---

Find compromise
about judicial picks

THE ISSUE The U.S. Senate is in a stalemate over seven of President Bush's nominations for appellate court judges.

MICHAEL Seabright's nomination to the federal bench in Hawaii sailed through the Senate this week with unanimity, but seven conservative candidates for appellate courts are tearing the Senate apart. Compromise is needed to end the impasse and bring civility back to the chamber.

Democrats have threatened to use the filibuster, requiring 60 votes to end debate and allow up-and-down votes on the seven nominees. They include William G. Myers III, a vociferous opponent of environmental safeguards and indigenous peoples, to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Hawaii.

Republicans plan to challenge the filibuster rule, and a simple majority could uphold the challenge. The procedural ordnance is known as "the nuclear option" because of its explosive effect and certain fallout.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has proposed allowing votes on some of the nominees if the others are dropped. Republican Leader Bill Frist rejected the proposal, suggesting instead that Senate debate be extended to 100 hours, after which up-and-down votes would be cast for each of the seven. That is not a compromise.

Republicans have said filibusters are unprecedented in judicial confirmations. Actually, filibusters have been used against 13 judicial nominees, most recently in 2000, when Frist was part of a failed filibuster against confirmation of then-President Bill Clinton's nomination of Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit.

Senate majority parties have denounced filibusters as undemocratic since their inception. When Democrats regain control at some point in the future, they will howl about filibusters as they have in the past.

Senators should keep in mind the importance of protecting the minority party's rights in an institution whose very makeup is less than democratic. If each senator is assumed to represent half of his or her state's population, the Senate's 44 Democrats represent more people than the 55 Republicans.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

OHA needs better tabs
on money, operations

THE ISSUE A new audit criticizes the Office of Hawaiian Affairs for lax control of its finances.

THAT many of the deficiencies found by the most recent state audit of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs were identified in previous reviews indicates the agency has yet to acknowledge fully the need to improve. It is troubling that these problems persist, hampering OHA's effectiveness at a time when it seeks a leading role as federal recognition of Hawaiians edges near.

The audit faults OHA for slack control over its finances and programs involving amounts as small as $25 in petty cash and as large as its million-dollar business loan fund.

The audit notes that while funds disbursed for internal office events, such as farewell luncheons, do not involve large sums, "casual oversight of even small amounts of cash creates an environment enabling fraud and abuse."

The "casual oversight" can be seen as extending to OHA's loan program. The audit found that as of January 2004, there were 121 loans outstanding, involving about $3.3 million, of which 62 were in default, meaning repayments had stopped altogether. Another 20 were delinquent, with payments falling behind.

Because the program offers loans to business ventures that are unable to get conventional financing, a certain amount of risk is expected. To minimize failure, the agency requires business training or a minimum of five years' experience in business, but it appears these aren't enough to keep most enterprises afloat.

OHA should follow the auditor's recommendation that the agency provide help after a business is up and running and keep tabs on payment schedules. It also should track what practices produced the best chances for success, why businesses have failed when others have thrived and what kinds of help loan recipients might need. Otherwise, it is simply throwing good money after bad.

---

---

---