Your Chance to Make O‘ahu More Free: Submit Charter Amendments by Nov. 7

A once-in-a-decade opportunity is here. The Honolulu Charter Commission is now inviting residents to submit ideas and amendments to the City & County of Honolulu Charter, the foundational governing document that sets how our municipal government operates. As a liberty-minded resident and member of the Libertarian Party of Hawai‘i, this is your chance to push for reforms that expand personal freedom, limit government power, and strengthen market fairness.

What you need to know

• Visit the submission website: https://www.honolulucitycouncil.org/charter-commission

• Deadline: Friday, November 7, 2025 --proposals must be submitted by then.

• The current Charter (the Revised City & County of Honolulu Charter) is available on the website for review and reference. https://www.honolulu.gov/cor/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/01/Charter-FINAL-1-16-2025.pdf

• Why it matters: The Commission’s recommendations will appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot, and voters will decide.

Why Liber­tar­i­ans Should Participate

For those of us who value freedom, limited government, transparent processes, and market-based solutions, this is a prime moment to propose changes that reflect those principles. The Charter shapes how city agencies function, how zoning and permitting work, how taxpayer funds are spent, and how individuals interact with government. Submit your ideas and you could help reduce coercion, expand liberty, and make government in Honolulu more accountable.

How to Get Started

• Review the Charter to identify outdated, overly powerful, or coercive provisions.

• Think about changes that strengthen individual rights, reduce government discretion, promote market fairness, and increase transparency.

• Use the online submission form (or PDF option) on the Commission’s site, and ensure your proposal clearly states the issue being addressed, the Charter section, current language, proposed language, and rationale + impact.

• Share the opportunity with fellow Libertarians and community partners.

The following are 10 charter proposals submitted by Treasurer Nick Zehr:

Proposal 1:  Eminent Domain

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The City and the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) currently have broad powers to take private property through eminent domain for projects such as rail. These powers allow condemnation with minimal council oversight and have historically been used in ways that infringe on property rights, reduce trust in government, and disrupt local businesses and residents. Reform is needed to narrow the definition of “public use” and strengthen procedural safeguards.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Section 3-110: Condemnation

·         Section 17-103(2)(b): Eminent domain powers of HART

·         Section 7-105(e): Eminent domain powers

3. Current Charter language. Section 17-103(2)(b):“To acquire by eminent domain, purchase, lease or otherwise, in the name of the city, all real property or any interest therein necessary for the development of the fixed guideway system; provided however that, prior to commencing such action, the authority shall submit to the council, in writing, a list of the parcels and areas to be acquired. The authority shall have the right to proceed with such condemnation action so long as the council does not adopt a resolution objecting to the condemnation within 45 days of such notification.”

4. Proposed change. Amend Section 17-103(2)(b) and all other charter provisions granting eminent domain authority as follows:

• Replace “to acquire by eminent domain” with:

  
  

  “to acquire by eminent domain, limited strictly to projects that constitute a direct public use such as roads, utilities, flood control, or essential public safety infrastructure. Transfer of condemned property to a private party or developer shall be prohibited.”

• Require:

  • A 2/3 supermajority vote of the City Council before any condemnation can proceed.

  • Independent appraisals from two licensed appraisers, with the higher value used for compensation.

  • Compensation to include relocation costs and documented business interruption damages.

• For HART specifically:

  • Remove the automatic right to proceed absent council objection. Instead, require explicit council approval before any action.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protect personal liberties: This reform protects homeowners, landowners, and small businesses from unjust seizure of their property.

·         Limit government overreach: It prevents city agencies and HART from using condemnation as a routine development tool.

·         Market fairness: By prohibiting transfer of seized land to private developers, it ensures fair market competition and voluntary exchange remain the norm.

·         Transparency & fairness: Supermajority approval and independent appraisals provide stronger checks and balances while restoring public trust.

·         Rule of law & non-aggression: This aligns the City’s powers with constitutional principles, ensuring that coercion is used only in the narrowest, most justifiable circumstances.

Intended impact: Property rights are strengthened, government is held accountable, and Honolulu’s development remains market-driven rather than coerced. This will improve public trust, reduce costly litigation, and keep future projects more fiscally and ethically sound.

Proposal 2: Citizen Lawmaking

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The citizen initiative process in Honolulu is overly restrictive and burdensome. Current rules impose high signature thresholds, broad subject-matter exclusions, and procedural delays that make it difficult for ordinary citizens to place ordinances on the ballot. These barriers weaken direct democracy, concentrate power in the council, and discourage civic participation.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Article III, Chapter 4 – Ordinances by Initiative Power

o    Section 3-401. Declaration

o    Section 3-402. Procedure for Enactment and Adoption

o    Section 3-405. Adoption, Effective Date and Limitation

3. Current Charter language (excerpt).Section 3-401. Declaration: “The electors of the city shall have the power to propose ordinances by initiative, except ordinances authorizing or repealing appropriations of money, levying taxes, or repealing tax levies, or authorizing the issuance of bonds, or making or repealing appropriations of money for any purpose.”

Section 3-402: Establishes high petition signature thresholds and procedural steps before measures are placed on the ballot.

4. Proposed change. Amend Article III, Chapter 4 to read as follows:

·         Section 3-401. Declaration: “The electors of the city shall have the power to propose ordinances by initiative, except measures that directly appropriate funds from the city treasury without identifying a funding source. All other ordinances, including those addressing taxes, regulations, or government powers, may be initiated by the people.”

·         Section 3-402. Procedure:

o    Signature threshold set at 5% of voters who cast ballots in the most recent mayoral election, instead of a fixed higher percentage of registered voters.

o    The city clerk must verify petitions within 30 days.

o    Upon certification, the council must either adopt the ordinance within 60 days or place it on the next regularly scheduled election ballot.

·         Section 3-405. Adoption and Effective Date:

o    Ordinances approved by a majority vote shall take effect immediately, unless a later date is specified.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Empowers citizens: Lowers barriers to citizen-led lawmaking, allowing residents to directly shape policy when council fails to act.

·         Checks government power: Ensures council decisions are accountable to the people and not insulated from democratic input.

·         Protects liberties: Expands the scope of issues citizens may address, including taxation and regulation, as long as fiscal responsibility is maintained.

·         Market fairness: Creates a more responsive government by allowing voters to reduce unnecessary regulations or spending mandates.

·         Transparency & fairness: Establishes clear timelines and obligations for council and clerk action to prevent stalling.

·         Rule of law: Keeps initiative power within constitutional bounds while ensuring peaceful, democratic avenues for reform.

Intended impact: Honolulu’s residents will gain a stronger, fairer, and more effective tool for direct democracy, restoring balance between citizens and government and enhancing civic engagement.

Proposal 3:  Emergency Powers

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The mayor currently has broad authority to declare emergencies, with limited time constraints or oversight. This creates the risk of prolonged rule by executive decree, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, where extended orders limited freedoms, shut down businesses, and undermined trust in government. Clear limits, council oversight, and transparency requirements are needed to protect civil liberties and prevent abuse of emergency powers.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Section 13-112. Declaration of Emergencies

3. Current Charter language. Section 13-112. Declaration of Emergencies: “The mayor may declare an emergency due to a public calamity, but the mayor’s failure or refusal to make such a declaration shall not preclude the council from finding that an emergency exists under the provisions of Section 3-202 of this charter.”

4. Proposed change. Amend Section 13-112 to read:

• “The mayor may declare an emergency due to a public calamity, provided that:

  
  

  (a) Such a declaration shall not exceed seven (7) days in duration unless extended by a two-thirds vote of the city council.

  
  

  (b) No emergency declaration may exceed thirty (30) days total without approval by a majority of voters at a special or regularly scheduled election.

  
  

  (c) Emergency orders shall not suspend core civil liberties, including freedom of assembly, worship, commerce, or movement, except where narrowly tailored to address an imminent threat to life or property.

  
  

  (d) The mayor shall issue a public written report every seven (7) days justifying the continuation of the emergency, subject to council review.

  
  

  (e) Any fines or penalties imposed under emergency orders shall be void unless ratified by council resolution within 14 days.”

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protects civil liberties: Ensures emergency powers cannot indefinitely curtail basic freedoms without oversight.

·         Limits government overreach: Prevents the mayor from ruling by decree beyond a narrowly defined window.

·         Promotes accountability: Requires council and voter involvement for extensions, preventing unilateral decisions.

·         Supports transparency: Mandates regular reporting so the public and council remain informed.

·         Strengthens rule of law: Aligns city practice with constitutional principles of checks and balances.

Intended impact: This amendment restores trust in government, ensures emergencies are managed effectively without undermining liberties, and provides Honolulu residents with stronger protections against prolonged or excessive executive authority.

Proposal 4:  Earmarked “Special Funds” Reauthorization and Performance

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The Charter mandates earmarked set-asides of property tax revenues for special funds such as the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, the Affordable Housing Fund, the Climate Resiliency Fund, and the Grants in Aid Fund. While these funds may support worthy causes, the earmarks restrict budget flexibility, reduce council discretion, and lock taxpayers into permanent allocations regardless of performance, need, or economic conditions. This rigidity can lead to inefficiency, political favoritism, and misuse of taxpayer resources.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Section 9-204. Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, Affordable Housing Fund, and Climate Resiliency Fund

·         Section 9-205. Grants in Aid Fund

3. Current Charter language (excerpt).Section 9-204.1:“There shall be established a Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, an Affordable Housing Fund, and a Climate Resiliency Fund. In adopting each fiscal year’s budget and capital program, the council shall appropriate one and a half percent of the estimated real property tax revenues, one-third of which shall be deposited into the Clean Water and Natural Lands Fund, one-third of which shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund, and the remaining one-third of which shall be deposited into the Climate Resiliency Fund.”

Section 9-205.2:“In adopting each fiscal year’s budget and capital program, the council shall appropriate a minimum of one-half of one percent of the estimated general fund revenues which shall be deposited into the Grants in Aid Fund.”

4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 9-204 and 9-205 as follows:

• Require that all earmarked special funds (Clean Water and Natural Lands, Affordable Housing, Climate Resiliency, and Grants in Aid) be subject to automatic sunset every five (5) years, unless reauthorized by voters in a general election.

• Permit the council, by two-thirds vote, to temporarily suspend allocations to these funds during fiscal emergencies or economic downturns.

• Require annual independent performance and financial audits of each fund, with results published in plain language online.

• Prohibit automatic increases in earmarked percentages without voter approval.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protects taxpayers: Prevents permanent diversion of property tax revenues to politically favored causes without ongoing consent.

·         Enhances flexibility: Gives council discretion to address urgent fiscal priorities like core infrastructure and public safety.

·         Improves accountability: Requires regular performance audits and voter re-approval to ensure funds actually achieve their stated purposes.

·         Limits government overreach: Prevents earmarks from being used as a tool to build bureaucratic empires outside voter oversight.

·         Transparency: Plain-language reporting empowers citizens to make informed decisions about whether to renew or discontinue earmarks.

Intended impact: These reforms will ensure Honolulu’s budget process remains responsive to current needs, prevent wasteful or outdated earmarks from draining taxpayer resources, and return real decision-making power over special funds to the voters themselves.

Proposal 5:  Transit/Rail Authority Debt and Spending Checks

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) has broad powers to issue debt, manage large budgets, and acquire property with limited voter or council oversight. Past cost overruns and delays in the rail project highlight the risks of weak financial controls. Stronger safeguards are needed to ensure fiscal discipline, transparency, and accountability to taxpayers.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Section 17-103. Powers, Duties, and Functions

·         Section 17-106. Rates, Revenues, and Appropriations

·         Section 17-109. Bond Sales

3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 17-103.2:“The public transit authority shall have the following general powers: (a) To make and execute contracts… (b) To acquire by eminent domain, purchase, lease or otherwise, in the name of the city, all real property or any interest therein necessary for the development of the fixed guideway system… (c) To recommend to the council the sale, exchange or transfer of real property… (e) To maintain proper accounts… (f) To prepare an annual operating budget for the authority and an annual capital budget for the development of the fixed guideway system.”

Section 17-109:The authority may conduct bond sales subject to council approval

4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 17-103, 17-106, and 17-109 as follows:

• Require voter approval for any new long-term debt, bond issuance, or tax-backed obligation exceeding $100 million.

• Cap administrative overhead at no more than 10% of annual capital expenditures.

• Mandate biennial independent financial and performance audits of all projects and operations, with results published in plain language online.

• Require all major procurement contracts (over $25 million) to undergo open competitive bidding with evaluation results publicly posted.

• Prohibit the use of new debt for operating expenses; debt must be restricted to capital projects.

• Establish a citizen oversight committee appointed by both council and the mayor to review expenditures and audit findings.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protects taxpayers: Prevents the authority from accumulating unsustainable debt without public consent.

·         Encourages fiscal discipline: Caps overhead and limits borrowing to essential capital projects.

·         Promotes transparency: Regular audits and published procurement results give the public full visibility.

·         Strengthens accountability: Council, voters, and citizens gain meaningful checks over HART’s spending.

·         Supports market fairness: Competitive procurement ensures better pricing and reduces political favoritism.

Intended impact: These reforms will restore public confidence in HART, prevent runaway costs, and ensure that transit projects are delivered responsibly, efficiently, and in line with taxpayer expectations.

Proposal 6:  Zoning and Permitting

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The zoning and permitting process in Honolulu is slow, discretionary, and burdensome. Projects consistent with adopted plans can be delayed or denied due to complex variance procedures, opaque timelines, and excessive discretion by officials. This raises housing costs, stifles small businesses, and encourages political favoritism. Reform is needed to establish clear by-right approvals, shot clocks, and limits on variances to make the process predictable and fair.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Section 6-1503. Powers, Duties, and Functions

·         Section 6-1514. Zoning Ordinances

·         Section 6-1517. Zoning Variances

3. Current Charter language (excerpt).Section 6-1503: Grants the Director of Planning and Permitting authority to prepare development codes and ordinances.

Section 6-1514: Requires zoning ordinances to conform to the general plan and development plans.

Section 6-1517: Authorizes zoning variances under conditions set by law.

4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 6-1503, 6-1514, and 6-1517 as follows:

• By-right approvals: Any project consistent with the General Plan or adopted Development Plans shall be entitled to automatic, ministerial approval without discretionary review.

• Shot clocks: Permit applications must be approved or denied within 60 days; applications not acted upon shall be deemed approved.

• Variance limits: Variances may be granted only where a unique physical hardship exists, not for policy preferences or general economic reasons.

• Transparency: The Department of Planning and Permitting shall publish monthly reports of average processing times, pending applications, and variance approvals.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protects personal liberties: Property owners gain more predictable use of their land without undue bureaucratic obstacles.

·         Limits government power: Restricts discretionary control that enables favoritism and corruption.

·         Supports market fairness: Faster, by-right permitting lowers housing costs, reduces barriers for small businesses, and encourages investment.

·         Transparency and fairness: Public reporting ensures accountability and equal treatment.

·         Rule of law: Clear rules replace arbitrary discretion, aligning with principles of consistency and non-aggression.

Intended impact: Honolulu’s zoning and permitting process will become faster, fairer, and more transparent, helping to lower housing costs, support economic activity, and build public trust in city governance.

Proposal 7:  City Land Dealings

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The Department of Land Management (DLM) has broad powers to negotiate acquisitions, leases, and public-private partnerships with limited safeguards. Current rules allow speculative land banking and politically driven transactions that may not always serve taxpayers. Stronger standards, transparency, and limits on acquisitions and dispositions are needed to ensure city land dealings are conducted fairly, efficiently, and in the true public interest.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Section 6-1802. Powers, Duties, and Functions

·         Section 6-1803. Transactions or Activities Relating to City Real Property Interests

3. Current Charter language (excerpt).Section 6-1803.1:“The director shall conduct a public hearing to determine whether each transaction or activity relating to city real property interests serves the public interest. For any transaction or activity affecting a city real property interest that is over one-quarter acre in size, the director shall conduct the public hearing in the council district where the real property interest is located.”

Section 6-1803.3:“The council must approve by resolution the execution by the city of any instruments concerning transactions or activities relating to city real property interests.”

4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 6-1802 and 6-1803 as follows:

• Require independent market valuation for all acquisitions, leases, or sales, with the appraisal publicly posted prior to council approval.

• Mandate that all sales and long-term leases of city land (over 5 years) be conducted by open public auction, unless waived by a two-thirds council vote.

• Prohibit speculative land banking: city acquisitions must be tied to a clearly defined core government purpose (public safety, infrastructure, parks).

• For acquisitions exceeding $10 million or 5 acres, require a two-thirds vote of the city council.

• Strengthen reporting: the DLM must provide an annual inventory of all city-held land, leases, and property agreements in a publicly accessible online database.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protects taxpayers: Independent valuations and public auctions ensure the city pays or receives fair market value.

·         Limits government overreach: Prevents the city from acquiring and holding land beyond its essential needs.

·         Improves transparency: Public posting of valuations and an annual land inventory allow citizens to monitor city assets.

·         Supports fairness and market dynamics: Open auctions prevent insider deals and favoritism.

·         Strengthens accountability: Supermajority requirements safeguard against politically motivated or fiscally risky land deals.

Intended impact: These reforms will ensure city land transactions are conducted openly, fairly, and with fiscal responsibility, reducing waste, limiting speculative government activity, and protecting the rights and interests of Honolulu residents.

Proposal 8:  Salary Commission

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The Salary Commission currently has the authority to recommend salary adjustments for elected officials and department heads, which then take effect automatically unless explicitly rejected by the city council. This creates the perception of self-dealing, lacks adequate checks, and undermines public trust. Reforms are needed to ensure salary decisions are transparent, accountable, and aligned with fiscal responsibility.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Section 3-122. Salary Commission

3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 3-122:“There shall be a salary commission consisting of seven members who shall establish the salaries of all elected officials, department heads, and other officers of the city. The commission’s salary determinations shall take effect on July 1 following the adoption of its resolution, unless rejected by a three-fourths vote of the entire council.”

4. Proposed change. Amend Section 3-122 to read:

• The Salary Commission may only recommend salaries, subject to approval by a majority vote of the city council.

• Any salary increases above inflation (as measured by the Honolulu CPI) must be placed on the general election ballot for voter approval.

• Commission members must be appointed with council confirmation and shall include at least two members with backgrounds in finance, economics, or public administration.

• Salary Commission meetings shall be livestreamed, and all recommendations must include a fiscal impact statement.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protects taxpayers: Prevents automatic salary hikes without voter or council oversight.

·         Strengthens accountability: Ensures elected officials and top staff cannot benefit from salary increases without direct democratic consent.

·         Improves transparency: Public meetings and fiscal impact statements give citizens visibility into compensation decisions.

·         Supports fairness: Ties raises to inflation unless voters approve higher increases, ensuring fiscal discipline.

·         Limits government overreach: Shifts final decision-making power from unelected commissioners to the council and public.

Intended impact: These reforms will restore trust in government, ensure responsible compensation practices, and make Honolulu’s salary-setting process more accountable and transparent to the people.

Proposal 9:  Sunshine and Records

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? Although the Charter requires public access to records and allows for electronic public notices, the provisions are outdated and lack modern standards. Records are not always published in machine-readable formats, data is scattered, and there are few requirements for timeliness or usability. This creates barriers to transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. Reform is needed to require digital-by-default disclosure and centralized access to city records and public notices.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

·         Section 13-105. Records Open to the Public

·         Section 13-124. Public Notices via Electronic Medium

3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 13-105:“All books and records of every office, department, or agency of the city shall be open to the inspection of any citizen at any reasonable time, except as provided by law.”

Section 13-124:“Whenever any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, notice, or other matter of the city is required to be published in a newspaper, the requirement shall also be satisfied if the matter is published by electronic medium designated by the council.”

4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 13-105 and 13-124 as follows:

• Section 13-105 (Records Open to the Public):

  
  

  Require that all budgets, contracts, grants, audits, and meeting materials be published online within 72 hours in machine-readable formats (CSV, JSON, PDF). Establish a single centralized portal where citizens can search, download, and analyze all city records.

• Section 13-124 (Public Notices via Electronic Medium):

  
  

  Require that all legally required public notices, hearings, and proposed ordinances be posted in a central online portal with full-text search, subscription email/RSS alerts, and permanent archiving.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protects transparency: Ensures the public can easily access and analyze government information.

·         Modernizes public access: Moves from paper-based or scattered publication to digital-by-default disclosure.

·         Supports fairness: Equal access for all residents regardless of ability to purchase or access newspapers.

·         Improves accountability: Citizens, journalists, and watchdogs can track government actions in real time.

·         Strengthens rule of law: Guarantees compliance with sunshine principles through enforceable standards.

Intended impact: Honolulu will have a modern, centralized, and transparent public records system. Citizens will be empowered to monitor spending, policy, and governance more effectively, restoring trust in city government and ensuring openness in practice, not just in principle.

Proposal 10:  Recall Thresholds and Timelines

1. What issue or concern are you trying to address? The recall provisions for Honolulu elected officials set high signature thresholds, impose district-based signature caps, and create lengthy timelines that make it difficult for voters to hold officials accountable. These barriers weaken democratic checks on elected leaders and limit the effectiveness of recall as a tool for accountability. Reform is needed to simplify requirements, lower thresholds, and ensure timely recall elections.

2. What section of the charter does your proposal relate to?

• Section 12-101. Recall of the Mayor

• Section 12-102. Recall of a District Councilmember

• Section 12-103. Recall Petition; Recall Election

• Section 12-104. Recall of the Prosecuting Attorney

3. Current Charter language (excerpt). Section 12-101:“The mayor may be removed by recall which shall be initiated upon petition signed by duly registered voters equal in number to at least ten percent of the total voters registered at the last regular mayoral election. Signatures from any one council district… in excess of forty percent of the total number required on the petition shall not be counted.”

Section 12-103:“…The city clerk shall complete the examination of the petition within twenty working days after the date of the filing… If the elected officer does not resign within ten days, the city clerk shall arrange a recall election… no earlier than thirty days and no later than ninety days thereafter.”

4. Proposed change. Amend Sections 12-101 through 12-104 as follows:

• Signature threshold shall be 15% of the number of voters who cast ballots in the most recent election for the office in question (not 10% of all registered voters).

• Eliminate the district-based 40% cap on petition signatures.

• Extend validity of petition signatures to 120 days before filing (instead of 60).

• Require the city clerk to verify petitions within 15 business days.

• Require recall elections to be held within 45–60 days of petition certification, or placed on the next scheduled election if within that window.

• Clarify that recall petitions may be filed after six months in office and up until six months before the next scheduled election, removing unnecessary blackout periods.

5. Rationale and intended impact.

·         Protects democratic accountability: Lowers barriers to recall, making it a realistic tool for citizens.

·         Limits government entrenchment: Prevents officials from being shielded by overly restrictive rules.

·         Supports fairness: Ties thresholds to actual voter turnout, not inflated registration rolls.

·         Improves transparency and efficiency: Shorter timelines for verification and elections give citizens quicker resolution.

·         Aligns with rule of law: Establishes clear, simple rules that prevent technicalities from invalidating genuine voter action.

Intended impact: These reforms will empower Honolulu’s residents to hold elected officials accountable through a fair and practical recall process. By lowering thresholds, eliminating arbitrary caps, and tightening timelines, recall becomes a more effective safeguard against misconduct, abuse of power, or loss of public trust.