������Ƶ

Today marks four months to the day since we launched Civil Beat! So, we’re ready for our presents and a celebration! Alright so maybe no presents, but the milestone did bring some excitement along with some change. No the change isn’t in our headlines; they’re still as wacky as ever, Are You There GOP? It’s Me, Chad and Rep. Oshiro: Carlisle’s No Donkey, Either.

Change came from the hard work from Mark Quezada and Ryan Kanno in launching the redesigned site. In Civil Beat Gets a Makeover Randy Ching went over some of the changes that were implemented and asked for feedback from our members. Overall they seemed to ‘like’ it, but some decided to take their interest to the next level and design some new . I hear they can even make you run faster.

Civil Beat Gets a New “Do”

You know how it goes. You go to the beauty salon with a plan but when you get there you decide to just go crazy.

• Mary Lee Corwin
  

  “Glad to see you’re not going to overdo the color. I rather liked the calming colors now, directing the focus to the ideas.”

• Russell Castagnaro
  

  “I totally love the new look! Good going guys. I am so happy to have news worth reading in Honolulu. Civil Beat is a bargain.”

• Priscilla Growney
  

  “Great improvement to the design: easy to navigate. Articles catch your eye easily and it is much easier to find and track discussions. Thank you.”

Mufi and Neil Debate

Earlier this week, two events prompted interesting discussion on the election. The first was the governor’s debate where Mufi Hannemann squared off against Neil Abercrombie. Many readers thought they saw and heard the same old song and dance, while others were distracted by the professional wrestling-like crowd in attendance. It caused Civil Beat Editor John Temple to ask, “Where’s the Aloha spirit?”

• Both notions seemed to resonate with Keith Ishida:
  

  “I saw the debate, the big distraction was the rather rowdy crowd. I had visions of the Taiwanese legislature where the principal players are up front on a stage yelling at each other, while their supporters are wrestling about and throwing chairs at each other in the crowd. Of course it never got that bad but I though for a moment that the candidates themselves got caught up in the frenzy and ratcheted up their attacks a bit. At the end of the day, I think nothing really changed, no major gaffs, nothing profound said, many well researched and rehearsed responses. I can’t see this debate changing anything, and unless one of the candidates is willing to go out on a limb and say something truly controversial/innovative/original/inflammatory, nothing will really change and the electorate will pretty much stay as is.

• Dave Pellegrin felt that the questions were too easy on the candidates and that the panelists should have dug deeper:

  “With too little time allotted for the panelists at Monday night’s debate, the challenge was to make each question count. One fell painfully short. Asking Mufi what role religion would play in his administration was a softball he easily hit out the park — just as he had in at least one previous debate.A more probing question would have been: You have said previously that you would not take orders from any church. In answers to a questionnaire from a conservative Christian lobbyist group, Hawaii Family Forum, you backed ALL of its positions — even a controversial proposed law that would allow doctors, nurses and pharmacists to withhold emergency contraceptive care from victims of sexual assault. Can you give us an example of a policy position you hold that runs counter to instruction from your church?”

The Letter

The second election event that triggered some discussion was when Hawaii Republican Party Chairman Jonah Kaauwai wrote a personal letter to “Pastors and Brothers/Sisters in Jesus Christ.” In, Duke, Jonah, Mufi and God Reporter-Host Chad Blair wrote about how Kaauwai attempted to convince Christian voters that Duke Aiona was a better candidate than Mufi Hannemann. The debate quickly evolved from Duke vs. Mufi to whether or not the Republican party should be making recommendations on behalf of the church.

• Andrew Astolfi didn’t seem to mind:
  

  “So it seems like people are upset that the Catholic church is getting involved in elections. I don’t understand why that bothers people – aren’t they like any other group that has a right to bring up the issues they care about? The Catholic Church has been in Hawaii a long time – longer than either political party and they are an important part of the political and social discourse here. I am Catholic, and although the church doesn’t own my vote, it does matter to me.”

• Civil Beat’s Chad Blair added to Andrew’s thoughts:

  “Andrew — it’s an interesting question as to whether a church should be able to take a political stance — and in this case, the single-largest religious denomination in Hawaii and the country. In terms of First Amendment rights, being political seems a no-brainer. But should a pastor be able to tell his flock who to vote for? Will that lead to a theocracy? I agree with you, however, that the Catholic Church is an important part of Hawaii’s social and political history.”

• John Kawamoto brought up the separation of church and state:

  “One of the principles that our country is founded upon is the separation of church and state. Republicans, apparently, would like to blend the two. If they are looking for an alternate model of government, perhaps they should consider the model exemplified by Iran.”

UH Salaries

This week we ran the second installment of our series on public salaries, this time 7,510 University of Hawaii employees. In Civil Beat Shares University of Hawaii Salaries, Civil Beat contributor Nanea Kalani wrote, “As a public university funded mostly by state tax dollars, the salaries of University of Hawaii employees are a matter of public record.” In general, most of our members seemed to agree.

• Dave Kozuki appreciated the ray of light:
  

  “I’ve heard a lot of theorizing about the budget problems at UH tied directly to certain salaries. Now, these individuals can validate or disprove their stated theories using the CB published database. I suspect some interesting stories will emerge. Thanks for the sunshine, CB.”

• Joannie Pan was curious about hearing more:

  “After reviewing UH’s salaries (which by the way, mahalo for sharing), I am upset and shocked at the (inconsistency) with pay for the same job title. (How ever) these salaries are determined does not seem fair. I would need a better understanding on both the faculty and staff unions.”

• Jane Yamashiro noticed trends in our data that merited the release of the numbers to the public:

  “I applaud you on this article. The information about salaries of public employees has been available for a long time. However, the issue is not that the names are attached, but the inequities that exist. It is totally shameful to have folks making over half a million dollars working within an organization and others are barely making a (living) wage. The fact that there are more men than women making the high salaries indicate the glass ceiling is still alive and thriving.”

I noticed a common trend in this week’s discussions – the pursuit of transparency. It’s the desired insight into the true actions of our gubernatorial candidates, both past and future. It’s the ongoing discussion of the separation of church and state and where those lines should be drawn. It’s the curiosity over how our tax dollars are spent when paying the salaries of our publicly funded university.

And yes, it’s even the development of a Civil Beat website that will continue to evolve, so that it can provide that transparency to you in the most seamless way possible.