Setting the Record Straight on the Honolulu Council Salary Issue
What Happened, What Changed, and Why It Won't Happen Again
The 2023 Honolulu Council salary issue generated understandable frustration and serious questions from residents across Oʻahu. Some asked fair questions about why the Honolulu City Council did not vote on the Salary Commission’s recommendation. Others criticized decisions I made as Council Chair. I respect those concerns. This page explains what happened, why I made the decisions I did, what I learned from the controversy, and the Charter amendment I authored to permanently remove the Council from future salary decisions.
What Happened
What Happened in 2023?
In 2023, the independent Salary Commission recommended a one-time adjustment to the salaries of elected officials and many executive branch positions.
The Commission found that Council salaries had remained largely unchanged for decades, in part because raises had frequently been deferred or rejected under the previous system, while many other City employees continued to receive negotiated wage increases. As a result, the Commission concluded that Council compensation no longer reflected the scope of the position or maintained a reasonable relationship with comparable leadership roles within City government.
Based on those findings, the Commission recommended a one-time 64% salary adjustment for Councilmembers.
The Commission found that Council salaries had remained largely unchanged for decades, in part because raises had frequently been deferred or rejected under the previous system, while many other City employees continued to receive negotiated wage increases. As a result, the Commission concluded that Council compensation no longer reflected the scope of the position or maintained a reasonable relationship with comparable leadership roles within City government.
Based on those findings, the Commission recommended a one-time 64% salary adjustment for Councilmembers.
Did the Council vote to give itself a 64% raise?
No.
The Salary Commission—not the City Council—recommended the salary adjustment.
However, under the Charter that existed at the time, the Council had the authority to reject the recommendation by adopting a resolution before it became effective.
The Council never voted to approve or reject the increase.
The Salary Commission—not the City Council—recommended the salary adjustment.
However, under the Charter that existed at the time, the Council had the authority to reject the recommendation by adopting a resolution before it became effective.
The Council never voted to approve or reject the increase.
Why didn't you schedule a vote?
This is the question I receive more than any other.
As Council Chair, I had the authority to place a resolution on the Council agenda that would have allowed the Council to vote on rejecting the Salary Commission's recommendation. I understand why many residents believe that vote should have occurred.
At the time, I was weighing more than a single salary recommendation. I was also thinking about the long-term health of public service.
I understood the Salary Commission's concern that Council compensation had fallen significantly behind over many years, due in part to a system that politically incentivized the rejection of even small incremental adjustments. I also recognized the growing impact this was having in drawing in new leaders.
I believe our City is strongest when people from every walk of life can realistically serve in elected office—not just those who are independently wealthy or financially secure enough to put their careers on hold. We need parents, teachers, tradespeople, small business owners, healthcare professionals, young professionals, and others who bring the real-world experience and perspectives our community deserves.
I also recognized that many residents believed the recommendation was simply too large and should have been rejected.
Reasonable people can disagree about the decision I made. Looking back, I understand why many residents wanted every Councilmember to publicly cast a vote so each person could be individually accountable. That is a fair expectation.
Rather than leaving future Councils and future Council Chairs to face that same dilemma, I chose to pursue a permanent solution by fixing the process itself.
As Council Chair, I had the authority to place a resolution on the Council agenda that would have allowed the Council to vote on rejecting the Salary Commission's recommendation. I understand why many residents believe that vote should have occurred.
At the time, I was weighing more than a single salary recommendation. I was also thinking about the long-term health of public service.
I understood the Salary Commission's concern that Council compensation had fallen significantly behind over many years, due in part to a system that politically incentivized the rejection of even small incremental adjustments. I also recognized the growing impact this was having in drawing in new leaders.
I believe our City is strongest when people from every walk of life can realistically serve in elected office—not just those who are independently wealthy or financially secure enough to put their careers on hold. We need parents, teachers, tradespeople, small business owners, healthcare professionals, young professionals, and others who bring the real-world experience and perspectives our community deserves.
I also recognized that many residents believed the recommendation was simply too large and should have been rejected.
Reasonable people can disagree about the decision I made. Looking back, I understand why many residents wanted every Councilmember to publicly cast a vote so each person could be individually accountable. That is a fair expectation.
Rather than leaving future Councils and future Council Chairs to face that same dilemma, I chose to pursue a permanent solution by fixing the process itself.
What Changed
How did you respond after the controversy?
After listening to residents, I concluded that the real problem was not simply one salary recommendation—it was the system itself.
The Charter forced Councilmembers into an impossible position. Every year, the Council would either allow an independent recommendation to take effect and be criticized for doing nothing, or reject it and compound the problem moving forward.
Neither outcome served the public well.
That is why I authored and led the Charter amendment that fundamentally changed the process.
Instead of allowing future Councils to continue deciding—or appearing to decide—their own compensation, the amendment:
- Removed the Council from future salary decisions;
- Tied future adjustments to the average percentage wage increases negotiated for collectively bargained City employees;
- Capped any annual adjustment at 5%; and
- Left administration of the process to the independent Salary Commission under a voter-approved formula.
In 2024, Honolulu voters approved that Charter amendment with a staggering 82% support.
That means no future Council—and no future Council Chair—will ever face the same controversy again.
Did you personally benefit from the raises?
The Charter establishes the salary attached to the office—not the individual holding it.
However, individual Councilmembers may voluntarily accept less than the salary authorized for the office.
Following the 2023 adjustment, I chose on multiple occasions to accept less than the authorized salary.
I did so because I understood the concerns residents expressed. While that decision did not change the salary attached to the office, I believed it was important to acknowledge those concerns while working to permanently reform the process.
Why did salaries continue increasing after the Charter Amendment?
Because voters chose to change the process—not permanently freeze salaries.
Instead of unpredictable, infrequent adjustments, future salaries now increase only by the same average percentage wage increases negotiated for collectively bargained City employees.
Those adjustments are capped at 5% annually.
Neither I nor any future Council has the authority to change those percentages.
Instead of unpredictable, infrequent adjustments, future salaries now increase only by the same average percentage wage increases negotiated for collectively bargained City employees.
Those adjustments are capped at 5% annually.
Neither I nor any future Council has the authority to change those percentages.
Could another 64% raise happen today?
No.
The Charter Amendment approved by Honolulu voters eliminated that possibility.
Today:
- Future salary adjustments follow a voter-approved formula.
- Annual increases are capped at 5%.
- The Council has no discretion over those future adjustments.
The process is fundamentally different than it was in 2023.
Looking Forward
Looking back, what is the lesson from all of this?
I understand why many residents wished the Council had publicly voted on the Salary Commission's recommendation.
I also believe we should never lose sight of another important principle: public service should remain accessible to people from every background.
Honolulu benefits when our elected leaders include parents raising children, teachers educating the next generation, tradespeople building our communities, healthcare workers, veterans, nonprofit leaders, entrepreneurs, and working families who understand firsthand the challenges residents face.
We should never create a system that unintentionally discourages those voices from serving.
The challenge is balancing that principle with public accountability, a balance I have sought wholeheartedly to achieve.
I also believe we should never lose sight of another important principle: public service should remain accessible to people from every background.
Honolulu benefits when our elected leaders include parents raising children, teachers educating the next generation, tradespeople building our communities, healthcare workers, veterans, nonprofit leaders, entrepreneurs, and working families who understand firsthand the challenges residents face.
We should never create a system that unintentionally discourages those voices from serving.
The challenge is balancing that principle with public accountability, a balance I have sought wholeheartedly to achieve.
This is a heading.
Today my priorities remain exactly where they belong:
- Lowering the cost of living;
- Improving public safety;
- Addressing homelessness with compassion and accountability;
- Maintaining our roads, parks, and infrastructure; and
- Making City government more responsive and accountable.
Those are the issues that matter most to Honolulu families.
Bottom Line
I understand why many residents were frustrated by what happened in 2023.
I understand why many people believe the Council should have held a public vote.
I respect those opinions.
I also believe our community benefits when public office remains accessible to qualified people from every walk of life.
After hearing from residents, I chose not to simply revisit one difficult decision. I chose to attempt to fix the system itself.
I voluntarily accepted less than the salary authorized for the office on multiple occasions because I believed it was important to acknowledge the concerns residents expressed.
More importantly, I authored and led the Charter amendment that permanently removed the Council from future salary decisions. Honolulu voters overwhelmingly approved that reform.
Today, future Councilmembers—and future Council Chairs—can no longer determine or vote on their own compensation.
That issue has been resolved through a transparent, voter-approved process.
I believe leadership means listening, learning, improving our institutions, and ensuring that public service remains both accountable to taxpayers and accessible to the people who make Honolulu the extraordinary community it is.
With that said, the work is not done…
I understand why many people believe the Council should have held a public vote.
I respect those opinions.
I also believe our community benefits when public office remains accessible to qualified people from every walk of life.
After hearing from residents, I chose not to simply revisit one difficult decision. I chose to attempt to fix the system itself.
I voluntarily accepted less than the salary authorized for the office on multiple occasions because I believed it was important to acknowledge the concerns residents expressed.
More importantly, I authored and led the Charter amendment that permanently removed the Council from future salary decisions. Honolulu voters overwhelmingly approved that reform.
Today, future Councilmembers—and future Council Chairs—can no longer determine or vote on their own compensation.
That issue has been resolved through a transparent, voter-approved process.
I believe leadership means listening, learning, improving our institutions, and ensuring that public service remains both accountable to taxpayers and accessible to the people who make Honolulu the extraordinary community it is.
With that said, the work is not done…
