GaryHooser's Blog

Will you be casting your vote based mostly on the person, or the Party?

Recently I received an email asking a simple and straightforward question on this topic. In formulating an answer, my brain quickly became entangled in complicated thoughts and counter-thoughts.

My friend asked:

“I live in State House District ##, where John Doe Democrat is running against Mary Doe Republican.

“I reviewed their respective responses to questions published on their websites and in various public forums. I found John Doe Democrat’s responses were weak and thin. By comparison Mary Doe Republican’s words were much more thoughtful.

“However, Mary Doe is a conservative and a Christian whose faith has a strong bearing on her life and politics. She makes that clearly known.

“John Doe Democrat is running for reelection but seems very inexperienced and lacking a vision of his preferred future for Hawaiʻi. But he’s a Democrat and will likely be consistent in supporting the party line.

“On the other hand, Mary Doe Republican, at 65, is retired, a former owner of a company, and a long-time community association leader. She has a more defined vision of a preferred future for Hawaiʻi. But she’s a Republican.

“How would you advise people to vote in this instance? Should I vote along Party lines or cross the line and vote for the person instead of the Party?”

Seemed like a pretty basic question and my initial thought was to suggest that regardless of Party affiliation, the vote should go to the person who seemed more competent, and who held a more compelling vision of the future.

Then I remembered a past conversation with my daughter.

“Dad”, she said, “There are some things like bigotry and a woman’s right to choose, where it’s not possible to agree to disagree.”

My daughter of course nailed it and she’s absolutely correct (as is normally the case).

Consequently my response to my friends email asking whether he should vote for Mary Doe Republican, the seemingly more competent candidate with a compelling vision – was a series of follow-up questions each with a non-negotiable answer.

Does she believe in a woman’s right to choose?
Does she believe global warming is a real threat to our planet?
Does she view the LGBTQ community as equals?
Does she believe public schools should require the Bible to be taught as the word of God?
What about books? Does she want to dictate the books my family may or may not read?
Does she believe every worker is entitled to a living wage?Does she support universal healthcare?
Does she believe that we’re all in this together and everyone must be treated equally under the law?Does Mary Doe Republican support Trump?

Of course there are other litmus test questions, and it’s possible perhaps even likely, that John Doe Democrat does not answer them all correctly either.

But you get the point, and the questions must be asked.

Political party’s are formed around values, issues related to those values, and the individuals/candidates who champion those values.

Candidates for State and Federal office are presumed to have joined the political party that aligns best with their own personal values and consequently pledge to support the platform of that Party.

I have close friends and relatives whom I love dearly, but who would fail miserably the test and questions listed above, and I would certainly never ever vote for them (and yes, we mostly avoid talking politics).

There are some things that are nonnegotiable.

Just because someone cares deeply about the community, is honest, has a solid track record as a volunteer, and goes to church every Sunday – doesn’t mean you want them in charge of making the rules we all must live by.

All candidates are imperfect.

We must do our best as voters to ask the right questions, then make the best choice possible, choosing the candidate that best reflects our core values.

Sincerely,
Gary Hooser
Former Hawaiʻi State Senator, County Councilmember and many other things…including former Vice Chair of the Democratic Party of Hawaiʻi –

“I’m now curious: How does the Speaker get that position – is it a public vote or in-house vote by the other reps?”

This was the question most asked following my recent Policy & Politics column How does Speaker Nadine Nakamura sound?

The short answer is whoever has 25 friends in the State House of Representatives, can be Speaker or Finance Chair, or whatever they want.

With a 26 vote majority in the House, all things are possible. In the State Senate the magic number is 13.

The key word is “majority”. The key phrase is “majority rules”.

There are no rules on how to form a solid majority and thus “organize” the House or Senate. There’s “past practice” but no rules.

Historically the 26 votes needed to organize the House would all come from Democrats. Occasionally however, if a particular “faction/group” of Democrats are short of the 26 votes needed, they will “organize” with Republican votes in order to reach that magic number.

Remember, with 26 votes, all things are possible.

Those 26 votes decide who’ll be House Speaker, Chair of Finance, and other leadership and key committee assignments. They’ll also determine the basic “House Rules” that guide how bills are referred, passed, killed, and resurrected.

Those 26 (or more) House members will reach agreement in private with zero public discussion.

Typically, the discussion and agreement will be “brokered” between only a handful of House members who represent various “factions” within the greater 51 member House.

One or more factions will rally around the incoming Finance Chair, while others will coalesce around that member seeking to be House Speaker.

Sometimes the factions are “solid”, and other times they’re more fluid with less loyalty between the members.

Needless to say, the more solid the faction, the more votes they bring to the table, and consequently the more influence they have on the ultimate outcome.

If the various factions total at least 26 votes and come to agreement on who will be Speaker and Finance Chair, it’s a done deal. They would then “divvy up the pie” – divide up the remaining leadership positions, key committee assignments, and decide on the key House rules.

If they fall short of the magic 26 votes needed, they’ll seek to “peel off votes” from another faction or otherwise entice uncommitted House members to join them.

The 26th vote can pretty much ask for anything – even the location of their parking space is negotiable.

Some members base their vote entirely on “What’s in it for me?”.

Others will condition their vote on the entire “package”.

Are the Speaker and Finance Chair known to be open, honest, and inclusive? Are the proposed House rules acceptable? What about friends and allies in the House, other members in my faction, and the membership in general – are they being treated fairly?

Everything’s done in private, and everything’s on the table.

As soon as the incoming Speaker and Finance Chair have “locked in” the 26 votes, they’ll hold a public vote confirming what they’ve already agreed to privately.

What happens to members not part of the core group of 26?

What happens to the Republicans and so-called “dissidents”, Democrats who seek systemic change and/or had the audacity to challenge an incumbent House Speaker – and win?

The new majority can follow the path blazed by the past, banish the outsiders and dissidents to Siberia, ice them out of key committees, and otherwise attempt to silence them.

Or, they can provide meaningful opportunities to serve for all, sending a message loud and clear that times have changed, and all voices, are welcome at the table.

This my friends will be the true test of leadership.

Gary Hooser
Former Hawaii State Senator, Majority Leader
Survivor of two separate Senate “reorgs”

House Members opposing rule changes will claim there are “too many bills” and time does not allow every bill to receive a hearing and a vote.

A quick google search shows that The Colorado and North Dakota constitutions require a hearing on every bill assigned to House and Senate committees. 

In New Hampshire every bill introduced and referred to a committee must have a public hearing unless the rules are suspended by two-thirds of the members present.

New Hampshire does not have bill introduction limits.

These are 3 examples and I’m sure there are others but I’ve not had time to properly research each state legislative chamber to determine how each does it.

The Colorado and New Hampshire “legislative sessions” are approximately the same length as Hawaii. In North Dakota, the House and Senate sit for only 80 days in odd-numbered years.

“Twenty-one chambers currently impose a limit on the number of bills that a member may introduce or request to be drafted.”

Arizona House
California Senate and Assembly
Colorado Senate and House
Florida House
Indiana Senate and House
Louisiana Senate and House
Montana Senate and House
Nevada Senate and Assembly
New Jersey Senate and General Assembly
North Carolina House
North Dakota Senate and House
Tennessee Senate
Wyoming Senate

Proponents of bill introduction limits feel that the limits reduce the number of “hero bills” going through the system, and the duplication. The idea is not to restrict lawmakers’ work, but to reduce the amount of time spent on superfluous proposals and to allow more time for substantive legislation.

In addition to limiting bill introduction there are many other ways to deal with the issue of “too many bills and too little time”. The below are off the “top of my head” and I am sure there are other means to accomplish similar goals

1) Extend the legislative session by inserting additional “recess days” in order to hold more hearings. There is no need to amend the constitution in order to add additional days for public hearings…it is only “session days” that count toward the constitutional limit language.

2) “Gang” hearings to allow all versions of specific subject matter bills to be heard at once, then choose one to pass as the “vehicle” and amend as needed from content of other bills. At the moment – Grant In Aid requests are heard all at once in a very long single hearing.

3) Require bills that receive X number of sponsor signatures to receive a hearing and vote. Could be 1/3 or the body or a the committee or 1/2 or whatever threshold. Could require all bills to be circulated to every member of the body regardless of Party for signature and co-sponsorship

4) Those bills not selected by the Chair or via some other process to be heard could be “circulated” to the committee after public notification allowing the public time to comment – then after reviewing the public comment – the committee members could “sign off” yay or nay as to whether the bill should have a hearing or not and majority decides.

5) Hawaii has a two year legislative cycle, Bills introduced in the first year remain alive in the second year unless heard and voted down. The current practice is for legislators to reintroduce bills in the second year, even though they remain alive and have carried over from the first year. This practice can be revisited to reduce the number of bills introduced.

I’m hoping others in support of the rule changes will engage also in the research needed. I know there is a wealth of knowledge and examples of how other states do it…it just takes some work to drill down.

“Any session may be recessed by concurrent resolution adopted by a majority of the members to which each house is entitled. Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, the days in mandatory recess and any days in recess pursuant to a concurrent resolution shall be excluded in computing the number of days of any session.” From Hawaii Constitution

National Chamber of State Legislatures (NCSL)
https://www.ncsl.org

The Council of State Governments (CSG)

Homepage 2022

Other info at https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CSG-book-of-the-states-2021.pdf

If you haven’t done so please consider signing this petition https://tinyurl.com/ycyka2pm and joining with thousands of others across the islands in the movement for change.

Click to access 08Tab0.pdf

Click to access 96Tab3Pt1.pdf

https://www.ncsl.org/legislative-staff/civics-education/learning-the-game#:~:text=And%20in%20some%20states%2C%20there,to%20House%20and%20Senate%20committees.

So what happens next?

There’s the General Election of November 5, the 2025 legislative session, the movement for legislative reform, and yes it’s not too early to be thinking about the 2026 elections.

At the top of my list and I hope yours as well, is aggressively supporting the legislative reform movement now building momentum across the islands.

Sparked by Kim Coco Iwamoto who defeated House Speaker Scott Saiki – the wave of change seems unstoppable.

Advocacy groups on every island are already passing Resolutions, gathering petition signatures, and doing serious community organizing – all laser focused on making legislative and campaign finance reform the litmus test issue of 2025.

Hawai’i voters are no longer looking the other way.

The corrupting influence of money in politics, the centralization of power, and the arrogance of it all – is no longer something the public is willing to ignore.

The historic defeat of Speaker Scott Saiki is clear proof voters are sick and tired and not going to take it anymore. It’s also motivating a growing pool of excellent candidates who’re ready, willing, and able to step up and challenge entrenched incumbents – knowing full-well it might take them 3 elections to succeed.

Woe be it to those legislators, especially State House members, who resist this tide of change.

With two year terms and districts small enough to walk door-to-door, House seats are much more vulnerable than those in the Senate or Council.

Reelection challenges (or not) will start at the moment the House “re-organizes” and a new Speaker is chosen.“House Rules” are normally approved and made public at this same time or shortly thereafter.

At this point, we’ll know whether legislators will be embracing the reforms or blowing us off.

The reforms being proposed by a coalition of community groups and backed by an increasing number of House members are common sense changes to rules governing the basic legislative process.

If passed, the rule changes would require that passage or failure of legislative proposals be based on a committee vote and not by a single individual committee chair.

Yes, it sounds pretty basic. A bill for a new law is proposed, a public hearing is held, the legislative committee votes, and a decision is made. Unfortunately this is not the way it currently happens in that big square building on Beretania Street.

Proposed reforms would also require public testimony be made available to the public when submitted, and proposed changes/amendments to legislation disclosed publicly in writing prior to the vote. Again, this is basic democracy, good government stuff – but not the way it’s now done at the Capitol.

Rules governing the “bill referral process” now allow the House Finance Committee to control every single legislative proposal that’s proposed, even if there’s zero impact on the budget. Existing rules grant the Finance Chair total control – no exaggeration, no hyperbole. The proposed reforms would eliminate this extreme concentration of power and allow referral to the Finance Committee only those bills that require funding or otherwise have budget implications.

If the incoming House Majority say yes to these basic yet comprehensive changes to their internal rules, they will be celebrated.

Should they choose to ignore the public clamor for reform – candidates on every island will no doubt start lining up for 2026, chafing at the bit to take-out incumbent legislators viewed as road-blocks to positive change.

And as happened in the Kim Coco Iwamoto, Scott Saiki race – the broader community will be there, supporting and cheering on the challengers.

Speaking of “broader community” – if that includes you please consider signing this petition https://tinyurl.com/ycyka2pm and joining with thousands of others across the islands in the movement for change.

Can I say it again?
Please.
Take the time.
Make the effort.
Sign the petition.
https://tinyurl.com/ycyka2pm

Important follow-up note: Legislators that oppose changing the rules will say “there are too many bills” and thus it is not practical and too time consuming to hear every single bill – Here is the info you need to rebut that argument and educate the legislator https://garyhooser.blog/2024/09/28/notes-on-changing-house-rules-to-require-every-bill-to-receive-a-hearing-and-a-committee-vote/

According to the coconut wireless, Representative Nadine Nakamura, who represents District 15 on Kaua`i (Hā’ena, Wainiha, Hanalei, Princeville, Kīlauea, Anahola, Keālia, Kapa‘a, portions of Wailua, and Kawaihau), will likely become the next Speaker of the State House of Representatives.

As the first woman to ever hold that position, she would make history.

The Speaker of the House by definition has support of a majority of its members, and so without question runs the show in the State House of Representatives.

If the multiple and persistent rumors are true, Representative Nakamura will soon have significant influence on how public policy is made and how the money is spent – for the entire State of Hawai’i.

Consequently, the voices of the voters living in House District 15 will be stronger, and their votes at election time more significant.

Every elected member is responsible to the voters in their District and the Speaker of the House is no different.

Just ask former House Speaker Scott Saiki who recently fell 256 votes short, losing his election to Kim Coco Iwamoto. Saiki represents House District 25, Kakaako, Alamoana, Downtown Honolulu.

Over the years, Saiki gained a reputation of being an inside player, a go-along to get-along, “good ole boy” who accepted and thus was part of the toxic “pay to play” culture that exists in that big square building on Beretania Street.

Rather than allowing legislation to pass or fail strictly on its merits, Saiki would sometimes use his influence as Speaker to “kill bills” in order to punish political adversaries.

House members not in his “faction” and others who dared challenge or oppose his actions, operated always under the shadow of similar retribution.

Voters in House District 25 inevitably became disenchanted with Saiki. He fell short in fulfilling his promises to the district, and it became increasingly clear that instead of modeling the highest standards of political conduct he tolerated, participated in, and perpetuated the lowest.

Consequently they voted him out and supported Kim Coco Iwamoto who proved through hard work and perseverance her commitment to the District AND she championed a bold new “reform agenda” – promising to pull back the curtain and push back hard against the existing legislative rules that provide inordinate power to the Speaker and Committee Chairs.

While it’s too early to actually “flip the switch” and reorganize the House, Representative Nadine Nakamura appears to have lined up more than the minimum 26 votes needed to organize the House.

My initial thought is that she will make an excellent Speaker. We served together on the Kaua`i County Council and I know her to be competent, honest, open-minded, and fair.

My hope is that Representative Nakamura will build a House majority coalition that fosters collaboration, honors all voices, and embraces the slate of reforms being proposed by Kim Coco Iwamoto and many other legislators and good government advocacy groups.

I encourage the voters of Kaua`i and District 15 especially (Hā’ena, Wainiha, Hanalei, Princeville, Kīlauea, Anahola, Keālia, Kapa‘a, portions of Wailua, and Kawaihau) to call and/or email Representative Nakamura today – 808-586-8435 repnakamura@capitol.hawaii.gov

If you’re a voter in her District, please let her know where you live, wish her well on her quest to be Speaker, and encourage her to lead the House Majority in a manner that is open, inclusive and collaborative.

If you agree, please also let her know that decisions pertaining to public policy must be made only after a public discussion, and always via an open and public vote.

Tell her please that the unilateral killing of bills without a vote and without public discussion is wrong and unacceptable, and that you’re counting on her and the new House majority to end this practice starting on day 1 of the new legislative session.

Gary Hooser
Former Kaua`i State Senator, Majority Leader, and Councilmember
Presently retired, living in the Wailua Homesteads, and just doing what I can to help make our community and world a better place.

There’s so much to celebrate and so much still yet to be done…

I’m often asked, “How did HAPA first start? What was the nexus or the tipping point that first launched HAPA?”

The short answer is that like most new initiatives, it started with a conversation, that led to a question, that then led to the answer – which was HAPA.

These type of discussions often start with someone bemoaning the status quo and then others jumping expressing frustration with those in power.

These conversations are pervasive in the world of policy and politics. They happen mostly around kitchen tables, in coffee shops, in bars over a cold beer, or on the rail in that big square building on Beretania Street in Honolulu.

“So what are we going to do about it?” – is the question I’ve learned to eventually always get around to asking.

HAPA began as an answer to that question.

It came after many conversations with friends and allies on every island. Gradually, a group of “regulars” began to coalesce around the discussion and the answer.

The consensus of the group was that Hawai’i needed a serious, well-funded, professional organization to aggressively promote positive, progressive change across the spectrum of issues, and fight back against corporate greed.

This organization needed to be properly funded and staffed. Volunteers and community-based engagement would continue to play a central role, but to be truly strong and effective this new organization must have full-time professional core staffing.

The “subject matter focus” would fall within 4 areas: agriculture and food systems, social and economic justice, community based resource stewardship, and reclaiming democracy.

This new organization would:

* Support alliances between the many existing advocacy organizations.

* Lead in some issue areas and play a supporting role in others.

* Educate, communicate, advocate, and organize. Our fundraising capacity would grow to meet the needs of our advocacy.

* Fight for justice in the streets, in the courts, in the halls of government, and at the ballot box (within the confines of a 501c3).

Realizing that talk is cheap…we consciously put the word “Action” in our name…The Hawai’i Alliance for Progressive Action (HAPA). https://www.hapahi.org/

The ultimate impetus for HAPA’s creation was because kids were getting sick at the Waimea Canyon middle school on Kauaʻi. At least 3 times the school was struck by incidents of children and teachers growing nauseous after restricted use pesticides were applied to the fields directly adjacent to the school grounds.

4 of the largest chemical companies in the world had established operations and were doing gmo and pesticide research in the area, primarily on Kauaʻi’s west-side. They were doing experimental work in the development of genetically modified foods, and were applying tons of Restricted Use Pesticides annually throughout the area.

Syngenta, an international chemical company based in Switzerland regularly applied atrazine, a highly dangerous pesticide banned in their own country, on fields adjacent to the school.

So the Kauaʻi community took them on. Local residents, Councilmembers, Earthjustice, the Center for Food Safety and many others joined in as we went to battle against Syngenta, Dow Chemical, Dupont, and the Monsantos’ of the world.

We fought them on the streets, in the council chambers, at the state legislature, and in the courts. While Kauaʻi fought them on their island, the people of Maui took on Monsanto on theirs. Hawai’i County also passed an ordinance to protect their residents, and Oahu joined in solidarity.

And we won. 

The voters on Maui said Monsanto must prove their operations safe, and the Council on Kauaʻi said Syngenta and the others must disclose their pesticide use, the health impacts of their operations must also be reviewed, and they could no longer spray their poisons next to schools.

The big money multi-national chemical companies of course sued Kauaʻi and Maui County’s.

And they won.

This is the period in which HAPA was born, and the battle raged on.

At the state legislature bills were introduced and bills were killed, and still the people supported by HAPA and others stayed the course.

And we won.

Today, these companies can no longer use restricted pesticides directly next to schools anywhere in Hawai’i. They also must report and disclose their use statewide and some of their products have now been banned. 

HAPA continues pressing for greater protections, more support for local farmers who grow real food, and other positive, fair, and sustainable food policies. And we continue pressing against the bad actors in court with an important hearing scheduled later this month. 

That’s a HAPA hallmark. We never ever quit. 

In short, HAPA was formed to help fight back against these corporations and ultimately to catalyze positive change across a spectrum of issues – on behalf of people and the planet. 

HAPA started as a conversation among friends mutually concerned about the urgency of the moment. 

And that urgency of the moment drives forward the action of HAPA today as we work with many different organizations on issues pertaining to environmental protection, economic justice, and food sovereignty. 

There’s no shortage of needs, but also there’s much to celebrate and be thankful for.  https://www.hapahi.org/accomplishments

Today, 10 years later because of the work of many, many people – our community is a healthier safer place.

We formed the Kuleana Academy in 2017 and today we have 120 graduates. https://www.hapahi.org/kuleana-academy-program

* 12 graduates hold elected office at the county and state levels.
* 8 sit on Oahu Neighborhood Boards.
* 70 are currently leading community or civic projects or regularly engage in activism or advocacy.
* 5 sit on nonprofit Boards.
* 3 sit on a state or county State Boards or Commissions.
* 55 have worked on election campaigns.
* 39 have led policy initiatives at the county and state levels. 

And it all started in a friends living room with the question, “So what are we going to do about it?”

Our environment is under attack. Our planet is on fire. We have people living under bridges and in doorways.

So…what are we going to keep doing about it?

Hawai’i can be a model to the rest of the planet.

We can and we must put the interests of working men, women, and families first. Today we are calling out our community on every island to stand up for Hawai’i Nurses against the despicable lock-out underway by Hawai’i Pacific Health and Kapiolani Hospital.

We can and must change the way our state legislature conducts its business, and stop the “pay-to-play” toxic culture that permeates every floor in that big square building on Beretania Street in Honolulu. https://garyhooser.blog/2024/08/28/hawaii-policy-and-politics-the-time-for-meaningful-reform-is-now/

Instead of importing 90% of our food we can and must grow it locally, and we must require every public school, state hospital, and prisons/jails to buy and serve locally grown foods only.

Instead of building more prisons, we can and we must fund more mental health, and addiction treatment

Instead of giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to the very rich in tax breaks, we can and we must build truly affordable homes for local residents.

And yes…instead of supporting the killing of innocents on multiple continents, bombing and polluting our own conservation lands, and poisoning our drinking water, we must set an example for the world and take back Pohakuloa, Makua, Kahuku, and Kawailoa-Poamoho from the U.S. Military.

Instead of funding guns, bombs, and missiles – we must properly fund the University of Hawai’i Sparky Matsunaga Institute for Peace and make our islands a true peace-making “Geneva of the Pacific”.

We can do this.

To win we need to keep showing up. And we need to keep electing new leaders who support our values and feel deeply as we do – the urgency of the moment.

We need to make the calls, flood their email, and fill the room. Those holding public office must know that we are not going away, that our cause is just, and and that we will keep pushing until we win.

Together, we can do this.

Getting old is something most of us don’t think much about until it actually happens.

At 70, my health is good, I’m active and still wake up every day seeking some new adventure or challenge.

Recently however, I’ve spent some extended time visiting with and helping care for my 92 year old mother who lives with my 90 year old father in Phenix City Alabama. Prior to leaving for the visit, I posted some personal reflections about how this has also made me think more about my own life. Pause, reflect, recharge, regroup, go again, and Never. Ever. Quit. – and all the time thinking about Mom

My mother is mobile but not really. Her mind and thoughts are mostly clear and coherent, but every day it’s less so. My dad’s in better shape than mom, but not by much. My little brother who’s 60 years old himself, lives with them, and is their primary care-giver. He also works full-time, leaving the house at 5:30am and returning home about 6 in the evening.

Needless to say, “Paid Family Leave” is a public policy initiative that just took on a whole new meaning for me. Most of the discussion on this topic focus’s on caring for the new-born child, while caring for grandma and grandpa often does not get discussed.

Because my parents are home alone much of the time and very shaky on their feet, they have no business working around a hot stove or flames of any sort. Consequently their main meal of the day is often limited to what a microwave oven can offer.

Thank goodness we have “meals on wheels” that will deliver fresh and nourishing meals to their doorstep – another public policy initiative that must be supported and hopefully expanded.

Two weeks ago my mother took a fall. Paramedics and an ambulance were called to the house to pick her up off the floor and make sure nothing was broken. Fortunately she was ok – a little bruised in spirit and around the knees, but basically ok.

Access to trained and affordable “in-home” care is still yet another need for my dear old mom, and for so many others.

The list is long, from physical therapy, to hearing, dental, and vision care, to basic transportation for medical appointments – all directly impacted by government healthcare policy decision-making.

Thank goodness for the “handi-van” and similar public services that provide “Bus service available for registered seniors to and from program activities, shopping, clinic, recreation, and door-to-door services for frail elderly.”

Every other day my mom gets a phone call from someone trying to sell her something or otherwise steal from her gullible nature. They’ve even tried impersonating her grandchildren. These guys should go to jail.

The baby-boomer bubble has not yet begun to burst but the first wave of aging boomers is already here. It’s past time I think for leaders in government to start looking more closely at the needs, the benefits, and the repercussions of failing to respond adequately to the gazillion people who are now, at this very moment entering those golden years.

Mahalo plenty County Agency on Elderly Affairs (AEA), the County agency that plans, implements, supports, and advocates for the well-being of older adults (60 and older); and to the Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) which serves as a one stop source of information on long term care support options and services for all residents.

If you’re taking care of someone who’s also getting on in years, I encourage you to contact the County agency closest to you.

Honolulu Elderly Affairs Division – https://www.elderlyaffairs.com/
Kauai Office of Elderly Affairs https://www.kauai.gov/Government/Departments-Agencies/Agency-on-Elderly-Affairs
Hawaii County Office of Aging https://www.hcoahawaii.org/
Maui County Office of Aging https://www.mauicounty.gov/255/Office-on-Aging

If you’re a state, county, or federal lawmaker, I encourage you to start paying more attention to old people – they are not only super-voters but they are the ones who raised you.

4 Generations –

I’m sitting at reflexion, heading toward recharge, knowing with certainty that quitting is never an option.

My 92 year-old mother is heading down the home stretch, and not doing so well.

Saturday morning I telephoned my Mom as I do every morning. I then walked 6 miles along the coast with Claudette, watched my favorite grandson Rixon play soccer at Vindinha, then went home, packed my bags, and headed to the airport.

16 hours later, I was by her side. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was as much seeking comfort, as I was offering it.

So yes, I’m sitting here in Phenix City Alabama, with Mom, Dad, my little brother, and extended family.

Mom is very weak, seems always on the edge of taking a fall, and often in a world of dreams – coherent but not always based on reality.

What happens next and how long it takes to happen is an obvious but not necessarily productive question.

Looking back at life from “small kid times” and talking story with her is priceless.

Sitting at the table while everyone else sleeps – reflecting on my own life, and looking forward as to what might be ahead is unavoidable.

Feels like I’m at a turning point.

In the early 1990’s I wrote a short essay entitled, “I don’t want to be Donald Trump anymore.” https://garyhooser.blog/2024/02/20/i-dont-want-to-be-donald-trump-anymore/

Trump, had just written “The Art of the Deal”. I was a real estate broker myself at the time, totally immersed in the local real estate industry.

I realized at that moment, I didn’t want to spend my life in constant pursuit of the almighty dollar. Increasingly my time and energy was being invested in issues and community, not in property or money.

In 1994, 30 years ago, my life shifted completely when I threw my hat in the ring for the Kauai County Council finishing at #10 – falling short of the top 7 winners circle. I ran again in 1998, winning in the #2 slot.

While some say serving in public office is a thankless job, my 16 years of service as a Councilmember and State Senator was deeply gratifying.

In 2014 myself and a handful of others from across the islands formed a nonprofit organization called the Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action (HAPA). https://www.hapahi.org

In 2016 after falling short in my Council re-election bid, I officially retired and turned my attention to being the volunteer Board President for HAPA.

Since inception, HAPA has grown to be one of Hawaii’s leading voices in the area of food and agricultural policy, land use and water policy, and economic justice. In the area of civic education in 2018 HAPA launched the Kuleana Academy which teaches aspiring civic leader-advocates the key elements of running a political campaign.

In many ways, my work with HAPA and as a private independent community advocate, is even more gratifying, and more productive – and a natural extension of my years in elective office.

But yes, I’m thinking today about what’s next.

My health is good, my daily walks and a clean plant-based diet are firmly embedded life habits.

Claudette and I have a good life. Our children and grandchildren bring us great pride and much joy.

The dedication, accomplishments, and positive feedback from my extended ohana in the advocacy world – is truly awe-inspiring.

But I am who I am today because of my Mom. She’s always believed in me, always told me I was special, always made me know I was loved, and always offered me a hand up when I would fall.

Love you Mom. Hoping you’re feeling better soon.

The Hawai’i House of Representatives is at a tipping point.

The toxic pay-to-play culture that puts helping friends and punishing enemies ahead of implementing good public policy must go.

The practice of individual legislators having the unilateral power to kill legislation, without a public hearing and without a public vote, must stop.

Voters in every district and on every island are aware, disgusted and no longer willing to look the other way.

House and Senate rules must be changed to require that passage or failure of legislative proposals be based on a public discussion, held during a public hearing, followed by a public vote.

What a concept.

Imagine if new laws could only be passed or killed after they have been reviewed and discussed in a public hearing process, and a public vote taken by the legislative committee members.

Imagine further that the public is actually allowed to testify in person at these hearings, that the public testimony is made available to the public when it’s submitted, and proposed changes to the legislation are disclosed publicly in writing prior to the vote.

Sounds like a basic democratic process that should be standard operating procedure.

But it’s not. Not in Hawai’i anyway.

Today state House and Senate rules allow certain individual legislators to kill legislation without a public hearing, and without a public vote.

Bills are sometimes substantially amended without prior notice or public discussion, and changed further in back rooms after the vote is taken.

Some committees prohibit in-person public testimony, and contrary to the state Constitution (Article III Section 12) meet in private for the purpose of making a decision.

In addition to reforming House and Senate rules, campaign spending reform must also be at the top of the agenda.

Allowing incumbent legislators to bankroll the campaign accounts of their friends under the duplicitous guise of “buying two tickets to a fundraiser” must cease.

Hawai’i must follow the model of other states, cap the war chests, and prohibit candidates from using campaign funds for any purpose other than paying for their own legitimate and direct campaign expenses.

These reforms are not radical leftist pie-in-the-sky, overly complicated dreams.

Requiring candidates to spend money they raise during a campaign period only for campaign expenses directly related to the campaign during that campaign period is not some punitive draconian rocket-science proposal.

In addition, clean election laws provide a base level of public funds to credible candidates who agree to strict spending limits.

Arizona, Connecticut and Maine have already paved the way and offer qualified candidates basic public funding sufficient to run a successful campaign.

Clean election programs allow candidates to run for election without the need to seek big money donors, and remove a huge barrier to entry for new candidates.

The term-limit question should also be put before the voters: 12 years serving in the House or Senate is more than enough time to make a difference, and then to move on.

Yes. The message sent by the House-rocking vote on Aug. 10 — by Kim Coco Iwamoto’s win over House Speaker Scott Saiki — is unequivocal.

The time for meaningful reform is now.

It’s up to the House majority to choose new leadership, and it’s up to us as voters to hold our district legislators accountable for the choices they make — and the speaker they choose.

Will they support a reform agenda and back a House speaker who shares that position? Or will they support business as usual and a speaker who seeks to preserve the system now in place?

I’m hopeful that a new House speaker backed by a new House majority will step forward to lead in an open and collaborative manner — and embrace the critical reforms needed.

We’ll know soon enough.

Gary Hooser
Published in the Honolulu StarAdvertiser – August 27, 2024
Please forward and share with friends, neighbors, and YOUR District Representative and Senator

Kim Coco Iwamoto’s District 25 win against 30-year incumbent, representative and Speaker of the House for the past six years, Scott Saiki, is a truly historic achievement.

Saiki was publicly endorsed and supported by U.S. Senator Brian Schatz, Governor Josh Green, Lieutenant Governor Sylvia Luke and Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi.

Why is this relevant to voters in every district, across the archipelago?

Iwamoto’s phenomenal victory demonstrates clearly the power and effectiveness of grassroots organizing, and the fundamental all-essential value of perseverance.

Her win against the most powerful man in the House, sends a clear message that every incumbent regardless of title and position is vulnerable to a similar “never, never quit” attitude backed by a strong on the ground, direct voter contact and people-centered campaign.

Another message that hopefully sinks into every single incumbent in the big square building is that business as usual is over.

Voters are increasingly aware and overwhelmingly disgusted with the good ole boy, you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours, pay-to-play culture, that now dominates the legislative process.

The past practice of legislative leadership and committee chairs killing bills for personal and political reasons is ethically corrupt and must be stopped.

The unilateral authority now granted individual legislators to control legislative outcomes creates an environment that invites corruption.

The rules of the House and Senate must be changed to require the passage or failure of legislative proposals be based on public votes of committee members, following a public discussion, in which the public is allowed to speak.

Neither the speaker via the referral process, nor a committee chair by refusing to hear a bill or deciding to “defer indefinitely,” should hold the power to single-handily prevent a bill from passing into law, which is presently the case.

Every measure introduced with legislative sponsorship from 1/3 of the members or more, deserves a public hearing and a public vote. Minority voices need to at least be allowed to speak and then let the votes fall where they may.

The time for true reform of both the legislative process rules and the campaign spending law is now.

Under existing law, incumbents may possess a political war-chest of an unlimited amount of money, and they may use those funds to support the election of their friends.

It’s way past time to follow the model of other states, cap the war chests, and prohibit candidates from using campaign funds for any purpose other than paying for their own legitimate and direct campaign expenses.

It’s also way past time to pass a strong Clean Elections bill that provides a base level of public funds to credible candidates who agree to strict spending limits.

Twelve years serving in public office is enough time to make a difference and then to move on. There are many possible formulas and numbers to choose from, but in my humble opinion 12 years as a member of the House or Senate is enough. The term-limit question should be put before the voters.

Kim Coco Iwamoto and a great majority of candidates on every island have stated in various campaign questionnaires — broad-based support for campaign finance reform, term-limits, and “good government” reforms in general.

We as citizen advocates must now strike while the iron is hot. We must continue pushing hard to carry the momentum for positive change forward through to the general election, the opening of the 2025 legislative session on Jan. 15, and sine die on May 1.

We will know without a doubt on May 2, who our friends are, who fought against the reforms, and who supported and championed them. We can then prepare accordingly for the elections of 2026.

But first, we must deal with the general election less than three months from now.

Please help if you can. Ask the candidates (from all parties) running for the House and Senate in your district- whether or not they support the above described reforms.

Do not ever doubt, even for one tiny little bit, that your voice and your vote can make a difference.

Gary Hooser
former Hawaiʻi State Senator, Majority Leader, Kaua`i County Councilmember
http://www.garyhooser.com
First published in The Garden Island Newspaper 08/21/24