Delegate Floyd Pulham: Would the 1978  Constitutional Convention please come to order.

Announcer: With the sounding of the gavel,  and with those words by Delegate Floyd Pulham, Chairman Pro Tem, ConCon '78 got  underway on Wednesday, July 5, 1978.

[MUSIC] Bob Miller: I'm Bob Miller for Hawai‘i Public Television.

102 delegates elected by the people of Hawai‘i on May 20th are meeting here in Honolulu's  historic Federal Building and courthouse to review Hawai‘i's State Constitution and  to decide whether and what changes should be recommended to the voters.

ConCon  '78 began in a manner that has become traditional with our governmental bodies, a  welcome chant was given by Edith Kanaka‘ole, Martha Hohu led in the singing of Hawai‘i Pono‘i,  an invocation by the Reverend David Kaupu, ancient dances and the giving of symbolic gifts  to the state by each of the island districts.

Edith Kanaka‘ole: [CHANTING IN HAWAIIAN] Reverend David Kaupu: [CHANTING IN HAWAIIAN] [DRUMS] [CHANTING IN HAWAIIAN] [APPLAUSE] Bob Miller: While the opening entertainment was traditional, the opening remarks were not.

Delegate Floyd  Pulhum, who was temporary chairman by virtue of having received the largest number of votes  in the first ConCon district, used the occasion to express the feelings of many delegates  about the Convention's teething problems.

Delegate Floyd Pulham: Or individual, regardless  of purpose, has any right to usurp that basic right of the people.

We have already spent  over a month tied up with organizational and logistical considerations.

And I don't need  to remind you that groups have already been formed based on other than constitutional  issues.

It is indeed a pity the established political system lacked the wisdom to foresee  these problems.

We now find ourselves using the same personnel and resources available  to them and through which much of these problems could have been handled in advance,  freeing the convention for its larger role without the added burden of establishing  a political system of its own.

[APPLAUSE] That was yesterday.

Today, it is history,  and let us hope that both we and future legislators’ profit by its lesson.

My job today is  to charge each and every one of us with the moral responsibility of being a better person than  we were yesterday.

While democracy must have its organization and controls, its vital breadth  is individual liberty.

If we as delegates are to accomplish a task we were elected to perform,  and if we expect the general public to accept the results of our deliberations.

Some of you are  going to have to clean up your act.

[APPLAUSE] Let us proceed with the following in mind:  democracy means not that I am as good as you are, but rather, my friends, it means you are as  good as I am.

Yes, democracy means many things.

Certainly, it means majority rule, but  much more for it requires freedom of expression for minorities and even minority  representation.

I know some of you are saying, okay, okay, we're organized, so let's get on  with the business.

Let's get to the issues.

I would be remiss in my duties as your temporary  Chairman if I did not remind you that we are organized as an oligarchy, not a democracy, this  body needs to make a decisive move to reestablish its credibility with the public, or our future  deliberations will remain forever suspect.

It has been said that after this session is  over, only our work, or lack of it, will be remembered.

I don't agree with that.

Just as we  look back to the conventions of 1950 and 1968, history will look back at this convention, and as  your individual actions are judged, so will your contribution to history be judged.

By your winning  a single election, each of you were elevated to a position in the history of this state.

You may not  be ready for it, but it is here, and the results are up to you.

I repeat, are you, are we capable  of being a better person than we were yesterday?

Do I believe we can do it?

Yes,  I certainly do.

Why?

Because I believe in another democratic principle,  and it says that democracy is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary  possibilities in ordinary people.

Mahalo.

Bob Miller: Then after all, 102 delegates  present were found to be qualified to sit in the convention, they were given their oath of  office by Chief Justice William S. Richardson.

Chief Justice William S. Richardson: Would the  delegates to the 1978 Constitution Convention please raise their right hands and repeat after  me: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States  and the Constitution of the State of Hawai‘i, and that I will faithfully discharge  my duties as a delegate to the 1978 Constitutional Convention of the State of  Hawai‘i to the best of my ability.

Thank you.

Bob Miller: Governor George Ariyoshi, who  himself had been a delegate to the 1968 ConCon charged the delegates to conduct an open  convention in the interest of Hawai‘i's people.

Governor George Ariyoshi: An almost sacred  task, the review of the Constitution with State of Hawai‘i.

And to the hands of a few  has been placed the trust of many.

You are the architect of our future, and what you do or  choose not to do will affect our all of our lives for many years to come.

I am sure that I do not  need to impress upon you the importance of your tasks.

Their magnitude was known to you when you  sought the election to this convention, and I am sure have been further impressed upon you in your  preliminary deliberations.

I do not intend to speak here this morning at any length, but permit  me a few observations based on my experience as a constitutional convention delegate 10 years ago  and also as governor of this state during some of the most trying and challenging years of our  existence.

I hope that none of you come to this convention with such a rigidity of ideas that you  are inflexible.

You all have convictions, and that is as it should be.

You also have areas in which  you feel very strongly, and again, that is as it should be.

But please do not be so strong,  either in convictions or areas of concerns, that you cannot approach the proceedings here with  an open mind.

Please do not be so convinced of the correctness of a certain position that you cannot  listen to another side or a contrary point of view.

It is the sharing of ideas and viewpoints  and wisdom that will make this convention a worthwhile exercise for the people of Hawai‘i.

It is in your flexibility to expand beyond what you now may feel is possible that will determine  the success or failure of this convention.

I am not advocating that you abandon long held beliefs  and philosophies, but I am advocating a tolerance for contrary points of views and a spirit of  cooperation.

The democratic process is best served when we have free and open discussions and  when we have a willingness to consider the points of views others than our own.

No one at this  convention can afford to have tunnel vision.

There must be a wide field upon which the issues of this  convention can be played, and it will be tragic, in my view, if this convention failed to consider  all the alternatives to all the issues, it just might be that an alternative, not now in favor or  even considered might be the best ultimate choice.

I do not feel that the success or failure  of this constitutional convention will be measured either by how few or how many changes  are made, rather, success or failure will be measured by the approach to the problems and  the processes by which decisions are made.

The acceptance and rejection of ideas, that is  what is important, and that is what history will remember.

Also.

I hope that the delegates  to this convention will continue to recognize the uniqueness of this state.

We are unique in so  many ways, in geography, in people, in resources, in problems and in solutions.

We have a unique  approach to living.

We have a unique concept of the dignity of all persons, regardless of  ethnic origins or economic circumstances.

We have a unique quality called the aloha spirit,  which possibly is our most prized, but yet fragile possession.

Our uniqueness is precious, and  it must be preserved.

I hope that the document ultimate emerging from the convention will reflect  that.

We are the only island state in this union of states, and we have become accustomed partly  because our geographical isolation to finding our own solutions and developing our own style, that  independence of spirit and action and style must be continued.

We must adopt Hawaiian solutions  to Hawaiian problems.

Certainly... [APPLAUSE] We can borrow from the wisdom and the experiences  of others, but we cannot and we should not blindly assume that something that is good for Hawai‘i,  something is good for Hawai‘i merely because it happens to be good for some other area.

At present, we have a very strong central government.

For instance, we are alone in having  a statewide school system and a statewide system for the delivery of health, social and other  human services.

Is that bad?

The proponents of home rule would say yes, the proponents of  equal opportunities for all of our citizens, regardless of where they live, rural or  urban, affluent or not, would say no.

Home rule is a catchphrase with much appeal,  but equal opportunities and equal services for all also have great appeal.

Are the  two philosophies inconsistent?

Can they be reconciled?

Should they be reconciled?

I will  not attempt to answer these questions here today.

I bring them up only as being illustrative of the  issues that you will confront.

They are indeed worthy of your best efforts.

And I urge once  again, that you approach the challenging task ahead of you with an open mindedness that will  do credit to this assembly and to this state.

The preamble for our present constitution notes  that the people of Hawai‘i are, and I quote, mindful of our Hawaiian heritage.

This says  volumes about our approach to government, and I hope that these words would become a  living slogan for this convention.

The preamble also says that we approach all the world with an  understanding heart.

These are not just words.

They represent a credo of life in these islands,  a credo that has served us so well over the years, and one that can carry us forward into the years  ahead.

The challenges you face beginning today are great, but even greater is the opportunity  to serve in a very unique way our state and all of its citizens.

You have my prayerful support as  you begin your deliberations.

Mahalo and aloha.

Bob Miller: Although the selection  of permanent convention officers had been decided in pre-convention meetings by the  delegates, there was a contest for the presidency on opening day.

William Paty of Waialua, the  choice of the majority of the delegates was challenged by Walter Cabral of Kailua.

By secret  ballot, Paty was elected by a vote of 69 to 33.

Speaker: Bill Paty has long  been active in business and professional wars and commissions in Hawai‘i.

Delegate Floyd Pulham: Bill, congratulations,  very much.

I have to turn the gavel over to you.

It looks like it's getting to  be a habit I did this last time.

Convention President William  Paty: Thank you.

Thank you.

[APPLAUSE] Convention President William Paty: The governor has left with Lieutenant  Governor Doyd, Chief Justice Richardson, distinguished guests, fellow delegates, ladies  and gentlemen.

First let me thank Delegate Floyd Pulham for doing an excellent job in convening  this convention.

[APPLAUSE] First District from Hawai‘i could be well, proud of a fine effort in  conducting this election and getting us started on the Constitution trail.

And I want to do thank  those of you who are so complimentary in my in my nomination, what no sure what you were talking  about for a while but and I appreciated those who supported my candidacy.

I want to say that I  feel it's a honor and a rare privilege to serve as President of the '78 Constitutional Convention  for the State of Hawai‘i.

I'm well aware that my election was anything but unanimous, although  at no time did I ever think that it would be.

And I'm also aware of the basic concerns that  triggered this contest, and I fully intend to work hard to try to allay those concerns as we  proceed on in the business of this convention.

[APPLAUSE] I hope those of you who have these  concerns will afford me this opportunity.

Now, what lies ahead?

As I sat listening to the opening  ceremony, the ‘oli to Pele, ‘oli to Lili‘uokalani, and a welcoming chant by Aunty Edith Kanaka‘ole,  it seemed to me that perhaps never before in our island history are we as an island people,  re-seeking so strongly our Hawaiian heritage on the one hand, while on the other, we try to cope  the multifaceted problems of an electronic age, and with it, the dynamic changes in knowledge,  values and lifestyles.

Drawing in, if you will, our ‘aina, those things that have served us  so well for so long as we try to chart ahead a course that would afford the best in safeguards,  the best in opportunity for the people of Hawai‘i.

Bob Miller: Delegate Michael Liu had placed  Cabral's name in nomination to oppose Paty, and had made a strong appeal for  Cabral support to the delegates.

Later, Liu said he felt his efforts  had served a good cause.

Delegate Michael Liu: Well, my reaction, I think  I'm not disappointed.

I think Mr.

Paty indicated in his acceptance speech that he saw clearly that  his selection as President was not unanimous.

There was no attempt to make it unanimous, as I  think Mr.

Porteus was when he was selected in 1968 there was a after he was selected as president  elect, it was done unanimously.

So I think the message was clear, though the vote didn't  come our way, per se, that the message is that Mr.

Paty is still, in a sense, we'll have to  prove his leadership to the whole convention.

Bob Miller: Well, you've been promised that  there will be open debate on all issues.

Do you feel that that will be effective  in terms of getting your ideas across, or will it just be fruitless debate?

Delegate Michael Liu: Well, I, I like  to be optimistic that the debate, whether it be on the floor or in committees,  will be worthwhile.

People who are quote on the majority side have indicated that,  you know, they, they want to listen.

But I've been in the legislature for four years as  an aide, and I've seen many debates on the floors and committees, and I think realistically,  it's still going to be a difficult task.

Bob Miller: Cabral, who'd given his name to  the opposition to the convention majority, also felt that the effort had not been in vain,  even though the final result was fully expected.

Delegate William Cabral: As you know, we sort  of started out to offer up symbolic opposition, and for a while, momentum was starting to pick up,  and there was some, some fantasizing going on by the people who were supporting me, that if I did  win the election, just how would I approach the leadership and so forth.

But certainly not, I was  not disciplined at all.

I think we achieved what we had hoped to achieve, and that was to make very  vocal and public to the people of Hawai‘i that unless they take a deep concern and involvement  in the processes of the constitutional review, that there is a possibility that they may  be deprived of getting a fair hearing.

Bob Miller: One person, one delegate,  it was quoted in the press, not by name, as saying that you were not you  people were not independents, but rather were dissidents at least this  person thought of you as that.

Do you agree?

Delegate William Cabral: Certainly not.

I think that when you define radicals, they're opposed to the basic chart of the people.

We're certainly not opposed to the basic chart of the people.

We're opposed to the manner in  which the people are being represented.

And if you want to call us dissidents, so be it.

I care  not.

The main thing is, is that we were striving to proceed with an open convention that would give  the public fair representation.

That's, that's it.

Bob Miller: Do you think that the assurances  of open debate on all issues are going to be meaningful in terms of getting any of  the ideas that you may have across?

Delegate William Cabral: Well, when it  comes to issues, even the faction that I identified myself with, the so-called  independents, we differ on issues.

It doesn't necessarily say that we're all  going to stand together, but hopefully, if the leadership of the convention proceeds as  I'm hopeful that it will, and being optimistic the way Mr.

Paty had replied to being put on  the spot by our group, that everyone will have an opportunity to present their concerns in the  various issues.

The power play then will be to try to gather as much momentum and support  to promote the issues that one believes in.

Bob Miller: The first day's ConCon  activities were rounded up with a number of parties in the tradition of the  state legislature.

On Thursday and Friday, the convention got down to business.

Convention President William Paty.

Convention President William Paty: Proposals have  already been submitted, some committee meetings, not public committee meetings yet, but some  committee meetings have been scheduled, and the delegates, I think, are now  beginning to settle down to work.

Bob Miller: How long do you  think it will be before your public hearings of the committees will start?

Convention President William Paty:  Depending on the committee chairman, most of them feel that they need a week,  a week and a half in order to give their people the opportunity to review the issues, to  doodle background, to call and resource people, so that at such time as they do have public  hearings, they are able to get at the pertinent questions and have background in which to  evaluate the proposals that are submitted.

Bob Miller: A debate on the floor will  take place sometime after that, I presume.

Convention President William Paty: After a  committee has had a chance to go over a proposal and develop a report, then the committee comes  and makes its report, and the convention goes into what they call the Committee of the Whole  and then it all hangs out.

Whether the delegate has been a member of that committee or not, at  that point, he's got an opportunity to get up and propose any amendment to the proposal that's been  submitted by that committee, and it gets really hammered around, and this is where really much  of the work of the convention will take place.

Bob Miller: Opening day's most exciting moments,  I guess, were your election.

You were elected, as expected.

Does this end?

Whatever  dissension there may be in the ConCon?

Convention President William Paty: Well, I  wouldn't want to presume that the concerns that triggered this contest are simply going to  vanish because I got elected.

There were concerns that they had, and I think it's going to be up  to me as a chairman, to try to demonstrate by keeping the debate and all the discussions on the  issues wide open and assuring the delegates every opportunity to be heard and the process being  sure the public input is strong and adequate.

Bob Miller: From a practical standpoint,  do you think that total open debate on any question is going to make any difference  on some of the more controversial issues.

Isn't that really decided already by the  election of the people, the delegates?

Convention President William Paty: I don't really  think so, Bob.

I think you'll find that a number of delegates came here with some ideas of whether  they're for or against a particular issue.

I think you'll find that after they've had a chance to  sit in and get real hard testimony on pros and cons of some of the things that they thought they  were supporting after they've seen the reaction from the public, I would be very much surprised  if a number of votes didn't change substantially, and I wouldn't look to any preconceived  ideas about what will fly and what won't fly.

Bob Miller: And so ConCon '78  is off the ground.

It's flying, even if the hopes and expectations of some  will not be.

For the next couple of months, the 102 ConCon delegates will be fully engaged  in the study of such diverse issues: as the way we select our judges, the limitations we place  on public officers, the way we run our public schools, the way we fund our government.

These and  other issues will be embodied in the hundreds of separate proposals which will be probed and  dissected in committee and in floor debate.

[MUSIC] Delegate Robert Taira: I can see if we had only about five or 10  major issues.

That we could go one by one, yes or no, there's no problem there.

But if  we're going to end up with about 35 or 40 specific issues to be described on the  ballot, we have a real problem here in trying to make sure that what we present  with the format of this ballot is going to be one that's not only fair, but one  that will be understood by the public.

Bob Miller: Delegate and  retiring State Senator Bob Taira, indicating the concern felt by delegates  as the final week began for ConCon '78.

[MUSIC] Bob Miller: I'm Bob Miller for Hawai‘i Public Television.

More than two months ago, on July 5th, 102 citizens of Hawai‘i, elected by the people,  began meeting here at the old Federal Building to consider Hawai‘i's Constitution and decide  whether and in what manner amendments should be made to it.

Their work is almost  finished on Wednesday, September 20, a text of some 30 proposed amendments will  be delivered to the Office of Lieutenant Governor in time for inclusion in the November  general election ballot.

The following day, ConCon is expected to adjourn and move out of its  offices here in the federal building.

But at the end of ConCon '78 is approaching its work has not  yet started to let up.

This past week saw long hours of debate on several of the more important  questions facing the convention.

On Monday, the Committee of the Whole began consideration of  the proposal on suffrage and election, a session that began at 9 AM and didn't end until after  3:30 the following morning.

Wallace Weatherwax, Chairman of the Committee on Bill of Rights,  Suffrage and Election, opened the debate.

Chairman Wallace Weatherwax: Let me cover  generally what the committee proposal deals with, Committee Proposal 16.

There is a new provision  with reference to force resignation, where a public official, any public official who intends  to run for an office which happens to overlap his the president office held then in that case, there  would be a requirement for him to resign.

The next important item would be the in Article Two with  reference to the primary election.

As you're aware, the article two has nothing on primary  elections in the present constitution.

This would put language in as to when the primary election is  to be held.

Present, presently, there is a 30-day span between the holding of the primary election  and general election.

The committee decided that they would place a minimum 45-day limit.

And when I emphasize the 45-day minimum, because it does not preclude the legislature from  using a greater amount, larger than 45 days.

So if you will look at the language in the proposal,  it talks about a minimum of 45 days.

Also with reference to the nominating procedure which  the primary election is in the parties, the question of whether this should be a closed, open  or blanket primary, and it was a consensus of the committee that the closed primary, which is the  system we presently have, is what was desired.

The next new section also dealing with campaign public  financing, it directs the legislature to begin a public financing fund for the purpose of assisting  candidates in the partial public financing along the line of a matching fund concept, which was  one of the concepts discussed in the committee.

It also talks about a spending limitation, and  again, these concepts should be kept separate.

For instance, the spending limitation would be  on the candidate.

So the spending limitation would be on the candidate, and under the present  constitutional law, this is permissible under the case of Buckley versus Vallejo when in fact,  public financing is provided.

So if the candidate accepts public financing, he a spending limitation  may be imposed on him.

The committee proposal, however, did take a step further and suggest  that spending limitations be included for all candidates running for office.

There's some  question as to the constitutionality, this, however, I believe it was the intention of the  committee that a reexamination of the Buckley versus Vallejo case should be undertaken  to determine whether or not, in fact, it is constitutional or unconstitutional, and this would  be a beginning step toward that.

The third concept which I would ask that you keep clearly in mind is  that of contribution limitations, and this would be a donor giving contributions to a candidate,  which is separate from a candidate spending limitation.

A contribution limitation does not  set any amounts, it directs the legislature to set an amount of limitation on donors.

And  there is no particular specifications, but the committee had before them the federal election  laws and the Federal Election Commission, and with respect to contribution limitations, that has been  specifically held constitutional in the Buckley versus Vallejo case.

And just for information,  I believe there's a $1,000 donor limitation, and there are other various provisions,  which perhaps we'll discuss at a later time.

The direct democracy concepts  of initiative, referendum and recall, all three were considered by the committee,  and the committee did not reach a consensus, meaning that there were not 16 votes, which would  be a majority of the 30-member committee to pass the proposal to the convention for consideration.

So for that reason, there are no initiative, referendum or recall proposals before  you or part of the committee proposal.

Bob Miller: The questions of initiative,  referendum and recall did not come up for debate before the Committee of the  Whole until 11 o'clock on Monday evening, and thus we were not able to cover them with  our cameras.

The initiative question was debated until after 2AM referendum recall from  then until 3:30, all were defeated.

Earlier, another controversial proposal by Delegate  Masu Dyer was also rejected by the convention.

Delegate Masu Dyer: Mr.

Chairman, first,  let me explain what this amendment does.

If favorably considered by this body, it would  require an elected public official to resign from office.

Should he or she change his or her  political party at any time prior to 45 working days before the deadline for voters to change  their party designation for the primary election in the last year of his or her term.

For example,  a state representative elected in November 1978 could not change party affiliation until May 1980.

The purpose of the amendment should be clear.

Over the years, we have witnessed elected officials  of both major parties abuse the party system by switching parties soon after being elected to  office, or changing their party preferences at the time they file nomination papers long after the  deadline for voters to switch their registration.

In both cases, I cannot help but feel that the  people are the losers.

When one is voting for a candidate, the party is no secret.

In fact,  it is part of the tacit contract that comes into existence between the successful candidate  and those responsible for his or her election.

To change parties thereafter is a unilateral  breaking of that contract.

For those who maintain or change their party preference in anticipation  of being able to vote for certain candidates in the primary, it is nothing short of an outrage  to find out a month later that certain candidates will run as members of the opposite party.

This  amendment would prevent the ridiculous situation whereby a candidate because of a party change  after the switching deadline, cannot vote for oneself.

It makes a mockery of our party system  and breathes nothing but disillusionment toward politics and politicians.

We've seen this comedy  played in mayoral races, council races and in the House of Representatives.

However, such humor  is at best of a bittersweet nature.

Today, the right of elected officials to change parties  knows no control.

This is at the expense of the integrity of our political system.

This amendment  would serve as a reasonable deterrent to political misbehavior, which at times may be justified,  but which should at all times be questioned.

Delegate Donald Ching: I think that it would  be rather dangerous for us sitting here in convention, especially since we only meet once  every 10 years to try to put into the convention, I mean the Constitution.

Amendments that would  take care of every conceivable situation as it arises, I realize that what happened this last  time really caught the party off base, and I think it's an action that most of us would not condone.

But I think the answer to this problem is, again, like a lot of other things, is voter reaction.

The next time the election comes around, I think history will bear the facts out, present  company excluded, perhaps that every time a person switches, there is a certain amount of momentum  lost, and maybe his integrity is challenged from time to time.

I think that that is where it  rightfully belongs.

Let the people decide as to this, whether this is the type of political  public official that they would like to elect, a person who gives up one party philosophy  for another, for the sake of expediency.

I'd hate to see our constitution cluttered up with  all kinds of possibilities, just to, you know, take care of any political candidate who decides  to do one thing or another.

Otherwise, you know, we would have several chapters on this in this  area, rather than just one short paragraph, Delegate Barbara Marumoto: I think people, some  people, would be very upset if they realized that their representatives switched parties and they  had supported that particular candidate because of his party, only to find that if something happened  to that representative, the governor would have to appoint another person from the representative's  new party.

This is an aggravation, which I feel is unfair to the voters who supported  their candidate because of party.

I don't blame the people who have switched one way or the  other.

I feel that they have all had good reasons.

Delegate Dyer's amendment does not punish people  for switching.

It allows switching on a specified day so people know what they'll be voting for.

I  think it's a very good amendment.

Then you could see which party your candidate is running for,  and you could switch parties yourself accordingly.

I don't feel that this amendment is  unconstitutional or infringes upon the rights of any candidate, candidate or elected  public official, because I feel that if you're making the public declare five months before  the election, then certainly you could ask your candidate to announce his position 45 days before  that.

Please consider this amendment, I think it's a very good one, and I think it will benefit  the public and the voting public of Hawai‘i.

Bob Miller: While this and the important IRR  amendments to the committee proposal failed, two others were approved.

One would require  that voters' party preference be kept secret, this could mean the end of the closed  primary as we know it today.

The other, an idea offered by Delegate Donna Odonaka,  would allow voters to cast a vote for the statement none of the above.

Such votes would  not determine the results of an election, but would provide guidance of a kind to politicians.

Both of these amendments could be rejected during second reading, which was scheduled to take  place too late for inclusion in this program.

The final Committee of the Whole debate took place  on Thursday on a package of amendments proposed by Chairman Anthony Chang of the Committee of  Environment, Agriculture, Conservation and Land.

Chairman Anthony Chang: We are proud that  the proposal and report are the products of many minds and hands.

As the report notes, 15  public hearings were held on five islands to consider 117 individual proposals.

After many  long hours of discussion and work sessions, the committee decided that these provisions were  the vital constitutional issues to be presented to you.

All of the committee members contributed  to the substance and phrasing of the documents.

The committee members will continue to contribute  their effort and skill in shaping the Convention's proposal to the people.

In discussing the various  issues this morning, I will call upon members of the committee to speak when the matters relate to  their area of interest or expertise.

Mr.

Chairman, we are aware that there will be a number  of amendments to the committee proposals discussed in this Committee of the Whole.

This was expected.

The committee product was formed by representatives of all interests in our  community, and it was inevitable that controversy would result.

This is the essence of democracy.

We only ask that the delegates consider wisely the vital issues presented to them today and reflect  upon the words that rang so loud and clear on the first day of the convention: O Hawai‘i, O sands  of my birth, my native home.

I rejoice in the blessings of heaven.

O Hawai‘i Aloha.

Reflect  on your blessings delegates.

Mau ke aloha, no Hawai‘i.

I request a few remarks from  Delegate Hoe on behalf of the committee.

Chairman: Delegate Hoe.

Delegate Charlene Hoe: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I  would like to speak only in regards to Section 1, and in our deliberations on Section 1.

The  committee proposal for this section is an important step toward making a balance between the  use of our natural resources, which is necessary, and their preservation.

In our present  constitution, the direction to care for our natural resources seems to be overweighted  by the emphasis on development and utilization.

Though the use of our natural resources are  necessary, it must be done in such a manner as to ensure the optimum long term benefits for the  inhabitants of our state.

Their development must be judicious.

Their use must be consistent with  their conservation to maintain them for future availability.

When considering use and development  of our natural resources, the economic and social benefits need to be major concerns.

The total  concept of economics, that of careful and thrifty use of the other resources, which are necessities  of life, rather than the narrow sense that of immediate dollar return.

And the total concept  of social benefits in considering their use, must be among the basic criteria for development  and use of our natural resources.

This proposal strives to make clear that our obligations  include the welfare of future generations, and therefore in the use of our resources,  we must protect our natural resources against irreversible depletion, waste or destruction,  and safeguard the natural beauty of our state.

Bob Miller: The amendments to the Constitution  that were proposed by the committee would assure a healthful environment to all citizens by granting  them their right to bring a court suit directly, even though they are not immediately affected  by a hazard: establish a state water resources agency with the obligation to protect, control  and regulate all of Hawai‘i's water resources; require a two thirds vote by the legislature  before Hawai‘i's best agricultural lands could be redesignated for other use; give the state powers  to conserve and develop Hawai‘i's natural beauty; for the first time in the country, the state  would be able to establish a land bank to purchase developmental rights as a means to control land  speculation and exercise greater control over development; and make it possible for sea farms  to be established by granting exclusive use to portions of the oceans around the islands.

The  debate had been delayed one day to achieve what Chairman Chang called a consensus among delegates,  but not all delegates joined in that consensus.

Michael Crozier, for example, was unhappy  with the committee proposal on water.

He wanted a statement that would say simply, the  state shall regulate and control all water.

Delegate Michael Crozier: This is a simple, simple  amendment.

It does six things.

First of all, it acknowledges that the state possesses the power to  regulate and control all water.

Second, it implies that the state's responsibility to assure the  proper management of Hawai‘i's water resources.

Third, it does not rule out the legislative  creation of a water agency.

It leaves with the legislature the task of determining whether  or not the state need one.

Fourth, it makes no assignments of functions and powers, thus, it  allows for the highest degree of flexibility regarding this difficult topic of water resource.

Fifth, it makes no reference to collective ownership of water resources, and thus it makes it  impossible to be construed as taking away private water rights, as some people are concerned  now.

And sixth, Mr.

Chairman and delegates, which I think is the most important part of my  speech.

Mr.

Chairman, I have the ability to listen and pay attention.

I'm not good looking, I'm not  smart, but I can pay attention and listen.

Miss, I've had discussions and correspondence with some  different people.

I've listened to testimony in public hearings.

All these people have came and  told us basically that we all have been directed throughout the statement by which exactly  what we want to say that is that the water resources in the state shall be subject to the  regulations and control of the state, and no more.

What they're saying, sir, is just use one simple  statement.

Don't get tangled up in a lot of words.

Delegate Frenchy Desoto: What this proposal does  in one sentence, say the state shall regulate and control all water.

I think what we have here  is a problem.

A problem that has pervaded in Hawai‘i historically for years and years and  years.

You have the concern because evidently, the people feel that nothing has been done to date  with respect to regulating or taking care of the use of water.

What we just did a little while ago  was say that this agency shall be responsible, and it didn't have to be a special agency, it can  be an agency within the existing departments.

In the committee, we argued, and we were besieged  by lobby, by opinion from all kinds of attorneys, all kinds of people, people who say that they're  experts in water, all kinds of things.

I think what we just did a few minutes ago will his, will  show historically down the road that we have the nerve and at least the gumption to look into  the future and protect the water resources for generations that are just being born and those yet  unborn.

So, Mr.

Chairman, I speak strongly against the proposed amendment, if the amendment intends  to just delete verbiage, because many committees, including the Hawaiian Affairs, has come out with  more than just constitutional one liners.

Mahalo.

Bob Miller: That amendment lost, as did one by  Delegate Joseph Souki to eliminate the entire committee proposal on water resources.

However,  the delegates did approve an amendment requiring a two thirds approval by the legislature for  construction of nuclear power plants in the state.

With the convention about to end, attention  is turned to the committee on submission and information.

One of its jobs is to propose the way  amendments will appear on the ballot in November.

Last weekend, the committee decided not  to allow voters to reject all proposed amendments with a single vote, as was possible  in 1968.

That stirred up a flurry of complaint, especially from the League of  Women Voters.

So on Wednesday, the committee reconsidered the matter and asked  convention attorney James Funaki for advice.

Attorney James Funaki: If you were to have a  situation where you had eliminated that Part B, which called for a no to all the questions,  so that the voter is put to the task of placing the card, aligning  the puncher with the question, and punching each one.

And let's say that  there were about 50 questions, then it may come to a point where a voter gets thoroughly  discouraged after going through 20 questions, and he sees 30 more questions and he simply gives  up.

If that is in fact, and I don't know if it is, if that in fact is the situation, then  I think there is an element of fairness that you have to consider, that is it fair to  put a voter to that kind of a burden and task?

Bob Miller: The committee also got a briefing  from elections administrator Maurice Takushi, who pointed out that by not providing the possibility  for voters to cast a single vote against all amendments, the Convention's package might stand  a greater chance of being defeated.

Since not only must each amendment get a majority of yes  votes, but this majority must be at least 35% of the votes cast.

The committee decided to provide  an opportunity for voters to say yes or no on all amendments, as well as yes or no on each separate  proposal after Delegate Bob Taira led the way.

Delegate Robert Taira: I went along with the  group last time in knocking out Part B. And of course, the ill publicity was that generated  that disturbed many of us, as I understand this, what we did is constitutional, it would be legal,  according to our attorney’s advice here.

But what worries me is that in the process of trying  to prove that what we did was legal with being involved in a public controversy, and as a result  of that kind of a controversy, the reaction at the time ratification by the voters may not be a  very good one.

And with an unfavorable reaction, reaction on the part of the public, whom we're  trying to not sell, but trying to accept the proposals which come out of this convention, we  may not get a fair reaction, and this what bothers me.

And I think, as expressed by some of us here,  whatever we do, we want to make sure that we're going to be fair.

Give them all a chance if they  want to vote all yes, vote all no, so be it.

And especially with a number of issues to be listed  here as exceptions to the Part C, I'm afraid that the bad publicity that we get and to be accused  of not being fair, that might have a bad result as far as the ratification of the con  count proposals go.

I can see if we had only about five or 10 major issues that we could go  one by one, yes or no, there's no problem there.

But if we're going to end up with about 35 or 40  specific issues to be described on the ballot, we have a real problem here in trying to make  sure that what we present with the format of this ballot is going to be one that's not only fair,  but not one that will be understood by the public.

Bob Miller: The Committee on Submission  and Information also has its job educating the public about the proposed amendments  that will be brought out of the convention before the general election takes place.

To that end, it has organized a massive public information campaign that will get  underway as soon as the convention ends.

Thank you for joining us on ConCon '78, I'm  Bob Miller for Hawai‘i Public Television.

[MUSIC]