In this piece I would like to offer a response to comments I have received on my article of May 15th about the county-manager system, and my article of May 29th about our political process. With regard to my May
In this piece I would like to offer a response to comments I have received on my article of May 15th about the county-manager system, and my article of May 29th about our political process.
With regard to my May 29th article, I have received several inquiries about why in the light of the current adverse economic conditions I was not more critical of the inability of the Bush and Obama administrations’ efforts to bring about any significant recovery. The questions are appropriate, but the purpose of my article was to focus on the reality that our present political processes, particularly at the national level, are strangling our ability to achieve the governmental actions that are vital to enhance the well being of our society. In my view the paramount need is to control our federal spending propensities, and our politicians appear unable to address the subject.
Every dollar that the federal government borrows, and there are now 13 trillion of them, is an encumbrance on those who will be faced with repaying them. It is fashionable to compare the amount of the borrowings with the gross national product of the country to test our ability to repay. America’s ratio is not yet in the devastating status of Greece and certain other European countries, and our economy remains far healthier, but with our ongoing deficit we are unmistakably on the path to the same fate.
The heart of the problem is that our politicians cannot find the resolve to take necessary corrective steps. They have become indoctrinated in a self-gratification society and fear that they cannot act responsibly without jeopardizing their popularity. In a sense the problem is circular, as too few members of the public appreciate the perils of our course. Whether one agrees with the precepts of the Tea Party folks or not they represent an awakening of the people to the need to reexamine our direction.
There are, of course, risks in reining in too abruptly our 1.5-trillion-dollar annual federal deficit, but the alternative of having the costs of entitlements and interest on the national debt continue to exceed the revenues from all taxation is the greater peril. The primary message I sought to convey is that a reduction of spending is the only way to achieve a budget that is in balance, a corrective action that is imperative. To accomplish this control over spending requires a president and a Congress aware of the dangers of our present course and willing to act vigorously to alter it.
I also received some comments wondering why I had not been more critical of the actions and non-actions of President Obama. That was not a purpose of my article, as my words could not be expected to influence his course. Rather it was again my thought that expressing my concerns about the urgency of our situation might help stimulate the people of Kaua‘i to understand the need for action at the local, state and federal levels to make our political process more effective and to change our course where needed.
As to my May 15th article, testimony submitted to the Charter Review Commission by Alfred Laureta, apparently the only member of the public actively offering views adverse to the county-manager proposal, contained misstatements of my comments and inaccuracies that I believe warrant correction.
Mr. Laureta seems unwilling to recognize or accept points favorable to the manager system. When in my May 15th article I noted the central concept of the manager system was to have an educated and trained manager responsible for county administrative duties, he mistakenly identified this concept as the “key issue.” No, Mr. Laureta, a basic characteristic of the manager system is not the issue. The real question is whether the proposed council-manager or the existing mayor-council system is the better one. Numerous reasons have been given why the manager system is the right choice, including the point that having specific standards for our chief executive officer is better than having none, but Mr. Laureta seems oblivious to them
The Laureta testimony then turns to his partiality for adoption of a “managing-director” position as a ”meaningful” alternative to a county-manager system. The proposal for a proposed charter amendment currently before the Charter Review Commission as to “managing director” would upgrade the qualifications for the mayor’s administrative assistant and change his title, but would not importantly change his function. The mayor would remain the county “chief executive officer,” and would continue to select department heads who would report to him. The assistant would stay as a staff rather than a line position. The proposed measure is much ado about nothing. While enhancing the assistant’s qualifications has some merit, the proposal makes no educational requirement and the experience standard is vague. The proposal simply does not, as would a county-manager proposal, constitute the establishment of a qualified administrator as the head of county operations, and it is a red herring.
The Governance Committee of the Charter Review Commission will be holding public meetings on the county-manager proposal on June 14th at the Princeville Community Center, on June 15th at the Lihu‘e Neighborhood Center and on June 17th at the Hanapepe Recreation Center. All meetings will be between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. If you care about the future of our island — and you should — plan to attend the meeting most convenient for you.
We cannot solve our societal needs by being unaware of them and failing to act where necessary.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
