Honolulu’s prosecuting attorney would be limited to no more than two four-year terms if a City Charter amendment on the 2020 general election ballot wins the approval of a majority of Oahu voters.

It’s the most impactful of four charter amendments voters are being asked to consider. All were put on the ballot by a two-thirds majority vote of the Honolulu City Council.

The mayor and City Council members, the only other elected city posts, are already subject to term limits of two four-year terms under charter amendments approved in 1992. At the time, voters were not asked to place term limits on the prosecuting attorney.

As a result, current Prosecuting Attorney Keith Kaneshiro could have run for a third four-year term despite having already served four-year terms beginning in 2012 and 2016.

The embattled Kaneshiro, however, chose not to run for prosecutor and has been on paid leave since March 2019 in connection with the corruption scandal involving former Deputy Prosecutor Katherine Kealoha and her estranged husband, former Police Chief Louis Kea­loha. Kaneshiro has not been charged with any wrongdoing, and the investigation is ongoing.

In January the Council adopted Resolution 19-35, resulting in what appears as Charter Question 1 on the ballot.

Introduced by Councilman Ron Menor, the resolution states that capping the number of terms is needed to limit “the ability of city officials to become entrenched in power, and thereby, in a position to abuse the powers entrusted to them by the voters.”

Additionally, the resolution says “the possibility of an abuse of power by the city’s prosecuting attorney, who has the authority to initiate criminal proceedings and to threaten the initiation of criminal proceedings against any person within the city, is particularly concerning.”

Menor said he introduced the charter question “because of concerns about abuses within the prosecuting attorney’s office.”

He said he’s hoping the imposition of term limits would make the agency more accountable to the public and that “the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred will be much less likely to occur again.”

But not everyone supports the proposal.

Peter Carlisle, who preceded Kaneshiro as prosecuting attorney before resigning in 2010 to run for mayor, opposes term limits for the position. It’s tough enough finding candidates who are both eligible and willing to seek the job of top Honolulu prosecuting attorney, he said.

To qualify, a lawyer must not only be in good standing with the Hawaii State Bar Association, but also be able to show active involvement in criminal cases in at last three of the last 10 years, he said.

“The majority of lawyers practice in only civil law and are not ‘actively involved’ in criminal cases,” Carlisle wrote. The available candidate pool would only become smaller if the amendment is approved, he said.

Two of the remaining charter amendments facing voters would provide more independence to the Honolulu Ethics Commission. The panel and its staff have been under the auspices of the Department of Corporation Counsel.

Longtime commission Executive Director Chuck Totto often found himself at odds with then-Corporation Counsel Donna Leong on a variety of issues, including the panel’s budget and staffing. Leong was appointed by Mayor Kirk Caldwell.

There’s been little, if any, public disagreement between current commission leaders and the Caldwell administration. Nonetheless, the commission and current Executive Director Jan Yamane approached the Council about putting the two questions on the ballot, suggesting a lingering desire for more independence from Honolulu Hale.

Charter Question No. 3 on the ballot would bar the mayor, corporation counsel or others in the city administration from withholding funding for the commission approved by the Council.

Ethics Commission Chairwoman Victoria Marks submitted testimony supporting Resolution 19-331, which set up the charter amendment. The proposal “would provide the commission with budget flexibility and greater autonomy from the city administration,” Marks said in written testimony to the Council.

Marks noted the proposed changes would be similar to the autonomy already given to the city Department of Prosecuting Attorney.

Charter Question No. 4 would provide the Ethics Commission with more flexibility on how much it pays its staff. Currently, commission staff employees are exempt from civil service, but the commission must still adhere to the city’s civil service position classification guidelines.

The amendment, as approved by the Council in Resolution 20-83, would allow the commission to come up with its own job classifications and pay its employees as it sees fit, although within limits similar to how the City Council is governed when hiring staff for its Office of Council Services.

Marks, in support of the amendment, noted to Council members that a 2016 charter amendment adopted by voters already exempts commission staff attorneys from the city’s civil service position classification guidelines, so this year’s proposal would apply to its investigators and other remaining staff.

Charter Question No. 2 would require the establishment of a 15-member city Youth Commission comprising volunteers between the ages 14 and 24 who would be appointed by the mayor and Council members.

The purpose of the commission would be to “advise the Council and the mayor on the effects of policies, needs, assessments, priorities, programs and budgets concerning the children and youth of the city.”

Established under Resolution 19-329 and introduced by Councilman Tommy Waters, the proposed amendment does not establish a funding mechanism or budget requirement for a commission, but states “the commission may employ staff as is necessary to assist it in the performance of its duties.”

The proposal is supported by the nonprofit Young Progressives Demanding Action, the Sierra Club O‘ahu Group and others who seek greater participation in government by younger citizens.