology
Department of Surgery
John A. Burns School of Medicine
University of Hawaii

---

BACK TO TOP
|

[ BRAINSTORM! ] Hawaii is popularly known as "The Aloha State." What might be a better slogan? To get started, think about what you might see around the islands -- rainbows, waves, sand, traffic jams, homeless orangutans ... Send your ideas by April 21 to: brainstorm@starbulletin.com Or by mail: Brainstorm! c/o Nancy Christenson Star-Bulletin 500 Ala Moana 7 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 210 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Or by fax: Brainstorm! c/o Nancy Christenson 529-4750