|
minutes 04-01-00Page 7 of 22
<br />RAY: This wouldn’t move it.
<br />FRANKEL: Right.
<br />RAY: This would remove a barrier from moving it, so do you think that’s a bad idea?
<br />FRANKEL: I don’t know. I’m just pointing this out as a potential problem. Maybe that’s something that would need to be
<br />discussed when the ordinance is done. Maybe it’s a possibility that we don’t want to even allow to occur. I think I’d be more
<br />strenuously opposed to this if the Planning Department had been doing its job for the past couple of decades. Because the
<br />Planning Department has been ineffective, maybe we don’t lose anything, but I have hope that the Planning Department’s
<br />going to turn around in the next four years and therefore, I’m a little concerned about the ramifications.
<br />The third point I wanted to make is it makes sense to combine all the functions, Wastewater and other things that the Public
<br />Works Department has, into a Department of Environmental Services. But if you’re going to do that, I do strongly
<br />recommend that you remove the requirement that the head be a registered engineer. That requirement is an antiquated
<br />requirement that Robert Moses introduced in the 1930's in New York City and it was transferred across the country when
<br />Civil Service reform was all the rage, and it has become a curse because it really limits the opportunities to have broad
<br />thinking people head that department.
<br />RAY: Okay, now, are you speaking about the Department of Public Works or the new department?
<br />FRANKEL: The new department. I guess I was under the impression that the Department of Public Works was, sort of, going
<br />to disappear into the Department of Environmental Services.
<br />RAY: No, no. The Public Works Department would still exist, would still be in charge of four divisions, Building,
<br />Engineering, Traffic, whatever. So, there’d still be a Public Works Department, may or may not be headed by a registered
<br />engineer. Then there’d be a separate Department of Environmental Management, which could or could not be, we’d have to
<br />decide that, headed by a registered engineer. So, they’re separate. So, your suggestion is that we don’t mandate the
<br />Department of Environmental being headed by a registered engineer.
<br />FRANKEL: Right, Environmental Services being - Particularly if solid waste and recycling are issues where you do not need
<br />to have an engineering background to head the department. Yes, you need to have engineers in your department, for example,
<br />to design a good landfill, but you don’t need one to design a successful recycling program. In fact, I would suggest there’s a
<br />lot of engineers who don’t design recycling programs properly.
<br />The last point I wanted to make, which is my most important point, is I’m strongly opposed to the idea of having at-large
<br />Council members. I think that is a huge step backwards for the County. Anyone who runs for an at-large seat requires a lot of
<br />money. Some of you have run for office before. You know that one of the burdens of running for office is raising money.
<br />There’s no question that if you are running for office for an island-wide seat, you need far more money than you do for one
<br />Council seat. You need far more money. Look at how much money the current candidates are spending. Look at how much
<br />money was spent in the last campaigns for Mayor vs. any Council seat. What this does is it reduces the influence of ordinary
<br />citizens, and I think that’s anti-democratic. In addition, you’re enlarging the size of each Council district, making the Council
<br />members even more remote from very diverse districts. I think that’s a gross disservice to the public. I think, given the
<br />current climate of people wanting campaign finance reform, adopting at-large districts for the Council is the complete
<br />antithesis of campaign finance reform. It encourages more big money to influence the campaign process, and that’s not the
<br />way people want to go. So, I really urge you to remove that from your list of things going to the voters. If you remove that, I
<br />think you’ve got a pretty good set of recommendations to the voters. If you don’t, you’re going to antagonize a large element
<br />of the public and you risk having everything voted down. Thank you.
<br />HERKES: Mr. Ray, I have a question for Mr. Frankel. Do you know how much, let’s pick Chairman Arakaki, spent on his
<br />last campaign?
<br />FRANKEL: I don’t.
<br />HERKES: Okay, I would suspect that he spent about as much in a single district as you can spend in an island-wide race. I
<br />don’t have those figures, but I’m certainly going to look them up because I think the money angle is not appropriate. I think
<br />you can spend just as much money in a single district race as you can in an island-wide race. I want to vote for four people.
<br />That’s why I’m in favor of this. I want to have a broader representation for Kona than is now, so that’s why I’m in favor. But
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 04-01-00.htm7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|