Back To: Home Page | Table of Contents | Charter main page

HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION

Transcript of Meeting of May 31, 2000

Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room,

Hilo Lagoon Center

Attendance: J. Ray, E. Alonzo, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa, G. Martin (from 5:24 p.m.) J. Santangelo, Counsel C. Yuen

Absent: K. Balog, G. Yoshiyama

And 8 members of the public in attendance.

The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.

RAY: I’d like to call the meeting to order. This is the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission. It’s Wednesday, May 31st, 5:05 p.m. We’re at the Hilo Lagoon Centre, Liquor Control Conference Room.

Attendance. Present: myself, John Ray, Chair; Roland Higashi, Vice-Chair; Sue Irvine; Marni Herkes; Steve Bess; Dr. Daryl Kurozawa; John Santangelo; Eddie Alonzo; and I believe we’re expecting one or two more people.

Statements from the Public. We have four people signed up now. You need to sign a written registration form if you’d like to testify. First person signed up this evening is Del Pranke, and the next is Jim Otterson.

PRANKE: I’m sorry. I’m kind of confused about the agenda because at the last meeting I thought you were going to go over the proposed changes to the agenda that have been put in by the public, and you never did that. And I don’t see it on this agenda. Is it all right if I speak about this letter, because I’m still pushing to have the Police Commission, at least, chosen a different way?

YUEN: Yes.

RAY: Sure, go ahead.

YUEN: Yes, I wouldn’t have the Commission take it up as a motion, but no harm in letting him speak to it.

PRANKE: I just wanted to bring your attention to Mr. Brunton’s letter. It only came to me this morning so I made copies for everybody. I don’t intend for you to have to read the whole thing but I wanted to bring your attention to a couple of things. The fifth paragraph, he states he attended the meeting. He decided it was a facade of concern and public expression to maintain the status quo. And then the last page pretty much sums up how sad this meeting was with the Corporation Counsel advising the Police Commission not to allow people to speak on certain items on the agenda because they were covering up for Mr. Carvalho and there were 40 or 50 people there at this meeting. It filled that whole ballroom, of people trying to get their points across and not being allowed to speak on items on the agenda, simply to cover up. This was a political cover-up for Mr. Carvalho who’s in deep water right now, and just barely keeping his head up. And I just wanted to say the people of this county are constantly -- people that come up to me constantly, ‘why don’t they get rid of that guy’. ‘How can we do that?’ But we can’t. As long as the Mayor appoints the Police Commission and the Police Commission appoints the Police Chief, we cannot get rid of him unless the Police Commission decides that they want to. And if they are under political control of the one person who appoints them, then we have no choice. So, we need to give people the opportunity – they’re begging for this out there – the opportunity to change the way the Police Commission is chosen. The Police Chief would still be chosen the same way. To allow each County Council person to appoint a Police Commissioner to the Police Commission with the approval of the rest of the Council, and that person would be appointed from their district. It’s that simple. It’s a simple change. I’ve written it up for you and I know you folks have it. It’s really, really, really important. Right now, this is the thing that everybody talks about every time they come up to me. ‘Why are we stuck with this guy?’ The reason we’re stuck with him is because the Police Commission is under the control of the Mayor. Now, this wouldn’t always be the case. We know that it can happen again. Anyone that serves two terms would have the chance that they would have the majority of the Police Commissioners to have been appointed by the person who would be the Mayor. If we change it the other way, we’d have a much better mix of people who would be appointing the folks, and that, of course, is the bottom line. That’s the major, major thing. That’s just got to get on the ballot so people have a chance to vote on that. And I appreciate your listening to me.

RAY: Thank you. Any questions for Del?

IRVINE: I just wanted to comment that we’ve been over this a lot, and Del knows we have, and it’s our impression that the Police Commission is empowered to do their job by the Charter, and we are, as you know, trying to beef up some of the wording, and if they wish to do so, they could do so, and I really don’t think that all members of every Board and Commission are under the thumb of the person who appoints them. I think you’ve noticed that on this Commission, that we do have a variety of people. And I guess I was confused about a lot of your requests. We had so many different things that we were trying to put in that I guess this one has sort of –

PRANKE: This has been the major one. We’ve been talking about this for nine years. Okay, sorry.

IRVINE: Okay, thank you.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: Do you know what the votes were on the County Council? Each Commissioner is approved by the County Council. Do you have any idea what those votes were on the Commission? That’s the check and balance that was in the present Charter.

PRANKE: I know that for two of the last Commissioners, Mr. Moe and Mr. Muller, it was six to two with one Council member absent. But on the others, I don’t know. But the newspaper stories didn’t even begin to tell what circus this was. If you’ve ever been to a kangaroo court, that’s what this was the other day at the Police Commission meeting. Members of the Police Commission were baiting Officer Tanny Cazimero. It was so sickening. Walter Moe was going on about how he felt afraid to be in there because Officer Cazimero had his gun, and the Police Commission had two officers in there who were brought in specifically to arrest and remove me if I caused trouble, who were in full uniform with their guns. The whole right side of the Police Commission was attacking both myself and Officer Cazimero in an attempt to get us to break, or something, so they could get us removed. This was a clear attempt to cover.

RAY: Okay, I think we’re straying a little bit from the –

HERKES: Yes, we don’t need to live that all over again.

PRANKE: Back to your point. Yes, it’s true, they could if they wanted to, but as long as they’re appointed by one person, we can’t be sure that they will ever do anything except for what they’re told to be. One other thing happened with the Police Commission – it was a prior Commission but it was under the current Mayor – was that all of the people who applied for the job of Police Commission had their personal record books sent to the Mayor by the Police Commission illegally. And this was the first time that there was a majority on that Police Commission that had been appointed. That’s in their records. That’s in their minutes. This has not been a well run Police Commission since it’s inception, but the point is this could happen again. It’s not just because it’s this Mayor. It could happen again under any other Mayor if we don’t get it straightened out. And it’s a simple thing. The oversight committees aren’t necessary to running the community like the Water Board and the other Commissions are; the Planning Commission. They are oversight Commissions and they shouldn’t be appointed by the people they’re supposed to oversee. Thank you. I know I’ve said that before.

RAY: Thank you. Jim Otterson, followed by Curtis Tyler.

OTTERSON: I thought I was in the wrong place. The sun was shining here today. Anyway -

HERKES: It’s raining in Kona, though. We’re happy.

OTTERSON: I’m sure you should be. It’s very nice out there. I just wanted to ask a few questions. But talking about the Police Chief here brings up something that I know I’ve talked to you before. But if this Police Chief – I’m going to say it again – if he would have had somebody keeping tabs of him; him having a progress report every six months and once a year, you wouldn’t have had these problems. You would have had it all documented, everything down that he has done or hasn’t done. And the only one that can do that is – Well, the Mayor could but evidently he doesn’t. A City Manager – Here I go again – would do that. He has the power to do that. He has the power to keep all of the records on a Police Chief, and I’ve seen that done, and I’ve seen them get rid of a Police Chief in the same manner. You also have a Police Commission, but the one that keeps the report on the Police Chief, he is the boss. The Police Chief here, it doesn’t seem like he has to reckon to anybody. I mean, it seems as though he’s God, really. And that shouldn’t be. Somebody should be his boss. But anyway, like I’ve told you that before; I’m going to say it again and I just did.

But the reason why I’m here – the questions that I wanted to ask that are things I’ve read in the paper about – I know John had talked about the Directors of each department. They would have to have a degree of some sort, but now that I read in the paper they don’t have to have anything. Whoever wants to appoint them, can appoint them. Is that right?

RAY: No.

OTTERSON: Then I’m reading it wrong in the paper. According to the way I read it in the paper, they do not have to have any – Public Works Director wouldn’t have to have -

RAY: The Public Works Director would have to be a registered engineer.

HERKES: And –

OTTERSON: He does?

RAY: Yes.

OTTERSON: Okay, that’s great. How about –

RAY: Every Department Head has qualifications in the Charter.

OTTERSON: The Planning Department?

RAY: Right, every Department Head.

OTTERSON: That’s great.

RAY: They may not be to your liking but they all have qualifications in the Charter.

OTTERSON: It may not be to my liking, huh?

HERKES: But they’re stronger than they are now.

OTTERSON: They are?

HERKES: We’re working in the right direction.

OTTERSON: Because, just to give you a ‘for instance’, in Kona the new high school that they built there, the entrance to the high school is as wide as a freeway. You come out of there and then you get on to 11. They have built beautiful rock walls 30-35 feet high. Now, 11 will be a major thorough way someday. Now, they’re going to have to move them doggone walls back out and the amount of money and time that they have spent on those walls, those rock walls, will all have to come out of there.

RAY: That’s a State Highway, and that’s a State high school. So that’s not under the jurisdiction of the County.

OTTERSON: Well, how do you get to that, though?

RAY: That’s not anything we’re dealing with here. That’s a State Highway –

OTTERSON: Are you sure of that?

RAY: Yes.

OTTERSON: Okay, yes, it would be a State – you’re right.

RAY: And the high school is a State facility.

OTTERSON: I didn’t think about that. Okay, I’m wrong there. I’ll admit it.

Then, okay the Manager type – you said you were going to kind of change the –

RAY: We’ve made substantial changes to the Managing Director position and to the whole Executive Section of the Charter, putting the Managing Director in a direct line of control over all the departments.

OTTERSON: Okay.

RAY: So, that’s been beefed up substantially. The main difference, and it’s a substantial difference from what you advocate, the Managing Director would still be hired by the Mayor. He would have to be confirmed by the County Council, and he’s not now, but the Mayor would still be the Chief Executive Officer of the County.

OTTERSON: Well, that’s a step in the right way. That’s a step in the right way.

You know that I have worked in the Manager type way of government and you see how that works, and it works so smooth, and then you come over here and you see they’re so backwards here. I know, you’re probably saying ‘well, why in the hell don’t you go back to where you come from’. Well, we love it here and we’d like to stay here. And we can see things that could be so improved and modernized here. I mean the government modernized so it would work smoothly, but you have told me that you’ve worked on –

RAY: Hopefully we’re moving in that direction, yes.

OTTERSON: Okay. I guess that’s about it really.

RAY: Okay, thanks for coming in and thanks for all your input.

OTTERSON: I appreciate it.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: Jim?

OTTERSON: Yes.

SANTANGELO: You come all the way from Oceanview, and what we’ve incorporated may not be exactly what you want, but you’ve been heard and it’s been obvious that you’ve been dedicated to this. This is not your first time here. This is about your fourth time? Or fifth?

IRVINE: Sixth.

SANTANGELO: Sixth time.

OTTERSON: I’ve been to some of the other ones that you haven’t been to. See, I’m more –

SANTANGELO: I’ve been here every time.

OTTERSON: Yes, but the other places you haven’t. See, John?

IRVINE: Kona. Were you in Kona?

OTTERSON: Pardon?

RAY: Okay. Let’s move on.

SANTANGELO: I was trying to be nice, but never mind. Thanks for being here, Jim.

OTTERSON: Okay. Another thing. This county, this island, the whole works, is going to grow. It’s really getting ready to take hold. But if you don’t have somebody in there that can head it in the right direction, you’re going to end up with a hell of a mess. That’s it.

RAY: Okay, thank you. Curtis Tyler. Patrick, you’re next up.

TYLER: Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Thank you for this opportunity to testify again before you. I want to begin by thanking you again for your hard work, your perseverance, and your dedication to hearing the public and responding in the ways that you believe are important for this County, present and future generations. I also want to thank you especially for the deletions of some of the proposals. As I spoke to you last time when you were in Waimea, I indicated that too many will create a lot of confusion, so I think the elimination of these items – the deletion, excuse me, of your original slate makes a lot of sense and I want to commend you for revisiting these and for the courage to listen to the people regarding their concerns about at least half of those. I wanted to comment on some of those amendments which were approved as proposals for the ballot, just very briefly. Oh, and I also want to thank you, Chairman Ray, for sending a personal letter to each of the Council members, as I assume you did, and also to the Chair. I received one from you and I got one from Mr. Arakaki. Thank you for summarizing. That’s always nice to have an Executive Summary, especially when you left your file back in Kona.

But, with respect to Strengthening the Authority of the County Managing Director: I think it’s important, which is in the absence of a County Manager, I think this is a good interim move and we’ll be able to see how things go the next few years. I think, probably, that person should, as an Administrative Supervisor, probably should have a minimum of a Masters in Public Administration or a Masters in Business Administration.

With respect to the Fire Commission: As I’ve said before, we just want to be sure that we don’t want to repeat some of the problems in terms of process, or in terms of system, that we may be seeing today in the Police Commission. And I want to comment on some of the previous comments by members of the public regarding this. I think we always have to be extremely careful about whether a system change is needed or whether it has to do with the individual people, the leadership current, or lack thereof. And sometimes we’re quick to change our system, or our process, because we’re reacting to an individual or a specific situation. So, while I think that the ideas from the public regarding appointments, or elected Commissioners, certainly I know have received your careful consideration, I think they may, in the future, be commended for further consideration. The idea that the Council members each might appoint someone might lend itself for a similar situation, at least in some cases. Although having nine individuals as opposed to one certainly would lower the chances of that happening. Nonetheless, as Commissioner Herkes pointed out, these Commissioners always come for confirmation by the Council members, and if the Council members approve them, you assume this is part of the system. If they choose to ask questions, or not ask questions, this is hopefully in response to the knowledge of the nominee or the information they receive from the members of the public. So I think we have to weigh this carefully in terms of process.

Clearly members of the Fire Department, as I’ve previously stated to you, have stated strong support for something like a Fire Commission because it’s worked very well on Oahu. So I thank you for that.

With respect to the Department of Environmental Management: Because I don’t have all my notes here, is the Environmental Management Commission going to be one from each Council district, the same kind of appointment situation?

RAY: Yes.

TYLER: Okay.

HERKES: We changed all the Commissions to be that. All of the Commissions will be geographic.

TYLER: They’re all changed now? Very good.

RAY: They’re not yet.

HERKES: They’re not changed?

TYLER: Well, that’s another comment, but –

RAY: They are not yet.

TYLER: Anyway, this is a proposal with respect to this one. Is that correct?

RAY: Yes.

TYLER: Okay, thank you.

With respect to the Department Head Qualifications: Where you’ll be adding new qualification for the Heads of Department of Research and Development, Parks and Recreation, and a minimum of five years administrative experience for heads of Planning, Public Works, Water and Management; I think we all know, and as you’ve stated, Mr. Chairman, the Public Works Director, or Chief Engineer as it is currently called, must be a registered professional engineer. And the same is true for the Water Department. I would suggest that just having five years experience to be a Managing Director and a Planning Director is insufficient. As I previously stated, I believe a Masters in Public Administration or a Masters in Business Administration, as a minimum, for a Managing Director. And with respect to a Planning Director, I think it should be a minimum of a Masters degree in Planning. Many County Planning Directors that I have met over the years, and I’m sure Mr. Santangelo met some of them when he was back East, have, at a minimum, a Masters. Many of them have PhD’s. I think this will really add a lot of credibility and, most importantly, a lot of ability to the department to really do planning instead of just always reacting. So I would commend that to you if you’re going to be giving further consideration to those because as we know, currently, Parks and Rec, Research and Development, among others, do not have any qualifications for Department Heads.

With respect to the Police Commission: I’d just like to briefly state that I received a great deal of correspondence, telephone calls, regarding the recent meetings of the Police Commission, including a request, which I’m sure you all saw in the newspaper by Mr. Brunton, for the Council to request the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation. That’s a complete separate matter and I think it’s as a result of some really symptomatic things that have occurred. But I’m going about this in a very deliberate way to try to ascertain, well, is this going to make a different; is this something that’s important to the people; important to the Police Commission, etc. So, I just wanted to state that to you.

And finally, with respect to your proposed amendments, the last one, the Mandatory Meetings of the County Council: I think you have caught the attention of the voters in West Hawaii. Those who have spoken to me have all spoken very positively about this. I would just suggest, in terms of your language, that what’s important here is you’re talking about West Hawaii, and South Kona and North Kona are not entirely West Hawaii. North Kona and South Kona and South Kohala and North Kohala and, actually, a portion of Ka’u make up West Hawaii if you’re looking at a north/south line. But at the very minimum, I would suggest your language be the Kona and Kohala geographical or judicial districts, and I’m sure your counsel can further that. I just think that if I were living in South Kohala, which is a very up and coming area producing a great deal of revenue for this county and lots of projects happening, I certainly would want to be sure that South Kohala was included. And I say that, as you know, as a resident of South Kona. So I just wanted to commend that to you and once again, thank you for the deletions.

RAY: Curtis, the thought there was to establish – this was my thought – was to establish a regular presence in Kona similar to the regular presence in Hilo where folks would know that at least once every quarter, the Council would meet, basically, in Kailua and that, so for interaction of civic groups, high school people, whatever, just like people now can count on the Council in Hilo, they could count on the Council, and also having, by far, the greatest centralized bulk of the population. That was the other thought behind it.

TYLER: Sure. Well, I commend you all for bringing that forward. I think it’s a very good idea. As I say, it’s caught the attention of the residents of West Hawaii, certainly those in the district that I represent that I’ve heard from. And what I think it does, it’s very simple, but at the same time, it has the tendency to really help solidify the idea that we’re one island and we’re not two counties, and that we really need to work together in collaboration. And traditionally, the seat of government has been here. We all know the reasons why it’s here, and has been here, but with the growth and changing in the population, I think it’s a great, great idea.

RAY: So, you think a meeting in South Kohala, because it would probably have to be in the resort district to have a sufficient meeting room – there aren’t any meeting rooms in Waimea. I guess it could be in the school but it couldn’t be in the school during regular hours, so it would probably be in the resort area vs. being centrally in Kailua, where there again, would be probably in a resort, but it would be a lot more accessible to general populations.

TYLER: Yes, I believe it would and I think if you leave some flexibility, which I hope you will, to the Council to make some decisions as to well, you know, we’ve got some big projects in Konawaena, middle Kona, and well, we ought to schedule it at the Kona Surf where many of them are held, at the Kamehameha Ballroom, which seems to be large enough; or we’re having some major land use decision-making up north at South Kohala. Give us the flexibility. One of the concerns that’s come up in the Council when we talk about having meetings in Kona is the cost. And I bring that up not as a negative but if we are to rent a room, and we cannot get it gratis, it potentially costs a lot of money. So this is something the Council would be responsible, or the clerk, for researching, and the staff, to have a regular meeting place. I think it’s going to work. And as I say, I think it’s a real catalytic proposed amendment because it shows that you’re being sensitive to the perception that West Hawaii’s neglected. I just want to really commend that to you.

I’ve received some other comments by e-mail which I have been asked to pass along to you. I received one from Shannon Rudolph who said that she felt that an elected Charter Review Commission would be something that, in the years ahead, might afford more community members to become involved in government, and she gave an example: In her home county, before she moved to Hawaii some years ago, where 40 people ran for 11 spots on the Review Commission, and it was just a way to get more people involved.

I’ve also received a number of comments regarding Neighborhood Boards. I know that’s not on your agenda. I have suggested to people who have brought this up before me that they review some considerable materials which I have in my files for the future. So, I just wanted to mention that in case it does come up.

Also, I received a copy of Mr. Jack Brunton’s very interesting letter; 22 years in law enforcement. You have a copy of it. I think Mr. Pranke gave it to you.

With respect to your Unfinished Business today, the Transitional Language: Ms. Herkes referred to what she believed was all the Boards and Commissions have been changed to nine members.

HERKES: No. Sue says no. Some are mandated by State Law.

TYLER: Right, that’s correct. But those that are not mandated, are you looking at a general language for all the others?

BESS: As far as I know, the Civil Service Commission is provided by State Law, but the Liquor Commission is the only Commission presently that we are not recommending that there be nine Commission members or that there are already in place, nine Commission members. So that’s on the agenda today.

TYLER: Very good. Is that the transitional language? Is that Unfinished Business, VII A?

RAY: No.

BESS: It is on New Business, item C.

TYLER: Okay.

RAY: The transition language is how to transition to the new Boards and whether it be holdover or we –

TYLER: Somebody’s going to have four year terms. Okay. So, I won’t address that. I thank you for taking up my –

HERKES: Do you have any feelings on that, on how to transition those Boards and Commissions, if we do it geographically?

RAY: It’s kind of a mess now the way it’s set up.

TYLER: Yes.

RAY: I mean logistically it’s a mess.

HERKES: I’m sorry. I kind of took you by surprise, but if you do later on, let us know.

TYLER: Well, you did and I wasn’t sure what was intended by VII A, but I realize, and I would concur, that it is a mess in some cases, and I don’t want to contribute to the mess at this point because what I might say would be more confusing because I haven’t really thought too much about it.

But I did want to talk about your New Business. I wanted to thank you for consideration of my comments at your last meeting regarding the Preamble. Are you still soliciting suggestions from the public?

HERKES: Sue wrote one.

TYLER: Did you write one already? Would you read it?

HERKES: I wrote one but it’s terrible so she wrote a better one.

TYLER: Okay, I’m not trying to put anybody on the spot but I was just wondering if you were looking for –

HERKES: But we thank you for calling that to our attention. You’re right, it was terrible.

IRVINE: So Marni wrote something and then I haven’t had time to respond to her because I’ve been away, but I changed it a little. ‘We the people of the County of Hawaii do hereby adopt this Charter of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. This Charter is adopted to provide the framework for governing our island in a responsive and efficient manner. Our goal is to provide our elected and appointed officials guidelines for governing in a manner which instills trust and confidence in the integrity of government.’

TYLER: Very nice. I would have only one comment, and that is the word ‘guidelines’. I’ve heard that word used in conjunction with ordinances and the Charter, and I think we all know that when they see the word ‘shall’, it’s a lot more than a guideline. It means you must and you will do it. So, I hope that you take that as a constructive comment. So, in any case, I want to thank you for that.

I don’t have any problem if you want to change the name of the Head of the Department to the Director of Public Works, as long as the qualifications are not changed. In other words, it should be a registered professional engineer, and the reason for that –

HERKES: Can we have five years of administrative experience along with that?

TYLER: Sure, why not. Go for it.

HERKES: Well, I don’t know why not.

TYLER: You’re going to get a better person than you might get if somebody didn’t have the administrative experience, and just came out of –

HERKES: It’s an administrative position.

TYLER: It’s more than that, but in any case, it’s important to have the registered professional engineer because they have to put their signatures on the plans.

The other thing is change the Liquor Commission to nine. Hooray. Thank you.

I don’t know what you’re contemplating for the Code of Ethics. Is there something that came from the public?

HERKES: The same thing that Maui has. I can read that to you.

TYLER: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t receive anything on this and it’s a very important part of our Charter. Is this a further amplification?

HIGASHI: Either you can stay for the meeting or you can take the minutes from the meeting and react at the next meeting.

TYLER: Okay. And finally – I think I’m done. I’ve taken more than enough of your time. I thank you very much. Again, I really appreciate the work you’ve done. I know that most, if not all, of you have put a lot of heart and soul into this and I think we can see it in terms of the results. It’s a very difficult and very awesome task that you have in a short period of time, and I think you’ve been very responsive, so thank you again for this opportunity.

RAY: Thank you. Next, Mr. Jim, are you coming up with Patrick Kahawaiola’a?

KAHAWAIOLA’A: Yes, I forgot to include Mr. Jim’s name.

RAY: And we have written testimony.

KAHAWAIOLA’A: I’ve given written testimony, and that written testimony is in response to the April 18th letter that all of you received, and that we received on May the 10th at the end of our statement to the Commission, so I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the Chairman and the Commission for allowing us, as Native Hawaiians, to come forward at this particular point in time, and I’m hoping to, maybe, shed some light as to why the letter from Mr. Yuen to all of you, which was referenced the county jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands, and our response to that is what you received as written statement. And it is addressed to Mr. Yuen and to the Members of the Commission.

But before I proceed with that, I’d like to say something and it’s only because I heard Mr. Tyler give his summation of the hard work that this Commission has been doing. I also heard one of the Commissioners, maybe, give her input into what the Preamble of the County Charter should reflect, and it has a very nice sound and ring to it however, again, I must say I would like to task the Commissioners with the fact that on this island, as I would think every island has but I’m particularly concerned about this island, that again, Native Hawaiians are sorely being missed and left out of your Charter based, again, on the representation from your attorney in his letter of April 18th.

And in his letter, he states that – I’d like to start – that in his letter, he states that there have been testimony at the commission meeting about county jurisdiction over Hawaiian home land, most recently, police jurisdiction. Rather than take time of this meeting to go point-by-point, it may be helpful to mention that the two individuals, and I’m assuming the two individuals that he’s speaking about is myself and Mr. Jim – that the two individuals offering this testimony have had these same arguments rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court. May I remind you, and if the record will reflect, we are not here speaking about police jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands. The broad question was does this county have jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands. The police powers comes along with it, but we were not here talking about the police cannot come and do this and do that. I only reflect back to the letter from Mr. Wurdeman, the Corporation Counsel, and his decision is totally contrary to what Mr. Yuen has said that you have the jurisdiction over everything. If you did, then this letter is obviously no good, from Mr. Wurdeman. If you’ve got the powers to do whatever you do, your Charter can do whatever it does, then we wouldn’t have the problem of the confusion within our community; how they were allowed to build a Wal-Mart without a permit, how the Hawaiians have got to be told we don’t look at your plans, we don’t sign your plans. That’s totally contrary to what Mr. Yuen is saying. So this is why I bring that forward after careful review of his letter, in it which he states that the two individuals in State v. Jim, in that case that he cites. I would wish that Mr. Yuen would have done the research that he writes in his letter that he did. In State v. Jim, Judge Love ordered – this is what Judge Love ordered the prosecutor to do was to send the records because we were going to appeal that on a writ. That has been buried, (indiscernible) somewhere in the waste, on a shelf some place, because since that time that we were found guilty by the Supreme Court who sent a one-page, or one-sentence, that Section 206 did not expressly say that they can or cannot. We have not paid the fines. We have not done the community service. It’s been buried off somewheres in hell, no where, but yet the case stands. So I just needed to bring that to you because this is where we’re at, as Native Hawaiians.

So I’d like to take this time to look at the letter and express to you, and show you where the attorney, Christopher Yuen, has failed to rebut or address the Hawaii Constitution, Article XII, legal principles, as well as the historical evidence prepondered by the members of Aupuni O’ Hawaii in their arguments that the County lack jurisdiction over Hawaiian homes.

Mr. Yuen’s derogations of this argument being frivolous, without any supporting basis for the remarks is unfortunate. Yuen uses one of the avoidance techniques employed by those in positions of dominance against those on the ethical and moral high ground, "The Native Hawaiians". In the face of this failure to contest such the principles of Hawaii Constitution Article XII or historical evidence when the opportunity to do so was available, this failure must be taken as a concession to these principles and evidence.

Among those principles set forth in Aupuni’s earlier arguments on this subject was that the County may not excuse itself for violations of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act or Hawaii Constitution compact, implementing Congress’s preemption (Admissions Act) on the basis that the County Charter or law permitting such violation.

It is clear why Yuen would like to have the Commission accept the principle as frivolous. It is by Yuen’s use of the Hawaii County Charter and State v. Jim that Yuen is now attempting to justify the violations in Hawaii Constitution compact, by Congress’s preemption. Beware the thieves in judgment of itself!

Let us address Yuen’s restricted view of the law as being only those which arise out of the Hawaii Supreme Court. At the least, we should go one step further and bring into Hawaii’s and the U.S. Constitutions. Mr. Wurdeman wrote his decision based on Constitution. Certainly Yuen would not consider it frivolous too. Let us consider Yuen’s reference to the Hawaii Supreme Court, in light of Hawaii and the U.S. Constitution.

The authority Mr. Yuen uses is the case of State v. Jim, in which Yuen attributed a quote by the Hawaii Supreme Court regarding the county police would exercise their ordinary powers on DHHL property because the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act contains no express language denying these powers. The subject of the propriety is the 67th Congress’ construction of law or Construction Trust (showing of fraud overreaching, or other wrongdoings to impose constructive trust) invasion and overthrow by the Hawaii County Charter, or of the applicability of the County’s jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The Courts would not admit it is bound by the obligations imposed, by the Hawaii Constitution Article XII, Compact that federal statutes that comport with the constitution design. The case of Alden further stated that the State is barred by the scheme of American Federalism.

Apparently Mr. Yuen’s silence on that point, as an attorney at law, he must have conceded the existence of Hawaii’s Constitution prohibition and it’s violation by the Charter Article II, Section 1-1, the Powers of the County (prohibited by such constitution or by this charter.) Thus, this Commission should give no validity to that Charter (powers of other officials, the county), over Hawaiian Home Lands is restricted. And it’s identified in Section 206 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act which is under the U.S. Constitution. It is questionable whether Mr. Yuen took the time to read Hawaii’s or the U.S. Constitution as well. The issue is Congress’ authority to extend the protection of the Admissions Act under Hawaii or the U.S. Constitution compact over the restricted Hawaii County and it’s Charter, which restricted Hawaii County and it’s Charter except with the consent of the United States.

That is basically what we were telling you. Without that consent, and it’s been already proven by this prosecution in this State, in this prosecuting office in this County, why we’re here, that that document does not exist. The document is the consent. That’s why we were here telling you that you’re moving forward without it. But he says ‘that’s all right. You guys have the right. Move forward. Don’t worry about it.’

So, in conclusion, Yuen’s opposition memo is completely off the mark. Not one of our points, Aupuni’s points, on why this Charter is in violation or grounds has been controverted. Yet the cavalier air in which Yuen addresses this issue suggests another reason for his confidence. It must be that because there’s another game being played upon Hawaiian citizens. That is, that their claims to Hawaii Constitution Article XII, compact, by Congress’s preemption as a matter of custom which now underlies the implicit judicial policy and not the law – it’s the policy and not the law, must be simply shunted aside, demeaned as frivolous, lest it shakes the very foundations upon which the Hawaii County, through it’s Charter, has established themselves as legitimate in Hawaii.

To that extent, Aupuni is a mere puppet, a victim of the State Commission’s game of hypocrisy, in a society where Hawaii County’s words and creeds, count for nothing if it interferes with the entrenched County interests such as no fair compensation for improper use of our lands, use of water, the taxes, the diversion of the income and proceeds from the Hawaiian Home Lands into the County funds.

We hope this notice again will give you the history of the 67th and 86th Congress’ Law’s authority over the boundaries – over the boundaries within the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and not within this County.

May the Great Ones Bless You for who you are.

I would like to end by saying this. Based on Mr. Yuen’s letter, I have before me, and everybody here is supposed to know, and I would think that if Mr. Tyler’s still here, he does know it correctly because he uses the term that Hawaiian lands are sovereign lands. However, I have before you my lease with the Department of Hawaiian Homes. My lease that your Charter is enforcing. In line 10 of my lease, it says this to me. ‘Compliance with laws that the lessee’, me, ‘shall comply with all the requirements of the municipal, state, and federal authorities, and observe all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes pertaining to the said premise now in force or hereafter may be in force. Lessee will observe all setback lines effecting said premise as shown on the map if hereto attached and herein mentioned in the description of said premise, and will not erect, place or maintain any building or structure whatsoever except approved fences or walls between any street boundaries of said premise in the setback lines along such boundaries.’

My purpose for this is that the compliance with laws to the municipal, which is county, state and federal is where it says I got to do. Yet and still, the County maintains they have no jurisdiction. They have no authority. But you enforce it, or I shouldn’t say you, but this County enforces it. It’s on my lease. So that’s the problem that I have, when we come here, is the lease that allows you to enforce it, to come to us as Hawaiians and say we can do it, or is it your Charter that controls where and how the Hawaiians deal in it’s relationship with all of you and your Charter? Forgive me for speaking out in the third tense as if you and I are separate. We are separate only by the difference in that I just happened to be born a Hawaiian. If there’s anybody in here in real estate, know , clearly should know I can move next to you. You cannot move next to me. And that is only clear based on the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act which says Hawaiian Home lands can only be given to those guys with 50% the blood. Do I like it? I don’t say I like it but that’s the cards I’ve been dealt. That’s where I was born and raised. I thought it was a benefit. I’m finding out it’s a hindrance. I pay a dollar more than all of you because I’ve got to go pay a dollar to somebody when I could have taken the same money and gone outside and lived a wonderful life with not having to do with all of this. So I’m just trying to say the continued confusion, the lack of interest within this county as it deals with Hawaiians, that who really believe that we’re just somebody who should be out there, not the host culture. Remember, we’re not the host culture. We’re just somebody that came after everybody else did. And if you believe that, I have some land in Kapaahu for sale. So, I’m just trying to say we come before County, we had no preconceived notions that we were going to prevail. We came here to give notice that if you proceed, because as I’ve heard in the County Council say the same thing – Mr. Tyler, in fact, asked the same valid question – If we’re going to go on Hawaiian Home lands, do we have the conveyance paper? Do we have the deeds that allow us to go on there and dedicate these lands? Because if we don’t, we can’t go there. Well, the answer is they don’t. Hawaiian homes won’t respond; won’t give it to them. Reason is they can’t. They’re bound by the Constitution of the State of Hawaii. So what this body that’s promulgating rules and regulation laws for this County needs to understand that we’re just not wolfing in the wind, but we need to make sure that you understand that we gave proper notice out there so all of you can understand because what I heard one Councilman say was this. ‘Well, we’ve been doing it and we’re going to continue to do it. We go on the property. They haven’t done anything so there’s no problem, we can continue to do it, right or wrong.’ Again, I’m going to remind you. People do things wrong for so long they believe it’s right. We need to address it. It was an opportunity for us, as Native Hawaiians, to come forward to address this within your Charter. Your Charter was the goal, the book, that says this is where all the laws are. This is the reason we came before you. It was an opportunity. We can come only once every ten years. This is the reason we’re here. However, I must say for the record, at times we were treated wonderful. But there were times that’s less than suspect and myself, as a Native Hawaiian, in where we say about I hear everybody talk about share the Aloha spirit. Sometimes it’s very hard as a Hawaiian to share that Aloha spirit. When we left – the last moment that we left here we were handed that letter. Apologies notwithstanding, take us seriously. We’re not here playing games. I’m not here to play games. I got other things to do. But I got to come here to make sure that my future which was just born a week ago, my granddaughter, has something to look forward to even if she’s stuck on Hawaiian Homes.

So, that’s all I have to say to you and I hope that if you believe that I’m angry – If I’ve offended anybody, really that’s not my purpose. My purpose is just to come forward, share with you the information that we had, and answer forthright, straight out, to the letter from your counsel because it was my understanding two previous meetings from here was that Mr. Yuen works for you; not you work for Mr. Yuen. So I needed to make that clear. Again, I thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to bring forward maybe frustration but if you’ve ever been to Hawaiian Homes Commission meeting and heard Commission sit there, Hawaiian Homes Commission take a lot of crap, so I’m sorry.

JIM: My testimony’s very short. My name is Harold Jim. The last meeting when I was here, I was very disturbed, and I’d like to share you my disturb. That I understand there’s one of the Commissioners here and Susan expressed that she believes that you need the police force on Hawaiian Home lands. Let me share this with all the letters that we have. I believe – I’m a Native Hawaiian – you’re encroaching on our land. I believe that you are acting outside of your capacity. I believe that you increase the encumbrance and violate your Constitution. I believe you violated Federal law, and I believe that you violated my rights. And there’s a place that we can handle this. With respect to these Commissioners, read your Constitution. You’re vulnerable. Thank you.

KAHAWAIOLA’A: Thank you very much.

RAY: And finally, Ginny Aste.

PRANKE: Ginny had to go to the hospital. Her daughter’s giving birth soon. She said she’d write in her testimony.

RAY: Okay. That concludes our Statements from the Public.

Moving on. Item number 4, Minutes Approval. We have minutes from April 29th as circulated. Do I have a motion to approve?

HERKES: I move to approve.

IRVINE: I think there was one time when, on page –

RAY: Can I have a second? Then we can have discussion.

HIGASHI: Second.

RAY: Okay, discussion, April 29th minutes.

HERKES: Which one are you doing?

IRVINE: On page 17, I think John Santangelo was talking and it says Ray.

HERKES: May 10th?

IRVINE: Yes, May 10th, page 17, halfway down, ‘Santangelo: I don’t know. Excuse me, I’m in the middle of a motion. I’ll retract it. I was asking for guidance – thought the discussion between you and Sue said let’s get rid of the things first. And then I said go for it, John’ and then – Did John Ray actually say ‘all right, I move that number 2, Council to Include 3 at-large seats not be moved forward and placed on the ballot? I don’t think you usually make motions. Because then you said ‘Ray: Do I have a second?’ I think that’s Santangelo.

SANTANGELO: I made the motion.

IRVINE: Yes, you made the motion but it says Ray in front of that.

SANTANGELO: Oh, I see.

BESS: Page 17.

HERKES: 17, in the middle of the page.

IRVINE: John Ray usually doesn’t fill ten lines. Oh, excuse me. I’m on the 10th of May. I’m sorry. I am sorry.

RAY: Okay, we’re looking at minutes of April 29th. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

RAY: Minutes of May 10th. Do I have a motion to approve?

HERKES: Move to approve.

RAY: Second?

SANTANGELO: Second.

RAY: Discussion. Page 17.

IRVINE: The same thing I just said. I think you’ll find that you didn’t make a motion.

SANTANGELO: That’s correct. That should be Santangelo, not Ray. Thank you.

RAY: Other corrections, comments? All in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

RAY: Financial Status Report. As of 4/30, we show a balance of $68,376.82.

Communications in your packets today. Communications from Councilman Elarinoff; Milton Pavao with the Department of Water Supply; Harry Takahashi, Director of Finance; and Rudy Legaspi with the Mayor’s Office.

Unfinished Business. Transition Language, Boards and Commission Membership and Council Districts. Chris, you want to go through this and summarize it, where we are. You should have received communications from Mr. Yuen in regard to his read on options.

SANTANGELO: Mr. Chairman?

RAY: Yes.

SANTANGELO: Point of personal privilege. With the communications in dealing with Takahashi, I just had a question and this may not be the place to bring it up but I would try. If there’s some things that we’ve considered such as the City Manager, things like that, Mr. Yuen, in the past, has the Commission made, like, some sort of a document that was passed on to the next Commission that gives them kind of a heads up on what may have been considered so that they could quickly get to that or anything like that? Have we ever done anything like that? Is that being considered?

RAY: Yes. What we received was full sets of minutes and, theoretically, they were somewhat organized, but they really weren’t. So we are going to try to leave as clear a record, and also I think it’s a good point you brought up that in terms of valid information, legal opinions, arguments, that we think would be helpful and worthwhile to the County Council or whoever might be dealing with some of these policy issues, we’re going to try to get that information out so that the Council, or whoever, has that as a resource in regard to dealing with some of these issues that may come up in the future. So yes, we are going to make every effort to do that.

SANTANGELO: Thank you.

RAY: Okay, Chris.

YUEN: This is an issue that we left open at the end of the last meeting and some of the Commission members wanted to actually see how much of a conflict there was. We proposed that there would be a requirement that some Commissions change from having a more general geographic requirement to having one member from each Council district. At the present time, some of these Commissions – Well, let’s just talk about Water and Salary. They each have, at present, two members who are in the same Council district. I think it’s both in Council district 6. And then the question comes up what do we do as far as the taking of effect of this amendment. I think we should, rather than just leave it an open question that somebody has to worry about later, spell out what we want to do. The two basic alternatives are: Alternative (1) is to allow the sitting members to serve out their full terms and when the Mayor appoints new members, the Mayor would have to appoint a member from a district that’s not represented on the Commission. And I’ve written language that would do that. Alternative (2) would be to disqualify one of those members of the Commissions – one of we’ll call the duplicate members, or the overlapping members, or the over-represented members. And if you want to disqualify the member, then you have to come up with some method of deciding who would be disqualified. There’s only, as I said, on these two Commissions that we’re going to the single member districts, there’s only one pair of overlapping members on each of those two Commissions. Looking ahead, we’re talking about the Liquor Commission. There’s no duplicates on the Liquor Commission, so if we went to nine single members on the Liquor Commission, the Mayor could simply nominate two people from the districts that are not currently represented. So those are really the alternatives – the decision that has to be made on the alternatives.

RAY: Does everybody understand the discussion? So, either we let it transition naturally or we come up with some sort of an arbitrary methodology that would expedite that.

HERKES: Would you like a motion or do you just want to discuss?

SANTANGELO: Can we discuss?

RAY: Sure, we could –

HERKES: I’d be willing to make a motion to transition naturally.

IRVINE: Second.

RAY: Discussion. That’s Alternative A.

YUEN: Alternative 1.

RAY: Alternative 1, and Chris came up with the language for that.

IRVINE: In favor of that, Chris does say in this letter that for Council members, the Charter makes it clear that they continue to serve their full terms and then at the end of that time, transition. And I think it would be more consistent to just let Boards and Commissions do the same thing. Of course, the Council people, it’s with the next election. But with Boards and Commissions it would be as terms expire.

SANTANGELO: I wanted to get some discussion before the motion but since we have a motion – I guess the thoughts that I have is what is the intention, and I’m open to what’s the intention of the full Commission. When we went to single member districts, that was eight years ago, so there is some sense of urgency for me, possibly, especially with something like a Water Commission, although I think, if I read that right, Mr. Yuen, that’s 2002 that changes anyway? So that’s just one year away?

HERKES: If it passes.

YUEN: Yes, that’s the extent of the problem would be –

SANTANGELO: If we used Alternative 1 which is let it go, in a year it would correct itself anyway.

YUEN: That’s right.

SANTANGELO: Okay, so again, just for discussion purposes, I thought, well, if our intent was to set something right that’s kind of been skewed for eight years because we went into single member right after the last Charter Commission, then I’d say we should be a little more forceful. On the other hand, if it’s only one year that these things kind of take care of themselves, maybe we just leave it alone and do the alternative. And that was the question I’d ask the Commission for discussion.

HERKES: I think it’s disruptive. I’m afraid it would be disruptive to start ending terms early. Some of these Commissions are fairly important. I would hope all of them were important. Say you had a Chairman or say you had somebody that had a sub-committee or somebody with an important role in the Commission, I think those would be difficult decisions to make. And there are some things in the Charter that are going to be disruptive anyway, and I think the less we can do, the better off we are.

RAY: Any other testimony? Okay, all in favor?

RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye.

Commissioner Martin abstained.

RAY: New Business. Charter Preamble. Are we working with more than one version?

HERKES: No.

RAY: No?

HERKES: I withdraw mine.

IRVINE: I can give you copies of this on my usual size piece of paper.

RAY: You have those copies for us?

IRVINE: I have two copies here.

RAY: That’s okay. We heard it once. Why don’t you read it again.

IRVINE: Okay I will. I just did this a couple of hours ago.

‘We the people of the County of Hawaii do hereby adopt this Charter of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. This Charter is adopted to provide the framework for governing our island in a responsive and efficient manner. Our goal is to provide our elected and appointed officials guidelines for governing in a manner which instills trust and confidence in the integrity of government.’

It’s because Marni handed me the one from last time and –

HERKES: It’s all my fault. It’s because Curtis said we should do this.

IRVINE: Then I thought we didn’t need to mention – She had in there management techniques and I thought that seemed a little bit manini for the Charter so – The business of guidelines, I think, was also in your wording. I left your wording on my computer desk.

HERKES: I have it somewhere but it doesn’t matter.

RAY: What’s the suggestion in regard to guidelines?

IRVINE: Mr. Tyler thought that – A Charter is a framework. It’s not just guidelines.

SANTANGELO: It’s law.

IRVINE: It’s law.

ALONZO: Shall.

IRVINE: On the other hand, you can’t mandate trust and confidence and the integrity of government. You can’t mandate integrity so it’s hard to say we shall be.

HERKES: Would it help, Mr. Ray, if I talked about the ethics because some of that wording comes out of the ethics wording?

IRVINE: And Maui Charter has a Preamble.

HERKES: Well, but their Preamble’s not very good either. I read it.

IRVINE: That’s where ‘We the people of the County of Hawaii’ and the business about the County of Hawaii and State of Hawaii, which we may not need to be that formal. I don’t know what our attorney would say. I think John Ray had mentioned very early on ‘responsive and efficient’ might be good goals, and that’s why I put those two words in there.

HERKES: Do you want a motion?

YUEN: If I could just make a brief suggestion. I think what you’re discussing is really more of a Statement of Purpose and that could be put in Article I. I would suggest that rather than changing the Preamble because the Preamble just is an adopting statement and we don’t want to say that the voters are adopting the Charter because they adopted the Charter a long time ago. They’re not really re-adopting the Charter. I think what the members who are discussing the Preamble are getting at is more a desire to have some kind of overall statement of what the purpose of having a Charter is. I think we could amend the title of Article I to include a Statement of Purpose and put it in there if the Commissioners wish to do that.

IRVINE: I personally have no thoughts on where it should – I knew, as an attorney, you’d have some help for us, and I’m not committed to this happening. It’s just that Marni had passed around a version.

RAY: Do we have a motion?

SANTANGELO: No.

RAY: No. Yes, no?

SANTANGELO: One of the things that I liked about what you were reading, and be it in Purpose or not, if I understand why we’re doing this is if a person picks up the Charter and wants to open it up to the first page, they should get some idea about what it’s about. The other thing is if the ordinance body, the Council and the Administration, wanted to change something in the Charter, that there’s a genesis or a root that they go to that should give them a guideline on how they should go about it and what they’re going about, and so I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know about this ‘shall’. I understand the thing behind it but again, as you said, things like honesty, ethics, things like that, that comes from within. You can’t mandate that. That just should be there. So I like what you have and I don’t have a problem putting it in the Purpose.

RAY: Marni and Sue, what’s your enthusiasm for putting this in the Article I?

HERKES: Let me read you Maui’s.

RAY: Wait a minute. But the idea of putting it under Article 1 as a Purpose section vs. a Preamble?

HERKES: Article I is Incorporation and Geographical Limits. Would you change Article I to Purpose?

YUEN: If we wanted to put Purpose somewhere, that’s where I would put it and you’d change the title –

HERKES: Change the title?

YUEN: As well as putting a new little section in there about Purpose.

HERKES: Well, there’s a Powers of the County under Powers of the County and Exercise of Powers, and that probably could be a place to put it too.

RAY: So, my question is are you still enthusiastic about pursuing this in either Article I or Article II?

HERKES: I could be persuaded to move it to Article I or Article II. I think it’s important to have something that does define a purpose for the Charter, and Maui’s Charter does have ‘secure the benefits of the best possible form of County government to exercise the powers and assume the responsibilities to the fullest extent possible that they adopt the Charter’. But that’s not so much ethics as it is –

RAY: Okay. Sue.

IRVINE: Well, like I said, I was basically editing what Marni had written. Whether we want to have one more amendment go to the public or whether we’re worried about volume of what we’re sending out, that’s my only hesitation. I wish we could write a beautiful Charter without having to have each word approved.

RAY: Steve.

BESS: I really appreciate the language here but I have a couple of comments. One is that to the extent that we want to express a Purpose, this is like a case of first impression to me. I haven’t had any time to even massage the thing and so I feel very uncomfortable in voting on something like this today when we’re putting forth the Purpose of the Charter. The second thing is that I think that inherent in the document itself is the idea that this is going to provide a framework for us to operate our government. Now, if it’s important to you folks to put forth an ethical standard in the Purpose, if that’s really where you’re at, because the framework, as I say, it’s inherent. And again, it’s another amendment.

IRVINE: So, maybe we should go to Ethics instead of worrying about this.

HERKES: Yes.

RAY: So, my sense is that we’re not going to pursue a change in the Charter Preamble. Is that correct?

IRVINE: I guess.

RAY: Okay, moving to item B. Could somebody call Mr. Santangelo back in?

RAY: Item B, Change the name of the Department of Public Works from the Chief Engineer to the Director of Public Works.

HERKES: I suggested that. I’d like to make a motion that we change the name from the Chief Engineer to the Director of the Department of Public Works.

RAY: Do I have a second?

IRVINE: Second.

RAY: Okay, discussion?

IRVINE: Where are we putting this?

BESS: I’d like to understand why we’re doing this. My point is that we have already decided to keep the Chief Engineer. I mean that he has to be a registered engineer to be in charge of the department. And again, it’s just another one of these amendments that may, or may not, be necessary.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: Yes, we decided to also keep the engineer’s qualifications for the Board of Water Supply, but that’s a Director of the Board of Water Supply. And if we’re going to have a Director of the Department and have administrative talents be part of their job description, their qualifications, I think Director fits that, qualifications, fits that idea better than the Chief Engineer.

IRVINE: If we do this, we already have an amendment concerning the Chief Engineer that will have a five years experience in administrative capacity, so it wouldn’t really be adding another item to our list of things going to the public. Is that true?

RAY: Is that correct, Chris? Can we fold that in?

YUEN: As a legal matter, it could be included in number 7 if the Commission wished, or it could be broken out on its own. We would just have to redo our explaining. It would have to say something besides just qualification of Department Heads.

HERKES: Is there any legal problem with changing his title to a Director rather than Chief Engineer?

YUEN: No.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: One of the reasons I like the idea, I think it’s clear to the public that it’s a Director and secondly, as a Chief Engineer, that engineer has no authority over, say, the Water Department’s engineers so it’s not like they’re an engineer overseeing other engineers completely. So, having the requirement there and having it as a Department Head makes total sense to me and I support it.

RAY: Yes, at first I didn’t like the idea but now that I think of it, I think it’s just, kind of, a – I don’t want to say anything negative about engineers. They sure do like calling them Chiefs, though, I’ll tell you that.

IRVINE: Let’s vote.

RAY: Okay. All in favor of changing the name of the Head of the Department of Public Works from Chief Engineer to Director of Public Works and including it in the same amendment, number 7 – all in favor?

RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye.

RAY: Opposed?

Commissioner Martin abstained.

IRVINE: This will involve some changes in other parts of the – yes.

YUEN: Yes, I’m going to have to look through the Charter because there’s probably nine other places that say Chief Engineer and I will probably find eight of them and miss one, so if you folks can also look at that.

HERKES: I started going through the Charter and thought oh God and then I decided I really wanted to do this.

RAY: Number C, Change the Liquor Commission Membership to Nine Members and representative of the Council Districts.

HERKES: So moved.

ALONZO: Second.

RAY: Discussion?

HERKES: Janice is sitting out there. Do you have any comment on this?

RAY: I think this is just trying to move toward more consistent make-up and representation of the Boards and Commissions, where possible, where they’re not mandated by State Law.

PAKELE: Thank you members of the Commission. We have no objections to this portion of it. We do have another Board which is the Adjudication Board. It is that particular Board that we would say we’d like to keep it where it is. It’s a quasi-judicial Board and I see that it’s not on the agenda and wonder if that can be kept as is.

SANTANGELO: Don’t say anything.

PAKELE: Oh, we have to bring it all up.

HERKES: Don’t say anything. It’s not on the agenda.

RAY: Okay, thank you. All in favor?

RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye.

Commissioner Martin abstained.

YUEN: Just for the sake of completeness here. There is a State Statute that says the Liquor Commission shall have seven members however, that is something which the County can supercede. There is a Hawaii Supreme Court case that says that it’s a County matter and the gist of it is if you want to change it from seven to nine. I just thought I’d mention that.

PAKELE: I’ll correct that. The Statute says five members, no less than five members.

YUEN: Right, no less than five. I’m sorry.

RAY: Number D, dealing with the Code of Ethics. Marni, you want to –

HERKES: Yes. And I passed this out before and it’s in the Maui Charter under the Code of Ethics; ‘Elected and appointed officers and employees shall demonstrate by their example the highest standards of ethical conduct to the end that the public may justifiably have trust and confidence in the integrity of government.’

RAY: Want to read it again?

HERKES: ‘Elected and appointed officers and employees shall demonstrate by their example the highest standard of ethical conduct to the end that the public may justifiably have trust and confidence in the integrity of government.’ That’s in the minutes from the Volcano meeting and it’s also passed out to you.

RAY: Right, yes. We’ve had that in writing.

IRVINE: Can I ask one thing? On the written copy of this, it says replace Section 14-1 with this.

HERKES: Where is 14-1?

IRVINE: Page 32, bottom of the page. Section 14-1 is Enactment which says the Council shall adopt by ordinance a code of ethics, etc., and I think we’d have to –

HERKES: Oh, I think it’s, yes – We want not to replace it.

IRVINE: No, you don’t want to. You want to add it or something.

HERKES: I want to add it.

BESS: I have a question.

HERKES: Yes.

BESS: Is ‘by their example’ important to you? I’m wondering whether ‘shall demonstrate the highest standards of ethical conduct’ – what does ‘by their example’ add to it?

HERKES: It means by their actions, the way they act.

BESS: But, if we’re demonstrating, aren’t we demonstrating through our actions and words and otherwise?

HERKES: Can I ask you what the problem is?

BESS: No, I’m just saying is it necessary because ‘by their example’ – you know, I think what we’re doing is – there may even be a limitation. If we’re limiting to just actions, it’s fine. But demonstration would include actions and words as well.

IRVINE: Right. And we don’t want it to be just actions.

HERKES: Okay. Is that a friendly amendment? Have we got a motion?

IRVINE: Did you move?

HERKES: I think I just read it. Now I’m going to have to move how to do this.

HIGASHI: So you want it as an addition to this?

HERKES: Yes. I move that we insert the language I just read as an addition to Section 14-1. You’ve got a problem with that?

BESS: I have one more comment, one more comment.

RAY: Wait a minute. Can I have a second on that?

BESS: Yes, I’m sorry.

RAY: We have a second on Marni’s?

SANTANGELO: I’ll second for discussion.

BESS: I’m just wondering whether or not the use of the word ‘justifiably’ may color the intent of this. ‘To the end that the public may have trust and confidence in the integrity of the government’ is certainly much more straight forward. ‘Justifiably’ puts in a weasel word in there that people may want to play games with. So I don’t think that ‘justifiably’ ought to be used.

IRVINE: The other thing, this is a separate Section. It’s not enactment. It may come under Section 14-2, Standards.

HERKES: Or we can put it under a separate section that says ‘Declaration of Policy’, which is what Maui did under their Code of Ethics, and change all the Sections.

What I was trying to not do is to change all the Section numbers.

IRVINE: Does our attorney have anything to say about where this might best fit in, or whether it’s already covered here?

YUEN: Well, if you want to do this, we could put it in 14-1 and make what’s the present part the (a) and make a (b) which would be Statement of Policy, and then you don’t have to change all the numbers of everything else.

HERKES: Oh, you do have to?

IRVINE: No, just say Policy and Enactment.

HERKES: You don’t have to change, okay. Right.

BESS: How about just reworking Section 14. ‘The council shall adopt by ordinance a code of ethics which –

HERKES: ‘By which all elected and appointed officers’?

IRVINE: No.

BESS: I don’t know.

HERKES: No. That’s a process. You started this.

PRANKE: Read the first part. If you add this, you’re not changing the Code of Ethics. There’s nothing in there that mandates the County Council would change the Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics is not in the Charter.

HERKES: It isn’t now, right.

PRANKE: It isn’t. So, putting that into the Charter doesn’t change the Code of Ethics. It just puts more flowery words in the Charter because there’s nothing there that mandates the County Council to write any new ordinance that would change the Code of Ethics.

RAY: Right.

PRANKE: I approve of what you’re saying, of putting it in there, but it doesn’t change the Code of Ethics at all.

HERKES: I understand.

IRVINE: And we don’t want to keep adding things that aren’t substantive because people will just get confused when they go to the polls.

PRANKE: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to burst your bubble. I like the wording.

SANTANGELO: Oh, we’re big people.

wording.

HERKES: We have a Charter that’s full of action items and no policy.

IRVINE: Yes.

HERKES: And this is one other thing with you will do this, this, this, but no reason behind it, no policy, no this is why we want you to do this, this, and this. It comes up over and over in the Charter. And this would add the flowery language but it also adds a little substance.

SANTANGELO: For discussion, this would be number 14 that we would put on the ballot? We can’t stick this somewhere?

RAY: This would be an additional.

SANTANGELO: It would be an additional.

IRVINE: I think so, yes.

SANTANGELO: Yes.

RAY: I don’t think it’s anything particularly controversial or difficult to explain so I don’t see it as a major issue in terms of an addition.

SANTANGELO: Then before we vote on the whole thing, then I would make a motion to amend it to delete the word ‘justifiably’.

IRVINE: And ‘by their example’?

SANTANGELO: Steve, you had said that –

BESS: I don’t have a hang up. I’m just –

SANTANGELO: I like the simplification, yes, and okay, justifi – okay.

HIGASHI: I second the amendment.

RAY: So, let’s vote on the amendment first. Does everybody understand the amendment, the two deletions?

SANTANGELO: ‘Justifiably’ and ‘by their example’.

RAY: All in favor.

RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye.

Commissioner Martin abstained.

RAY: Okay, vote on the main motion as amended. All in favor?

RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye.

Commissioner Martin abstained.

RAY: Now, we’ve got, as provided by Mr. Yuen, the review of the exact text of the proposed Charter Amendments, the review of the ballot questions and the review of the Digest. How do you suggest we do this process-wise?

YUEN: Just have a general discussion and we could go point-by-point, or I’m not sure if the Commission members have individual items they want to talk about. Certainly, though, I would like the Commission to specifically deal with the additions I put in the Non-partisan election that are discussed in my letter of May 18 because there are a couple of things that have not specifically been voted on by the Commission.

IRVINE: Chris, if we just vote on the version sent out by you on this date, is that all right? We got your discussion.

YUEN: That would take care – just so the Commission did vote on that and approve that, then I’d be comfortable with that.

IRVINE: I guess I’d like to move that we accept number 1, the non-partisan amendment as presented to us by Chris today.

RAY: Do I have a second?

SANTANGELO: Second.

RAY: Discussion?

HERKES: What is ‘insofar as applicable’ mean?

YUEN: That’s because the State Laws on elections are written toward where you have partisan elections, Primary and General, and so that’s the parts that are not applicable are the parts that deal with the nomination of candidates by parties and replacement of candidates by the parties, and the like. But we have to say that our County elections still do generally follow the State Law because we’re having them – the whole code of how to do an election is in the State Law; where you have the polling places, when you have the proclamation of the election, when you have to file. All those things are spelled out in the State Law. We don’t have a County Law that says all those things and the simplest thing is to just let’s follow – That’s what everybody does now, follow the State Law, except that we have a non-partisan election now.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: Chris, are there different meanings for majority? Are there different words for majority? Majority, does it have different meanings? Simple majority?

YUEN: No, not the term ‘majority’ itself. I think that’s clearly understood. The ambiguity comes in whether you count the blank or spoiled, and we went through that and made a decision that you don’t count them in what is your total number of votes. So, I don’t think that there’s any ambiguity in saying that to win outright in the first election, you need a majority. That simply means if you have more than half plus a vote. If you have an even number of votes, you divide that in two and add one and you get the majority, and if you have an odd number of votes, you divide it in two and you round off to the higher number and that’s the majority.

HIGASHI: Okay, does Oahu says 50% plus one vote?

YUEN: No, I think they say a majority. I don’t think they say 50% plus one. I think they say a majority. I could double check that, but I don’t think that is anything that somebody could disagree with.

RAY: Steve.

BESS: Yes, I’m trying to simplify this for all the voters here. I’m wondering whether or not it’s necessary to use ‘special elections’, and I’m wondering whether or not we could provide for these elective officers to be elected on non-partisan primary and general elections and, just to keep it consistent and less confusing so that you’d have a primary County election and then the second would be a general County election.

YUEN: The reason I use the term ‘first special election’ and ‘second special election’ is, again, a look back at the State Law that talks about elections. A Primary Election is defined as a nominating election. A Special Election is defined in State Law as any election which is not preceded by a Primary to nominate candidates. And then the City and County of Honolulu went to this terminology of ‘first special election’ and ‘second special election’ for, I think, the same reason. I didn’t ask them why.

BESS: I understand. And you don’t think by putting in a primary County election would clarify that?

YUEN: If we said it that way, the election would go forward and people would understand what to do. I think the Election people would understand what to do and what we meant by doing that. Just looking at it from a technical legal point of view, I think that it does conflict with the way the State Law is set up. I know what you’re saying and it bothers me too. It sounds wrong. The Special Election doesn’t quite sound right, I think.

BESS: It’s not a Special Election.

YUEN: But again, the State Law defines a special election. Maybe the ordinary person thinks of a special election as an election that’s not normally held, and this is an election that we’re normally holding.

BESS: Well, it’s nice to know that all of our elections will be special.

YUEN: Yes. I’m not happy with doing it this way myself but, I think, because that’s the way that State Law says that’s what a special election is, is why I call it a special election. Go ahead.

IRVINE: Chris, the way we’re doing it, we really wouldn’t even have a primary and a general if, in the first special election, one person won 50% plus one vote. So, it would really be wrong to call it a primary.

BESS: No, but what I’m trying to do is is that these elections take place at the time of a primary and general election when you’re voting on the President of the United States.

IRVINE: Correct.

BESS: That kind of thing.

IRVINE: But it would be your last chance to vote on these people and to call it a primary, unless you were going to go along with the amendment that you didn’t go along with that I tried to make last meeting, it’s just not a primary election. And having worked elections a lot, a special election is just the word they use. It’s like Special Counsel that I thought was funny. It’s just the term the State uses.

RAY: Okay. John.

SANTANGELO: Just to argue the point.

RAY: We’ve got nothing but time.

SANTANGELO: In our present elections where we have a primary and a general, you have people that win in the primary and then aren’t even put on the ballot in the general. And it’s called a primary. But I don’t have a problem with that.

PRANKE: Jay Kimura ran unopposed.

SANTANGELO: Yagong. He won in the primary. Wasn’t put on the general. Wasn’t even on the ballot.

RAY: Okay, we beat this one to death?

BESS: I’m sorry. Yes, we have beat it but just one other point. Just again focusing on the public and understanding, I don’t know if it’s safe for us to believe that everyone understands what a non-partisan election is but in the proposed language for the ballot, that it be elected in non-partisan elections, I’m just wondering whether it would be clearer to all people if we said that ‘be elected on a non-partisan basis’ and to go one step further and say ‘without regard to political party affiliation’. I don’t know if that makes it any clearer for the public. So, I don’t have a hang up about it but that’s a thought.

YUEN: Are you meaning –

BESS: I’m looking at your proposed language for ballot.

YUEN: For the ballot.

BESS: Yes. You say ‘be elected in non-partisan elections’ and I’m just trying to put it so that there is no question about what we’re talking about here for all the public.

YUEN: Actually, I have no pride of authorship as far as the Ballot Questions and I want the Commission members to discuss, really, how – I put this out as a draft, as a basis for discussion. I can see saying this a little bit differently. You could say ‘non-partisan election with no party identification on the ballot’. I said that in the Digest to make that a little fuller. In stating the Ballot Question, there’s a trade off between making it brief and making it complete, and I went toward brief in what I did rather than toward complete in the drafts.

RAY: That’s not much of an addition to add that language in the Question, to add that language in that section.

BESS: That’s what I’m saying.

HERKES: I like that language.

SANTANGELO: So that would be inserted at ‘be elected without regard to political affiliation in non-partisan elections’. Is that what you’re saying, something like that? Just insert that part right there?

BESS: I said ‘be elected on a non-partisan basis without regard to political party affiliation’.

RAY: But to put that in the Question language, ‘shall all County officers’, not in the –

BESS: Yes, it’s not in the substance; in the proposed language for –

IRVINE: What if you just said ‘non-partisan’ –

RAY: Right, so to add it in the Question.

YUEN: I understand that’s what he wants to do. I don’t think it’s necessary to put it in the Charter to explain that because that’s–

BESS: No, I don’t want it in the Charter.

YUEN: The Ballot Question is whatever people feel is the best language.

RAY: We’re not reviewing the Ballot Questions yet. Keep that in mind when we get to them.

BESS: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought we were going - all right.

HERKES: We’re not? What are we doing?

BESS: We’re going amendment by amendment, but we’re not necessarily going back to the proposed –

RAY: We’re going through the Charter Amendments first, then we’ll go back through the Ballot Questions.

YUEN: Maybe that’s a better way to do it. What I wanted to make sure was that the Charter language that I had drafted for non-partisan, that that was reviewed and approved by the Commission.

OTTERSON: Excuse me for breaking in, but do you know how many more meetings you’re going to have approximately?

RAY: No, I don’t.

OTTERSON: Looks like you guys are going to be here all night (indiscernible).

HERKES: Unfortunately. No, I’m still here.

OTTERSON: Okay, thanks a lot folks.

RAY: So, we’re discussing Charter Amendment number 1, non-partisan elections.

SANTANGELO: And not the ballot thing, right?

RAY: No, we’re going to come back and go through the Ballot Questions and the Digest, unless you want to do it all.

SANTANGELO: No, no, no. Keep going.

RAY: It just seemed easier to me to go through it.

HERKES: So, what do you want, a motion?

YUEN: We had a motion.

SANTANGELO: We’re ready for the question.

HERKES: Let’s go.

RAY: So, all in favor?

RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO: Aye.

Commissioner Martin abstained.

RAY: Charter Amendment number 2, Managing Director.

SANTANGELO: So moved.

RAY: Do I have a second?

HIGASHI: Second.

SANTANGELO: I have one question real quick. Mr. Chairman?

RAY: Go ahead.

SANTANGELO: In your Digest under number 2, Managing Director’s Authority, and it’s the third line down, and it’s the last word. I keep looking for it in the actual amendment, and I don’t know what it does but it says ‘would give the managing director supervisory authority under all County’, but it should be ‘over’, right?

YUEN: My mistake. It should be over. There’s a mistake.

SANTANGELO: I mean, no big deal. It just confused me because you used ‘over’ once and ‘under’ another. Okay. And I didn’t see it in the actual amendment. I didn’t really give a rip, but just to nitpick since Curtis isn’t here.

RAY: Any other questions or corrections?

IRVINE: Chris has mentioned the fact that we had mentioned last meeting that this Section 6-1.3 (d) is about as verbose. It’s the top of the second page of our amendment. It’s just, I think, awful. It’s as written in Honolulu but the Maui Charter, on page 11, just says ‘(d) evaluate the management and performance of each agency’ period, and I think that would be better language than what we have in here. If we want to add some of what we have in here, fine, but the first sentence there goes on forever and is, I don’t think, correct English. If you’d like me to give a longer version, I’ve done that too.

HERKES: It just says the same thing. If you evaluate the management and performance of each agency, you’re going to do the rest of it anyway.

SANTANGELO: Except that ‘appoint necessary staff’, I don’t know if that’s necessary to be in there, but you want to be able to let them do that.

BESS: And it requires reporting.

SANTANGELO: There’s lots of stuff in there. It’s long winded.

IRVINE: Right. It’s basically the first one-two-three-four –

SANTANGELO: Five-six.

IRVINE: Yes, five-six lines, down to a report. I guess it’s all one sentence there, and it’s really not good. Like I say, I had a long version which went like this: "Evaluate the management and performance of each executive agency including the extent to which, and the efficiency with which, it’s operating and capital’, I think that should be, ‘programs and budgets have been implemented’ period. ‘Appoint the necessary staff to assist in such evaluation’ period. ‘Assist the executive agencies in improving their performance and make reports to the Mayor and the Council on the findings and recommendations of such evaluation and analysis’, and then go on with the rest of it. To do a real evaluation, you have to analyze something and I don’t think we need both those words there.

BESS: But particularly since the first paragraph talks about evaluating and doesn’t have ‘evaluate and analyze’, so ‘the recommendations of such evaluation’, period, would seem to make sense without the analysis.

IRVINE: Yes.

SANTANGELO: So, if you made a motion to amend this, we’d be done with it.

IRVINE: I guess I was looking for the feel of the Commission. Do you want to say ‘evaluate the management and performance of each agency’ as Maui does, period, or do you want to go with a longer version?

SANTANGELO: Longer works for me.

IRVINE: Always does, John. We understand that.

HERKES: Shorter works for me.

SANTANGELO: That’s the pot calling the kettle black, there.

IRVINE: Okay, touche.

SANTANGELO: I don’t mind the periods and stuff. It lets you breathe.

IRVINE: And it takes out ‘and analysis’. I think when I say ‘its operating and capital budgets’, is that right, or is that singular?

HERKES: You’re evaluating an agency. They only have one program and one budget.

IRVINE: Okay, ‘Each executive agency including the extent to which, and the efficiency with which, it’s operating and capital’. No, well, ‘it’s operating and capital program and budget’.

HERKES: ‘With which, it’s operating and capital program and budget has been implemented’.

IRVINE: ‘Program and budget’, okay. Maybe singular is okay. You’re right, if it’s just one agency, but if you have to go to that extent, it’s – I move that we –

HERKES: Oh, here it comes.

IRVINE: I don’t want to move – Is –

SANTANGELO: Go for it.

BESS: You’re good.

IRVINE: The longer version or the short, guys and ladies?

BESS: Long. I want long.

IRVINE: Okay, everybody wants long. I move that we put, instead of (d) as written, ‘evaluate the management and performance of each executive agency including the extent to which, and the efficiency with which, its operating and capital program and budget have been implemented’, period. ‘Appoint the necessary staff to assist in such evaluation’, period. ‘Assist the executive agencies in improving their performance and make reports to the Mayor and the Council on the findings and recommendations of such evaluation’, period. And then continue with ‘a report’ and down to the end of (d).

SANTANGELO: Second.

BESS: That’s good.

HERKES: Question. Call for the question.

SANTANGELO: We’re ready to vote.

BESS: I have one comment. This ‘and the efficiency with which’, what does that add? It sounds funny anyway but ‘of each executive including the extent to which its operating and capital budget have been implemented’. I mean, doesn’t that say the same thing? ‘The extent to which’ – I don’t know that ‘efficiency’ really adds much. I’m just saying ‘the extent to which it’s operating and capital program and budget have been implemented’. Chris, you have a comment on that? Why do we put ‘and the efficiency of which’?

YUEN: This came from the Honolulu Charter and what was put in by the Commission voting earlier. I didn’t put this in. If you stopped after ‘executive agency’, I don’t think it would significantly change what the managing director is going to be doing one way or the other. I would say that it’s fairly clear that one of the things that the managing director is supposed to do is see that they follow the budget and that they implement it. I don’t think you have to say that specifically, I mean, if you’re trying to simplify this. If you say it, it says it.

IRVINE: So you think that the short version --

YUEN: I don’t think it makes a big difference as far as what the powers of the managing director are, whether you go with the short version or the long version. The last sentence, arguably, adds something because it specifically says that the managing director shall make a report to the Commission when it’s a department or an agency under a Commission. Otherwise, I suppose, the managing director could do an evaluation and just give it to the Chief of Police, for example, or the Water Commission, for example.

IRVINE: In light of this, I’d like to withdraw my motion.

SANTANGELO: Well, just vote it down and make another one.

IRVINE: Okay, well, let’s vote it down and then I’ll –

BESS: Before you do add your short one, let me just ask you does he or she have the power to appoint the necessary staff?

YUEN: That’s in an earlier section that the Office of the Managing Director consists of the Managing Director and necessary staff, yes.

BESS: And the necessary staff. Correct, okay. Top shape. Go ahead, Sue.

IRVINE: Are we going to vote this one down and make another motion?

RAY: Just withdraw it.

IRVINE: Okay, I withdraw.

RAY: Second withdraw?

SANTANGELO: Sure.

RAY: So, the motion.

IRVINE: I move that we change (d) to ‘evaluate the management and performance of each executive agency’ period.

HERKES: Second.

SANTANGELO: Do we have to amend this damn thing to put that last sentence in there?

HERKES: Can’t we just vote on it?

RAY: And then you delete everything until we get to ‘a report shall be made’.

HERKES: No.

SANTANGELO: Yes, the motion’s just to drop everything.

HIGASHI: The motion is just to have that sentence.

IRVINE: Okay, okay. I’m going to move that I just drop that sentence and use this one sentence, and then that we will have the ‘report’ still in there.

HERKES: Wait a minute. I seconded just one sentence. I seconded ‘Evaluate the management and performance of each executive agency’. If you’re going to add that other sentence then I’m going to withdraw my second.

SANTANGELO: Then I’ll second your motion.

RAY: Does everybody understand where we are? ‘Evaluate the management and performance of each executive agency’ period. ‘A report shall be made to the responsible Commission whenever an evaluation and analysis is performed on a department or agency under a Commission’.

KUROZAWA: How about to the Mayor?

IRVINE: I think Marni’s right, that we shouldn’t put that in. Well, if we want reports, we shouldn’t just mention to a Commission if we’re going to –

KUROZAWA: You have to put to the Mayor and Council.

HERKES: Are we going to hire a professional on this, or are we going to mandate every move they make? I thought we were upgrading our Managing Director to hire a professional. When you evaluate the management and performance –

IRVINE: Of each executive and make reports as appropriate. No, make reports to the Mayor and Council and Commissions. Evaluating doesn’t imply reports, I guess.

HERKES: It does to me.

IRVINE: Does it?

HERKES: Yes, and I would hope we would elect a Mayor that would imply reports too, and Council people that would imply reports too.

IRVINE: Yes, obviously.

BESS: Our minutes may make that clear but I"ve got to tell you, I don’t think evaluating management and performance includes reporting.

IRVINE: Yes, a report. What if we just said ‘evaluate and report on the management and performance of each’? Would that do it? Do we need specify?

KUROZAWA: Well actually, the other thing I’m trying to keep in mind is what the public’s going to read into this because having a long narrative on what they do may, in their minds, perceive that there’s more power by the Managing Director. If you put a one-sentence in there, they may just look at it and say it’s another rewording of the old Charter, and maybe they may not agree with what’s going on.

IRVINE: I should have written this whole thing up but I didn’t realize it was so complicated. I just –

KUROZAWA: It’s kind of redundant to put John’s ten lines.

SANTANGELO: Are we withdrawing again?

IRVINE: Let’s withdraw again and try again, John. Shall we?

SANTANGELO: Okay.

IRVINE: ‘Evaluate the management and performance of each executive agency. Make reports to the Mayor and Council on the findings and recommendations of such evaluations. A report shall be made to the responsible Commission when an evaluation/ and analysis is performed on a department or agency under a Commission.’ Final motion.

RAY: Does everybody understand that?

BESS: You stuck analysis in that last one. Did you mean to do that?

IRVINE: Did I? I didn’t mean to. No, I said ‘slash’ and analysis.

BESS: ‘Slash analysis.’ Okay, meaning omit.

RAY: Can you read that one more time?

IRVINE: ‘Evaluate the management and performance of each executive agency. Make reports to the Mayor and Council on the findings and recommendations of such evaluation. A report shall be made to the responsible Commission whenever an evaluation is performed on a department or agency under a Commission.’

BESS: Second.

RAY: So, we’ve got the three. Does everybody understand that?

SANTANGELO: So, now that the cupboard’s all nice and tidy.

HIGASHI: Why are we making a report to the Council? Did you say that?

IRVINE: Yes. ‘Make reports to the Mayor and Council on the findings and recommendations of such evaluations.’

HIGASHI: (Indiscernible) the language –

IRVINE: I think we should say ‘Make a’, to be consistent, ‘to the responsible Commission’.

RAY: Are we comfortable voting on this? Okay, all in favor?

RAY, ALONZO, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

RAY: Opposed?

MARTIN: Aye.

RAY: Opposed what?

MARTIN: You said opposed, didn’t you?

RAY: Yes.

MARTIN: Aye.

? I’m a little –

HERKES: I’m a little – me too. I’m not voting. I don’t like it.

RAY: All in favor, raise your right hand.

HANDS RAISED: Alonzo, Bess, Irvine, Kurozawa, Ray, Santangelo

SANTANGELO: Can we take a little break?

RAY: Yes. Let’s take a five minute little break.

RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 7:05 p.m.

RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 7:25 p.m.

(Mr. Alonzo left during the break.)

RAY: Let’s reconvene our meeting. Chris has a change on the Managing Director he wants to bring up.

YUEN: Yes, after thinking about when it takes effect, I had written here it would take effect on approval by voters. I think it would be better to say the first Monday in December, I think, obviously, so that there’s not an idea that the duties get changed. It would be much more orderly to change it.

HERKES: And that’s consistent language with the rest of the Charter. Other things take effect the first Monday in December.

YUEN: Well, the exact thing would say that ‘12 o’clock meridian on the first Monday in December’, which is language that I don’t like but that’s what the Charter always says, so if I could request that somebody make a motion and the Commission vote to do that.

IRVINE: Is this the first Monday in December?

SANTANGELO: The suggested wording –

YUEN: Would be that it would take effect on the first –

SANTANGELO: Tuesday.

YUEN: Monday – the first Monday in December at 12 o’clock meridian following its approval by the voters.

SANTANGELO: So moved.

IRVINE: Second.

RAY: All in favor?

RAY, BESS, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Higashi and Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 3. And the rest of these have very minor changes.

YUEN: If there was anything significant, I would have mentioned it in the letter. I don’t think there’s any actual substantive changes, certainly in number 3 from what’s been passed before.

RAY: Number 3, Fire Commission. Any comment?

SANTANGELO: Rudy’s letter, just as a –

YUEN: Let me explain what the Fire Board of Appeals does first. There is something called the Fire Board of Appeals. It’s not in the Charter. There’s a State Law that says you have a Fire Board of Appeals, and what it says is that if the Fire Chief won’t give you a variance from the Fire Code, you go to the Fire Board of Appeals. Things like somebody wants to build a hale of palm and it doesn’t meet the Fire Code, they can go to the Fire Board of Appeals and ask – And the Fire Chief is empowered to give variances, but if the Fire Chief says no, they can go to the Fire Board of Appeals and ask for that. It has very little work to do and I think the request here was, well, let the Fire Commission do this and so then we don’t have to have a Fire Board of Appeals separately. That’s what it does. It’s really up to the Commission if they want to fold the two functions together. It wouldn’t make a lot of difference. The Fire Board of Appeals does not meet very often or have much to do at the present time.

HERKES: Can we just leave it alone and ignore it?

YUEN: And if you left it alone, it wouldn’t hurt anything. There would still be a Fire Board of Appeals and you would have a separate Fire Commission that did what you said the Fire Commission should do.

RAY: Okay. So, all in favor of the Fire Commission as written?

BESS: I’m in favor of it but may I just make a comment here? I just noticed something that passed me by the first time around. I notice that the Fire Commission – It’s not required that there be any confirmation of the Council, and I know that on the Police Commission –

KUROZAWA: No, it says confirmed by the Council.

SANTANGELO: Yes it is.

IRVINE: Yes there is, Section 13-4.

BESS: Oh, I’m sorry. Okay, top shape.

RAY: All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 4, Department of Environmental Management.

YUEN: There are no changes. This just says what was voted on earlier.

BESS: So moved.

HERKES: Second.

RAY: Discussion? All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 5, Holdover of Boards and Commissions.

YUEN: Again, this just says what was passed earlier.

HERKES: Move for approval.

BESS: Second.

RAY: All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 6, Eliminate the Safety Coordinator.

HERKES: Move for approval.

HIGASHI: Second.

RAY: All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

IRVINE: Wait, wait. I do have, on that one. It says ‘Eliminate Safety Coordinator’. I thought we were going to say ‘Eliminate Safety Coordinator position’.

HERKES: Which does make more sense.

IRVINE: Yes.

YUEN: Yes, I can change the title.

IRVINE: Thank you.

RAY: Friendly amendment. Okay.

Number 7, Department Head Qualifications.

YUEN: I think this is the same as was approved previously. It’s just putting it all together in one amendment.

IRVINE: We already changed that Chief Engineer to Director of Public Works, right?

YUEN: We would re-change this and stick that in now, yes.

SANTANGELO: Move for approval.

HIGASHI: Second.

RAY: Any discussion based upon Mr. Tyler’s recommendations as far as beefing up either Planning Director or Managing Director?

KUROZAWA: I have a question. Was there any reason why the Director of Finance only has three years of supervisory capacity and everybody else has five? No matter.

YUEN: We didn’t change that. We’re just moving that. The Commission has just not discussed in changing that language. This is just one of those that’s being moved from 13-3 back into the Section of the Finance Director.

HERKES: So it’s really not new, but it’s ramseyered.

YUEN: Well, it’s new in that section and that’s why it’s ramseyered.

HERKES: It’s new in that section.

YUEN: If you notice, it’s like double entry bookkeeping. There’s a deletion of this from 13-3 with exactly the same thing.

KUROZAWA: All right, thank you.

RAY: Questions? All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 8, Police Commission.

BESS: I have something that relates to 7-2.2 (6). This is talking about powers and duties. ‘Review the department’s operations as deemed necessary for the purpose of recommending improvements to the Police Chief.’ I’m wondering whether or not we want to add in ‘and the Managing Director’.

HERKES: Okay. Number 7.

IRVINE: It’s [c](6).

BESS: [c](6), first page, bottom of the page.

RAY: I think that would be consistent with adding it in everywhere else. Did we have a motion on this?

SANTANGELO: No.

HERKES: So moved.

BESS: So moved with the amendment?

HERKES: Yes.

BESS: Second.

RAY: I moved. He seconded.

BESS: Yes, I just was clarifying her motion. That’s all. Sorry.

HERKES: We’re just trying to move this along here.

RAY: We’ll vote on the amendment. Add the addition of the Managing Director under number (6). All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Main motion is amended. All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 9, Water Commission.

YUEN: This has been voted. I would ask again that it take effect on first Monday in December at 12 o’clock meridian rather than upon it’s approval by the voters so that they have a month to change the name. Give them a little advance notice that they’re changing the name. And the transitional language was passed by the earlier vote which would adopt what I have here as Section 8-6.

BESS: Chris, I know you don’t like that 12 o’clock meridian stuff and neither do I. So why not let’s just make a leap and start to change the language. Are we stuck with this forever?

IRVINE: I’ll second that.

YUEN: It won’t hurt my feelings. That’s for sure. It won’t confuse anybody if you want to just say 12 noon. That’s fine.

BESS: I don’t think it will confuse anybody and it’ll start moving in the right direction and wipe that out.

YUEN: Okay, for all of them then, you want that?

IRVINE: Yes.

SANTANGELO: There goes another tradition.

RAY: Do we have a motion? Yes?

IRVINE: He moved and I seconded, I guess.

RAY: All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 10, Salary Commission.

HIGASHI: Move for approval.

HERKES: Second.

YUEN: This is what we passed before and I think the earlier vote was the transition would be as with the Water Commission.

RAY: Did we have a motion?

SANTANGELO: Yes.

RAY: All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 11, the Cost of Government Commission.

BESS: So move.

HIGASHI: Second.

RAY: We have some testimony on that. We had testimony from Mr. Takahashi.

SANTANGELO: He’s just afraid they’ll give them salaries they can’t afford.

RAY: That has to do with the Mandatory Program Review. I don’t think we want to go there.

HERKES: Did we put four years in here? I can’t find it.

RAY: One year after the beginning of the term of the Mayor and lasting 11 months.

YUEN: Yes.

RAY: So, all in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 12, Deletion of the Hawaii Redevelopment Agency.

HERKES: So moved.

HIGASHI: Second.

RAY: All in favor?

RAY, BESS, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO:

Aye.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Number 13, Council Meetings in Kona.

YUEN: Again, I would like to say this amendment will take effect January 1, 2001 so that they know when the quarter starts because I think that would be clearer.

RAY: Can we have a motion for discussion?

SANTANGELO: So move.

BESS: Second.

RAY: Discussion?

HERKES: Yes. Judicial districts outside Hilo, rather than North and South Kona, or just districts outside Hilo. Meet at least quarterly in districts outside Hilo.

KUROZAWA: Should you say in West Hawaii?

HERKES: What?

KUROZAWA: In West Hawaii. They could do Laupahoehoe.

HERKES: Not on West Hawaii. There’s nothing wrong with doing Laupahoehoe.

KUROZAWA: True. That’s only 20 minutes away.

HERKES: Is that the criteria? Meeting anywhere that’s an hour away from Hilo?

RAY: Marni, is that an amendment?

SANTANGELO: No, she’s just talking right now.

IRVINE: A possibility, yes.

RAY: You’re just talking. Okay, discussion.

HERKES: You said discussion. That was a discussion item.

RAY: Okay. John.

SANTANGELO: I like the way it is mainly because the way it is, if you’re out in Ka’u or anywhere, you’ve got to come in here to testify, and what we’re saying is move this geographically diametrically opposing to a center of another type of population and let them come to that. And I think that’s a good move to begin with. And to just give discretion anywhere doesn’t meet the spirit that I want to support it. And I would expect it be in Kailua, but it’s pretty fair – what’s this that they’re using these days, fair and equitable? It’s fair and it’s equitable to have it there and have those people coming down. So, I like the way it is.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I guess, prior to the meeting you had mentioned that there was some concern about the fact that everything might become illegal if the Council failed in one quarter to get to the other side. I’m tending to agree with John that they ought to be able to make it to the other side once a quarter, and they haven’t done this on their own and so maybe it just should be in the Charter.

RAY: Chris.

YUEN: I do not think it would make things illegal if they did not do this. I don’t think that’s a significant concern. The Charter says they have to do it. They’re supposed to do it, but if you didn’t have a meeting in Kona, it would not mean that all the ordinances you passed during that quarter would become illegal.

RAY: As I stated earlier, my original intent was to have it diametrically opposed, on the West side of the island, on a regular basis so that that half of the island would have similar access to the Council as East Hawaii does. I don’t think that you’d achieve the same purpose if the Council held meetings in Honokaa or Waimea or Kohala in terms of establishing a regular presence in West Hawaii.

HERKES: That’s an interesting statement because we have not held Charter Commission meetings in Kailua. We’ve held them in Waimea. Rather than in Hilo, they’ve been in Waimea and I suppose that was because it was in between the two people’s driving distance, but it’s not diametrically opposed. It’s not one Hilo and one Kona.

SANTANGELO: And John, just to back up what you said. Again, you get this argument where it might behoove a Council member to like to have meetings in his or her district and do some showcasing and this eliminates a lot of that politic stuff and says you’re going to have it here or there. And that’s good reason for it.

RAY: I think that’s a good point. You absolutely would have that going on. I can guarantee it.

IRVINE: Yes.

HERKES: You’re going to have it anyway.

SANTANGELO: Can we vote?

RAY: I think – I don’t know if it was Curtis that brought it up – but the idea of somehow including South Kohala as a possible location – I don’t know.

SANTANGELO: Again, if you go diametrically opposed, you fall within that fair and equitable and nobody can challenge it.

RAY: Any more discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand.

HANDS RAISED: Ray, Bess, Higashi, Irvine, Kurozawa, Santangelo.

Martin abstained from voting.

RAY: Now, we’re going to Review of the Ballot Questions. These are the draft proposed language, the short form really, just one sentence each. We already decided that Number 1, Non-partisan Elections, would be modified, right?

SANTANGELO: I differ a little bit with how it was proposed so I’d like to ask for –

RAY: Okay.

SANTANGELO: We’re talking about non-partisan elections so alls I would say is when we get to the ‘be elected’, they would ‘be elected without regard to party affiliation in non-partisan elections’. To me, that’s a clear statement and it keeps non-partisan by itself.

BESS: Sounds good.

RAY: Managing Director. We don’t need to vote on these? Let’s just go through and vote on the whole package.

SANTANGELO: Sure.

RAY: Any changes to Number 2?

HERKES: Number 2 doesn’t talk about increasing the qualifications. It talks about additional authority, and I would like to see some language in there: Should the Managing Director’s qualifications be strengthened, and should they be given additional authority of County Departments and be confirmed by the Council?

BESS: I have a suggestion. Perhaps we could insert ‘should be given additional professional authority’. And would that satisfy what you’re trying to get at?

HERKES: Not really.

RAY: John.

SANTANGELO: The question I have – I thought, and correct me if I’m wrong, the majority of what we dealt with in this was strengthening the requirement, and then we, kind of, set stuff up. Some of the Chambers have beat the living crap out of this because they say we’re trying to undermine the Mayor by using the word ‘authority’. And I think that does mislead a lot of people when we really are trying to increase the qualifications. So, I would suggest we really focus on the qualifications.

RAY: I’d see it just the opposite, to tell you the truth. I think that’s exactly what we are doing is encouraging additional authority and I think the qualification changes are relatively minor vs. what’s in the present Charter. So I think the way it’s written reflects where we’re going with this. The professional qualification changes are pretty insignificant, I think, in terms of really what you may or may not end up with. We’re hoping for –

HERKES: Would you like to strengthen those?

RAY: We’re hoping for better but – Well, that’s why I asked you because Curtis brought up the question of requiring a Master’s MBA or –

HERKES: I’ll read you my City and County Manager Council is that we have rejected any prescription for defining the qualifications to be a manager. And that’s across the board even though 70% of the Council Managers hold a Graduate or Professional Degree of which roughly 45% are Masters Degrees in Public Administration. They’ve agreed upon competencies but they really haven’t agreed upon which competencies. They’re professionals but they’re not professional in management.

RAY: Anyway, I think number 2 is aptly written to reflect what it is we’re –

HERKES: I think it sounds negative and I’m concerned about it.

RAY: You think – I’m sorry.

HERKES: I think it sounds negative and I’m concerned that it won’t get passed because it does sound negative.

RAY: What’s negative?

HERKES: The additional authority over all County departments and agencies, and be confirmed by the Council. Well, the additional authority.

RAY: I look at that as positive, not negative.

SANTANGELO: But, John, if I can interject. In what Marni’s reflecting is there’s organizations that have large memberships of business people, especially, that I’ve experienced that they perceive this negatively. Okay?

RAY: Well, maybe they should take the time to read it and figure out what it –

SANTANGELO: I agree and we may need to get out and deal with that. But they have, and that’s just a fact. If this is what it reflects, I don’t have a problem with it.

IRVINE: I guess my question is are departments and agencies two different things?

YUEN: Not really.

IRVINE: Then can we just throw out ‘and agencies’ and then we could add a word about qualifications and not get the sentence any longer?

YUEN: There are a couple of agencies that are not called departments in the County. There’s a Housing Agency.

IRVINE: Okay.

RAY: I don’t think we ought to try to disguise what it is that’s being proposed here so I don’t think that’s fair.

HERKES: Okay.

HIGASHI: She said okay so we can move on.

RAY: But if you want to add something if you feel strongly about the professional qualifications. I mean we added a very minor change, in my mind, but if you want to put that in there.

HERKES: I would like to add ‘qualifications be strengthened’.

RAY: So it would read?

HERKES: ‘Should the Managing Director whose qualifications are strengthened be given additional authority?’

IRVINE: Can we just ask Chris to make sure the word ‘qualification’ or ‘qualifications’ gets thrown in there?

YUEN: I would say if you wanted to say something about the qualifications, to say that ‘the Managing Director be required to have minimum qualifications’ because actually there aren’t any stated in the Charter right now.

HIGASHI: But I think we should state what the Digest also explains to the people. All they’re going to see is the Digest at the end. Is that what we’re going to be promoting? The Digest?

RAY: Roland, I’m not sure what you’re asking.

HIGASHI: At the end, what is the public going to see?

RAY: They’re going to see the Question, right?

HIGASHI: But prior to that, they are going to be seeing the Digest? Is that what they’re going to be looking at most? And the suggested Digest is the draft that we have?

YUEN: The main official piece of information that we send out is the Digest which would be published in the paper and then if there’s any other information about that. So a voter that wants to inform themselves would have that available. This is where, when I mentioned earlier, you can try to be complete or you can try to be short in the Ballot Question. The Digest we can naturally spend a little more time more fully explaining things but I didn’t, when I drafted this, try to put every point that was being changed in the Question itself.

BESS: We’ll probably get to this point later on but I would hope that if we’re publishing these Digested Charter Amendments that what we would do is that we would post the Ballot Question and then go into the Digest so that they’d be able to relate the two.

IRVINE: Quite frankly, though, the Digest on this one doesn’t mention qualifications having been set.

HERKES: Right.

YUEN: It should and that should be added. Yes.

IRVINE: Okay.

RAY: Okay, so Marni’s suggestion was that we just add ‘should the Managing Director whose qualifications - what was it?

SANTANGELO: Chris said it pretty well.

IRVINE: Chris had better words.

YUEN: It, in addition to what it already says here, would say ‘should be required to meet minimum qualifications’.

RAY: Yes, that’s a negative. I just don’t like the way that sounds.

YUEN: Or ‘will be required to have certain qualifications’.

BESS: How about ‘Should the Managing Director be required to meet additional qualifications and be given additional authority’?

HERKES: Oh, there you go. There you go. Additional qualifications.

IRVINE: But he doesn’t have any right now.

HERKES: Right. Well, he does in the wording. He has –

KUROZAWA: No, but in the current Charter, there’s no requirements –

HERKES: Current Charter, none. None.

BESS: Sorry.

HERKES: There are none.

IRVINE: No. That’s what they are saying. That’s why they can’t say additional.

BESS: ‘Should the Managing Director be required to meet professional qualifications and be given’, something to that effect.

RAY: Is that okay?

YUEN: No, I’m sorry. The Managing Director currently has five years in administrative capacity so it is additional. I’m sorry. Yes. But what’s been added in this amendment is a slight change to what is current, which is why I didn’t actually put it, number 2, in the Ballot Question.

IRVINE: Say it into the microphone, Roland. You just said additional responsibilities. That’s better than authority.

BESS: It may make it more salable for those people that – yes.

IRVINE: More palatable.

HERKES: That’s what I’m trying to do is make it more salable.

IRVINE: I think Roland may have hit on the word.

SANTANGELO: Speaking of Roland, let’s get along.

YUEN: Yes, that’s –

RAY: Where are we?

YUEN: There was a suggestion that the word ‘authority’ be changed to ‘additional responsibilities’.

BESS: I think that makes it more salable.

HERKES: Yes, I like it.

IRVINE: Consensus.

SANTANGELO: That tastes real good.

IRVINE: Thank you, Roland.

RAY: Move on? Okay, number 3.

SANTANGELO: What?

RAY: We’re going through all of these and then we’re going to vote on the whole package.

SANTANGELO: Okay. I thought we were done already, but we’re only on 3. Okay.

HERKES: Now ‘advise the Fire Department’. Is that what they’re doing?

IRVINE: ‘Appoint the Fire Chief and advise the Fire Department.’ Sounds good.

HIGASHI: They hire the Chief.

HERKES: Hire the Chief and advise the Fire Department?

HIGASHI: Kind of review. They don’t have authority to do anything else so ‘advise’, I guess, is the proper word.

SANTANGELO: So advise away, advise away.

RAY: Okay, number 4. Do we need to put anything in there about the new Commission?

YUEN: Up to you. Again, I was keeping it short and if you wanted to say something about a Commission, you would say ‘and there be an Environmental Management Commission to –‘

SANTANGELO: Can you just say ‘with an advisory Commission’ or just something like that?

IRVINE: Don’t say ‘advisory’. We took that out.

YUEN: At this point we didn’t limit it to being always advisory so we would just say ‘with an Environmental Management Commission’.

? How about ‘with a Commission attached’?

YUEN: I wouldn’t say ‘attached’. Just say that there would be a ‘Department of Environmental Management and an Environmental Management Commission’, if that’s what the Commission wants.

IRVINE: Can we give Chris the authority to make sure these have proper English after we get done?

RAY: So, we’re going to add the Commission in? I think we should.

IRVINE: Yes.

BESS: Yes, absolutely.

RAY: Number 5, Boards and Commissions. It’s pretty simple.

BESS: No changes.

RAY: Okay, number 6. It says ‘Office shall be abolished’. Okay?

HERKES: Oka