September 1964 Home   Newsletters

October 1964

November 1964

Calendar of Events
October Units Highlight State Program Planning and U.N.
Notes from the President... (Nancy Dykes)
T.V. Time for Honolulu League
Correction to Candidates Questionnaire
Classified Ads
Pros-Cons on Constitutional Amendments

Pros-Cons on Constitutional Amendments

General Election Nov. 3, 1964

prepared by Voters Service Committee League of Women Voters of Honolulu

H.B. #33

Purpose: To amend the Constitution of Hawaii to read that the votes cast for Governor in the general election shall be deemed cast for the Lt. Governor of the same political party.

This is the method we use to elect the President and Vice-President of the United States. In this manner both the Governor and Lt. Governor will always be of the same party. This permits a more cohesive working relationship. We have heard no arguments against this amendment

H.B. #421

Purpose: To amend the Constitution of Hawaii to remove the Superintendent of Public Instruction from the Board of Education as a voting member, to have him serve as secretary (executive officer) and to change his title to Superintendent of Education.

Arguments for:

1.Making of policy and execution of policy ought to be separated.

2.Make it impossible for Supt. to cast a deciding vote on self-made proposal.

3. Will still be present at all meetings and therefore informed. Also therefore can be resource person.

4. Change of title to Superintendent of Education is in line with the present title of the Department of Education.

Arguments against:

1. Superintendent of Public Instruction should have direct voice in Policy making and should be able to present a professional view of all natters before the Board.

H.B. #253

Purpose: To amend the Constitution of Hawaii to remove the President of the University of Hawaii and the Superintendent of Public Instruction as voting members of the Board of Regents of the University and make the President of the University the executive officer of the Board of Regents.

Arguments for:

1. Making of policy and execution of policy ought to be separated.

2. Make it impossible for either party to cast a deciding vote on a self-made proposal,

3. The President of the University will still be present at all meetings and therefore available as a resource person.

4. The President of the University would be free to serve on other boards which might benefit the University which he is unable to do while a member of the Board of Regents.

Arguments against:

1. The removal of the two different members (Pres. of U. and Supt. of Public Instruction) should not be included in same bill.

2. The presence of the Supt. of Public Instruction on the Board of Regents is sound for both institutions.

3. Worthwhile correlation and coordination of planning and policy has been accomplished because of the membership of the Supt. of Public Instruction on the Board of Regents.


September 1964 Top   Home   Newsletters November 1964