NOW ON THE HOT SEAT: SHOULD HAWAII HAVE A CON CON?
May 21st, 2008 by Jeanne Mariani-BeldingWelcome to the Hot Seat. Joining us live today from noon to 1 p.m. to answer your question on whether Hawaii should convene a Constitutional Convention are Peter Kay and state Rep. Della Au Belatti, co-founders of HawaiiConCon.org, a new online community of citizens trying to jump start the conversation on this important issue.
Political insiders know the stakes. And partisan lines in the sand have been drawn. Issues on the table issues range from whether we need a bicameral Legislature, to the role of our Board of Education and to Hawaii’s more revenue control for Hawaii’s counties.
Just a reminder of our Hot Seat ground rules: Keep your questions concise and on point so that we can get through as many questions as possible. And let’s keep it civil, no personal attacks please.
Got questions? Let’s chat.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Here’s a good question to get us rolling. Della, it looks like this one’s for you.
The question, sent via e-mail, comes from Reader:
Local interest in the Presidential election process is extremely high, for
good reason. It should help increase voter turnout in November, which makes
it an ideal time to put various issues on the ballot. Debate about the need
for a Constitutional Convention has been muted. What is the argument you
most hear about not making a ConCon vote one of them, and how do you counter it?
The divisions between Democrats and Republicans are deep. Is the
Constitutional Convention issue an area where politics need intervene?
The Legislature already has the ability to place amendments to the constitution
on the ballot. Is legislative indifference to the ConCon issue a result of
it not wanting its powers usurped, its possibly dysfunctional nature, a lack
of understanding of the process, or is the term “indifference” unfair?
Representative Au Belatti is in her first term. I admire her willingness to
address the need for considering change. How has her perception of the
legislature changed during her time in office, and why is this a cause she
has chosen?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Am I missing the link? All I see here is one post by Jeanne Marie. This doens’t look like the hot seats we’ve done in the past. Where is everybody?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
To answer Reader’s first question:
The most common arguments I hear against a Con Con “Yes” vote is that “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and “What is the flaw with the Constitution that needs fixing?”
Three counterarguments: First, looking back at history we came out with a pretty good document from the 1978 Con Con. When I review the literature of the 1970s, there wasn’t anything terribly broken or flawed with the Constitution in 1978. People were, however, very disappointed with the way government was functioning, there was a clamor for more transparency and better government, and there was a lot of anti-development activism. Does this sound similar to today?
Second, most veteran legislators and strong interest groups pose the “what is flawed” question. Since 1978, the Legislature has proposed 52 amendments. Of these 37 were ratified by the voting public. Isn’t it about time that we take a big-picture look at what has happened to our Constitution over the past 30 years, what it can become, and then what we can collectively develop rather than just allow legislators to decide what goes through the amendment process in a piece-meal fashion?
Third, ultimately the Con Con is an opportunity to come up with an even better Constitiution to reflect some of the important changes that have developed over the past 30 years. We need to take this time to comprehensively review, examine, update and strengthen our Constitution.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I’m concerned that fringe elements will try to hijack this and promote their own narrow agenda. Would the new constitution have to be approved in total, or would each new part, or each new section within a part, be voted on?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
If a concon were to be held, what would be your top 3 topics for discussion?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I agree Ni ! Come on Hot Seaters; I know since the format change I’ve missed seeing some of the regulars.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
If each part or section is voted on individually, what is the effect if only part of the new Constitution is passed?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Hello again Reader:
Here’s response to your other questions:
(2) The ConCon will be a place for MORE people to get involved in the politics of the time.
(3) I don’t believe legislators are indifferent - they are carefully watching the ConCon debates and the outcome. There is a range of opinion among legislators (in strong support; with ambivalence; and in strong opposition). I urge you to call your rep or senator and ask them for their opinion.
(4) I have been very disappointed in the lack of public discussion about the important decisions made by our Legislature and the inordinate amount of focus by elected folk on protecting their own office at the next election. For this reason alone, I think it is extremely important that we have a Con Con.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Let’s say we add two new parts on Hawaiian issues that are supposed to replace the existing Article XII, but only one passes. Is all of the old article XII gone? Part of it? Will it be drafted so that we either accept the new or revert back to the old?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’d like to see the Bill of Rights beefed up to expand on discrimination other than just sex and for access to information and media acknowledged as a right. Also, perhaps the word law wherever used should be capitalized to make it clear it means statutes, rules, orders, etc. (anything required by government to be in place)
May 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I understand that there are no bars on public officials participating except the Gov/Lt. Gov, and I also heard that there was a campaign in the media to shame elected officials from running as delegates for the 78 ConCon, and by and large that worked. Do you think such a campaign will work this time?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
To either, or both, of you:
Since you believe a con-con should be held at this time to re/examine the document in light of events/changed corcumstances since the last con-con, what would you like to see changed/added/deleted?
I ask because I do not believe for a moment that either one of you, especially the representative, does not have such views. This is not just about process, it’s about substance. I want to know what your views are before I “buy a pig in a poke” or “write a blank check” by voting in favor of the con-con.
Mahalos.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I understand that there are dueling legislative/gubernatorial studies on the cost of a ConCon. Once that info is in, who will make the decision which way to go? WIll that be part of the ballot the voters will decide?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
A constitution is supposed to be a document that establishes policy that is then carried out by statues, which are then implemented by admin rules as necessary. I think one policy areas that it would be good to address in the constitution is energy.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Answering Ni,
Re: “Ni: I’m concerned that fringe elements will try to hijack this and promote their own narrow agenda.”
My answer: That is a fantastic question and is precisely why hawaiiconcon.org exists. Special interests have power when they can shut others out of the process. By creating a Web site that lets all citizens participate, the only thing that can work against our people is that if we don’t participate, and if that happens…well we probably won’t have a ConCon anyway.
Re: ” Ni: Would the new constitution have to be approved in total, or would each new part, or each new section within a part, be voted on?” and also your question: ” Ni: If each part or section is voted on individually, what is the effect if only part of the new Constitution is passed?”
This would be determined by the legislature AFTER the a successful YES vote on the ConCon question.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
From Chloe:
If a concon were to be held, what would be your top 3 topics for discussion?
__________________
Thank you for your question Chloe. I think we need to look at some good Good Government reforms (ie. Right to vote matters like Election Day Registration; Comprehensive Publicly Financed Elections; and Strengthening government ethics; More transparency of government decision making process); looking at whether the balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, & Judiciary branches are properly balanced; and looking at how the Constitution may be more responsive to our dramatically changed world (ie. technology advances; issue of energy security & sustainability; the problem of global warming).
May 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Answering Ni,
Ni:’s question:
“Let’s say we add two new parts on Hawaiian issues that are supposed to replace the existing Article XII, but only one passes. Is all of the old article XII gone? Part of it? Will it be drafted so that we either accept the new or revert back to the old?”
—————————————
Answering Ni: I would trust that the legal advice to the delegates would be to craft the wording such that those kinds of problems don’t arise.
Ni:’s question:
“I understand that there are no bars on public officials participating except the Gov/Lt. Gov, and I also heard that there was a campaign in the media to shame elected officials from running as delegates for the 78 ConCon, and by and large that worked. Do you think such a campaign will work this time?”
—————————————
Answering Ni: I personally don’t think there is a lot of “love” for today’s elected officials (except for Della, of course!) and if we work hard today to “brand” this upcoming ConCon as one that the PEOPLE have already started (this is why we started hawaiiconcon.org!) then I think we’ll have a pretty good chance at keeping this a PEOPLE’S ConCon, thereby minimizing elected officials involvement as delegates.
Ni:’s question:
“I understand that there are dueling legislative/gubernatorial studies on the cost of a ConCon. Once that info is in, who will make the decision which way to go? WIll that be part of the ballot the voters will decide?”
————————————–
Answer: It is the PEOPLE’S decision to hold a ConCon or not and that will be the question on the ballot regardless of the cost estimates. Some folks believe that the cost issue is being used as a way to NOT hold a ConCon. My personal position is that if a ConCon can help us make out state government .005% more efficient, we will have paid back millions of dollars. So to me, the ConCon cost issue is a “Red herring”.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Ted’s question:
Since you believe a con-con should be held at this time to re/examine the document in light of events/changed corcumstances since the last con-con, what would you like to see changed/added/deleted?
______________________________
Thanks for your question Ted. There’s a lot that needs to be reviewed. In addition to some of the top three issues I responded with in Chloe’s question, we should also re-examine the article on the Board of Education. Is it time to correct the way the members are elected so as to represent the neighbor islands? Is it time to consider an appointed board? What about regional school boards? I don’t have a position on any of these, but would like to see the discussion more broadly in the community. Clearly, people are concerned with education, feel disconnected from the bureaucracy, and are concerned about the quality of education. Will all of these be solved with an amendment? Maybe…maybe not. But we won’t know unless we have the conversation.
Again, we could look at whether the Legislature is properly structured and functioning. For some, this may be a manini change, but we could extend our legislative session from 60 days to 90 days - this could have the very real positive effect of having more transparency to the legislative decision-making process.
Finally, while I don’t support initiative and referendum, I would consider the merits/demerits of recall. As a community, we have experience with recall at the county level in Honolulu. I think this reform could bring a little more accountability to our electoral process.
There are many more issues and I hate to presume that I have all the answers. The purpose of Con Con is to get as many good ideas out for community discussion and consideration!
May 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Well, if the Legislature is going to determine whether it’s an all up or down constitution, or just by part, and it goes with the former, it will be easy to kill the whole thing is there’s just one unacceptable provision. I think the publis should push for a one part at a time vote.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
From: Digitaleye (Jeff Garland):
I’d like to see the Bill of Rights beefed up to expand on discrimination other than just sex and for access to information and media acknowledged as a right. Also, perhaps the word law wherever used should be capitalized to make it clear it means statutes, rules, orders, etc. (anything required by government to be in place)
————————–
Thanks Digitaleye for sharing:
I suggest you go to HawaiiConCon.org and post your idea in the Forum area (just click on Forum at the top). Let’s see what other people think about it!
May 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
All right, Peter, you answered my question about the ballot, but not the part about who will make this decision on the cost, which facilities to use, etc. Leg? Governor?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Answering Ni,
Re: “Ni: I’m concerned that fringe elements will try to hijack this and promote their own narrow agenda.”
Peter Kay answer: That is a fantastic question and is precisely why hawaiiconcon.org exists. Special interests have power when they can shut others out of the process. By creating a Web site that lets all citizens participate, the only thing that can work against our people is that if we don’t participate, and if that happens…well we probably won’t have a ConCon anyway.
I’m not sure that you answered the question. The primary concern is that a ConCon opens up access to special interests to revise and take away some of our basic individual rights. There is a risk to a ConCon that we will lose what is already there and good.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Ni’s Question:
A constitution is supposed to be a document that establishes policy that is then carried out by statues, which are then implemented by admin rules as necessary. I think one policy areas that it would be good to address in the constitution is energy.
_____________________
What a wonderful series of questions you have Ni. Hope you’ll take a look at our website at http://www.HawaiiConCon.org to continue the conversation.
To answer your question - I absolutely agree with you that our Constitution could address energy. Our Constitution has a Land Use Commission and a Water Use Commission. Why not a Energy Sustainability & Self-Sufficiency Commission - other states are experimenting with Departments of Energy. While a lot of good work has been done on energy, it is still an office embedded within the large and cumbersome DBEDT. We should have this conversation about how our Constitution can be more responsive to our critical energy questions.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Do you have any budget for the ConCon education campaign?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Our state constitution is fairly progressive — some would say it already goes beyond the “just the basics” framework of most constitutions. What changes do you hope a ConCon can make that are both necessary and could not be accomplished through ordinary legislation?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Here’s another one sent in from Debra in Kailua:
What are polticians afraid of, regarding a ConCon.? Should not the merits of their positions on whatever the issue may be stand on its merits? What’s the story here?!
May 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Thirty years have passed since the last ConCon, and national lobbies are slicker than ever. How could a 2010 ConCon be insulated from these outside influences?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
From: Ni:
All right, Peter, you answered my question about the ballot, but not the part about who will make this decision on the cost, which facilities to use, etc. Leg? Governor?
————————–
Thank you Ni for keeping me on the Hot Seat!
The Leg makes those decisions AFTER we have a YES on ConCon (meaning that more YES ballots than NO + Blank ballots)
May 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I’m assuming that, if we have a ConCon, technology will play a major role in allowing the people to observe the proceedings, here and on the neighbor islands. Any thoughts on that? Streaming video? Documents updated on the fly online? Public polls if requested by the delegates?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Ok, so the Legislature is then on the hot seat if they select the Cadillac version of the ConCon.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
From Bea:
I’m not sure that you answered the question. The primary concern is that a ConCon opens up access to special interests to revise and take away some of our basic individual rights. There is a risk to a ConCon that we will lose what is already there and good.
——————————–
Thank you Bea. Sorry to throw this back at you but what is your question?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I think a large part of the conflict seems to be that voters don’t trust elected officials to “do the right thing” and ignore special interests’ money-backed influence, and government/public policy makers don’t trust the people to make decisions for themselves. And it seems the issue of the next ConCon is lying at the intersection of both. With civic participation at its all time low and mistrust of our elected politicians at its all time high, is NOW a good or bad time for our next ConCon?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
who opposes the con con?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Here’s another one sent in from Debra in Kailua:
What are polticians afraid of, regarding a ConCon.? Should not the merits of their positions on whatever the issue may be stand on its merits? What’s the story here?!
___________________________
Mahalo for your question Debra! First, it is not just politicians who are afraid of ConCon. There are very powerful interest groups against Con Con. These include unions and big business - go figure that alliance? I think it is the uncertainty that unsettles all these groups from politicians and interest groups who are comfortable with the status quo.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Well, Nahoaloha, one issue that we could deal with is the board of education issue. Now we have one, and the governor wanted to split it into 7. I have no personal interest in this either way, but as it already is in the constitution, that’s the only place to address it.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
From Ni:
Do you have any budget for the ConCon education campaign?
———————————–
Thanks Ni: HawaiiConCon.org is not involved with any government-sponsored education campaigns. We are an independent, grass-roots organization that is currently self-funded. We’d love you to join and participate. I personally believe that we can, as a citizenry, create great ConCon content, just like Internet users have created a great Wikipedia
May 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
From Bea:
I’m not sure that you answered the question. The primary concern is that a ConCon opens up access to special interests to revise and take away some of our basic individual rights. There is a risk to a ConCon that we will lose what is already there and good.
——————————–
Thank you Bea. Sorry to throw this back at you but what is your question?
——————————–
The risks to holding a ConCon are pretty big, how can you justify holding one as a tool to increase public engagement? Did I misunderstand your point?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Do Hawaiian groups generally favor or disfavor a ConCon? Do they see gains more likely, or losses?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Could a Con Con disolve OHA?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Nahoaloha’s question:
Our state constitution is fairly progressive — some would say it already goes beyond the “just the basics” framework of most constitutions. What changes do you hope a ConCon can make that are both necessary and could not be accomplished through ordinary legislation?
______________________
Great question Nahoaloha. There are some changes that are so anti-thetical to politician’s interests that may never see the light of day. For example, Election Day registration has been attempted at least 2 sessions in a row and stronger government ethics reforms. There’s also altering the length of a legislative session - the Legislature can do this by rule, but is very unlikely.
As I mentioned to another question, an Energy Resources Commission, along the lines of a Water Resources Commission, could be a structural change added to the conversation.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Yes, a ConCon could dissolve OHA. Or it could give them title to ceded lands. It’s a double-edged sword.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Citizen’s Question:
who opposes the con con?
__________________________
Very valid question Citizen. This is a hard one to pinpoint because the opposition has been very quiet. But we can just look to past opposition from unions, big business, environmental groups, civil rights groups - In fact, it is probably safe to say that groups that benefit from the way government operates now are in opposition.
This is not to say that, if a Con Con is passed, these groups will not and should not actively participate in the Con Con process. These groups absolutely need to be involved, and I predict will be involved in helping shape the conversation and select delegates - just as these groups were involved in 1978.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The Hawaii Constitution cannot provide fewer rights than the United States Constitution. It may provide more (like our explicit right to privacy and equal rights amendment). Anything in the current Constitution that doesn’t provide fewer rights than the US Constitution is fair game.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
From Bea:
I think a large part of the conflict seems to be that voters don’t trust elected officials to “do the right thing” and ignore special interests’ money-backed influence, and government/public policy makers don’t trust the people to make decisions for themselves. And it seems the issue of the next ConCon is lying at the intersection of both. With civic participation at its all time low and mistrust of our elected politicians at its all time high, is NOW a good or bad time for our next ConCon?
And also from Bea:
The risks to holding a ConCon are pretty big, how can you justify holding one as a tool to increase public engagement? Did I misunderstand your point?
———————————–
GREAT QUESTIONS BEA!!!
I think that we, as a people, stand on the edge of something incredible. There stands a fork in the road of our destiny before us: one path says “More of the same”. The other path says “Time for a Change”. Both paths have their own risks and rewards. HawaiiConCon.org is a breath of fresh air that says, “Let’s do it differently this time. Let’s allow EVERYONE to get involved with something that really matters.”.
I think that if you ask the average citizen’s opinion on how well our government operates, I would be willing to bet that the “approval ratings” would be very low. If that’s not a good reason, I don’t know what is.
I firmly believe in the collective intelligence of our citizens, and I say that if there is a YES vote on ConCon, then it’s time to have one.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Citizen’s Question:
Could a Con Con disolve OHA?
___________________
Another fair question Citizen. I believe Ni has answered it: “Yes, a ConCon could dissolve OHA. Or it could give them title to ceded lands. It’s a double-edged sword.”
My response to this question is that OHA will come under scrutiny. Ultimately, it would be up to the debate process and the general voting public which gets to vote on any proposals by the ConCon as to whether OHA will be dissolved.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Question from Remember1978:
Thirty years have passed since the last ConCon, and national lobbies are slicker than ever. How could a 2010 ConCon be insulated from these outside influences?
———————————–
Thank you Remember1978:
National lobbies are slicker than ever, but we also have the Internet, which wasn’t around in ‘78. We have an incredibly powerful media tool at our disposal. Of course there’s no guarantees on anything and you can call me naive, but I firmly believe that if we get a lot of people participating in the ConCon discussion in a completely public and open forum, like HawaiiConCon.org, we mitigate the potential of “issue hijack” by well-funded opponents.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Ni’s Question:
Do Hawaiian groups generally favor or disfavor a ConCon? Do they see gains more likely, or losses?
___________________________
Thanks for the question Ni. I wouldn’t want to presume to speak for Hawaiian groups. At the few community discussions I have attended, questions on Hawaiian issues were low to non-existent as part of the discussion. I would like to hear more from these Hawaiian groups what they think about Con Con.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
From Ni:
The Hawaii Constitution cannot provide fewer rights than the United States Constitution. It may provide more (like our explicit right to privacy and equal rights amendment). Anything in the current Constitution that doesn’t provide fewer rights than the US Constitution is fair game.
———————————–
Thank you Ni:
Not sure what your question is here.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Here’s one from Jason in Makiki:
I don’t get it. Before we spend money on changing the constitution, should we not know first if things need changing. I’m new to Hawaii, but I feel if it’s not broken, don’t try to fix it. Would you agree? I also don’t understand what your organization is trying to do, do you want a convention or not?
May 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Here’s one sent via e-mail from Joyce:
What did it cost last time? How much is too much,. The economy is terrible.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Peter, it wasn’t a question; it was a follow-up to the OHA question.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
… but I am still waiting for an answer to my technology question.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Jason in Makiki:
I don’t get it. Before we spend money on changing the constitution, should we not know first if things need changing. I’m new to Hawaii, but I feel if it’s not broken, don’t try to fix it. Would you agree? I also don’t understand what your organization is trying to do, do you want a convention or not?
———————————–
Good questions Jason: I think the abysmal voter turnout speaks volumes of how people feel about our State. Since you’re new to Hawaii, I suggest you ask anyone around you if they think our state is “broken” or not and I’ll bet you’ll get more than 60% saying “yes”.
HawaiiConCon.org is officially neither pro nor con. While our personal positions may be one way or the other, the Web site welcomes everyone, from all political positions, ancestries, color, race, creed, sex, etc to have a chance to voice their opinion and join the public debate.
You might find that the current members of the site are pro-ConCon, but that’s solely because the anti-ConCon forces have decided to not participate in the dialog.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I see that a previous ConCon was held at McKinley high school. We can make the salaries of delegates the same as jury duty. Just some examples of how to keep the cost down.
Even if it costs us a few bucks, I’d like to hear all the debate in a Con Con that would be relevant for legislative sessions.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Ni:
This site is kinda wild! Can you please re-state your technology question for me?
May 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Joyce, according to the Advertiser: “The last Constitutional Convention in 1978, which had 102 salaried delegates working out of borrowed state and federal offices, cost a little over $2 million — about $6.5 million in today’s dollars if adjusted for inflation.”
May 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Peter, it was Q29: “I’m assuming that, if we have a ConCon, technology will play a major role in allowing the people to observe the proceedings, here and on the neighbor islands. Any thoughts on that? Streaming video? Documents updated on the fly online? Public polls if requested by the delegates?”
May 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
From Joyce via e-mail:
What did it cost last time? How much is too much,. The economy is terrible.
_______________________________
Thanks for the question Joyce. For the 1978 Con Con, the Legislature appropriated $2.5 million towards the Convention. The actual expenditures totaled a little over $2,032,401. If these costs were adjusted for inflation, the Legislature has determined that the cost would be $6,579,742.
How much is too much? For an event that will have occurred only once every 30 years, $10 million is probably a reasonable estimate. We’ll see what the Lt. Gov.’s Task Force and the LRB come up with in the next few months.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Just wondering out loud: I can’t think of one thing that has not changed in 30 years.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Here’s one from Jason in Makiki:
I don’t get it. Before we spend money on changing the constitution, should we not know first if things need changing. I’m new to Hawaii, but I feel if it’s not broken, don’t try to fix it. Would you agree? I also don’t understand what your organization is trying to do, do you want a convention or not?
————————————————————————————-
State Constitutions are supposed to better adapt to the state population’s changing social and economic needs, and frankly their preferences. That’s the purpose of the every 10 year review provision IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. Keep in mind, with the population growth projections in the next 20 years or so, and with the ConCon question every 10 years, who do you think will be making these decisions for us in the future?
To reference the conversation above, where has our government (state and federal) taken us in terms of energy self-sufficiency until now? Should we take our energy division out of DBEDT? Should we restructure DBEDT? What about environment? Do we need a Department of the Environment?
The Convention delegates will be charged with reviewing our Constitution. They will be responsible for surveying a lot more than just the State Constitution. But they may come out of it saying that no changes are needed.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Ni:
“I’m assuming that, if we have a ConCon, technology will play a major role in allowing the people to observe the proceedings, here and on the neighbor islands. Any thoughts on that? Streaming video? Documents updated on the fly online? Public polls if requested by the delegates?”
———————————–
Thank you for repeating that question, Ni:
I think that yes, we MUST treat electronic communication to be the same as any other. All citizens should be able to participate in the public decision-making process from the comfort of their own home. All data should be public, published in electronic format, using tools that most folks have access too.
This whole thing needs to be WIDE OPEN. And we hope we’re setting an example with HawaiiConCon.org
May 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
All the real meaty stuff happens where technology can’t reach. Then, if usual lawmakers involved, they will want to limit technological reach on public meetings, so no one can figure out what happened behind closed doors.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
“To reference the conversation above, where has our government (state and federal) taken us in terms of energy self-sufficiency until now? Should we take our energy division out of DBEDT? Should we restructure DBEDT? What about environment? Do we need a Department of the Environment?”
Well, as I stated earlier, the constitution is supposed to be about policy. I would hate to see it dragged down into minutia such as the exact configuration of state departments. I think that a plocy changed focused on (for example) a strong commitment to alternative energy - solar, wind, wave, water - is what we should put in, not where it fits functionally within the state departments.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
That’s it folks, we’re out of time.
Special thanks goes to our guests, Peter Kay and Rep. Della Belatti. Be sure to watch for excerpts of this community conversation in Sunday’s Focus section.
And stay tuned to see who our guest will be next week, on the Hot Seat.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Thank you to everyone for participating in this on-line discussion. We really need to continue this conversation here on-line, in our communities, at our neighborhood boards, among our families and friends. The question of whether to have a Constitutional Convention is THE MOST SIGNIFICANT QUESTION of this election season for our state. I urge everyone to join us on http://www.HawaiiConCon.org - information is only a click away!
May 21st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Thank you all, so very much, for this wonderful discussion. Now keep this in mind: LETS NOT STOP THE CONVERSATION!!!
Please join us over at HawaiiConCon.org. The future of our state is at stake. We have before us a tool that just might change not only how Hawaii’s democracy conducts itself, but quite possibly change the way our national democracy works as well.
Join us. We can do it. It’s time for a change. You are all here for a reason. The purpose and reason is right before us. Take the step. Right now. LETS DO THIS!
Mahalo Nui!
May 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Re technology: Well, I agree, Peter, but my questions are specific, and your responses are vague. There will be some cost involved, too, whether it’s bandwidth or human. I think we need to build these specific expectations into the process (e.g., each session will be shown live via web-streaming, with on-demand access immediately following for people not able to view it live so that the public will understand these costs and the legislature will approve them.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Ni:
Other than replying “Sure!” to your list of ideas, I wasn’t really sure what you were after. Typically when proposing a technological solution, it’s important to clearly state the problem being solved.
Wish we had more time to go into depth with that!
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Aloha Hot Seat-ers!
I had such a blast participating in a live blogging session. It was pretty quick - and I really wanted to answer Reader’s 2nd, 3rd, & 4th questions with more detail. So I’ve put together some more of my thoughts - and I urge people to join me at HawaiiConCon.org to continue the conversation.
So, here’s Reader’s questions and some of more of my thoughts:
Question 2: The divisions between Democrats and Republicans are deep. Is the Constitutional Convention issue an area where politics need intervene?
Belatti’s Response: Politics will be part and parcel of a Constitutional Convention – there will be no escaping this. However, I hope that we are not simply divided by party labels or by divisive issues that we know we cannot agree on. I hope that the Con Con will be a place for us to find common ground and, to the extent that we can, craft compromises and solutions that will help us address the concerns common to all (ie. better schools; a healthier environment; a more responsive and accessible health care system).
Question 3: The Legislature already has the ability to place amendments to the constitution on the ballot. Is legislative indifference to the ConCon issue a result of it not wanting its powers usurped, its possibly dysfunctional nature, a lack of understanding of the process, or is the term “indifference” unfair?
Belatti’s Response: First, I don’t believe that legislators are indifferent. I think legislators are carefully watching the way the Con Con debate unfolds and holding their breath for the outcome on November 4, 2008. If a Con Con is passed, this will set off a whole series of events in which the Legislature will play a critical role because the Legislature will determine the election of delegates and the timing of when the Con Con will occur.
Second, if a Con Con is passed, we are going to see a lot of political activity, something I think is very healthy for our community. This activity will include identification of possible delegates, in-depth research of our Constitution’s provisions and provisions found in other states’ Constitutions, and more serious discussion and compilation of position papers on a variety of proposals and issues that may rise to the top of a Convention’s agenda. This kind of activity may be disconcerting to some of the more entrenched politicians and special interests that have Hawaii’s governmental system wired to their comfort level.
Finally, there is a range of opinion (in strong support; with great ambivalence and uncertainty; and in strong opposition) to a Con Con. I can’t speak for all of them here – so, really, I would urge you to contact your own representative and senator and ask for their explanation as to why they support or oppose a Con Con.
Question 4: Representative Au Belatti is in her first term. I admire her willingness to address the need for considering change. How has her perception of the legislature changed during her time in office, and why is this a cause she has chosen?
Belatti’s Response: I have been very disappointed in the lack of public discussion about the important decisions made by our Legislature and the inordinate amount of focus by elected folk on protecting their own office at the next election.
Let me give you one example of legislators acting with their own interests above the greater public interest – look at the Outdoor Circle’s political sign bill (HB 1832) which would have imposed reasonable regulations on political signs. This bill sailed through both House and Senate, but in the final days were recommitted in both chambers by voice votes that essentially provides cover for those individuals who ultimately wanted to see the bill die. Only those Representatives who expressed their opposition on the floor were recorded – de facto creating a record of those representatives who voted in favor of recommittal. But the record fails to explain why the recommittal occurred – so the public is simply left in the dark. How’s that for a transparent process?
Understandably, this sense of self-preservation is only natural – but something that if unchecked or unchallenged for too long can be terribly dangerous for democracy. The Con Con provides a way to counterbalance some of the entrenched reactions and patterns of behavior that have developed within the Legislature. Some people have warned me away from supporting Con Con because it could be the catalyst for creating opponents for incumbents.
For this reason alone (although it is not my only nor my primary reason for supporting Con Con), I think it is extremely important that we have a Con Con to (1) identify for ourselves collectively, and not just leave it to elected officials, to determine and articulate the guiding principles that will lead us into the next fifty years and (2) through this Con Con process, recommit ourselves as citizens to a vibrant democracy where people are engaged enough to participate (ie. through voting, testifying before the Legislature, writing a letter, ANYTHING) and willing to develop, craft, and live with compromises and solutions that work for the better of all – rather than the gridlock that we so often get in legislative politics.
Again, aloha for letting me post my thoughts - and I hope we can continue these conversations at HawaiiConCon.org.
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 am
Peter, I like you, but the “problem being solved” was stated, as “allowing the people to observe the proceedings, here and on the neighbor islands.” We all know that the ConCon is going to cost a lot of money. I would hate to see technology iced out of the eventual budget because people are not expecting immediate access, but are just happy to get the usual end-of-the-day wrap up in the newspapers. I think the expectation has to be built in, right at the beginning, that people can follow the proceedings live - including each committee meetings. If that is not seen as part and parcel of the whole scheme, public and live access to the proceedings will be endangered. That’s why I asked about specific technologies. Generalizations won’t be enough - you can’t put a price tag on them..