Notes for a ConCon speech

With no big local races this year, the most important statewide issue voters decide may well be whether to call Hawai'i's first Constitutional Convention since 1978.

The Constitution requires that the ConCon question be put on the ballot every 10 years. A convention was approved a decade ago by a small majority of voters despite opposition from big institutions, but opponents prevailed when the state Supreme Court, ruling on a lawsuit brought by unions, decreed that blank ballots count as "no" votes.

There are strong views on both sides, and whether or not you support a ConCon depends on how much you like the status quo. I'm going to start with the opponents of a ConCon because I think some of them illustrate my personal view that a ConCon is sorely needed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think ConCon opponents are evil. Some of our most upstanding citizens hold an honest opinion that everything is pretty much OK and no major changes are needed. Others can see some need for change, but are afraid a ConCon could make things worse or get hijacked by emotional issues and would rather take their chances with the way things are.

An articulate ConCon doubter is Anne Feder Lee, author of a reference guide on the Hawaii State Constitution.

She feels ConCon proponents need to demonstrate that there are specific fatal flaws in our state Constitution that need to be fixed. She says, "It is not enough for a few political pundits to write fluffy columns saying we need one or for politicians to proclaim the need. They must give us some depth and analysis of our current Constitution and why certain parts need changing. In addition, we need to know whether such supporters have tried to get the Legislature to propose those changes sothey can be placed on the ballot."

She offers some criteria to determine if we need a ConCon:

— Is the "problem" put forth by anyone supporting a ConCon, really a problem that causes difficulties for either the government or the governed?

— Is the "problem" a fatal flaw making it impossible for the government or the governed to be effective?

— Is it really true that the Legislature won't act to overcome the "problem" either by passing better implementation legislation or proposing an amendment that goes on the ballot?

— Is the "problem" one that a ConCon can be expected to solve?

— Will the benefits outweigh the costs?

These are fair points that I'll address as we go along.

My first concern is that some of the most ardent opponents of a ConCon are the special interests that feed off the state government. They've made the status quo work for them just fine and will fight hard to maintain it.

Public workers fear civil service and collective bargaining reform, as well as political reforms that will diminish their influence. OHA fears groups opposing Hawaiian rights will change its charter or even abolish the agency. Teachers fear a breakup of the DOE. Contractors fear losing government jobs. Incumbent politicians who thrive under the current system fear losing their security.

Our government currently serves the interests public workers first and the general public second. Elected officials place their selfish interest in their own re-election ahead of their constituents' pressing needs. Our public schools serve the needs of adults who feed off the system ahead of our kids' need for an education that prepres them to achieve their life dreams.

These fundamentally flawed priorities of our government are the main issues I think a ConCon needs to correct.

I can understand the fears a ConCon could make matters worse if the wrong people are elected, but I frankly don't see how things could get worse in terms of fair elections, ethics in government and state responsiveness to changing public needs.

We simply can't count on needed change from a Legislature that's increasingly indecisive, overly politicized and controlled by special interests. Lawmakers simply refuse to seriously consider measures adverse to their self-interests or the interests of benefactors who get them elected.

Look at how the Legislature has ducked issues such as real reform for our failing public schools and modernizing civil service and collective bargaining to give the state flexibility to keep ahead of changing times. They've failed to give real autonomy to the University of Hawai'i so it can reach its potential for elevating the lives of our citizens.

Legislators have repeatedly refused to provide for clean and fair elections, make voting easier, get special-interest money out of politics, promote open government or subject themselves to a strict code of ethics. A ConCon is the only real chance to make these things happen. Maybe the first thing we need to make happen is initiative, referendum and reform to give citizens a means of forcing the Legislature's hand when it won't act.

The last ConCon in 1978 didn't make matters worse. It was considered a turning point in modern Hawaiian history. Among some 40 amendments to the Constitution, delegates created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, changed the way judges are selected, added the Intermediate Court of Appeals, gave the counties control of property taxes, required a balanced state budget and established term limits for governor and lieutenant governor.

As importantly, the 1978 ConCon ushered in a new generation of political leaders led by future Gov. John Waihee III, future Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris and a number of delegates who went on to become prominent in the Legislature. We could use some new blood in our political process today and a ConCon get the people of Hawai'i more directly involved in public policy in a big way.

We have the lowest voter participation in the nation as democracy becomes an empty formality in Hawai'i with ballots that offer few real choices.

In 2006 O'ahu council elections, half of incumbents were re-elected unopposed and the others faced token opposition. A third of Maui council incumbents ran unopposed, as did two of the nine on the Big Island. In the Legislature in 2006, five of 13 state senators up for re-election and seven House incumbents were unopposed, with most other incumbents facing grossly underfunded opponents.

According to the state Campaign Spending Commission, those who won Senate seats in 2006 — mostly incumbents — raised an average of more than $91,000, mostly special interest money, while losers raised only $32,000. In House races, winning candidates had an average of over $46,000 to spend while losers had only $15,000. Our elections have no real competition because challengers have no chance in a corrupt money game.

Most alarming is that the pattern of noncompetitive elections is extending beyond the councils and Legislature to Hawai'i's top executive offices.

Gov. Linda Lingle drew no name Democratic opposition in 2006 after raising more than $6 million, and Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann has scared off opponents so far this year by posting more than $2 million to his campaign account early. If no credible opponent steps up, Hannemann will become the first Honolulu mayor in modern times to be re-elected without serious opposition despite sharply divided opinion over his positions on rail transit, refuse management and sewage treatment. I don't say that as a knock on Hannemann or an opinion that he doesn't deserve re-election, but anybody should be alarmed when so important an office goes uncontested.

The incumbent politicians will never overhaul this stacked system that serves them so well; citizens will have to take matters into their own hands and a ConCon is the best shot.

Another key ConCon question to me is whether our state government is properly structured to achieve the economic and environmental sustainability we talk about, and only a ConCon could provide a fresh look. It's been 30 years since we looked at the basic structure of our state government.

When the Legislature's Hawai'i 2050 Sustainability Task Force came out with its report, a reader from Molokai raised a very good question: Why didn't the report include any recommendations about reforming local government to achieve sustainability?

"Government controls everything," he said. "Why was government left out as an issue? To me, until we can return the decision-making process back to the people and get government back on track, nothing else will happen."

In that light, you could argue that improving government's ability to respond to the highest community needs should be the first priority in planning a sustainable future. Without sustainably honest and effective local government, we'll never get on top of pressing concerns cited by the task force — a healthy economy, better jobs, more affordable housing, quality public education, less reliance on oil, modern infrastructure, a clean environment, traffic solutions.

We've seen that legislators are masters of timid half-measures and not bold action. These changes we need aren't likely to happen without a focused and activist ConCon controlled by concerned citizens and not the usual political establishment.

So let's see if I've met Anne Feder Lee's criteria:

— Is the "problem" put forth by anyone supporting a ConCon, really a problem that causes difficulties for either the government or the governed? Yes, a healthy future for our state depends on a truly responsive government free from the dominant influence of special interests.

— Is the "problem" a fatal flaw making it impossible for the government or the governed to be effective?Without question.

— Is it really true that the Legislature won't act to overcome the "problem" either by passing better implementation legislation orproposing an amendment that goes on the ballot? Lawmakers have repeatedly refused to make needed changes that run contrary to their self-interest.

— Is the "problem" one that a ConCon can be expected to solve? Maybe, maybe not. But there's no other way to get it done.

— Will the benefits outweigh the costs? How much is an ethical and responsive government that's capable of addressing our most intractable problems worth?