|
minutes 03-25-00Page 14 of 34
<br />current system, candidates are already free to run non-partisan candidates. The ‘old boys’ want to make it mandatory to run
<br />as a non-partisan candidate so everyone looks the same at first glance, and it all comes down to who’s going to have the most
<br />money.
<br />I was going to comment on amendment 7, but apparently you’re shifting that. That was, originally, the Legislative Auditor’s
<br />amendment in regards to how it was going to be set up. But that’s the one you’re shifting from an Auditor’s to a Research,
<br />number 7.
<br />RAY: We’re really renaming it. We don’t feel like we’re shifting it in terms of what it does.
<br />BONK: You’re renaming it. Okay, if you’re renaming it, my only concern is that what happened to the original intent and
<br />that was to audit. So, you have to consider are you going to be responsible for actually auditing, which I think has been a
<br />negligent part of our government, and that’s something you might want to think about.
<br />Some of the amendments that are proposed by this body are good. I support the idea of professionalizing the Managing
<br />Director’s position, for instance. However, these other amendments are bad, so bad that I want to concentrate on asking you
<br />to reconsider these amendments and voting against number 1, number 2, number 6, and number 10.
<br />I suppose that you’ve had more discussion than we’ve been able to see here, because I cannot see, in any of the documents
<br />that I’ve been presented with, why some of these ideas were initiated. In fact, I don’t know what the problem was that you
<br />were trying to correct in certain cases. For instance, in terms of number 1 and number 2, what were the problems we were
<br />trying to correct? That would be a good way to start dealing with your Charter Amendments. Identify the problem for the
<br />public. Identify it clearly, and it’s got to be a problem worth resolving, and had much input before you change it. If you are
<br />trying to resolve problems to clean up corruption and waste in government, and create a more responsible and efficient
<br />government, which I hope that’s the motivation, then you might want to consider two other kinds of alternatives for the
<br />future. One would be a Civil Grand Jury, with the power to investigate corruption and citizen complaints in the government.
<br />This has been done in areas like San Diego. And there you have a nomination process where anyone can nominate
<br />themselves and then there’s a random drawing as to who’s going to be picked for the Grand Jury, and they go and investigate
<br />government and any problems that might be going on.
<br />Number 2 would be to form a Civic Participation Commission designed to develop a comprehensive and detailed plan of
<br />long-term reform designed to increase citizen participation and trust in County government. So, again I’m urging you to vote
<br />against 1, 2, 6, and 10. Mahalo for your time.
<br />RAY: Thank you. Next -
<br />HERKES: John, I have a question, and it’s not necessarily for Ms. Bonk, but maybe Mr. Yuen or you have the answer. Since
<br />this SMA question has come up and the Planning Commission, I wondered how the Planning Commission got these powers
<br />in the first place. I remember a discussion about the County Council mandating them to have these powers. Is that true?
<br />YUEN: On the SMA permits, that comes from the State Law that set up the permits in the first place. The State Law set up
<br />the idea of having the Special Management Area and once the boundaries of that are set, any development within the Special
<br />Management Area requires this permit, which is called the SMA permit. The State Statute goes on to say that the authority,
<br />which gives the permit, shall be the County Planning Commission, except in those counties in which the Planning
<br />Commission has only advisory functions, and this was enacted about 1975. From the beginning of our County Charter in
<br />1969, the Planning Commission has had some actual permitting powers and authorities. Right now, in addition to the SMA
<br />permits, they issue Special Permits which are for unusual uses in the agricultural district, and they issue Use Permits which
<br />are some special uses which are allowed by the Zoning Code on a case-by-case basis within particular districts. Just to give
<br />an example, in residential districts, somebody can build a telecommunications tower. That’s allowed by the Zoning Code, but
<br />they need a Use Permit on a case-by-case basis from the Planning Commission. That’s set up in the County Ordinance.
<br />HERKES: Thank you.
<br />BONK: One example of the Planning Commission using their Special Permitting process was the Akahi Joint Venture which
<br />is a lot larger kind of project than just putting up a pole. That was a whole resort development type of project.
<br />G. MARTIN: Mr. Chair, if I may. Several questions and a comment to touch upon what you were saying, and I was told not
<br />to antagonize the body this morning. So I’m not going to try and do that, and I hope I don’t. But I come from Hamakua and,
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-25-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|