The Hawaii State Legislature, with 20 Democrats in the 25-member Senate and 43 Democrats in the 51-member Senate, plans to rally its majority members Tuesday to override at least 7 of the more than one dozen vetoes made to date by Republican Gov. Linda Lingle.

Legislators must take action before the 60-day working session ends May 3 if they want to overturn vetoes that the governor made prior to April 13, 2007. Vetoes made after April 13 enjoy a 45-day window through mid-July, but require the Hawaii State Legislature to return in special session to override them.

Republicans who hold just 14 of 76 seats say this technicality is why the Democrats purposely fast-tracked some of the most controversial labor bills, and sent them directly to the governor: They knew they would have the opportunity to override her veto while still in session.

Based on previous votes and trends during this legislative session, including confirmation votes in the Senate, collective bargaining for unionized public employees and the very visible involvement of the Hawaii Government Employees Association, it appears unlikely that the override on any of these bills will be stopped in Tuesday’s crossover session. This is especially true because this is not an election year and there are fewer consequences for overriding the governor. The Hawaii State Legislature is scheduled to adjourn on Thursday.

Some of the bills scheduled for override this week include:

SB 1642 “allows a public employer to negotiate over procedures and criteria on promotions, transfers, assignments, demotions, layoffs, suspensions, terminations, discharges, or other disciplinary actions. This bill subjects violations of negotiated and agreed-upon procedures and criteria to the grievance procedure contained in a collective bargaining agreement.”

At the Hawaii State Capitol Monday, police chiefs, fire chiefs, and emergency responders, rallied to ask lawmakers not to override this veto. These first responders say if there is an emergency in Hawaii, and their personnel were needed to work even if isn’t their shift, that under this bill, the union could require a hearing, arbitration or collective bargaining, thus delaying implementation and further eroding management’s ability to make choices and provide manpower for the emergency. The Hawaii Governmental Employees Union lobbyists went door to door at the legislature with leaflets, referring to this bill as the “permissive bargaining bill” and alleging they would lose rights previously bargained for. HGEA says the bill safeguards existing procedures for layoffs, temporary assignments, promotions and discipline. The public safety managers assert the bill will adversely affect public safety. In other documents, the HGEA says statements by the police and fire chiefs and other emergency managers are erroneous and misleading.

Sen. Sam Slom says the HGEA has already gotten the state Senate to “thumb its nose” at native Hawaiian groups, environmental groups, community leaders and voters, and now is prepared to “disavow and disrespect” warnings of three final groups: police, fire and emergency responders. “It is totally irresponsible,” Slom says.

Meanwhile, Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, a Democrat labor attorney, says the override of this bill should be a priority. She notes that the statements by law enforcement management are not accurate -- she says the bill does not jeopardize public safety and that the bill does not require negotiation in times of emergency.

HB 863, relating to union prevailing wages, “clarifies that a construction contract between private parties is a public work under certain conditions, that include state or county use of more than half the project. This bill requires construction project owner to sign a lease or other agreement that complies with state prevailing wage law.” Critics of this bill say it will raise the cost of doing business and cost of government services, because it would require almost all contracts to match the highest existing union wages and benefits, even those not subjected to collective bargaining agreements.

HB 1672 would increase the salaries for some departmental deputies including the Legislative Reference Bureau’s director’s first assistant, the ombudsman’s first assistant and the deputy auditor, by considerable sums.

SB 14, relating to the Board of Regents Advisory Council, was passed in the November 2006 election as a constitutional amendment. However, it is the makeup of the council that is in dispute, and which caused the governor’s veto. Testimony in opposition to this bill came from University of Hawaii President David McClain and a national association of educators. Both said this bill will undermine the decision making of the University and erode the power of the governor who is ultimately responsible for the selection of the UH Board of Regents. While some states do have a council to advise the governor in University Regent appointments, no other state has a council structured as the one in HB 14.

SB 1063 “Requires the governor, in filling vacancies in the state senate, state house of representatives, and United States Senate, to select from a list of three prospective appointees nominated by the political party of the prior incumbent; requires prospective appointees to be members of nominating political parties at the time of submission of their names to the governor; effective on approval; requires prospective appointees to be residents of the same electoral district as the prior incumbent at the time of appointment.”

SB 1816, relating to Molokini Island, “requires consultation with the kahuna nui of the Mookini heiau before any alterations or improvements to the state monument and before any additional organized profit-making venture involving the state monument takes place.”

SB 1956, the Direct Popular Vote Initiative, has been supported by a well funded public relations and lobbying campaign. Critics say the bill would overturn the Electoral College process created to protect the integrity of votes of small states versus large states and major metropolitan cities. If direct popular vote were enacted, a handful of major cities would actually determine the outcome of presidential elections. Lawmakers who are opposed to this measure say this bill, and this issue, were not prominently discussed during the Legislature. While constitutional scholars oppose it, recent close presidential elections provided the stimulus for the suggested change.