Patronage alive and well — qualified people need not apply
Patronage alive and well — qualified people need not apply
The recent court ruling on charter-mandated qualifications for the director of the Environmental Management Department (EMD) is not really a surprise. Judges generally are reluctant to legislate from the bench although quite a few relish that opportunity. What remained unknown was how the judge would select a way to circumvent the real issue – whether or not the department director must hold sound educational scientific credentials.
The commission that developed the charter amendment allowed some flexibility in selecting the specific credential by inserting the phrase “or equivalent degree” to the requirement of an engineering degree. There are scores of other engineering or PhD degrees that might equate. The intent for such a high standard for the EMD is clear. The future sustainability of this island depends nearly exclusively on how it deals with environmental issues, particularly as they relate to land use and development.
Keeping in mind that this case dealt with the charter amendment and not any individual was the proper challenge brought by the plaintiff. The judge respectfully ruled that the preponderance of evidence weighed favorably for the argument that the amendment was vague and unenforceable. It is unfortunate he did not consider more strongly the persuasiveness of the argument. In his learned view, he felt the discretion of appointing authorities, that is, the mayor and the county council backed by the opinion of the corporate counsel, was not sufficiently challenged to even require clarification of the amendment.
In effect, two of the three branches of government ignored the intent of the amendment, why should the third impose a reversal? However, that does not have to be the last word. A very specific amendment still can be generated and presented to the voters. A new administration may even follow the will of the people. In the meantime, the mayor’s discretionary personnel selections remain absolute.
Mike Reimer
Kailua-Kona
You’re wrong on helmets, bro
When a motorcyclist is killed or permanently maimed because he or she did not wear a helmet a lot of other people are involved than just that person. Many riders who eat asphalt and die leave family and friends. It hurts those people badly. Think about them if you won’t think about yourself.
But also think of the terrible cost of medical bills for those who don’t die but will be veggies for ever more. That ain’t right, bro. Someone has got to pay those bills.
Sure, cruising down the road in the sun and wind is pure freedom. I get it. Still, think of the possible cost of that freedom. Risk versus benefit. You aren’t a hero when you fall. You are just proving Darwin right. You are being eliminated from the gene pool by being dangerously unsafe. Some falls and crashes you may be able to eventually heal from. But a head bang is not one of those. When your skull breaks and your brain gets injured or broken, you do not heal. You stay messed up. That is a very expensive freedom you enjoyed for a while.
There are some extreme helmets that can project your machismo as well as a head scarf and sunglasses. Yeah, really. They aren’t cheap. But then, your head isn’t cheap (or replaceable) either.
Please, do the right thing. Wear the can. It will save your life and just maybe save your family a lot of heartache.
Tom Beach
Kamuela