2000-04-29 Charter Commission Minutes

Home

Transcript of Meeting of April 29, 2000Page 20 of 64 TYLER: Okay? Officers include all members of Boards and Commissions. It includes all Department Heads. It includes all elected officials, and I believe, perhaps, there’s some others in there. It’s very clear as to what it is, and this was clarified in a Charter Amendment, I believe, in 1996. Anyway, you’ll find it in your amendments. I can’t remember the year. But this is the least we can do, and this is going to help to clarify a lot of these problems. The other thing with respect to the requirements for elected office for departmental consideration in terms of Head, and also for Boards and Commissions, is that they should all be summed up in Section 13-4. It’s scattered all over and you have all these different requirements, and you’ll notice some have no residency, no geographical location, no electoral qualifications. Some have only five, some have 11, some have no numbers. And this is not good. It should be nine for every Board and Commission, including the Pension Board, including the Water Commission, including the Planning Commission, should be nine. One from every district. They should be a resident there. I mean, a bona fide resident, notice the language in the Planning Commission. Not someone who comes there sometimes. A bona fide resident – like they’re listed in the phone book, you can call them up. You can expect they’ll be there maybe a few days a week. And the other thing is that they’ll be a registered voter. You shouldn’t expect any less – We, excuse me, all of us as taxpayers, shouldn’t expect any less from other officers, who might not be elected, than those of us who are elected. I expect to be held to the absolutely highest standard, and I would expect that every other officer should be held to the absolutely highest standard. I expect to be called at 3 o’clock in the morning if there’s a problem. I expect to be called on the carpet by the citizens if I do something in violation of my oath of office. One time, and I’m gone. That’s the way it should be, I think. I’m very passionate about this, as you know, but I think that we’ve got to be consistent here. We can’t say oh well, that’s a holdover from the days when we had a 6- 3. Change the whole thing. Clean it up. And while I’m at it, 6-3 is a bad idea. I’m not going to say any more. It’s a bad idea. And let me say, with respect to persons who have sent you very compelling written, and I think, also provided oral testimony, regarding the good reasons for going to a 6-3, I respect them. And it’s very interesting, and my former colleague, Mr. Santangelo, has given some of his reasons and I know others of you have given your reasons, and I don’t mean to demean your reasons at all. I think the key to this is accountability. It goes back down to accountability. And the second one, it goes to money. Now, I was stunned to hear that Mr. Arakaki spent $70,000 on his unopposed reelection. I think I spent $36.85, or something. KRIEWALD: You spent $5,000. TYLER: How much? KRIEWALD: $5,000. TYLER: $5,000? KRIEWALD: That’s what it says on the - TYLER: Wow, I’d better talk to my wife about that. I didn’t think I had that kind of money. Well, that’s interesting. Well, I’d better keep my mouth shut on this thing. Anyway, moving along. I want to go to Section 3-9, which is on page 4. And you notice there you have two sections; one for resolutions and one for ordinances. And I would suggest that resolutions and ordinances have the same language. In other words, you can see how some of it applies and some of it doesn’t apply. It’s very clear that resolutions - there’s another section where it says resolutions shall not have the force and effect of law except otherwise - I’m sorry, 3-8, Actions of the Council. ‘Every legislative act of the Council shall be by ordinance. Non-legislative act of the Council may be by resolution and except as file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 04-29-00.html7/1/2011