Honolulu City Council members sacrificed their credibility and risked the ire of voters by ducking responsibility for an outrageous 64% pay raise this year. The giant pay spike took effect automatically, unless the Council voted to reject it. Despite protests by three members, a majority voted to accept the windfall.

Now, freshman Council member Val Okimoto, a beneficiary of the pay increase, has proposed a change to the City Charter that would further distance Council members from political responsibility for salary adjustments: a resolution that would make Honolulu Salary Commission decisions final, with no further input from City Council members — nor the constituents they serve.

That tone-deaf step offends the sensibilities, even for those who may have believed Council members were entitled to much more compensation. While proffered under the pretense of taking politics out of the process, it actually works to shield the Council from responsibility — and should not advance, in this or any other year.

The raises, which took effect July 1, already caused widespread protest. Okimoto’s proposed resolution was sure to turn voters hot again. And so, in consultation with Council Chair Tommy Waters, Okimoto announced last week that “after thinking it over,” she would hold off on pushing for a Charter change next year, instead advocating that the city’s Charter Commission, which will be newly appointed in 2024, take up the issue.

If Okimoto’s push is successful, the Charter Commission would place the measure in front of voters in 2026. It’s likely that voters’ short memories and the inscrutable language of a Charter amendment would benefit the move.

There’s no rush, after all. City Council members’ salaries have now jumped by more than $44,400 annually — from $68,904 to $113,304, with Chair Waters earning about $10,000 more. That increase, when many of Honolulu’s families struggle to get by on far less, is offensive.

Existing language in the City Charter gives the City Council authority to reject — either in whole or in part, and by a three-quarters vote — any pay hikes approved by the Salary Commission, which also makes recommendations for the mayor and other city administrators. Okimoto’s Resolution 193, introduced Aug. 9, aimed to delete language allowing for a vote to alter or reject salary recommendations, and included language stating that Salary Commission decisions are “not subject to rejection or alteration by the council or mayor.”

That’s a move in the wrong direction.

Instead, voters must call for a countermanding Charter amendment: one that requires the City Council to vote affirmatively — be on the record — to accept raises proposed for its own members.

Current law requires a supermajority, or a three-fourths vote, to turn down a raise; it might be argued, instead, that a three-fourths vote should be required to accept one. That would indicate that there is an overwhelming agreement among Council members that their pay must be adjusted, at the rate proposed by the commission.

Honolulu’s Charter also should be amended in this process to separate voting on salaries for the mayor and administrative officials from voting on salaries for City Council members. This would remove pressure on the mayor to endorse City Council raises in order to obtain salary increases for key administrators.

Voters who would be called upon to consider changes to the City Charter must consider the effect of distancing salary decisions from public input and Council authority. In this year’s deliberations, salary commissioners — political appointees of the City Council and mayor — considered recommending raising Council salaries to a whopping $185,000-plus. Should Okimoto’s proposed Charter amendment be adopted in 2026, the Salary Commission could endorse this additional $72,000-plus hike, and Council members could simply sit back and wait for it to take effect. After all, it then would be “out of their hands” — and shielded from voters’ ire.