ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

On first glance, the idea that governance should be money driven is attractive. King and queen is the end point of such an ideology.

But in our Charter of the County of Maui, human dignity and righteousness form the engine, and money can best be described as a fuel additive. Dignity and righteousness drive governance in the existing charter, where governance is voter driven.

In 2002, the Charter Commission proposed a change to Section 1 – 1 Incorporation: The proposal was, “The people of the County of Maui as a basis for this incorporation confirm the equal worth and dignity of every individual …” Voters adopted this change.

And in 2012, a commission proposed revising the charter preamble to read, in pertinent part, “We, the people of the County of Maui, mindful of our Hawaiian history, heritage and culture and our uniqueness as a four island county, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State Motto Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono” (meaning, the life of the land is preserved in righteousness of the people). This revision was also adopted.

In a democratic republic such as ours, money takes a back seat to integrity, or integrity does not exist.

On Maui, the promotion of manager/council governmental restructuring is predictable given the history of promotion of accumulation of individual power whose origins might be French. There seems to be an influx of Euro-California dreamers, and the slightly demented understanding of political power brought to our community is reflective of this abnormality

A large financial investment used to promote initiatives on Maui has been credited to well-intended global “visitors” whose home is where the hat hangs — this may be 10 percent true, as 10 percent truth of a stereotype is necessary for the stereotype to exist. I’m pretty sure more than 10 percent of this assertion is true.

It should be noted that the report referred to by Mark Hyde in his commentary earlier this week (“Manager Vs. Mayor: For Maui, The Choice Is Clear“) failed to provide an answer to this question: Would changes to the charter, other than restructuring of government, improve or correct the deficiencies presumed by a committee majority to require change? The committee’s report, on its face, was incomplete.

This writer believes your readers should take with a grain of salt Mr. Hyde’s commentary.