Interesting story today on the Hawaii State Constitution’s residency requirement for state department heads that forced Gov. Ige to withdraw his nomination of Elizabeth Kim to the top post in the Department of Labor (“Would-be labor chief rendered ineligible by state Constitution“).
According to the Star-Advertise:
Article V, Section 6, of the Constitution, which discusses “executive and administrative offices and departments,” states that any officer appointed by the governor to lead a state department or office “shall have been a resident of this (s)tate for at least one year immediately preceding that person’s appointment.”
State officials could not find any previous case in which the section came into play and affected a nomination, McCartney said.
It seems quite unfortunate in this case, since Kim appears to have considerable experience which, by the way, Hawaii sorely needs.
So what’s the purpose of the 1-year residency requirement, beyond our small-town attitudes?
I never considered that this could be why we have such a difficult time finding those with broad professional education and technical experience in their fields for top spots. Not that I think it would be easy to snag top notch talent for relatively short-term political appointments, but in jobs like running the state’s prison system, we’ve been hurt by the lack of a pool of talent to draw on.
What if we applied to residency rule in entertainment, for example? Only performers who have been resident for at least a year allowed to perform in publicly-owned venues? It wouldn’t make sense and we wouldn’t stand for it. So why do we so arbitrarily rule out those with substantial national experience to serve on as department heads and sit in the governor’s cabinet? Do we shoot ourselves in the foot this way?
When I have time, I’ll try to dig back in the Con Con records to look at the debates that must have taken place.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Up until the 1970s or so, Hawaii really was quite a distinct place, so a residency requirement might have made sense once as a way of preventing culture clashes. The fact that this requirement now puzzles us says something.
Probably because we are constantly hit with the “mainlander” this “mainlander” that which is always used in a negative nature when it has something to do with power in Hawaii. Remember it was just a few years ago when the unions were pushing for a law that wouldn’t allow mainland contractors to do work on Aloha stadium. You had to be “local” which I would think means live here to do the work…..So, it’s the mentality. Yes? No? Maybe? I obviously don’t agree with this approach but just saying that decades ago that’s where something like this gets legs.
You seem to miss the point: Ige did not know this. How do you possibly “not know?” You would think the very first thing you’d do knowing you have all these people to appoint is find out what eligibility requirements there are in the constitution that apply to ALL OF THEM.
According to the S-A story, a similar statute on the books with far broader application for all State and County civil service positions was only repealed in 2000. Until that time government administrators had to jump through hoops to hire anyone on the mainland by more or less “proving” that no one locally came forward who met the necessary requirements of the job.
btw…I would also like to add congrats to the SA on getting this story. It was a great catch although embarrassing for our new guv. Maybe they are stepping up their game…finally.
in Asia, you respect the older generations.
on the mainland, you respect the arrogant, especially if they come from money. Which pushes you to get the money.
in both cultures, reason is not a leading force. Equality is just a word, unless enforced in court. Hawaii is connected to the universe but the wormhole is full of worms.
You ask a very smart question, Ian, and as far as I know, you’re the only one asking it. Thank you for raising this discussion point. I am not from Hawaii originally, so I will just say that I think this is an issue for Hawaii and its leaders to intelligently and calmly reconsider and either (i) recommit to this policy; or (ii) revise it if/as appropriate.
George, the law you mention, Act 68 “Local Jobs for Local People” became law. It is now embodied in Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 103B. Huge policy and legal issues presented by a law that requires 80% of a workforce on a public works project be Hawaii residents. My understanding is that the law is not being enforced due to questions about its legality. I would enjoy hearing from others more in the know.