2000-03-25 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

minutes 03-25-00Page 25 of 34 assigned by the Mayor and Managing Director’. Okay, well, assigned by which? Is that to be conflicting? Whose orders control? Does there have to be both? What if one conflicts? Who really decides? You’ve said elsewhere that all the power will be exercised - For the Mayor, or in Department Heads, the general supervisory control is of, by, through the Mayor, or from the Mayor, but it’s through the Managing Director. Well, if the Mayor has supervisory general control, are you saying that he can’t exercise it unless his appointee actually exercises it? What do you mean? With adding up all these concerns, I feel that it’s not clear as to who gets to make the call. When and how does the Mayor override anything? Or who really controls? I’m not clear and I’m afraid the courts won’t be clear, nor will the Mayors and Council members when they’re trying to figure out why something is happening, and finger pointing begins, as it certainly will. I know I’ve been speaking a long time so I’m just going to cut short with a couple of other comments. Planning Commission. I understand that the changes are for clarification, and pretty much would serve. I suppose they’re intended to inform the public as much as anything else, as the way things are under State Law, and I’m sympathetic with that, however, I would concur with remarks by others that the Planning Commission in our County, I believe, should be advisory. A common remark by Planning Commissioners, and was stated here earlier by someone, that I’ve heard before is complaining about this through prior attempts for Charter Amendments, is well, we don’t think we’d want to serve, or who would want to serve if our opinions are only advisory. I’m still looking forward to the day when the Mayor’s Office has to advertise in the newspaper, to the general public in earnest, to please have volunteers step forward to provide advice to the County Council on what to do. I’m looking forward to that. I have never, ever, seen a genuine effort to solicit people from the rank and file of our public to participate, and I think we’re a long way from exhausting qualified public interest in serving on an advisory board. Public Works Director, I think must have civil engineering experience. I would agree, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a registered professional engineer, but should need to have demonstrable civil engineering experience. Your language, right now, does not state that. It simply says administrative. I think, if you’re going to bring this forward to the voters for a change at all, you should insert a requirement that they have experience with civil engineering. The Cost-of-Government Commission. I think it’s a good idea, but every two years, I think, will be counterproductive. If you’re always examining what was touched on two years before, you’re going to be endorsing a snail’s pace because you’re always going to get the answer that we’re working on it, and we’ve made this little change, and we’re about to do more. That’s the same answer you’re going to get two years later. I would suggest, that if you want to proceed with this, that you propose it to be convened every four years, and in particular, that it be convened during the second year of the mayoral term. That means they’ll begin to analyze what a Mayor has been doing, and what they’ve said they were going to do, if anything, during the second year. The first year has already passed, and they’ll have that second year of appointment, getting convened as you’ve been, and begin examination. And you said report in 11 months. Well, whether it’s 11 or 12, but basically the Mayor will be on the job two years by the time the report comes out, and can be held accountable, and it can become an election issue for his or her opponents, as to whether they have made progress from that. I think those are constructive ways to use it, and every four years, there’s a basis to expect material change. Lastly, on the Water Commission and other district Commissioner appointments. If we do go to a system, which I will support, for the at-large mix for reasons I have stated in the beginning - If we go to a system where there are only six districts that you’re appointing from, for all of these Commissions which should be consistent, I would suggest, to avoid the doubling and tripling possibilities per district or area, that you state something to prevent that. You could state something like this, that it’s for six districts, you could state that no district - Because if there’s six, then you do have duplication in an area, that means there’s got to be two from some district, right? That no district shall have more than two members under any circumstances, and no contiguous districts shall have two members per district. So that would mean, for example, the judicial district of Kona could have one person - Naturally there’d be one person there. If the Mayor were to appoint a second person in Kona, it would be not possible under this for Kohala to have two district people, or for Ka’u to have two people appointed. Now, could that work? I don’t know. Maybe, as a result of geography, because the districts on this side are big enough, that would be counterproductive, but I’m suggesting you consider language something like that that would prevent any contiguous districts like South Hilo, Puna, Hamakua, to all have those double appointees. Thank you for allowing me to speak at this length. RAY: Okay, thank you, Keola. MARTIN: Point of clarification on that who was going to stay with the nine if it passed. RAY: Dr. Michael Christopher, followed by Brenda Ford. file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-25-00.html7/1/2011