|
Transcript of Meeting of April 29, 2000Page 16 of 64
<br />Mayor. That politicizes the entire structure of the department. I think the Department Heads should be
<br />approved by the County Council based on submission of qualified applicants by anyone. Anyone can
<br />submit an application themselves, or recommended by someone. But it seems to me that the County
<br />Council should appoint the Department Heads based on a simple majority.
<br />Additionally, the change that you have proposed to strip some of the requirements for the Department
<br />Heads, I object to, and I would like to explain why. I come from a very, very technical industry,
<br />telecommunications. I worked there for 22 years. The telephone company - this happened to be in
<br />California - got on a program where they wanted to professionalize their management team and so they
<br />went to the colleges and they hired hundreds, if not thousands, of MBA’s, and brought them into this
<br />very technical organization, and put them in positions of authority over engineers, technicians,
<br />craftsmen, etc. Even the marketing people, they put them in charge of that. These people had no concept
<br />of what makes a telephone work. They had no concept of a line running from a central office to a home,
<br />and how it had to physically be in one piece or the call didn’t go through. They had no concept of
<br />anything. These people were put in authority, in making technical decisions, over groups of engineers
<br />who were infinitely more qualified to understand and even explain how a telephone system should work.
<br />It was a disaster, a complete disaster. It basically ‘dumbed’ down the functionality of the telephone
<br />company in California for years and years. Most of those MBA’s got so frustrated that they left the
<br />company. I have to agree with Mr. Erway’s comment that it’s very hard to find a qualified engineer
<br />who’s a good manager, but it’s more difficult to find a competent manager who understands and can
<br />make good technical decisions. I think that’s absolutely true. I think what we’re doing is reversing the
<br />two positions in each one of these departments, and when I’m speaking of this, I’m talking about any
<br />department that has a requirement for any kind of technical expertise. The top person, the head of the
<br />department, should be a fully qualified professional capable of making a technical decision based on an
<br />informed decision based on their knowledge, their education and their professional qualifications. The
<br />Deputy Head of that department should be your administrator. That person does not need to have full
<br />technical qualifications to administer the department, but what you’ve done is reversed those positions.
<br />You’re trying to make a manager out of the head technical person and you’re trying to make the Deputy
<br />the head technical person. You need to reverse that. The top person, who has the ultimate responsibility
<br />for making technical decisions, must be fully qualified. Let the Deputy be the administrator. That would
<br />be a more appropriate function, and that’s the way most corporations work in technical corporations.
<br />Regarding the 6-3 Council split. I’m opposed to this. It makes me queasy to think that West Hawaii
<br />would eventually gain the power to dominate three of those votes. It’s not right for us to do it. It is not
<br />right for Hilo to do it. It’s bad government. It’s bad representation and I’m completely opposed to that.
<br />We have had, on this island, one elected official who’s in charge of representing the entire island. Not
<br />only has this individual not represented the entire island, but they have told many people in this room, to
<br />their face, I don’t care about West Hawaii; I don’t care about your roads in West Hawaii; I don’t care
<br />what happens to any of your people in West Hawaii. That is the fear that we, in West Hawaii, have
<br />should we have these three at-large members, that we will have the same negative, adverse attitude
<br />directed at us. It’s the same thing with the representation on this Board. It is so skewed to one side of the
<br />island that we feel that we come and speak here and very few of you really are listening to the concerns
<br />of our side of the island. We drive the tax base. We’re paying outrageous amounts of money, and
<br />Arakaki, himself, said in a Council meeting, you chose to live on that side of the island. Now you can
<br />just pay the taxes. Okay? This is the attitude that needs to stop, and it is not going to stop until we get
<br />equal representation on all of our Commissions, and on our Council. The at-large will not do that.
<br />Now, regarding Commissions. Whatever number of districts we have, and we have nine right now, so
<br />nine’s the number I’m going to pick out of the air. Every Commission should have nine members on it.
<br />There should be one member of each district. I believe that the Council member from that district should
<br />supply a list of potential candidates for that Commission position to be voted on by a simple majority of
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 04-29-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|