Home Page | Charter main page
HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION
Transcript of Meeting of July 12, 2000
Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room,
Hilo Lagoon Center
Attendance: J. Ray, M. Herkes (from 5:15 p.m.), R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa, G. Martin, J. Santangelo (from 5:28 p.m.), G. Yoshiyama, Counsel C. Yuen
Absent: E. Alonzo, K. Balog, S. Bess
And 1 member of the public in attendance.
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.
RAY: I’d like to call the meeting to order. This is the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission, our regular meeting, Wednesday, July 12th, 5 p.m., Hilo Lagoon Centre.
Attendance. At the present moment is Mr. Martin, Ms. Irvine, Mr. Higashi, Mr. Yoshiyama, Dr. Kurozawa and myself, John Ray. And we’re expecting a couple of more folks.
Statements from the Public. We have none. Shucks.
Minutes Approval. Minutes of May 31st, 2000.
MARTIN: Read them. Looked okay. Motion to pass them.
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
RAY: Okay, any comment? All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye
RAY: Financial Status Report. As of 5/31, $64,854.69. Just to let you know, we’ve received an additional $9,000 and some in invoices, so a rough figure is closer to $55,000.00 than $64,000.00, what we’re looking at right now, and that will be relevant when we discuss our developing a budget for taking the amendments out to the public later.
Communications. We did receive – I guess you distributed it – the communication from Dr. Holschuh. So everybody got those. So, there’s nothing new that wasn’t distributed.
Unfinished Business, Item number A., I’m going to ask Mr. Yuen to explain why we need to take a vote this evening on the exact time language when the Managing Director amendment takes effect.
YUEN: This had originally been written up and passed so that it would take effect on approval by the voters, and the Charter Commission passed it that way. On thinking about it some more, I thought it would be better to take effect the first Monday in December which is the beginning of the Mayor’s term, just on the odd possibility, among other things, if the Managing Director, for some reason, wasn’t qualified for the last month. But it would be more orderly to bring it into effect with the start of the new Mayor’s term. But when we voted on this last time, there were not actually six votes to change that.
MARTIN: So you need a vote directly on what you just said or do we have to amend the vote that we took on the last implementation of that time line?
YUEN: The motion would just be to change it so the amendment would take effect at noon on the first Monday in December following its approval by the voters.
MARTIN: So moved.
IRVINE: Second.
RAY: Okay, discussion. Is that clear to everybody? All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Okay, opposed? Item B.
YUEN: The Department Head Qualifications. This is Charter Amendment No. 7, and this was changed at the last meeting so that we would include in No. 7, that the Chief Engineer would be changed to Director of Public Works. So what I did was in the language of No. 7, I went and included the sections of the Charter that would have to be changed in order to do that, and I hope I got them all. But there are three or four places in the Charter that mentions the Chief Engineer. The Commission should just simply vote to adopt this as the actual language.
RAY: So, a motion as to adopt No. 7 as presented to the Commission?
YUEN: Yes.
YOSHIYAMA: So moved.
HIGASHI: Second.
RAY: Okay, discussion. Yes, George.
MARTIN: Chris, with this, you don’t foresee any more changes that’s going to be needed, yeah? I mean, we can always vote again and it’s not a problem, but, this should be it?
YUEN: Yes, I think we’re very close to our deadlines and this was meant to be the final, final, final; what we did today. There were a few changes made at the May 31st meeting that I’ve put in here. They’ve been voted on in substance but the actual language hasn’t been approved, and three others are the ones that need to be done.
RAY: Any more discussion? All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Opposed? Okay. Item No. C, Review of Exact Ballot Questions. First non-partisan elections.
MARTIN: Question, Mr. Chair.
RAY: Yes.
MARTIN: Are we going to follow the book that was just presented to us or are we going to follow this pamphlet that was handed out? The pamphlet is a little bit easier and has, I’ve been told, the exact language as on the Question section at least.
YUEN: Is it the same? I don’t know. It should be the same.
IRVINE: You’re saying that this doesn’t match this?
MARTIN: No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying that it’s easier to follow. Sharron indicated to me that these came verbatim out of what we’ve been –
HENRY: The purple binder.
MARTIN: Purple, okay.
HIGASHI: It has the summary and the question together then.
MARTIN: Right, but what I’m saying is just the Question portion.
HIGASHI: Yes, right.
IRVINE: Oh, are the question portions here different from over there?
MARTIN: No. I don’t think so. They shouldn’t be.
IRVINE: No, no.
MARTIN: It says here ‘review ballot questions’. Instead of looking here, the question is here, right? This is explanation.
RAY: Excuse me. We’re going to go back to agenda item B. because we need to take a vote on Amendments 14, 15 and 16, and wrap those up. So we should do that at the same time that we did the Department Head Qualifications. So, Chris, 14.
YUEN: This is just to present what the language would look like. This was voted on on May 31st. It increases the Liquor Commission membership from 7 to 9. One member would be a resident of each Council district. If there are members who are residents of the same district when this takes effect, they would continue to serve regardless of the fact that they resided in the same districts. Nobody would be disqualified. I would draw your attention to Section 3 of this. Two new members will be appointed and those would be appointed from any vacant district. There would be at least two districts which do not have representation so the Mayor would appoint to those districts. And what it says here is ‘allow for the staggering of terms, one of the two new commissioners would be appointed to five-year term and the other appointed to a one-year term, and would be eligible for a second term’. And I wanted to specify because when Commissions start off, they have started off with different lengths of terms, and so they don’t all expire at the same time. This way, you’ll have one that will come on and be appointed for five years and that won’t expire for five years. You’ll have one that will expire in one year but that individual will be eligible for reappointment and it will involve the same Mayor so, presumably, that person could be reappointed for another five-year term and stay on for six years. What I did was the same thing that was done when, I think, the Police Commission was changed from seven to nine. I can’t remember which Commission. And this was the strategy that was adopted.
HIGASHI: Chris, is there a Statute or a section in the Charter in which you cannot succeed yourself in any commission?
YUEN: Except if you’re appointed to an initial one-year term. That’s in 13-something. It should be – just a second. Yes, you can’t succeed yourself except if you’re appointed to an initial term of one year or two years, you can succeed yourself. So that’s why the person who gets the five years would not be eligible to succeed himself or herself. The person who gets the one-year would be eligible to get a second appointment of five years when the one-year ran out.
RAY: So does everybody understand that? I mean the rest of it is pretty straight forward, so this is just trying to accommodate the changeover. Sue?
IRVINE: Never mind.
YOSHIYAMA: I move for the acceptance of the language for Charter Amendment No. 14.
HIGASHI: Second.
RAY: Any more discussion? All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Opposed? Okay, No. 15, the addition of the Code of Ethics. Chris, you want –
YUEN: This is the Statement of Purpose or Policy and, actually, the Commission adopted this, the Statement of Policy, and as far as I could tell from reading the minutes, we didn’t come to a decision on exactly where it would be put in the Code of Ethics. It could be its own – I did it this way. Right now you have a Section 14-1 which doesn’t have any subsection. It just has this first two sentences. I changed the title of this section from ‘Enactment’ to ‘Enactment and Policy’. I changed what was there. I put it in as (a) and I put the Statement of Policy as (b).
IRVINE: I must say I don’t think we’re improving our Charter’s readability with the way we’ve got this. I’m not quite sure of what the answer is but we’re talking there about elected and appointed officers and employees, and if everybody looks in the Charter on page 32, 33, it’s Section 14-4 that talks about conduct of employees. And this enactment and then standards are over on page 32 under 14-1 and 14-2. I, kind of, wish Marni were here. This was her amendment, so to speak, I think.
MARTIN: Is she expected?
IRVINE: Yes.
MARTIN: How’s about we defer till she gets here then?
IRVINE: The other thing that I came up with, and I know it’s really, really late, but on page 29 under Section 13-10 near the bottom of the page, it says ‘prohibitions’ and then it goes on to talk about ‘persons seeking appointment or promotion can’t render or pay money or services to anyone doing it’. This seems to me the next two paragraphs and about appointing a relative, that sounds to me like it should be under the Code of Ethics. I don’t quite get – I mean, it seems like our Code of Ethics is, sort of, strewn around in here and then we’re now adding something rather odd besides. Did anybody else notice anything like that or shall we just go ahead with it?
RAY: I don’t think we want to get into changing that around at this point in time, with the present time frame.
IRVINE: Yes.
RAY: As far as, I guess, voting on what’s before us today, maybe we should wait till Marni gets here, just in deference to her.
IRVINE: In case she has something. That’s a good idea.
RAY; Let’s go on to No. 16 which is the Residency and Redistricting. Chris.
YUEN : This is meant to cover the situation where you have a reapportionment of Council districts and those Commissions where you’re supposed to have a member be a resident of each district. Commission member finds that he’s been apportioned out of the district he or she is supposed to represent, and this says that you will continue to be eligible to represent that district. I think the Commission understands. I’m not sure. It’s a little hard to explain. I’m not sure about the general public at this point. I think that if you didn’t say anything about this, the person would continue to be eligible and would represent. I haven’t really researched that but I think it’s the kind of thing that’s best spelled out. It is spelled out in the Charter for Council members, for the time between the reapportionment and the next election, they don’t have to worry that the line has been drawn and they’re no longer in their district. They ought to worry for the next election, but they have not become disqualified by the reapportionment of the district. It’s hard to say if it will happen or not, but it certainly could happen and it would create a question mark if it does happen in the future.
SANTANGELO: John?
RAY: Wait. Sue.
IRVINE: I found this, kind of, confusing too, the explanation and whatnot; why do we have to vote on that or something. But maybe if, in our explanation to the people, we say ‘this is to bring it in compliance with our County Council members’ rules’ or whatever, or just say ‘as happens to the County Council’ and then it would explain what we’re trying to do here so that people would vote for it. Because it sounds like it’s a good idea. You said it, maybe, doesn’t have to be there but if you think it needs to be there and we need to devote No. 16 to that, then I think in our Digest we need to say ‘this is to make Boards and Commissions the same as the County Council as far as that kind of turnover’. No?
RAY: Well, when you’re listening to Sue, look at your proposed language that she’s talking about, No. 16, and see if that is problematic along with that. It’s pretty clear to me, but anyway – John.
SANTANGELO: I guess, for me, I have the conflict of how government really works and the practicality and the reality of it, and the need for this, because are we looking at, or have we had a case of a wholesale dismissing of people because of this redistricting, or does it make sense that even though you come from that district, there’s people in that district you may not, or you may, represent? I mean, we get so tied down to specific impressions vs. the reality of it. Why do we have this in here if we tried to limit for success and then suddenly we’re out to 16 with something like this? And I may have missed the importance of it. That’s all.
RAY: To me, it seems like an issue worth addressing. I can see where, practically speaking, it absolutely could be a problem that somebody would raise it as an issue. Thinking Waimea, Waimea-Hamakua, that boundary line there, the way it moves around. I know people that live right there on the cusp that were upset when they weren’t Waimea all of a sudden. They were Hamakua or whatever, right? I think it is an issue that would be good to clean up.
SANTANGELO: Well, making it in compliance with Council may not be where it’s at because one’s elected and the appointment may go beyond and election.
IRVINE: Yes, but it was just in the explanation, to explain why we’re doing this, if we want it to pass, such as Council members continue to serve even though redistricted, or something.
KUROZAWA: John, is there any way we can incorporate this in 14? We just worked an amendment saying that if we were to change the structure, they can serve their remainder to term. Is there any way we can put that into one amendment instead of doing two amendments?
YUEN: Unfortunately, this was meant to apply to all the Boards and Commissions that have district residency requirement which would include ones that we’re not touching anywhere else, like the Planning Commission, the Police Commission, as well as the three that we’re changing in this Charter. If it had just been the ones that we were changing, to have a district residency requirement then we could stick that in each one of those and we wouldn’t have to add one on. But there’s the Police and Planning Commissions floating out there where redistricting could effect the eligibility or could look like it might effect the eligibility.
SANTANGELO: But Chris, if it’s silent on that, and the only place where you’ve said anything is here, wouldn’t you go to this and say the intent of any Charter Commission and the Charter itself would be to make sure there was continuity? And I don’t mean to waste a lot of time arguing –
YUEN: Well, right now it’s a gray area, and then if the voters are presented with it, but it only deals with Water and Liquor, well, they only change it to Water and Liquor and it’s still a gray area for the others. You can’t really draw any conclusions about what the voters wanted to do for Planning and Police.
RAY: George.
MARTIN: Talking about putting the cart before the mule, not a problem here. I think what we need to do, Chris, is put more explanation as to why this would come about. And the reapportionment is from another Commission doing something. I think that some of the confusion for the voters would be why are we doing this when we are not moving our Council people around as we had earlier started to talk about with that 6-3 situation. That’s dead and gone but that’s where I think some confusion would come in. So the reapportionment comes in from a different entity, not us, and if that takes place, then this would fall into being, yes?
YUEN: Yes, reapportionment only became an issue when single member districts were adopted in the 1990 Charter Commission, and at that time, the Commission thought about what to do with the Council members and, looking at the possibility that their districts might get changed during their term in office and the logical thing to do, of course, is not to let it effect their term of office. At that time, there were no Boards and Commissions with district residency requirements. Then in ‘94 and ‘96, Planning and Police got changed so that there were district residency requirements for them, but it did not specify, for those two, what would happen if you reapportioned somebody and if they ended up not being in the district anymore. So, it’s out there as a gray area.
MARTIN: No, I agree with you that if, in fact, the Reapportionment Commission does make changes, then these people would be effected. What I’m saying is if there is no change, and what’s the criteria for change? Is it population? Different things that come into play, yeah? So, if that hasn’t changed, the lines stay exactly where they are unless the State reapportionment is going to do something.
YUEN: If the lines don’t change then nobody’s district is effected. If the lines change, but nobody lived close enough to the lines, it’s possible that nobody will be effected by the redistricting.
MARTIN: Sure. Well, that’s what I’m saying. I think if we explain what’s going to bring this about and why this is needed. True, it’s a mundane issue until the Reapportionment does what they’re going to do and if, in fact, they do nothing then it still maintains it’s mundane-ness, if you will. It doesn’t do anything. But I think that it is needed. I agree with you that there may be cases that may arise and I think it’s got to be explained in such a manner that people can understand it and why it’s being done.
YUEN: If I could just make a suggestion. If we could pass the – And actually, the explanation that’s in the Digest is longer than what’s in the Charter. It’s like a one-liner in the Charter and there’s about a four- or five-sentence description in the Digest. if we could pass the change to the Charter and then have this discussion when we go through the Digest as to how to explain this. That might be the best way to do this.
MARTIN: So moved.
HIGASHI: Second.
RAY: Okay, we’re voting on No. 16. All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Okay, opposed? Motion passes. Okay, Marni –
HERKES: Thank you.
RAY: We’re having a little trouble with No. 15, the Ethics, so if you could pull that on to your radar screen and take a look at it, and see what Chris did. We held off voting on No. 15, and maybe let Sue share her concerns that she had with you.
IRVINE: When I came upon this and then looked in our Charter where it actually fits, it really doesn’t read very well the way we’ve got it stuck in here, and I’m not sure of exactly what should be done. And then I said ‘did anybody else have some thoughts like that’. Enactment and Policy is a little odd. That’s page 32. Because it’s talking about elected and appointed officers and employees shall do such and such, and on page 33, under Section 14-4 is where we talk about conduct of employees.
RAY: Sue, were we ever talking about putting it over in 14-4?
IRVINE: No, or whether as Chris said, he put it in here. I don’t know. We can leave it there, I guess. Sounds like we’re ready to just leave it there. It just doesn’t make a very good read.
HERKES: Under the Maui Charter, it’s under the Code of Ethics, just like it is under this Charter.
IRVINE: At the beginning rather than under Conduct of Employees? Well, whether they even have –
HERKES: It doesn’t say Conduct of Employees.
IRVINE: Pardon?
HERKES: Where does it say Conduct of Employees?
IRVINE: Well, it is talking about how they shall conduct themselves, I guess.
HERKES: In the Maui Charter?
IRVINE: Right here. Right here in this.
HERKES: Right.
IRVINE: No, I did not go back to the Maui Charter and see.
HERKES: I did, just right now.
IRVINE: Oh, okay.
HERKES: It’s right here, and it’s under Code of Ethics and it’s its own section. I know it’s in there.
IRVINE: Okay.
HERKES: I don’t like what’s in there. I want to change it, and I asked three times if anybody had suggestions for changing it, so I changed it to this.
IRVINE: Yes.
HERKES: And you’re right, there are some things that I’d have done differently but I don’t like what’s in our Charter. I don’t like the fact that there’s nothing in it, and I like the wording that’s in the Maui Charter, so I just lifted it.
MARTIN: So, you’re comfortable with this?
HERKES: I proposed it.
MARTIN: Okay.
IRVINE: Yes, okay.
RAY: Okay.
HERKES: Chris, you look skeptical.
YUEN: No.
HERKES: No? Okay.
YUEN: It’s fine with me.
MARTIN: So I believe a motion would be in order to accept it, Mr. Chair. So moved.
RAY: Second? Do I have a second?
SANTANGELO: Second.
RAY: Okay, discussion. So is everybody okay? All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Opposed? Okay. So, Marni, what we just did was we only had to vote on Items 14, 15 and 16 today, as redone, so we just did that.
HERKES: Are you going to adjourn the meeting now?
RAY: No, no, no, I mean as far as separate items.
HERKES: 14, 15 –
RAY: And 16.
HERKES: And 16, okay.
RAY: So, we’re pau with that.
YUEN: Let’s go through the Ballot Questions now.
RAY: Okay, so let’s proceed to the Ballot Questions, No. C. Review of Exact Ballot Questions, which is at the top of your folder. I guess I’ll just go through them. We don’t need to vote on these, right?
YUEN: Only 14 to 16 again because the rest have been – No, 7 and 14 to 16. The rest, the changes are very slight.
RAY: Let’s go through them. This is the final, final I hope. So, looking at the draft proposed language for the ballot, No. 1 – I’m just going to walk us through these. If anybody has anything to say about them, just raise your hand. Why don’t I read it. It’s easier for me.
HERKES: And it gives us the opportunity to read and listen, so we can do two things at once.
1. Should all county officers–mayor, council, and prosecuting attorney–be elected in nonpartisan elections, with no party identification appearing on the ballot?
HERKES: Are those all of the county officers? Are there any more county officers besides the mayor, the council and the prosecuting attorney?
SANTANGELO: That are elected?
YUEN: That’s it, I think, that are elected.
HERKES: I just want to make sure because I don’t want somebody to say, oh yeah, but you forgot such and such.
SANTANGELO: So, this wasn’t a trick question?
HERKES: No, it wasn’t a trick question because people will pick on that.
RAY: Okay.
IRVINE: I guess my question is is there a comma between county and officers, or are these –
YUEN: I think that’s a quirk of my Xeroxing machine. I’m almost sure that is.
RAY: Yes, okay. Yes, there shouldn’t be a comma between county and officers.
2. Should the managing director be given additional responsibilities over all county departments and agencies, and be confirmed by the council?
Marni.
HERKES: Now, I would like that to read ‘Should the managing director be given additional responsibilities and be confirmed by the council’. I think when you throw in that overall county departments and agencies, the draft of the Charter is available. There’s some stuff spelled out in here. The ballot question gets messy when you start to put overall – I mean it, just to me, seems less clear. It doesn’t seem quite a crisp as I’d like to see it on the ballot.
IRVINE: I’d second that.
RAY: Wait a minute. That’s not a motion yet. Let’s just discuss this.
HERKES: No, it’s just a discussion.
IRVINE: I was just seconding the idea.
RAY: What do other people feel about that? John.
SANTANGELO: I know when I took this to, at least, a Chamber or so –
HERKES: Which Chamber?
SANTANGELO: Portuguese.
HERKES: Oh, that Chamber.
SANTANGELO: Rick’s going to write letters about you. I guarantee it.
HERKES: Sorry about that.
SANTANGELO: They’re pretty active. They’re very active. And one of the things they had with that, they didn’t like this ‘additional responsibilities’ without that other part in there. They didn’t like the additional responsibilities. Anything that looks like bigger government they’re going to jump all over. I think it’s well written. The question I would raise is I thought we were strengthening the requirements, and to me as a voter, that’s as important as anything else going on here. Confirmed by the council, I know that that’s very important. I don’t know if voters would understand that, but weren’t we also saying that this person had to have a little bit more under the hat?
RAY: Now remember, the proposed language is one item we’re looking at. We’re also looking at the Digest. Okay? And the Digest expands on this language.
HERKES: Right.
RAY: So, if it’s easier for you, or if it’s a help, flip over to the Digest and you’ll see that the explanation is expanded, so that is something that just what you brought up is addressed in the Digest.
SANTANGELO: In the booth, will they have the Digest or just the question and the proposed amendment?
YUEN: I know the Digest is available at the polling place. I’m not sure whether – I mean, you can take anything you want in the booth with you. Is it in the booth?
IRVINE: I’m quite sure it’s in the booth.
HERKES: We let them. We let them.
SANTANGELO: Is the mail-out the proposed change or is that the Digest?
?: Both.
HERKES: Say that again.
IRVINE: Pardon?
KUROZAWA: The Digest.
RAY: The mail-out has the Digest.
SANTANGELO: The Digest, okay. To me, that does the job, okay.
MARTIN: Okay, but No. 7 does all that, doesn’t it?
HERKES: May I propose some language, not as a motion, but just as a suggestion?
KUROZAWA: I just have a comment, John.
RAY: Okay, let’s go around and just hear input on Marni’s thoughts.
KUROZAWA: I think that the one thing to keep in mind is it’s surely easy for us to try to reword things so people will vote yes on everything, but we should make it real clear with them. We shouldn’t try to, sort of, rewrite things in hopes that they’ll vote yes. And taking words out to, hopefully, maybe somewhat deceive people, may not be the best thing. And saying that they should read everything, it may not be the fairest way to do it, I think.
HERKES: I’m sorry. I didn’t have any intention of taking words out to deceive anybody. I had only the intention of taking words out to make it a clearer statement, and if we could say ‘should the managing director be given additional responsibilities with increased qualifications, and be confirmed by the council’, I think that’s a clearer, clean-cut statement.
MARTIN: Point of clarification, John. No. 7 says that.
RAY: No, I think Marni’s referring to the qualifications of the managing director.
MARTIN: Yes, it says ‘should the qualifications for the managing director, planning director.... It says that in No. 7.
RAY: Okay, I see what you’re saying. Okay, okay. Other comments? I have a comment. I speak in favor of retaining the language as presented here. I got really involved in putting this together and I think the major change is that the managing director is – We’re restructuring the whole Executive Branch in the Charter and the big difference is that the managing director, instead of having just three departments report to him, he’s over all of them. So, to me, the idea’s that you’ve got a managing director, the Chief Operating Officer of the County, he’s in charge of the whole enchilada. I like it spelled out like that.
IRVINE: You convinced me.
YOSHIYAMA: Okay, so, that one word. What is it, ‘responsibilities’ or ‘authority’? What are you reading?
YUEN: The suggestion was, last time, and I thought it was a consensus of the group that ‘authority’ be changed to ‘responsibility’, and either one is a fair –
YOSHIYAMA: To responsibility. No, I just wanted to be clear about this.
YUEN: I think either one is a fair description of what’s being proposed. I don’t favor one or the other. And just to give a general comment, I think the kind of discussion we’re having is very useful because people will read these things differently. I sat down and wrote out a draft of what I thought would be basically a fair and honest way of presenting this, but I have my own blinders as far as what people read into things sometimes. So I appreciate people discussing this. The only requirement really is that it does present an honest description of the major features of a particular amendment. It doesn’t have to do it in great detail or necessarily describe everything that is in the amendment as long as it describes the main things that are there.
RAY: And do look at the Digest; ‘managing director’s authority’ and ‘authority’ used throughout there. Roland.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chair, in terms of process, you want a motion on each one, or we just move along, or try to reach consensus?
RAY: Only if we need a change.
SANTANGELO: Because we’ve pretty much confirmed it already.
HIGASHI: Okay. So we can move along –
YOSHIYAMA: John, the reason I brought up my clarification is, on one hand, we have, for discussion, the proposed language for 7/12, this blue thing; and on this one here, the word ‘authority’ is in here. So we had two different words, so that’s why I was asking for clarification of which one we’re going with.
MARTIN: This is just a draft and it’s a real loose draft.
YOSHIYAMA: Yes, I know but this was distributed today, so I just wanted that clarified.
RAY: I like ‘authority’ more than ‘responsibilities’.
IRVINE: We do need to know what we’re doing.
HERKES: I thought you just said you liked the way it read.
YUEN: I think that the little pamphlet that you have – Sharron prepared that based on my May 31st packet, and on May 31st there was some changes voted on and made which I am incorporating in this July 12th, so they’re not exactly the same. So, as we go through this discussion, it would be better to use this blue binder.
HERKES: And you’ll make this match?
YUEN: We will make that match later. I think Sharron did that as an exercise in showing what it would look like if she just did it without hiring any kind of design people and so forth, rather than to try to make that the authoritative or final version.
HENRY: Right, it was for another agenda item.
RAY: So, what about ‘additional responsibilities’ vs. ‘authority’? Anybody have any –
HIGASHI: Sounds fine to me.
YOSHIYAMA: Sounds good.
RAY: ‘Responsibilities’ is fine with the group? Okay.
3. Should there be a fire commission to appoint the fire chief and advise the fire department?
4. Should the solid waste, wastewater, and recycling programs of the county be transferred from the department of public works to a new department of environmental management, with a new environmental management commission?
5. Should members of boards and commissions whose terms expire continue in office for ninety days if successors have not been appointed and confirmed?
HERKES: Now wait, hold on –
RAY: That one struck me a little odd somehow, but I’m not sure just why though.
IRVINE: Leave ‘appointed if they have not been confirmed’. Obviously, they can’t be confirmed until they’re appointed.
HERKES: ‘Should members of boards and commissions whose terms expire after’ – ‘After’ has to go in there somewhere but I can’t figure out where to put it.
IRVINE: It made sense to me.
MARTIN: yes, looks fine. Move on.
RAY: Okay?
6. Should the safety coordinator’s office be abolished, and its duties and positions be transferred to the department of civil service?
Seven’s a new one we need to vote on stand alone.
7. Should the directors of research and development and of parks and recreation be required to meet minimum qualifications, should the title of chief engineer be changed to the "director of public works," and should the qualifications for the managing director, planning director, manager of the department of water supply, and director of public works be strengthened by requiring administrative experience?
Yes sir.
MARTIN: What would happen to the present people in these positions? Of course, we’re going to have a new managing director more than likely, but parks and rec we’ve already had – you know.
RAY: Well, if they’ve been there, they would have had the administrative experience.
YUEN: Well, I think this takes effect on the beginning of the new Mayor’s term and all the old department heads – their terms will expire. If they qualified, they would qualify for reappointment. If they did not, they would not.
MARTIN: That’s true.
HERKES: If they qualify and they were reappointed. They could be.
YUEN: Right, if they were reappointed, if they met the qualifications, they could be reappointed. Yes, they could be, certainly.
IRVINE: I guess I was wondering if, because it’s such a long sentence, that we should have semi-colons after the major clauses.
HERKES: I think we ought to have separate lines.
IRVINE: Yes.
HERKES: I think they ought to be put on ‘Should the directors of research and development and of parks and recreation be required to meet minimum qualifications.
Should the title of the chief engineer’s – ‘
MARTIN: There’s three new amendments there.
IRVINE: No you can’t. We have to have it in one question, right?
HERKES: Why do we have to have it in one question?
MARTIN: We don’t.
SANTANGELO: I think we all decided at one time in the dialogue that we wanted to keep the amendments to as few as possible and we grouped –
RAY: Well, let’s ask Chris that. As far as structuring this grammatically, could it be three questions all in No. 7 vs. this one question?
YUEN: I don’t like this either but the problem is that we grouped together a number of related items in order to not have a lot of different questions. It could be phrased as three questions or four questions that you vote on together. It could be phrased as ‘Should the following changes be made to the Charter, colon, dash, Require –
HERKES: Do you find that’s hard for voters to understand, Sue?
RAY: Well, it’s not correct grammatically as it is now as far as that first comma.
IRVINE: You say it’s not. No, no.
RAY: No. You’ve got a comma there but it really should be a period.
IRVINE: A period, yes, or maybe a semi-colon would do, but at least they need to be separated with a semi-colon if not, I think.
SANTANGELO: So Marni, you were saying, like, you could do it under 7. but make those like separate paragraphs or separate lines?
HERKES: Yes, it could all be number 7. I’m trying to think from a voter’s standpoint of another ballot issue –
IRVINE: Could it be done more in a – Would it be three questions or ‘Should the following changes be made, bullet, bullet, bullet?
HERKES: Yes.
SANTANGELO: That’s not bad.
YUEN: Yes, that might be a better way of doing it, yes.
HERKES: I think so. That gives you some white space. It gives you some –
MARTIN: But you still have one amendment that can be voted on and voters don’t have line veto.
HERKES: One question, yes.
IRVINE: No.
HERKES: No. I don’t think so. I think that –
MARTIN: Then why don’t we start categorizing some other ones, because there’s three separate questions in there.
KUROZAWA: Chris, I think you forgot the Fire Chief in here too. It looks like.
HERKES: We did that under number 3.
KUROZAWA: What’s that? Am I looking at the wrong section?
HIGASHI: The Fire Commission.
HERKES: Oh no, we didn’t. Right.
KUROZAWA: No, but what I’m saying is in this section, the Fire Chief requirements were strengthened and it’s not listed in 7. It looks like you’re itemizing all of the department heads that are listed so I think Fire Chief –
SANTANGELO: These are department heads.
IRVINE: Probably because we put that one in about Fire Commission. Do we have it in there?
YOSHIYAMA: Yes, it’s in number 3.
KUROZAWA: Okay.
IRVINE: Yes, I think so. I think that’s why.
HERKES: ‘Appoint the Fire Chief and advise the Fire Department.’ That doesn’t say increase qualifications.
YUEN: No, you’re correct. It was done in both and there are a couple, including the managing director, that we caught them two different places, but it should mention the Fire Chief.
IRVINE: Okay.
HERKES: So that should be in number 7, Fire Chief?
KUROZAWA: It’s another person, another title.
IRVINE: Add some more.
RAY: So the motion would be to keep the substance the same, include the Fire Chief, and put it in bulleted form. Can I have a motion to that effect?
YOSHIYAMA: So moved.
RAY: Second?
HERKES: Second.
RAY: Any discussion?
HIGASHI: But the question itself is the same.
? It’s not the same.
YUEN: I think with –
HERKES: ‘Shall the following’ – Well, it is. ‘The following changes –
HIGASHI: The digest is bulleted form.
RAY: Wait, wait. Please hold on.
YUEN: I think this is our last meeting that we’re going to have before the deadline. I think that if you pass this as a motion, I feel comfortable that the Commission has approved the basic form of the question and I can redo it as you’ve suggested, and meet the problems without us actually having it a hundred percent in hand right here.
SANTANGELO: Because it’s not really changing language. It’s just format.
RAY: Daryl.
KUROZAWA: Chris, when you look at this question, the way it’s written now, there’s really three questions in it, or three basic concepts going on at once. And the question is whether you can actually pool the first part, which is the research and development, parks and recreation minimum qualifications, with the last part which is the –
MARTIN: Yes, exactly.
KUROZAWA: And put that as one question together and just sort of pool it as whether it be strengthening their requirements for the position and then having the second part, which is really the Chief Engineer title. It might become simpler. What will happen when they read this is they will see three questions and if someone doesn’t like one of them, or disagrees with one, they’ll vote, obviously, against everything else too. But it looks like the first two parts is really qualification issues and then one is a title issue, so that might simplify it some.
YUEN: Yes, at first I didn’t want do it that way because there are not requirements for parks and recreation, and research and development now. It’s not greatly inaccurate to say put them in as requirements being strengthened. I think it does somewhat imply that there are requirements now but in the interest of simplifying it, I don’t think it would be deceiving the voters. That could be cleaned up in the Digest as far as what exactly is going on.
KUROZAWA: Or if you could word it something like ‘requirements being developed and strengthened’. Something in one sentence where –
YUEN: Yes. What I would say, hearing what the feedback of the Commission is, is just to say the requirements are being strengthened and list all the ones for which the requirements are either being proposed or strengthened, and do that in the ballot question, also mentioning – I think I have to mention the Chief Engineer name change, specifically, in the question. Then in the Digest be a little more specific.
RAY: George.
MARTIN: I think that name change is going to pose a problem in that what the doc was just saying that, yeah, they’re all the same, we’re strengthening some and implementing new ones for others. But it’s still, nonetheless, requirements and qualifications. The name change, in itself, is a different question. I think we’re going to need another amendment for that or if the body feels comfortable with leaving it there, we may be losing something with leaving that there. I mean, talking about fairness to the voters, I think we should separate them. At least the name change.
IRVINE: I just can’t imagine anybody caring whether we change the name or not and so maybe we could throw it in and the other stuff is the significant.
SANTANGELO: Well, you’ve got to talk about it before you change it. John?
RAY: Yes.
SANTANGELO: Dr. Daryl, here, made a good point to me just now, and if you read it the way it was before we changed it, it’s pretty good.
MARTIN: What change?
IRVINE: Number 7 on here.
HERKES: I think we’re having too many meetings, Mr. Chairman.
SANTANGELO: I’m looking in the proposed because Sharron has the original question there. ‘Should there be qualifications for the directors of research and development, and parts and recreation, and shall the qualifications of the managing director and planning director and water director and chief engineer be changed?’ Or you could put ‘strengthened’. But that makes it pretty clear what you’re doing there.
MARTIN: But if you notice, John, there’s no mention of changing the name in there.
HERKES: Right.
MARTIN: But I agree with you a hundred percent.
SANTANGELO: But how do you refer to something that hasn’t been changed? That’s a separate issue and it isn’t changed, so you have to have it the way it is and then that name becomes something different later. So it’s perfectly all right to put chief engineer because that’s what the person is until the next day.
HERKES: Now, wait a minute.
IRVINE: Wait.
HERKES: Mr. lawyer.
YUEN: This was a problem that I had in writing this and that’s why the chief engineer name change goes in the middle and then I say ‘the director of public works’ at the end because you –
HERKES: You figure they’ve already voted on that middle one.
YUEN: Well right, because you just can’t say ‘director of public works’ because there isn’t a director of public works so in the question I wanted to explain to people, well, we’re changing the name of the chief engineer to director of public works and then, in the next clause, you’re adding a different administrative experience qualification to the director of public works. Otherwise, it gets very convoluted to try to decide which name you’re going to use in the body of this thing.
HERKES: It’s clear to me. I mean I don’t mind the language in number 7, but I like the bullets.
RAY: I don’t think it’s terribly critical one way or the other. Okay, are we ready to vote on number 7?
MARTIN: What are we voting on?
RAY: We’re voting on the substance of the question as presented with the addition of the Fire Chief and it’ll be reformatted in a more bulleted form to clarify it, make it easier to read.
MARTIN: So the intent is to leave that name change in?
RAY: Yes. All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS RAY, HERKES, HIGASHI, IRVINE, KUROZAWA, SANTANGELO AND YOSHIYAMA: Aye.
RAY: Opposed?
MARTIN: Aye.
RAY: Okay.
8. Should the police department have a statement of policy, and the police commission be required to review the operations of the department and to perform an annual evaluation of the chief of police?
9.
SANTANGELO: Whoa, whoa.
HERKES: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Not quite so fast.
RAY: They spent enough time on these guys yesterday.
MARTIN: Yes, but what’s the answer?
SANTANGELO: This is more to the Commission. Help me understand. ‘Review the operations’.
KUROZAWA: You were here at the last meeting, weren’t you?
SANTANGELO: Yes, I was. I was here, believe it or not.
YUEN: Yes, that’s the amendment.
RAY: We’ve talked this one out.
SANTANGELO: I know. Okay, never mind.
RAY: Okay.
9. Should the water commission be renamed the water board, and one board member be a resident of each council district?
SANTANGELO: Right, nothing wrong with that.
RAY: 10. Should the salary commission set the compensation for all appointed directors and deputy directors of departments and executive agencies?
11. Should there be a cost of government commission to promote improvements to the economy and efficiency of government?
IRVINE: I just want to say again I think, somehow, we need to say ‘appointed every four years’ or ‘ad hoc’ or something to indicate that this isn’t a commission that’s there day in, day out, 24 hours a day.
MARTIN: (indiscernible) like we do.
IRVINE: Yes, ad hoc is just once, or I don’t know quite how to say it but maybe it doesn’t matter if we explain that in our –
RAY: It is explained in the Digest.
HERKES: It is in the Digest and I think you just confuse it if you –
IRVINE: All right, yes. It’s okay.
RAY: Okay.
12. Should the Hawaii Redevelopment Agency be abolished, and its functions transferred to the planning department?
13. Should the council be required to meet at least once every three months in North or
South Kona?
Okay, 14. is a stand alone vote. Should the liquor, take out comma, commission be increased from seven to nine members, and should one member be a resident of each council district? Do I have a motion?
MARTIN: I thought we voted on it already.
YUEN: You voted on the language but this is the ballot question.
YOSHIYAMA: So moved.
HIGASHI: Second.
RAY: All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Okay. Should a statement of purpose be added to the code of ethics? And 16. we need a vote on this: Should a member of a board or commission with a district residency requirement be eligible to serve out the full term, and represent the district to which the member was appointed, if redistricting changes the boundaries so that the member no longer resides within the district?
MARTIN: That sounds pretty clear.
RAY: Do I have a motion?
MARTIN: Motion, So moved.
RAY: Second?
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
RAY: Discussion on that? All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
HERKES: Mr. Ray.
RAY: Yes ma’am.
HERKES: Can I suggest that Chris write an introductory paragraph to this ballot language that says ‘we have made this as clear as possible and it is in a shortened version and the full text is available in the Digest’ so that people will think before they vote on these. Can you put an opening paragraph to explain?
SANTANGELO: A disclaimer?
HERKES: Well, not explain but just say that these questions are brief.
RAY: Can we post the Digest in the –
IRVINE: They usually do, I think.
RAY: Can we do that? Can we have it on the wall in the voting booths?
HERKES: Yes, but just at the ballot to remind them that these are brief but there are explanations everywhere.
IRVINE: Yes, but we could even pass out –
YUEN: I think that’s a good idea. I need to discuss that with the County Clerk and if we can, whether it’s physically on the ballot or in the voting booth, but certainly we can have the Digest available.
HERKES: Well, I know you can have it available but these are real short questions and there’s a lot of explanation, or quite a bit of explanation, for most people to understand what they’re voting on.
HIGASHI: Maybe you should have them in the mail-out.
HERKES: Well, you should have it in the mail-out too, yes.
HIGASHI: It’s too late when they’re there in the booth.
SANTANGELO: I don’t know if you can leave it. As long as they can’t write on it, you probably can hand it out.
HERKES: People can take a whole bunch of stuff into their polling place.
RAY: Hold on. Wait. Listen to Sharron. She asked the Clerk about this.
HENRY: I spoke to the County Clerk and he sent me on to Elections, and not only do they agree that we can have it at the polling booths, but they’ve agreed that, if we give them however many we want to distribute, they will put it in with their supplies and it will be part of their distribution to each polling place.
HERKES: And the absentee ballots?
HENRY: Absentee, yes. That was the first specific question I asked. But they will do it, not only for that, but for –
HERKES: So it will be in the ballot place packets.
HENRY: Right, it will just be part of their supplies that they send, and the instruction they send to each polling place.
SANTANGELO: John?
RAY: Yes.
SANTANGELO: On No. 13, ‘Should the council be required to meet at least once’ – okay, I know that in the actual Charter part of it, it says County Council but in the Digest and the question it doesn’t say County Council. We didn’t put anything in there where ‘council’ is automatically named ‘county council’ but is there any other council around? Do we need to put ‘county council’?
KUROZAWA: Probably should.
IRVINE: It wouldn’t hurt.
SANTANGELO: And I raise that question. I have no preference.
RAY: Can you add that?
YUEN: I could certainly add it to the Digest. I think that may be a good idea.
RAY: No, to the –
YUEN: And I’m neutral as far as the question. If the members think that’s a good idea then we can put it in.
SANTANGELO: At least if it’s in the Digest.
YUEN: It might be. There’s no harm in putting it in the ballot question.
RAY: So that’s a friendly amendment to add that to the ballot question?
SANTANGELO: Sure.
KUROZAWA: Yes.
IRVINE: Good idea.
RAY: County Council instead of just council?
HERKES: Yes. And the other thing that Roland just suggested is to put that statement on the Digest, that the questions on the ballot are very short and this is to explain the questions on the ballot.
IRVINE: Take it with you.
HERKES: And that’s a better – It gets them at the other end. It gets them when they’re first investigating the question rather than when they’re ready to vote on them. It’s a good idea.
RAY: So that concludes the voting on the ballot questions. Review of the exact text of proposed amendments.
YUEN: I think we did that –
RAY: So that’s all done.
YUEN: We did all this.
RAY: Everything’s done, right?
YUEN: Yes, we did all that.
RAY: Review of Digest?
YUEN: Yes, we need to do that now.
RAY: Okay, Review of Digest. Do you want me to read through this?
HERKES: The Digest? This?
RAY: No, no. In your packet, the blue packet, it starts on page 3, the Digest of Charter Amendments.
HERKES: How is it different than what we had before?
YUEN: There are almost no changes to the Digest. 14 to 16 are new. Number 7 includes the engineer. Number 1, it’s been pointed out that there’s a mistake on the second line. Where it says ‘managing director’, it should say ‘prosecuting attorney’ and I will change that.
SANTANGELO: Please do.
RAY: What’s your pleasure? Would you like to have a few minutes to review this? I’ll give everybody a couple of minutes to – Yes, Gary?
YOSHIYAMA: As was previously said, I guess, the Digest will be amended so that wherever the word ‘council’ is mentioned, it will add ‘county’ to that? So that would be like on Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 13.
YUEN: Well, I thought that John was only talking about No. 13. We can discuss it for the other places if you want.
RAY: I was only talking about No. 13.
YOSHIYAMA: Oh, okay.
HERKES: But I agree with Gary. It ought to be ‘county council’ all the way through.
IRVINE: Yes. Where else did you see this, Gary?
YOSHIYAMA: No. 1 just jumped out because it’s right there.
IRVINE: I think it wouldn’t hurt to put ‘county’ in, basically.
RAY: Okay, let’s just change, or add ‘county’ to the text anywhere.
MARTIN: No vote is needed on that, huh?
IRVINE: No.
RAY: So, I think we’ve gone through all this. 7. The Qualifications of Department Heads, we just discussed that. And then 14 and 16 are the Liquor Commission and Residency questions that we just discussed as well, so if you want to take a peek at 14 and 16.
IRVINE: John, I did have one, kind of, problem with No. 4 and that’s because it talks about the department and then it talks about a commission to advise the department, ‘and to have other powers which might later be delegated to it by ordinance’. The powers would be delegated to both the department and the commission, not just to the commission, and so I did have a thought that if we stated ‘Charter Amendment No. 4 would transfer the county’s solid waste, wastewater, and recycling programs from the department of public works to a new department of environmental management. The mayor would appoint the director – The council confirmation’ – And then just say ‘by ordinance the county council may delegate other related functions to this department and its commission’, and then go on to say ‘there would be a commission’ and leave –
RAY: You know the discussion was really, I think, centered around the powers of the commission and the idea that setting rates might be something delegated.
IRVINE: Right. Okay.
RAY: I don’t think you need to say that – I mean, the departments can be shifted around.
IRVINE: Given duties.
SANTANGELO: And it is more duties than responsibilities. Power, you know, commission would give them the power as an individual.
RAY: I think this reflects more the discussion of what we were thinking and doing. Anymore thoughts on the Digest?
YUEN: I think we should vote on 14, 15 and 16.
RAY: In the Digest, we’re going to vote on 14, 15 and 16 because these are new from the last time.
So, No. 14, Liquor Commission Membership. Do I have a motion to approve?
HERKES: So moved.
KUROZAWA: Second.
RAY: All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: No. 15, Code of Ethics. Motion?
HERKES: Move.
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
RAY: All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: And No. 16, Residency of Board and Commission Members After Redistricting. Motion?
IRVINE: I so move.
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
RAY: All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Okay, so –
KUROZAWA: Can I have a quick question?
RAY: Yes sir.
KUROZAWA: This portion we’re reading right here, the Digest, what we’re going to send out to the public. Marni, do you think for the Code of Ethics you want to have it spelled out what the wording would be?
HERKES: I thought about that because –
KUROZAWA: Because if you read this, it just says ‘provisions’ but they’re going to say ‘well, so what’. I mean is it show up or –
HERKES: Yes. Or add a statement of purpose which says –
KUROZAWA: And it’s only one sentence maybe, just in quotations what the Code of Ethics would state.
IRVINE: It would be easy to add it, I think.
HERKES: Yes.
KUROZAWA: Yes, it might give some clarity to what they’re voting on.
HERKES: Can we take back our vote? Do we have backs –
SANTANGELO: You can move to amend it to add that.
YUEN: You can move to reconsider.
HERKES: I’ll move to amend No. 15 to add the language that’s in the amendment.
SANTANGELO: Second.
RAY: Okay, discussion. Does everybody understand we’re just going to include that one line that’s in the text in the Digest, just to make it a little clearer. All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Opposed?
HERKES: Mr. Chair.
RAY: Yes ma’am.
HERKES: I have one more thing and this is not to change the meaning or to get it defeated or anything but it bothers me in the Safety Coordinator. I guess this is because I try to phrase things positively because I work for the Chamber of Commerce, but ‘In the present Charter there is an Office of the Safety Coordinator who is responsible for workforce safety. Charter Amendment No. 6 would transfer the duties and staff of the office of the safety coordinator to the department of civil service and abolish the office.’ So, it just puts the transfer first instead of abolishing the office first. And so, in my mind, I’m thinking first is to transfer the office and then you abolish what’s left.
RAY: That’s probably a good spin, yes.
HERKES: It just makes it more –
RAY: Yes, it does. It jumped out at me as being a little alarm bell might go off.
HERKES: Well, first you’re talking abolish the office and then it’s like aah –
RAY: No, no –
IRVINE: First we were talking abolish the safety coordinator so we’re making progress.
RAY: I think that’s good. So we’ll regard that as a friendly amendment to that. Okay, anything else on the Digest? Well, give yourselves a big hand. We just pretty much wrapped this up. Does everybody want to take a five minute break before we get into the budgets and taking this up?
YOSHIYAMA: Yes, sounds good.
RAY: Okay, we’ll recess for five minutes.
RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 6:16 p.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
RAY: I’d like to re-adjourn. A question has come up in regard to the Charter language regarding the managing director. If you’ll all refer to No. 2, please, Office of Management, Section 6-1.2, Managing Director. I came up with the draft language originally which we were discussing and, in particular, the qualifications of the Chief Administrative Officer, and the way it read out of the Lexington, Kentucky Charter was ‘shall not be employed unless he or she shall possess demonstrable educational and/or professional experience in the art and science of governmental management as required of such office’. So that’s basically what we were looking at originally. And then it was Chris’s understanding that the language that we wanted to eliminate was limited to more ‘the art and science of governmental management’, that, so he put what we have before us in our May 31st summaries. And we voted on May 31st on the language that’s before us this evening.
HERKES: Without ‘the art and science’.
RAY: Without ‘the art and science’. The way it is now is what we voted on May 31st so Roland seems to remember, or it’s his recollection, that we eliminated the entire end of the sentence. In other words, we cut off the whole ‘possess demonstrable educational and/or professional experience....as required of this office’. So anyway, Roland, do you want to –
HIGASHI: As I recall it, we deleted the whole section and ended it at ‘administrative capacity’, and I always thought there was an oversight, and I thought we had discussed it and it was going to be corrected. But before we move into the final form of this document, I approached legal counsel whether it was an oversight or a misunderstanding. So at this point, it seems like it was a misunderstanding. I don’t think anybody referred to the record, or the tape, to exactly what was the motion. There were two issues. One was ‘confirmed by the council’. In dealing with this thing, we said we delete that and ‘confirmed by the council’ wasn’t a problem.
HERKES: Confirmed by the county council.
HIGASHI: Yes, by the county. But my problem was ‘demonstrable education’. What does that mean? Or ‘professional experience’. Is it professional experience in running a 2600 employee corporation? Or my wife runs a sign shop, and is the owner-manager, does that qualify? I mean, it’s kind of a gray area.
RAY: It’s real clear what it means to me. It means to me I’d like to have someone with demonstrable experience in city management as the managing director of the county. I think the person that should be the managing director of the county is somebody that should have direct educational and working experience in the field, somebody that has a strong background in solid waste and public works and finance. I’m just saying that’s what it means to me, but we need to get that straight and Chris has said if we want to change that, then we need to do it now and we need to vote on it tonight. Marni.
HERKES: The word ‘professional’ kind of means that they’ll have experience in government for them being a professional in government. That’s what it means to me.
IRVINE: It doesn’t say professional.
MARTIN: Yes, it does.
IRVINE: Where? Oh, there.
HERKES: And I’m asking other people what professional – I mean, I’m not a professional anything but Daryl is a professional doctor because he has a profession. So I suppose I’m kind of asking what other people’s understanding of that word is.
HIGASHI: My point is that I think we have a lot of people who are capable of doing the managing director’s job who may not be deemed as a professional in operation of city government. I think in the past we’ve had people who have done a capable job, who have business experience, or is an engineer in Meguni Kon or a businessman in Fred Koehnen, or a businessman in Bill Davis. So, I mean, that’s where I’m coming from. I’m looking at not having so much stringent interpretation where many of our local people will not be able to qualify. So, that’s why I thought I deleted the whole section and left it ‘five years experience of administrative capacity’.
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: I felt that we had left it this way and I may not have looked at it quite as closely previously as I am right now. It says ‘demonstrable educational and/or professional experience as required of the office’. Now, we haven’t set any ‘it is required that you this; it is required that you that’. I think there’s wiggle room in this for professional experience as some kind of management.
HIGASHI: The decision of that is going to be done by the County Council who is confirming the person. Not by us.
RAY: Roland, that’s not true. The decision’s going to be done by the Mayor and it has to be confirmed by the council, but the Mayor makes every appointment for every department head in the present Charter and he will in the future. And the Council plays a relatively insignificant role in terms of those administrative appointments. It’s very rare that you have hardly any rejection. So I think the Mayor’s still – well, anyway, George.
MARTIN: I believe Gary had his hand up first.
RAY: Okay, Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: Well, as I read this, I don’t see it as being restrictive. It could be related to public or private administration, being in the professional area, or even from the educational requirements. And I think I understand where Roland’s coming from about keeping people out or maybe restricting the local people from qualifying. It will be part of our record that this is a non-restricting kind of thing.
RAY: George.
MARTIN: I think on the lines of what Gary was saying and also what I heard a bit earlier about who is the one that is going to set the standard. It’s the Mayor, and if the Mayor feels that this person meets these qualifications, Roland, is what I’m saying, whoever this Mayor may be, then as John is indicating, I think all the times that I’ve watched, or interjected with the County Council, there’s only two times that they failed to go along with what the Mayor suggested in appointment situations.
HERKES: I’m one.
RAY: No, no, we’re talking about a department head, Marni, not a board or commission. That’s a whole different dynamic.
MARTIN: So with that, I understand what you’re saying and I feel exactly like you, that if the locals are going to be iced because of it then yes, let’s take it out, but I don’t know that they are.
RAY: Marni.
HERKES: I’d love to get out of the feeling, get out of the discussion, of local vs. new or anything. I don’t think that’s an appropriate discussion. I think the discussion is the broad interpretation of qualifications for the managing director. We shouldn’t be in a position of designing for local people. We ought to be in a position, or I feel we ought to be in a position of designing a broad qualification. I agree wholeheartedly with Roland that we’ve had some excellent managing directors who have had very little administrative – Meg, I don’t think had any administrative experience, but he was a very unusual person under a very unusual Mayor. So, I think that is a concern that it might be a little bit too narrow and we might want to look at revising the language to broaden it, not necessarily just for local people because I feel local people can fill up more qualifications than anybody else. I don’t think we need to design things just for them.
RAY: It seems pretty broad to me. ‘Experience as required of this office’. I think the Mayor’s just got to make a case that this is a person that’s capable and experienced enough to fulfill the office. I don’t think –
HIGASHI: Okay, Mr. Chair. We’ll just move along.
HERKES: I have ‘work on language’ as a note.
RAY: So, you’re okay?
HIGASHI: I’m okay.
YUEN: I just want to make sure we clarify it in the record and see if there’s a consensus of members that the language here is meant to include, to take one example, substantial business experience would qualify. Is that something – I’m just trying to get a sense.
RAY: Yes. Okay, so you understand what Chris just said? Okay. The record will show that we are looking at a broad interpretation of this. Okay? Okay.
Now we’re going to move into the issue of taking all this out to the public, and discussing at least some ball park figures, dollar wise, in regard to doing that. Marni and I have met and discussed some different strategies so I guess I can just share that with you. Sharron has worked up some costs related to some of that. I think the biggest issue that we need to look at is in terms of a major advertising piece. We initially, I think, were sort of focused on, or anticipated, or talked about and got some figures for doing a direct mail piece, and we got figures on that. It’s pretty substantial. And I think we got some fairly negative feedback from the County Clerk in regard to that, and I think a number of us started to rethink that, and we looked at costs of running full page ads in not only the West Hawaii Today, but the Tribune Herald and some other key publications island-wide, and comparing that and finding that you could run three to four sets of full pages ads for considerably less than it would cost to do the mail-out brochure.
So, what we’re proposing is that we print up a simple brochure similar to what Sharron put together as a draft item. And if it were done on this simple paper, white or colored paper, 50,000 of these would only cost $1,600 - $1,700, something like that. And the rough strategy we came up with was that if that’s the way we decide to go, we get these things in the works immediately, it takes about 30 days turnaround time to come up with the brochures. In the meantime, we do a mail-out with all this information to our targeted list of 250 or so community and civic organizations around the island. So we get that information out to them right away. Of course, we get the information up on the website right away.
HENRY: It’s on there.
RAY: it’s on there.
HERKES: And then, John, did we talk about how to let people know the information is on the website? I mean it’s great to have it there but people don’t normally look at our website. So I think some publicity – I don’t think we did much of that.
RAY: One way is through the correspondence to all the civic groups and organizations, and then we’re hoping, of course, that they’ll take this item and they’ll print up more copies and distribute them and get them out to more people that way. We could do some radio ads in regard to notifying people that it would be out on the websites. But let me just follow through with the rest of our thinking on this. And I’m not sure of the exact timing; September, October, in relation to the Primary and General Election; all the other election advertising and stuff we were going on.
And another part of our initial thrust would be to offer our collective services to speak to community groups and organizations, the Charter Commission. I’ve done a fair amount of that and I’ll be glad to do whatever I can as time permits. But also, to get that out that we’d be happy to come and speak to the different groups.
But anyway, if we looked at October as the time frame, in the newspapers we’d be running, and we have to develop an advertising strategy on this, three to four sets of full page ads. So whether we run them three weeks in a row, we’d have to get some advice on that as far as that strategy, but three to four sets of full pages ads. At the same time, we’d run radio advertising and public service announcements to let people know that this stuff is out in the newspaper, pay attention to it. At the same time, we would distribute brochures to key locations and also advertise that on the radio. One input we got from Ross Wilson at Current Events, he was saying one of the most successful distributions tactics he used was through the supermarkets; brochures.
HERKES: This was the flyer that they put in the grocery bags for the Eclipse.
RAY: Okay, that was the Eclipse. But anyway, so the idea that a month before we do the full page ads. We advertise that in the radio. We get brochures out to key locations. And Sharron mentioned that we’re cleared with Elections to have brochures in all the absentee polling places, so we can have brochures out there. So, that’s basically what we talked about, and dollars wise, as I mentioned: The brochures are, say, $2,000; a set of full page ads runs about $3,000 a set, that’s all of them collectively, so say if you did it four times, that’s $12,000; if you threw in $3,000 or $4,000 of radio and then $500 of mailing, you’re only talking about $18,000 - $19,000 total. So, we’re well within our remaining budget and we will, just so you know, in regard to our remaining budget, we will have some more legal expenses. I don’t think a whole lot, but then we’ll have Sharron’s expenses and then we have our golf weekend at Hualalai.
HERKES: Yeah, right. Don’t put that in the newspaper.
SANTANGELO: And we’ll get Virginia to arrange it, yeah?
RAY: This bid we got, which if we go with this, would require no bid process. It’s through the Corrections Office, right? They would –
HIGASHI: Boo.
HERKES: Boo.
MARTIN: Civil Service.
HENRY: You want me to explain?
RAY: Okay, wait.
HENRY: Bob Gaffney in Finance handles the bid processes for the County and he was the one that initially suggested that I talk with them. He also gave me the names of two department heads that have their printing done; newsletters as well as brochures or anything else from their department that go out. The reason that he suggested getting a bid from a governmental agency is then we do not have to go through the bid process. It’s considered interdepartmental.
HERKES: If you go through the private sector, that’s right. Procurement doesn’t follow through the prison system.
HENRY: Right. It’s part of the governmental agencies.
HERKES: That’s why they buy all their paper through the prison system. Talk to Marian Higa.
HENRY: So, the other thing that we discussed, and what I used as an example, was the Y2K brochure that Civil Defense did and had distributed throughout the island. I talked with them and they brought up the fact that they had to go through two bid processes; one for design and one for printing, because some companies do design, some do printing, some do both, so that they don’t discriminate against –
HERKES: This you can put in the paper, Mr. Ray. Is that bid process in the best interest of the business community on the Big Island, the fact that you don’t have to go through bids if you go through State agencies; you do have to go through bids if you don’t go through a State agency?
RAY: We’re talking about $1600, is all –
HERKES: I know.
RAY: And I think time is – we’d like to get these things done as quickly as possible.
HERKES: Yeah, that’s fine. Not a big deal.
HENRY: There’s no reason why we can’t go through the bid process. I was just going to explain why I went to this agency to get the first initial quote to give us an idea. We can do whatever. And there wasn’t a preference of Finance Department either. It was just a suggestion as well as Civil Defense and the other departments.
HERKES: What I like about this – it’s simple – is that I can take this and I can make copies of it. If you do it in a color, my machine will transfer it but most machines will not transfer it. If it’s black and white, I can do copies of it. I don’t need a printing house. I don’t need to walk across the hall to Roland’s company, but I can do it. So I can make as many copies as I need. It’s not a big deal.
RAY: Right. Well, we hope groups will.
HERKES: If you keep it in black and white and you keep it simple.
HENRY: I wanted to say one other thing. All the questions and stuff came directly from what we have in here. Everything else I made up. I mean I was filling space, so editing is very –
HERKES: I’d like our names a little smaller.
HENRY: I had to fill that whole side.
SANTANGELO: John, I had a question.
RAY: Yes.
SANTANGELO: I like the budget and just real quick to get my two cents in here. First of all, I think this is wonderful, like Marni said, and I think it’s really civic of us to do it in a way that encourages people to make copies and distribute it.
HERKES: Yes. We’re really not talking about printing. We’re talking about Xeroxing.
HENRY: We’re talking about copying and folding. That is two-sided copying and folding in four.
SANTANGELO: But what I’d like to see, and I polled some of the people here and they agreed, the Question first and then the Digest because sometimes you see a lot of words and people don’t read it, the Question.
RAY: Well, okay. Let’s deal with if this is the format that we’re going to go with first and then we’ll discuss – because I think there’s going to be a lot of input.
SANTANGELO: And what I would not want us to run out of, so I don’t care about radio and newspaper. We could knock off one of the newspapers and have more of these. But having these in hardware stores and grocery stores and never running out of them –
HERKES: Roland will be happy to copy all you want.
KUROZAWA: For free?
HIGASHI: The County has it’s own copy –
HERKES: The County can copy –
SANTANGELO: But do you understand what I mean? That having enough of these that over the period of our campaign, because I think this alone is a stand alone. This is a great thing that you’ve done, Sharron. I think it’s a great way to get the word out because anybody that’s going to read the Question and the Digest, if they want the actual Amendment, they’ll go get it. But I would be very comfortable going into the voting booth with this and so, to me, this is the
emphasis.
RAY: So is everybody okay with this format-wise? If you are, then we need to decide how we want to edit and refine it. Do a couple or three people want to take that on as working with Sharron to just fine tune this thing in terms the graphics, the Question vs. the Digest? Any volunteers?
HERKES: Yes, can we have pictures?
SANTANGELO: Keep it simple.
IRVINE: I think if anybody has any ideas right now, which like John does, somebody ought to take those down. I suppose Sharron will. Then we probably do need a sub-committee.
RAY: Let’s see, what’s come up this evening? John’s suggestion is that we reverse the Question and the Digest. So that’s simple. What was the other input that came up earlier about the –
SANTANGELO: You’d want the website on this.
HERKES: You want the website on it, right.
HENRY: The website is on here.
HERKES: Okay. And it should be inside. The website should be here.
RAY: How do you want to approve this for final go? Do you want to have a sub-committee that has the authority to approve this? How do you want to do this?
HERKES: I’d like to see us go around the table and everybody say what they’d like to change on this. And Sharron has the minutes so she has a record of what everybody says and then I’d be happy to work with her. Somebody else can work with us.
RAY: How do you want to have the final approval on this piece set up? In other words, do you all want to see it individually and have input, or do you want – Why not?
KUROZAWA: We trust you.
RAY: Let her at least send it out to everybody and then –
HERKES: Fax it.
IRVINE: Yes, what’s our time frame? That’s what I’m wondering. When do we want to have this ready? That’s why I was –
RAY: Right away, but she can fax it to you and you can either get back to her or not right away.
HERKES: Today’s the 12th. Let’s say the 19th, next Wednesday, would be a time to have a draft faxed out. And then from there, another week, the 26th?
SANTANGELO: Marni, you wanted your disclaimer in here.
HERKES: Yes, I was waiting. Well, maybe disclaimer maybe is not quite what I’d call it, but I want the explanation, the ex-claimer, the explainer.
IRVINE: That we’re not pushing –
HERKES: No, that the ballot questions will be very small.
HENRY: First of all, I’m going to have to wait for Chris to get the changes today. He can have it to me by the middle of next week. So I’m going to need –
HERKES: Another week.
HENRY: Another week.
HERKES: Okay.
HENRY: Once that’s done, everything will be in place to send it and get it done.
RAY: And maybe it’ll be sooner. We’ll see.
HERKES: Then we’re going to put on the front that the ballot questions are inside. The ballot questions will be a shortened version.
HENRY: Yes, we can do whatever you want.
HERKES: Well, they’ll be just like these questions. They’ll be shortened, so please read this carefully and understand, and call John Ray if you don’t understand.
HENRY: Whatever text you want in here, just tell me. I was just making this up as I was going along to fill the space.
RAY: Wait, wait. Okay.
HENRY: With three – I’ve left room for two spaces here. I’m possibly going to have to adjust. There’s a lot of space in here.
SANTANGELO: The other three are short.
HENRY: I’m probably going to have to adjust this closer together and start them here to get all of the stuff on. That’s something I’m just going to have to play with.
HERKES: I encourage you, Sharron, to leave as much white space as possible because then people – I mean I found out in Hawaii Business magazine, there’s pages I should have been reading but they underlined and I just didn’t read them. The Commission, that can go down a half a page. That doesn’t have to be the whole page. It can be smaller letters and it can go way down.
HIGASHI: You guys can work it out. They can work it out.
HENRY: Yes.
KUROZAWA: Sharron, are you going to mail some of these?
SANTANGELO: She’s going to put it in an envelope.
KUROZAWA: Oh, you’re going to put it in an envelope.
HENRY: Yes, the mailing label will not be printed on this. This was just a space identification for me to leave room.
KUROZAWA: Okay. Because this won’t go through the post office.
SANTANGELO: No, it won’t go like that. She knows that now.
HENRY: Yes, the 300 that we mail out will be in envelopes.
KUROZAWA: But you could set it up not to use envelopes if it’s easier, just as long as you have space and you can check with the post office and then it will be cheaper maybe, just to –
SANTANGELO: Yes, but for 300 of them, you’d be able to have the format that’s clear to the people.
RAY: Okay, let’s just go around the room. George, you got any comments on this specifically?
MARTIN: I think as it’s printed and leaving it to her expertise because she’s the one that came up with it, no problem. Go with it.
RAY: Okay, Sue.
IRVINE: I want to say it’s very nice also. I think maybe somewhere on here we should say ‘Take this to the polls with you. Only the Questions will appear on the ballot.’
SANTANGELO: Well, we’re going to have it available there, right?
IRVINE: Yes. It doesn’t hurt to –
RAY: Marni.
HERKES: I think I’ve said everything that I need to say.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: I think this is a good vehicle to use but in regards to the total programming, maybe we don’t have to use full page ads because that’s not much material here.
RAY: That’s what?
HIGASHI: Not much material.
RAY: Oh, I see. You mean –
HIGASHI: So maybe use a half a page or something.
RAY: Oh, I got you. I hadn’t related the text to the newspaper pages, or whatever. I guess we were just thinking about getting the, kind of, stand alone, the presence in the paper, but yes, that’s —
HIGASHI: Right, right, right.
RAY: Okay, Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: Looks very good to me.
KUROZAWA: Looks good.
SANTANGELO: Absolutely marvelous. Just have plenty of them. That’s all I care about.
RAY: Okay, John. What’s plenty of them?
SANTANGELO: Twice as many.
KUROZAWA: Hey John, I have a quick question. I asked Roland, but do you think the candidates will pass this out for us?
HERKES: Yes.
KUROZAWA: We should ask them.
HERKES: Well, then that will mean that they endorse the changes. The ones that endorse the changes will.
KUROZAWA: Yes, that we’re friends of the Charter –
SANTANGELO: John, when you asked ‘what’s plenty’, how did you come up with –
RAY: Wait, wait. Okay, the original quote Sharron got was for 80,000. I don’t know where that came from, and the second one was 50 and I don’t know where that came from either.
HENRY: I got the first 70 quote when we were talking about doing a mail-out to all 70,000 voters.
RAY: Oh yeah.
HENRY: And then I thought we’re not going to mail 70,000 so I just rounded it off, just off the top of my head, to 50,000. I can get a quote for a larger amount overnight from Jonah.
SANTANGELO: How much was it for 50?
RAY: About $1,600 for 50,000.
HENRY: It was $1,625.
SANTANGELO: And the way printing goes, it might be like $2,200 for double the amount because the more you do, the less it costs.
HIGASHI: The largest cost is in the mailing.
SANTANGELO: We’re not going to mail them.
HIGASHI: If she was going to do a mailing and you talk about mailing, it costs $.19. It costs only a couple of cents for this and $.19 for the postage.
SANTANGELO: So, I’d like to make sure we don’t run out, so whatever that figure is.
HENRY: I could double that figure to 100,000 and it would not be double the amount.
SANTANGELO: It would not, in any shape or form.
HERKES: So, you want to go to a 100,000, John?
SANTANGELO: Yes.
HERKES: I agree.
SANTANGELO: Yes, because you want KTA putting them out and Sure Save and all that kind of stuff.
RAY: It doesn’t seem like a whole lot of money to be able to really put them out. God knows we’re growing enough trees. We need to support the industry, right?
IRVINE: I wonder if there’s anybody we could ask that’s done something like this before that might know, if you’re going on a campaign like this, how many might be able to be distributed reasonably without wasting all our forests.
RAY: Right. I wonder what Ross did for the –
HERKES: Hundreds of thousands.
RAY: Yeah?
IRVINE: Really?
HERKES: Well, they did it in all the grocery bags all over the island. I mean we’re talking about we have a 150,000 residents on our island.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: So Mr. Chair, we just need a strategy as how we’re going to reach the people. We’re going to use the newspaper?
IRVINE: Yes.
HIGASHI: Then you don’t need 100,000 of these.
RAY: That was my thinking was that –
HIGASHI: If you’re going to use a mailer, then we’ll put the money in the postage and eliminate the –
RAY: It’s just that I think John’s point is it’s relatively inexpensive. For another $1500 you could print up another 50,000 of them and –
SANTANGELO: Well, probably less than that. For another $600. To me, I wouldn’t have any, or maybe one newspaper and the rest of them going into shopping bags.
HIGASHI: You need to get commitments from the people who are going to distribute it. I think it’s an assumption, you know.
HERKES: Now, let’s talk about the fact that –
HIGASHI: Maybe somebody don’t want to do it – anything political, they don’t want to do it.
HERKES: The first time they see it in the newspaper, it’s going to go right by them. They get it in a shopping bag, or pick it up somewhere, or some friend gives it to them, they say ‘oh yeah, I saw that in the paper’, and they start to pay – the third time they see it, they start to pay attention to it. You cannot just say one time, one piece for one person, especially in something like this. I mean, I’m going to run a polling place and I don’t want to have to deal like we did last time with those terrible questions and nobody knowing. I have a vested interest in having the voters knowing what’s going to happen, what’s on the ballot.
RAY: So, what makes sense to you in terms of number?
HERKES: 100,000 makes sense to me.
IRVINE: I’d like to mention libraries. That’s a place to put them as well as everywhere else we’ve been mentioning.
HERKES: Yes.
RAY: Compromise? 70,000?
HENRY: Let me get a quote on both. See if there’s enough difference. I don’t think there will be.
HERKES: And it doesn’t matter because we’ll just make 100,000 anyway.
RAY: John, we don’t have, logistically – we’re not set up to hassle with the storage and distribution of these things. I don’t have the time to be taking them out to supermarkets around the island. I mean, I don’t know if there’s somebody you can pay for all of that, but that’s not anything I want to be dealing with. So I’m just saying if you really wanted to get them out to all the businesses around the island, it seems like –
SANTANGELO: Is there another organization or two? Because, to me, this is the way. To me, this will get read before a newspaper any day.
RAY: The Chambers, I would think, would be happy to print them and send them out to their members anyway, on their own.
HERKES: We’ll put them in our newsletters.
SANTANGELO: I mean approaching businesses or anything like that, or helping distribute them.
HERKES: You can be sure that I will have a case of them in my car wherever I go and I’ll drop them off.
KUROZAWA: John, when do you want to mail this out and get this to people? I mean pass it out soon or are we looking at maybe September?
RAY: September.
KUROZAWA: One option, seriously, is let’s look at clubs like Interact, those kids, get them involved. Have them spend a weekend as a project to go out door to door and pass it out.
HERKES: That’s a good idea because that fits right in to kids votes.
KUROZAWA: Well, no, you’re right. There’s interactive keiki clubs. All these service clubs, they’re out of school right now. They start in August, I guess.
HERKES: The trouble is you don’t want it too much before the Primary.
KUROZAWA: So that’s the question. When do we send it out?
IRVINE: It’s General.
HERKES: It’s a General Election issue so you don’t want to get it out too much before September 23rd.
KUROZAWA: So we want it in October? But later’s better because school will be in for a while. We can get them organized.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: The only negative about that, it’s a selective distribution. They’ll go where it’s easy. They won’t go into Eden Roc Estates or –
IRVINE: Yes.
HIGASHI: So, it’s kind of a selective distribution. We need to think about just a mass distribution in a systematic way.
IRVINE: Grocery stores are probably the most mass.
HIGASHI: And then you give it to a lot of non-voters. They’re just putting them in, right? You’ve got to ask KTA how many sacks they go through a week.
RAY: Well, they give me seven bags every time I’m in there, so –
IRVINE: Well, they could just put one in one.
MARTIN: I think that somebody made mention of asking the politicians to pass them out and it becomes realistic at that point, and there’s probably a venue of doing that, of whoever’s endorsing whomever, as part of an endorsement situation. Or just friendly asking them. It’s actually not a bad idea because they will be going door to door, and as being heard over here, you don’t want to get too close to the Primary. It makes sense after the Primary, whoever the winners are, these are the ones that we say ‘you guys gonna do it again anyway. How’s about passing out for us.’
KUROZAWA: Could you help us? They may.
HIGASHI: Mr. Ray, I think using the newspaper is probably the best vehicle for getting the message out. Doing a mailer, you talk about the printing, now you have to add in the postage and you have to hire a company to put the labels on. If you’re doing - there are 58,000
households that are voters, so whatever you do, there’s a lot of work. So using the newspaper is one way of getting the message out in mass. The Tribune has a program where non-subscribers, they give them a cheap rate. You can get to non-subscribers so you’re not eliminating only people who subscribe to the newspaper. I mean, I think there’s a lot of good ideas but I think there’s a lot of weaknesses in all the ideas that we have.
SANTANGELO: I would not advocate sending this to one single person except the ones on the list.
IRVINE: Right. I think that’s what we’re talking about, is it? We’re not –
SANTANGELO: That’s too much money, but distributing it.
RAY: Right. The only mail-out is going to be to our list of civic organizations and groups.
HIGASHI: So, we don’t need a 100,000.
SANTANGELO: On the other hand, you asked how you distribute it. If you were to approach, one time, the major supermarkets of this island, and I can’t image them not appointing somebody to making sure, if they acquiesce, to have somebody to make sure it was there and have it as a stuffer. And we wouldn’t have to really be troubled with it a lot. In fact, I don’t mind delivering them to a grocery store. I think one time approach, would you adopt this, and this is non-controversial. This isn’t Republican or Democrat. It’s not him or her.
HERKES: Can you put this in your fruit market down in -
SANTANGELO: Sure. I can’t imagine anybody wouldn’t.
HERKES: Because that’s an under-served community.
SANTANGELO: Thank you. I do my best, though.
HIGASHI: Okay, where are we going?
RAY: I just think the only thing we need to decide on is what’s a reasonable number to order, and it doesn’t seem like we’ve got a strategy to match that up with yet. So, I would say we had a minimum of 50,000 and do we want to –
HERKES: Print 50,000. Let’s move with it. So moved.
MARTIN: Second.
RAY: We are required to print this, the Digest and the Questions, in RFD, as well as two newspapers, 45 –
HENRY: Not as well.
RAY: Okay. So, it will be printed in RFD as well to comply with that requirement.
HENRY: I faxed RFD today with a copy and we’re required – our deadline is 45 days before, so it has to be in there just like our public notices. That’s all part of the State Act 160. But I did another thing too, on my own. I asked them if it was possible that the brochure could be inserted in their distribution and I’m waiting for a response, because that’s at Seven-Elevens; that’s a pretty wide distribution.
HERKES: Nobody reads it. I mean that’s a throw away. That’s probably the biggest throw away that there is.
HENRY: I thought that too, but I do see people that complain because they can’t read our notices and stuff in there because they’re too small. But just for general information, I requested that information.
RAY: Let’s solicit some advice from Ross or other people on some different ways and strategies and see if we can come up with something as far as putting these out, and maybe we can get help from different organizations to help do that as well.
So, as far as fine tuning this strategy, as far as the timing, ad placements, the radio to supplement that, I’ll be glad to service on a sub-committee to help pull that together. Marni and I have worked on it. Would somebody else like to be involved in that? And that’s the first question, and the second part of that is what approval, or input, or notice, do you guys want in regard to that, as far as making those decisions, you know, whether we run three sets of ads vs. four, whether we run half-page ads vs. full page ads, all the mechanics to that?
HERKES: I think it’s too clumsy to ask everybody about everything. Why don’t we work on really putting down in writing a plan and we can get that to everybody and then you will all understand if we don’t follow it, if something goes wrong, or if there’s some kind of glitch in it? It’ll just be more money for Hualalai.
YOSHIYAMA: Will you be appearing on public access TV on our behalf? Do you have that on there, Sharron?
HENRY: I have radio. I talked to the news director of one of the radio stations and he was also on a County Council, Chairman of the Council, and worked in Alaska in city government for 15 years. And he gave us some suggestions. They have a public forum and he’s invited any Commissioner to come. It’s not a call-in type show. It’s a specific question and answer.
YOSHIYAMA: Well, I was talking about John going out –
HENRY: John’s already agreed.
YOSHIYAMA: To go on public access TV?
HENRY: Public access radio.
YOSHIYAMA: No, TV.
RAY: Sure. And that’s probably better in the fall, right? It’ll be closer to the elections. But I mean, anybody else is welcome to participate in this exercise. What do you think? Would it be good to have two people or two or three Commissioners there?
IRVINE: Are you having, like, formal meetings? That’s what I was wondering. If you guys are getting together to decide on this, you and Marni?
RAY: Marni and I just happen to live and work in the same place so it’s easy for us to get together and talk about stuff.
IRVINE: I see, okay. That’s what I – yes.
HERKES: They’re very formal. We, kind of, met in a parking lot.
RAY: And Ross Wilson gave us his kokua and time and advice and stuff, so it was just easy to sit down and chat about stuff. That’s all. But anybody’s welcome to –
IRVINE: Is East Hawaii being left out of this?
HERKES: Oh my God. Isn’t that a fun thing to hear.
MARTIN: With that said, maybe we should nominate somebody, Sue in particular, to go on public access TV here in Hilo.
SANTANGELO: George, all’s they have to do is meet on a parking lot on this side of the island once in a while.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chairman, I’m late for a meeting. It started at 7 o’clock. We need to move on. But before we finalize our draft, don’t we have to send this draft to the County Council for its comments?
RAY: I don’t think so.
HIGASHI: No? I think so. Some place. I can’t find it but –
HERKES: I think there is too. I think there’s something that says –
IRVINE: It goes to the Council –
SANTANGELO: It goes to them but they can’t do a damn thing about it.
HIGASHI: They can make recommendations.
IRVINE: No. Well, they can make recommendations, I think, but that’s all it is.
SANTANGELO: Well, that process has already been given to them.
MARTIN: No, no, but there is one more passage that it’s got to go to them.
RAY: We need to find that out, yes.
HIGASHI: Anyway, I think we should think on it. We need to find out –
RAY: Just so you know, that is another thing, the mention of TV. I will be making a presentation to one of the Council committees which will be televised.
HERKES: So at that time you will hand out the final draft to them.
RAY: I wasn’t going to do it till a little later, getting closer to election. I wasn’t thinking of that as part of the process of approval. I was thinking of that as just part of the publicity.
HERKES: But part of the process of approval is –
MARTIN: If, in fact, it is in the book as Roland indicated.
HERKES: It is in the book and I can’t remember where it is either. And all these guys are looking so I’m not going to look.
RAY: It doesn’t ring a bell to me but –
HIGASHI: It did to me when I did the first review and we were doing this time line, and we had to send it for their review.
RAY: Well, if we have to do that, we’ll do it, and that will obviously effect our –
HIGASHI: It won’t affect our timing. We still can figure our strategy but that’s something that we may have to do as part of the Charter. I read it some place.
RAY: Does anybody see the need to schedule any more meetings formally, or just do it if we feel we need to?
HIGASHI: Subject to your call, I guess.
RAY: So it would be special meetings. Is that okay? Okay. So I’d like to invite everybody to –
MARTIN: Statement first before you go on because I’m assuming you went to Announcements and next meeting date is on-call. So I’d like to make a brief statement if I may, sir.
RAY: Yes sir.
MARTIN: First of all, I’d like to thank everybody. It’s been a pleasure and an honor working with everyone. The ideas that we’re putting forth now is admirable I think. I hope that we can get the message across to the public that these ideas are not ours, but what is in the best interest for County government. With that said, I’d like to apologize to John and Jean Q. Public for some of the things that possibly we didn’t undertake, and some of the things had merit and was left by the wayside for whatever reasons. Thank you.
RAY: I was going to say I think we ought to have a social gathering, and all kidding aside Hualalai, and I’d be happy to do a barbecue at my house in Waimea if you guys would want to do that, or if anybody else has a –
SANTANGELO: That’s a great idea.
RAY: Yeah? And invite our spouses.
IRVINE: John, it seems like a lot of work for you, though. I mean –
SANTANGELO: He offered. Leave it to him.
IRVINE: I know but –
YOSHIYAMA: We can help.
SANTANGELO: You have an awful lot to do already.
RAY: Maybe in August, we’ll try to do it?
SANTANGELO: Sue, he makes great barbecue.
MARTIN: I’ll make the potato salad, if you want.
RAY: Okay, I’ve lost the agenda. Is there anything else on it?
HENRY: I think that’s it.
RAY: Can I have a motion to adjourn?
MARTIN: So moved.
SANTANGELO: Second.
RAY: Okay, meeting adjourned. Thank you.
The discussion ended at 7:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharron Henry
Secretary-Administrative Assistant
FINAL MEETING.
MINUTES READ BUT NOT APPROVED.
Home Page | Charter main page