Charter amendments
Regarding Mr. Chris Tamm’s letter of Oct. 18 (Your Views, Tribune-Herald) that addresses the Hawaii County ballot questions that offer Hawaii County voters the option of whether or not to approve amendments to the County Charter, please allow me to discuss some of his concerns.
I note that my letter is not intended to persuade voters to vote either yes or no on any of the questions. However, I would point out that the full-page advertisement he refers to is provided by the Hawaii County Charter Commission (not the County Council) and is designed to be a “brief digest providing the purpose of each of the sixteen charter amendment proposals,” through a summary format, rather than a full delineation of the text and the testimony that provides context for the amendments.
Mr. Tamm and I agree that voters need not rely solely on the summary of the proposals to make their decisions.
However, ballot questions are necessary as a means to stand in for, not replace, the amendment proposals themselves, which can often be long, complex and spread throughout the charter.
Voters can, and many will, avail themselves of the chance to review the text of the amendment proposals found at the county web page listed in the advertisement, as well as the explanations found in the testimony presented to the Charter Commission during two years of public meetings, and the pros and cons provided elegantly by the League of Women Voters at Vote411.org/ballot.
I have also made myself available to answer any questions, as well as provided presentations on the ballot questions to a variety of groups. The presentation is available on Facebook at https://tinyurl.com/y28fphs9.
I encourage all voters to review the ballot questions and the underlying proposed amendments at the county website.
Thanks to the fellow members of the commission for their great work since July 2018. It was an honor to work with you on behalf of our fellow citizens.
Douglass S. Adams
Charter Commission chairman, Hilo
Not buying it
Sustainable? Really?
Guy Cellier made questionable claims in two letters to the editor.
He claimed Honua Ola’s “detailed modeling scenarios” show it will “reduce the level of greenhouse gas” (Your Views, Oct. 18).
He also claimed it will provide “sustainable … renewable power” (Your Views, Aug. 12).
But there has never been an independent evaluation of Honua Ola’s greenhouse gas claims by the Public Utilities Commission. Should we just take Mr. Cellier’s word for it?
And neither of Mr. Cellier’s letters disclosed he was working for a sister company to Honua Ola Bioenergy, CN Renewable Resources, as of February. Why not?
Cory Harden
Hilo