Governmental reform sometimes starts with a symbol. Legislators, for instance, might find sufficient consensus to express their wishes on a specific issue via a non-binding, symbolic resolution long before they have the votes for a measure that would effect tangible change.

Likewise, a president might issue a proclamation — an often used symbol — or deliver the weekly White House radio address detailing support for an idea or initiative as a way of shaping public perception and influencing the legislative process.

Voters have a similar opportunity this fall to make their feelings known on a City and County of Honolulu charter amendment that would send an unmistakable signal on a matter of great importance: Public access to public records.

On its face, Amendment 20 would seem to bring substantial change to the charter. It would ensure that all books and records of the city, except as otherwise provided by law, be open to anyone — not just citizens, as the current charter language says.

But perhaps more importantly, it would take away the exemption provided in the charter now to police department and prosecuting attorney records — which the charter currently stipulates can only be waved by the police chief or prosecuting attorney. Under Amendment 20, those records would simply fall within the scope of “all books and records of the city” and thus be open and accessible.

But here’s why it’s not as big a game changer as it might seem. Hawaii state law trumps local law — even county charters. The state’s Uniform Information Practices Act, which mandates public access to government records except those specifically exempt from disclosure, is the ultimate governing authority in state and local record matters.

But the amendment nevertheless would accomplish two important and worthy goals, and therefore deserves your vote.

Put forward by the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, Amendment 20 first “removes questionable language and conforms the Charter to the state’s Uniform Information Practices Act, Chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which requires public access to government records unless they are protected from disclosure.”

Amendment 20 “removes questionable language and conforms the Charter to the state’s Uniform Information Practices Act … which requires public access to government records unless they are protected from disclosure.”

That’s the sense of the Civil Beat Law Center, but the quote is actually drawn from official comments on the amendment released Tuesday by the state Office of Information Practices. OIP administers both the UIPA and the Sunshine Law, statutes that govern public records and public meetings in Hawaii, so its opinion is particularly relevant here.

Uniformity in both state and local records laws is undoubtedly valuable. So long as the laws are properly focused, uniformity promotes welcome consistency in the day-to-day handling of public records across jurisdictions, whether a member of the public is dealing with state or local authorities or offices.

The second goal, though, is just as worthy: Enabling voters to go on record in strong support of making all City and County of Honolulu government records available to the public, including police and prosecutor records.

We’re not talking about records relative to ongoing criminal investigations or that might reveal legally confidential information. As OIP commented, “UIPA exceptions to disclosure will still apply where applicable, such as when significant privacy interests are at stake.”

Other police and prosecutorial records, however, can and should be made available. Predictably, though, the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers has already staked out a position in opposition to the proposed charter amendment. In testimony submitted to the Honolulu Charter Commission in February, SHOPO President Tenari Maafala decried the amendment as “just another attempt to obtain the names of police officers who are disciplined.”

Maafala was referring to Civil Beat’s ongoing effort to make public the disciplinary records of officers found guilty of official misconduct, as those records absolutely should be. We’re represented in that case by the Civil Beat Law Center.

Without that level of entirely appropriate transparency, how can members of the public know that rogue officers are being held accountable for inappropriate and sometimes illegal behavior? The truth is, they can’t.

Amendment 20 will not fix all that — the matter of police misconduct records is still in litigation. But by passing it, we can improve charter language regarding public records laws and send an unmistakable message that the language applies to records held by police and prosecutors.

Sometimes change comes in big, sweeping movements; other times, it is measured in small, sometimes symbolic but nevertheless important increments. Amendment 20 represents the latter, and it deserves your support.