Building legislative support for a tax increase on Hawaii's richest residents is the top priority for the Hawaii State Teachers Association's new interim executive director, who long ago helped build the union into a political powerhouse.

Jim Williams said the HSTA wouldn't oppose a proposed increase in the general excise tax, but the union's leaders believe that increasing high-end income and corporate taxes would be a better way to improve public schools over the long term and to end the Furlough Fridays that have idled students.

“;We really don't believe that there is a solution that's not going to include increased revenue because the pot keeps shrinking and there are a lot of priorities,”; he said.

The HSTA wants legislators to create two new, higher-income tax brackets (at $200,000 and $400,000); to tax capital gains as ordinary income; and to close corporate tax loopholes. It estimates the changes would raise more than $500 million a year, and wants $300 million of that to go to the state Department of Education, which employs some 13,000 HSTA members, including teachers, counselors and librarians.

Williams, 63, returned to the HSTA after retiring Dec. 31 as administrator of the Hawaii Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund. He expects to be on the job for about three months, until a permanent executive director is hired.

The Indiana native moved to Hawaii in 1970 and taught for 14 years, including at two schools on Molokai. He's the “;Probie”; of HSTA lore who was instrumental in overturning the federal government's attempt to freeze teachers' wages in 1973, and went on to serve as HSTA president in the early 1980s.

Married to fellow educator and HSTA employee Arlene Lee, Williams has a grown son and daughter from a previous marriage; both attended public schools.

The avid golfer is a big fan of University of Hawaii athletics and looks forward to traveling more once he retires for good.

QUESTION: What can you get done in three months?

ANSWER: A big part of my focus will be helping with our team in the Legislature, and in particular what I'm working on is a funding proposal that starts with the idea that we want to look for a solution that is progressive and not regressive. ... So rather than a GET (general excise tax) increase, we're proposing an increase in the income tax (on the highest earners).

Q: Wouldn't a tax increase hurt the economy even more?

A: My answer is no. When you collect a tax, it does take money out of the economy, but ... then the government spends that money and ... puts it back in the economy. The thing about the government spending it, especially when it's spent on education, is that it can be used to build the economy for the future, and that's done in really two essential ways. One is that the quality of our graduates is going to improve, and we're going to have better, more productive citizens. The other is the reputation of the educational system improves, so that companies will want to locate here and be reassured that their employees' children will be well-educated.

Q: How can you guarantee that the increased spending is going to increase student performance, because that's really what the debate now is centering on?

A: I can guarantee you that if we continue to have reduced days because of furloughs, that it's going to hurt the educational quality.

Q: What kind of reaction are you getting from legislators?

A: Some legislators don't want any tax increase, and we understand their reluctance, but for those that are considering raising revenue, they're looking at GET. But here's what a lot of legislators, I think, are going to consider: A GET increase, even with credits, affects everybody. The income tax increase that we are proposing affects a very small percentage of our citizens, and it affects those that are most able to pay. We're not going to testify against the excise tax proposal; we're going to suggest that they look at the income tax that we proposed instead of that.

Q: Why did the HSTA prefer the furloughs to other cutbacks in the Department of Education?

A: We didn't want cutbacks in the department in the first place. You have to remember the history of this. Remember that the governor first decided to unilaterally direct the department to furlough teachers. Her directive was for 36 furlough days, three per month, and she was told by the court that she couldn't do that. And then HSTA entered into negotiations and, with the governor's full participation, what they agreed on was the 17 days, and it included furloughing during school days. And it was only after the public uproar that the governor ... wouldn't stand up for her own agreement, and backpedaled, and then tried to shift the blame to the HSTA. And I can say that's been the governor's pattern for seven years.

Q: If you get this tax increase through the Legislature, can't she kill it?

A: With a tax increase, she can veto it. But if the veto is overridden, then she can't stop it. On the other hand, with an appropriation, she has a double chance. She can veto it and, if the veto is overridden, she can withhold the funds. ... During the next fiscal year there will be a new governor. And so even if this governor initially withholds funds, we'll be asking the next governor to release them.

Q: How would you assess the political climate in Hawaii right now?

A: Everybody who is in the public arena ... has to be aware of the concerns of the ordinary citizens. That's again why our focus on our funding proposal is not to hit the middle class and the working class people.

Q: But you understand, there is this sense that the HSTA wanted the public to feel the pain (with the furloughs).

A: I've had access to the documents since I've been here. I don't see any evidence of that. I really believe that the teachers were the victims. The HSTA leadership did its best to minimize the furloughs. But, on the other hand, we have to represent the teachers. If they're not going to be paid, then there has to be an adjustment in their workload, and that's where the furloughs came from.

Q: We've been hearing a lot about “;Race to the Top,”; which links federal funding and educational reform. How does the HSTA feel about elements like merit pay for teachers, tied to student performance?

A: First, let me say that our (HSTA ) president submitted a letter to (U.S. Education) Secretary (Arne) Duncan supporting the (Race to the Top) application. In the letter, he mentioned things like evaluation and compensation. We do have concerns about specifics of how that will be implemented, but we recognized that these issues are going to need to be addressed, and so overall we support the proposal (and plan to work with the DOE on the specifics). ... We haven't preapproved anything. Now if you're talking about, for instance, basing teachers' pay on test scores, no, we're not going to support that.

Q: Also on the reform front, the president of the smaller American Federation of Teachers is open to revising due process for members facing disciplinary action. Does the National Education Association (of which the HSTA is an affiliate) also support that?

A: I don't know what AFT's specific proposals are going to be, but we're not ready to compromise on due process. Due process doesn't mean that there can't be consequences. It just means that the employer has to follow the correct procedures.

Q: What do you think of the governor's plan to ... make the superintendent part of the Cabinet?

A: I don't think it's a good idea as a policy matter. ... She, frankly, has been not up to the economic crisis of the past two years, so what makes anyone think that she would be up to handling the Department of Education?

Q: Can you foresee the HSTA ever supporting the removal of principals from the Hawaii Government Employees Association?

A: People forget what a system can be like when it's basically all political and not through the processes that result from collective bargaining. So, no, I don't think we're going to be in that group that's taking that position.