Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0407.001 1996-1998 /OM(Y Oi N 4~~~ ~ vy I, DONALD 1KLiDA CONS'fANCIi R. KIRIU County CIrrA Lr ~yielnhvr AuJilar ~f y yh.'~~ 1t •...••'~1~ ~ O~ N~ orrlc~ or Trrc couNTY cLSlzx Cuunly of Flmonii Iluunlii Couch/ liuildin~ RECEIVED 2 ; n upon i Sl reef 11ma___----•----.- ey----------•_~ Ililn, f /numii 96720 p~ County Council July 23, 1997 "f0: Richard Wurdenum Corporation Counsel I'IZOM: Donald Ikeda County Clerk IZL': Program Review Opinion This is to confirm our conversation in which you staled that the verbal opinion provided to the Council at its meeting on July 2, 1997, as set forth in the attached transcript, serves in Iieu of a written opinion ralucsted in my memorandum of June 27, 1997. To summarize, you slate that Rule 24-I of the Council Rules of Procedures meets the mandate of the Ilawaii County Charter. Please inform me as soon as possible in writing if this is not the case. AH. cc: Chair James Y. Arakaki Legislative Auditor Connie Kirin Qovr~ lie, _ r~ 7• ~ lfle I~~. A ~ D rQSente.. FL lei. ?m ]Re[. )tile Ally 5 a~ r e R E G U L A R S E S S I O N NINETEENTH SESSION Hilo, Hawaii Wednesday, July 2, 1997 The Regular meeting of the County Council was called to order by Chairman and Presiding Officer James Y. Arakaki at 9:10 a.m. in the Councilroom, County Building, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo. ROLL CALL: Councilmember Aaron S. Y. Chung Councilmember Leithead-Todd Councilmember John Ray Councilmember Joseph Reynolds Councilmember John L. Santangelo, Jr. Councilmember Al Smith Councilmember J. Curtis Tyler, III Councilmember Dominic Yagong Council Chair James Y. Arakaki ALSO PRESENT WERE: Wayne Carvalho, Police Chief James Correa, Deputy Police Chief Morton Carter, Police Captain Richard Wurdeman, Corporation Counsel Peter Boucher, Wastewater Division Donald Ikeda, County Clerk Connie Kiriu, Legislative Auditor Cheryl Sumida, Legislative Auditor Assistant Alapaki Nahalea, Legislative Auditor Assistant Liana Coz, Legislative Auditor Assistant Charmaine Doran, Legislative Assistant Susan Yoneda, Administrative Assistant to Legislative Auditor Alfred Robello, Executive Assistant to the Council Chair Jeanette Aiello, Senior Clerk-Stenographer Hansrenda K.M. Dutro, Council Reporter 1 e Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, before we get into the resolution itself--Resolution 94-97, Draft 2, i would like to make an amendment to the Finance Committee Report 103. I have circulated an amendment--- CHR. ARAKAKI: I've seen it. Mr. Chung, do you concur with the amendment, because the report was prepared by your staff? MR. CHUNG: Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the amendment and I've signed off on it. I would like to make this comment. i don't want this to be a common practice, you know. I qo over these Finance Committee reports with a fine tooth comb--oftentimes, I prepare the Finance Committee reports without the assistance of staff, which I did, in this particular situation. i felt that the Finance Committee Report, as prepared originally, was an accurate depiction of what occurred at the last hearing. However, i will accommodate Mr. Tyler this one time. I think henceforth, though, the proper way would be to just lodge an objection for the record at the Council meeting. Let me just read what the addition is--it says--an addition offered by Mr. Tyler. It says, "Mr. Tyler moved to defer the measure pending the completion of a mandatory program review and receipt of additional information requested from the Police Department in regard to public concerns and allegations. However, his motion was defeated." Now normally in these committee reports, we do not bring up what motions are defeated or--what collateral motions are defeated. And I think we adequately addressed the concern relating to the mandatory program review earlier in the report, and I think that concern was raised by practically all of the members. So I don't want anyone here to think that Mr. Tyler was the only person concerned about the mandatory program review, and that is my concern with this addition here. 2 e Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 Sut in this one particular situation, i will accommodate Mr. Tyler's request. i think it's a fair request, actually--but I'd also like these things brought to my attention earlier because I just signed off on it today, without having had time to digest it. MR. TYLER: Mr. Chairman, may I respond? CHR. ARAKAKI• Yes. MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chung. I appreciate your commendation. I think that amendment, which you read there, arose because there was a statement in the original report which said that I--there were two opposing votes and it mentioned my name. It said, "who felt the grant monies were not ezpended properly." That was not my reason--i never stated that at any point during the Committee hearings, so I just wanted to clarify that and I wasn't sure what the proper procedure was, so I appreciate this accommodation and hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. Thank you, Sir. CHR. ARAKAKI: Thank you. I think Mr. Chung makes a good point that if it's not materially incorrect--because these are just brief descriptions of what happened in the Committee--if someone could read the minutes to see what ezactly what happened in Committee meetings. So if there is something that's materially wrong with the report, then I think that should be brought up, in this case. But in other cases, I think we should be very careful how we change Committee reports without the approval of the Committee Chairman. MR. TYLER: Yes, Sir, I agree with that, and I believe this was a material matter and that is the reason I brought it forward. Thank you. SUSPEND CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. If there is no objection, let's RULES take these three resolutions up and then we can go on to these other two people that want to testify. (There were no objections.) CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Clerk, can we move to the first one--Resolution 94-97, and then let's make the amendment to the Committee Report, after you've read it. 3 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 RESOLUTION A Resolution numbered 94-97, Draft 2, authorizes the NO. 94-97: County of Hawaii to enter into an agreement with the (DRAFT 2) United States of America, pursuant to HRS 46-7, for a (FC-103) Statewide Marijuana Eradication Grant, introduced by (C-314.07) Mr. Chung. CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Chung. Can we have a motion to approve so we can discuss it and approve the amendment to the Committee Report? Mr. Chung moved for the adoption of Resolution 99-97, Draft 2, and to adopt Finance Committee Report 103. Seconded by Mr. Smith. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the Committee Report, so that we have it on the record that we have approved the Committee Report? Mr. Chung moved to amend Finance Committee Report 103, as circulated (see Comm. Seconded by Mr. Smith. CHR. ARAKAKI: Do we have any discussion on the Committee report? The amendment on the Committee ReportT (There were none.) There is none? There is none. MR. TYLER• SO--- CHR. ARAKAKI: You want to discuss the Committee Report? MR. TYLER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to understand where we are. There's a motion on the floor to approve the Committee Report--as amended? CHR. ARAKAKI: No, there's a motion on the floor to approve Resolution 99-97, Draft 2, but we wanted to correct the Committee Report--- MR. TYLER• Yes. CHR. ARAKAKI: So that, you know, whatever--that reflects in the resolution is reflected in the Committee Report. MR. TYLER• Yes. 4 r f Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 CHR. ARAKAKI• Okay? MR. TYLER: So is that what's on the floor right now? CHR. ARAKAKI: The motion is to amend the Committee Report, so we can discuss the resolution. MR. TYLER: Right, as per this amendment? CHR. ARAKAKI• As per this. MR. TYLER: Okay, so that's what we'll be voting on? CHR. ARAKAKI• Yes. MR. TYLER• Thank you. Vote on the motion to amend Finance Committee Report 103: Unanimously carried. CHR. ARAKAKi: Okay is there any discussion on Resolution 94-97, Draft 2? Mr. Santangelo. MR. SANTANGELO: I'm going to ask for a little leeway here, Mr. Chairman. i have a Draft 3 amendment, but prior to putting that Draft 3 amendment up, due to the testimony and additional information, I'd like to be able to explore, maybe, Draft 2, before, you know, and maybe Draft 3. So I'd like to ask a couple questions of the--- CHR. ARAKAKI: On Draft 2 or do you want to propose an amendment? MR. SANTANGELO: I would like to use Draft 2 as a way of exploring three. CHR. ARAKAKI: Fine. Okay. MR. SANTANGELO: Okay. Could I have someone either Lieutenant--Mr. Fukui---I have a Draft 3 here which deals with no aerial spraying. (At this time, Deputy Chief Correa came forward to address the Members of the Council.) MR. SANTANGELO: Okay. Deputy Chief, we haven't sprayed since how long? 5 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 DEP. CHIEF CORREA: Since 1995. MR. SANTANGELO: 1995. In my district and the district I represent, there's been some questions raised which concerns over aerial spraying. So if that's the case, then that would not have been the Hawaii County Police Department spraying. DEP. CHIEF CORREA: If it was after 1995, that's correct. NiR. SANTANGELO: I talked with you--not you personally, but with the Police Department and your resources at length, and there's a resistance to any kind of an amendment that would restrict your funds for use with herbicidal spraying. I know what they are, but could you share some of those concerns--do you feel comfortable with that? DEP. CHIEF CORREA: Restricting us from--- MR. SANTANGELO: Yes, what concerns do you have if I was to--if this Council was to accept that kind of an amendment. DEP. CHIEF CORREA: Let me just make a statement here that we haven't sprayed since 1995 and at the present time, we don't have any plans to spray. However, we don't want to have any restrictions placed in any kind of an amendment which might tie our hands from actually doing our job and our duty, should there be a unique type of incident or case whereby it'd be safer, most cost-efficient, to actually use herbicidal spraying that's within the guidelines of the overall operational procedures. MR. SANTANGELO: If you were to use aerial spraying, and obviously this would be an exception to where you're headed right now--what would be those circumstances? Could you give us just a little picture? DEP. CHIEF CORREA: Well, there may be in agricultural areas or, let's say, some state land that maybe the Department of Land and Natural Resources can get to and maybe questions being made for us to go and eradicate that. 6 F Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 We'd have to take a look and evaluate the situation. if it's such a broad scope of growth, it may be more cost efficient--maybe more effective and safer--depending on the geographical area to go in and use herbicidal spraying. But that's not something that's in the general plan for us. tHR. SANTANGELO: Okay, because I notice in a resolution accepting some further money, there's actually a clause in there that says you cannot use this money for herbal spraying unless you get written permission. So it's again urging you not to, but it's leaving you that out. DEP. CHIEF CORR.A: Yes, we need that option. We need that. That's one of the tools that we'd be able to use. MR SANTANGELO; If we take an area, such as Oceanview--and what's unique about Oceanview, Deputy Chief, is that the slope that we have, sometimes these winds don't just take something downwind and deposits it, but sometimes they tend to keep it and let it travel a long way. You being aware of that, in your aerials, if you were to have to use this tool, and I would imagine this would be for safety of officers for--what would be the overriding reason for doing this? DEP. CHIEF CORREA: In actuality, the most cost-efficient and effective method of operation is aerial spraying of the plant. But we have to work within all of the guidelines that are established and we are authorized to use. Now, to answer your question--I am very familiar with the spraying program. I think i can go back to when the spraying program originated because I was probably one of the pioneers of the program way back in 1980. But we used to do it at the request of the plantation because they considered it a weed. 7 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 But it has progressed to a point whereby there are so many conditions that we have to abide by before we can actually use the spraying method that we follow to the "T" and I believe, if you read the Department of Agriculture Report, which is an independent report that was done on the most recent study that they did, they have approved all of the methods. MR. SANTANGELO: Waht oversight do you have of the conduct--now, this is kind of a funny kind of a conversation because you're telling me you're not involved in aerial spraying so it's like my line of questioning that says you are. DEP. CHIEF CORREA: Right. MR. SANTANGELO: But if you were involved in spraying, what sort of oversight do you have of the conduct of the individuals involved? What kind of review process--how do we know that they've done their job right, that they've followed those rules? DEP. CHIEF CORREA: Well, first of all, we're a very semi-military type of organization, okay? We abide by orders and procedures of which--if somebody doesn't, there is severe disciplinary action involved. Our programs are supervised by supervisors, whether it be a captain who is in charge of the entire operation at the station or a lieutenant--and it goes down to a sergeant out in the field or maybe even a lieutenant out in the field, depending on the size of the operation. They are the managers and they are the ones who oversee the operations. We don't have people just riding around in an aircraft having the ability to do what they want to do up in the aircraft. There are certain parameters and guidelines that they must follow. Now if there is an oversight, you can call the Police Commission or any type of agency that you wanted to report any kind of violation as to any kind of illegal spraying, and so forth. MR. SANTANGELO: Thank you, thank you. Mr. Chairman, if you indulge me with one other, I'd like to bring in Mr. Wurdeman just for a moment. I think I can save this Council a lot of time. 8 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay. Mr. Wurdeman, are you here? Could we have Mr. Wurdeman? Mr. Wurdeman, could you please come in for a moment? (At this time, Corporation Counsel Richard Wurdeman came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. SANTANGELO: Mr. Wurdeman, I have a proposed amendment here in front of me and i haven't proposed it and I'm just asking a couple of questions because I'm struggling with some new information and I'm struggling with some of the conversations that I've had with the law enforcement community. i have talked to you earlier and the memo would basically say "no funds shall be used for aerial herbicidal and chemical spraying of marijuana plants." The Police have indicated they don't have any intention of doing this, but by the same token, there are instances where possibly this would--out of safety to officers or to the community--they may want to engage in a limited ezercise. From your legal viewpoint, what impact do we have and how appropriate is it for this amendment, if I was to propose it? MR. WURDEMAN: Well, I mean, you're free to make any amendment you want. I don't feel it would be enforceable because what's before you is the approval or disapproval of this contract with the Federal Government and once that contract is entered into, there would be the contract that would control the way things are done. The reason why, in my mind, why that law is there, 46-7, which is the law that requires this, is because every time you accept federal money, you accept federal obligations, and that's what should be considered. Now I'm not familiar with the terms of the grant, but if the grant requires spraying, you would have to spray. MR. SANTANGELO: It doesn't require it but it allows it. So when I had talked to you earlier, you had made a statement about pretty much just what you just said, but you made a further statement about maybe really what we're about here is vote it up or vote it down but don't dink with it? 9 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 MR. WURDEMAN: Your decision is to vote it up or vote it down, right. MR. SANTANGELO: Okay, thank you very much. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, Mr. Chung. I know you wanted to ask Mr. Wurdeman--you had your light on and I turned it off. MR. CHUNG: I'm sorry, I was taken away for a minute and i think Mr. Santangelo may have addressed the issue of what kinds of proviso's we can place on this resolution because we also have another--I don't know if this was brought up while I was gone, but another well intentioned proviso offered by Ms. Leithead-Todd relating to the use of some of the grant monies for the purpose of a program review--and we voted in support of that. MR. SANTANGELO: Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to be rude, but I think I still have the floor and i wanted to complete my thought. Mr. Chairman--Mr. Chung? CHR. ARAKAKI: Oh. MR. SANTANGELO: Alright. Thank you, Mr. Wurdeman. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence. A lot of staff time and a lot of time talking to colleagues about this amendment went into this, and out of respect for them, I wanted to bring up this because there's been a lot of conversation. I'm not going to propose a Draft 3. To propose the Draft 3, as I understand it, would rob the police of alternatives that i don't always understand. When I came in and when I ran for political office, I made it a point to say that I would oppose aerial spraying. I would like to do that. On the other hand, I didn't know what I know today. We learn and we investigate and we're educated in this political process. I really would like to see no aerial spraying. I don't see a need for it and I would like to see it not done. Hut that's my personal view, but as a legislator and as an individual that's responsible to and for this community, i will not propose this--more out of a lack--I don't want to politically grandstand and I want to take what I think is the moral high ground. 10 y Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 I struggle with this and I wish my colleagues and the audience would understand this. But sometimes we just cannot put our personal views over something that's more important. When these young people come in here and the people that have come in here overwhelming supporting this program, I don't want to put a shadow--but in me, pulling back on something that could be judged as good or political or whatever, I would ask this Council to deliberate--you know what I mean--to think hard and let's vote together on this. Thank you very much. So I will not introduce any of the amendments to these three resolutions that prohibit aerial spraying, but I would ask the Police to live up to the word of--they really don't want to do that. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Thank you, Mr. Santangelo. I did turn Mr. Chung's light off and Mr. Chung, if you wanted to say something, you can have the floor, but I turned your light off. MR. CHUNG: i think one of my concerns was addressed inasmuch as Mr. Santangelo will not be surfacing his amendment relating to herbicidal spraying. However, I want to applaud his efforts in trying to address the concerns of his constituents in that respect. I seriously believe that particularly in his district, aerial spraying is a serious point of contention. Those persons who aren't--who don't look at it from a standpoint of legalization of marijuana or what--but they're just looking at it from a public safety standpoint. i really applaud his efforts in trying to get something going, but it looks like from a legal standpoint, we really don't have the authority to this, and I don't know what's going to happen with this other proviso, which was offered by Ms. Leithead-Todd, which also is a very well-intentioned thing and it seems to address some of the concerns of this Council with respect to a mandatory program review of the provisions of the County Charter. 11 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 However, with respect to the merits of this resolution, as well as the resolutions which are to follow on this particular subject, I'd just like to state, for the record, that I think there's been a lot of good points brought out by members of the public on both sides of the equation. I have to admit, some of the discussion is redundant, some irrelevant, but also there has been a lot of good points raised. Some people say that the continuation of the eradication program is counter-productive to what we're trying to achieve and others say it is productive. Some say it's a gateway drug, some say it's not a gateway drug. I don't know. We have to make a decision at some point. The only fact that I have at this point is that marijuana is illegal and in light of that, I will be voting in support of these resolutions. CHR. ARAKAKI: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Wurdeman, for coming here today. I was hoping you might be here. If I understood you correctly, we could amend this or pass whatever we pass, or don't pass it. But the fact is that there's a contract between the Federal Government, and in the case of the DEA, or the State, in the statewide narcotics grant, which cannot be amended by this body--we either accept it or reject it. Is that correct? MR. WURDEMAN: That's correct. You can, of course, reject and ask the Department to renegotiate it which I guess would be another option. But--- MR. TYLER: The second question that I wanted to ask you is there's been some representations made today and some previous times that the Council, because there has not been what some people term a mandatory program review, that the Council is currently in default of the Charter and we must terminate this program until such a review is done. In your professional opinion, is that true or not? 12 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 MR. GIURDEMAN: The Charter doesn't--well, this whole question. We had one lawsuit in 1994 which was brought on this point and it was dismissed. The Circuit Court Judge--it didn't go past Circuit Court--felt that the question was a political question to be determined by you in adherence to the doctrine of separation of power, she was not going to involve herself. That's the one decision that we have. Of course, we have the rule, the Council rule that says that the budget review is the program review. I think, in my opinion, this meets the bare letter of the law. It clearly does not meet the spirit of the law, and in anticipation of your question, I have done some reading in some budget books about what a program review is and what it's supposed to entail and what it is supposed to do--is to match the objectives of the program with the results of the program to see if it's cost effective. Before we even start talking about a program review, we've got to define what's a program. A program is the drug eradication program--the aerial drug eradication effort a program or is it part of a larger--is it an activity which is part of a larger program, which is drug enforcement, or is drug enforcement merely part of a larger program, which is law enforcement? So, I would suggest that before undertaking a "program review," the first thing to do is decide at what level you consider an activity to be a program. MR. TYLER: So from your perspective, as Corporation Counsel, then, we are adhering to the Charter, I mean, in terms of this intent? M.R. WtJRDEMAN: Based on that experience, I would say that--well, what I said before. We meet the bare letter of the law and I think the spirit of the law and what the law intended, which is not only for this program, but for all other programs, street lights, or whatever, that there be a bureaucracy reviewing it, which is--if you're going to do it, is a major effort. MR. TYLER: So in terms of Draft 2 then, of Resolution 94-97, the amendment offered regarding a mandatory program review is--it's a stipulation we can't put on this contract? would it have to be in a different resolution or--how would you recommend that we deal with what the wishes of the maker were? 13 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 MR. WURDEMAN: I would recommend that separate and apart from the resolution, if that were the wish of the Council, that the Council commission a program review that should be independent--either in-house or bringing in professional assistance from outside. MR. TYLER: So if it's a concurrent matter that goes on in conjunction with these proposed contracts, some of which were to start on January of this year, it would also meet the spirit of the law, in your estimation? MR. WURDEMAN: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? MR. TYLER: Yes. if a separate resolution were drawn up regarding a mandatory program review, an independent mandatory program review along the lines of what you said and what appears to be intention of the maker of that amendment, that we would be in compliance with the Charter? MR. WURDEMAN• Yes. CHR. ARAKAKI: Mr. Tyler, I have drafted a resolution to do that, so I will be sharing that with you and sharing it with all the Councilmembers and see if you'll concur with a program review concept. Mr. Reynolds. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wurdeman, I wanted to ask you just a couple of things. One is, in this proposed amendment regarding spending some of the funds on this program review out of this grant, it seems to me that that's a flaw that we're taking money that is designated by the Federal Government for our use and now trying to take some of it for our own use. Would you agree with that or--- MR. WURDEMAN: Well, off the top of my head, I wouldn't. I would have to take a look at the grant, the terms of the grant carefully to. MR. REYNOLDS: We asked, initially, when this all started at Committee level, for a copy of the contract because we didn't know what was in the contract from the Federal Government, and governing what was to be done. In that, it requires an audit, which, I would consider, a type of review. 14 B Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 That may--I don't eapect the answer to that right now, but I think that's something we can certainly consider as a review of the program because it's already built in to the contract to that--would be signed by our County. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: We do have an auditing firm, DeLOitte & Touche that does auditing and they have been auditing the federal grants. So you can read the report. Ms. Leithead-Todd. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Mr. Wurdeman, I have a different question for you. Were you the delegate Wurdeman that went to the State--- MR. WURDEMAN: No, that was my wife. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: That was your wife. Okay. Well, then--i wondered about that. Okay. But basically, we've had one person from the public who basically testified that as elected officials that we had a duty to uphold the State Constitution and that State Constitution, Right to Privacy, which basically reads, "the right of people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling State interest. The Legislature shall take affirmative steps to implement this right." They've cited this for the proposition that it is legal to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their own homes and basically, I guess they quote Delegate Helene Hale for that proposition because apparently, she made statements that she introduced that constitutional amendment so that it would be perfectly alright to smoke marijuana in the privacy of your own home. That's one delegate speaking. i looked at a committee report, which is the official document on that amendment and that committee report does not state that the purpose of the amendment is to permit you to smoke marijuana in your home. So in me looking at this, do I go by the word of one delegate as to what her intent was, or do I go by what a committee report says? MR. WURDEMAN: Well, first you go by the plain language, then you go by the committee report, and then you go--if there's nothing there--then you can look to individual delegates, but that's the least persuasive argument. 15 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: So if there are other delegates that are also saying that's not their intent, then that would counter whatever Delegate Helene Hale said. MR. WURDEMAN: That's right. Well, in any legislative--like a con/con, or this Council, it's years after the fact--it's really impossible to reconstruct why, and I think there's cases on that why an individual member voted the way they did. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: But based on your--since you're our legal counsel, do you see that this Article I, Section 6, which is the right of people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest--that this, in any way, impacts our ability to do marijuana eradication? MR. WURDEMAN: I know of no cases that held that. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Okay, thank you very much. CHR. ARAKAKI: Thank you. Mr. Santangelo. MR. SANTANGELO: Yes, I'd like to maybe ask Ms. Kiriu, our Legislative Auditor, or maybe Ms. Leithead-Todd can answer this, I thought I understood that there was like a five percent of these that we can--- MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Some of the money could probably be allocated towards a fiscal audit. Hut the intent is to proceed with a program review, primarily the program aspects to be done by our staff, and Mr. Arakaki has already set up a meeting with the State Auditor, Marian Higa, to discuss how we go about setting up a program review, and he's already--you know, if there's any doubt about whether we're headed in that direction, I think the fact that Chairman Arakaki has already scheduled an appointment with Marian Higa shows that we're serious about this. MR. SANTANGELO: One of the reasons for our discussion, if I'm not mistaken, over this program review, is if we were to do--I think it's appropriate--I'm finding out that we could do some of the program reviews that some of the public has asked for. 16 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 They're asking for certain details and is that true, Mr. Wurdeman, that we can actually--that a program review can actually evaluate the effectiveness of a program, in terms of its spirit? MR. WURDEMAN: Well, I'm no expert in it, but reading this book this morning--the eaample they gave was Street Lights, the street light program. And they said a street light program--why do we have street lights? Well, supposedly it reduces crime, it reduces traffic accidents. A program review involves taking a street with no street lights and a street with street lights and finding--we're making a determination as to whether, in fact, street lights do what they're supposed to do. MR. SANTANGELO: Thank you. So, just in that spirit, I think that the public should understand that to find those kinds of things out is extensive and expensive, and so we're being asked to spend a lot of money on that too. Is that correct? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: I mean, I don't envision going out to investigate whether street lights are appropriate or not. I mean, if you're going to go down to that level, frankly, you could take the entire County budget and spend it trying to depend whether every single expenditure we make is appropriate. But what you can do with the program review, and what i anticipate, and Chairman Arakaki is working on the parameters, is you have our Auditor's Office come up with a draft proposal of what the review would be, in particular, you would set out what the purpose of the funding is--what are the goals of the funding, and then you would set out steps on how you would review whether those goals were being met, and the Auditor's Office would come back with their draft proposal of what the parameters of the program review would be, and then as a body, we would approve whether that's what we wanted them, in fact, to do, if those were the parameters or if there were other areas that we wanted them to investigate. 17 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 MR. SANTANGELO: Because I know in Lieutenant Fukui's report, he answers some of those questions and I can verify it in our community where we have a lot of confrontation boobie traps, you know. The community is safer--I've been, as Councilman Yagong, we been working with the pig hunters in the community, in terms of environmentalists and hunting and the mountains, and you'll find most pig hunters are very much in favor of eradication because it puts them at risk, and that risk level has gone down considerably over the last 10 years, so even those are effective. But thank you very much. CHR. ARAKAKI: Okay, the program review, I'll share this with you and you can look at the parameters. Mr. Yagong. MR. YAGONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the things that I came today to this Council meeting concerned was some of the questions raised about the program review and the four years--whether it should be terminated should a program review is not done. I'm quite satisifed with Mr. Wurdeman's donation and I do want to reiterate that I think this entire Council feels strongly about doing a program review and that will be done, whether it's being funded through this program or it be funded through the County. I don't think any member of this Council has any problem with doing this program review. in fact, the people from the law enforcement--Mr. Fukui, for eaample--he welcomes a program review. So I think that will be done. So I'm happy that is satisfied for me. The other thing I'd like to do is congratulate the people that came in to testify here today. As you all know, we've had public meetings on this particular subject where we had mostly people come in in favor pro-marijuana and so forth. So, certainly for you to come in today and testify--i know I certainly appreciate it because the majority of people that I've talked to, and I really mean a vast majority of people that I've talked to--quite frankly, feel that we're sort of wasting time on this thing here. There's some they feel that should be just a done deal, because it deals with a particular product that is illegal, and I want to say that the mass majority of the people, in my district, anyway, are certainly in favor of eradication of this particular drug. 18 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 The third thing I do want to say is, you know, as we look at these resolutions and try to decide whether to accept these monies or not--just for a second, stop and think, really, what kind of message we would be sending, as lawmakers, to the people of our community and to the entire County of Hawaii, actually, to the entire State of Hawaii, when lawmakers that are empowered to protect the people, do not take steps to rid of a drug that we all know is harmful, and that we all know is a detriment to society, especially to our youths. I think it would be a terrible message for us not to accept all these monies, and quite frankly, I can even think of the enforcement people from the different counties out there saying, "My God, what's happening there in Hawaii County? I mean, maybe it's good they don't get the money so that we can get more of it in our Counties," because, I mean, there's people out there that certainly look at this as saying, "Let's do it." So I'd like to say that I am totally in favor of these resolutions and i certainly encourage the rest of my colleagues to vote on it favorably and make sure that we do things that help us to battle this particular job that certainly we need to rid of here on the Biq Island. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. ARAKAKI: Thank you, Mr. Yagong. Mr. Tyler, I hope it's the last question. MR. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had a lot of testimony and a lot of time spent on this issue--this is an important issue--and the last session of the Finance Committee, there were many concerns expressed by the members of the Committee and members of this Council regarding procedure, process, mandatory program reviews and some lack of information, etc. I just--I'd ask to defer the matter until we could have these things taken care of and i just wanted to let the members of the public know this was not a vote to legalize marijuana and this was not a vote to not continue the eradication. It was a vote to get more information. 19 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 You see in front of you this stack of information which has been given to me from both the proponents and the opponents, and I have tried to go through all of this carefully, giving each of them fair consideration, and we've also talked to many people in the community, in the community that I represent, North Kona, as well as people in Hilo, as I travel around. I think it's very clear to me that the majority of the people of this island want this program to continue. While I recognize there were serious allegations of possible misuse of civil rights, etc., I believe that those questions have to be addressed in the courts. i don't think that it is the purview of this body. I don't condone anything like that, for one second, and we should do everything we can to make sure that personal property and civil rights are not abridged in any way, if, in fact, those occurred. Some of the allegations, after reading some of these materials, I'm not sure that they actually happened. Hut I think the point is that we sit here to represent the people who put us here and as I said earlier, the vast majority of the people that I've talked to that have communicated with me--people on the street, believe that this program should continue because they're very concerned--most importantly about the primary objective which is drugs and the effect it's having on young people. I received a letter from the Principal of Konawaena High School who said that this was very important and very needed because of the effect it's having on students there. I think we've heard it from the students themselves--that was very important this morning, and I just wanted the members of the public to know that I feel very strongly about the Charter--the mandatory program review and the Constitution and I will do as Mr. Yagong said, I believe, all of our colleagues here agree, you'll do what is pono--what we're legally obligated to do and we will do what we can do to uphold the spirit, not just the intent and the letter of the law. And I thank Mr. Wurdeman for being here. 20 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 But I think, as Mr. Yagonq said, we would be sending a very bad message to the youth who are confused about this--they don't understand all these little intricacies and I would--in this particular case, i believe we need to send a very strong message. And so I will be voting to support this resolution. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Thank you, Mr. Tyler. I appreciate that. Mr. Ray. MR. RAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Committee, I initially voted to defer this resolution and then after listening to the arguments and the comittments by the Council clearly to support a program review--in the spirit of cooperation, I voted for it in Committee. I felt then, and i still believe today, that at least in spirit, that we haven't fulfilled our obligation to effectively review this program. It sounds like we're probably okay legally but in spirit anyway, I think we've dropped the ball there, and especially in terms of comittments that were made by the prior Council, in terms of program reviews, which I sat on that prior Council, and personally committed to following up on program reviews, which didn't happen. i guess from an overall perspective, i have real grave doubts in terms of the overall effectiveness of our so-called "war on drugs" and drug policies. I don't know how many of you have read, but recently, the DARE Program, nationwide, has come under severe criticism and a number of jurisdictions have actually voted not to receive any more money for DARE Programs because they don't feel like that's the most effective use of taxpayers dollars. I certainly don't question the effectiveness of this program, in terms of eliminating a large percentage of eradicate--of marijuana on the ground, and I absolute support the Police and going after these funds to do their job, which is enforcing the law. That's what they should be doing and that's what they are doing, and I applaud their efforts. 21 i Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 But I feel like we need more information in regard to the overall net effects of this program and the overall effectiveness of our drug policies. But in the spirit of cooperation and listening to all the other Council people in terms of their commitment for program reviews, I'll support these resolutions today and I hope it leads to answering some of these critical questions. I think we'll all agree that we've got to spend our public resources as effectively as possible, especially in such critical areas as drug policies and no matter how popular a program may be, such as the DARE Program, we wouldn't be doing our job if we treated any type of program as hands-off or sort of, sacred cows. We get paid to make hard decisions and look at all these programs, and I hope that's what we'll continue to do. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Thank you, Mr. Ray. Mr. Ray, Resolution 94-97, the first THEREFORE, does refer to a program review and I am--i'll be showing you a program review concept that we can implement to do some of the things that you want to do. So I'm very happy that you'll be supporting it. Okay, the motion on the floor--if there is no other--the motion on the floor is to approve Resolution 94-97, Draft 2, and we also amended the Finance Committee Report 103. Mr. Smith, you want to speak on this? MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I should because of the fact that along with Mr. Tyler, in the last Committee meeting, I voted against this funding. But you know it's against the law, and today--maybe my district does not understand and maybe i have some people out there that feel that we should do away with this and that I have talked to the Chairman and we have agreed, I think, more or less, to do a program review program, and today I feel that when i heard that they were smoking--these people were smoking marijuana outside this County Building, they have no respect whatsoever of the law, and those that did it--my grandkids said, "Shame on them. They should not be doing that:" What are they trying to teach our kids? 22 Hawaii County Council July 2, 1997 So, I just wanted to make sure that the people understand that today I'm voting for this and I will continue to vote for it, and whatever it takes--we're going to try to take care of the illegal drug. Thank you. CHR. ARAKAKI: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Is there any any other discussion? (There were none.) Hearing none, Mr. Clerk. The roll call vote on Resolution 94-97, Draft 2, was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Leithead-Todd, Ray, Reynolds, Santangelo, Smith, Tyler, Yagong and Chairman Arakaki - 8. NOES: None ABSENT & EXCUSED: Councilmember Chung - 1. CHR. ARAKAKI: Resolution 94-97, Draft 2, is adopted. 23