HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION

Transcript of Public Hearing of March 25, 2000

Kealakehe Intermediate School Cafeteria

Kailua-Kona, Hawaii

Members: J. Ray, S. Irvine, M. Herkes, D. Kurozawa, G. Martin, Counsel Chris Yuen

Absent: E. Alonzo, K. Balog, S. Bess, R. Higashi, J. Santangelo, G. Yoshiyama

And 28 members of the public in attendance.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman John Ray called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.

INTRODUCTION OF CHARTER COMMISSION MEMBERS

RAY: I’d like to call the meeting to order. This is the 1999-2000 Charter Commission. We’re here in Kailua-Kona today, holding a Public Hearing. The members present at this time are myself, John Ray, Chairman; Marni Herkes; Sue Irvine; Dr. Daryl Kurozawa; and George Martin. And also our Legal Counsel, Chris Yuen, is here with us today.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

RAY: I’m going to start off by giving you a brief background on the County Charter and, kind of, where we are to date in regard to this process.

Basically the Charter review is mandated in the Charter to be reviewed every ten years. Our County Charter was initially adopted in the late 1960's. It’s been previously reviewed twice, so this is the third time, the third Charter Review Commission. There are eleven members, appointed by the Mayor and approved by the County Council, and that all took place in January of last year.

We have an appropriated budget of $130,000. The last Charter Review expended $113,000. The major costs are for staff. We have a full time Administrative Assistant who operates out of a home office, our Legal Counsel, meeting costs with public notices, and then printing and advertising costs to put out the final product for the general education and notification leading up to the election. To date we have expended about $50,000 out of the $130,000 and have a remaining of about $80,000.

We’ve been meeting since last February. We’ve held, I believe, 29 meetings to date, which included eight public hearings. Presently we’re involved in a set of four public hearings which are discussing 19 proposed amendments. These are all proposed amendments which have, at this point, a pretty strong measure of support by a majority of the Commission members, but not necessarily will all these amendments appear. We’ve already received input in a couple of the public hearings for some additional items which, I feel pretty certain that we’re going to consider, but we wanted to get something out in writing to engage the public sooner rather than later because most people don’t pay any attention until you, sort of, stick something in their face. Like I say, we’ve been meeting for almost 13 months now, 30 meetings, and probably have had 20 or 30 people total come to the meetings and testify, including the public hearings, in that entire period of time. We have received more testimony in writing. But in terms of actual engagement by the public, it’s been pretty disappointing. So, we wanted to go ahead and get these proposals out for discussion. As I said, we’re in the midst of four public hearings right now. We’d like to wrap up our final amendments with the proposed ballot language by June or so, so that that leaves us plenty of time, prior to the election, to get that out to the public so they can understand what the Charter Amendments are all about because they’re fairly complex, the language, to engage and change the Charter, so it requires a fair amount of time to get that out.

I also want to point out that other than the Charter Review Commission which, like I said, is mandated to meet every 10 years, the Charter can also be amended two other ways. It can be amended by a petition signed by 20% of the registered voters in the last election, and it can be put up for amendment by a County Council ordinance, which actually happens fairly regularly. In other words, the County Council, with six members out of the nine, can vote to put something before the voters. And I think that’s the other important point. Any of these recommendations, whether it be from the Charter Commission, by petition, or by County ordinance, all go before the voters to decide. So all we do is put forth a slate that appears on an election and these will appear in the November election next fall.

We have the summary of the 19 proposed amendments, right now, and I’d like to run through those quickly.

The first one is non-partisan elections. A little bit of background. Basically this would effect all County elected officials. In other words, everybody would run as a non-partisan. There’d be no party affiliations. The process, in terms of getting elected, and this is subject to however we want to set it up, but we’ve tried to follow the most common models, is that if someone wins 50% of the votes plus one in the Primary, they win outright. Otherwise, the top two folks go on to the General. If the number 2 proposal that’s here, which is to change the Council Districts to include 3 at-large seats, we’ve also proposed language that would address that should there be non-partisan elections and at-large seats. So we have a suggested formula if, basically, the top six voters in the Primary would go to the General. If there were six or fewer, there would only be a General Election. There would be no Primary Election. So, it’s a little bit complex to understand but anyway, you have to anticipate all those things, if this should pass and if that should pass, then this is how it would work. So, in other words, if non-partisan elections were voted on and the at-large seats were voted on, we have to propose language that would accommodate that should both of those happen. As I mentioned, the Honolulu City and County went to non-partisan elections, I think, six or eight years ago. Both Maui and Kauai have voted to implement non-partisan elections, so we’re the last county which still has partisan elections. Rather than go through the pros and cons, and I don’t want to do this in a bias way, we do have a couple of handouts that were prepared by the League of Women Voters. One on non-partisan elections and one on arguments for and against a different electoral systems, i.e. at-large or single member districts, or a mix of whatever. So, anyway, this is a fairly independent organization which just came up with some of the pros and cons. As you’ll see, a lot of the pros are cons, depending on which way you look at it, so they appear on both sides. And one other piece of background, that the City and County did a survey which showed that 76% of the cities interviewed had non-partisan elections, so this is a pretty common way to go. So, that’s the non-partisan elections.

The second proposed amendment is to change the County Council Districts from the present nine single member districts to six single member districts and the districts would be the same districts as the State House of Representative Districts. So we have six House Districts, so if this were to pass, you’d have six single member districts representing the House Districts and they would run for two-year terms. As proposed now, there would be three at-large seats, and they would be for four-year terms, and the basic rationale behind that is running and island-wide race, just the expense and time and commitment there, it seems to make more sense to us that they would be four-year terms. We’re struggling with a number of issues related to the at-large districts, and I’ll run by a couple of them with you. Number 1, when would you implement this? The soonest it could start would be 2002. If you started in 2002, two years after the election, the four at-large seats, should it pass, then those seats would not be concurrent with the Mayor’s term. In other words, they’d be running off-cycle, which is, sort of, contrary to one of the reasons why a lot of people like at-large seats is that you’re grooming and training people for island-wide seats, who may run for the Mayor. So it, sort of, runs contrary to that to set up a conflict in that way. One way we could deal with that is to have the first at-large term for only two years, so if people voted in at-large, the first time you ran it would be a two-year term, and then after that, it would go to four-year terms. Another thing we’re struggling with is term limits. In 1996, we voted in term limits for the County Council, four two-year terms. That started in 1996. So if this were implemented in 2002, you’d have Council people who had served six years. So one idea we’ve been thinking about is that we could allow a one-time exception in 1996, that irregardless of the term limits, you would allow anybody that were in the County Council then, to run for a four-year term, which would mean if they’d already been for six years, they would be in for ten years vs. the eight years. The reason that seems to make sense is, presumably, the guys that would want to run for at-large would be people that were more experienced, that had some background, so if you totally eliminated that group, it just seems, kind of, odd to do it that way. So, that’s one possibility that we could do it that way, or we have the first at-large term just be for two years vs. the four years. So, those are some of the things we’re looking at. The other issue, which we haven’t figured out a really clean way to deal with this, is if you did away, if we did away, as voters, if we did away with the nine Council seats, how would that effect the Commissions that are tied to the nine Council Districts, and right now, we have two Commissions, Planning and Police, that the Commissions are tied to the nine Council Districts, and we’re also proposing, as a Charter Amendment, to make the Water Commission tied to those Commissions. So, the dilemma we’ve got is if the nine Council seats were to be eliminated, then those districts wouldn’t officially exist anymore. They would be gone. So, we’d like to keep the geographic distribution in the nine districts, so we’re trying to come up with some language which we hope will work, that could possibly refer to, if the at-large seats were passed, in terms of the Commissions, that they would be tied to the Council Districts as they existed in the year 2000. That’s generally okay. It’s not perfect. It could always be subject to challenge by somebody because you wouldn’t have legally defined districts anymore, so it’s not a perfect way to deal with it, but that’s something, I just wanted to bring your attention, we’re struggling with. But we are definitely not in favor of eliminating the nine district make-up for those Boards and Commissions, and in fact like I said, we’d like to expand it with the Water Commission. So that’s the discussion there.

Just to step back a little bit, and I’m sure you can tell from the way I’m discussing this, this is very much a work in progress. We’re still in the middle of discussing how a lot of this would work. We’re very open to input, but we wanted to get something out sooner rather than later. The third item -

FORD: Mr. Ray?

RAY: Yes ma’am.

FORD: Before you leave number 2, could you just explain how we got nine districts right now? If number two is not passed, will the nine districts remain exactly as they are today?

RAY: Yes they will, and I think that was voted in in 1992. Is that right, Chris?

YUEN: ‘90.

RAY: 1990. It took place in 1992. It was voted in in 1990 and it started in ‘92, the nine single member districts. Yes, so that would be no change.

OTTERSON: Shall we wait until you get through or just ask you right now? I mean you’re right on the subject. Of the Councilmen that are at-large, did you say the whole bunch or just two?

RAY: No, what’s being proposed was you’d have six single member districts, so six people would run from single member districts just the way the nine do now. They’d would just be larger districts. In other words, in Kona, Jim Rath, the district he represents would be a Council District now, as well as a House District, and then the South Kona House District would also be a Council District, so you’d have the six districts which would be exactly the same as the State House Districts, and you’d have three Council persons running at-large.

OTTERSON: Just three?

RAY: Right.

OTTERSON: I don’t see how you could work that really.

RAY: Well, we can talk about that later.

OTTERSON: Okay, thank you.

RAY: Yes, it’s not only easy to work, it’s actually a more common system throughout the country; actually a mix of single member and Council Districts at-large. I don’t want to get into all that. There’s information here from the League of Women Voters in regard to that, but not to say that Hawaii County is the same, or even that similar to other jurisdictions, but just to give you some general background. Yes sir.

P. MARTIN: While you’re -

HERKES: Oh, microphone. You’re all going to have to talk on the microphone.

RAY: Yes, the microphone is for recording your remarks, and as you notice, there are only five Commission members here so we want to make sure that we get all the input recorded.

P. MARTIN: But, while you were explaining that, could you explain to us your rationale for making that change?

RAY: I think if you’ll look at the information passed out from the League of Women Voters, it pretty much reflects the feeling of the Commission that you’d have more focus on the bigger picture from an island-wide perspective. As an individual voter, you get to vote for four Council persons vs. just one now. I think it’s just how you look at it, or philosophically, would you rather than people more focused on smaller geographic districts and more prone to represent those districts rather than the island as a whole. People look at it very differently, so some people like it, some people don’t. And also, just want to bring up that it takes a simple majority to place one of these amendments on the ballot for the Commission, so it only takes six out of 11 votes to move something forward.

HERKES: Sharron needs names when they’re speaking.

RAY: Yes, could you please introduce yourself when you speak?

The Council Manager Form of Government. Council Manager Form/Function, whatever. This one is number 3 titled Strengthen the Authority of the County Managing Director. This is probably the issue that we spent more time looking at and researching than anything else. We’ve read a pretty comprehensive selection of material from different groups like the League of Women Voters, from looking at different jurisdictions across the country. Looking at the Council Manager form of government vs. the strong Mayor form of government, the Council Manager form of government would be basically, not necessarily eliminating the Mayor but, having the Mayor function more as the head of the County Council, and then the Council would hire a City Manager who would actually run the County, and be a very strong management role. We decided not to go with that model, but in all that discussion and looking at different Charters, one in particular that influenced us was one from Lexington, Kentucky. They’re a joint City/County government. They adopted a Council Manager form of government in the early ‘70s and then in the mid 80's they went back to a strong Mayor form of government, but in that transition period, or whatever, they created a very strong Managing Director position under the Mayor, still a strong Mayor form of government. So that’s one of the models we’re looking at. We also looked at some different models within the state, particularly Maui County.

And what we’re proposing, and you don’t have all this in front of you, the way it would look in the Charter, but basically rewriting the entire Executive Department in the County Charter, and the way our County Charter’s written right now is we have different sections within the Executive Department, three sections. We have a section that is several departments under the Managing Director, several departments answer to the Mayor, and several departments that answer to Commissions. And what we’re recommending is restructuring the Executive Branch Article to put all the departments in one section headed by a Department of Management, which is, of course, headed by the Managing Director. And we’ve significantly addressed the powers, duties and functions of the Managing Director to make that a more comprehensive management position. And where we’d like to see this go is that the Managing Director would operate, a comparable private sector model, as the Chief Operating Officer of the County. But the Mayor would still be the Chief Executive Officer. The Mayor would still hire the Managing Director. What we have included is that the Managing Director would be confirmed by the County Council, which it’s not now, so that’s an addition. Then throughout the Charter, in areas where the management role and oversight only refer to the Mayor in different instances, we’ve included the Managing Director throughout the Charter to basically, from an organizational standpoint, to clearly put the Managing Director more in the chief management role. So, that’s what that amendment is all about.

Number 4, a Fire Commission. We have a Police Commission now. We don’t have a Fire Commission. We basically, pretty much, copied the City and County of Honolulu language and model. They implemented a Fire Commission a few years ago. It seems to be working well. It seems to be working with a minimum of expense, and so we’re recommending that a Fire Commission be created and it’s main function would be to hire or fire the chief, review the department, and it seems to have had a real positive impact on political shenanigans in the Fire Department, so we’re recommending a Fire Commission.

Number 5, a Department of Environmental Services, or we may call it Environmental Management. A little bit of background on this. The County Administration came to us last Spring with a proposal to move the Wastewater Division from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Water Supply. So that’s what generated a lot of discussion on what might make sense in terms of, kind of, mixing or matching, or whatever, and in researching this, we found that a much more common match-up across the country was a match-up with wastewater and solid waste matched together. So, we’re moving in that direction, and we’re talking about a possible Commission, and this proposal would basically - In the Public Works Department, there are six divisions right now. This would take two of the divisions, Solid Waste and Wastewater, and create a new department. This Charter Amendment would mandate that that would have to happen, but the County Council and the Administration would be coming up with the ordinances and figuring out exactly how it would be set up. But you’d have these two existing divisions now involved in a new department, whether it’s Environmental Services or Environmental Management. Where we came up with that word is that’s basically what most people are calling it across the country, and the City and County of Honolulu actually proposed a similar alignment a few years ago. It didn’t go through in this case, but that was the title they had used as well. I think what’s driving that is we’d like to see more emphasis in terms of these areas, especially in regard to the regulatory regime, which is increasing every year, Federal regulations in regard to these areas. It’s becoming increasingly complex to deal with these issues. So that’s part of the justification for a separate department. There’s a huge area called non point source pollution, which is dealt with now by our Engineering Division, which we think would be logical to include the responsibilities for that in this department. So, that’s what this is suggesting, and the proposal would also create an advisory Commission to work with this department and get more public input, hopefully, especially in regard to rates. The County has had a real difficult time dealing with rates and incentives for waste management, so we’d like to get the general public and community more involved, via a Commission, into those issues. The County Council has an awful hard time addressing sewer rates and solid waste rates, so we’d like to get the input from a Commission there. So that’s what that’s recommending.

Some of these others will go more quickly.

Planning Department functions. There again, this was really generated by an Administrative proposal to create a Division of Permitting. The Administration came to us and asked us to remove all the subdivision roles, activities, out of the Planning Department and move them all under the Public Works Department, and create a Division of Permitting, more along the lines of one-stop shopping and better government efficiency. That was the rationale. We decided not to pursue that in terms of mandating that happen, but what this Charter proposal would do would just take some language out of the Charter that’s in the Charter in regard to the Planning Department having to do certain functions, which would preclude making that change later if a future Administration would like to. So, in other words, it doesn’t change anything by the Charter Amendment. All it does is eliminate a barrier that’s in the Charter to doing that later if a future Administration and Council would support that kind of reorganization. So, it just removes that barrier. It doesn’t create a new division. It just allows that to happen.

Number 7, Legislative Research Office. I’d, kind of, class this, and another one, under just, kind of, calling a spade a spade. This is basically just describing what the office always has done, and does today. It’s a Legislative Research Office. We have two offices under the County Council. We have a Council Services Office and we have what’s called an Auditor’s Office. It never has been an auditing office, or have any real auditing functions. It’s always been a Legislative Research Office, so to just clean up that confusion, we thought it made more sense to address that in terms of the change. We’re also proposing language which would, hopefully, make that office more professional in nature, but the reality is these are all political appointees. You get elections every two years, so everything’s subject to change every two years. So, that being the nature of the office, we felt like this addresses the reality of the situation. We did talk a lot about auditing functions and should we create an auditing office, an auditing department, or whatever, but we didn’t go with that route and this is really just to address the way the County Council functions today with this office. So, this is what this proposal’s about.

Number 8, the Holdover of Members of Boards and Commissions. Right now, there’s just a 30 day holdover. We are suggesting increasing that to 90 days, just to give more time to get new appointments in place. It’s just increasing it from 30 to 90 days.

Number 9, the Safety Coordinator. There again, this is just reflecting how those duties and responsibilities are handled within the County now. All of the departments really take responsibility for those functions now, so the way it appears in the Charter now does not reflect how that position works. So, we’re suggesting moving the Safety Coordinator position to the Civil Service Department, so more closely reflecting how the - So, we’re not doing away with anything. We’re just trying to reflect the way it works.

Number 10. This also has to do with the Planning Commission. These are fairly technical in nature, and maybe I’ll ask Chris because he’s a real authority in this area, to explain what these two proposed amendments would be about. One is to add language to clarify the role of the Planning Commission in the Special Management Area and the other, having the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

YUEN: The Planning Commission presently does act as the authority in the Special Management Area. This means that they issue what are called Special Management Area Permits. These implement what are called the Coastal Zone Management Act. Special Management Area is along the coastline, although in some places, it goes in for a ways as well. In a way, this amendment is not strictly necessary because it already has this function, but the Planning Commission asked for this to be put in the Charter so that it would clarify that they do have this power. It’s actually set in State Law that the Planning Commission has this power unless the Charter says that the Planning Commission is completely advisory. And since our Planning Commission has some other powers, it’s not completely advisory. All the counties work this way except for the City and County of Honolulu. Their Planning Commission is completely advisory, and so their Special Management Area Permits are issued by the County Council.

The second, to have rules and regulations, would reverse a change made in the ‘98 election for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. It says that they would have the power to adopt rules and regulations having the force and effect of law under the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. The portion about the Subdivision Ordinance, we’ll probably take out. That’s not really necessary because they don’t currently have rules under the Subdivision Ordinance. Under the Zoning Ordinance, they currently do have rules and regulations having the force and effect of law. These cover things like what has to be in an application, how the application is processed, other more technical matters like that. And it raises this question now of their authority to have those kinds of rules.

OTTERSON: I think you remember me talking about this junkyard business. I was the one that set that up for them, and I was, of course, talking to Bill Davis and he said ‘we don’t have any teeth in it’, and I told him, I said, ‘well, can I tell you what we did. I was a Zoning Inspector and Building Inspector.’ And he said ‘sure’ so I told him exactly how we did it and he said ‘no, we can’t do that.’ About two days later he called me and said he had called Maui and he said ‘yes, we can do that plus we’ll get with the lawyers and the whole thing and get it all turned around.’ Now you ask Bill Davis if that isn’t true. Thank you.

RAY: Number 11, Qualification of Heads of Departments of Public Works and Water Supply. This issue was, kind of, highlighted a couple of years ago, or a year and a half ago. The Chief Engineer, the head of the Department of Public Works, left the County, and the Deputy Department Head, who is not a registered engineer, could not step into that role, so that was a lot of discussion about is it necessary - Let me step back. Right now, the Department of Public Works and the head of the Water Department, both in the Charter, have to be registered engineers. So this proposed amendment would eliminate that qualification. Like I said, the case where the Deputy Manager couldn’t step up because he was not a registered engineer generated a lot of discussion. Gee, is that really necessary? Aren’t these positions more administrative in nature, really? And that’s what this proposal would do. We’ve received a lot of testimony opposing this. There seems to be a lot of confusion in the public, like ‘gee, you’re trying to increase the qualifications in some areas and you seem like you’re trying to take them away in this case’, so my sense is we probably won’t propose this. It just seems so confusing, and it’s not a big deal, really, one way or the other. But the thought there is, and I do strongly believe this, that these positions are administrative in nature and they don’t have to be filled by a registered engineer, but that doesn’t seem to be a real burden. There are plenty of registered engineers around in the department, so there’s a good chance we won’t propose this.

Impeachment. A couple of changes here. One is in regard to a grounds for impeachment, eliminating the legal term for impeachment, ‘maladministration’. There, again, I’m going to ask our legal counsel to explain why he thinks, and why we think, that doesn’t make sense; that it’s not grounds for impeachment. And also, a back drop to this is we do have a recall procedure in the Charter, so through a recall petition, there also is an avenue for removing someone.

YUEN: Impeachment gives an unelected person, a judge, the power to remove someone who’s been elected by the entire community, and it’s an awesome power. Traditionally it’s used to remove public officials who have breached the public trust by violating some clear legal duty. So the grounds for impeachment, presently stated in the Charter, are malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance, which all are words that are well understood in the legal community as referring to either doing something that you’re not empowered to do by law, which would be malfeasance or misfeasance, or nonfeasance would be not doing something that you’re supposed to do. Like repeatedly not showing up for meetings would be an example of nonfeasance, or for the Mayor failing to submit a budget on time to the County Council would be an example of nonfeasance. The term ‘maladministration’ however, does not have any set or fixed meaning, and it creates a rather vague standard for removing the Mayor, or impeachment in general. It’s not just the Mayor, but it would be the Council members and the Prosecuting Attorney. So that was my recommendation that the word ‘maladministration’ be removed as a grounds for impeachment.

RAY: Yes sir.

P. MARTIN: My name is Pete Martin. That makes sense to me in the legal sense. What I don’t understand is why you would want to raise the number of signatures required from -

RAY: I haven’t gotten to that one yet.

P. MARTIN: Okay. From 100 to 3%. That creates an enormous burden for the public to get rid of a corrupt official.

RAY: I guess that’s a judgment call on what’s reasonable. To me, a hundred signatures seems totally unreasonable. Whether 3%, which would represent 2,000 votes or so, is reasonable or not, I think is up for grabs. We are discussing lowering that. We’ve talked about maybe 1% would be more reasonable, which would be more in the 700 vote range. Another issue related to that, that we’re struggling with, is whether, in these single member Council districts you would allow folks who were not in the Council district to be able to sign an impeachment petition. In other words, if I wanted to impeach Curtis Tyler, and I live in Waimea, would I be allowed to sign that petition or not, and as the language presently reads, that would be allowed. It does, and doesn’t, make sense to me. On one hand, County Council persons do represent the entire county and vote on island-wide issues, but they are single member representatives and on the other hand, I, kind of, have a problem with somebody outside the district voting for impeachment. So, we’re struggling with that and we’re going to try to come up with something that’s the most reasonable in our minds, but I think probably the 3% will be lowered. It would certainly be lowered if we restricted the impeachment signatures to only having to come from a certain district. Then we certainly wouldn’t require the 3%, i.e. 2,000 votes, if they could only come from one district. That would be lowered significantly, but that’s very much for discussion. So go ahead.

P. MARTIN: Well, in that case I would think it could be either/or. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, so that if you want to protect single district members from outside harassment, there’d have to be a greater number of people involved. Within that district, there should be fewer. It should not be an enormous burden on the public to get rid of a corrupt official.

RAY: I agree it should be fewer if that’s the way. Also, as part of this Charter Amendment, in regard to the petition and number of signatures, we will have to include a section that addresses the procedure for those signatures. So that will be a whole section addressed.

YUEN: Well, this is necessary if there is a much larger number of signatures required for impeachment than the current 100. For example, with the 3%, it would require approximately 2,000 signatures. In this case, there needs to be some mechanism for verifying that the signatures are authentically those of registered voters. With a hundred, it can be done very quickly and easily. If you have many more than that, the Court system won’t do it. They don’t have the personnel to do this. So what I’ve written up here would be that it would be done by the County Clerk’s Office in the same way that it’s done for referendum, initiative, recall, and the like. It basically follows the procedure for those, but a little bit differently. For initiative, referendum, recall, you have basically a second crack at submitting the petitions if you don’t have enough signatures. The County Clerk’s Office doesn’t like that, and because this would require quite a bit fewer than initiative, referendum, recall, as it’s written now there would be one opportunity. The impeachment petition gatherers have to be pretty sure that they had enough and submit it to the Clerk’s Office for one counting. And basically the life of the signatures is a year. I think those are the biggest differences between the petition here and the initiative, referendum and recall petition.

RAY: I’m going to let Chris address this next one, too. Yes ma’am.

FORD: I’m Brenda Ford. On this impeachment issue, and the numbers, because there’s a lack of clarify here on the 3% or 1%, or whatever, it seems to me that if the office is a District Office, that it should be, say - I’m just picking a number now - 1% of the people registered in that district. If it’s an island-wide office like Mayor, then it should be 1% of the island-wide whether they collect it all in one neighborhood or whether they do it island-wide. This doesn’t reflect the fact that it could be either a district or countywide office because if you said it has to be, say, 3%, that means 3% inside of a district, but the county has 2,000 -

RAY: The 3% was intended to accommodate signatures island-wide.

FORD: Okay, but it needs to reflect that.

RAY: Yes, I agree.

This next one regarding Special Counsel. This was a request by the Corporation Counsel to avoid a potential conflict that they thought might occur. Do you want to run that?

YUEN: This was requested by Corporation Counsel’s Office. Ordinarily, all County legal matters are handled by the Office of the Corporation Counsel. There are times when the office cannot handle a legal matter because of a conflict of interest. This can happen when County employees are sued both in their official capacity as employees, and as individuals. There are ethical rules that sometimes prohibit the Corporation Counsel from representing such people. The Charter currently would require the Corporation Counsel to go to the County Council and obtain an authorization to hire those attorneys. They’ve found this to be awkward in the past sometimes because of the controversial nature of the issue. If this amendment passed, this would permit the Corporation Counsel to hire special counsel without specific authorization from the County Council, however, they would have to operate within an appropriation that was made by the County Council. So, the way this would work is that the County Council might, at the beginning of the budget year, make an appropriation of X amount of money for Corporation Council to hire special counsel, and Corporation Counsel could then make those hires in these conflict-of-interest situations without going back to the Council for the authorization to do that, as long as they had the funds available. The County Council still controls the ultimate purse strings, and if the amounts required should go over what is budgeted, they would have to go back for further appropriation.

RAY: The Board of Appeals. This was a recommendation that we came up with early on, which was tied to the idea of creating a Division of Permitting. Since we’re not recommending that, I think we probably will not be recommending moving the Board of Appeals. So, that was if we were moving all the subdivision activities to a Division of Permitting in Public Works, it was also requested by the Administration that we move the Board of Appeals. So I don’t anticipate that we’ll be bringing that one forth at this time.

Department Head Qualifications. This is just going through and just trying to beef up the professional qualifications of the different Department Heads, so, this is still under discussion. We’re trying to make it more uniform but we’d also like it to be distinct, especially in regard to the County Council and/or the Salary Commission setting rates of pay for the different Department Heads. It’s always been a sore point with me, and aggravated me, that we pay all the Department Heads and Deputies exactly the same thing, for clearly what are not the same responsibilities and same qualifications. I’d like to see those pay rates reflect the actual job qualifications and responsibilities more. But anyway, that’s what these are. It’s just going through and trying to come up with some better language for professional standards.

Police Commission. In the body of the Police Commission, under the Statement of Policy, we’re recommending some new language. It’s language that came out of the Fire Commission that was established by the City and County of Honolulu, and we just really liked that language, and we thought it was a good sound description, statement of policy, so we’re basically lifting some of the Fire Commission language and shifting it over to the Police Commission. So, that’s all that is about. And then a couple of additions; language requiring ‘review the department operations as deemed necessary for the purpose of recommending improvements to the Police Chief’ and requiring an annual evaluation of the performance of the Police Chief and submitting a report to the Mayor and the Council. There was a lot of discussion, especially in light of the trials going on, the litigation, the Police Department, in regard to the powers of the Police Commission under the Charter and so that was something that we looked at very closely, and we feel very strongly that the Charter is not the problem, that the Police Commission is well empowered under the Charter, and perhaps they haven’t exercised the powers they have under the Charter for a number of reasons, but we brought that to their attention in terms of our perspective of the situation. But we didn’t think there were deficiencies in the Charter regarding the powers of the Commission.

OTTERSON: John?

RAY: Yes, Jim.

OTTERSON: Who ends up with the job of making out the reports on the Police Chief, the progress reports and all of this? Who ends up doing that?

RAY: Well, we require an annual review. That’s the Police Commission.

OTTERSON: Just the Police Commission.

RAY: Yes.

OTTERSON: If you had a City Manager, he would do it.

RAY: If you look at the proposed language under the Managing Director, it does mandate that type of review for every department.

OTTERSON: It’s clear cut. I’ve seen them get rid of one man that way.

RAY: So, we’re moving in that direction, but not nearly as strongly as you’d like.

Number 17, the Water Commission. This is a recommendation to have the nine Commission members tied to the nine single member districts vs. the present language. It ties them to broader geographical designations. It reads the District of Kohala, the District of Kona, the District of Ka’u, the District of Puna, the District of Hilo, the District of Hamakua; six districts. And the way this works out is if the Mayor is so inclined, it allows a pretty heavy weighting towards East Hawaii. The present Water Commission has 7 members from East Hawaii and only 2 from West Hawaii, so this would be addressing that situation. So that’s the only change there, and we did talk about the qualifications of the Manager. One other thing, in case you see it, our Water Commission, or Water Board, it’s titled Water Commission, and that creates a conflict in a lot of people’s minds because we have a very active State Water Commission, and a lot of people confuse when you’re talking about Water Commission, is it the State Water Commission or is it the County Water Commission. So we may, very well, recommend changing the Commission to the Board, so it would be the County Water Board, and not to be confused with the State Water Commission. That was submitted as testimony to us.

Salary Commission. This would basically give the appointed Salary Commission the authority to set the salaries for the Department and the Deputy Department Heads. The way it works right now is it has to be done by ordinance passed by the County Council. The rationale behind this is the reality is it is extremely difficult politically for the County Council to give salary raises, and what that has led to in the past is years and years and years of no salary increases, and a real disparity between not only the salary levels of Department Heads and people within their department - In other words, Civil Service salaries, a number of people within the department getting paid considerably more than the Department Head. So that’s a real disincentive for anybody wanting to be a Department Head, as well as reflecting the status of competition within the private sector, especially when you look at positions like the Head of Public Works and the Head of the Department of Water Supply, you know, registered engineers, very low salaries in our County compared to what these people can competitively get as registered engineers in the private sector. This is something Maui County implemented, I think, in 1994. I talked in some length with the Council people and former Mayor Lingle about this. It seems to have worked out very well over there. Hasn’t caused any great increase, or alarming increase, in salaries, and it seems to have worked well there. So, that’s what we’re recommending in regard to the Salary Commission. And in regard to the issue of setting salaries, distinct, based on the job qualifications and the responsibilities of the departments, we’ve discussed that very thoroughly with the Salary Commission, that we’d like to see that reflected in their recommendations, but there’s no guarantee of that.

OTTERSON: You’re talking about the Salary Commission. Now, under this management system, the Assistant Manager does all of this. He meets with the Unions. He meets with the management system. You’ve got three different systems that he meets with, and he is the one that sets it all up, and his department, you might say, rules that.

RAY: Who sets the salaries, though?

OTTERSON: Pardon?

RAY: Who sets the salaries? Who has the final say in the salaries in Riverside?

OTTERSON: The Employees Association, they come in and say, well, we want such and such more per hour.

RAY: We’re just talking about the Department Heads and the Deputy Department Heads. Who sets the salaries in Riverside for the head of the Public Works Department?

OTTERSON: Assistant City Manager.

RAY: He sets that salary?

OTTERSON: Yes he does.

RAY: Okay.

FORD: John?

RAY: Yes.

FORD: I’m Brenda Ford. I know you haven’t gotten to number 19, but I have the same question on 16, 17, 18, and 19. Are all these Commissioners on these different Commissions voluntary, i.e. non paid?

RAY: Yes.

FORD: Okay, and all four of these are one representative per Council District, even though it doesn’t say that in all four of these?

RAY: On the Police Commission, they are. On the Water Commission, they would be if adopted. The Salary Commission is not. There’s a different make-up on the Salary Commission.

FORD: It seems to me, for uniformity, that these four Commissions should be set up the same way, one representative from each district. And I don’t particularly like the idea of the Mayor appointing because he’s an elected official. I would like to see that the Council member nominate somebody subject to the entire Council’s vote of approval. But I do think each one of these Commissions, in fact, all of our Commissions, no matter what they are involved with, should be one representative from each one of our elected districts.

RAY: Let me give you a scenario. You got two year Council terms. In a three-way race, you can get elected with 34, 35% of the vote. As a Council person, if you appointed a Commissioner to a five-year term, I’ve got a problem with that, that that’s really reflective, so that’s a big dilemma. These two-years terms really, kind of, queer that whole dynamic, or they do in my mind, and I think they do in other Commissioners’ minds.

FORD: You have the exact same problem if you have the Mayor appoint them, so it’s a choice of whether you think the Mayor’s going to make the better choice, or Council member, representing a small district, is going to be making a better nomination choice.

RAY: Well, but the Mayor’s for a four-year term, and generally serves -

FORD: That’s our problem here.

RAY: Okay. But, I hear what you’re saying. Yes ma’am.

LAROS: Hi. I’m Gail Laros, and I’m thinking that if the Commission members recommended a panel, kind of, the way nominees for the Supreme Court are made to the President, if the Council members from districts made recommendations to the Mayor for the Commissions, and then the Mayor made approval, made his list, or her list, and then the Council approved what the Mayor suggested. I would think that that mechanism would get away from a lot of the partisan finagling.

RAY: That’s the way it should work now, and that’s the way it does work in some instances, and doesn’t work in others. Obviously, politics plays a big part of that. But the solicitation for applicants for all the Boards and Commissions is a very open process, and the Council members can, and should, get very much involved in that. There’s no impediment to that at this time. Few of them take advantage of that, and politically, it might be a waste of time for some of them, but anyway, that is something there’s no reason that can’t work today. In other words, the community, through their Council person, through community associations, through whatever, can make those recommendations and, in fact, in Waimea I can think of at least several instances regarding the Planning Commissioner for the Kohala District and the Water Commissioner, that the Waimea Community Association has made strong recommendations to the Mayor. I don’t think he took them but anyway. I’m just saying. Yes, George.

G. MARTIN: Point of clarification. I think with what your concern is, and it’s being heard up here, for example, this Commission was suggested by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. So I think if that were to be done with all of the Commissions, I think it would alleviate your concern that one power is doing all of that, and I think it could be done, and I see no problem with that.

RAY: It is done.

G. MARTIN: I don’t know.

RAY: That’s the way all these Commissions work. They’re all appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. But, the political reality is that it’s pretty difficult to overrule the Mayor. It is done. There was an instance last year where one Commissioner for a Board was turned down by the County Council. But it’s something that certainly can be done. But this is an issue that we’re very much aware of and we’ve gotten quite a bit of input on. Like I say, these two-year terms for these longer Commissions really are a dilemma.

IRVINE: John, we could always shorten the terms of the Commissioners.

RAY: We could. I think in terms of some of the major Commissions, especially like the Planning Commission or the Water Commission, I don’t think it’s realistic to have a term much shorter than four years. I think it takes a year or two just to really understand the issues. So I don’t think you’d want to make it a whole lot shorter than five years, but that’s always a possibility.

And then finally, Cost-of-Government Commission. This is something we got out of the Maui County Charter. This would be an appointed Commission. It would be tied to the nine districts, which would be appointed every couple of years to meet for a period of time and make suggestions to the County Administration on how to promote economy, efficiency, and improve service in the County. It would be a lay Commission, advisory only, but it would be just a citizens’ input in regard to the efficiency and cost of government. So that’s what this would create.

So, that’s the nineteen proposed amendments at this time. Just a couple of things. Like I’ve said, this is very much in discussion. The number of amendments seems like an awful lot, so we may eliminate a few that are less important just to have less on the ballot to deal with. We will try to keep, as much as possible, the amendments distinct and separate, so we’ll be voting, as much as possible, on single issues and not tying things together. There are a few exceptions to that, like in regard to the impeachment, we’ll probably have those two coupled together in one amendment.

Let’s take a five minute break. Yes, Brenda.

FORD: I have a question for Chris, if I may, on the maladministration. I realize it has no legal definition. Do you have any non-legal definition for that word?

YUEN: No.

FORD: Is it not in the dictionary?

YUEN: Well, I think maladministration would encompass poor administration which would encompass things like not being very efficient in the use of resources, allowing too much overtime in a department. And those would come under maladministration but I can’t see them as being proper grounds for an impeachment.

FORD: All right. No, I was thinking more of the Mayor’s statement, he wanted to resign a few months before the end of his term so he could run again. To me, maladministration might possibly fall under that issue. You know, he’s trying to circumvent the will of the Charter and the will of the people. You don’t think so.

YUEN: I can’t see making a statement like that being considered maladministration, no.

RAY: Let’s take a five minute break. The mens rooms are on this side, the ladies on the other. So we’ll just take a five minute stand up break and then we’ll entertain public testimony. If you haven’t signed up and want to testify, there are forms on the table behind me.

RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 10:15 a.m.

RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:19 a.m.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

RAY: If everybody could take their seats, we’re going to start with the public testimony and Peter Martin is going to be the first person to testify. And we really want to make sure to get this recorded so make sure you’re not only at a mike, but that you identify yourself and also speak up so that everybody else in the audience can share what it is you’re saying. So, Peter.

P. MARTIN: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I represent Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government. We started this a few months ago here in Kailua, and we’re hopeful to get more and more folks around the island involved. We’re a non-partisan organization and we’ve looked very, very carefully at your suggestions here; some of which are very, very good; some of which make us very nervous. I think, since the Charter is basically a Constitution, or the Body Politic, that we ought to follow the idea of physicians. And that is, first, do no harm. We’re very concerned about the idea of going back now to at-large. We finally have a system which is representing, however imperfectly representing, every community on this island. Now, we have an island that’s the size of Connecticut, and yet we have a preponderance of population in one place. Now, we already have enough problems getting attention to the smaller communities from the County government without making it worse. If we have at-large, we’re going to end up with three more people from the Hilo area, and a lot of folks are going to be left out even more. So, we’re adamantly opposed to this, adamantly. And we are going to make a point of continuing to be adamantly opposed to it. I should tell you, and no offense intended here at all, because a lot of the work you’ve done is very, very good, but we feel so strongly about this that if it is left in here, we will do our best to convince people to vote against all measures for change. So this is very, very important to us. Non-partisan elections will be all right provided that we don’t have at-large people. That’s going to put the smaller communities and people that don’t have much money at a terrible, terrible disadvantage. You can’t expect someone from Ka’u, that doesn’t have a lot of money, to compete with somebody from Hilo that has plenty of support, for at-large. So, we want you to take this very, very seriously. Thank you.

Now, as far as Planning Commission powers are concerned, Mr. Yuen, we would like to have the language stated in such a way that those Special Management Areas, and I assume those areas are the ones that would be involved with Federal and State’s regulations also. Correct? Like seashore management and so forth? We are number 10 here.

YUEN: The Special Management Area is an area that’s entirely mapped out currently, and it is generally around the shore line, and in some cases, it goes in a little bit.

P. MARTIN: Okay. Those are areas that are of public concern. I guess what our concern is, we do not want to give any Commission the powers that should be reserved to the people, powers that should be reserved to elected officials, people who are responsible and answerable to us.

Qualifications of Heads of Departments of Public Works and Department of Water Supply, etc., etc. There should be no, ever should be any, excuse not to have a qualified Department Head for any department. If that department has responsibilities for engineering things, then the head of that department should be an engineer. You cannot expect a non-engineer to be able to make the most informed decisions for the County. You can have an administrative person as an assistant if you like, but the person in charge should know what they’re doing. That goes for Parks and Recreation. You wouldn’t put a non-financial expert in the Finance Department. I can’t imagine that you’d do that. So if you’re not going to do that, you shouldn’t do it for DPW.

And the only other thing that was brought up earlier, and I think that we should discuss it some more, is the Commissions situation. We’re very pleased to see the idea of districts for the Water Commission, that all districts are represented. We cannot, for the life of us, understand why all districts shouldn’t be represented for all Commissions; Police, Fire, etc., and we would like to see those Commissioners as nearly represent the people in their district as possible. It’s not in our best interest, I don’t think, to have the Mayor, whoever he or she is, with that kind of power. We would like to see the people that are going to serve on those Commissions as recommended and presented to the whole board by their own district Council people. And thank you very much for your attention. We appreciate your good work.

RAY: George.

G. MARTIN: Point of clarification. You know that the Department Head - As far as it went in the Planning Department, the individual that came to us and spoke to us and was not able to receive the position had a degree, but his degree came from the military, and our County or State, or whatever the case may be, didn’t recognize that degree although he was an engineer, but not a licensed engineer. So with a situation like that, the person had the capability of doing the job. He had the ability to do the job, but he couldn’t do it because of this criteria. What’s your stance on that now?

P. MARTIN: Well, I would say to you that I was a previous airline Captain, and I might have known how to fly an airplane but if the Federal Aviation Commission didn’t give me a Captain’s rating, I wouldn’t be allowed to be a Captain. That’s it, and I think that we have to understand that what’s really important here is that we have qualified people. Now, there are going to be people who are qualified who don’t have the paperwork. Well, then you need to go get the paperwork.

RAY: Next person testifying, Ann Mack. And the next person up is Keiko Bonk, followed by Patti Barry. So, Ann Mack.

MACK: Good morning. My name is Ann Mack. My address is 76-6306 Kaheiau Street, Kailua-Kona. I just have a few brief remarks based on the information this morning.

I am very much in favor of number 1, non-partisan elections.

I am against number 2, having the Council have three at-large seats. I think we’re just beginning to get the benefits of having the Council members represented from all districts. I’d hate to see that changed.

And, number 10, especially the proposals (e) and (f) regarding the Special Management Area. We need more public input. Not less. Thank you.

RAY: I just want to reiterate that this doesn’t change anything that is existing, these two proposals. It just clarifies. It doesn’t make any change in terms of the jurisdiction. I mean we could just as easily not put these in, but we’re trying to responsibly reflect reality, so that’s also something we’re dealing with. Okay, Keiko.

IRVINE: Could I ask a question, John, of our Council? We would have to take all of the powers away from the Planning Commission and make them strictly advisory if we wanted them not to have this Coastal Zone Management power, is that correct?

YUEN: That’s correct, yes.

IRVINE: Thank you.

RAY: Okay. Keiko Bonk.

BONK: Good morning Charter Commission members. I’m Keiko Bonk, here today representing myself. I’d like to thank you all for the time to speak. I’m here today because this Commission is proposing a series of frightening Charter Amendments which, I believe, are designed to show up the crumbling system of political control that has become known as the ‘old boys system of big money politics’. These amendments that I’m concerned with would make it harder for the general public to participate in government, and reduce the accountability of elected officials. Here’s how. The biggest obstacle to participation in our political system today is the cost of running for office. The cost continues to go up, making it harder and harder for ordinary citizens to get elected. To serve your community as an elected official, you must become a full time professional fundraiser. For instance, our current Mayor had to raise almost $11,000 every month of every year of his first four-year term to get elected to a second term. That means over a half a million dollars, $534,000 or so to be more accurate.

Amendment number 2 calls for the creation of three island-wide Council seats. This amendment would turn back the clock and halt the progress that has been made since 1990, when the voters approved district races. Specifically, it would make it impossible for reform oriented politicians, whether they’re Green, Democrat, or Republicans, who are not indebted to the ‘old boys’ style of politics, to ever gain a majority on the Council because they won’t be able to afford to participate in the $11,000 a month campaign funding game. I’m against Amendment 2 for this reason. It would take us back a decade, back to a style of politics which wouldn’t have allowed people like myself, or Curtis Tyler, or Julie Jacobson, or Nancy Pisicchio, or Dominic Yagong, to ever run on this island.

Amendment number 10. I’m against Amendment number 10, which would give the Planning Commission, a body appointed by the Mayor, the power to, quote, enact rules and regulations having the force and effect of law. Laws are supposed to be passed by the elected Legislative Branch of our government, i.e. the Council, not appointed officials. I’m adamantly opposed to this Amendment number 10. As it is right now, the Planning Commission has powers which I don’t think they should have. They have the power, for instance, to decide on large land use decisions, for instance, determining where golf courses are going to be, and also being able to permit things called special kinds of lodges, which actually can be rather large, almost hotel-like, structures. In other words, they could put together by special permitting already, major developments without any of us, other people in the government process, the Council for example, getting involved in the procedure. If anything, this body should be an advisory only body, if you want to make an amendment.

Amendment number 6 gives similar powers to the Department of Public Works, none of whom are elected. Giving elected powers to appointed bodies, as I mentioned just prior to this, is not a good policy.

Amendment number 1 calls for switching to non-partisan elections, which would significantly increase the cost of running for office. Rather than running one limited Primary Election and one full scale General Election, most elections would require two full scale elections. For those who are part of the ‘old boy system’, this is a rather good thing. For those who aren’t, it means they will be shut out. It also means that candidates will have even less contact with the grass roots. Contrary to the popular belief, political parties have been a giant thorn in the side of the ‘old boys’ for decades. The rank and file of most political parties are more progressive than most of the candidates. If you don’t believe me, read the platforms written by the members, not the politicians. The ‘old boy’ politicians have to use up enormous resources to maintain control of parties, often having to compromise on issues they would rather simply avoid. In non-partisan races, candidates can more easily avoid hard subjects, or even outright lie, because there’s no one that they are obligated to trying to hold them accountable to a platform. If you think our Council has problems, try looking at the non-partisan Councils in this state, or for that matter, around the country. On Oahu, three of the Council members are in trouble with the law. As many problems as we have, we have a higher voter turnout and participation than the vast majority of the country, especially when compared to non-partisan races. Non-partisan races reduce the seriousness of political discussion, encourage short-term thinking, and reduce the amount of citizen input into the electoral process by turning elections into media-driven, personality based, popularity contests. Under the current system, candidates are already free to run non-partisan candidates. The ‘old boys’ want to make it mandatory to run as a non-partisan candidate so everyone looks the same at first glance, and it all comes down to who’s going to have the most money.

I was going to comment on amendment 7, but apparently you’re shifting that. That was, originally, the Legislative Auditor’s amendment in regards to how it was going to be set up. But that’s the one you’re shifting from an Auditor’s to a Research, number 7.

RAY: We’re really renaming it. We don’t feel like we’re shifting it in terms of what it does.

BONK: You’re renaming it. Okay, if you’re renaming it, my only concern is that what happened to the original intent and that was to audit. So, you have to consider are you going to be responsible for actually auditing, which I think has been a negligent part of our government, and that’s something you might want to think about.

Some of the amendments that are proposed by this body are good. I support the idea of professionalizing the Managing Director’s position, for instance. However, these other amendments are bad, so bad that I want to concentrate on asking you to reconsider these amendments and voting against number 1, number 2, number 6, and number 10.

I suppose that you’ve had more discussion than we’ve been able to see here, because I cannot see, in any of the documents that I’ve been presented with, why some of these ideas were initiated. In fact, I don’t know what the problem was that you were trying to correct in certain cases. For instance, in terms of number 1 and number 2, what were the problems we were trying to correct? That would be a good way to start dealing with your Charter Amendments. Identify the problem for the public. Identify it clearly, and it’s got to be a problem worth resolving, and had much input before you change it. If you are trying to resolve problems to clean up corruption and waste in government, and create a more responsible and efficient government, which I hope that’s the motivation, then you might want to consider two other kinds of alternatives for the future. One would be a Civil Grand Jury, with the power to investigate corruption and citizen complaints in the government. This has been done in areas like San Diego. And there you have a nomination process where anyone can nominate themselves and then there’s a random drawing as to who’s going to be picked for the Grand Jury, and they go and investigate government and any problems that might be going on.

Number 2 would be to form a Civic Participation Commission designed to develop a comprehensive and detailed plan of long-term reform designed to increase citizen participation and trust in County government. So, again I’m urging you to vote against 1, 2, 6, and 10. Mahalo for your time.

RAY: Thank you. Next -

HERKES: John, I have a question, and it’s not necessarily for Ms. Bonk, but maybe Mr. Yuen or you have the answer. Since this SMA question has come up and the Planning Commission, I wondered how the Planning Commission got these powers in the first place. I remember a discussion about the County Council mandating them to have these powers. Is that true?

YUEN: On the SMA permits, that comes from the State Law that set up the permits in the first place. The State Law set up the idea of having the Special Management Area and once the boundaries of that are set, any development within the Special Management Area requires this permit, which is called the SMA permit. The State Statute goes on to say that the authority, which gives the permit, shall be the County Planning Commission, except in those counties in which the Planning Commission has only advisory functions, and this was enacted about 1975. From the beginning of our County Charter in 1969, the Planning Commission has had some actual permitting powers and authorities. Right now, in addition to the SMA permits, they issue Special Permits which are for unusual uses in the agricultural district, and they issue Use Permits which are some special uses which are allowed by the Zoning Code on a case-by-case basis within particular districts. Just to give an example, in residential districts, somebody can build a telecommunications tower. That’s allowed by the Zoning Code, but they need a Use Permit on a case-by-case basis from the Planning Commission. That’s set up in the County Ordinance.

HERKES: Thank you.

BONK: One example of the Planning Commission using their Special Permitting process was the Akahi Joint Venture which is a lot larger kind of project than just putting up a pole. That was a whole resort development type of project.

G. MARTIN: Mr. Chair, if I may. Several questions and a comment to touch upon what you were saying, and I was told not to antagonize the body this morning. So I’m not going to try and do that, and I hope I don’t. But I come from Hamakua and, as you know, our representative, and we have a great one in Dominic, but he’s been ho’opa’apa’a several times with the Mayor and ongoing pilikia, and our community has suffered for that, and this 3-6 split was, kind of, not my idea, but it was fostered through me in that if we had two other people, or three other people that we could touch upon and have help Dominic, we’d have a lot more of our projects done. Classic example; Laupahoehoe Pool needs to be repaved on the bottom of the pool, and the monies was allotted. The Mayor won’t release it. Now, even though he’s a lame duck and he doesn’t really have to, no matter who touches upon him, but if we had three other people that we could use, there’d be four and we could possibly get more things done. That was some of the thought behind going to a 6-3 split.

Now, you made mention of not having contact with the people, on you’re not wanting to support number 2. You made mention that the person wouldn’t have contact with the grass roots, I believe you said. How do you figure that?

BONK: Can I answer your first?

G. MARTIN: The first one was just a comment, but -

BONK: Well, commenting on that, you already have a way to resolve that problem. If a Mayor is not being accountable for all districts on the island in a responsible way, then you can get rid of that Mayor, because they’re hired to be responsible -

G. MARTIN: Elected to.

BONK: Right, elected to, hired by the vote of the people, to take care of all the island in an equitable way. Therefore, if that was the case that you expressed that there was some reason the Mayor wasn’t letting out money for a particular part of the island, then it wasn’t the Council person’s inability to represent his district. It was the Mayor’s inability to participate in that part of the island. You should be directing your emphasis on the Mayor’s responsibility.

G. MARTIN: We have, and we will, and we’ll continue to do that, but what I’m saying is -

BONK: In our process now, you can get rid of that Mayor to get a more equitable Mayor.

G. MARTIN: We’ll be doing that in about a couple of months.

BONK: But district races would only mean that you would have to have now three other people besides the Mayor running incredible costs to get elected, and therefore, you’re going to limit the kind of person that you’re going to be able to get to run those kinds of races.

G. MARTIN: Now, back to the question on the grass roots. How did you figure the person that would be running wouldn’t have contact with the people on number 2, which was, I believe, at-large? Or was it that you -

BONK: No, actually, that was on my comments about non-partisan elections In terms of not being as grass roots.

G. MARTIN: Correct, which is number 1. Excuse me.

BONK: Okay, grass roots means that people understand and get to know the person that’s running. Now, the general tendency with non-partisan races is to really take away any initial ideas or stances that the person might have on issues and larger general ideas for platforms. Okay? The good part about parties is that they bring with them a certain body of information. A certain body of information that a bunch of people have gotten together to decide, or ideas that they agree on. Now, that’s a good concept, and that’s what our country is set up with parties, many different - a lot more parties to begin with at different times, so we would have diversity. You come with that information. People are able to make certain judgments. Then, as a short campaign exists, the candidates are allowed more time to clarify their positions based on those, at least some original ideas, that the people have contact with. You take that away with the kind of style of politics that’s evolving in America, where you’re restricted to only media campaigns and who has enough money to put out your name in the print, in the TVs and radio, you don’t have much time to explain to people what your individual stances are at all. And only the people with money are going to get their ideas out. So, how are you going to know about that person? And what if that person is lying to you the whole time?

G. MARTIN: You’re never going to tell if anybody’s lying until after the fact, but I think, by you people coming here and participating in the system that we have, you inform yourself as to what’s going to happen. And if it were to be a politician running for any given seat then the same process, you guys got to come forth and question them and, of course, hold them accountable. I don’t think the grass roots is lost is what I’m saying, and that was the question that I was posing.

BONK: Well, the fact is, in America, the grass roots is having less and less participation in their elections. They don’t even vote. Okay? Half of the people in America, so there’s evidence, if you need evidence, that we’re losing a grass roots base. There’s facts. People in America voting less and less. What we need more of is more information for the people, not less. And I think non-partisan - the issue gets confused with most people because they think all of a sudden they’re going to have more information about the candidates. The people even ask me ‘wouldn’t it be better for you as a Green Party candidate to actually go for non-partisan elections?’ Probably, for myself, as an established candidate already, with name recognition, hey, non-partisan elections might not effect me at all. However, for a first time running candidate, without any background in campaigns and name recognition, a new candidate coming to run, if they have no party base to start with, they’re going to have to spend a lot of money just to get some of that name recognition. A lot.

G. MARTIN: Okay.

BONK: And there’s always somebody from the ‘old boys’ putting in way more money, to begin with, with their candidate.

G. MARTIN: That will continue no matter what, though, I think.

BONK: I actually have more faith in the system.

G. MARTIN: Well, last question. You made comment about looking at non-partisan, and I think you were referring to Oahu, and possibly other places, with individuals in trouble with the law. I don’t think non-partisan has anything to do with a person making a decision to do illegal activity.

BONK: Actually, I disagree because parties are still responsible and accountable to these people, and if there’s trouble, there’s embarrassment for a larger group. And they come and they try to weed out some of these kind of corrupt activities. Okay? I really think that if we start to lessen our accountability, even with ideas, then we’re going to start to have less and less responsible leadership.

RAY: Sue, you have a question?

IRVINE: Thank you. Yes, I do have a couple of things to say. I want to thank Keiko for coming. I wish you’d brought some of your ideas to us a little earlier, Civil Grand Jury, that type of thing, and to tell you that we are, at this point, we’re still looking at the Legislative Reference Office. We’ve talked about audits. We can’t come up with a scenario that works any better than what we’re doing right now, considering the fact that that office is entirely appointed by the County Council. If you have some ideas, send them to us, or write it down, some real solid ideas. And also, the Planning Commission - We’ve been around and around, should we elect them. Well, maybe only certain people with real interest in those issues would run. Should they be appointed by individual Council members? I don’t know. Today, I guess, you’re more or less saying that they should just be advisory which I don’t know why anybody would go to two meetings a month for five years just to be advising because they have a huge workload at this time, and often their secretaries can’t even keep up to get them the paperwork more than 24 hours before they have to sit down and hear things.

BONK: Can I say something about that?

IRVINE: Sure.

BONK: I would agree with you that in order to make it work, an advisory Planning Commission would have to have a very, very strong Planning Department with professionals that are real planners, number 1. You know we have a Planning Department that has positions for planners that aren’t filled right now, and so there’s a big burden and weight that’s being put on other bodies because the Planning Department isn’t carrying out, I think, a lot of their responsibilities. So the Council has more pressure to do things, and the Planning Commission has been given more responsibilities over the years. In fact, just recently with the Zoning Code changes, even more responsibilities. The Planning Commission, I think, was set up to be more advisory, to be representative of the general public. We don’t have any qualifications for them to have planners on the Planning Commission. However, you have to have real professionals, like you’re talking about in these other departments, that are initiating all these proposals that are coming forth to the Planning Commission, and eventually even to the Council. The Council’s not filled with planners either. They’re elected lay people from the community. So you need these professionals. Now, this is where I think we can start tightening up, is within the Planning Department, giving back a lot of the responsibilities, initially for them to do the work, so the advisory body comes in, the non-paid advisory body from the public, and actually tries to lock into the vision that they should be responsible for, the island at-large.

RAY: Sue, you finished?

IRVINE: I think so.

RAY: Okay, Daryl, you had a question?

KUROZAWA: Yes. Keiko, I just had a quick comment and a question regarding the issue of the at-large. And just to let you know, being from West Hawaii, we commented that we knew there’d be a lot of opposition from the West side, mainly because of the history of the at-large seats here. But, the one issue that came up, and I think one of the reasons the four-year term was tossed around, was there’s always a concern right now that because the Council members have two-year terms, and there’s a potential that in one year you can have all new Council members, which we’ve had, and so you have a group of inexperienced people trying to learn their job. It may take the six months or a year to do that, and just when they’re starting to get into the process of learning, or becoming a very efficient Council member, then they’re up for re-election, and they may be either gone, or they’ll be campaigning the last year. So, the thought on that was to give some stability to the Council and maybe having more experienced people there for a longer time period.

RAY: Keiko.

BONK: Did Peter want to comment on that?

RAY: Well, you go ahead. He addressed it to you, and then Peter can.

BONK: Okay.

P. MARTIN: Yes, it seems to me that you could think about having four-year terms for the entire Council and staggering the elections, so that as you get new people in and learning, you still have a core, or a cadre, of people who are experienced and are knowledgeable, so that you would have more continuity and you would never find yourself with all new people at one time.

BONK: There’s down sides and upsides to the four-year term thing. The problem with that is the people voted many, many times, and if you can’t hear the people vote after how many times we put this on the ballot for two-year terms, then we have problems. No matter what we think, two-year terms, that’s what the people want. Now, I know the pros and cons because I’ve been there too with John Ray. Two-year terms come around really fast. However, there is something really good about two-year terms coming around very fast for elected officials and that’s the fact that they can never slack. They have to be on the ball all the time. That’s good for the public. It’s given us a lot more vocal accountability from Council member to their districts. I think it has in the last ten years. But, the Mayor’s the one, the Administrative body whoever it is, is supposed to be the one showing the continuity. They’re the ones that are supposed to be carrying through on the projects that the legislative body puts to law. And that’s where, I think, the problem’s breaking down, not so much the Council bodies coming in - Well, they probably could be doing more legislative work, but that’s something that has to be cleaned up with the Administrative body as well. So the people have spoken, whether you like it or not, and if you take it one more time to them, I think it’s going to be pretty nervy.

RAY: Thank you. Patti Barry, followed by Shannon Rudolph.

BARRY: Thank you. My name’s Patti Barry. I am from Oceanview. I’m speaking for myself. Good morning. I am a friend of Jim Otterson’s and support his ideas, and plan to do some expanding on them, which I have some of my own.

I have reviewed the proposed County Charter Commission changes to the Charter. Although they are possibly a step in the right direction, I find many flaws. I appreciate all your efforts.

Most cities/counties in the United States over 45,000 population utilize the Council/Manager form of government. This system combines the political leadership of elected officials and the managerial expertise of an appointed, professionally trained, local government manager. The Council members are the county’s policy makers, elected by popular vote, to be responsive to citizens’ needs and wishes. They focus on short-term goals, major projects and long-term considerations such as capital improvement projects, land use development, and capital financing and strategic planning.

Whereas, it could be an honorary Mayor should devote his or her time to ceremonies, dignitaries, the promotion of the city and county, enticing new businesses and industries into the area. Neither the Mayor or the County Council should interfere with the County Manager’s duties or powers, directly or indirectly, or any of his subordinates. As the Council members serve the pleasure of the citizens, so the County Manager serves the County as long as the County Council considers the job well done. The manager can be replaced at anytime by a majority vote of the County Council. The County Council hires the County Manager based on his or her qualifications and expertise in management, economics and finances. Many are lured from other cities which have been managed effectively.

When a County Manager is hired, he or she would undoubtedly streamline the departments to work more efficiently by merit and qualification. The County Manager would hire and be assisted by the following who would report directly to him. These individuals could possibly come up the ranks and could be promoted by the County Manager providing they are qualified. Rather than create a new position, it could be as simple as the changing of a title and responsibility. This would basically eliminate some of what you’ve proposed in items 4, 16, 17, and 19, as your amendments for Commissions.

The Assistant County Manager would oversee the County Clerk’s Office, Municipal archives, Elections, Internal Audit and Employee Representatives. The County Services Deputy County would oversee Police, Fire, Library, TV, and you would go on with the Administrative overseeing Finance, Information Technology, Internal Services and Budget. And Operations Deputy County would oversee Parks and Recreation, Planning, Public Works, Utility Departments and our tourism.

With a budget in excess of 175 million, any business would consider the CEO of a conglomerate to have had, not only experience but, the vital expertise in the various aspects of managing a business as superior skills in management, economics and finances. We do not expect any less of our government which is handling our money and running our county. Please consider a County Management form of government instead of a strong Mayor government. The latter not requiring the qualifications to manage. We are only allowed to amend our Charter every 10 years. If we don’t get it right this time, we will have to wait another 10 years to the detriment of ourselves and our children.

There is an organization which I believe you are all familiar with, the International City/County Managers Association located in Washington, D.C. They have 8,000 members, of which 3,558 are managers who are very successful at managing their cities. The qualifications of the City/County Managers are very defined in the field of finances, economics and management. They could be of great assistance to our County and, if need be, a source of a qualified County Manager, provide we are unable to obtain one locally. Unfortunately, the proposed changes to the Charter regarding the Managing Director and the Mayor are, at this point, of no value. The changes keep the same chain of command . Just the language has been changed. The Managing Director is still at the whim of the Mayor. We must keep politics out of County management. Thank you.

RAY: Just one correction. You don’t have to wait ten years. As I pointed out, there are two other ways to amend the Charter and, in fact, we’re close to running out of time this year, but I think there’s still time if you could get your County Council person to introduce such an amendment. The County Council, by ordinance, could have any additional amendment for any of these ideas on the ballot this Fall, separate from whatever this Commission comes up to. So, it’s not strictly up to this Commission to propose amendments.

BARRY: But we have to do it by this Fall. After that, we can do it when?

RAY: You can do it anytime. It’s just based on an election cycle in terms of it being voted on. In other words, a Council person can independently introduce an ordinance for a Charter Amendment, and if that passes, that will appear on the next election, which would be exactly the same time anything this Commission comes up with, and that can be done anytime by the County Council.

BARRY: I will get you more statistics.

RAY: I mean, if you give up on us -

BARRY: I’m not. That’s why I’m here.

RAY: You could also get your Council person to be an advocate for that, and routinely the Council does entertain and bring up Charter Amendments, so it’s not just every 10 years that you can change the Charter.

BARRY: Okay, thank you.

RAY: Jim.

OTTERSON: Yes, I sent letters to each one of the Council members and I’ve got some pretty good feedback from them.

RAY: Talk is cheap.

OTTERSON: Well, absolutely, I agree with you. But now let me tell you about me. I feel so strongly about this, having worked under the situation, under the system, for 25 years. My wife worked under it for 35 years. Of course, she’s quite a bit older than I am.

HERKES: We know your wife. We remember her.

OTTERSON; I’m in trouble, aren’t I?

HERKES: Yes, right, you are.

OTTERSON: So, it just excites me. It really does. It excites me to see something that could be changed so easily and work so great, because it is a smooth process, this Council Manager situation. And the way you have it there, the Mayor can come in, like I’ve said before, he can be straight off of the street. He has to have no knowledge of what, or how to handle, it’s getting close to 200 million - before too long, he’ll have a $200 million budget, and unless you’ve got somebody in there that knows how to put this money in the right places, or have the people under him, now that - That’s the big thing - like your Finance Director, your Planning Department. One of your most important places is the Planning Director. Well, all you have to do is drive around here in three or four blocks, and you see what could be helped out, and that would be the Planning Department. You’ve got Public Works. You’ve got Parks and Rec. You’ve got right on down the line, and they need a sufficient amount of Directors with the papers that show they are Directors, to run those. And Keiko, I’m not running you down or anything like that, but just say the next Mayor that would come in, say they would come off the street. In the Charter the only thing they have to know, the only thing they have to be is a registered voter. Right? Have you read your Charter? Okay. That’s exactly all they need to know, so I hope you, please, give this some big thought because it’s going to be a major decision on you guys’ part. But it does work. One more thing, though. You say somebody in San Diego, or somewhere in Kentucky, got rid of it?

RAY: Are you saying -

OTTERSON: Anyway, I just wondered what the population was there?

RAY: I’m not sure what the question was yet.

OTTERSON: What the circumstances -

RAY: You mean why Lexington, Kentucky switched from a City Manager?

OTTERSON; Yes.

RAY: Just basically they thought that would be a more effective way to run the city.

OTTERSON: I just wondered how large a community it was.

RAY: Oh, I think it’s in the several hundred thousand range, the combined City of Lexington and the County.

OTTERSON: When was this? Do you know?

RAY: I’ve got the information. They switched back about 10 years ago.

OTTERSON: I bet they’re back to manager now.

RAY: No, they’re not.

BARRY: What about all those that have switched the other way around, from strong Mayor to Council/Manager? The statistics on those and the cities.

RAY: My understanding is that the trend is going the other way, that more folks are switching away from Council/Manager to strong Mayor form of government at this point in time.

BARRY: With the Mayor with no qualifications? Not needing to have any basic -

RAY: With the Mayor as the Chief Executive Officer. Anyway, let’s move on. We’ve got a lot of people to testify.

BARRY: Okay.

OTTERSON: One more thing. When you’ve got close to $200 million, you’ve got a lot of money there that this individual that voted, and that individual that voted - You’ve got to have somebody in there that knows how to run that budget.

RAY: That’s why we have a Finance Department and a qualified head of that department, Jim, okay? So, it’s not the Mayor that runs the Finance Department.

OTTERSON: But, does he have the papers to do it, or is he just somebody that walked in. Like in Planning Department, that’s a big waste right there.

RAY: Okay, I think we understand where you’re coming from.

OTTERSON: Okay.

RAY: And it’s been well presented. Shannon Rudolph, followed by Ray Moore.

RUDOLPH: Aloha. My name is Shannon Rudolph and first, I’d like to thank you all for all the reading, driving, thinking, and overall time you’ve had to spend to be a member of this Commission. And I’d also like to thank you for your web page. I’m sorry half your Commission is missing here today. Sorry that they didn’t think it important to come to Kona. Normally I would go along with any ballot measure that the people have a chance to vote on. What bothers me is the ballot wording. When the ballot wording gets too confusing, many people don’t get the chance to vote the way they think they’re voting, or they leave the measure blank because they don’t understand it. I consider these votes stolen. Many people will never forgive the Hapuna vote; yes means no and no means yes. Please make these ballot measures easily understandable. No hocus-pocus.

I think I support non-partisan elections. At least I would be willing to try them. I think I support a professional Managing Director appointed by the Council, and I support the formation of an Environmental Services Department with a professionally qualified Department Head. That goes for Public Works, Water, R&D, etc. I think all Department Heads should be professionally qualified. I support an Environmental Services Commission and all other Commissions as long as Commission members come from each Council district and are confirmed by the Council. I oppose at-large Council seats. I think you’re beating a dead horse with this one. The people have spoken and spoken. I strongly oppose any changes to the Planning Commission unless it’s as an advisory change or an elected Planning Commission. They have way too much power already. Maybe the Council should have the SMA power, not Planning. I’d really like to see a Kona Planning Commission. I strongly oppose any changes to the Initiative, Recall and Impeachment. I support the added measure of Neighborhood Boards and I also support the added measure of an elected Charter Review Commission. This Commission has more responsibility than the other Commissions, and in your minutes you’ve said yourselves, that many people on County Boards and Commissions just keep getting recycled over and over. One excellent way to stop this recycling, and get more people involved in their government, is with an elected Charter Review Commission. Many U.S. counties have an elected Charter Review Commission and I think we should too. It’s really the only fair way to review the Charter. We could also have nine members instead of eleven; one from each district, saving money and saving the at-large problem. If nine people can’t get the job done, then I doubt three more will help.

In closing, I’d like to take a quick straw poll to see how many of you would like to see an elected Charter Review Commission on this year’s ballot. Can you raise your hands? Well, we’ve got a few.

RAY: You understand that wouldn’t take effect for ten years?

RUDOLPH: Yes, I’m trying to plan ahead.

RAY: Okay.

RUDOLPH: And thank you for your time, and those of you that would like to see an elected Commission, you’re going to have to write the Commission and tell your friends because if you don’t ask for it, you’re not going to get it. Thank you.

RAY: Ray Moore, followed by Keola Childs. Is Ray Moore here?

MOORE: Mr. Chairman, members, thank you very much for all the work that you’ve done. It’s a real dedication. I came from another life, another jurisdiction, where I was a County Chairman of a major political party. I was a State Senator for 16 years from the other party. I have served on quite a few Commissions, committees. One of the things that I might suggest that you consider is that in setting up Boards and Commissions, you try to make it possible for some people who have an axe to grind to be on that Commission. They will bring their personal or professional view into play, and it may be imperfect, but it will be a point of view that will not exist if you appoint people that are just good citizens and want to serve.

The second thing is I am quite opposed to non-partisan elections. When I see the word ‘Democrat’ opposite somebody’s name, it has a certain connotation to me. When I see the word ‘Republican’ after a name, it indicates to me a certain point of view. Now when you run as non-partisans, you have no idea what this person’s basic philosophy is. And so I rather favor keeping it the way it is.

Now as to the members at-large. This makes it only too possible, as Ms. Bonk pointed out, for those with money, having a countywide race, to be the ones that prevail. I do not think this is healthy. One of the things that you might consider is in addition to the six legislative district boundaries for Council positions, have the three Senatorial Districts as boundaries for the countywide ones. This would get it down to size where people of modest means would still be able to run an effective race in an area where their neighbors know them.

I think you need to consider seriously this matter of redistricting. As it appears to me in reading your material, if you leave it to the State, I can guarantee you the wrestling match that will go on in the Legislature will end up being gerrymandering. It’s inevitable. I participated in two statewide redistricting plans and, when it gets down to it, inevitably you’re going to find an effort being made in this very area to concentrate all of the people of one party in one compact district. This is not healthy, and so I think we would be best served by having a County redistricting body to make these decisions. I do not think the State - I don’t think it’s appropriate.

I notice one thing that distressed me slightly was that a couple of these departments, you’re asking them to cooperate, one with the other. And in reading it, I can’t determine which one has superior jurisdiction. And if you ask Department Heads to do this, it’s putting an undue burden on their relations because ego comes into play, and I think it’s going to be difficult, so I think you need to consider a clear definition of what the duties are of each one of these departments and keep them separate.

I thank you very much for the opportunity and Godspeed. Thank you.

RAY: Sure. Marni.

HERKES: Thank you, Ray. I want to tell you, as well as everybody, that right after you vote on the Charter Commission, the Reapportionment Commission’s coming around right on the heels of it because the 2000 Census will be over, and we will start the Reapportionment Commission. I hope to see all of you at those hearings because that’s the only way you can stop the gerrymandering, is by heightened public participation. And everybody look at where those lines are drawn. And the other thing I’d like to ask everybody to think about, we have about 14,000 people in every district now. We’ll have maybe 2% more growth on our island so that number will go up, and is 14,000 how many should be in each Council District. If we start thinking about those things now, and the census is being taken, as you all know, and I hope you’re all filling out your census forms and sending them back. And then right after that, we’ll start the reapportionment. But, yes, you’re right, it’s coming right on the heels of this one.

RAY: George.

G. MARTIN: I’d like to thank you for coming out this morning. I appreciate your comments. I have one question that you brought up, and I’d like to pursue, if at all possible, with the so-called axe grinders. How would you go about making sure they have an opportunity to get onto the Commissions? I mean, I don’t see us as having the power to do that. It comes down to the Mayor again, as is being mentioned, and if there’s some avenue to do that then.

MOORE: I think if you have a seven person Commission, for example, it’s not too bad to have two people on that Commission who really have an axe to grind.

RAY: So, how would you determine that? Who those two people would be?

MOORE: Let the organization in question pick them out. Let’s take the Fire or Police. Let the organization designate two people that they’d like to have serve.

RAY: So, in the Commission, we would have what designated organization? The Outdoor Circles appoint someone to the Planning Commission. Is that your suggestion? Something like that?

MOORE: I suppose. I’m not familiar with that area, but -

RAY: No, no. I’m just using that as an example. Okay.

MOORE: I’m thinking of Fire, Police, that sort of thing.

RAY: All right. And in regard to your comment about conflicting department jurisdictions, actually what we’re suggesting would move it in the other direction. The way it works right now, with regard to subdivisions, is it is shared by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. The Administration had suggested shifting that to Public Works. The Charter language would enable that to happen in the future. But the way it is now is more of a shared responsibility between the two. So I’m not commenting whether that’s better or worse, but that’s the way it is.

Okay. Keola Childs, followed by Dr. Michael Christopher.

CHILDS: Thank you, Commissioners. I, too, want to thank you for the website which has helped lead the way in getting some information out. I’ve taken advantage of it to follow what you’ve been doing because I haven’t been able to get to where most of your meetings are. So, thank you very much. I’ve got a number of sections to comment on. For me, when I began to look at the Charter, as thinking myself, what would I like to see or what do I feel is the most critical thing that must be changed or, at least, brought before the voters to change, my feeling is that the overarching philosophy of Charter review, if anything can come out of this, is to strengthen the County Council as a body within the County government, as opposed to, or along side of, the Executive Branch. It’s my feeling from my personal experience with two terms earlier in the last decade, and watching the Council before then and since then, that the current make-up is simply not delivering quality people, by and large, over a period of time, and there’s no person or personalities to identify in that comment. That it doesn’t, in fact, statistically and objectively, does not seem to be delivering results. I would like to suggest what I mean in a couple of areas. There has been the turnover since this began in 1992, when I began my first of my two terms. Per Council district, either through resignations, decisions not to run again, withdrawals to run for higher office such as Mayor, or simply not being re-elected, the turnover has been, out of four elections that have been held to date, I think all but one, there might be two, of the nine districts has had three Council members elected in four election terms. There are a couple of Council districts - I think there’s one during that time, that has held the same Council member throughout. But that statistic of turnover is stunning. Now, will that continue in the future? Was that because we were simply adjusting to a new political system, a new type of advocates as those of us that served through there, and those that watched how they did, began to realize how far you could go, and couldn’t go, in constituencies and partisanship, or issue-oriented situations? It may be that, and that would be an argument for the other side, that this is a cultural adjustment in the political landscape. I don’t think so. I think the problem is deeper than simply a phase-in. What I’ve seen is that it takes roughly six months for a newly elected first-time person to get a feel of what the heck is going on, certainly a month or two to even have an idea of what the system really is. After you’ve been going for a year, concentration has to deal with elections if there’s any interest by that candidate to be re-elected. What I have seen among colleagues is that sensitive issues that may be sensitive to a controlling constituency, or several members, districts, will not come up. It will be buried. It will be held. I’ll just, to be arbitrary, pick up sewer rates as an example. If people in a district, or portion of the island, which is largely sewered, as had been East Hawaii earlier this last decade - It’s now being a little more balanced. If costs were going to raise in their constituents, and even though there might be five or six votes to support a change, if that constituency in those areas had a significant position on the Council, in as far as political body and leadership, those measures would not come up. And they did not come up to the point of violation of Federal Law, as been recently cited. And even those remarks were made in advisory to Council on the record, it didn’t matter because political survival was at stake. That is a flaw of single member districts which hurt. For example, at that time, this side of the island, because it meant more of West Hawaii’s tax dollars were supporting an East Hawaii deficient which, by Federal Law, had to be corrected, and wasn’t. There are other examples but I’ll just point to that one as a case where even under single member, short terms, immediate re-election, realities of a constituency building, coalition building have blocked these kind of effective things, and have continued to hurt this side of the island on some of those issues. I’m sure someone can point out a case to the contrary, but that’s one.

What I think is critical is to have a Council - We should come up with measures that result in a Council, as more people seek, and are presumably qualified for re-election, and perform enough to satisfy their constituencies, whatever the district make-up is, so that they will serve enough time, hopefully at least four years. I chose to leave after four years, feeling that I finally had a fairly good idea of what the parameters were, and what I could and couldn’t do, and how to deal with it. But I chose not to run for my own reasons, and that’s fine, but many other people did. It’s a tough process; getting elected and re-elected. And just about everyone else also chose that. That led to a case where there were six new members all in one year, and that was tough for the County. Since that time, there’s been no legislative action since 1996 on several major issues before the County, such as sign ordinance, subdivision ordinance. The Council I served on would not have passed the 1996 Zoning Ordinance which resulted in other legal controversy later, but ended up being ratified. Would not have passed, I guess, if four out of nine of us had chosen not to run for re-election and therefore, we weren’t distracted by seeking re-election, campaigning district-wide. We focused on dealing with the technicalities and issues and were able to do that. But it definitely would not have passed, and I’m not sure where we would be today, given that no other major bills other than finally a sewer rate increase, to their credit, was finally dealt with as a step toward Federal compliance. So I think we need to have better retention within the term limits. We need greater direct responsibility to all communities of the island, not just the boundaries of the current single member districts. We need to create a basis, challenge the Mayor’s interpretations of what he needs to do and why he’s doing it, and actions items, when Council members feel appropriate. This is why I think there’s value in an at-large, or anything out bigger than the current district system. If someone is elected at-large, they have a franchise, to use the term generally, to be able to stand up and say I don’t agree with the Mayor’s position. I have been to these communities. I speak with these people, and it’s my duty to say that there is another side of this. It’s a little hard for a single member district person to assume that position as a spokesperson, or two or three of them. We badly need, in my view, another advocate for a multi-district, presumably island-wide approach, to dealing with our difficulties.

Lastly, in that regard, we need to create a pool of qualified, well experienced County leaders who will seek and compete for the Mayor’s seat. People who have had an island-wide responsibility, to allow them to groom themselves, if they are so interested, to compete and vie as having not only district perspective, but an island-wide perspective so we have people knowledgeable and not simply coming from other legislative bodies like the State where they represented a district before, and presume to go straight to a Mayor’s seat. There’s no perfect way, and all our candidates are going to come from somewhere, but I think it behooves all voters to have an island-wide base.

On the terms of these members, I feel that the extension of incumbent eligibility that’s been suggested for 2002, looking ahead to that, and Mr. Ray made some explanatory comments there - I think any extension of incumbent eligibility should be limited to only at-large seats, which is a new island-wide position, and that any person, even though the district boundaries might be enlarged from one-ninth to one-sixth, that there should be no hangover of eligibility for that.

Frankly, I’m comfortable on the six district concept that the Legislature - Knowing where those lines actually fall and how stable they have been over the decade. I’m comfortable that they reasonably represent at the House level, reasonably represent constituency, so I don’t have a problem with the suggested language to rely on that. I do have a problem with the thought, though, that if the State does change that to be more or less, that we would then have a Commission. Here’s the problem. Where you say that the boundaries would have to follow as closely as possibly the State lines, well, we’ve got six now. Logically the State, if they were to move to five or to seven or to eight, what is ‘as closely as possible’? If you change or increase one district, that’s a roughly 20% shift. Mathematically you could argue it’s 20 or 25 or whatever, but roughly a 20% shift in district. Well, ‘as closely as possible’ means you move everything off 10% all the way around, or does it mean to hug one boundary and have the other side be 40% off? How do you want to set up a Court situation for challenge by a disgruntled constituency? Do you want to go back to a judge and have a judge decide whether ‘as closely as possible’ meant half of everything, or keep this boundary and go over to there? I’m not sure that you should use that language. Just simply, I would suggest focus on something that reasonably, in the view of the Commission, represents the community make-up on that district size if you’re going to go to a different number. Anyway, please think about that because I think you’re setting yourself up for lawsuits and trouble, or that we’re setting a County up for more fighting, from the way it’s just saying ‘as closely as possible’.

Non-partisan. Island-wide elections are difficult for a Council seat. I ran one, myself, unsuccessfully in 1990. I can understand the points made about partisan bases for at least an at-large or island-wide race, because as a person who ran at that time, virtually unknown, nearly so outside of this region, it was, of course, difficult and having a party network to help support me island-wide made a huge difference. There were two seats open and I came in third out of two winners that would be chosen, and I got pretty good perspective from that. I think an island-wide election would make sense, to remain partisan. District level, I don’t think it matters. The partisan issue, I believe though, should be a ballot issue. I think the voters should be given the choice, particularly since it’s in place elsewhere in the state. They should be able to choose, and I think there should be dialogue on it. I think there are benefits to both sides. Our potholes and parks are definitely not partisan, and I would like to see us move away from that, and I, myself, supported this in the past. But I also realize, island-wide, that there are benefits for a partisan base for an island-wide election, although I don’t think the costs are going to be as high as what is alluded to by some others. From my budget that I spent in 1990, and realizing that I didn’t spend as much as my winning competitors, nonetheless I don’t think there’s order of magnitude equal to the Mayor’s. Frankly, not as many people care about the Council positions as they do about the strong Mayor.

The term of the Mayor. By the way, I think this would apply to all elected positions. I would encourage you to insert language proposed for the voters that would provide that, and this is arbitrary but I’m going to say, service during the last calendar year of an elected term, any portion of the last calendar year of an elected term, will be counted as a completed term for purposes of incumbency and qualify for re-election, for example, our current Mayor’s comments about resigning. If you implemented what I suggested, if he resigned anytime during the year 2000, he would be treated, for all practical purposes, as having served his full term. He would have served 3 out of full terms. A Council member would serve 1 out of a two-year, and I think something like that is fair. If somebody wants to resign that early to be a year before their term, then maybe, but I think you should suggest drawing a line somewhere such as a calendar year basis, or someplace. Right now it’s not clear that you’ve addressed that at all.

The Planning Department suggestion of allocating the duties. I strongly believe that the Zoning Code issues, and even subdivision, are definitely Planning related, and should not be allowed to be handed over by the Mayor to a branch whose orientation is engineering. There are some of the items, like building codes and variances from that, are building related. That’s fine, but to dump it all in an engineering branch as to where streets should line up in a subdivision plat, frankly I don’t believe our Planning Department does as good a job as they should in coordinating street line-ups and layouts right now. Handing it over to engineers whose duties are for circulation and water drainage way management is not a solution to determining how our streets should be laid out. So, I don’t think we should allow that at all.

On the Managing Director issue, I think the City Manager approach is not tenable in this County, and so I’m glad that you had not suggested that.

OTTERSON: Be careful. You’re sitting next to me.

CHILDS: That’s all right. Thank God it’s a free country, right?

OTTERSON: Go ahead.

CHILDS: Years ago, I thought that would be a better venue, but after being on the County Council, and seeing how a political body works, and seeing what, in my personal opinion, has been generally a low quality of people selected by Councils’ majorities and their Chairpersons to be the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and the Legislative Auditor, in my opinion, it’s not been an impressive array of credentials by and large. Again, I’m not speaking to any individuals. If we are going to move to a system that, at least in our County, in our political culture, gives -

OTTERSON: Excuse me.

CHILDS: No, I’m sorry, I’m not going to.

RAY: No, no, Jim. No.

CHILDS: I’m afraid that we are going to create another position that could be filled by hacks and people that are not going to do anything other than protect the interest of the majority of people appointing them. And these measures that you have proposed - Well, I would suggest that you clean up some conflicting language. I really don’t think it’s going to accomplish much, whether it passes or not, but for example, you’ve got conflicting language in your Section 6-1.3 where you state first in Subsection (a) that ‘the Managing Director shall act as the principal management aide to the Mayor’. Aide with an ‘e’ on the end. Now, an aide, by every common understanding, is a junior functionary in anyway it’s been done. And then in (b), you state that ‘he or she shall supervise the administrative functionings of all agencies’. So, in that two sentences I say which is it. Further on in your Section 4.5(f), you’ve stated, and I’m not sure which page it is, there’s another conflict there, which I had trouble keeping the place because it was spread out. It seemed to be conflicting also with this and the supervisory level. I just made a note of the sections. I’m not sure which page because these are unnumbered. It states that ‘performs such duties by this Charter and others as may be assigned by the Mayor’ - This is for Department Heads, all the respective heads - ‘As assigned by the Mayor and Managing Director’. Okay, well, assigned by which? Is that to be conflicting? Whose orders control? Does there have to be both? What if one conflicts? Who really decides? You’ve said elsewhere that all the power will be exercised - For the Mayor, or in Department Heads, the general supervisory control is of, by, through the Mayor, or from the Mayor, but it’s through the Managing Director. Well, if the Mayor has supervisory general control, are you saying that he can’t exercise it unless his appointee actually exercises it? What do you mean? With adding up all these concerns, I feel that it’s not clear as to who gets to make the call. When and how does the Mayor override anything? Or who really controls? I’m not clear and I’m afraid the courts won’t be clear, nor will the Mayors and Council members when they’re trying to figure out why something is happening, and finger pointing begins, as it certainly will.

I know I’ve been speaking a long time so I’m just going to cut short with a couple of other comments.

Planning Commission. I understand that the changes are for clarification, and pretty much would serve. I suppose they’re intended to inform the public as much as anything else, as the way things are under State Law, and I’m sympathetic with that, however, I would concur with remarks by others that the Planning Commission in our County, I believe, should be advisory. A common remark by Planning Commissioners, and was stated here earlier by someone, that I’ve heard before is complaining about this through prior attempts for Charter Amendments, is well, we don’t think we’d want to serve, or who would want to serve if our opinions are only advisory. I’m still looking forward to the day when the Mayor’s Office has to advertise in the newspaper, to the general public in earnest, to please have volunteers step forward to provide advice to the County Council on what to do. I’m looking forward to that. I have never, ever, seen a genuine effort to solicit people from the rank and file of our public to participate, and I think we’re a long way from exhausting qualified public interest in serving on an advisory board.

Public Works Director, I think must have civil engineering experience. I would agree, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a registered professional engineer, but should need to have demonstrable civil engineering experience. Your language, right now, does not state that. It simply says administrative. I think, if you’re going to bring this forward to the voters for a change at all, you should insert a requirement that they have experience with civil engineering.

The Cost-of-Government Commission. I think it’s a good idea, but every two years, I think, will be counterproductive. If you’re always examining what was touched on two years before, you’re going to be endorsing a snail’s pace because you’re always going to get the answer that we’re working on it, and we’ve made this little change, and we’re about to do more. That’s the same answer you’re going to get two years later. I would suggest, that if you want to proceed with this, that you propose it to be convened every four years, and in particular, that it be convened during the second year of the mayoral term. That means they’ll begin to analyze what a Mayor has been doing, and what they’ve said they were going to do, if anything, during the second year. The first year has already passed, and they’ll have that second year of appointment, getting convened as you’ve been, and begin examination. And you said report in 11 months. Well, whether it’s 11 or 12, but basically the Mayor will be on the job two years by the time the report comes out, and can be held accountable, and it can become an election issue for his or her opponents, as to whether they have made progress from that. I think those are constructive ways to use it, and every four years, there’s a basis to expect material change.

Lastly, on the Water Commission and other district Commissioner appointments. If we do go to a system, which I will support, for the at-large mix for reasons I have stated in the beginning - If we go to a system where there are only six districts that you’re appointing from, for all of these Commissions which should be consistent, I would suggest, to avoid the doubling and tripling possibilities per district or area, that you state something to prevent that. You could state something like this, that it’s for six districts, you could state that no district - Because if there’s six, then you do have duplication in an area, that means there’s got to be two from some district, right? That no district shall have more than two members under any circumstances, and no contiguous districts shall have two members per district. So that would mean, for example, the judicial district of Kona could have one person - Naturally there’d be one person there. If the Mayor were to appoint a second person in Kona, it would be not possible under this for Kohala to have two district people, or for Ka’u to have two people appointed. Now, could that work? I don’t know. Maybe, as a result of geography, because the districts on this side are big enough, that would be counterproductive, but I’m suggesting you consider language something like that that would prevent any contiguous districts like South Hilo, Puna, Hamakua, to all have those double appointees.

Thank you for allowing me to speak at this length.

RAY: Okay, thank you, Keola.

MARTIN: Point of clarification on that who was going to stay with the nine if it passed.

RAY: Dr. Michael Christopher, followed by Brenda Ford.

CHRISTOPHER: Good afternoon. My name’s Dr. Michael Christopher. I wanted to offer a couple general points, and then offer my specific comments on some of the amendments. My general comments come from the fact that, while I don’t claim to be an expert on all these issues, this is my field, human development, and I do teach an introductory course on the global history of urbanization, which is really what you’re talking about here; the process of moving to an urban society, and all the changes that are involved in it. And I’m a little disturbed about what appears to me to be the logic of how the whole Commission is working. It seems to me that you haven’t adequately clarified what it is you want to do, or what results you want to get. And you seem to be looking at the mainland and saying most people are doing it this way. Maybe we should consider doing it this way. The problem with that is if you look at city and county government across the United States, especially compared to the rest of the world, it’s a mess. It’s a real mess. It’s not just a mess here, it’s a mess all across the country. What you should be doing is trying to figure out what results do you want to accomplish, and then search to find those places that have successfully achieved those results. And those results tend to come in three categories; you want honest government, you want efficient government, and you want high participation. We do badly in the first two, but we do very good, in fact, just about the highest in the nation in terms of participation. Hawaii still has the highest participation rate in local government of just about any place in the country, and every place else, it’s been declining. There are places in the country where people are elected on 5% of the eligible voters to local government. I mean participation has been dropping drastically for two generations, and some of the solutions that are being proposed here are closely linked with that general decline.

One of them is non-partisans. As you said, if you look at the history, there was a time when most local races were all partisan. Now most are not partisan. There was a time when you had 90% participation in local government. Now you have an average of 20% participation in local government. Those two trends have gone in the same direction. Non-partisan -- I’m not saying it’s always the cause but it’s closely correlated with, and it has to do with, some of the reasons that Keiko mentioned. They have to do with, sort of, decline of parties, the increasing costs, media driven aspects, and all sorts of things like that. But, it’s not a universal process. There are exceptions. And you should be looking at the communities that have higher participation and trying to imitate them rather than simply saying most people do it this way. Maybe we should consider

doing this way. So I wanted to give a couple of specific comments. I mentioned non-partisan. There is a correlation between non-partisan and lack of participation. It doesn’t absolutely have to be that way, but that’s the way the trend usually goes. Political parties, while anybody who’s ever been active in one knows that they’re not a pleasant process. Generally speaking, political parties have been more progressive, the membership, and have pushed for more things than the people that those parties actually elect. The parties tend to be more progressive if you - Just read their platforms. They advocate all sorts of things that are very popular, but the elected officials never actually implement. You take that away. They never even have to address those issues. Parties, even today, as weak as they are, and they’re very weak, often times they’re just a sort of label for five guys that do everything - Even today, they are a thorn in the side of politicians that don’t want to respond to unpopular issue