Can’t Miss Comments, Oct. 16 – Honolulu Hale, Mayor Carlisle & Rail
Since he became the newly-appointed Mayor of Honolulu Peter Carlisle has been popular in our discussions. And why not? There’s lots to talk about.
Whether it’s the transition at Honolulu Hale or Carlisle’s readiness to take over as mayor, everyone seems to have an opinion. Throw in the always dynamic discussions about the Honolulu rail and you’ve got yourself a hot topic!
Honolulu City Government
So what are folks talking about anyway? Well for one thing, they’re talking about all the familiar faces at Honolulu Hale. Yes, that same administration (for the most part) that Carlisle criticized during the election is remaining on board. At least for now. Reporter-Host Adrienne LaFrance took a deeper look:
Jeffery Hino didn’t appreciate the new mayor’s decision:
“I knew I didn’t read something to the contrary when I saw the above article in the paper 2 weeks or so ago. So, isn’t this statement akin to saying: I don’t know what the hell is going on, those around me don’t know, my parents cant advise me so I guess I will be using the same guys I just degraded for the last month in commercials, depicting them as wasteful spendthrifts and wantoned abusers of our tax payer resources. But I like RAIL and so I need to keep the expertise of institutional knowledge folks around, so we can see it through all the way over the Koolaus and to my door in Hawaii Kai.”
Brian Gibson sided with Mayor Carlisle and approved his recent decision:
“I believe democracy is meant to be a “slow and steady” form of government. When too much change happens too fast, the electorate gets nervous, people feel uniformed, and, frankly, some get scared and angry. Further, this transition has occurred extraordinarily fast – just 23 days from election to the swearing-in ceremony. Mayor Carlisle is only human. I’m sure he needs more time to properly vet candidates for every post. If he had submitted a whole new slate of appointments for consideration I think residents, including myself, would have been a bit anxious. Interim appointments until January 31 make sense to me.”
But before this conversation could continue, our new mayor gave us a new reason to talk about him. Specifically in his absence, or I should say – because of it.
Charin Tomomitsu wanted answers to the question above:
“Hope you post the answers to your questions on who will be running the city when Carlisle is in D.C. and why Todd Apo is on that trip. The answers will reveal a lot about Carlisle’s knowledge (or lack of) on running the City & County of Honolulu.”
The questions quickly turned into a discussion about election laws. That was really what caught my attention. Not so much the topic itself, but the dialogue between our members.
Curtis Kropar began the discussion by asking a few questions:
“I have a question. Forgive my ignorance on this but I am confused about something. The former mayor resigned mid term. A new election was held and we have a new mayor. He only gets to serve the remainder of the original term from the previous mayor? Why? It was a straight up election, he was elected by the people against another candidate… what does it matter what ‘term’ or time frame the previous mayor bailed out of? Why doesn’t the new mayor get a full 4 year term? For that fact, any elected position at any level? Why do they only get the balance of time and not just start a new term altogether?”
Civil Beat’s Adrienne LaFrance chimed in:
“Curtis: You ask a great question. The short answer is that the process is determined by what’s in the City Charter. In other words, it’s the law. The longer answer: While Honolulu’s mayoral election took place on the day of the primary election, there was a distinct difference in this special mayoral election as compared to a standard mayoral election. In a regularly scheduled mayoral election, the Sept. 18 results would have forced a run-off. Since neither Peter Carlisle nor Kirk Caldwell earned a majority of the votes, their names would have been on the ballot come Nov. 2. But because this was a special mayoral election designed to elect someone to serve the remainder of former Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s term, it was a winner-take-all scenario.”
Jared I. Kuroiwa added his thoughts on the law as well:
“Curtis: Other than it being law… the special election is set up that way to keep the election cycles intact. Otherwise the term that would throw the mayoral cycle off. Imagine if Mufi stepped down last year, a four year term would end on an odd year! That would really mess up the Office of Elections. I believe it was set up this way to stagger the gubernatorial and Honolulu mayoral races to keep fluctuations in voting stable (easier the plan and implement). The gubernatorial race draws more people, but it is offset by the Honolulu mayoral and presidential elections. What is interesting is why it’s a winner-take-all election (and in the Congressional race it was also without parties). But of course the California gubernatorial recall election was also winner-take-all. The run-off in a regular election allows voters that voted for a candidate not in the top two to cast a vote for one of the remaining candidates. Now this would only happen if no candidate received 50%+1 of the votes in the primary as that candidate would have won outright. The reasoning is that an elected official should have the majority of votes. For winner-take-all elections, you just need more than the person in second place.”
