There is a danger in opinion unfettered by facts, as illustrated by the recent Star- Bulletin editorial addressing executive, judicial and legislative pay raises (”;Freeze wages for executives, judges and legislators,”; Jan.13). With the pay question emerging as one of the central issues among our current economic challenges, the matter deserves a full, fair and factual presentation in the media. Instead, the Star-Bulletin editorial was inaccurate and inflammatory, doing a disservice to its readers.

The editorial's tone sank far beneath the level of civil criticism, referring to legislators' “;cheeky reasons”; for our salary increase, and calling the thought that we would be “;politically dumb”; enough to defend the law “;laughable.”; Further, the editorial attributed the pay structure to a “;clever constitutional amendment,”; which voters understood only after ratifying the constitutional provision.

Apparently, the Star-Bulletin has little faith in Hawaii voters to understand that provision, and less respect for their collective ability to vote intelligently on proposed constitutional amendments. I put my trust in the voters, believing that they take the time to consider the questions put before them. They approved the amendment because this system is better, serving important public policies by ensuring fairness, providing impartiality and removing politics from the process.

  Let's set the record straight. In 2006, Hawaii voters approved an amendment to our Constitution that placed the salaries of legislators, judges and justices of Hawaii courts and members of the governor's cabinet within the exclusive purview of the Commission on Salaries. The Constitution requires that all of those salaries be presented to the Legislature in a single recommendation, and that the salaries take effect unless the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, disapproves the package in its entirety. Neither the Legislature nor the governor can change individual salaries within a Salary Commission recommendation, and we cannot approve some raises and not others; it is all or nothing.

There is a difference between disapproving the Salary Commission's recommendation and reducing salaries after the fact. Claiming that I do not know the process for disapproving the pay package is factually inaccurate and, frankly, insulting. The law is clear.

The provision that presents a greater challenge requires that once a salary is established, it can only be reduced during a term of office “;by general law applying to all salaried officers of the state.”; We cannot reduce legislative pay alone; the cuts would have to apply to “;all salaried officers.”;

Gov. Linda Lingle's proposal that the Legislature forgo its most recent raise ran afoul of that law. Because we were not in session, we could not pass a “;general law”; even if the governor had given us more than two weeks to consider the proposal. Also, because that was the Legislature's first raise under the most recent Salary Commission recommendation, even if we managed to pass a law reversing that increase, the “;general law”; provision may have required that we similarly rescind the July 2007 and 2008 pay raises given to the executive and judicial branches, because they were part of the same recommendation. Suffice to say that the law is far more complicated than the Star-Bulletin editorial claims, and I assume that if the writer had taken the time to discuss the Constitution with someone who was familiar with its terms, the editorial would have taken a far different tone.

  Still, perhaps the most egregious misstatement is the claim that the raises are based on a statement by House Speaker Calvin Say. That is simply untrue. All of the raises - executive, judicial and legislative - were based on the consideration and analysis of the Salary Commission. The commission itself found that “;While legislators are considered to be part-time employees, it is apparent that their duties and responsibilities require more than that of a part-time employee. They perform many complex and time-consuming duties both during the legislative session as well as during the interim period between sessions.”; The commission - an impartial body composed of individuals with no direct stake in the outcome - then set what it believed to be a fair and equitable salary.

We all recognize the role an unbiased and impartial press plays in serving the public interest, and legislators are more than willing to accept fair criticism. However, basing published opinions on factual misstatements and distorted interpretations of our positions is of service to no one. Practical and effective solutions exist to these and many other challenges, but finding and implementing them will require more thought than revealed in the Star-Bulletin's editorial.