ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

What might turn out to be the last election for seats on the state board of education this November could make for a messy and confusing transition.

Voters will be asked to decide whether the governor should appoint future boards at the same time as they’re asked to choose elected board members. The elected members would only serve full terms if a goes down to defeat. But to make matters more complicated, even if the amendment passes, the elected board members will have to serve for a few months.

Board members expressed concern last week that the possibility of an appointed board might discourage candidates from spending money and time on campaigns that could be nullified. Four candidates have already said they’re running in two districts. Four districts have no candidates yet.

If the amendment passes, the first board appointees could take office in early 2011, dissolving the current board — including those just elected. The bill states that all current board members will vacate their seats once the governor has appointed a minimum of five board members to the new nine-member board.

The proposed change in the board is the third such attempt, and it stems in part this time from frustration over who’s accountable for debacles like Furlough Fridays, which have given the state a black eye. Three former Democratic governors have formed their own and called for an appointed board as a key reform.

Democratic Rep. Roy Takumi, one of the proposal’s sponsors, said the concern about candidates being discouraged from running is valid.

“I don’t believe there will be empty seats,” said board member Kim Coco Iwamoto, whose four-year term expires this year. Her concern is more that the uncertainty of the final outcome will result in frivolous and insubstantial campaigns. “There are people who will throw their name on the ballot as a lark,” she said. “Then there might be people who are otherwise very serious but won’t want to spend a lot of time and money making sure their platform is known in detail.”

But the bill also stipulates that all current elected board members will be automatic candidates for gubernatorial appointment to the new board.

Takumi laid out the sequence of possible events in an e-mail to Civil Beat:

a. Voters approve an appointed board on November 2, 2010. (Needless to say, if the constitutional amendment is turned down, the current system of an elected board continues.)

b. The members of the selection council are appointed as determined by law which means six of the seven could be appointed the day after the election with the seventh member to be appointed by the governor-elect no earlier than December 6, 2010.

c. Within thirty days of convening the first meeting, the council will submit names of candidates to serve on the appointed BOE to the governor.

d. The governor would then appoint interim BOE members.  Once five members are appointed, this new BOE would then replace the existing BOE.

Republican Sen. Sam Slom, who voted against the bill for other reasons, said he didn’t recall any discussion about the implications of the proposal on this year’s election.

“The main concern was rush it onto the November ballots so you save money and don’t have to hold a special election,” he said. “The idea is to piggyback it onto the regular ballots.”

If the amendment passes, a seven-member selection council would be formed, with one appointee each selected by governor, the president of the state Senate and the speaker of the House. The council would appoint four members.

The selection council would send the governor no fewer than two and no more than four candidates per board seat. Her appointees would need the consent of the Senate. So even if the amendment passes, Hawaii will have to wait at least until the new legislative session has begun in January, with a new governor at the state’s helm.

The appointed board will consist of nine voting members and one non-voting student member. The voting members will serve staggered three-year terms, except for initial appointees, three of whom will serve one-year terms, three of whom will serve two-year terms and three of whom will serve three-year terms. Members will be limited to serving a maximum of two consecutive three-year terms. They are to be unpaid, except for travel reimbursements for attending board meetings and conducting board business.

Of course, if the amendment fails, the elected board members will continue to be able to serve an unlimited number of four-year terms.