|
minutes 03-25-00Page 22 of 34
<br />to the Mayor again, as is being mentioned, and if there’s some avenue to do that then.
<br />MOORE: I think if you have a seven person Commission, for example, it’s not too bad to have two people on that
<br />Commission who really have an axe to grind.
<br />RAY: So, how would you determine that? Who those two people would be?
<br />MOORE: Let the organization in question pick them out. Let’s take the Fire or Police. Let the organization designate two
<br />people that they’d like to have serve.
<br />RAY: So, in the Commission, we would have what designated organization? The Outdoor Circles appoint someone to the
<br />Planning Commission. Is that your suggestion? Something like that?
<br />MOORE: I suppose. I’m not familiar with that area, but -
<br />RAY: No, no. I’m just using that as an example. Okay.
<br />MOORE: I’m thinking of Fire, Police, that sort of thing.
<br />RAY: All right. And in regard to your comment about conflicting department jurisdictions, actually what we’re suggesting
<br />would move it in the other direction. The way it works right now, with regard to subdivisions, is it is shared by the Planning
<br />Department and the Public Works Department. The Administration had suggested shifting that to Public Works. The Charter
<br />language would enable that to happen in the future. But the way it is now is more of a shared responsibility between the two.
<br />So I’m not commenting whether that’s better or worse, but that’s the way it is.
<br />Okay. Keola Childs, followed by Dr. Michael Christopher.
<br />CHILDS: Thank you, Commissioners. I, too, want to thank you for the website which has helped lead the way in getting
<br />some information out. I’ve taken advantage of it to follow what you’ve been doing because I haven’t been able to get to
<br />where most of your meetings are. So, thank you very much. I’ve got a number of sections to comment on. For me, when I
<br />began to look at the Charter, as thinking myself, what would I like to see or what do I feel is the most critical thing that must
<br />be changed or, at least, brought before the voters to change, my feeling is that the overarching philosophy of Charter review,
<br />if anything can come out of this, is to strengthen the County Council as a body within the County government, as opposed to,
<br />or along side of, the Executive Branch. It’s my feeling from my personal experience with two terms earlier in the last decade,
<br />and watching the Council before then and since then, that the current make-up is simply not delivering quality people, by and
<br />large, over a period of time, and there’s no person or personalities to identify in that comment. That it doesn’t, in fact,
<br />statistically and objectively, does not seem to be delivering results. I would like to suggest what I mean in a couple of areas.
<br />There has been the turnover since this began in 1992, when I began my first of my two terms. Per Council district, either
<br />through resignations, decisions not to run again, withdrawals to run for higher office such as Mayor, or simply not being re-
<br />elected, the turnover has been, out of four elections that have been held to date, I think all but one, there might be two, of the
<br />nine districts has had three Council members elected in four election terms. There are a couple of Council districts - I think
<br />there’s one during that time, that has held the same Council member throughout. But that statistic of turnover is stunning.
<br />Now, will that continue in the future? Was that because we were simply adjusting to a new political system, a new type of
<br />advocates as those of us that served through there, and those that watched how they did, began to realize how far you could
<br />go, and couldn’t go, in constituencies and partisanship, or issue-oriented situations? It may be that, and that would be an
<br />argument for the other side, that this is a cultural adjustment in the political landscape. I don’t think so. I think the problem is
<br />deeper than simply a phase-in. What I’ve seen is that it takes roughly six months for a newly elected first-time person to get a
<br />feel of what the heck is going on, certainly a month or two to even have an idea of what the system really is. After you’ve
<br />been going for a year, concentration has to deal with elections if there’s any interest by that candidate to be re-elected. What I
<br />have seen among colleagues is that sensitive issues that may be sensitive to a controlling constituency, or several members,
<br />districts, will not come up. It will be buried. It will be held. I’ll just, to be arbitrary, pick up sewer rates as an example. If
<br />people in a district, or portion of the island, which is largely sewered, as had been East Hawaii earlier this last decade - It’s
<br />now being a little more balanced. If costs were going to raise in their constituents, and even though there might be five or six
<br />votes to support a change, if that constituency in those areas had a significant position on the Council, in as far as political
<br />body and leadership, those measures would not come up. And they did not come up to the point of violation of Federal Law,
<br />as been recently cited. And even those remarks were made in advisory to Council on the record, it didn’t matter because
<br />political survival was at stake. That is a flaw of single member districts which hurt. For example, at that time, this side of the
<br />island, because it meant more of West Hawaii’s tax dollars were supporting an East Hawaii deficient which, by Federal Law,
<br />had to be corrected, and wasn’t. There are other examples but I’ll just point to that one as a case where even under single
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-25-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|