|
whereas the communities of interest is the biggest thing they wanted to keep together. So that
<br />is obviously one of the questions that we need to consider, and that is why she is asking you.
<br />MS. UGALDE: Because of what was said to me, not in a meeting, but after a meeting, just
<br />discussing; it is important for me and I assume others, to really get a handle on the importance. It
<br />is really hard to follow all of these, try to make everybody happy, and road connectivity as it
<br />relates to my district in particular, is critical. If we shall, if we must follow road connectivity, we
<br />are going to be up the creek with the proverbial. Nothing personal, but Mike seemed to know all
<br />of this off the top of his head; and I really wanted it read into the record.
<br />MR. CHANG: In general, there is a Hawaii case law where, in terms of terminology, "shall"
<br />versus "may," the Hawaii Supreme Court doesn't necessarily view "shall," the word "shall" as a
<br />must do. So, with respect to the Ordinance, where it is saying "shall" or it is saying "may," there
<br />is some flexibility. You can look at what, again if it's something that isn't feasible, then, I would
<br />say, for you, as long as you are acting reasonable, making a reasonable decision, that really is the
<br />standard that you should be looking at in terms of your decision - making. If you are making a
<br />reasonable decision, that essentially is going to hold up in court, is what you are looking at.
<br />CHR. SIRACUSA: Kyle, you see, there seems to be a big disconnect between what we are
<br />hearing from the communities as we go around the island - -and you have been there, so you've
<br />heard that too - -and what the rules are telling us. The rules are telling us that the top priority is
<br />that one person, one vote, and keeping those numbers within a very narrow margin of just over
<br />1,000 people in deviation. And what we are hearing from the people is "no matter what you do,
<br />please keep our community together." So it is really hard; why do we even bother going out to
<br />those nine council hearings to hear what people have to say, if we don't have any kind of leeway
<br />to give them, the people in the community, what they want, if we are forced into keeping a very
<br />narrow deviation.
<br />MR. CHANG: Well, Madam Chair, I was looking at Section 36 -10, Subsection (b)7(a), which
<br />allows for divergence. I guess the caveat to that is that if the Commission is going to make any
<br />kind of divergence from the criteria, they would have to have a public meeting, have public
<br />comment on that, and it would actually need to be before the deadline to submit alternate plans.
<br />Unfortunately, I guess, since I am Mike's substitute, I don't know where you are, if the deadline
<br />has passed or not for Alternate Plans, for you to actually diverge from the rules. So, assuming
<br />that that time has come and gone, then you won't be able to diverge from the rules in that sense.
<br />However, I would go back to, again, looking at your criteria, and really working within
<br />yourselves to try to meet all the criteria as best you can. As long as you act reasonably, then your
<br />decision - making will be valid.
<br />MS. POINDEXTER: I would just like to say that it's kind of sad that we didn't move on this
<br />earlier, and didn't have enough information to move on it earlier so that we could deviate from
<br />the deviations.
<br />MR. MIDDLESWORTH: I asked Mike early on in this process about the internal inconsistencies
<br />in the Ordinance and about these conflicts. His advice then, was that we do what we think is best.
<br />It all comes down to that. There is no penalty clause in either the Ordinance or in the Charter
<br />7
<br />
|