2004-03 Council Member Term Limits Article III, Section 3-2, Hawaii County Charter

Home

Honorable Bob Jacobson May 26, 2004 Page 3 aforementioned Charter provision and our Rules of Professional Responsibility to represent this position. The filing of a petition for declaratory relief would require at minimum, in our opinion, a party asserting a position contrary to Mr. Konishi's findings. Although many have spoken out regarding this issue, no one has stepped up to the plate to allow a court to properly examine this issue. The Corporation Counsel concluded the premature filing of a petition for declaratory relief, without an identified adversarial party, would violate the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure and constitute a frivolous filing. Clearly, our County's legal representative should not be party nor responsible for such an unwarranted filing, which may result in monetary sanctions levied against our office, which would be borne by our taxpayers. It is our understanding Mr. Arakaki has recently pulled papers for reelection as a Council member. Although not filed, Mr. Konishi has previously publicly represented he would accept such an application. To date, we are unaware of any legal challenges filed against Mr. Konishi based on this assertion. Thus, although the Corporation Counsel stands ready to have this matter heard and decided by a Court, we are unable to get there, since no person or organization has been willing to participate in such litigation. We will now summarize our research and conclusions in finding Mr. Konishi's position legally prudent and defensible. Article lll, Section 3-2, Hawaii County Charter The present Charter provision pertaining to term limits reads in pertinent part as follows: The terms of the council members shall not exceed four consecutive two year terms. Candidates shall be elected in accordance with the election laws of the state, insofar as applicable. As reported in Mr. Konishi's findings, the Charter amendment lacks a stated effective date, lacks transitional provisions, lacks proper notice to our voters, and lacks any significant legislative history. A detailed recitation of these problems would be redundant and not productive here. In contrast, a similar City of Cincinnati Charter amendment placed on their November 1991 ballot read as follows: Shall the proposed amendment to the Charter of the City of Cincinnati to provide that no person shall hold the office of a member of the council for