“Meet the new House boss, same as the old House boss”…is not the headline we want to see 6 months from now when “post session” reviews are conducted.

The old style, behind closed doors, good ole boy, toxic culture of the past must remain there.

I’m hopeful and cautiously optimistic the new “House boss”, Kaua`i Representative and House Speaker Nadine Nakamura and her leadership team will instead embrace a legislative culture of collaboration, inclusivity and sunshine.

We’ll know soon enough.

To meet the deadline set by existing rules, the Speaker must soon convene the required “Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedure”, and the public must be allowed to attend (even virtually).

Yes, I’ve read the rules: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/docs/HouseRules.pdf

Rule #19
“The Speaker shall, prior to the convening of a legislative session in an odd- numbered year, establish an Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedure. The committee shall include at least one member from the minority party. The Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedure shall review these Rules and propose to the House such amendments as the committee deems appropriate.”

Rule #20
“Every meeting of a committee of the House…held for the purpose of making decisions on matters referred to the committee shall be open to the public.

Will the committee recommendations reflect concerns expressed by the public? Will they recommend rule changes to prevent the abuses of the past? Will House Leadership support the much needed, long over-due reforms?

Everyone who works in that big square building knows Committee Chairs sometime kill bills for personal (help their friends and punish their enemies) and political/electoral (avoiding controversial but important issues) reasons. This is inherently corrupt, but permitted under existing House rules.

This practice (and others too numerous to list here) are allowed by existing House rules and can be stopped by a change in those same House rules, if House Leadership, and a majority of Representatives want that to happen.

It’s similar in the Senate, but not nearly as egregious. The Senate has a more open process for “bill referral” and regardless of a Chairs preference, if a majority of the committee wants to hear a bill – a hearing will be scheduled.

If you ask House members about their reluctance to support changing the rules to require actual votes and a public process, many will say (off the record) they don’t want to be forced to vote on “crazy bills introduced by Republicans” or “If I have to vote on this controversial bill, my opponent will use it against me.”

Cry me a river. If a Representative cannot publicly and effectively defend their vote, regardless of the issue, perhaps they should be looking for another job.

On the record, the response is more likely to be, “We don’t have time to hear all the bills.” And, “There’re too many crazy bills, too many duplicative bills, and too many bills that are not ready for prime time”.

To be clear, the main question is not about “hearing all the bills” but rather about who makes the decisions about what bills should be heard.

Should this decision be made by a single person, behind closed doors, without explanation? Or should a majority of the committee make that decision, with public input, and in the sunlight?

If House Leadership wants to reform the rules to stop these unethical and undemocratic practices they can. But it will not happen without the public pushing loudly for it.

I encourage all who are interested in making our government the best it can be, to show up and voice your concerns when the “Advisory Committee on Rules and Procedure”, is eventually convened and meetings scheduled.

Gary Hooser

First Published In The Garden Island Newspaper 12/11/24