One proposed amendment to the City Charter — the one concerning the development of a rail transit system — has dominated the political discourse in recent weeks, but three other initiatives have all but flown under the radar.

One is essentially a housekeeping change that would align the charter with state law on the handling of impeachment proceedings against elected county officials. The others are more complex.

All three should be passed by voters, who also deserve a fuller explanation of the issues behind each. Here's a review of the background, and the effects of the changes:

Question 1: Shall the prosecuting attorney be allowed to initiate, develop and perform or coordinate programs, projects and activities, as determined by the prosecuting attorney, on the subject of crime, including but not limited to crime research, prevention and education?

Recommendation: Yes.

This amendment arose from a Supreme Court ruling last year that found City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle did not have the authority to spend city money to urge voters to adopt a 2002 state constitutional amendment.

The ballot question would give the prosecutor authority that is similar to authority held by the state attorney general to use his office for advocacy and public education on issues related to crime.

The Hawai'i chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed Carlisle in the high court case, has no objection to this general authority, said ACLU attorney Lois Perrin.

It's usual for prosecuting attorneys — as they do in other jursidictions on the Mainland — to have this authority, so it's reasonable for this to be made explicit in the charter.

The problem would arise if the prosecutor would execute that authority by lobbying directly for or against a ballot initiative or other election issue. The ACLU has vowed to challenge the constitutionality of such an intrusion in court, as it should.

Allowing a government official to use public funds to influence the outcome of elections gives that official an unfair advantage, essentially using everyone's money to advance an election outcome favored only by some.

Question 2: Shall the Revised City Charter be amended to authorize the city Ethics Commission to impose civil fines established by ordinance for violations of the standards of conduct committed by appointed officers and employees of the city who have significant discretionary power?

Recommendation: Yes.

This expands on the authority granted through an amendment voters passed in 2006, enabling the city ethics panel to impose civil fines on elected officials.

It's sensible to give the commission the power to hold management-level appointees to the same standards of accountability demanded in the state ethics code.

Question 3: Shall the Revised Charter of the City and County of Honolulu 1973 be amended to conform to state law by specifying that the circuit courts of the state have jurisdiction of impeachment proceedings against elected county officers?

Recommendation: Yes.

This housekeeping change simply enables the city's organic document to catch up with changes in state law that direct impeachment proceedings to circuit courts, rather than the state Supreme Court, as it now reads.

In the heat of major electoral battles over the U.S. presidency and critical local races, Honolulu voters should not lose sight of the important charter amendments, which cannot be easily reversed, and give them the attention they're due.