HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION

Transcript of Meeting of January 15, 2000

Waimea Civic Center

Waimea, Hawaii

Attendance: J. Ray, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa, G. Martin (from 9:30 a.m.), J. Santangelo, G. Yoshiyama, Counsel C. Yuen

Absent: E. Alonzo, K. Balog

And 2 members of the public in attendance.

The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m.

RAY: I’d like to call the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission meeting to order. It’s January 15th, Saturday, 9:05 a.m., and we’re in Waimea.

Attendance. Present today myself John Ray, Chair; Roland Higashi, Vice Chair; Steve Bess; Marni Herkes; Sue Irvine; Dr. Daryl Kurozawa; John Santangelo; and Gary Yoshiyama; and we’re expecting one or two more people presently.

Statements from the Public. We have one person here, Jay West, and so we’ll go ahead and take her testimony. Jay.

WEST: My name’s Jay West. I’m a business owner and a long time resident here in Waimea. I’m also a home owner. And, I came here to testify - mainly I just wanted to see what you guys were up to. I’d read little things in the paper - but, concerning the make-up of the County Council. I didn’t know you were considering non-partisan. I like that. I think it’s long past over due. I think it will take care of a lot of them, us, we, they; that sort of thing. So, I’m definitely in favor of that.

And, also with the 6-3 Council make-up. My concern about that is that we have such large districts on this island, and John explained to me about how it would be broken up, the same as the State Representative Districts are made up, and that we have such fast growth here that I feel like, still to have the separate nine members, all voted within their district, that live within those districts, would still be the way to go. I still believe, too, when you’re looking at some of these agendas, some of these items, and you’re putting it toward the voters, that they should be separate and not combined as in one Amendment, or whatever you do here. And John told me, in this case, non-partisan and the Council make-up would be separate. That’s always been a problem with me when we go to vote, and I remember when we did term limits a while back, and it took us about three times to get it straight, so if you could break up any of these things as much as a yes and no to one issue, and not have more than one issue on the agendas to vote on.

And that’s all I have to say. Thank you.

RAY: Jay, you might want to stick around.

WEST: Yes, I was going to.

RAY: One of the things we’re going to talk about is the idea of a committee, or a Commission, on solid waste and the environment, and Jay’s very involved in manufacturing recycled glass, and she’s been at the forefront of some of these discussions for a long time. So that would be helpful if you’d stick around.

HIGASHI: I have a question.

RAY: Yes sir, Roland.

HIGASHI: Jay, there was a situation over in Kona where they had a subdivision that was approved by the Council, where the community wanted to have another access road mauka-makai, and if you had at-large Council people, you’d be their constituents. I think, in that case, it may be an opportunity for people to pressure those people a lot more because they would also have to run in your district. So, one of the benefits of having at-large, you would have more Council people. I mean, you’d be their constituency.

WEST: Yes, however, I feel as though, with the population as diverse as it is, it’s hard for a person to say, yes, I represent the whole island, when it’s so hard to get around the whole island, and to be able to represent those people. So that’s why I feel strongly about that. That thing with that subdivision deal, that’s a planning deal. That’s just poor planning.

HIGASHI: Yes, but those Council people are going to be the ones who are making the decisions. And many of the controversies within the Council are planning issues.

RAY: That concludes the public testimony for right now. We are expecting at least one additional person. A gentleman, Phil Bruce, from Waikaloa, called and said he’d be here, so if he does come, we’ll probably go ahead and take him.

Minutes Approval. We have two sets of minutes to approve. December 4th. Can I have a motion?

HERKES: Move for approval.

HIGASHI: Second.

RAY: Any discussion?

HERKES: They’re the most deadly things to read. I can’t read those minutes in one sitting. Any of them.

RAY: All in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

RAY: Opposed? December 8th minutes.

HERKES: Move to approve.

IRVINE: Second.

RAY: Discussion? All in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

RAY: Okay. Minutes approved.

Financial Status Report: As of 12/31/99, we have the two fund balances; from last year’s encumbered funds, $13,884.66, and from this budget year $80,852.98. So we’re still in good shape but I wouldn’t assume, necessarily, that there’s going to be a lot of access money. I think the real expensive things; lots of public meetings and notices, and, of course, the whole issue of publicizing the final printing and distribution, and whatever, of all that, as well as our legal counsel. A whole lot of his work will be coming once we clear some of these items up, that we want to move forward with.

Communications: We’ve received a number of communications; some internally from the County, and others from members of the public. We received a letter from Rudy Legaspi in regard to some language on Boards and Commissions. We received, from one our members, Gary Yoshiyama, a great piece of work on establishing a Fire Commission. Thank you, Gary. We received letters from Mr. Jim Otterson, Pat Lescher, Phil Bruce, Curtis Tyler, Tom Russi and Christine Paul; all dealing with the Council-Manager form of government. The ones from Mr.Tyler and Mr. Russi, we just got today. And basically, they’re all in favor of the Council-Manager form of government. And, we also have a letter from Patrick Kahawaiola’a in regard to the letter that our Legal Counsel sent him, so we’ve got a response from that. So I just wanted to point those out.

Unfinished Business: Committee Reports. Why don’t we, since Jay is here, deal with this Environmental Committee. John, you’re listed here as the presenter. You or Sue can speak to this issue.

SANTANGELO: At this time, I’d like to call on Sue Irvine. And I think what we were talking about, just to bring you up to speed, is there was a suggestion that there be a committee or a Commission, and that sparked some thought here of what about a Department. And so, just trying to address the environmental concerns of the island, we are in an infancy compared to a lot of mainland cities, and so we can really get ahead of the thing and Sue did a lot of work on this.

IRVINE: Unfortunately, I did a lot of work rather late so I don’t have anything very final.

SANTANGELO: What you have is good.

IRVINE: But, I did go out on the internet and actually spoke with some people on the phone, as well. And Portland, Oregon seems to have one of the most progressive systems for dealing with their solid waste. They have a Bureau of Water which is separate from their Department of Environmental Services, but Environmental Services does cover water quality protection, sewage treatment, wastewater collection, sewer installation, solid waste collection, and recycling services. They franchise out, I think, the solid waste and recycling, but it’s pretty much required, if you’re in the city, I think, to partake of all of these services.

One of the other places I looked was San Luis Obispo where they have a Utilities Department, which is separate from Public Works. Public Works does the sort of things like trees on the streets, and street resurfacing, capital improvements. But the Utilities Division does water, wastewater, and administers, also, the refuse and recycling franchises.

I think we need to look for some places that are more rural, which of course, we are. I don’t know anything about the statistics on our island, of how many people actually hire somebody to pick up their garbage vs. how many people bring in their own. I definitely feel we need to provide some kind of emphasis on global recycling before we get done with our Commission, but whether we can just assign a Commission to look into this, or whether we need to actually find a Division within our Public Works that would be headed by somebody from the professional environmental community, I’m not sure.

RAY: Let me interject. We’re talking about Charter recommendations here, and a lot of these things would really be administrative initiatives, if the Mayor wants to, and the Mayor already has that authority to appoint a Committee or -

HERKES: A department?

RAY: Well -

HERKES: He can’t create a department.

IRVINE: No, he can’t create a department.

RAY: No, that would be something significant to look at.

SANTANGELO: What I wanted to add, John, is that if you look at the Charter, even if you look at the Department of Public Works, which is just a real little bit, in it’s duties and powers, as prescribed by ordinance. We’re not going to write that ordinance. As a Commission, as I understand it, could establish a Department of Environmental or Department of Utilities, but then that ordinance would then be written, or brought together, by whom? Would that be the Council?

HERKES: Ordinances are written by the Council, right?

SANTANGELO: Yes. So, whether it’s going to address recycling, this or that, or the other thing, would become a process unto itself. We would just simply make the decision whether we felt it was important to have a department. We can’t tell it that it’s going to recycle. We can’t tell it these other things, right?

HERKES: We can say Environmental Services Department will manage solid waste, wastewater, recycling and sewers, or whatever we want to say. I mean, as an example, that might be the kind of wording that you can put in the Charter, and then you can put managed by an administrator, and you can actually describe. Some of them describe fairly well the kinds of things that they do, some of the descriptions that are in the Charter now, of the departments.

IRVINE: And certainly, the information I have does say Environmental Services is a city owned utility providing Portland residents with wastewater quality protection, sewage treatment, wastewater collection, sewer installation, solid waste collection, and recycling services. You could make a statement something like that. I have not yet found actual enabling legislation on these websites, or with anybody that I talked to.

SANTANGELO: But I think the point being is if we put that before the voters, they voted that, then it would be incumbent upon the government, then, to go ahead and do that.

HERKES: It would be in the Charter. They’d have to do it. Sue, what’s the definition of a utility? I don’t have my dictionary with me and I don’t really know.

IRVINE: It seems to me it varies. Like with San Luis Obispo, that has a Utilities Department, and to me, that is the same department that usually is called, sort of, Environmental Services in Portland. The Utilities Department here has responsibility for citizens’ water and sewer systems, as well as for the administration of the refuse franchise and the recycling activities.

HERKES: We have a Public Utilities Commission and that’s electricity and telephone.

IRVINE: Yes. Well, these folks consider this other stuff utilities as well, which they often are.

YUEN: Yes, I think I can explain it.

IRVINE: Oh, good.

YUEN: I think the example that Sue just gave of San Luis Obispo, I think that’s just a name that they’re calling their service.

HERKES: There’s not really a definition?

YUEN: Right. When you speak of a public utility in the State of Hawaii, there is a Public Utilities Commission and there’s certain companies that are franchised as public utilities, like the electric company and the phone company, and a few others that are regulated and provide these services, but in fact, they’re basically private organizations. There’s the theoretical regulation and control by the government, but they’re 98% privately run. And that example, in San Luis Obispo, that’s just what they’re calling their organization there.

HERKES: Okay, thank you.

SANTANGELO: And I think the question came up for us, when we looked at this Commission, and maybe I’m mistaken, but that really wasn’t something we were going to deal with. That again, like John said, that’s the Mayor or the Council, and so we started looking at the department more, because to me, the Commission has little or no teeth at all. And where I’m coming from, and I’d really like to know from the other members here is, are we interested in having our environmental issues handled separately with different expertise, and therefore, are we inclined to look at a department?

IRVINE: Or a Division within Public Works. I mean mandate a Division. I’m not ready, yet -

SANTANGELO: I, personally, would like to see it to be not within Public Works.

IRVINE: Well, depending if we’re going to leave, quote, Engineer in charge of Public Works or whether we were going to more of a management person, and then underneath that, have the expertise in the various fields.

SANTANGELO: But you, yourself, in everything you’ve found, has it separate.

HIGASHI: I would favor a separate department. But, within the description, I would favor the franchising, or privatizing a lot of the issues, if it’s possible within the Charter.

IRVINE: These things are private right now, and what they say in here is that they’re in charge of the administration of the refuse franchise and recycling activities, so that the government would be in charge of hiring somebody to do it, and saying -

HIGASHI: I probably would favor language that would spell it out, or whichever is most financially responsible.

HERKES: Managed competition?

IRVINE: Maybe we need to talk some more with Recycle Hawaii. They must have at least a handle on what percentage of people do their own garbage.

HIGASHI: But the bigger issue is, like, talking to Waste Management. Are they making money? Can private people handle this?

IRVINE: Waste Management presently, if you’ve read about their stock and whatnot, there’s major -

HIGASHI: I don’t want to get into their stock, but if there are other companies and whether private people are financially able to handle that.

IRVINE: How would we go about that, Roland? How do you think we should -

HERKES: Look up in your phone book under Waste Disposal Firms. Call them up. Talk to Rick Walton. Talk to them.

IRVINE: Do we have some here?

HERKES: Yes, we have some and they do condominiums a lot. That’s a big part of their business is picking up refuse from condominiums.

SANTANGELO: One thing I’d like to interject. When I was looking at this and went to the LA Sanitation District, where they had that. One of the things we were warned, and they’re marvelous people, and frankly, we could get one here if we so desired, and they’re running one of the biggest in the nation, And they had a separation. When it came to the picking up, and all that kind of stuff, that you left private, but you never let that come into the actual dealing with it, because the dealing with it had such technology involved, and you know I’m one that’s home rule, but sometimes government does things a little bit better in having that expertise within your department, and not being held hostage by it at some point. So, there was, in their recommendation, a separation. And then, if you had the refuse, and you let that get too far in there, there was impacts financially on the public that were very negative and they could articulate that a lot better than I can, but there was very clear areas where they departed.

HIGASHI: Mr. Chair.

RAY: Yes?

HIGASHI: Is there a sense of support to having this department, and we kind of take it to the next step in terms of committee work? Is that where we should go? It seems there’s a lot of small questions.

RAY: I’m a little bit taken off guard. We had two communications from Recycle Hawaii, and one, and I thought we were focusing on that a little more, was a committee or a Commission for solid waste and the environment. But in an earlier communication, they had talked about a Department of the Environment, so both are certainly possibilities. So, it sounds like there’s certainly a level of interest, that we should explore this.

HERKES: I think there is. I don’t know. Gary?

YOSHIYAMA: Let me interject a couple of things. First of all, regarding privatization or managed competition. These are being discussed, or handled, right now in the State government because last year, I believe, a bill was passed that created a Commission, or Board, to talk about privatization and moving, at least State Government, and we’ve got to follow some of those laws, or setting up a mechanism for managed competition, and setting limits, or parameters, for privatization. So that is being done, and it’s supposed to make a report to the Legislature this 2000 legislative session.

Regarding Department or Commission. I’m a little stuck here because I don’t know whether or not our County has a policy on the disposition of waste and recycling. And so, without some kind of direction, or policy, I would lean towards a Commission, rather than setting up a department, because all of us here may have a different idea as to what’s the function of the department. So, anyway, that’s where I’m at right now.

WEST: Could I say something to maybe clear a few things up?

RAY: Sure.

WEST: I would shy away from the word ‘environmental’ because you’re also dealing with air quality. The State Health Department seems to have the run of things, and also within the State Health Department, they have a Recycling Department, and so the whole word ‘environmental’ is another animal that, I think, the State Health Department is handling very well. And, within the State Health Department, they also handle the Federal regulations. We don’t have a Federal Health Department here, as such. So I think they’re handling it and I hate to see a lot of duplication of things. Recycle Hawaii has a lot of good information, and they are in the midst of changing Executive Directors right now, so there’s a little lag in there. As with the Solid Waste Department, they changed heads I don’t know how many times in the last years, and to ask them about things, and those sort of deals, they don’t have that information. They never had, until Recycle Hawaii came up, how much it costs per ton for the County to handle solid waste. So, within the department, it’s tough, if you have Recycle Hawaii who has already had grants to go for this information and to research the community, and have public meetings on all this sort of things. And they’ve got various reports on all kinds of things so make use of them.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: I have a really good brochure from Maui’s recycling program that’s excellent, and I’ll mail it to you because it really lays out all of their policies, and I don’t know what their structure is, but I would think that maybe that would be something - I think that my experience with recycling is that the private sector has not behaved well, and I can remember cars, first we had oil, then we had waste, now we have waste mixed with oil. We had some glass problems. So, I think that there’s some enforcement, or some structure, that needs to be fairly strong, dealing with public waste. This is public waste, and I’m not necessarily against managed competition, or privatization, but structure is lacking here. I don’t know why. Portland can handle it so well. Oregon can handle it. It seems Maui’s handling it really well. But we just keep failing to handle it well, and I think that we don’t have a commitment to handle it.

IRVINE: I guess that’s why we’re trying to mandate a commitment.

HERKES: Yes, that’s why I’m trying to look at how that commitment’s going to look.

IRVINE: It’s not in the Maui Charter. I’ll say that. So, if they’re doing a good job -

HERKES: It’s a private - Maui Recycling, and they’re the one that’s doing bio-waste. They’re doing a bunch of stuff that we keep failing to do, or we just can’t figure out how to do, and these are private sector people that are not figuring it out.

RAY: But, she’s just pointing out that that’s something that’s an administrative, public decision.

HERKES: Yes.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: Again, you could look at some of this and be sorry we brought it up at all. I don’t know if privatization - I would hate to see this thing held hostage by that. For me, personally, I’m looking at do we feel, on this island, and I was a member of the Pay-As-You-Throw Committee, and worked with recycle there. I’ve been involved with this for a while, and it occurred to me that these are special issues that need to be addressed a certain way. It’s kind of like the City Manager. Are we ready to rewrite the whole Charter? I don’t think so. But by the same token, how much energy do we need to devote to this? If we make a decision, based on the information available from other entities, that a department does well in handling this, and that there’s a process that flushes that out, then can we decide to do it that way, and I don’t know that privatization’s a part of it, or any of this other. To me, it’s much simpler than that, and maybe I’m wrong. And if it is as simple as I think it is, I’d like to see us move forward, and if it’s not, I’d be against it.

IRVINE: It’s hard to call it privatization when it’s all in the private sector right now.

SANTANGELO: But Sue, why are we even dealing with that? What can we do as a Commission? Can’t we put up a department? How it’s handled, we don’t dictate that. I don’t see how the Charter - and if it does, why don’t we go into Public Works and demand that be private? And mind you, I’m into privatization, but not here. This is something that’s so interwoven in the State that it’s got to be handled the way it is. So, are we interested in a department to handle environmentals, or are we going to do it from -

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I must say I’m not ready to make a recommendation at this point. I hesitate to develop new departments, myself. On the other hand, I think we really need something to be done, and whether we have to mandate it under Public Works, as one of their focuses, or whether you can say you must hire somebody that has some experience in refuse management and recycling, I don’t know.

HERKES: Are you looking for a commitment from us to elevate the issue of public waste in the County Charter?

IRVINE: Sure. Okay.

HERKES: Okay, you’ve got the commitment.

IRVINE: I’ll keep looking into this. Can we just take it up again on February 5th. Roland said that maybe we should contact the people that are in Waste Management here. John’s been in contact with Environment Hawaii. I’ve been to some of their meetings too, and I know they have an agenda that they’re going to the County Council with, which is quite separate from this as far as I’m concerned.

SANTANGELO: Right, and we don’t need to deal with that either. This is something that deals with all of that later on. To me, it’s real simple.

RAY: Go ahead, Roland.

HIGASHI: My whole idea on this initiative was at least to have it in the Charter so that, as we move along in the future, we have an opportunity to either plan for that department - Maybe we’re not ready to do it now, but if it’s in the Charter, and we need to have language to allow it to happen, and if our legal counsel can, kind of, put some language in there that would reflect that, because if it’s not in the Charter, we’ll be faced with the same problem we have now.

YUEN: You can authorize a separate department, which would then have an implementing ordinance, at some point down the road, when the people who are a little closer to how the thing is actually going to be run, have a better idea of what they’re going to do. We’ve talked a little bit about the operations of a department like this, whether it would handle recycling and solid waste, and naturally, the operations and the structure need to go together. And I don’t know that the Charter Commission is going to be able to get their hands on how something like this is actually going to work in practice. So, without too much trouble, we could authorize a department. We could say something about recycling being a function of the new department, or if they don’t create the new department, that Public Works is supposed to pay a little more attention to it. Because I think that that’s where a lot of the groups that have been involved in recycling are more concerned about, rather than is there a separate department. It’s that they feel that it hasn’t worked for them with the people that they have to work through in the County, rather than how the organization chart works. It’s just that the operation hasn’t happened right. As far as your question, can I do that? Yes, that’s something that can be done without a great deal of detail and additional kinds of research and decision making, because we’re not going to be spelling out organizational structure that moves over.

HIGASHI: And I think the Charter should be broad, but we should define a responsibility if we can. And, Mr. Chair, I’d like to ask legal counsel, with the consent of everybody, to, kind of, formalize some parameters to begin with, because right now, we’re getting into the detailed things of operational, and this and that.

RAY: Okay. Chris, are you comfortable going ahead on that basis?

YUEN: Yes, I can do that. I’ve heard enough of what people are trying to get toward to put up something.

IRVINE: I have a lot of papers here with descriptions of these various departments.

RAY: So, do we want to take any sort of preliminary vote on this, or wait till we get some language, and see where it’s headed?

HERKES: How does Chris feel about that? Do you need a vote, Chris? Would you feel more comfortable?

YUEN: No, I think it’s all right at this stage. I think that people are interested, and you can always vote.

RAY: I’d rather not vote today. It’s just, kind of, caught me off guard. I’m not sure just where we’re heading. I’d like to see it shape up a little bit.

HERKES: I think rather than mentioning managed competition or privatization, which are buzz words, we’d like to look at partnerships that will make this work; public and private partnerships.

HIGASHI: Again, I think we’re getting into managing the operation itself. The concept of the Charter is to have broad language in there which allow responsible people to develop programs.

YUEN: I would say that you don’t want the Charter to be an obstacle toward how things are implemented. If you leave it open in the Charter, then whatever is legal under whatever changes might be made in the next few years, then can be put into place. If you put that you’re supposed to emphasize a certain form, and that’s not where the State legislation goes in the future, then you’ve stuck yourself into a corner again. It’s for the people that put it into effect to determine what is going to be the most efficient at the time; maybe all private operators; maybe they decide they want to go municipal; but one way or the other, this has got to last for a while.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: Chris, so say this department’s put in; we create that; it’s on the ballot; it’s passed, as ordained by ordinance. Then, that would be the Executive and Legislative that would bang that out, and it would be a public process, and Council members would all get -

YUEN: Right, because there has to be some Council authorization when positions are moved back and forth, anyway. That’s when that would happen, as to exactly what bodies, when. Because when you talk about reorganizations, we’re not talking here about something that would result in the County hiring 40 new people. We’re talking about something that moves a line of people from the Department of Public Works into another organization, and there’s going to be ordinances involved, and there’s going to be funding to pay for all these people going over there. So, there has to be cooperation in the future. Even if we mandated it in the Charter, that there has to be this split, then actually, which people go over and which lines in the department, that’s still going to be worked out later with the Council and the Mayor.

SANTANGELO: Thank you.

RAY: Isn’t that kind of the approach we’re taking with this Division of Permitting? In other words, making a change in the Charter to enable the Administration to come forth with a proposal, and then they work it out?

YUEN: That’s right. To take all the obstacles in the Charter away from reorganizing within the County Government so that the Council and the Mayor, who are, actually every day in the building, trying to get the job done, are never going to be stuck by something in the Charter.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I thought there was some move to reconsider that business about permitting. Was that not true? We voted to accept the proposal by the Planning Department to move it. Did we change our mind on that later?

RAY: Yes.

IRVINE: Okay.

RAY: We decided, rather than us mandating, we would remove language so that the Administration could come forth with that proposal and then the same process would take place.

IRVINE: Okay, I had just seen where we had this preliminary vote, and then we did change our minds.

YUEN: It’s not really inconsistent with what was voted on. But at that time, when we voted, Planning was saying mandate it, and then I met with Planning, and I think John talked with them as well, and it seemed like what they wanted to do could be done just as efficiently by giving them the authorization to move people between Planning and Public Works, and perhaps even share people in areas so you can have different satellite offices and people might be cross-trained or cross-listed. And also acknowledging that they still would need implementing action by the Council and the Mayor, even if it was mandated. So, just take the language out that makes it seem like subdivisions have to be in the Planning Department, and then they can, by administratively, move functions back and forth more easily. So, I think that that’s where we ended up with that. But, that one there, I’ve never presented a final draft for the Commission to vote on and, and we’ll be doing that, I don’t know when, but pretty soon some time, I’ll do that one.

RAY: Any more discussion on this department, or committee, or Commission of Environment? Okay, good. Well, I think we’ve made some good progress there.

We have another member of the public who has shown up to submit testimony, so let’s go ahead and do that. Ginger Towle. Ginger.

TOWLE: I’m here representing myself, however, I belong to a number of organizations in Kona; Kona Crime Prevention, Kona Property Owners Association, and West Hawaii Humane Society, and so forth. And I seem to be one of these people that people call to find out what’s going on, and ‘would you please tell those people certain things’, and the thing that comes to me from many people that said are you going to go to that meeting, is two main things that seem to be uppermost in people’s mind is they want a County Manager and they want non-partisan voting. And those are the two things they keep coming to me. And then I came because I want to be informed, and if I can help in any way. Unfortunately, most of the public don’t come forward. They tell somebody ‘would you tell those guys’. So, that’s my message and I feel that this is something that would be helpful to our county, and I think they feel that those two items would help County government run more smoothly. So, that’s my message.

RAY: Just so you know, we’ve taken preliminary votes on both those items, and what that does, is it triggers our legal counsel to come up with some sort of language that, presumably, will produce a preliminary slate of recommendations, and then we’ll go out for public hearing and input and whatever, on those. And in regard to the non-partisan elections, we have voted to pursue that. In regard to the Council Manager form of government, we have voted not to pursue that, but we are discussing, and it’s on the agenda today, some pretty significant language changes in regard to the Managing Director position, to try to make that more of a City Manager type of position. So, if you’ll sit around, I’m sure you’ll be interested in that. So rather than go into the Council Manager, it would still be a Manager under the Mayor. The Mayor would still be the CEO, but that manager would, hopefully, be more of a City Manager type. And so, anyway, we’re going to be talking about that in just a few minutes.

TOWLE: Good. I think what people have said is that they’d like the Mayor just to cut ribbons, but they’d like someone in there that has the experience to run the County. So, thank you very much.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: Thank you, Ginger. I would encourage your friends to write letters if they don’t want to come in person. Also, I think that, in the interest of information, you should know that we are discussing a different structure of voting, of representation; 6-3 with 3 island-wide and 6 district specific. I’m in favor of that because West Hawaii doesn’t get the representation, and I live in West Hawaii, so I could say why I’m in favor of it. However, I wasn’t the one that proposed it, and we have several reasons, but it may be a good discussion item for your group, along with non-partisan and City Manager. Thank you.

TOWLE: Thank you. If Marni doesn’t know the answers, then they call me.

HERKES: They don’t call me because I’m on the Commission.

RAY: I’d like to wait till Steve gets back before we go into the Managing Director. He should be back. Let’s take a brief recess.

RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 9:55 a.m.

RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:03 a.m.

RAY: I’d like to call the meeting back to order. Under Unfinished Business, a couple of items listed here in regard to the vote we took on the 6-3 Council terms, and some stuff we need to discuss further, as far as the mechanics of that; how it would work. The term limits is one, and then how non-partisan voting would work. In other words, if the non-partisan gets voted in, then for instance, how do the Council persons at-large get elected under the non-partisan scenario. Chris, you want to go over this, and bring up, if there’s anything else. As part of that overall suggested Amendment, I assume these would be lumped together. In other words, if we’re recommending 6-3, how it would work, so we need to give Chris some direction on that.

Sue.

IRVINE: Did you just say that 6-3 and non-partisanship would be lumped together?

YUEN: Is Roland coming back? Because he made the motion to do that. Why don’t we wait till Roland comes back on that.

RAY: Okay.

MARTIN: As I was mentioning to the Chair outside, if I may.

RAY: Sure.

MARTIN: Because he’s not back, but it’s on the non-partisan. I was talking to our counsel from the stairs the other day, and two ideas came up to me regarding the non-partisan. If a person runs unopposed, they should only run in the Primary, and they be bound over as elected, and wouldn’t have to run in the General, therefore saving money on the printing of the next ballot. Also, if two people run, the same thing.

RAY: Wasn’t it last time that they didn’t even go on the ballot. Don’t you remember that? Because Dominic was all upset because he didn’t even get on the ballot because he ran unopposed.

YUEN: Yes, if you’re unopposed, you don’t go on the second ballot.

MARTIN: Right. If you run only two people. You and I run, and you beat me, you should, right there, be bound over as elected. Why should you run again and have the same result again? And cost factor is what I’m looking at, to the County.

YUEN: You’re elected outright. And this was your motion on the non-partisan, and this is the way we wrote it up that it would work, exactly like that.

MARTIN: Okay. As long as it’s written because you know how our public works it sometimes.

YUEN: Actually, it’s guaranteed if you only have two, one would be elected outright in the first election, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call the Primary Election because it would be held at the time of the Primary, but because blanks and spoils are not counted, with two people, somebody’s got to win. And so, that will not carry over.

We started this discussion a minute ago when Roland was out, and I wanted you to come back. I think there’s two details left on the 6-3 that passed, that the Commission just needs to give me a little direction on so that I can finalize that item. And the two issues are: Are there term limits for the 3 at-larges, and if so, how does that work? Is it going to be four terms of two years? Two times four years? And I really wasn’t sure from reading the minutes how the Commission wanted to go on that.

RAY: Another thing in regard to term limits that we need to explore is do we want to make any exception on the eight-year term limit to accommodate the Council persons at-large. In other words, if you’ve served 3 two-year terms, could you run Council at-large and, in essence, serve - because that’s another -

HIGASHI: Another office.

IRVINE: John, it would seem to me that it’s pretty obviously a different office

if it’s the at-large seat. Isn’t it?

RAY: I don’t think it’s entirely obvious to anybody, and one of the big issues in regard to term limits had to do with vesting retirement, so that’s very much on the -

HERKES: Isn’t it funny the voters didn’t think about that a lot.

YUEN: Not something that they were really worried about.

RAY: But, isn’t that something else we need to consider?

YUEN: You’re absolutely right, and because this is something that’s new, it needs just to be decided, and John is right to add that on there. It can be done either way, but it should be spelled out so the people look at it and there’s no uncertainty. And is it going to be considered as a new office if you do your eight years as a district Council member, and you’re looking at, oh, I want to stay on the Council, can you run for at-large, whether it’s two or four, and is that going to count. Any way is legal. It’s up to the Commission to make a decision, and those are the options, really.

RAY: Okay.

HIGASHI: I would say, if you would send us a memo in writing and having it addressed categorically, then we can eliminate those questions one by one at our next meeting.

RAY: I’d like to hear what people are thinking. To me, I think the at-large seats, which I’m not in favor of, but if there are going to be at-large seats, I think they should be four-year terms vs. two-year terms. So, that’s one thing we need to decide. And then I’m not as sure on the term limit thing regarding a new office.

HIGASHI: On the new office. If there is a term limit, then we need to decide. I think it would be two separate issues. No term limit may appear on the ballot if we decide to test whether a term limit is required. Every two years is an election. And if a term limit does exist, then we need to make sure we have language in there. If the term limit is eliminated, then it becomes, whether we have it in, it just be eliminated. A new office thing, I think is more intriguing than the 4 two-year.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: I, kind of, think of elections as term limits. I don’t think of term limits per se, but I’m not against them. It’s just not something that I think is important because elections are term limits. But, I think that the at-large seats are different constituency. It’s a larger constituency. It’s a different office, and therefore, I don’t think the at-large should be tied into the term limits for the single member districts.

RAY: George.

MARTIN: I disagree with that, and I think that we’re talking about a Council person, as the old system used to be, running at-large, and still a Council person. If you’re going to call it something different, then call it something different. But, as long as it’s a Council person, and that’s what we’re talking about, then the term limits should stand. How we deal with it, whether it be two-four, or I’ve even heard somebody mention two-four-two. However we deal with it is fine, but the term limit at eight years has got to stand because the public spoke two or three elections in concession, that they wanted a term limit. To make a change now, we’re fooling ourselves. That ain’t going to happen.

RAY: I’m glad you brought that up. I forgot to acknowledge Councilman Elarinoff who did send in testimony in regard to a possible suggestion, and the two-four-two scenario. So I wanted to acknowledge him for that. Okay, John.

SANTANGELO: I agree that it’s two separate elections and therefore, I would separate the term limits because an at-large is a different constituency. In talking to the public, again, it’s hot and cold, in that you get people that are vehemently against this because they feel like, again, that there’s a thing going on. But, people who did support it were more in tune with the two-year vs. the four-year, so you keep the continuity of the two-year. And again, it’s public perception vs. reality. I favor the 6-3 because I think it’s fair in government, having served there. And just for the purpose of dialoguing, the way elections are done today, and the lack of participation, any group of people on this island that feels like Hilo holds the power, the leverage, because they elect, if in any district, you could get 10% or 15% more to vote, because it’s always 50% or less, any district could have that leverage. So, it really is up to the public apathy, and I don’t know how that’s going to translate when we put it on the ballot, because when you put it on the ballot, I feel it’s doomed to failure. And if you put four-year and two-year, a lot of this may carry the weight with it.

RAY: I’m not sure what you’re saying. Just spell it out for me, under this 6-3 scenario, what are you suggesting in regard to term limits?

SANTANGELO: Okay. Six single member, three at-large, two-year terms with separate term limits. So if you’re serving as a two-year single member representative, you have an eight-year limit. You run for an at-large, you start over again.

RAY: Okay, that’s what you’re saying.

SANTANGELO: Wasn’t that what was suggested before?

HIGASHI: But, in any event, if there is a term limit, we’ll stay with the eight-year term limit, and he would begin a new term, 2 four-year terms would be maximum for the at-large.

RAY: So, you’re suggesting that you could serve 4 two-year terms and then an additional 2 four-year terms?

HERKES: If you can get elected.

RAY: Is that what you’re saying?

HIGASHI: Yes, if you serve for two -

RAY: 4 two-year terms.

HIGASHI: 4 two-year terms.

RAY: Then you could run for an additional 2 four-year terms?

HIGASHI: It’s a different office. Right now, if you live in Hilo and you move to Hamakua, you could probably run for office again.

HERKES: Keep moving around the island, you could -

HIGASHI: I think so. I mean, your title is Councilman, Hamakua. Anyway, that’s some legal question.

YUEN: No, it’s not.

IRVINE: You don’t think so, Chris?

YUEN: No, I don’t think so because the term limits is really directed at the individual. In the terms of the Council members, every time you are serving a new term, but I think they’re looking at you as a Council member. In the present Charter, I would have to say it’s a gray area that was passed in ‘96. Whatever we do, it’s best to spell it out. And so, I understand what you’re saying and that can be spelled out, exactly what you’re saying. Your proposal would really enable somebody to serve 16 years, as long as they went district to at-large, and I understand that, and that could be spelled out plainly, if that’s the sense of all the Commission members.

RAY: Daryl, did you have something to say?

KUROZAWA: I just had a question. Can you talk a little about the two-four-two thing, or do I want to know?

RAY: That was a letter, and I don’t know that I have it.

KUROZAWA: No, I have it all here. I just need a summary. I have all the correspondence.

IRVINE: In a two-four-two proposal, a Council person will be elected to a first term of two years. In his second bid for office, he runs for a four-year term, and then go back to two.

MARTIN: What was the reasoning behind that? He wrote down some reasoning behind it.

IRVINE: The four-year term will convey the message that the constituents are satisfied with the first two-year term performance, thereby granting him a longer term. When the four years are up, the candidate may run for another two-year term, if elected, still conclude his term of office within the eight maximum as practiced today.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: Mr. Chair, so upon adoption of this Amendment, we could be very specific, as of this date, a person can run for two-four-two, or whatever, but cannot exceed eight years from that point. Is that something that would be workable?

HERKES: As a member of the Council?

YUEN: That’s another alternative. That’s different than the one that you just discussed.

HIGASHI: Right.

YUEN: All these things can be done. You could go with at-large being four years, and you can serve eight years total, and then that’s it. That’s an alternative that can be spelled out.

HIGASHI: But it’s specific. If the two-year people chose to run, they would still go under the old term limit. I mean, that could be specific too, right?

YUEN: Right. As it stands, you need to spell that out, how this applies to people who have been running under the district system. But, if we go back to the way you talked about it a couple of minutes ago, where you could do your district term limits and then you’d have a new set of term limits for the at-large, if it were done that way, then somebody in the present Council who had used up their limits, could then go again for at-large. This is another issue we would be talking about, whether you would implement this in 2002 or 2004, but whenever -

HIGASHI: But language could be specific upon adoption of the Charter, the person moving from the two-year term to a four-year term still cannot exceed eight years. I mean, that can be spelled out, too, right?

YUEN: Yes, either way it can be spelled out.

RAY: We could research some other jurisdictions; Lexington, Kentucky, they have different term limits for single member and at-large, for instance, and see how they do that, but my pretty strong sense is that the public’s spoken very strongly about term limits, and I’m not in favor of it anyway, so go ahead, put it out there. But if we extend the term limits that way, I just can’t imagine that would pass. But, there are inconsistencies in there that don’t make sense either. I mean, you serve three terms and you couldn’t run for an at-large, which is a shame. You serve two years, then you serve one at-large, then you couldn’t serve another at-large term, because your term limits would limit you to two years, so that doesn’t seem to make sense either.

IRVINE: Maybe this crew wants to reconsider their at-large position.

HERKES: So, are we moving toward a limit of 16 years, let’s say eight years or 16 years serving on the County Council, no matter where you’re from or what district you’re from? Are we moving toward some kind of end limit?

RAY: My sens is that the public has very much established an end limit, and I don’t think you’re going to change that.

HERKES: No, that’s fine, but how do we phrase it? How do we put it in here?

RAY: My sense is the only thing that would pass would be leave it at the eight-year term limit.

HERKES: On the County Council, period.

RAY: Right. But, that’s just a personal opinion.

HERKES: I understand that. I’m just trying to figure out the phrasing.

RAY: So that means that you could serve no more than the 2 two-year terms to run for -

HERKES: Or 2 four-year terms.

RAY: Yes, you could.

IRVINE: John, does Chris feel that we would need to put in here that the term limit applies to an individual rather than a given office within the County Council?

YUEN: I need to know exactly what the Commission wants on this, and it’s good that we’re having this discussion because it does have to be spelled out. Basically, there are two ways to do it. You either count them together or you don’t, and it’s not really for me to decide which, but it needs to be spelled out. Otherwise, these people are going to have this big argument when they finish their eight years. They’ll say, well, I’m going to run for another office, and then people will be digging out our minutes from January, 2000, and they’ll say, what the hell, and why didn’t they spell this out, and where was Yuen.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: And, that’s consecutive.

YUEN: Right. I think under the present Charter, it’s consecutive, and you can start over again after a break. And the reason I say that is that the general rule is there isn’t a limit unless there says there’s a limit. So, if it says there’s a four consecutive two-year term limit, then it doesn’t say anything against running again after a break, so you can do that.

SANTANGELO: The reason I bring that up, for fun, you run for eight years. Now you go to the at-large, and you run for four. Can you go back to the two-year and run for another eight?

YUEN: It depends how you write it. There’s two, if you want to call them, proposals, or two alternatives, that have been put out, and one is eight years, and that’s it, no matter whether you’re at-large, and I guess everybody seems to be on the idea of the at-large as being four years. I’m getting body language that that’s where people are at, so let’s talk about that rather than confusing it.

SANTANGELO: So, for me, what I’ve heard here today that appeals to me, that’s new, is you keep it at eight years because I personally feel that 6-3 works better for all people, and so you run 2 two-year terms, and if you want to run at-large, go for the four, but you’re limited to the eight. And that wasn’t something that was in my mind when I came in here today, but that seems to be something that maybe people understand, that nobody’s trying to pull a fast one.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: Since we have committees, you want to form another committee and work together with Chris and come up with several languages for, probably, two meetings from now?

YUEN: I think it’s clear in everybody’s mind what the alternatives are. I think, if we want to discuss it more, but I think people should come to a decision. I don’t know that there’s much more to be said about where this goes. I would say that the reasoning does become a little bit different when you have two separate offices. I mean, the outcome of having term limits, if you’re in a district, is that you do have the turnover. There’s two ways of looking at it. How long do you want the same person in. And then there’s also, do you want to have a vacancy so that somebody else has a chance on the spot. If the person runs for a different office, say they go to at-large, they are opening up the district, and in that sense, that one aspect of term limits has been fulfilled that nobody is just going to sit there in their district, representing that district for 20 years or so, or 16 years.

HERKES: Even if their district wants them.

YUEN: But, that’s the result of term limits, that no matter how popular the person may turn out to be, you always have to get rid of them.

HERKES: I understand.

YUEN: What I’m suggesting, though, is there’s not a study that tells you what the pros and cons are. It’s a decision that has to be made, whether it’s just going to be an eight year cap or whether it’s going to go potentially to sixteen years.

RAY: George.

MARTIN: The two-year hiatus, if someone is popular, gives them the opportunity to run again, and if they are that good, they’ll be re-elected. It’s just a comment. I guess a motion is in order to have Chris to write it as eight year cap in both manners; the person and the position, so that there be no finagling done, or say, well, they talked about the person, and as I heard mention over here, if you move district, then it changes. So the person and the position, eight year max. Now, we can still play with the 6-3, which I think is a great idea, and if we want to put a four-year, that, in itself, is a different issue. If we put four years on the at-large, no problem, but there’s still an eight year max, no matter which way you look at it.

IRVINE: Eight consecutive, right?

MARTIN: Consecutive, correct.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: I don’t have a problem with eight consecutive years, upon adoption of this Amendment, where the at-large person would begin for eight consecutive years. I think we need to, kind of, establish the beginning date. If a person is already six years in office, it would preclude him from running for the at-large.

MARTIN: Correct.

HIGASHI: And I think we shouldn’t preclude anybody from running for office at the beginning. After that, eight consecutive years, I have no problem with that, if there is term limits. I’m one that probably proposed that no term limit as another Amendment, all by itself. I mean, it’s not tied in, just maybe have a term limit, but if the Amendment with no term limits would pass -

RAY: We looked at this in all these different permutations and combinations because I introduced the four-year term limits, so how that would effect people in office and whatever, and one way you might look at that, Roland, is that if you’d been in office for three terms, or six years, the one exception would be you could run for an additional four-year term, because it’s really hard to make it fair for everybody, wherever they might be, and in whatever cycle.

HERKES: Because it’s not fair. Basically, it’s not fair.

RAY: I remember we couldn’t make it come out perfectly because of when the term limits had taken place, which, to the shock of everybody in office, was the day they were voted on in 1996, that’s when the 4 two-year terms started, and everybody had thought it was going to take place, or start, in the next election, but there was no language in regard to that, so actually, the clock started ticking on the 4 two-year terms in November, whatever, 1996. But anyway, trying to accommodate all those types of things, a similar discussion we had was you could create that one exception. Maybe that’s a fair way to do it so if somebody had been in office for six years, it wouldn’t preclude them from running for one at-large term. So that way, then if that happened, then they would be able to serve ten years vs. eight years.

SANTANGELO: That happened anyway, when they set up the eight-year, because there was some people already on it.

RAY: You know you can’t make it work out perfectly, but I’m just throwing that out there as a possible suggestion.

HERKES: Can I ask Chris a question? Chris, has there ever been an enterprising legal challenge to term limits because voters have been disenfranchised? You’re taking away my opportunity to vote for a candidate that I want.

YUEN: Term limits are legal on a State level down. The congressional term limits are unconstitutional, when States have passed limits on how many times you can re-elect your own Congress member, but on the local level, it’s legal.

HERKES: Nobody’s challenged it?

YUEN: Oh, I’m sure there’s been challenges, but the public has the right to create term limits unless there is some overriding law that says you can’t, and it’s not prohibited by the Federal Constitution, which has a term limit for the President. It’s not prohibited by the State Constitution in this State, at least. Probably not in any state. And so, at the Charter level, the voters are free to put in whatever term limits they want because the individual who’s in office - their right to stay in office is at the end of every term, so they don’t have a right to stay in a particular office forever, and the public doesn’t have the right to keep voting for somebody that they like, if the public, in the past, made a decision that they were going to impose term limits across the board, they didn’t put any exceptions. If they want to keep the people in, they may have to change that Charter provision.

RAY: George.

MARTIN: On what you were saying, John, I agree that an individual would not have his or her opportunity on the at-large if, in fact, we do go with it, and the public accepts it, and it’s a four-year situation. But I believe we can write into the Charter, and because there’s only, I believe, six individuals that this would pertain to, those individuals that would have that opportunity, once they’re out of office, it would no longer be an issue.

RAY: We did have six new people come in in ‘96 so all those six, if they’re still in office, would be effected by this. That means all those six, when this would take place, presumably in 2002, none of those six could run for at-large seats under the present term limits, so that’s -

HERKES: Let’s pass it. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

RAY: Which does seem contrary to the - so anyhow, I’m just bringing that up. So that just points out the six people, presumably, in terms of their experience and what they could contribute, all six would be precluded from running for a four-year term, and presumably, those people, if they’ve been elected, and could get elected, are the six people you’d most want to be elected, I would think.

MARTIN: But we have only three positions. Only three of them would be able to win.

RAY: I understand. Sue.

IRVINE: Lexington Charter does not seem to address this problem, either the transition or whether the term limits apply from the single member districts to the at-large. They just seem to be separate in here, and it doesn’t address what we’re worrying about.

RAY: It would be interesting to see if they are treated as separate offices, and how that works in other - I’d be interested. Daryl.

KUROZAWA: There’s actually one other option. If you don’t want to mess with the term limits, the other option would be that an at-large be run at six years, but they would have to step down in two years. We’re just saying that if they know they have an eight-year limit, they can run after their second term of their two-year term.

RAY: Yes. We want to make this as simple as possible, so the harder it is to understand, the more confusing it is in the ballot booth, and the more chances are that people are just going to throw up their hands and just, kind of, give up and mark it willy nilly, which probably, most people, on most of these things, do anyway. Roland.

HIGASHI: So, where are we going to begin with the draft?

MARTIN: I thought I made a motion.

YOSHIYAMA: It died lack of a second.

HIGASHI: I didn’t hear any motion.

RAY: I thought George had made a motion to -

MARTIN: The motion was pretty simple, to write it as an eight-year cap, with both scenarios, the person and the position, whether it be at-large and/or district.

YUEN: I understand. What George’s motion is is an eight-year max limit, and it’s not treated as a separate office so if you’ve been in the district for eight years, you cannot run at-large. If you’ve been at-large eight years, you cannot run for the district.

MARTIN: And then the discussion came about, what about these individuals that possibly have six. By the time this is implemented, would they not have the opportunity, and therefore, the discussion. But as Gary was saying, the motion wasn’t seconded.

RAY: Well, do we have a second?

IRVINE: I’ll second it.

RAY: Okay. Discussion.

YOSHIYAMA: Clarification Purposes. That’s with the understanding that the at-large seat is for four years and the single member two. Okay, thank you.

HIGASHI: Has it been established that the four-year is a new office?

YUEN: It would not be considered a new office under George’s proposal. His motion is that any individual would have eight years on the Council, no matter whether they were at-large or district.

HIGASHI: So the person that’s serving six years now would be precluded from running for the at-large office. Is that a correct assumption?

YUEN: After he made that motion, then that was the discussion we started off on, and I think the way that the motion was stated, it would not allow the person to go six plus four. It’s up to you folks, of course, whether you want to allow the six plus four, but if you are going to allow six plus four, it should be not just for the Council members who happen to be in office now going into the transition, but it should be applicable on into the future because if you want to allow a Council member to serve ten years, why should that apply to just the Council members who happen to be on two-year terms now, as opposed to ten years from now if somebody served six years in the district and they want to go to a four-year term. I don’t know why you would, in effect, treat the existing Council members differently than the Council members in the future.

IRVINE: Because they were unaware of this law at the time that they ran for their third term, whereas they might have gone at-large at that time. They’re in a different situation because they didn’t know that we had this new law changing the rules.

MARTIN: Pre-existing. Grandfathering.

IRVINE: Yes, grandfathering.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: And, conversely, if someone who is fortunate to only be four years, then they would have that opportunity to run for that, and that would give them advantage over the other Council member that didn’t, so I don’t know, Chris, I may agree with you, but not for that reason. I would be not condoning ten-year terms, period, but maybe on a changeover time, an adjustment period, because we did that.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: The language can be very clear on adoption. We could allow the present Councilmen to run for a four-year term, and language could be had where anybody else would - eight-year term -

RAY: As a one time exception, at the most, it could effect three people, but only if they could get elected, so it doesn’t seem like it’s as big a deal as -

SANTANGELO: As we’re making it out to be.

RAY: When you first said it. You are just recognizing the changeover and, sort of, grandfathering in an exception to recognize that.

HERKES: Can’t we just say limits begin in 2002, if accepted?

MARTIN: Then it jumps on a four-year term.

IRVINE: We already have term limits.

HERKES: Term limits will begin -

RAY: We’re already in term limits.

HERKES: I know, but term limits for the new Council district offices will begin in 2002.

YUEN: Now we’ve been talking about this transition, I think that was the assumption that was being discussed. There is another question that’s now a related question. If the voters in the next election go to a 6-3, whether you want to start that in 2002 or 2004. The issue becomes do you want to tie it in with the cycle of the Mayor’s election or do you want to tie it in with the off cycle of the Mayor’s election, or you could start with a two-year in 2002, and then go to four years in 2004, if you want. It complicates it. There’s not really a legal reason, but it’s more to look at the practicality of it. I’m trying to just raise, as part of the practicalities, that perhaps some of your mayoral candidates will come from the ranks of the three at-large, and if their terms are co-extensive with the Mayor’s term, then their term ends, they run for Mayor. If it’s on the off cycle, then in the mid-term of their four-year term, then they run for Mayor. And there’s dynamics either way. I just want to point that out.

HERKES: But none of those dynamics are things that voters understand, and the problem is that kind of thinking leads us into language on a ballot that the voters cannot understand. It leads us into a whole bunch of things that voters don’t care about. They want it clear; when does this start; you’re leading the language, you’re personalizing it. Just simple language is what we want on our ballot.

RAY: Let me ask Chris another question, too. Just the whole idea of a four-year delay for implement - that’s a real negative. Things change so much in four years, it just -

HERKES: Yes, let’s do it. Yes, in four years, we’ll think of something different to do.

YUEN: I definitely agree that delaying implementation to 2004 is a negative. I’m bringing up when it takes place and the political connection with the Mayor’s term, just as a practical issue that will play a role in the politics of the future, depending upon how this is decided.

RAY: No, I think that’s a good point to bring up. George.

MARTIN: With that implementation and staggering it, whether two or four, if in fact we write it, could it be implemented - no, it couldn’t be implemented in this election.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: Understanding that I left the room for a moment, then, if we go to the six and three, the four-year on the at-large, and just set it at eight years, and you can’t, no matter what, then it’s equally unfair to anybody.

RAY: That’s the motion that’s on the floor right now.

SANTANGELO: Oh good. So, that’s what happened when I was out of the room? I support it.

KUROZAWA: But you were here when the motion was made.

SANTANGELO: No, but we were still discussing a crossover and this is just there is none.

RAY: Does anybody want to amend that with the one exception for the -

HIGASHI: I want to defeat it and then start all over. It is more than this one Amendment.

HERKES: I want it in writing.

RAY: Well, go ahead and discuss what -

HIGASHI: That’s why I wanted him to come up with a draft that we can look at something, and then amend that and move along. You know, with several scenarios. I think he has the gist of what we’re thinking about.

RAY: Well, maybe, could you do it in more of an informal note form?

HIGASHI: John, that’s what he’s been doing up to now and we’ve been taking votes after that.

YUEN: I can draw up four or five options. I could draw up eight max. I can draw up eight max with a one time exception for six-year district Council members to go to ten. I can draw up eight plus eight, for a total of sixteen. Any other alternatives? Does nobody want eight plus eight?

IRVINE: Was anybody thinking eight plus eight?

YUEN: Nobody wants eight plus eight, so I’ll forget that one.

HIGASHI: I’m not saying eight plus eight. It’s a new office, eight consecutive years, maybe. I mean, a person may be only in office for only two years now. A person may be in office for two years and he could run at-large and be only eight consecutive years. It’s not eight plus eight.

YUEN: But I’m saying eight plus eight as a simplified way because those are the main scenarios I’ve heard discussed so far, and I can imagine a few more, but those -

HIGASHI: I think you’ve covered most of them.

MARTIN: There’s always the two-four-two.

RAY: So, we have a motion on the floor. I guess we should vote on that.

HIGASHI: I say we withdraw this motion.

MARTIN: Sorry, sir, I’m not withdrawing it.

SANTANGELO: I would speak against the motion, then, so that we can allow Chris to do what he’s doing, because, for me, it’s about better government, and we need to try to put something out there that people perceive as better government. And this whole discussion started because of how Council members were acting in terms of just territorial parochialism.

RAY: Let’s vote on that motion. Does everybody understand the motion on the floor? George’s motion to strictly limit it to the eight years. All in favor, raise your hand.

HANDS RAISED: G. Martin.

RAY: One. Opposed?

HANDS RAISED: All other Commission members present.

RAY: Okay, so we’re opposed to that and Chris will come up with some different options.

SANTANGELO: Only for the time being.

RAY: Yes, and we could very well go back to that.

SANTANGELO: Because that’s what I would vote for.

RAY: We also needed to work out, or discuss, the language in regard to the non-partisan part of the at-large seats. In other words, if non-partisan elections get voted in, how are we going to treat the non-partisan seats in terms of the specifics of how that works in the Primary vs. the General.

YUEN: This would all be folded into the non-partisan question. It wouldn’t greatly complicate the whole thing. The issue is we voted on the non-partisan, and as far as the single offices like the Mayor or the district Council members, 50% plus 1 vote in the first election gets you elected outright. If nobody is elected outright, the top 2 go on and run against each other in the General. With the 3 member at-large running, I think the idea has been that you don’t have 3 at-large races, but you have a 3 candidate pool. It’s like a multi-member district. And then the decision has to be made. I’m sure, logically, that you all intend that anybody who got 50% plus 1 of the people walking in and casting a ballot for any of those 3 seats would then be elected outright.

RAY: So, if you get 50% plus 1, you’re elected outright in the Primary still.

HERKES: That’s Oahu, right?

YUEN: That’s the way Oahu works. Well, Oahu doesn’t have any multi-member -

RAY: This is bi-partisan and this is the Council at-large seats we’re talking about.

HIGASHI: Yes, multiple race.

HERKES: Non-partisan.

YUEN: Right. Because you have multiple races. Let’s just give this out. Nobody is elected outright, so you’re going to have 3 people selected in the General. How many carry over from your pool of candidates in the Primary? You might have 15 candidates in the Primary, and logically, you could go vacant seats plus one. You could go double, and it’s up to the - again, there’s no right way, there’s no wrong way to do it.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: Under the single member district, we have double, one member, the highest two, which is double.

RAY: Top two, right, move forward.

HIGASHI: So, stands to reason we could go with double. If you have three, and three don’t have 50% or more, then the top six would move up. If one has 50% or more, the next two would move up, so it would be four. Is that something that people can live with?

RAY: So, does everybody understand what Roland’s saying? Whoever moves forward, you just double the numbers.

SANTANGELO: In terms of the top vote getters.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: Does anybody know what’s generally done? Because you could either double or you could go the number of vacant seats plus one. If we went for, like, six, might we still have people elected with a very small plurality of the vote? That’s what I’m wondering. If everybody got almost the same number of votes, the three elected wouldn’t have a great deal of support throughout the island. You know what I mean?

RAY: Yes, I don’t have any gut sense of the -

IRVINE: That’s what I was wondering. Is there any way -

YUEN: I don’t think there’s a standard way of doing this. There’s no right way and there’s no wrong way, and the implications, again, are more political than legal, but the implications are the more you carry to the General, then the more the General counts rather than the Primary. If you only carry one over, then, of course, there’s a bigger scramble than the Primary to get, because the candidate may figure, well, I’ll be in the top six and I’ll spend my money in the General. So, as I say, there’s no right way, there’s no wrong way. Now, what is the clearest way to do it. You’re right, the more people you carry into the General, then the fewer votes you can win with. On the other hand, these are people that are winning. This is your chance to vote, and they’re ahead and -

IRVINE: Yes.

WEST: Since my concern was this non-partisan and the 6-3 and nine whatever Council members make-up, and my concern, once again, is that you’re putting in one - correct me if I’m wrong here - You’re putting into one item on the ballot, that would talk about non-partisan and at the same time, talk about 6 members and 3 at-large. Is that right?

YUEN: No.

WEST: It would be separate?

YUEN: Those are easy to separate.

WEST: Okay.

YUEN: And the way it would be done is that the language concerning the at-large members, that would be put into the non-partisan section, would simply be deleted if the 6-3 did not pass. It just would not roll over into the Charter. People would pass -

WEST: Either people would want non-partisan or not, yes or no.

YUEN: Yes.

WEST: And then they want 6-3 or not.

YUEN: Yes or no. Yes.

WEST: Okay. Then the other issue about how they’re elected and the 50% plus one, would that even be on as a voter item?

YUEN: No, that’s all in the non-partisan section. How many get carried on into the General is all in a separate question, totally dealing with the non-partisan elections.

WEST: Okay, I’ve got you. Simple, plain language, right?

YUEN: And, then the 6-3 is on a separate item. So, if you stayed with partisan elections, the voters could pass a 6-3 and then they’ll just have Primary and General. But if they passed a non-partisan Amendment, and they pass a 6-3 at the same time, then they’ll know what to do.

HERKES: When I’m thinking of standing there in the voting booth, looking at this ballot, that has four people on it, or six people on it, on an at-large spectrum, I only get to vote for one person of the six, but I’m voting for three at-large, and I can put together three that I think will work in my best interest. And I like having a broader choice of the six people, rather than the four, so I’m going to say double is a better way to go because then, out of six people, I have a better opportunity to pick three that will fit what I want to be done.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I guess I’d like to say that if we could all come back prepared to vote on this next time, rather than taking a vote right now, if we could just let us think a little bit. I’m not sure what I think is best right at this moment.

RAY: The other thing is these are preliminary votes. When we go out for public hearing in the general public, we could very well have some really provocative, expert testimony that brings up all sorts of things we haven’t thought about, that could alter our thinking on some of these.

SANTANGELO: Question. To go into with what some of the public concern that’s been voiced here, in that how the non-partisan works, can that not be tied to the multi-member vote and then, if it passes, be incorporated into the non-partisan? Because I understand what was brought up. Some people might read non-partisan, see an implication of multi-member, and reject it out of hand, not understanding.

YUEN: There’s a possibility that they’ll do that, but it’s much simpler to have all the non-partisan provisions in one ballot. Because I suspect is what people will focus on primarily is not how many people get carried from the Primary to the General, but are we going non-partisan. From the Commission’s level, where you’re getting into more detail, you need to spell that out. Some people will be, unfortunately, confused whatever we do.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: I’ll second Roland’s motion.

IRVINE: Which was?

YOSHIYAMA: He can repeat it, but I know Chris was taking notes.

HIGASHI: That we have double the amount of vacancies if no one has 50 plus one vote.

RAY: Okay. So, we’re all clear on that? I guess we can take a preliminary vote. All in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

RAY: Okay. Was there anything, Chris, in regard to -

YUEN: Well, that handles the non-partisan. I know exactly what to do there. So, no, I think that’s it.

RAY: Okay.

YUEN: The other one, I’m going to do options for the members.

SANTANGELO: Let’s jump to the Salary Commission.

RAY: We’re getting there.

SANTANGELO: Okay. I didn’t see it on here.

RAY: Does anyone want to take a break, or keep going? Five minute break? Two minute break.

RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 10:55 a.m.

RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:00 a.m.

RAY: Can we get started again? First, I want to continue this discussion, and hopefully get some resolution on the idea of a Department of Public Safety. Marni had been following up on this, and so let’s see if we can get that out of the way, as far as whether we’re going to pursue that further or not, because we also want to talk about the Fire Commission today. So, before we do that, let’s go on to this Department of Public Safety. Marni.

HERKES: And I took this right out of Lexington, so you all have this. It’s in the Lexington Charter. The Police, the Fire, the Civil Defense, the Building Department, the Detention, Animal Control, EMS, Industrial Safety is all - well, Industrial Safety is not, that’s in ours, but that would be under Public Safety. All of those are under Public Safety Department. I made a comment at breakfast this morning that if we had a Senior Administrative Officer that we probably wouldn’t need all the Commissions that we have, because we’d have departments that were run professionally. And I read the Annual Report for the County. I read the description of every Commission, and I wasn’t impressed. But, it is a perception of the public that they can have input into the process by the Commissions. So I’m not, at this time, saying Commissions are bad, and when you talk about the Public Safety Department, then you have a Police Commission, a Fire Commission, and all of those things that would be difficult under one department, to have a lot of Commissions. But we do it now, so we probably could do it later. The Police Department is now under the Mayor. I’m suggesting a Department of Public Safety with Police, Fire, Civil Defense, and even the Building Department. Lexington put Building under there.

I think you, probably, in the past, have heard some testimony, or some discussion, on the fact that engineers and architects should be able to just stamp plans, and inspections should be spot inspections. That we don’t quite need so many inspections. In my reading the Annual Report, I found that we have 17,000 to 18,000 permits that are issued every year. I can’t imagine. That’s 1,400, 1,500 a month. I can’t imagine how you count that, or what you do with it, but we do building inspections for public safety. We do building inspections to make sure that buildings are safe. Now, there are some jurisdictions that do building inspections for energy efficiency. There are some electric companies that grant building permits. There’s a lot of different ways to do this, but I think, when you’re talking about Public Safety, that’s what they do, is to make sure that they’re safe. They’re not a planning issue. They are a safety issue. So, under the Department of Public Safety, I would suggest that we also put buildings. This is a suggestion. It’s a different way of looking at public safety. As I’ve said before, I look at it from my viewpoint, from a personal viewpoint. It’s my safety that the government is in charge of, not necessarily a lot of different entities that give people opportunities to build power structures.

IRVINE: So, Marni, in essence, in this whole business of building, we kind of do away with having to get permits for building something?

HERKES: The architects and engineers testified very strongly against that. We have not been able to get that passed yet, but it is, basically, a goal to have spot inspections done, and big fines if you get caught not doing things according to plan. Like when an engineer stamps a plan, it’s supposed to be according to County Code. And then, when the contractors build it, it’s supposed to be according to the architects, which is supposed to be according to County Code. When I was trying to think, why would they put Building under Public Safety, that’s what I came up with, that we do give permits because of public safety. In some instances, we have permits because of amenities, like sign permits in Kailua Village and those kinds of things, but for the most part, permits are public safety.

RAY: The Division of Building Inspection, under the Department of Public Safety, performs all the duties and functions pertaining to the inspection and safety of buildings, and they administer and enforce all zoning ordinances, so they’re the inspection group. They’re not the permitting group.

HERKES: Right.

RAY: So, it’s not moving the Building Department, no?

HERKES: Well -

RAY: The Building Department’s not under the Department of Public Safety. The zoning enforcement and inspection function is under the Department of Public Safety.

HERKES: Okay, the inspection function, building inspection. Okay.

RAY: John. This is under the Lexington Charter that Marni’s talking about.

SANTANGELO: I was curious when Marni brought up something because it is true that architects and architect stamps come with a liability. The contractors, to get their license, have to pass a test, and understand what the rules and the laws are. So, they’re supposed to be able to build safely from plans that are approved by a person that knows how to design safely.

RAY: Like I said, this is not permitting. That still stays.

SANTANGELO: Right, but she talked about permitting. And it seems like permitting is a redundancy, so did somebody suggest that fact that we could get rid of permitting? Because that’s what caught my attention.

HERKES: That might be a long range goal, but it’s probably not something you’re going to be able to do in the Charter at this time.

SANTANGELO: You could pass it. You bet you could pass it.

HIGASHI: So, do you want to discourage any discussion at this time?

HERKES: No, we can have a discussion, but I’m not sure that we can get rid of permitting per se.

RAY: Wait. Let’s focus on this Department of Public Safety. And one of the functions under the Lexington model is the inspection and enforcing zoning ordinances, and under our current system, that might not be a bad idea as far as the responsibility of that function, but anyway, Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: Marni, did you say something about Commissions? What was your proposal, or wanting us to think about?

HERKES: Well, you’d still have Commissions under this. You’d have a Police Commission and a Fire Commission, and I think those are the only two that have Commissions, would be under this. Would just be under a different department.

YOSHIYAMA: As I look at the present Charter, our Charter, we’ve got Fire, Police, and Public Works under the Managing Director, presently.

HERKES: The Police is under the Mayor. Believe me, I did it. That’s one of my problems.

YOSHIYAMA: Okay, sorry. Who would be over the Department of Public Safety? Would that be the Managing Director?

HERKES: I would suggest the Managing Director.

YOSHIYAMA: Okay.

HERKES: We haven’t had that discussion yet, but I would suggest it would be under that. I forgot to mention, also, that Sharron made up this wonderful Henry County Department of Public Safety, which actually is a County Department. When I read it, I thought, oh look, Sharron’s made this up. Wonderful. But they have a Public Safety Staff, and they have descriptions of their whole staff, and it actually is in Virginia. It’s actually in Virginia. But, there are Public Safety Departments.

RAY: Ginger.

TOWLE: I was very happy to hear Marni mention Animal Control under the Safety Committee because it’s floundering around all over. It used to be under the Police Department until 1991, and then Harry Takahashi made a recommendation, when he was Legislative Auditor, that it seemed to be basically a financial problem, so it then went under the Finance Committee, and it isn’t working. It really is not working. I spent about an hour talking to the Mayor yesterday. There’s no reviews. There’s no nothing. There’s no animal control. It definitely needs a home where someone is really evaluating the job being done, as well as the financial end of it. And so, someone needs it and no one wants it so it would be nice to have a home where someone is interested in reviewing it and making sure they did the job right.

RAY: Further discussion on this proposed Department of Public Safety? George.

MARTIN: As being mentioned, with the idea, and it’s not that far fetched of an idea, the Managing Director, as being mentioned by Gary here, that, if, in fact, we’re going to move in the direction to strengthen that position, this would be the way to do it. I see some possibilities with it. What the possibilities are, I think, is going to take further discussion, possibly some in depth discussion. But some possibilities, yes?

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I was wondering, in some sense, if this new department was just adding another layer of oversight of Police, Fire?

HERKES: It’s taking it out of other departments, and rearranging it.

IRVINE: You mean, we’d still have the Chief of Police and head of the Fire Department?

HERKES: Yes.

IRVINE: And then there’d be a head of Public Safety between the Managing Director and the -

HERKES: There’d be a head of Public Safety.

IRVINE: And a little further over on your chart, you have Water and Wastewater in the middle of the page there, Liquor.

HERKES: Those were just kind of like this.

IRVINE: You don’t know what to do with -

HERKES: When we do Environmental Services, as we get along in that, some of those could go there.

IRVINE: Okay. If Public Works were separated out from, say, Environmental Services or Utilities.

HERKES: Yes.

RAY: So, what’s the reaction? This is a pretty significant proposal in terms of the implications for the Charter.

HIGASHI: I guess whether we create another department or just be specific in strengthening up the Managing Director’s responsibility under these areas, is a question in my mind. Because if it’s going to be under the Managing Director anyway, then maybe we’re creating something that we need not have happen.

RAY: How does, currently, the Civil Defense Department work? I’m trying to remember. I can’t recall.

HERKES: All by itself.

RAY: How are they tied in with the State? I thought I’d always heard that his real boss was General Richardson, in terms of some functions.

HERKES: The Mayor.

HIGASHI: The Mayor is the boss and delegates the authority to Harry Kim, I guess.

IRVINE: Is he mentioned in the Charter at all? The Civil Defense?

HERKES: Yes.

IRVINE: Under Miscellaneous?

MARTIN: No, right here, Article V. No, I’m sorry I’m wrong. It used to be.

HERKES: Mr. Ray?

RAY: Yes.

HERKES: If you don’t actually set up a department, you will still have the Police under the Mayor. You will still have the Civil Defense under the Mayor. You will still have EMS under the State and the Fire. You won’t have a building inspection. You’ll still have Animal Control sitting around. Actually, what this does is this consolidates that Public Safety entity, and I never thought I would be suggesting another layer of government, but in the spectrum of things, when I set all this out, I took some things away from other places, and I think this is a more efficient way of operating, and it also makes the public feel that safety is important. And it also makes the public feel that they have input into a department, and it elevates safety in importance. And frankly, that’s what I think the government ought to be doing. One of the most important things government does.

IRVINE: Marni, on this industrial safety here, we already voted in preliminary manner to send that to -

HERKES: Yes, we already did that. I lost my head at about 9:30 last night.

IRVINE: Okay, to send that to Civil Service, right?

HERKES: Right. I was going through the Annual Report and it popped up.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: Point of clarification. I’m back to your question. Where does Civil Defense fall? I assumed it was under the Mayor but that’s an assumption that may be flawed.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: I just asked Marni who would administer that department, and she indicated to me her idea was to hire an administrator, and I would have a problem with that, having an administrator over the Police Department, Fire Department. I mean, the rest I don’t care, but to have an administrator over both departments would, kind of, make me feel uncomfortable.

HERKES: Rather than the Managing Director?

HIGASHI: If it’s under the Managing Director, I think I’d feel more comfortable with that because already they’re under the Mayor or Managing Director.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: I don’t get this. I see an Article V, Agencies Under the Mayor. I see Article VI, Agencies Under the Managing Director, and I see Article VII, Agencies under Commissions. And so, if we’re going to continue to have Commission, we could rewrite this. So, I guess I’m back to the Police. Article VII says Police is under Commission, not under the Mayor.

YUEN: What it says is that the Police Department is under the general supervision of the Mayor. That’s another one of those gray area types of things, and I think the other Commissions, they probably all say that somewhere. So, what it means, is that the Commission appoints the Director, the head of the department like the Police Chief or the Department of Liquor Control or Water Commission, rather than being appointed by the Mayor. They do not answer to the Mayor through the Managing Director under the current organization. And the Mayor’s role becomes, certainly, much less direct because the administrator, or the head person, is not directly accountable to the Mayor. The Police Chief, for example, is not directly accountable to the Mayor. And when the Charter says ‘general supervision’, I think that implies the Mayor does not have a direct role in the operation of the department, the ones that are under Commissions.

IRVINE: Chris, it seems to me that we have line agencies that are under the direct supervision of the Mayor, and staff agencies under the Managing Director. Is that a common way of, sort of, dividing things up?

YUEN: It’s the way it was done in this Charter from quite some time back, and I suppose, if you’ll notice, there’s no absolute rule as to how you do these things, but the departments with a lot of bodies in them, that are running around and doing things, day-to-day work in County, tend to be under the Managing Director. By that I mean, Public Works and Parks and Recreation, they’re actually out there. They have a lot of blue collar people that are picking up stuff. They’re cutting the grass, and they’re not so much policy setting organizations. The things that are shown as being directly under the Mayor have more of an administrative, or policy type, function and are more white collar, regulatory type offices, and so you’ll see Corp Counsel’s in there, that reports directly to the Mayor. Planning Department is in there, reports directly to the Mayor, and it’s not formally set up to report through the Managing Director. I can’t give you an exact reason for the breakdown of these various departments, why some are formally under the Managing Director and others are not, but that’s the closest I can come as to a logical explanation. As far as what’s under Commissions, I think when it was first put in, some of it is tradition and political. I can tell you that in the ‘60's when the Charter was being reviewed for the first time, Water was under a Commission, and the Water Commission was very protective of it’s independence, or it’s quasi-independence with strong support from the people that worked within the Water Commission, and so although there was some talk about it, it turned out that the Charter would be much more difficult to pass if Water were not kept under a Commission. I can tell you that was the mechanics there. I’m not sure about why you have a Police Commission and not a Fire Commission. It was probably a political thing, but that’s some of the background.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: Yes, I had asked the question, and I would still like to get the answer because it was mentioned. Where is Civil Defense?

YUEN: I think Civil Defense is statutory. It’s outside the Charter.

SANTANGELO: Okay, thank you.

RAY: How would we incorporate it into the Department of Public Safety?

YUEN: I haven’t looked at that, whether it can be done. I think it can be done, but I’m not 100% sure.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: I get the sense that putting Public Safety agencies under one roof, I guess, for what, law enforcement purposes, coordination purposes.

HERKES: Importance purposes.

YOSHIYAMA: Importance purposes?

HERKES: Yes, to raise the level of consciousness.

RAY: I really question that. Why is the Police Department more important, as a part of a Department of Public Safety, than as a stand alone agency? That doesn’t elevate it in importance in my mind. It elevates building inspections, if you put them in there, because not all that’s being done anyway, zoning enforcement, whatever. And it would be good for Animal Control. Maybe you could argue that, but I don’t see that it elevates the status of the Police or Fire Department, to put them in a Department of Public Safety. I mean, just looking at that. I’m not saying that I think it’s good or bad, being that way, but I don’t see it elevates the importance. In fact, it seems like, as a stand alone agency, in the public ‘s eye, they’re probably more visible and more obvious, whether it’s all the programs that the Police Department get into, and whatever, but maybe, an overall consciousness toward public safety.

HERKES: There you go. An overall elevation of public safety rather than the little stand alone departments that have the opportunity to build their power on their own, rather than as a public safety entity. Thank you, John.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: I guess, from my limited view, I see these public safety agencies working by themselves, where they could work, in my view again, much more efficiently together. Again my view, Police and Fire, where they have overlapping responsibilities, or they react to public emergencies, etc. And they’re supposed to be working cooperatively, but I don’t think they are. And so, I can see the value of public safety being together, again, for efficiency and for cooperation.

HERKES: In partnerships.

YOSHIYAMA: Yes. So, again, I was asking the question, where is this proposal coming from and what are we trying to accomplish?

HERKES: Well, I think you answered your own question.

RAY: Ginger.

TOWLE: I’ve had a long dialogue with the Chief about please taking the Animal Control back under the Police Department because it’s enforcement of the State and County laws, and I felt that that is where it should be, and so, he hasn’t said no, but as you know, everything is kind of on hold around, and so I’ve talked to the Mayor about that too, but it’s one more chore and it really needs reviewing, so somebody has to mandate that somebody is responsible. And I feel that, in some areas, Police Departments do handle that, and it is law enforcement. Thank you.

RAY: Other comments? Just logistically, if this is something we want to embark on, we’re kind of behind the curve, just timing-wise, because we really haven’t brought this up.

HERKES: I brought it up a whole bunch of times.

RAY: Okay, but we really haven’t sought comments or brought any of these other departments into the discussion. So in all fairness, this is not as big as Council Manager, but it’s on that same level of magnitude with it’s effect on the Charter. This is a major reorganization, so I’m saying we really need to make up our minds quickly, if this is the direction we want to go in.

HERKES: Are you asking for a motion?

RAY: No, I’m just, kind of, thinking out loud.

HERKES: Okay. We’re willing to make a motion.

SANTANGELO: So, we’ve moved from - I thought what we were discussing was a Commission. Today, it’s been a department, just like with this environmental thing. We went from a Commission to a department. So, we’re talking a department? Okay.

RAY: No, I think we’ve always, in my mind, been talking about a department.

SANTANGELO: Of Public Safety?

HERKES; Yes.

RAY: I just hadn’t, personally, really focused on it.

HIGASHI: I had always been under the impression it was a Public Safety Commission that would set policy for the different departments. I never envisioned a Department.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I really don’t have anything to say. In some sense, it makes more sense than this organization of line and staff which doesn’t seem to apply to anything, as far as I can tell, other than blue collar and white collar.

HERKES: And how many people you have.

IRVINE: Yes.

HERKES: Or whether you cut the grass or not.

IRVINE: Right. But, I’m not ready to say that we need a Public Safety Department because I do feel that Police and Fire should be able to be coordinated, say, by the Managing Director. I definitely feel like Animal Control needs to be back under the Police, or something, and not in the Finance Department, where I think they’re trying to throw a lot of these things now. And I’m not quite, also, sure, like Parks and Rec. Public Safety?

HERKES: No. That’s a separate department. It doesn’t go under Public Safety. It goes under the Managing Director, though.

IRVINE: What is under Public Safety? How far down this list then?

HERKES: EMS.

IRVINE: Just to EMS. Okay, thank you.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: Another topic that’s going to be brought up later is the Managing Director. If we move some things under the Managing Director, then it will eliminate this question, is that fair to say?

HERKES: No. I’m not giving up that easy.

RAY: I’m not sure the relationship, but in the Lexington Charter, their Managing Director, Office of Administrative Services, is not in charge of the Department of Public Safety.

HERKES: But that’s all right. We don’t have to follow everything.

RAY: Okay, so where do we want to go with this? Do you want to just give us until the February meeting to digest all this and think it through, because obviously, other than Marni, most of us aren’t prepared to deal with this. So, the Lexington Charter, which we all have, it’s on page 13, Section 6.07, is a reference that she’s been referring to. Okay?

And we are going to be discussing some other applicable things today that maybe will clarify that. I guess, since we’re talking about public safety, let’s go into something in that same arena, and that’s the Fire Commission proposal, and Gary furnished us all with specific language. So, Gary, you want to go over that?

YOSHIYAMA: The model for the draft is the City and County of Honolulu Charter, specifically their Charter proposal, and what I did was then incorporate, and modify, those provisions that are contained in our Charter. What I tried to do, also, was to collect from the County Council, the Office of the Clerk anyway, applicable ordinance or fire code because the Charter does mention that ‘duties and functions of the Fire Department shall be prescribed by ordinance and shall be exercised and performed by the department’ so I felt that you needed some background information as to ordinances and fire code, but I don’t know how to treat that. I did make a general statement in there, that the duties and functions of the Fire Department shall be such and such, and I put the catchall ‘as prescribed by ordinance’. Anyway, this is pretty much straight forward, the language.

RAY: Would you like to make a motion in regard to this now?

YOSHIYAMA: I’ll make a motion for us to - it’s not a matter of adoption - place on the ballot.

HERKES: I’ll second.

RAY: Discussion?

HERKES: I have a couple of questions. Under 6-4.6 Powers and Duties and Functions: Review the annual budget prepared by the Fire Chief and make recommendations thereon to the Mayor and the Council. The Fire Commission reviews the budget and makes recommendations to the Mayor and the Council? They don’t make recommendations to the Fire Chief to change the budget? They go over the Fire Chief to the Mayor and the Council?

YOSHIYAMA: I don’t have any feeling one way or the other. I think that what I used here, again, was the model from the City and County of Honolulu.

HERKES: That’s what it says?

YOSHIYAMA: Yes. And I can only say my impression was that this is something similar to the Police Commission, on the view of budget, but I don’t think it’s that exact language about review of the budget.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: I’m not necessarily speaking in favor of that, but I don’t have a problem with that either. Your Commission is set up in terms of oversight. The Chief comes up with his budget and runs it through the Commission. The Commission then is the lobbying agent for that, and that’s part of policy. Policy and budget almost always go together. In fact, maybe the Police Department could operate a little bit differently and be better off. So, I don’t have a problem with that , but I’m not attached to it either.

RAY: Okay. George.

MARTIN: I have a question for Gary. In implementing this, or arriving at what you’ve written and sent to us, did you have any discussion with any of the Fire Department personnel, or representatives?

YOSHIYAMA: Yes I did. They provided input.

IRVINE; Gary, the one thing I noticed in the very beginning of this, under 1(a), Section 6-4.1, at just the very beginning: Organization; There shall be a Fire Department consisting of a Fire Chief, and then we have underlined, a Deputy Fire Chief, a Fire Commission and the necessary staff. We are adding a Deputy Fire Chief to our Charter with this.

YOSHIYAMA: Right. This is part of the input from the Fire Union. Also, in looking at, I think, attached on the Fire Ordinance, within the ordinance, you have the specific mention of a Deputy Fire Chief. So, again, it’s incorporating in the Charter what is stated in ordinance. So, you can leave it in or take it out. I found, under Article VII, Section 7-2.2(b), this is Police Commission, ‘Review the annual budget prepared by the Chief of Police and may make recommendations thereon to the Mayor.

HERKES: And may make.

YOSHIYAMA: Yes, may make. So, either way, whatever the case.

RAY: I like that. I know, just in my limited experience on the Council in terms of budget items, there have been some fairly controversial projects that maybe the Chief, I won’t say which one, might have been recommending, or whatever, and I think it would be good, real healthy, to have input from the Commission in regard to some of those. I can think of one, in particular. It was like a really expensive training facility that was, kind of, controversial, and it didn’t seem to make sense whether we really needed this, or that’s where the money should to be spent priority-wise. And I’d like to see the Commission have input on things like that.

HIGASHI: Mr. Chair, under Section 6-4, under item (e), I think reviewing personnel actions within the department, for a Commission to do that, may be somewhat laborious, and beyond the scope of a Commission’s work. I think if there are personnel actions or grievances, there are avenues within County government to take care of that.

RAY: They’re just reviewing the standards really, right? And the appropriate policies and standards.

IRVINE: It says ‘review personnel actions’.

SANTANGELO: Under 6-4.2.

RAY: Under 6-4.2.

SANTANGELO: Promotions and training.

HIGASHI: ‘Promotions and other personnel actions shall be based on fair and appropriate standards of merit’. You know that’s a kind of broad range, and people may disagree on the standards that they be judged on.

RAY: To me, this is the most important function.

IRVINE: But this is where our Police Commission is having trouble right now, or they feel they are. And I think, if we’re going to set up any more Commissions, we either empower them to be able to compel attendance of witnesses, compel production of evidence.

RAY: I think these all very noncontroversial in my mind. Just ‘standards for recruitment shall be designed to attract high degrees of education, intelligence, personal stability. Promotions and other personnel actions shall be based on fair and appropriate standards of merit, ability, and work performance’. I mean, that’s exactly the kind of oversight - I think that’s why you have a Commission.

IRVINE: He was looking two pages over, at Section 6-4.6.

RAY: Right, which refers back to 6-4.2.

IRVINE: Yes, except - 6-4.2, I was going to say, looks really good to me. I would agree, absolutely.

RAY: That’s what number (e) refers to. ‘Review personnel for conformance with the policies under Section 6-4.2.

SANTANGELO: So the limiting factor is 6-4.2.

IRVINE: Except you’re reviewing personnel actions, and I think that’s fine, personally.

RAY: For conformance. Okay, let Chris address this.

YUEN: I think that the way this is written, it would definitely empower the Commission to review individual personnel actions, and that’s up to this Commission to decide whether you want to empower the Fire Commission, if you have one, to do that, but I really do read this as enabling the Commission to review the promotion of somebody from a Lieutenant to a Captain, on an individual basis, because it says it can review personnel actions, and then it says ‘in conformance with this 6-4.2'. The review can be, was the promotion of Capt. Jones over Capt. Smith done in conformance with fair and appropriate standards of merit, ability and work performance? And so, I do think, that under this wording, it certainly does give the Commission the ability to review individual actions. If you want it to be like that, then you can leave it like this. If you want it to just be broader, then it has to be changed.

RAY: I haven’t had extensive discussions with people in Honolulu, but the ones I have, is that this thing seems to be working well, and it hasn’t caused a lot of problems, or any sort of major departure, but it seems to be working well. It’s not problematic that I’m aware of. So that’s as good a model, or comparison, as you could get, same state.

HIGASHI: I have no problem with all of the other sections, but in practicality, what may happen is people who want to get promoted would go to the Commissioners, and that’s what I’m afraid of. That’s something that may never surface in a discussion in public, but, in practicality, if they’re empowered to review actions, then you have five Commissioners -

RAY: But I think we could look to the City and County and see if that has, in fact, been the case, and opened up a real can of worms. Then that’s worth checking out.

IRVINE: This is directly from the Honolulu Charter?

RAY: Right.

IRVINE: And things seem to work there.

RAY: I’m not aware of it causing a bunch of lawsuits and problems with the process over there, but it’s certainly worth exploring if it’s causing problems, or if people are taking advantage of it.

MARTIN: What was the intent, Gary, behind that? You guys, in writing this, following the Honolulu one, but because of the possible controversy being discussed right now, was your intent to have this written in this manner?

RAY: Didn’t you just take it out of there?

YOSHIYAMA: Yes. I can make my own assumptions but I cannot speak to the intent of this.

MARTIN: So you just wrote it specifically from there to here because it’s there?

YOSHIYAMA: Right.

MARTIN: Okay.

YOSHIYAMA: And I think, for myself, it was just more general citizen participation in the process. I think Roland was referring to that subsection, or item (e). I think item (f) draws the parameters as far as what do you do when you hear of complaints, or take up concerns from citizens or the department’s personnel. And the route is make recommendations to the Fire Chief on appropriate corrective action. So, it’s not a matter of the Fire Commission making independent judgments on personnel actions. Their ultimate responsibility is, if they think something is wrong, say on standards or something, they’ve got to refer it to the Fire Chief. It says here ‘recommendations’. One of the things that you may want to address, and again, it was taken straight out of the model of City and County of Honolulu, is the proposed Section 6-4.5, where it calls for five Commissioners. You may want to massage that.

SANTANGELO: John, with what Roland brought up, and Chris. Sometimes isn’t there like a due diligence where you have someone who says that you can refer this conformance, and then that puts pressure on the department to have in place procedures that then meet the merit, and so that’s really the checks and balances. It’s not a micro management so much as there’s pressure to make sure the process is documented and you’ve done your due diligence from front to back?

YUEN: Under the wording of the draft, it’s how far the Commission wants to take it’s role would be quite open ended.

SANTANGELO: So in a case like that, if you had more people on that Commission, it might dilute the ability to aberrant or to mess with the process?

YUEN: It’s not a matter of how many people are on the Commission. It’s that the wording under this draft gives the Commission a great deal of authority, including the authority to review individual personnel actions like individual hirings, firings, and other disciplinary actions. Your future Commission may choose not to go that far, but it would be authorized to go that far. Under the next one, ‘Hearing complaints of citizens’, under this wording, the Commission could do as little as hear the complaint, and say, Chief, investigate this and do something about it, or it could do as much as have a full hearing and recommend disciplinary action. So, it gives a lot of power to the Commission and is quite open ended. I just wanted to give an idea, from my legal point of view, how far they could go with this wording.

SANTANGELO: Because we’re making assumptions in terms of people’s motives, and sometimes - We can assume that the people on this Commission are there for good, public representation reasons, and therefore, they would wield this responsibility, or power, responsibly, or we can make the assumption that they’re conniving, or they’re for self-interest, and use that in a different way.

YUEN: Well, I would always assume that they’re a good group of people just like the present Charter Commission, and all the Commissions, and I’m sure they’re going to want to do well. It’s just that in looking forward, and looking ahead at how this is going to work, I want to lay out what the possible powers and authority would be under the draft language.

HERKES: Mr. Ray. We seem to have a consensus of support for this Fire Commission, and it seems to cover a lot of the problems that we’ve seen with previous Commissions. And from a person that started this meeting wanting to abolish all Commissions, I’d like to now suggest that it might be appropriate to take this wording and insert it in the Police Commission. That it might be the same kind of direction that we want to see in all of our Commissions.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I think Marni’s right, but I’d like to ask our attorney. Right now the Police Commission has to ask our Corporation Counsel how far they can go with asking questions, or whatever. They feel they can’t do anything because the Corp Counsel has told them they can’t ask certain questions. To me, if we’re going to have these Commissions, they ought to have the power to - I don’t know if it’s the power to subpoena, or what, but to tell people, you will come and testify or you’re going to be in contempt. Does this make any sense?

YUEN: People, personnel in the - ?

IRVINE: Personnel, yes. Right now there’s nothing that says a police officer has to come and talk to the Commission at all, if they don’t want to. They apparently do.

YUEN: You’re talking about making them testify before the Commission on a disciplinary situation. I think that if you were not talking about a disciplinary situation, and the Commission wanted a certain police officer to explain something that was being done, like they were concerned about the way something was being handled out of the Waimea station, and they wanted the head of the Waimea station to come into the Commission, I hope that it would not be necessary for them to subpoena that person, given that they are the Commission for the Police Department, and the Police Chief and all the personnel are under the Police Commission. That shouldn’t be a problem. I don’t know if it is, but it shouldn’t be a problem.

RAY: It apparently has been a problem. What kind of questions can they ask, and can’t, and various interpretations, and then, whether the Chief of Police, for example, has to tell them anything about his motives for hiring or firing somebody, or something, so that they can evaluate what he did. To me, they’ve been saying that they can’t get information with which to do their job, and I don’t want to set up another Commission that feels the same way, even though I can’t imagine Fire personnel having as much trouble with public complaints about what they do. If they come and put out your house fire, you don’t file a complaint usually.

RAY: It seems like, my sense is, we have pretty strong support for creating a Fire Commission, and we’re really talking about some minor adjustments, if that, in the language, so can we have a preliminary vote on that?

MARTIN: Do you need a motion?

RAY: Already made, so all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

RAY: Opposed? Okay. Gary, could you get some information, maybe out of the City and County, maybe more specific in terms of how the Fire Commission has worked in regard to personnel, policy review, or if that’s been a problem, or if that’s opened up a can of worms in terms of disgruntled people trying to take advantage of that. John.

SANTANGELO: With this and the Police, and this wording, my question was in the hiring, it says that it shall appoint. Now, when we heard from the Police Commission, it sounded almost like they wanted some ability to do a performance based contract, or anything like that, and this doesn’t specifically say you will evaluate. Does this preclude this? Does this help this? Where does this lie with that kind of concern, Chris?

YUEN: I think that, both, under this draft and under the present Police Department sections of the Charter, the Commission can periodically review the Chief, and the Police Chief, right now, is basically what we call an at-will employee, and does not have a set job tenure. The Commission can decide that they’re going to do an annual review, an every two-year review, an every three-year review, but as it stands, if the Commission wants to discuss getting rid of the Police Chief, they just have to put it on the agenda, and then if somebody wants to get rid of the Police Chief, they have to have a motion to do so. The Charter requires a statement of reasons, which is a little bit different, and I’m going to talk about the significance of that. The Fire Commission section here says a statement of charges. And then, under the Police Chief, the Chief has to have an opportunity to respond. It does not specifically say a hearing, and that’s another technical point. And then the Police Commission takes a vote, and it’s completely up to the Police Commission whether they think the reasons are good reasons or bad reasons.

SANTANGELO: But when we talked to the Police Commission, they felt that there was a problem with establishing any sort of fact because they had no performance based, or nothing up front. So, does this help something like that, or it’s a non-entity? In other words, when you go to evaluate -

YUEN: I think that there’s language in this Fire draft that makes it more clear that the Commission has the opportunity to do an ongoing review and evaluation of a Chief. I think that that exists under the Police Commission as well, but they’ve been having some difficulty with Corp Counsel about that. If I can synthesize everything that was said, and what we had in writing, because we had a long letter from the Police Chief since then: I think the gist of it is that Corp Counsel gave an Opinion that you can ask the Police Chief what the Chief is doing on various administrative functions like work comp, to give an example that I used last time, or how much of your patrol peoples’ time is spent out on patrol vs. how much is spent doing paperwork. You can ask all those questions of the Chief but you cannot, the term used in the Opinion was ‘hold it against the Chief in doing an evaluation’. I disagree with that. I think that, as a Commission, how can you evaluate somebody on their job unless you can hold their performance against them. In other words, the Opinion seemed to be that you could ask all these questions, you could get a response, but you could not give any feedback, which I just disagree with. I understand the reason that they’re saying that is that they’re not supposed to interfere in the administrative functioning, and the idea being, well, if you can criticize the Chief for what the Chief is doing, then that’s interfering with the administrative policies. I have to disagree with that. But on the Police Commission side, that could be cleared up by a little bit of language in the Charter, if necessary. On this Fire Commission, the way it’s written, I think it’s quite clear that the Commission will have the opportunity to periodically evaluate and review the performance of the Chief.

I do want to say something. I don’t have to say it right now. I’ll give Sue a chance to say something, but I wanted to say something about the tenure of the Police Chief and the tenure of the Fire Chief, and to make a slight suggestion about how this is stated here, as far as the Fire Chief. The statement of reasons, and there was a rationale for having the word ‘reasons’ instead of ‘charges’, which, in the Fire one here, it says ‘statement of charges’. ‘Statement of charges’ implies some kind of wrong doing on the part of the individual, whereas a reason for removing the Fire Chief might be something like you have not moved quickly enough in adopting new technology for the Fire Department. That doesn’t sound like a ‘charge’ like you have neglected your duties and you’re playing golf five days a week, and that’s a ‘charge’ against somebody. And so, with the Police Commission, it was to make it as broad as possible, the idea being that there should be some ‘statement of reason’ so that the Commission, itself, is accountable to the public in why they did something. This is actually a change in the Charter for the Police Commission from ten years ago. Before that, you could have a meeting on the Police Commission, as long as it’s on the agenda, Evaluation or Chief’s Tenure. Somebody raises his hand; I move to remove the Chief. Somebody seconds the motion. Any discussion. No. All in favor of. Aye. All opposed. Nay. And the public is kind of wondering, well, what did old so and so do to deserve this. Now, you have a ‘statement of reason’. So there has to be some justification so the public knows why the voting, but it’s still entirely up to the Commission as to whether that’s a good idea or not. So given, I wanted to explain that as a difference. The term ‘hearing’ in a personnel action - it can imply that there’s some possibility of judicial review afterward, and in the case of the Police Commission, the idea was that it’s entirely up to the Commission to decide whether this looks like a good idea or a bad idea. If there’s been a ‘statement of reasons’, a proper vote, an opportunity for the police to respond, and a proper vote, the Police Chief cannot file a lawsuit in court and say, gee, those weren’t very good reasons, Judge, or I’m not guilty of what the Police Commission thought, and the Charter Commission looking at this ten years ago did not want to have the opportunity for a judicial review of the Commission’s decision. The Commission would be final. So, if that’s what this Commission wants to do, then I would suggest, rather than a ‘hearing’, an ‘opportunity to respond’ or some other kind of language.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I know that we asked our attorney to write up the simple changes in language concerning the Police Commission, which would allow for Commission evaluation of certain policies and the Police Chief’s tenure -

RAY: She said Police.

IRVINE: For the Police, to make it more in line with the Fire, whatever needs to be done. Chris said it would be quite simple to clarify what the argument is, right now, between the Commission and the Corporation Counsel’s Office.

YUEN: That would be. That part would be a one liner or two liner.

IRVINE: Could we hear it now?

RAY: In regard to incorporating similar language, or changes, to the Police Commission, just in terms of cleaning up this document and making it more user friendly. It really does throw people off. Numbers of Commission members, why this one’s different, why this one’s written differently this way and that way, and whatever, so I’m just kind of throwing that out there. You come across a model that seems like it’s much cleaner, clearer, easier to understand language. It might be good to use that in other sections as well.

IRVINE: Like just use the Fire for the Police?

RAY: Well, to incorporate some of that. I like the way it reads.

HERKES: So, how do we pr