|
administrative agencies. What I'm trying to make earlier is that absent any
<br />specific guidelines on the County level, if you look at the State level, the State
<br />level situation is not when they, when they pass law and you have all of these
<br />people going and registering. They're not registering for specific applications.
<br />They're registering to either protect their general interests or to advocate general
<br />interests on a generic level, whether it's like . It's a generic thing, it
<br />doesn't apply to an individual. But on the other hand, for example, when the
<br />public land trust law was being considered, and if you have an individual that's
<br />representing maybe Kamehameha Schools, or Campbell Estates, or whatever have
<br />you, and don't want to have that law passed, and they hire me or someone like me
<br />to say, stop that law, or to advocate, make certain changes, then I would consider
<br />under that certain case that you are definitely a lobbyist, because you are now not
<br />handling an application, you are dealing with a generic type of legislation that has
<br />broader implications, as opposed to dealing with an existing ordinance that you
<br />have, and then you have to kind of have it like, have it go through the process.
<br />So, that's my interpretation.
<br />CHAIR: , David, do you concur with that? I mean, with this generalization,
<br />that if him, then architects, engineers, and the rest of the professions that deal with
<br />the County, either discretionary or legal law decisions?
<br />FRANKEL: . Again, there are two roles that you play. One is implementing the
<br />existing law as it's written. The second is making suggestions to change existing
<br />law to the Council. But—wearing that first hat, the law provides that if there—if
<br />a lobbyist is attempting to influence legislative or administrative action, if that
<br />person is covered by the definition, then yes, they have to register, as simple as
<br />that. If they don't fall under that definition, they don't have to.
<br />CHAIR: And the second instance?
<br />FRANKEL: In the second instance, whether every architect should be included, I would not
<br />like to see a blanket exemption for architects like lawyers have. I'd like to see
<br />fewer exemptions. I'd like to point out that the Code of Ethics begins with a
<br />provision that says, provisions of the Code should be liberally construed to
<br />promote ethics in government, and I think that should guide you in terms of, you
<br />know, if there's a question of being over -board or over - narrow, you go over-
<br />broad. Might it be appropriate to provide an exemption for people who are
<br />dealing with getting a building permit? Maybe. I don't have—
<br />CHAIR: - -or a rezoning action?
<br />FRANKEL: No. Rezoning is a legislative matter, and you know, this is Sidney and I
<br />violently disagree on this matter. I mean, it's a completely incorrect paradigm to
<br />suggest that a zone change is a ministerial action. It requires legislation. It is a
<br />discretionary decision by law- makers. It is a change in the law. What an
<br />applicant does when they come for a zone change is, they're asking the public to
<br />change our law to conform to their conduct, rather than conforming their conduct
<br />to existing law. A zone change is fundamentally lobbying. A plan for a building
<br />11
<br />
|