Abolish Salary Commissions?

Dear Editor:    Feb 16, 2025

I look forward to your reporting, which is widely read and which deals with timely issues of the day.  Am not sure whether the topic of  our two salary commissions is worthy of your attention, but am taking the liberty to forward what seems to be a prevailing concern among friends whenever discussions turn to local politics.  

The Honolulu salary commission's actions resulted in 64% pay raises for city leaders, incl. the mayor & council, under the banner that large pay increases were needed to attract better candidates and create more diversity.  The commissioners are appointed by the mayor and council.

The state salary commission is now recommending large (52%-64%) raises for several hundred top-tier state officials, stating difficulty in recruiting capable candidates, etc.  These commissioners are appointed by the governor, senate president, house speaker and chief justice.

In both cases, appointers directly benefit from appointee recommendations, which are seldom, if ever, overturned.  The real or perceived view is that conflict of interest exists, and in the processes, left turns overwhelm right turns on a one-way street.  Unusual notable exceptions were the councilmembers who turned right and refused to accept the exorbitant raises, even thought this hurt them financially.

There is scant, if any, evidence that large pay increases will attract better political candidates, and this premise implies that current city and state "top guns" lack the requisite skills and must be replaced by more qualified politicians.  One reason this is hollow is that incumbents prevail in most races.

Every current office holder and appointee knew the salary of the position he/she was seeking before throwing their hats in the ring or before accepting the appointment, yet found the position rewarding enough to vie for.

No salary commission has ever provided a credible example to support the case that it's difficult to recruit an executive, legislative, council, department head or other top-tier office holder because of "low" pay.  While there may an instance where this rings true, it would be the exception, not the rule.

"We must pay ours just as other states do" is an example that commissioners and those whose salaries they oversee proffer.  It's like looking the other way without proper conversation and allowing pay raises for a select few to gush down a twisted river.

While the current system is insulting and flawed, pay stagnation is detrimental to any class of workers, including top-tier government officials.  A reasonable solution may be to eliminate salary commissions and replace them, such as with the possible alternatives below, or similar.

Alternative 1.  Provide reasonable annual (or periodic) raises which are pegged to the local cost-of-living index and/or comparable to prevailing raises given in local private industry.

Alternative 2.  Implement a pay scale similar to that used by either the city/state or federal civil service population.  This system provides for initial pay at an entry level, and ascends with satisfactory performance and seniority.

Alternative 3.  Survey other states, not just those that provide salaries higher than ours, and even other countries, seeking a more rational way to compensate government officials.

The theme herein is that "public servant" should always be top-of-mind.  Eliminating the current salary commissions will help sustain the moral contract politicians should have with their constituents.

The city is pushing for higher sewer fees for sewerage system improvements they promised under a 2012 consent agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Little compliance action has been taken over the past 12 years, but considerable funds have been obligated towards the flawed Skyline rail system which, inter-alia, will require an estimated $100M-$150M annually for operations and maintenance--a perpetual cost.

The Waimanalo Gulch city sanitary landfill opened in 1969, yet, in 2025, a replacement site has yet to be approved.

City officials, some of whom received the recent large salary increases, are responsible for the above projects and have failed miserably, but they are not solely to blame.  It may be said that the public has failed to call enough attention to such issues, nor to demand that better decisions be made.  While this is largely true, some have tried hard, consistently and over many years, to urge their city and state executives and representatives, boards, and commissions to make better decisions and act in the public interest instead of catering to special interests or kicking the can down the road.

However, these die-hard proponents for better government largely lack the power of the media; their voices mostly fall upon deaf ears--it's not blaming the media--it's just the way of the world.

Respectfully,

Mel Yoshinaga

Honolulu, Oahu