Laserfiche WebLink
Corporation Counsel Ashida indicated Maui is in the middle of their Charter revision. <br />Each of the respective counties and each of the charters have a provision that every <br />10 years there’s a mandatory review, which means the Charter Commission is <br />empanelled and required to comb through the charter to make any recommended <br />changes. Like the State constitution, the charters can only be amended, changed <br />and repealed by the voters. Hawai‘i County went through the Charter revision in <br />2010. Different counties are on a different schedule; Maui’s ballot questions will <br />appear on the 2012 ballot. <br /> <br />As the charter requires, Maui’s current practice is that the commission select/hire and <br />fire the chief. There is a proposal being floated in Maui which would essentially <br />repeal that provision and return that authority to the mayor. There are a lot of forces <br />and dynamics at play that even go beyond the Island of Maui. Certain actions taken <br />by the Kauai Police Commission, in their action or inaction in selecting a former chief <br />of police on Kauai, led to a significant push by proponents that should not allow <br />commissions to do this but rather return the authority to the mayor. <br /> <br />Corporation Counsel Ashida stated this is a remarkable political fire storm that is <br />going on in Maui. As a Commission, the Commission needs to decide what to do, <br />does the Commission respond, the Commission could respond and say thank you for <br />your letter but basically, what happens in Maui is beyond the scope of this <br />Commission’s jurisdiction. <br /> <br />Chair Taniguchi thanked Corporation Counsel Ashida for his insight. Chair Taniguchi <br />indicated he is inclined to agree with Commissioners Henkel and Lee that it is not this <br />Commission’s kuleana and transmit a letter as such. As a professional courtesy, the <br />Commission does have an obligation to respond. <br /> <br />Corporation Counsel Ashida also stated he is willing to do the letter. The <br />Commission has all of its minutes and proceedings which are public record, and if <br />Maui so chooses, the Commission can provide those documentations. His concern <br />is that he does not want to see this Commission used in a political process. <br /> <br />Commissioner Henkel asked if this matter can be tabled to the next regular meeting <br />and get input from the commissioners that are absent. <br /> <br />Chair Taniguchi replied the Commission could certainly do so; Chair Taniguchi also <br />asked Corporation Counsel Ashida to provide the Commission with a draft letter to <br />discuss at the next meeting. <br /> <br />Commissioner Moku stated he endorses the position that the Commission doesn’t <br />get involved. <br /> <br />Commissioner Moku moved that with the consensus of the Commissioners currently <br />present at this meeting, the Commission draft a response for review stating this <br />Commission is taking no position on the matter and at the next meeting; turn over the <br />latest draft for review by all commissioners. <br /> <br />Commissioner Henkel seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously by voice <br />vote. <br />8 <br /> <br />