������Ƶ

Editor’s note: For Hawaii’s Nov. 5 General Election, Civil Beat asked candidates to answer some questions about where they stand on various issues and what their priorities will be if elected.

The following came from Jillian Anderson, Republican candidate for state House District 24, which covers Waikiki. Her opponent is Democrat Adrian Tam.

Go to Civil Beat’s Election Guide for general information, and check out other candidates on the General Election Ballot.

1. What is the biggest issue facing your district, and what would you do about it?

Edging out Waikiki’s numerous other problems are issues related to condominium insurance and mismanagement. Thousands upon thousands of residents are being left largely powerless as insurance premiums skyrocket and boards of directors struggle to properly manage aging buildings and make financially sound decisions. 

The majority of Waikiki’s condominiums were built 50-plus years ago, making major projects, in both cost and disruption, inevitable. Yet, many owners are only finding that out once it is too late.

In addition, buildings are facing insurance premium costs with exponential year-over-year growth, leaving condos to resort to hefty assessments and increased maintenance fees or instead make the risky choice to proceed with cheaper policies that leave their building underinsured and put their owners on “do not lend” lists.

This year, the Legislature’s answer to condo issues such as these was to initiate a two-year study of the problems, and only then propose – and after that pass – bills that offer solutions. As a legislator, I would advocate for urgent action on the needs of condominiums, better enable boards of directors to make good decisions for their fellow owners, and support the immediate stabilization of our condo insurance market.

2. How do you feel about the massive income tax cut just approved by the Legislature and the governor? Do you have any concerns that it will force reductions in state services in the years to come?

This state tax reduction is a necessity to help our hardworking residents combat the high price of living in paradise, though I am leery the seven-year incremental rollout will go untouched. 

We still do not have consensus on how much this cut will reduce our state budget, let alone how we will make up for it. I think the passage this year is well-intentioned and long overdue, though moving forward, Hawaii’s residents must stay vigilant that the government keeps their word especially as our economic picture transforms in other areas. 

We presently have a rainy day fund balance that is the highest in state history. Minimum wage is set to increase two more times over the next four years, raising the floor on earnings and ideally spending. Recent high-profile mismanagement of state funds, as was the case with nearly half a billion dollars for Department of Education projects, hopefully will put a lasting spotlight on responsible allocation and spending. 

This historical tax reduction puts our state on a forced trajectory to do more with less, and as time goes on, future elected officials must take up the torch that has been lit this year to operate with greater fiscal restraint.

3. Hawaii continues to struggle with pay to play politics and corruption in government. What meaningful reforms do you think would change state government for the better?

The biggest issue with the structure of our state government is the centralization of power. 

At its foundation, our Legislature brings together 76 individuals to advocate for the best interests of their home districts. But in practice, some of these individuals have immense power while some have nearly none. Without a leadership position, legislators have little at their disposal other than personal relationships to make headway. 

The unilateral decision making of a committee chair to select what bills are heard, what bills are killed, and how bills are amended opens the door to outside influence in the form of pay-to-play and corrupt practices. When it takes just one person versus a whole committee or the whole chamber to make a decision, the barrier of difficulty to change outcomes drops significantly. 

Decentralizing power by putting more decisions up for votes by members, particularly of committees, will reduce the effectiveness of the pay-to-play system and make choices rooted in corruption much more apparent.

4. Candidates often say they will support reform proposals in the Legislature. And yet major reform proposals don’t pass. Will you back good- government proposals even if it means going against leadership? If you are an incumbent, can you point to an example of a reform that you supported?

So much of what has been going on in recent years has been nonsensical. Reform proposals are introduced. Nearly every legislator expresses support for the idea. Yet somehow, something gets in the way that allows these bills to fall short of passage. 

There is clearly a front stage and backstage to how these reform proposals are handled. Some can easily voice their support to the public, as would likely be the case for the House Minority Caucus I would be joining. Others with greater backstage access, however, can say one thing when public-facing, and do another as they pull strings from the rafters. 

Each one of my votes would be a reflection of what is best for the 30,000 residents of Waikiki and portions of Moiliili and Ala Moana, not a handful of legislators in leadership positions. Oftentimes, the public does not realize one of the silver linings of being represented by a member of the minority party is that they have freedom to vote as they please without many repercussions – and it is initiatives like government reform where this opportunity should be most freely exercised. 

5. Do you support comprehensive public financing of elections for candidates who choose to participate? Why or why not?

Despite being a candidate with admittedly lean finances, I do not believe that taxpayer dollars going toward political campaigns (some successful, many inevitably failures) is a good idea.

Yes, those with big war chests have immense leverage over newcomers, but voluntary participation is not going to draw in those entrenched in the pay-to-play system. Who will participate are newcomers looking to level the playing field, but even with public financing, they still may not have enough for a truly competitive race. 

Instead, the way to actually make elections fair financially is to enforce maximum expenditure limits, as is already the case on a voluntary basis in order to enjoy reduced candidate filing fees. Rather than candidates trying to one-up each other based on funding inputs, a forced cap on outputs would truly make all things equal. With this structure, candidates would have to determine how to most strategically and economically use their funds relative to their opponent and would not be so tempted to accumulate excess cash. 

6. Hawaii is the only Western state without a statewide citizens initiative process. Do you support such a process? Why or why not?

A statewide citizens initiative process is one in which voters are provided the power of introducing and voting on laws or constitutional amendments. The only manner in which Hawaii voters are currently given such a direct say is when it comes to constitutional amendments.

The statewide citizens initiative process appears to turn citizens into lawmakers, though when put in action, has been shown to be ripe for manipulation by big money and special interests, and functions as a method for the party not in control to circumvent the will of elected representatives.

If this was proposed, I would proceed with caution. One of numerous concerns is that with signature gathering. In some states, initiative circulators are paid per signature they attain, which can make those approached likely to be pushed into signing. On the other hand, paying circulators hourly to gather signatures (in many cases 8% or more of a previous election’s votes) can drive up costs substantially, favoring the wealthiest interests.

Ultimately, I am in great favor of putting power in the hands of our citizens, though in the case of a statewide citizens initiative process I would like safeguards in place to make sure they are true grassroots efforts.

7. Thanks to their campaign war chests and name familiarity, incumbents are almost always reelected in Hawaii legislative races. Should there be term limits for state legislators, as there are for the governor’s office and county councils? Why or why not?

I know I am of the minority opinion, but I am not in favor of term limits. When elections are free and fair, the voting public should be able to select who they think is most qualified for the job. At what point do we say that one has too much experience, has been too dedicated, or has done too well for their people?

I understand the fear of electing “career politicians,” yet it is up to each community to make each race a survival of the fittest. This election year, this is by-and-large not the case. Actually, if term limits were already in place, numerous elected offices would have an incumbent unqualified to run and no one to take their place. 

Term limits are often made to sound like our ticket to government reform. But the reality is, Hawaii already suffers from not enough candidates running for elected office and\the lack of an impressive lineup of candidates to choose from when a race is contested. Adding in removing incumbents from candidacy qualification based solely on time served will only force turnover in districts to individuals with far less experience and effectiveness.

8. What will you do to ensure accountability at the Legislature? Do you support ideas such as requiring the Sunshine Law to apply to the Legislature or banning campaign contributions during session?

As I referenced in Question No. 3, the centralization of power within the Legislature can’t help but create a lack of accountability and transparency. By simply allowing the committee chair, and not the committee members, to put a bill on a hearing agenda, vote down a bill, or openly propose amendments, there is little surprise that nearly everything happens behind closed doors.

I would not be in favor of instituting the Sunshine Law per se as having worked within the Legislature there is great value in allowing legislators to speak among themselves without public observation. Though, when it comes to final decisions, accountability can be significantly enhanced by making it commonplace for each member to articulate their position and have it contribute to the final outcome. 

As far as campaign contributions are concerned, legislators should be focusing on their role in the here and now and not on a future campaign when in session as they have ample time following adjournment to dedicate to fundraising. While it may be easier for eagle-eyed observers to tie donations to actions if they are occurring simultaneously, I do think the benefit outweighs the disadvantages as it comes to a session ban on campaign contributions. 

9. How would you make the Legislature more transparent and accessible to the public? Opening conference committees to the public? Stricter disclosure requirements on lobbying and lobbyists? How could the Legislature change its own internal rules to be more open?

Having worked in a legislative research department and now within the office of a representative, it isn’t uncommon for even those of us working inside the building to not know what is going on or why something happened. If this is the case, how is the general public supposed to keep up?

Current hybrid options of watching and participating in the activities of the Legislature are fantastic and should be kept.

I work in an office where every meeting request is accepted and the door is always open. While each legislator has their reasons for how they conduct business, this, even as an unwritten policy, should be instituted.

As far as improvements that can be made, a better job can certainly be done as it comes to articulating decisions, particularly for deferred bills or measures that aren’t heard at all. 

The curtain should also be lifted as it comes to lobbying, by documenting and publicly releasing lists of those who lobby a legislator at any given time and on what subject. 

Lastly, for bills introduced “by request” or which have a clear connection to a certain individual or entity, these specifics should be required to be disclosed.

10. Many people have talked about diversifying the local economy for many years now, and yet Hawaii is still heavily reliant on tourism. What, if anything, should be done differently about tourism and the economy?

As I am seeking to represent Waikiki, our state’s tourism epicenter, I of course seek to protect this main economic driver and significant source of employment. But, at the same time I am greatly interested in growing the pie in Hawaii’s many other promising directions. 

Fostering the film and television industry is a no-brainer. Yet, we let major internationally beloved programs announce they will be coming to an end without much other than tax credits to incentivize new productions to take their place.

We must also invest more in revitalizing our agriculture sector as a means of enhancing our state’s food sufficiency and incentivizing entrepreneurial ways of life.

Other opportunities we can no longer continue to miss out on include space tourism and jobs in STEM fields which offer high-paying jobs and build upon the strong minds we already have in the islands within these disciplines.   

11. An estimated 60% of Hawaii residents are struggling to get by, a problem that reaches far beyond low-income and into the middle class, which is disappearing. What ideas do you have to help the middle class and working families who are finding it hard to continue to live here?

The degree to which the cost of living has been allowed to grow is frankly unacceptable for a state government whose No. 1 job is to provide its own people with the ability to at least have a fighting chance of providing a good life for themselves. But today, no matter how hard you work or how well you save, life has simply become too expensive to enjoy. 

I have already announced that as a legislator I would serve under the “Priced out of Paradise” Promise – pledging to withhold support from any legislation that will increase Hawaii’s cost of living. Any increase to fees or taxes or the cost of doing business can no longer be sustained and we need more legislators who acknowledge that fact. 

The cost of housing is the greatest factor in making our state unaffordable for the middle class. There must be a special emphasis on housing affordability by our Legislature – which has already been proclaimed an emergency by Gov. Green – leaving no stone unturned as it comes to lowering development costs and making our housing market one tied to local, and not national or international, incomes.