Do We Need Another Con Con?
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1995-11-05
Guests: Guest host: Peter Adler; Bill Paty (former Chairman, 1978 Constitutional Convention); Jim Shon (state legislator); Bud Smyser (columnist, Honolulu Star-Bulletin); Dan Boylan (columnist, MidWeek)
Duration: 1:08:10

[00:00:00] Peter Adler: and welcome to the Price of Paradise Radio Show. My name is Peter Adler, and for the next hour I'll be your moderator and guest host for what promises to be an especially lively discussion on the prospects for another constitutional convention. We're broadcast live each Sunday morning from 8 to 9 on KHPR 88 FM and rebroadcast each Sunday evening from 8 to 9 on KIFO 1380 AM. I know if Randy Roth was here this morning, one of the things that he would tell you is that this radio show is entirely the product of volunteers with a goal of generating lively and informed dialogue about the challenges confronting the people of Hawaii. We believe public conversations about important public issues are essential.

[00:00:42] Peter Adler: Well, somebody once said that in politics, an ounce of convention is worth a pound of primaries. In Hawaii, we'll have an opportunity to put that proposition to the test next year. Article 17 of our state Constitution says that at any special or general election, the legislature can ask us voters if we'd like to have a convention to make amendments to the Constitution. Article 17 also says that if any nine-year period elapses during which the legislature has not asked the voters this question, then it automatically appears on the ballot. Our last constitutional convention was held in 1978 and it turned out to be a real barn burner with lots of historic changes. Then in 1986, the voters turned down the idea of holding one. Now, 10 years later, we'll see see it on our ballots again.

[00:01:28] Peter Adler: If the voters again reject the idea, we probably won't hear anything more about concons for another decade. If the voters say yes, then all of us are probably all of us probably should put on our seat belts for a roller coaster ride. So the question is, why have one? With me this morning to engage that question are four veterans of local politics. AA Smizer, better known to all of us as Bud Smizer, is a career journalist with the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Last April, he wrote an editorial called Hawaii needs a constitutional convention, and this morning, he'll tell us exactly why he believes that. Jim Shawn, on the other on the other hand, is a member of the House of Representative from the 24th District, which is the Makiki and Tantalus area.

[00:02:14] Peter Adler: He's had a long and distinguished career in politics but got his start at the 1978 concon. He's going to tell us why holding a concon in 1998 probably isn't a very good idea. Bill Payti, Trustee of the Mark A. Robinson estate, is also with us this morning. Bill served as chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources under John Waihee and can also tell us something about the '78 concon because he was its president. We'll be talking with him about some of his reflections, which you can also find on the op-ed page of this morning's paper. Finally, we have Dan Boylen, Professor of Political Science at West Oahu College, a columnist and political raconteur for Midweek Magazine, and proud winner of the third annual curry cooking contest in which he just barely struggled past myself and a bunch of other aging Peace Corps volunteers.

[00:03:08] Peter Adler: Gentlemen, welcome to all of you this morning. Bill, why don't you get us started and tell us exactly what is a constitutional convention, and why should Hawaii citizens pay any attention to the question when it shows up?

[00:03:18] Speaker 1: Well, Peter, as you said in your intro there, that the voters are required every decade, every 10 years to decide whether indeed they want to have another look at our constitution. And of course, the constitution is critical for us. We have that's our living document, the document that sets forth the way all of our business is conducted, essentially, throughout the state. It affects the judiciary, the courts, the judges, the legislature and how the legislature would work, how they handle the procedures in the legislature. It goes into the environment, the land, the water, the taxation, the financing financing of our state government, the Bill of Rights, the suffrage, elections, the executive branch, it any branch, local government and, of course, particularly Hawaiian affairs, as as is evidence in the effort made in the 78 concon.

[00:04:12] Speaker 1: All of these various key elements to the way the state lives and does and works are part of the Constitution convention. And it certainly behooves all of us to pay serious attention to it. It was given a very thorough workover in the 78 concon, and of course, now we're up against the opportunity or the question whether indeed, it's time or timely to once again shake this thing out and see whether or not indeed, we can keep it a living, working document for the benefit everybody in the state.

[00:04:40] Peter Adler: Terrific. Dan, you were around in '86. Why do you think that the voters said no at that time, and is the mood any different today?

[00:04:47] Dan Boylan: Well, I'm not sure about the mood today. My my guess is that the there would be quite a debate, and we would end up not having it. But I think the reason we didn't have it in '86 was, very frankly, that the people who were launched politically by Concon in 1988 and the people who helped to launch them were now in power. I think Governor Waihee in 1986 who was was literally launched by the Constitutional Convention as political career. I think he didn't see any particular need for it. I don't think the people who supported him saw saw any particular need for it. There wasn't a thrust from the community to by any organized groups, which there must be for something like this.

[00:05:23] Dan Boylan: This is not a party thing that people that party support, and that that wasn't there. And so, consequently, I I don't think there was anyone pushing the people or educating the people on the idea that perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at our document.

[00:05:36] Peter Adler: Bud, let's go over to you. You you wrote an editorial back in April suggesting we ought to have a concon and if I recollect I recollect a lot of your thinking had been influenced by Harold Matsumuto, who who thought it was important. Why why might a concon be important?

[00:05:49] Speaker 2: There are a lot of things that probably would be done only by a concon rather than by the legislature submitting an amendment to be ratified. The legislature can do that, but the legislature isn't going to give us an amendment proposing a one-house legislature. I can promise you that. I doubt very much that the legislature is going to give us a proposal for multi-member districts, which I think will really would be much better for the state. Now, you we we could get those through the Reapportionment Commission in the year 2001, but the Reapportionment Commission, unfortunately, is appointed by the legislature. So I don't know. I I think if we want multi-member districts, we may we may need a concon to do it.

[00:06:25] Speaker 2: And Harold Matsumuto was very concerned about the fact that the Democrats, and I remember this way back, in fact, I covered the 1950 Constitutional convention, but the the Democrats swept the power on a home rule theme. They have centralized the Jesus out of government. They've put everything under under the thumb of of the governor and the state, and Harold believes that we ought to give more power back to the counties and that probably the only way we can get that to happen is through a concon. The legislature is not going to propose an amendment like that. I just promise you.

[00:06:54] Peter Adler: It sounds like one of the things that happens when there is a constitutional convention is that new generations of political leadership get launched. I mean, that's one of the implicit functions or impacts. Anyway, Jim, when I talked with you about coming on this show, you seemed to think a concon would not be a good idea. Why is that?

[00:07:08] Bud Smyser: In 1978, we had just gone through an incredible decade of grassroots citizen involvement. People may have forgotten, but the neighborhood boards, life of the land, all kinds of organizations were launched in the 1970s. We had an open government movement, an environmental movement, a planning movement, a fiscal conservative movement, a land use lifestyle movement, and of course, the Hawaiian Renaissance. All of these ideas and grassroots movements were sort of marinated into our Hawaii's constitution. And and a lot of the impetus for that big debate in a convention, now, as Bud pointed out, there are other ways to amend the constitution. But that whole energy, that juice that was in the system, uh is not really there now.

[00:07:50] Bud Smyser: I don't see it. I don't see that kind of involvement. In fact, in 1978, even though you had many, many different opinions of what to do, you still had a very positive idea, a positive sense that government was an important instrument. Uh that that you could do good things through it, whether it be uh initiative or or open government or environment or whatnot. Right now, if you try to sample the sense of the public, there's a real negative sense about government, right? So, why would you spend maybe $7 million to convene a constitutional convention when there really wasn't a kind of grassroots involvement? And the other thing I would say is that if there's one trend now, it's it's towards fiscal responsibility in government, but we we actually anticipated that in the last constitution.

[00:08:38] Bud Smyser: we we require a balanced budget, we limit the debt, we have a council of revenues that we are bound to to follow, and we even stimulated economic development with special purpose bonds. So when you look at what is there to do now, I think Bill alluded to sovereignty and and perhaps home rule, whether or not they will be clarified enough among the general public to justify a convention as opposed to certain amendments through the normal route, I really don't know. I think it's something we have to look at. But if it's not uh a clear sense, you know, then I don't know if if if a convention is the proper context.

[00:09:19] Peter Adler: Bud, you got a thought on this?

[00:09:20] Speaker 2: I think we could all say if the concon decided things our way, it would be worth 7 million bucks, but I think you got something there. But on the other hand, in in a generalized argument, here we're coming down into the 21st century and presumably everybody's trying to lay the framework getting going, isn't it the right time to shake it out and not be afraid of of aside from the cost now, that we'll put some delegates in there that uh will bungle it? I think to me it's time to to take a hard look.

[00:09:49] Peter Adler: Let me let me just raise a kind of a different proposition. If there is really a dark mood out there because of the economics, there's mistrust in government, wouldn't that in some ways mitigate towards having a concon and and uh pull some energy towards that, towards restructuring of government, restructuring of economy?

[00:10:05] Speaker 2: I think it would, Peter. One of the things that I think Jim misses is that the Concon revitalized uh you you point to the grassroots organizations, but the Concon itself revitalized politics a bit. I think one of the problems we have in this state is we don't have enough politics. I don't mean the backroom stuff, I mean we don't have enough out-front politics. We don't have elections, for example, when people are appointed to positions or or are defeated. Uh something that they they leave that power with the uh with the governor, Governor Waihee, appointed and it seemed to me an astronomical number of people to hire office, thus making them dependent upon upon him in the process.

[00:10:38] Speaker 2: I'm not saying that was his intent. Uh the governor the and and we don't have elections. I think we should have special elections, whatever the cost. Democracy is important and people feel they're a part of the process when they're electing people. A Constitutional convention focuses people, gets more people, new people into the system. You, I think came up through Concon, Bill Payti came through came through Concon, John Waihee came through Concon. Political careers and political interest uh was stoked by that constitutional convention. I think Bill is right. This is a perfect time uh to do it again to do it again. It's the end of the the century. What about an elected Attorney General? You guys aren't going to do that in the in the in the legislature, and we've got to have it.

[00:11:21] Speaker 2: We need a state this size and in this fiscal shapes needs a Lieutenant Governor's office, talk about a, you know, a second carburetor on a car. Uh we need that one like we it should go. Uh, Bud's idea about uh uh single uh house legislature, he's been pushing for a long, long time. He's absolutely right. I mean, how many checks and how many balances, given all of the uh guys working in the legislature as checks and balances uh uh um, you know, as lobbyists do you need.

[00:11:49] Peter Adler: We're talking this morning of with Jim Shawn, Bud Smizer, Dan Boylan and Bill Payti about whether Hawaii needs a constitutional convention in 1998. To ask a question or make a brief comment, please give us a call at 955-8821, Outer Islanders call collect.

[00:12:05] Bud Smyser: Uh, you know, I didn't mean to uh imply that constitutional conventions in and of themselves are not useful. Uh in fact, many of the things that you mentioned, I think were characteristic of the 78 constitutional convention because of the historical times we were in. Uh right now though, what I'm wondering about is whether or not I mean, we can all name our own list of great amendments. I have my list too of pet amendments that I you know, didn't get in in '78 either. Uh I think the real question is whether or not that process of bringing together uh and spending a significant amount of money to get it to get everybody in. You know, in 1978, for all the public involvement, only 34% of the electorate bothered to vote in that election.

[00:12:49] Bud Smyser: And we had virtually herds of new candidates on the streets. Um of that, almost no one got elected by a majority. And of that, almost none of the amendments sort of passed the convention without a a lot of contention. So when you get it down to it, maybe 5 to 6% of the electorate were responsible for the product of that convention. That is one of the features of democracy that has to be built into this. I'm not saying it never works, but I'm saying is this the time where you have that kind of involvement by the public that really makes it work?

[00:13:24] Peter Adler: Well I'd like to hear a little bit about the 78 convention Bill, maybe what were some of those 108 issues that didn't come through or we know about some of the ones that did the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, state water, what are some of the ones that were contentious but didn't come out?

[00:13:35] Speaker 1: I can't remember. I had so much trouble trying to keep track of the of the 104 amendments that did go through, I don't think I can really tell you. Uh but you know, we were pressed for time. We had 102 people new to the uh legislative procedure trying to get organized in 64 days and overhaul the whole thing and take a look at it. Uh it was a tough go and uh Jim's right uh when it came time to uh approve the amendment and we took it to the voters in November. if you get you only require 35% of those voting to approve the amendments and that seems to me a uh a little shaky in terms of really is this the the amendment that you want in your state Constitution?

[00:14:11] Speaker 2: One of the things that didn't come through was the one house legislature. And at that time opinion polls showed that the a a a majority of people were in favor of it. I'd I'd add that Starbulletin worked very hard to to drum up support for it. But the unions went to work and in the election defeated the people who were for a one house legislature. So before you ever went to work, the one house legislature was defeated. That could happen again, I fear, but I still think it's a great idea.

[00:14:34] Peter Adler: I have a question for Bill or Jim. Um in in 1978, you put your amendments out to be ratified by the public, and uh some of them just squeaked through. Since then, the legislature has adopted had has proposed, and the public has ratified, an amendment which says any blank vote will count as a no vote. I How many amendments do either of you think of your 1978 package wouldn't be on the law books today if that rule had applied?

[00:15:05] Speaker 1: I I think that uh it would be a small handful, but some of them would be significant. I think OHA might not be in existence.

[00:15:13] Bud Smyser: That was one of the packages that were very much in doubt.

[00:15:15] Speaker 1: Yes, yes. So, uh uh very controversial amendments that would come out of a of a convention, uh and in a very controversial charged debate over those amendments, I probably uh would not survive uh the electorate.

[00:15:30] Bud Smyser: I I like that higher test and I think that's one of the reasons we we might risk another Concon that we'd be easier it'd be a little easier to vote down the bad things, but.

[00:15:37] Speaker 1: But that's one of the things that be people pause, you know, they're concerned that they're come in and delete some of those special provisions, particularly those in in the Hawaiian communities.

[00:15:46] Peter Adler: Let's take a phone call. Steve in Manoa. Good morning.

[00:15:49] Bud Smyser: Good morning. I noticed that uh one of the previous, I think it was Bud Smizer, mentioned Harold Matsumuto and his opinion uh earlier in the show, which brought to mind the political interference in the university, which has been Harold's principal contribution. And I was wondering what the people on the on the panel thought about how a constitutional convention would affect the status of the university, given its current plight and given the fact that uh they're now uh able to retain their own tuition and there's there seems to be a restructuring in any event going on. How do they see university fairing in a political, I'm sorry, in a constitutional convention?

[00:16:28] Peter Adler: Good Good question. Let's go to Dan who's with the university.

[00:16:31] Dan Boylan: Yeah, I'm I I think they might be hurt because I think one of the things that's got a much better chance of passing any constitutional convention this time around is initiative. Uh because I think both the right and the left uh uh on the political spectrum and uh think that initiative is a good thing because it brings more democracy. An initiative I think if we're cutting government now and if we're cutting the university and cutting public and public education and everything else, will cut things even more. If we go to Proposition 13 California style, hey, you think Governor Kaytano's been tough on the university, you you see what's going to happen to us.

[00:17:04] Peter Adler: Other thoughts on that from panel?

[00:17:09] Speaker 1: There was a past amendment adopted, which I think was similar to one regarding the Board of Education powers last in 1994, we had an amendment to limit the Board of Education powers to statewide educational policy and appoint the school superintendent. Now, the voters said yes to that by 200, 238,000 to 137,000. But the Attorney General says no, the legislature didn't go through all the right processes so it's not valid. Uh I I I think a similar amendment passed earlier regarding the University saying that the that that basically the the region should stay out of administration and the state should stay out of running the regions. Now, that's a positive thing I think for the university. I assume you're glad we have.

[00:17:57] Bud Smyser: Uh, well, there's two things that the legislature has toyed with in the last few years, which might make it into a constitutional convention. Uh one would be a certain more of autonomy by the university. Uh, and and there's a kind of commitment to that already. The second would be whether or not a percentage of the state budget would be uh designated as allocated both for lower education and for higher education. Both of these amendments have failed to pass in the past, but I know that at one time uh the big uh uh group that uh Governor Kaytano had headed on public education was promoting the notion that a certain percentage of the budget be fixed and allocated, uh minimum amount at least for education.

[00:18:41] Bud Smyser: And so higher Ed might actually get a fixed amount, whether that would be wise uh is another question, but uh it's a possibility. I would see probably the university would would come out on top if it got anything.

[00:19:00] Speaker 3: percentage of the state budget overall has gone down significantly in the last few years where it was about 13% in the last decade and now it's down to 11% of the state budget. Uh, do you believe that if a if a certain amount were designated for the university, this amount would be even lower? Is this is the is the legislature uh of a mood to do that? I mean, are the people of the mood to do that or would the would the cut that the university got be restored to its previous uh status and I'll hang up and listen.

[00:19:32] Speaker 4: Uh well, if I can just respond to that uh in terms of lower education, I think the thought was to fix it at about 33%, which is what we had been about 10 years ago. So I would see if we did the same thing with higher Ed, it would probably raise it to a certain level but you probably would never get beyond that level. And the real problem with that kind of amendment is how do you calculate what the base of the budget is so that you get the percentage. What's in and what's out becomes enormously important and enormously complicated.

[00:20:04] Speaker 5: Let's go to another question, another caller, Desmond from Kaimuki. Good morning, Desmond.

[00:20:08] Speaker 6: Good morning. Good morning, Peter.

[00:20:10] Speaker 5: I recognize that voice.

[00:20:16] Speaker 6: Right, I'm calling up this morning as the chair of Common Cause and first of all, as a comment, we're very much in favor after 20 years of having a constitutional convention. We we find a bigger and bigger gap between the citizens, re and government and confidence in government. And uh this is an incredible opportunity to involve citizens and I hope very few politicians in the next convention so that we really look at the whole of government. Government has changed or should be changing structurally and in every other way, and this would be well worth the 7 million or whatever it costs. Our concern and sort of question here is we find a lot of insiders in government and politicians uh against this constitutional convention or very lukewarm.

[00:21:05] Speaker 6: As though they don't trust the citizens to gather and to mull over these things and they're afraid of the far left or the far right or whatever it is and really air all these issues. Why is there such a we perceive a fear amongst the insiders uh and leaders of having a constitutional convention and not letting the citizens speak.

[00:21:26] Speaker 5: Let's go to our government people and ask Jim and Bill are are our are folks who've been inside or are inside government afraid of a con con for the reasons that Desmond is pointing out, Jim?

[00:21:37] Speaker 4: Well, I think uh Desmond is right is that there is a bias among those who are in government that well everything is going along just hunky-dory, so we really don't need this other democratic sort of participatory experience. I personally don't think that that is really the issue that we should decide it upon however, and I don't think it's really up to uh in trenched politicians it's up to the citizenry. But as the citizenry looks at this, I think they have to figure out what is likely to happen in that kind of environment today. I probably Desmond's agenda and my agenda probably be very similar of what things we could do to improve government and participation and initiative and all those kinds of things.

[00:22:18] Speaker 4: Nevertheless, I'm I'm just kind of skeptical as to uh what this kind of a convention would be in this historical times.

[00:22:26] Speaker 5: Just a reminder that we are talking about whether Hawaii needs a constitutional convention in 1998. We're speaking with Jim Sean, Bud Smiser, Dan Bolen, and Bill Pati, and to ask a question or make a brief comment, to share a thought, please give us a call at 955-8821. Neighbor Islanders call collect.

[00:22:45] Jim Shon: To go on with Jim Desmond's call uh Jim I would like to say that the last concon there were almost 700 candidates it turned out uh that filed for the roughly 102 seats and it was quite a grassroots effort. And the media and others suggested or proposed or indicated to the entrenched the what you might say the establishment or the legislators, they not come aboard. So only four of them the delegates had previous political experience in the 78 concon. I would rather expect that this time that you would see unless there was a very strong movement to to stay grassroots, that you'll see some of the uh legislators filing because as Jim says, there's always a tendency to want to protect what you have and not turn it loose to a bunch of grassroots so-called do-gooders.

[00:23:32] Speaker 5: Let me shift this a little bit. I want to come back to something kind of I think might be fundamental. Constitutions are sort of like charter documents, foundational documents, but it looks like they also become the place where lots of special interests try to move things into the into the constitutional process. They could be done by the legislature. If we were to take everything out of the constitution that could be done legislatively, what would fall out? Would the office of Hawaiian affairs fall out? Would water code fall out? And and what is the what should we be thinking a constitutional document is really about? Are there things that are sort of foundational as opposed to more super structural?

[00:24:08] Jim Shon: The 1950 convention was convened nine years before statehood. And it was a very idealistic effort to show that we could write a sound constitution that the other that the 48 states could look at and say those people aren't there aren't a bunch of communists out there. That was a big issue at the time. And that we we we wrote a very sound structure for our state government that was widely applauded. Uh, it had uh I have a book here by Anne Lee called Hawaii State Constitution and she's counted the words in the constitution. She says there were 14,500 in the 1950 constitution and now with all the amendments we're up to 17,500. Uh, but they the the the battle we aren't going to change the basic document.

[00:24:52] Jim Shon: The battle though is between the the status quo forces and the and and and the people that want change. Uh, Jim is part of the status quo forces. The legislators like single member districts, they like a two house legislature, they they they like a strongly centralized government. The the the people who want change have really only one avenue, and that's the concon. And so it's a battle between status quo and changes.

[00:25:14] Speaker 5: Boy, we we've come a long way when we call a bomb thrower like Jim Sean, a supporter of the status quo, but this morning he is. There's no question about it. Uh, we have Anne on the phone from Hawaii Kai.

[00:25:24] Jim Shon: I remember well in the last 78 concon. He was he was heard and then and very forcefully.

[00:25:30] Speaker 5: I have a feeling that's uh the Anne Lee that we were talking about, Anne?

[00:25:33] Bud Smyser: Yes, I'm sorry, I for some reason or other on my radio, I was hearing other news and not you guys, so I don't I missed what you've just said.

[00:25:40] Speaker 5: We just said you wrote a great book.

[00:25:42] Bud Smyser: Well, thank you very much. Um, I have so many things that I want to respond to that you are all saying, and I've been warned to be brief and to the point, so I I'm having a hard time choosing.

[00:25:51] Speaker 5: Give us the most important one for you this morning.

[00:25:53] Bud Smyser: The most important one, well that's hard, they're all important. One is I do want to point out to you that your figure of 7 million is probably pretty correct because in '78, the amount that was spent was 2,500,000.

[00:26:07] Speaker 5: We figured under that figure but that was the allocated amount.

[00:26:10] Bud Smyser: Right, that's right. So um the 7 million is probably pretty correct and I just think people need to keep that in mind. Uh the the major point that I want to make this morning, however, is that whatever reasons are used to say to people vote yes, whatever reasons you use for your call to a convention, I think need to be thought through very carefully. As Bud knows, I disagree with him on the issue of the multi-member issue being used as a rallying cry. It would be a terrible mistake if we put into the constitution a requirement that we used only multi-member districts. And I won't go into the detail, but um we already have the flexibility in the constitution at this at this moment.

[00:26:55] Bud Smyser: That part really does not need to be changed. Um, but the major the major point is, think carefully to any issue that is used as a rallying cry, because you need to know what are the implications coming from such a change. Of course, it might not happen, the delegates in all their wisdom might go a totally different way. Uh just because we think that that the reason for having a convention doesn't mean they'll do it.

[00:27:21] Speaker 5: Let let's use that as a jump-off point and ask ourselves what are some of the issues that we think will be the rallying cry when as this comes on the ballot.

[00:27:29] Bud Smyser: Right, and what could possibly happen as a result of those in fact being proposed and adopted by the public, if I may.

[00:27:35] Speaker 5: Jim, what what do you think some of those issues are?

[00:27:37] Speaker 4: Well, I think one area clearly is that uh as people become dissatisfied with government you strike out at what you can hit and the thing you can hit is the legislature. So I would see quite a number of amendments to restrict uh legislative authority, legislative uh uh even salaries, legislative perks, uh high three, all that sort of thing is a way of sort of getting back at all those things nasty things we did to people over the years. I think that's one thing. Clearly sovereignty uh is coming up, but whether or not it will be mature enough at that point to be able to do anything uh really positive and really definitive would would be another one.

[00:28:16] Speaker 4: Um, I really wonder to what extent, I think home rule will will be revisited. I think uh the maturity of the city and county of Honolulu will press that issue as to whether or not counties need more power and more taxing authority. And I think that the block grants coming down to the states have a kind of ripple effect well, if it's at the state level, maybe it should be at the county level. So I think that is also an issue that is likely to be there, but whether or not the neighbor island counties will have as much clout or as much rationale for that kind of movement as a city and county, that that's a a big question in my mind.

[00:28:52] Speaker 5: Any other issues, Bill?

[00:28:53] Jim Shon: I think you again see initiative referendum coming to the fore. Uh, that was a hot one last time, and there's the concern for having some say in government over and beyond the establishment that lots of people feel. Uh initiative and referendum is is the way out if you will, without this problems, but that's.

[00:29:11] Speaker 5: I would also think that uh initiative referendum and recall certainly, but I think anything to streamline government and make it cheaper in this atmosphere. Uh and I don't and I'm not sure that's a an attempt to strike back. I think but I think that um for example, I again I mentioned the Lieutenant Governor's office and I think Mazy Hirono is a wonderful human being and a good and a good leader. But I but I think that that that is one one issue in the single member the single house legislature where people would have a chance to cut the size of government and the cost of government. And I think that if the grassroots people had their way, that's what would happen, those if the insiders have their way their way probably not.

[00:38:00] Bill Paty: balances, and having two different bodies to stop the bad stuff, was very positive. We looked around at county governments, which were mostly unicameral and saw them giving away the aina. That was a perspective in 1978, and we didn't like that idea. We didn't like the idea of giving more power to the counties so that they could give away the natural resources to the highest bidder. And so we saw, many of us saw, that unicameral was a way of streamlining things for the most powerful in this society. And we didn't like that too much. And the whole idea of home rule. You know, we gave the the the property taxes back to the counties, but we did it in a phased way because we had many environmental policies integrated in Hawaii's central government role for property taxes. And we didn't want to give that away either, protecting agricultural lands, and and that sort of thing.

[00:38:57] Bill Paty: So a lot of these issues cut different ways, and I don't think it should be characterized as simply, are you an insider? Are you part of the establishment and all that? You have to look at where the forces in society are, where the big money is, where they're going to get. A unicameral legislature may be more streamlined, but is the average citizen going to have more opportunities to get their ideas introduced into that kind of an environment? Are you going to be able to stop really bad, you know, invidious kind of things? If that's what you're worried about, if you don't have confidence in government. So, I I've always seen myself as a reformer, but I don't think that being for a bicameral system is somehow insider orientation. I see that might be the most responsible one for people who are who are worried about the environment.

[00:39:44] Speaker 7: But you've written on this issue, you've got uh

[00:39:46] Bill Paty: I don't agree a bit that the county governments are bad, and I don't think they're overwhelmed either by by money. Money helps in all elections, it helps in in the legislative elections. Uh, but uh, the the the county governments, God bless them, are open. You can see what they do. You look at your council members, you know how they voted. They don't log jam everything up to the end of the year so they can trade on it between two houses. And they they don't have trades that occur in a dark room somewhere where nobody nobody knows who who who who did what to who. It it's an open process. I mean we have our nine Honolulu city council members. I don't like everything they do, but at least I I know what they're doing. I know who does it. They proceed in an orderly fashion. They pass a bill in January, February, March, April, May, June. The legislature, if the legislative session were a year long, they still would pile all the bills up to the end of the session because they want to trade. Jim has his bill, and he knows some fellow over in the senate, and he says, 'I'm not going to let my bill go until the end because I'm going to strike a deal.' And okay, environments a nice emotional issue, but it's insider dealing.

[00:40:54] Speaker 7: We have another call from Rick in Wyhole. Good morning, Rick.

[00:40:58] Speaker 8: Yeah, good morning. Um, I've been listening and and everybody's talking about all these minute little details and everything. But, I think there's a big question that is not being addressed by a very, I mean a lot of people, they don't address it and it it it is this. It's the carrying capacity of this island. And that goes against the grain of capitalism in general, you know, because capitalism historically uh usually destroys the resource base that that we rely on in the first place. You could say, I call it the cut your own branch syndrome. Now, people are talking about protecting the resources. You know, we can't completely cover everything up with development because it might wreck tourism, et cetera, et cetera. But nobody has any answers really.

[00:41:53] Speaker 7: Let's bring that back to the constitutional convention. I'm wondering if that was an issue in fact in 1978 and did carrying capacity and thoughts of limiting population densities and growth was was that did it find its way into the conversation?

[00:42:05] Bill Paty: No, no, but as Jim said, there was a very environmentally oriented concon and very stringent efforts were made. For example, setting up the Water Resource Agency which later came out as the water as the commissioner of water uh I can't even say it, the water, uh water resource management and and the water code. Uh, which was a fundamental move in that same direction. Uh, the right to a safe, free environment is was was another one.

[00:42:35] Speaker 8: But you had a lot, so much has happened since 1978 and it's just going on like there's no end in sight. What are we going to do? You can't limit uh population you know because it's unconstitutional. So the only alternative is to set aside natural resources that will be that forever. Like for agricultural land, we should set aside agricultural lands and it's going to be ag land forever. Like Kapilani Park is going to be a park forever. No exceptions. No amendments. That's it. We have to do that.

[00:43:15] Speaker 7: Rick, you've asked a good question. We got some other responses. Thank you for raising it. Bye.

[00:43:19] Bill Paty: Yes. We actually did put into the constitution something called agricultural lands of importance to the state. But this, this actually illustrates one of the weaknesses of a constitutional instrument because when we know it's complex, we ask the legislature to then enact a law to implement that. They still haven't done it. The legislature still has not acted on that particular amendment. And so there are really limits to what you can get done in a in a constitution. You can set that out as as a basic goal and say you must do a b c d e. Uh, some state constitutions, however, do constitutionally zone their conservation lands. New York did that. I mean, so we could do that. Uh whether or not a constitutional convention uh would uh would have the resources to do that intelligently would be interesting. Uh but uh uh the things that we did put into the in into their still some of them still are not implemented. And and maybe will never be implemented because of the weaknesses of that structure uh to enact real specific things that you want to get done. We're talking this morning with Jim Shan, Bud Smiser, Dan Bolen, and Bill Pay about whether Hawaii needs a a constitutional convention in 1998. That question will appear on the ballot in 1996. If you'd like to ask a question or make a brief comment or share a a thought, give us a call at 955-8821. Neighbor Islanders, call us collect. Um it seems like that that the constitutional convention in some ways becomes a an expression of the political will of the people when the legislature can't seem to muster it. And there's a funny tie that you're raising, Jim. I mean, I know the water code uh was mandated by the the constitutional convention, but it took 10 years to get it out of the legislature. So just because the Concon says it'll happen doesn't mean it happens. So this whole question, what's the political will and how does the Concon reflect that and what's the interaction with the legislature's interesting. I think that's one of the problems you face though whether indeed your your Concon is a legislative uh body. It comes up with a minimum that should really properly be addressed by the legislature and and how much of a mix there is in that is presents some real problems, but nonetheless, there was a good bit of it in 78. Uh, but nonetheless we felt those were amendments that should have been made.

[00:45:38] Speaker 7: Seems like there's a constant tugging and pulling between uh having the Concon act as a legislative body versus having it be uh kind of more what Anne was talking about, which is reviewing uh for fatal flaws and making sure that it's uh, you know, the the the right level playing field.

[00:46:19] Bill Paty: Well, let me offer up a fatal flaw. Uh, one of the things that the 1978 Constitutional Convention did was to say that we had to refund uh tax money uh to to the taxpayer. Uh, and it seems to me that uh the this was almost created a tremendous problem for the state. Uh, namely, we we've needed a rainy day fund. Uh, we certainly need a rainy day fund today. Uh, we don't have it. There's also the impetus in such a in such a uh a piece of uh uh such a constitutional provision uh that you find yourself wanting to spend all the money because if you don't spend all the money, then you have to give it back to the taxpayer whom you uh uh because of your constitutional provision. So you end up perhaps spending more money on everything than you should spend. That was a that was a politically popular, but I think, politically popular in some ways, but a rather short sighted thing to do. And boy, I think the state would be would be well served if a new constitutional convention rethought that one. And that's a fundamental law that we are all suffering from right now in this state.

[00:46:56] Speaker 7: That led to some of the smoking mirrors budgeting I think, hiding money away so it wouldn't count in the refund. Absolutely and I bet editorially you guys supported that. Think back on that, but. I don't know, we're going to do some research on that. Go with the return 50 bucks and you know. I would, I would like to argue though that in in response to Rick, I think we have a lot of development controls in this state both at the state and county level and uh obviously some people don't have everything protected that we want, but we've done a pretty decent job in this state of planning. We would, what what happened in Waikiki where all those high buildings went up in front of each other, can't happen now. We have we have requirements for spacing and zoning, and we're protecting a lot of land. So yes, Jim and others might like to protect more, uh and but we have the mechanisms to do it. We have to have the popular will to do it of course.

[00:47:48] Speaker 7: We got another call from Charles in Kiki. Charles, good morning.

[00:47:50] Speaker 9: Good morning. What I'd like to comment on is how thoroughly disgusted this voter was over the voting provisions uh where four or say three or four related subjects uh that you might all be be in favor of all four of them were split and uh two of them put on a single question with another uh subject that you were unalterably opposed to and gives you the dilemma of, do I take what I don't want uh to get uh you know, take what I don't want to get what I want. Uh I think that was loaded voting against the taxpayers. And the other uh part of it was that a lack of a vote on any question would constitute a yes vote.

[00:48:41] Speaker 9: I think that was all against the public.

[00:48:45] Bill Paty: Charles, I think you probably have a good point there. I'll say we went we agonized over how we're going to put this the amendments before the public. It just wasn't feasible uh for the Lieutenant Governor's Lieutenant Governor's office uh to put forth 140 different proposals. So we packaged them. And uh they came under real criticism at the time and no question that uh you voters were not given the the choice that they wanted in some cases. But then some of them were challenged. I went to the supreme court and they were held uh that they were indeed valid. So that uh it's not an easy. The main thing is don't go putting forth 104 amendments. That's that was the problem because you can't put them all in one ballot. So I'd agree with what you're saying.

[00:49:28] Speaker 7: It's a good cautionary note for the next one, if if and when. Can I ask a question? Bill, if if we had a constitutional convention in in '88 would you in 98 would you run for it?

[00:49:38] Bill Paty: Uh, my wife is listening at this point in time and so, However, let's say uh I'll stand pat on that. They might want somebody around to tell them what not to do. Yeah, I mean that's exactly the point. I think we often lose our uh an awful lot of our expertise because it's we've done this once, been there, you know. I think this issue of experts in the convention is a serious one. As Bill says, we had a climate that said the legislator shouldn't be allowed into the 1978 convention. As a result, we we lack some of the expertise uh that we needed. Now, Jim, I I guess you started your career there, is that right? A lot of people started their careers. Well, neighborhood board and then yeah. But uh I we probably ought to encourage a few more so called experts to get get we don't want to let the legislature dominated it. If I want to get a unicameral legislature that let's take another call. Go for it. Okay, thanks.

[00:50:30] Speaker 7: Charles, thanks for calling. Uh, Tom from Makiki.

[00:50:33] Speaker 10: Hi, um I have this just gut feeling that uh a Concon would be like playing Russian roulette with our constitution. Um I haven't heard anything that that really sounds like pressing concerns that have to be addressed now and can't be addressed any other way. And it's like opening a Pandora's box to all sorts of bizarre things. Um Uh right now I'd vote no on such a thing.

[00:50:56] Bill Paty: There's one other aspect of it too. We don't know I don't think at this time where this public site for the uh Hawaiian uh Concon is going to be. It may be in the same time frame that they would approve it and have uh a Concon relating to sovereignty and you might be advised at that point in time to hold off till see whether indeed something uh a more focused is brought to this issue. What what is conceivable then that the Concon could preempt that question or muddy it up certainly, right? That's right. Uh, I think you have to look at it and and at least keep that in mind.

[00:51:28] Speaker 7: Um, Tom, thank you for calling. Dan from Kailua.

[00:51:32] Dan Boylan: Yes, I am. Thank you. Uh this is Dan Foley, I'm a civil rights attorney and an insider, but my experience with the Concon time is basically the Bill of Rights, which is primarily designed to represent minority groups that uh aren't well represented, don't do well at the polls, and at this time I'd rather take my chances before the Hawaii Supreme Court than in a referendum.

[00:51:56] Speaker 7: Mhm. So you're a cautionary note that uh you run the risk of uh tinkering with some pretty fundamental things if you open it up. Well, you can see it in the mainland for example where there's many constitutional provisions whether through statewide initiative or otherwise being put on the ballot for example that are anti-gay and anti-other minority groups. Good, good uh, good comment. Thank you, Dan. Bill from Palolo.

[00:52:20] Bill Paty: Hi there. I uh, I wanted to comment on this uh, this last Concon. The state water code uh, really wasn't didn't bring us anything. Uh, one of uh, the legislators there killed the truth and drinking water bill, claiming to be a a uh, what is it? Environmentalist? I, I, I am very worried that if the legislators get back in and Bill Pady, if you get back into the Concon, I think it'd be a dangerous thing to have. Be a be or the or the code. Probably both. Well Bill you represent you know you represented sugar for many many years and the water code is well water is what sugar needs and the idea of privately owned water uh all kinds of problems. It really kind of bothers me that if we don't have special interest in the next Concon, hey I'm all for it. But uh we've got serious problems here that our Concon has not solved.

[00:53:20] Speaker 7: Well, one of the things that I've I've one of the discussions I've heard uh was that people would be afraid of a Concon because it might wind up be the the vehicle for repealing or retracting the water code and re, you know, deconstructing it. So, and that is one of the dangers. In fact that you open up the the book again and you say let's change it all around.

[00:53:36] Bill Paty: We'll end with uh asking Jim uh to please uh advance that uh truth and drinking water bill in this session coming up. Thank you.

[00:53:46] Speaker 7: Good. I can testify about Bill that he once was viciously opposed to a water code and then he he looked at the situation and he realized that we just had to have some regulation or we were in deep soup.

[00:54:01] Bill Paty: I saw the light.

[00:54:03] Speaker 7: Well, what what what else what what other issues do you think again, might we might see on the plate. We've talked about uh kind of some that are sort of special interests, we've talked about morality issues, we've talked about governance and restructuring. Those are all things that that come in the door as soon as you open up the door for this. And I'm wondering if there's any other things that we think, you know, would wind up on the plate. I I just I just want to say uh not not speaking to that, Peter. I I just want to say something more about the Pandora's box. Yes, that's true. Uh you you have a constitutional convention, anything can happen at the constitutional convention, a lot of things that many of us at this table might not want would happen at the constitutional convention. But this is a state and this is a society, a national society in which there is enormous alienation from government. And to the extent that the the constitutional convention historically has proven a place where outside voices, voices that are not normally heard, get a chance to be heard uh and democratically elected with the tremendous participation I remember in my district back in 78, I think there were I think there were something like 14 people or 15 people running for that, running for that seat. That's That's phenomenal. Normally for the legislature, we get one because no one no everyone knows it's absolutely fruitless to take on a well financed incumbent. Uh uh Jim is always opposed. I don't know why that is. You have more opposition. It's that it's that district you live in. But I it it just seems to me that as an exercise in democracy and an attempt to re look at things, a chance for a new voice, a chance for revitalization, new people, new involvement, open up the Pandora's box. The argument there is that that one of the themes we've talked about is that a Concon is part of re engaging people's Absolutely. civically. And and and I guess the question is, is was that your sense of what happened in 78 and maybe even going back prior to that. Oh, very very definitely. I would say that if you were going to constitute a a rationale for a new constitutional convention, it probably would be along the lines that Dan just mentioned. Yeah, because it was an enormously positive uh enthusiastic exciting Makahiki of of of political involvement on the part of those of us who came into that environment. But I must say that it was really disappointing to note how few of the electorate voted in the special election for it. So I would say if you're going to do it, you should have it at the regular ballot time, you know, on a November election because a special election somehow people just didn't, they didn't know enough about hardly anybody. Yeah, but the question has to whether there should be one. Or you're talking about the amendments that come out of one. No, I'm talking about the election for delegates. I see. Is that in spite of all the folks who ran, is that the the the number of people who actually voted for them was enormously small. You know, what

[00:57:00] Speaker 11: Everyone wants to run, but nobody wants to vote.

[00:57:01] Speaker 12: That's right. That's right because we didn't know anything about all these people standing on the street corner. I guess that was it.

[00:57:06] Speaker 11: Took place took place in May.

[00:57:07] Speaker 12: Yeah, May 26th.

[00:57:09] Speaker 11: Exactly. And so a lot of people said, what's all this about? There were a few people as a percentage voting for the 78 con con and then voted in the 68.

[00:57:20] Speaker 12: And with a small turnout, the interest groups are stronger because they get their people out and the other people don't come out.

[00:57:26] Speaker 11: We've got another call, and maybe time for one more from Julia and Kailua Kona. Julia, good morning.

[00:57:31] Speaker 13: Hi, how are you? Um I worked at the last constitutional convention and I don't know if the state can afford it right now. However, I do want to say it was a wonderful, wonderful training ground for people in in many occupations, and many people changed their career choices after the experience. After con con, I chose to report on government, and became a reporter and then later the editor of the daily newspaper on Kauai, the Garden Island for many years. There are many other occupations represented at Con Con. Some were young young lawyers who now have high positions in government. In Con Con I worked for the Environmental Committee, and more particularly, um, marine biologist Jeremy Harris who then later got into government, became County Council chair and now mayor of Honolulu. Con Con, it just opened up government to new blood as all of you are saying, into new ideas, and I think it's very important for government. Despite the expense, despite the threat it presents to current power structure in government, despite some of the mistakes that inexperienced people without experience in government might make, but my question is, is there a way to do it for less than the $7 million? Can we use some online technologies like internet, other ways to save money, and and still do it?

[00:58:41] Jim Shon: Well, uh, one of the things you got to remember is that as soon as the Con Con is elected, that group of newly elected people have to figure out right away where they're going to do it, uh, how to spend the money, how to get things up and going. Uh, it's not as though you have a group of delegates who are sitting around for a year to plan the best way to do it. And I think Bill knows more about this than anybody.

[00:59:02] Bill Paty: Yeah, they gave us a, you thought it and made and gave us $1,000 a month for four months. Uh, we began on the fifth of July, we ended the 21st of September, 64 days, we had the opportunity we had the charge to review the entire con con and hear everything that went in it and make those proposal, and it was just and as we had to get them on the ballot uh in November. It was too short a time, we pushed, we shoved, we heard everything needed to be done, uh but and got them before the public. It was uh an effort that needed more time.

[00:59:34] Speaker 11: We have just a couple of minutes left. Thank you for calling Julia. Uh we have just a couple minutes left, and I'd like to hear your best predictions at this point. When it appears on the ballot in 1996, do you think it will pass? And I'd like to hear from each of you, which way you think it's going to go. Will the voters say yes, let's have one, or do you think they'll say no? We're a year away. We're there'll probably be lots of discussion about it. What's your comments? We only have a couple minutes left, Dan.

[00:59:55] Dan Boylan: No.

[00:59:56] Speaker 11: You say it goes that the voters turn it down.

[00:59:58] Dan Boylan: Yes, I think they will.

[00:59:59] Speaker 11: And and thoughts on the reason for that?

[01:00:01] Dan Boylan: Well, I think they'll probably do it for fiscal reasons. I I don't see us coming out of this fiscal problem we're in for a for at least a couple more years and and uh I I don't see them at this moment that $7 million price tag that people talk about is precisely what will what will cause the voter to vote against.

[01:00:17] Jim Shon: It might pass if some very prominent groups or powerful groups have an agenda that they want to push and they have the ability to finance a kind of, yes, this would be a good idea proposal.

[01:00:29] Speaker 11: So, so if if uh some special interest groups or some group really mobilizes, it could go.

[01:00:34] Jim Shon: That's right.

[01:00:35] Bud Smyser: We're down to a year and I don't sense the groundswell. I I wish I did. So I think it's very doubtful that it'll pass. If we do pass it, I certainly hope we will do a lot of preparation of issue papers for the delegates so they won't go in quite as cold as Bill suggested they went in last time, and

[01:00:53] Speaker 11: So there's a tooling up process that would have to happen.

[01:00:55] Bud Smyser: Was a tooling up process that ought to be starting now, but you're skeptical. And I'm not sure it's happening.

[01:01:00] Bill Paty: I'm inclined to think the same thing. It has to be some upwelling of of concern in the community with the establishment that needs to be addressed, so people can get hold of it and feel hey, we got to do something. Uh, I think that's probably the only way we we we're going to see it. I do think though that a common cause, the League of Women Voters and all the rest of legislative reference people did a strong job in the short time they had of briefing us before we got going. But uh, as far as people voting for it, I'm very doubtful that we'll get approval. But as Bud says, it's a year away, and we have a lot of time to see where things go.

[01:01:35] Speaker 11: Okay. Well, good. Thank you. We've been talking today about whether Hawaii should have a constitutional convention in 1998. It will appear on the ballot in 1996. We've been talking with Jim Shon, Bud Smeiser, Dan Boylan, and Bill Pady. Uh today's show was produced by Susie Roth with technical director Jeff Belardi at the controls. Next week, the topic is Women in Politics. Guest host is going to be Diane Chang with guests Nancy Creedman and Mazi Hirona our Lieutenant Governor. We hope you'll tune in then, and have a great Sunday.

[01:01:15] Speaker ?: know that common cause, the league of women voters, and all the rest, the legislative reference bureau did a strong job in the short time they had of briefing us before we got going. But as far as people voting for it, I'm very doubtful that we'll get approval. But as Bud says, it's a year away and we have a lot of time to see where things go. Okay. Well, good. Thank you. We've been talking today about whether Hawaii should have a constitutional convention in 1998. It will appear on the ballot in 1996. We've been talking with Jim Sean, Bud Smiser, Dan Boylan, and Bill Pay. Today's show was produced by Suzy Roth with technical director Jeff Alardy at the controls.

[01:01:54] Speaker ?: Next week, the topic is women in politics, guest host is going to be Diane Chang with guest Nancy Creedman and Mazie Hirono, our lieutenant governor. We hope you'll tune in then and have a great Sunday.