Beyond sorting through the sea of incumbents and challengers seeking election, voters will confront an even more difficult task: wading through the lengthy list of 12 proposed amendments to the Honolulu City Charter.

Simply casting blank votes, which will be discarded, should not be an option. Given the importance of the Charter and the far-reaching impact these amendments could have, allowing just a small slice of voters to chart the city's course is not a wise move.

While we urge voters to review proposals on the Charter Commission's Web site (www.honolulu.gov/chc/), The Advertiser recommends supporting six of the amendments and voting "no" on the remainder.

And we invite you to join our online forum. Go to www.honoluluadvertiser.com/opinion and click on the link at the end of this editorial.

Question 1: This amendment would replace the current City Council term limits, as well as the staggered terms. Currently, council members are limited to two consecutive four-year terms. The terms are staggered — voters fill five seats in one election and four in the next, two years later.

Keeping term limits in place would encourage fresh ideas and new challengers — an essential part of city government, counterbalancing the power of incumbency.

Vote: No

Question 2: If Question 1 is passed, the current system will be replaced by one of the following alternatives. Even if you vote "no" for Question 1, you still must choose an alternative system. Alternative A eliminates both term limits and staggered terms. Alternative B keeps term limits, but extends the term to another four years. Staggering would be eliminated. Alternative B is better: At least term limits would remain in place.

Questions 3: This amendment would channel 1 percent of annual property tax revenues into funds for land conservation and affordable housing.

While it's certainly a worthy goal and the City Council's resistance to such funds is appalling, using the Charter as a kind of voter initiative is the wrong way to pass a law. Making further changes takes at least two years; and it sets a dangerous precedent, opening the door to other special interests seeking a similar end-run on the legislative process.

Vote: No

Question 4: This would add comprehensive curbside recycling to the powers, duties and functions of the director of Environmental Services.

Again, this is not an appropriate use of the Charter amendment process. And there is nothing — except political will — to prevent the director from pursuing curbside recycling as part of the "solid-waste collection" duties already spelled out.

The city should pursue curbside recycling; we don't need a Charter amendment to do that.

Vote: No

Question 5: This would give the Ethics Commission the authority to impose monetary fines on elected officers for ethics violations. The commission now can only make recommendations for disciplinary action against elected officers, but cannot impose fines or take disciplinary action.

Let's give the commission the authority it needs to hold our elected leaders accountable.

Vote: Yes

Question 6: This amendment would move city races with only two candidates to the general election rather than the primary election. The poor wording on this amendment would leave room for too much confusion. We would be electing some council members in the primary, the others in the general with no apparent benefit.

Vote: No

Question 7: Under this amendment, the Salary Commission would have the final say on salaries of elected officials and high-ranking city employees, such as the mayor, council members and prosecuting attorney. The City Council would lose the power to reject commission recommendations.

Eliminating a council vote on pay raises and salaries for officials would help depoliticize the process. In addition, salaries out of step with the marketplace would hinder the search for high-quality candidates. The amendment would bring order to the process, but it sets limits. The commission would consist of seven members who would serve for staggered terms of five years appointed by the mayor and the council. Every salary hearing would be made public. If the process does not work, the council has the ability to put it up to the voters again in two years.

Vote: Yes

Question 8: This would add to the Department of Transportation Services mission: making Honolulu pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly; developing bikeway systems would be among the duties of the director.

Once again, changing the Charter to force the alternative-transportation agenda is a bad idea. This is rightfully the job of elected city officials.

Right concept, wrong venue.

Vote: No

Question 9: This proposal would deprive the Liquor Commission's administrator, deputy administrator and secretary of civil service protections. A 2005 report by the Office of the City Auditor states repeatedly that the administrator's exempt-employee status leaves the commission with "no effective oversight or control over the administrator." This change is needed to ensure accountability.

Vote: Yes

Question 10: This amendment would clarify existing procedures by spelling out additional services already supervised by the director of Emergency Services and by the fire chief.

Vote: Yes

Question 11: This would allow capital budget appropriations to lapse 12 months after the fiscal year, rather than the current six months. The extra time is needed in handling complicated processes, such as acquiring proper permits. Otherwise, the city wastes time by starting the appropriations process over again.

Vote: Yes

Question 12: This is a series of "housekeeping" issues that allows the city to conform to legal requirements and correct inadvertent omissions.

Vote: Yes