HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-10 Charter Commission Minutes
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 1 of 62
Back To: Home Page | Table of Contents | Charter main page
HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000
Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room,
Hilo Lagoon Center
Attendance: J. Ray, E. Alonzo, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa (from 5:15
p.m.), J. Santangelo, G. Yoshiyama, Counsel C. Yuen
Absent: K. Balog, G. Martin
And 14 members of the public in attendance.
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.
RAY: I’d like to call the meeting to order. This is the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission. It
is Wednesday, May 10th, 5 p.m. We’re in the Hilo Lagoon Centre, Liquor Control Conference Room.
Attendance. This evening at the present time: Sue Irvine, Marni Herkes, Steve Bess, Vice Chairman
Roland Higashi, John Santangelo, Gary Yoshiyama, Eddie Alonzo, and myself John Ray, Chair. We are
expecting two more members. One of our members, George Martin, is out of town. He’s on the
mainland, so we knew that he wouldn’t be here.
Statements from the Public. We have a number people signed up. If you’re not, you need to fill out a
form other there and hand it across to the desk.
The first person signed up is Del Pranke, followed by Mai Apple McCullough. Del.
PRANKE: Thank you, Mr. Ray, Mr. Chair and Commission members. I’m here to talk against several
proposed items. We’ve talked about these some before, but new things have happened in the last couple
of weeks that I will bring to your attention, I hope to help you to understand why I’ve taken some of the
positions I have. I won’t talk about all of these because I know there are other people that will talk about
some of them. I’ve talked with them and they pretty much have some of the same ideas. So I’m going to
skip the non-partisan and the Council 3 at-large seats. I’m opposed to those.
The Fire Commission and the Police Commission items, number 4 and 16, I’m going to lump together.
The Fire Commission amendment, as it reads now - it might be changed - reads essentially the same as
the current Police Commission, and the current Police Commission has trouble doing its own job
without us getting it fixed. And the way I read the proposed amendment, that was proposed before,
would simply cause the Police Commission to get farther involved in the Police Department without
helping solve the problem of real oversight. The Police Commission should not be involved in running
the Police Department. The Police Chief is the only person who should do that. When you blur the lines
of command, you cause more problems than you solve. And the way I read it, the amendment put in by
the Police Commission would simply do that, simply put them more involved inside the Police
Department. Whoever set up the Police Commission before did at least one good thing and that was to
keep the Police Commission completely out of the day-to-day operations of the Police Department. That
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 2 of 62
should be a linear, military-type chain of command so there’s no confusion for the people who are out
on the street with their lives sometimes depending upon the fact that they know what their chain of
command is. And to set up a Fire Commission that would essentially be the same kind of thing, with no
real control, or no real oversight of the Fire Department, would be a mistake. I urge you, still, to put
before the voters the opportunity to have the Police Commission and the Fire Commission, if you wish
to put it in, appointed not by one person. Have the Police Commission and the Fire Commission, one
member from each district, appointed by the Council member from that district and approved by the rest
of the Council before they are appointed. The reason being we cut out some of the political influence
that occurs when one person appoints the people who are overseeing a part of the government that’s run
by the person appointing them. It’s just a total conflict of interest.
To give you some insight into this, it’s come to our attention in the last week or so that Wayne Carvalho
may have falsified a federal document – a document required to be filled out by someone in the County,
and it’s required by Executive Order. This is a document which would allow us to get marijuana
eradication funds from the Federal Government, and they have what they call an OJP, an Office of
Justices Program, form that has to be attached with this. And that OJP form requires that the person
signing it certify three things: (1) that the money won’t be used for lobbying; – and there’s a purpose for
me telling you this. I’m sorry. (2) there’s a debarment, and (3) that we try to have a drug free workplace.
The debarment is the key. The debarment says that you certify that the person signing this has not been
convicted of civil fraud or civil bribery within the last three years. Mr. Carvalho signed this document
on the 11th of April. I guess he can’t remember back to December. The problem is we can’t get rid of
him, and here’s what’s happened. The County of Hawaii has also been convicted of these things. We
may not be able to get any drug control money for the next three years because we can’t get rid of the
guy. We need a Police Commission that has clear authority to oversee this, that’s completely separated
from the Executive management of the County, and has the independence to take things into their own
hands, and not controlled by politics. This is a true fact. This document is now in the hands of the FBI,
and they will be looking at it. And, of course, the County Council asked the Corporation Counsel to look
into it, but we may have a problem with that.
Now, in addition to the problem of getting rid of the person, we’re stuck with the liability of this because
we can’t get rid of him, so that brings us to the second thing – the proposed Charter that I told you,
which would be the second possibility, is to allow all officers of the County to be impeachable. If we
could have impeached Mr. Carvalho, maybe we wouldn’t have been in this position, when we first
learned about this stuff some years ago. And impeachment would have been a simple surgical slice, and
then we could have gone on. But instead, this thing lingers on and drags on and we’re stuck with this
situation which is dragging us down. So I urge you to allow people to vote on the opportunity to have
each Commission member on an oversight committee appointed by Council members – only the four
oversight committees – and to allow for all officers of the County, not just the elected officers, all
officers to be impeached. And I urge you to reject the idea of making the impeachment process more
difficult. The idea of an impeachment is to quickly get something to court because an impeachment is
like a quo warranto. It goes ahead of anything else on the docket as quickly as it can, so that the judge
makes a decision. Now, the judge is still deciding by law whether someone has committed an
impeachable offense. It’s not the 100 people signing. It’s only the judge making the decision. The
purpose of the impeachment is to allow for a quick resolution to something that might otherwise drag
on, as we’re seeing in this case.
So those are the things that I would urge you, most urgently. And, of course, from my friend, Mr.
Pierson, – I don’t think he showed up. He was going to.
RAY: He’s here.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 3 of 62
PRANKE: Oh. If he’s signed up, I’m sure he’ll talk to you about having ‘telling a lie’ to be a violation
of the Code of Ethics. Thank you very much.
RAY: Okay, questions?
SANTANGELO: Del, you said you’re opposing non-partisan?
PRANKE: I am.
SANTANGELO: In ten words or less, why?
PRANKE: Well, I’m going to let other people talk about it, but non-partisan elections, I believe, don’t
allow for third and fourth party candidates the opportunity to actually gain a foothold into the election
process. But the other thing is how do we stop the money coming from parties? How are you going to
say the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, the Green Party, cannot solicit money for somebody
that they want, if that person avows himself as a Green, or such a thing? How do the citizens know that?
SANTANGELO: Well, Del, the thing I would counter with that that I struggle with this, every darn time
we’ve had somebody sit up here and talk about the Mayor, they want to talk about a minority vote getter
serving, and this solves that problem. And time and time again, on Council races and the Mayoral races,
we’ve said this guy, or this girl, did not make it, and yet they have the seat.
PRANKE: We oftentimes elect a plurality President. You know. In the past, they’ve been plurality
Presidents. That’s not been a problem. I don’t see the problem with the plurality – I mean, besides it
gives me fodder to pick at him about.
SANTANGELO: Well, that’s an honest answer.
PRANKE: But, I know that some people have complained about this, but they just don’t understand the
plurality. If we had something like the Israeli system where you had to get enough support from all these
different parties – I mean, there’s all kinds of different systems. But I don’t see any problem with this.
I’m not in favor of the non-partisan elections, but I’ll let others talk. They’re more eloquent than me.
Thank you.
RAY: Mai Apple McCullough, followed by Peter Martin.
MC CULLOUGH: Thanks for this opportunity to speak to you folks. I came basically because it was the
last chance for community input to come in, I think, on this Review Commission or proposed Charter
Amendments.
RAY: We are taking final votes this evening, but we will be meeting again. It’s probably not the last
chance.
MC CULLOUGH: Thank you. I made a list somewhere here of my yeas and nays, and I have to say I do
basically agree with Del’s testimony except for non-partisan elections. I am 100% in favor of non-
partisan elections. I don’t think that politics, or at least party politics, have any business in County
Government, and that’s what we are here is a County. I feel real strongly about that.
So, I have yeas on number 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 17, and 19, with a couple of sparse remarks. On number 4, I
want to say also -
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 4 of 62
RAY: Why don’t you identify what it is you’re opposed to, just for the record.
MC CULLOUGH: Favoring:
1. Non-partisan elections.
3. Strengthening the authority of the County Managing Director.
4. A yes tentative on waiting until after the – The Fire Commission, number 4 is the Fire Commission.
I’m sorry I feel befuddled by this request. Ya’ll have the papers, right? Everybody knows what they are.
RAY: Actually, no, we don’t have absolute numbers tied to absolute -
MC CULLOUGH: Okay, I just didn’t want to take up all the time. Okay.
4. Creating a Fire Commission. I can’t really say yes or no because, in my opinion, we need to wait to
get the Police Commission working so that we have some kind of rules that we can follow that apply to
different Commissions. I don’t think we need to create more of a brouhaha until we get things
straightened out with what we’ve got.
I am in favor of the proposed amendment 5 for a Department of Environmental Services. Sounds like a
good thing.
9. On a Safety Coordinator. Sounds good.
11. is on the Qualifications of the Heads of Department of Public Works and Department of Water
Supply, specifically. Yes, I just think it’s a good idea to have good qualified people and I think we can
make exceptions but, overall, I think that we do need to have qualified people, not necessary somebody
gets appointed because they’re somebody’s cousin or uncle or somehow related. I think the nepotism
that we have had for the way it’s always been done, kind of thing, here in Hawaii County has really got
us pretty deep in shit, if you’ll pardon the expression.
I also favor the proposed amendment 19, Cost-of-Government Commission, an overview that would
suggest ways to reduce the cost of government and increase efficiency. Okay, so that’s the yeas.
Now, on the nays:
2. Amendment on the Council to include 3 at-large seats. No way. Every district must have
representation of its own, period.
6. Amendment proposal on Planning Department functions. No, and I think it ought to just be deleted
completely.
The 7th proposed amendment on Legislative Research. I just wanted to ask, well, why do we need a
Legislative Auditor’s Office? I don’t understand. It seems like this is already being done. Do we really
need another office here? I don’t know. I guess you guys know more about it than I am, but unless we
really do, I’m not in favor of that. In other words, I would vote nay.
On the proposed amendment 8, Holdover of members of Boards and Commissions. I don’t think so. I
think it does allow the Mayor more authority over keeping things the way that it is if we don’t have a
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 5 of 62
good and benevolent Mayor, then I think that can get us in trouble. I think our Mayor has far too much
power in this County.
I’m opposed to proposed amendment 10 on the Planning Commission powers. I think that ought to just
be taken out too. It’s got to go through the Council, all this stuff – through our elected officials, in other
words, not appointees.
The 12th proposed amendment on Impeachment. I would just say no, please leave this like it is already.
It’s hard enough. Don’t increase the number of people that are registered voters who are now necessary
to get anyone impeached.
Also, no on 13, which is Special Counsel being appointed for County officers and employees when Corp
Counsel has a conflict without Council approval. This is a joke. It’s a conflict of interest all over the
place. Any place but Hawaii County, this would never get on paper in black and white in front of the
public because it’s so ludicrous.
14, I vote no on having a Board of Appeals move to the Corp Counsel.
And I vote heavy no on the 16th proposed amendment on the Police Commission being given powers to
get into the doings of the Police Department. A Police Commission, by my understanding, is supposed
to serve as a check and balance over the Police Department. That means they look at stuff and say,
because they can be objective, oh, this isn’t good. They’ve got to be objective. They can’t be too
involved in the administration, or the running, of the Police Department because then they won’t have
any objectivity.
And I also vote no on the 18th proposed amendment on the Salary Commission being given power to set
salaries. I think that this, as it is, established by ordinance, is just fine the way it is.
I think that’s everything. I’m sorry I was so verbose and used a bad word. Thank you.
RAY: Okay. Peter Martin, followed by Marshall Blann.
MARTIN: Good evening members of the Commission. We have been before you a couple of times
before recently talking about these issues. And the last time I was assured by a couple of members that
we wouldn’t need to worry about at least one of them, the at-large. I’d like to see some show here as to
how we stand on the at-large, from the members, because there’s no sense -
RAY: You’ll see as soon as we vote on it.
MARTIN: All right. We feel very, very strongly, many of us, not just in my group, but all over the
County. Yes Marni, we do.
HERKES: Some do.
MARTIN: And those people who have been listening know that. I will say that should you choose to
vote for 3 at-large, we will be obliged, as groups, and this is not a threat, with all due respect, to do our
very best to defeat all the issues because we can’t pick out one and hope that people will remember the
number. So this is very, very important. We finally have a Council which is more and more
representative of all of the districts of the island. And what this is going to do, the 3 at-large, is to take
that representation away.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 6 of 62
The other thing is the proper qualifications for Department Heads. This is really a critical issue in the
good functioning of any government. If you take the Department Head qualifications away, you leave
the door open for favoritism, appointment of people who are not qualified but happen to be friends of so
and so, etc., etc. We don’t ask a surgeon that hasn’t gone to medical school to take out our appendix and
we shouldn’t be asking a non-engineer to make engineering decisions. So we ask you very, very
sincerely to pay heed to these things. They are very important. Thank you.
RAY: Okay, thank you. Marshall Blann followed by Walt Kriewald.
BLANN: Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinions. I’ve had a chance now to study the
document which I picked up at the Waimea reading. I have a series of comments; some a little bit
substantive, the other a little bit more nitpicking.
To go out of order before going into the order of the list from Waimea, first thing was the Audit
Department. My understanding was, because they hadn’t done an audit in eight years, we’re going to
change the name to Legislative Research. Now, it might be the reason they haven’t done an audit is
because none of them appointed has any accounting experience or auditing experience. The Mayor may
have his reasons for appointing people like that.
RAY: This is part of the County Council Office. It’s not part of the Administration.
BLANN: Okay, thank you. What I was going to say is any governmental agency that has $180 million
annual budget, or even a smaller, needs to have an accounting done every year, if it’s not. In fact, it, I
don’t think, should be done by the Audit Department. So, if they’re not doing that, I’d say get rid of the
Audit Department. (indiscernible) be done by an independent national auditing organization.
RAY: By the way, the County is audited by an independent national auditing agency every year.
BLANN: Are they? Oh, okay, thank you. I’m relieved then because I thought that wasn’t.
The next item I wanted to mention is I don’t know if it’s possible to put some sort of an ethics conflict of
interest resolution before the County to vote on. It’s nice to brag to my friends from Texas that members
of our Council from Hilo and Puna get contributions from as far away as Long Island, New York, and
that they’re appreciated by corporations that far away, but I think when they vote on issues effecting
those corporations, it would be ethical and correct for them to recuse themselves. I think the voters of
this island would go along with that. I think it would be nice if they had a chance to vote on that.
All right, now I’d like to go to some of the specific items. I would say I’m not in favor of the at-large, as
I stated last time.
The Managing Director. I don’t know that it’s stated but I would think he should have the same
professional qualifications as a County Manager would have, though I would prefer that there be, in fact,
a County Manager.
On Article V, Section 5-1.2, I would just suggest a small change of wording. It says ‘the mayor may
serve for more than two terms but shall not serve more than two consecutive full terms’. I’d suggest
changing that ‘may serve for more than two terms, but shall not be elected to more than two consecutive
terms’. Conceivably one day, you might get someone unscrupulous who might resign just before the end
of the term, as it’s worded now, and run again for re-election. That would not be in the sense of this. So
if we just said ‘shall not be elected to more than two consecutive full terms’, I think that would take care
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 7 of 62
of that.
13-3, Appointments. I want to say, again, proper professional degrees are needed. As written, I think
maybe, the terms there such as ‘proper investigation ‘ and ‘related fields’ are so ambiguous that they
don’t mean anything. They’re too broad and I think maybe one wants to say a little more clearly what
constitutes ‘proper investigation’ and ‘related fields’. That’s done somewhat for the Planning Director
but I’m a little taken aback by the term ‘geography’ as a qualification. It might be nice if they can tell
you where the Holy Roman Empire used to be in a map of the world, and the Ottoman Empire, but it’s
not clear to me what that has to do with running a Planning Office. An appointment in Hilo would
probably be able to tell us that the Grand Canyon is not what he reaches back and finds, but I don’t see
that as relevant, again, to running the Planning Department.
RAY: Actually, the field of geography is quite broad. I studied Coastal Geography when I was in
college, which was actually directly applicable to planning issues in this County.
BLANN: Okay, it’s not what comes to my mind by ‘geography’. Geology, I might say –
HERKES: Mr. Ray, could I ask a question?
BLANN: Please.
HERKES: I went through about 15 different Charters, or documents, from different entities on the
mainland and across this island, and I looked for language for Managing Directors, for qualifications. I
didn’t find a lot of language that pleased me, or that I felt comfortable with. Do you have any specific
language that you could propose? I mean, like five years experience, and those kinds of broad things, are
fine, but they don’t really fill the bill.
BLANN: What I would do, for example, for a County Manager or for the Managing Director, is I would
go to a professional organization. I suspect County Managers have one. Most professional groups do. I
would try to get information from them, and possibly consultants from some of their Boards, and have
them help outline what is proper language in that field. And in general, in the different areas, I would try
to contract professional organizations, try to get some ideas from those and condense those into what
seemed good.
HERKES: Thank you.
BLANN: Article VI, Chapter 5, Department of Environmental Services. Again, maybe I misread this,
but it didn’t seem as though the qualifications of the Director needed to have any experience in
Environmental Science Management. It looked like it was purely administrative, and I would think that
that post would need someone who, preferably, had a degree in Environmental Science and some
experience in management processes.
6-5.4. I put let the Council submit names, one list from each Council member, so that must have been
some Board or Commission.
Under Section 13-4, having to do with the 90 day succession of appointments from the previous
Administration, I would say no. I would write it that they may continue up to 90 days if requested in
writing by the new appointive authority. So if it was a post that the Mayor would appoint, the new
incoming mayoral candidate could request that the people stay on, but he shouldn’t be saddled with dolts
for 90 days if he doesn’t wish to be. That could foul up the setting-up of a new Administration.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 8 of 62
5-6.2. I’d borrow from old Office of Price Administration and ask if the trip is really necessary. It seems
we may be creating a lot of new governmental posts. This, I hate to sound like Ronald Reagan but, is
increasing the cost of government and making government bigger. Wasn’t clear to me, if that
Commission was necessary.
At the bottom of the page, I would suggest a wording from the present, ‘should the Safety Coordinator
be abolished’ to the more genteel ‘should the position of Safety Coordinator be abolished’.
6-2.2. Again, do not remove the professional qualifications.
Section 2, under Impeachment, I would plead with you to leave it alone. It has not been abused. As I
said, if anything, it’s under-utilized. I see no reason to change it and to clutter the ballot with a change
when it has not been a problem, unless the politicians are thinking of changing their activities, getting
very abusive, and they want to be further insulated from the voters rather than responsible. But what I
would like to see, if we’re going to change the numbers, is the requirement of getting an Initiative on the
ballot from 20% down to a level of two or three percent. I think that’s more reasonable and feasible.
What danger is there to let the people vote on whether they think something is a good idea or not?
HERKES: May I ask another question?
BLANN: Please.
HERKES: On impeachment, do you favor island-wide impeachment for single district members, or do
you favor single district voters only impeaching. I mean, I could reach into somebody else’s district and
impeach their Councilman.
BLANN: Right now, I think that’s exactly what I’d like to see.
HERKES: So you favor island-wide for single districts. Okay.
BLANN: There was 5-6.3, Board of Appeals and my recommendation there is to make it nine members,
again one from each district, consistent with some of the suggestions that have come from this group on
some of the other Boards.
Department of Research and Development, I’ve already given my ideas on that.
The Cost-of-Government Commission, finally. It seems to me that the meetings are too frequent as
proposed, that every three to four years would be more appropriate if you had such a Commission.
That’s because it takes them one year to study the operation of the government. It would take a second
year to put the changes they recommended into effect. By then you’re appointing a new committee to
study again. It seems that the changes haven’t really had a chance to work in and see if they’re effective
until they’ve had a year in place.
RAY: We are amending that to every four years.
BLANN: Great. That is everything I wish to say. Thank you.
RAY: Walt Kriewald, followed by Councilwoman Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd.
KRIEWALD: I don’t want to keep hitting a dead horse here, but there are a couple of things in the
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 9 of 62
minutes of your previous two meetings before the Waimea meeting that I took issue to, and both of them
come from Ms. Herkes. One of them, she says about spending money for campaigns, and she says ‘do
you know how much, let’s pick Chairman Arakaki, spent in his last campaign’, and I brought that up at
the Waimea meeting. He spent $71,000 running unopposed. Finance matters a great deal in the County
elections, and I didn’t have time to pull the rest of them, but I just picked Al Smith’s, but I’m sure Ms.
Leithead-Todd can speak to it, maybe. Mr. Arakaki’s ran 40 pages and I didn’t want to burden anybody
with that. But, 60% of his funding comes from West side developers. The rest of his funding comes
from the East side of the island, but it’s all – I don’t want to say all, pardon me – most of it is from
lawyering firms, planning consultants. It essentially has no small person input. What you’re doing is
financing campaigns with contributions from large developers. If you go to a 6-3, this will just burgeon
out of control. If Mr. Arakaki can spend $71,000 in a single district running unopposed, you can do the
math and see where you’re going to come up with a campaign island-wide and where all the money’s
going to come from. It’s just not going to come from $100 from Jim Smith and Sara Jones.
The other thing that I would like to state. In here she says ‘and I think a lot of it has’, and she’s speaking
again about 6-3, ‘with our elected officials using their lack of power and blaming other people, so they
blame other people so that makes it more difficult for government to function. You know how West
Hawaii loves to blame East Hawaii for all their ills.’ I find that offensive.
RAY: Well, let’s don’t get into personal attacks. If you’ve got some testimony that directly relates to the
Charter Amendments, that’s fine.
KRIEWALD: Okay. That’s my testimony. It’s in the minutes of your Charter Commission.
RAY: I understand that. Okay. Thank you.
KRIEWALD: Thank you.
RAY: Okay, Councilwoman Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, followed by Harold Jim and Patrick. These are
the last two people signed up to testify, so if anybody else wants to testify, you need to sign up over
there. Hi, Bobby Jean.
LEITHEAD-TODD: Hi. This past weekend the Hawaii County Democratic Party held its County
Convention. The convention was co-chaired by Nancy Pisicchio and myself. We had three resolutions in
front of the convention concerning proposed Charter Amendments and we voted on those resolutions.
The convention approved a resolution favoring the creation of the Fire Commission.
We took a position in opposition to the 6-3 proposal for Council elections and passed a resolution in
favor of retaining the nine single member districts.
And we also took a position in opposition to non-partisan elections.
And that’s basically all I’m here to speak to.
RAY: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Councilwoman?
IRVINE: Bobby Jean, can you just say a bit about what the vote on the non-partisan, why they’re in
opposition? I suppose they are a Party and that might mean why.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 10 of 62
LEITHEAD-TODD: Part of it is Party, but some of the rationale in opposition to non-partisan was
similar to the rationale for our support of single member districts. We think that in a non-partisan
election, by removing labels from people, you’re really removing information about the candidates from
the population, and that most of the Parties go through a process where you have Precinct meetings, you
have a County Convention, you adopt a platform, you take positions on various issues, and so there is a
process before people run as candidates where they receive input from the entire island. And also for
those of us who go to the State Convention, we get input from the entire State regarding their positions
on particular issues. When you run in a non-partisan election, you don’t have any of that, what we
consider grassroots input, so we think that it weakens grassroots participation in the political process.
You know that some of the criticism you have about the current system, we think will be worse in a non-
partisan situation. We think it will favor the candidate who is an incumbent. We think it will favor the
candidate who has the biggest war chest. That’s some of the reason we are also opposed to the single
member district. Those things cut both ways for us as Democrats. If I happen to be the Democrat –
RAY: You mean opposed to the at-large district?
LEITHEAD-TODD: Yes, we are opposed to the at-large. It raises the cost of the elections and it also, I
think, makes it more difficult for grassroots participation.
RAY: Okay. Thank you. Harold Jim and Patrick Kahawaiola’a.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: Good evening. My name is Patrick Kahawaiola’a. I’m a Native Hawaiian and a
resident of Keaukaha. I would like to preface my statement, and maybe show some disappointment, but,
however, with our coming before this Charter Commission, being asked to propose some language for
Charter review a month ago, and not have had the opportunity by the Commission to even receive any
kind of acknowledgment, approval, or disapproval, of our language based on, maybe, some unfounded
fears that we hope maybe could have been cleared up. So let me again thank you for allowing us, as
Native Hawaiians, to come forward and make testimony. It pains me based on the fact I don’t know how
many Native Hawaiians, or somebody sitting here, that have really, within their hearts, the ideas and the
thoughts that what Native Hawaiians go through in their own lands. However, I’m not going to dwell
there because I believe you have responsibilities, and the responsibilities that you, some so aptly gave
testimony to, with different people that I’ve been privy to sit in on in your discussion here with
interacting with other people that gave testimony, was that one, I guess, Commission member mentioned
that they were duly constituted under the laws, and as far as they were concerned, they’re operating here
in a legal fashion. I’m not saying that you’re illegal. I’m saying that you need to consider the facts and
the plights of the Native Hawaiian. When you took this job, some of you swore to uphold the
Constitution of this State. In this State of Hawaii, the Constitution reads right off the bat, it says the
people, the State and its people will uphold the Hawaiian race. I happen to be that Hawaiian race. This
Charter, which is only 36 pages long, makes no provisions for Native Hawaiians. We brought that
language forward for you to consider that would incorporate Native Hawaiians into your Charter. Your
Charter starts off in the Preamble and it says this: ‘We the people of the County of Hawaii’; then you go
to your definition in Article I, Section 1-1 gives the clear definition of who that people are. ‘The people
of the County of Hawaii shall be and continue as the body politic and incorporate by the name County of
Hawaii hereinafter in this charter call County.’ That’s who the people of this County of Hawaii is. I hope
you’re not assuming that I’m part of that body political just because I happen to be here in the County of
Hawaii. I was born and raised here. So I need for you, in the language we’ve proposed, because I come
from the land. I happened to be born and raised on the lands within this county. That’s why we were
here again. In the second section of that Article I, it talks about the geographical limits. ‘The Island of
Hawaii and all islands within the shores thereof and the waters adjacent thereto shall be the County of
Hawaii.’ Again, I come back to ask you, the confusion that this county has perpetrated to the Hawaiian
people is that we once received an Opinion of your counsel here that says we’re all included. This deals
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 11 of 62
with Hawaiian home lands also. And if it does, put Hawaiian home lands in there then. Put it there.
Don’t say the whole island and then when we go to different departments within this county, we have no
jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands. That’s the confusion part that’s sending out the message to the
Hawaiians out here that we are second class citizens, third, fourth class citizens. We’re not included in
your Charter. That was the language. The language was to help include us and how we can get things
done within this county. We sent a letter to the Mayor asking that we be included because about a month
ago this question was asked of the Corporation Counsel by Curtis Tyler. Does the County have
jurisdiction on Hawaiian home lands? The answer of Gerald Takasi was no. No. And that’s the guy
you’re dealing with in your Council, in your Charter. You’re going to make Corporation Counsel,
include them – they’re all in here. But the Corporation Counsel says clearly no. We have a decision from
Mr. Wurdeman, an Opinion, in a totally unrelated matter, however, he does state this in his Opinion; the
Hawaiian Homes Act did not authorize the State or local government to apply a tax lien to Hawaiian
home lands. We take away the tax lien to the extent that the real property lien is an incumbrance on the
property created by non-administrators of the Act, of the DHHL land. An Act of Congress would be
required to attach it to Hawaiian home lands. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act also embodies
express provisions that the Governor – the Governor and the Board of Land and Natural Resources not
exercise their powers and duties over lands having the status of Hawaiian home lands. That’s in Section
206. This provision evidence a strong intent that Hawaiian home lands not be controlled by State or
local governments, but by DHHL. The disposition of Hawaiian home lands by county tax here would be
in contradiction of this intent. This is just one avenue. All I’m trying to lead you up to is that it needs to
be included in your Charter. It needs to be included. Are we included or are we excluded? Because the
Opinion of Mr. Wurdeman is clear, and your counsel agreed to it because he wrote something about it,
that provides the incumbrance authorized to be placed on Hawaiian home lands by officers other than
those charged with the admission of such Act shall not be increased except for the consent of Congress.
That’s basically where we’re at. This County has no consent from Congress to increase the
incumbrance. A tax lien is an incumbrance. A building permit is an incumbrance. A zoning change is an
incumbrance. It’s been ruled. It’s senseless for us Hawaiians to come here before you, but we do
because we’re trying to work within the system. It’s again a notice. I do know that a lot of you, and this
counsel that you have – don’t put this on. Don’t put those Hawaiian things in the Charter. Don’t do it.
And if you’re prepared to do that, please sign a document saying that you’re not. Then give it to me and
I’ll take it somewhere else. Because, again, I go back to your responsibilities. You said you upheld the
Constitution, took this job as County Commissioners to review the Charter, and then again ignore us
when we come before you. Trust me. You can all say personally no, that’s not what we feel, but that’s
how Hawaiians feel.
IRVINE: Sir.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: Yes.
IRVINE: I don’t think we’re ignoring you.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: Thank you for your thought.
IRVINE: I think we’re doing our best to understand, and it is very, very difficult to understand whether
you wish to be part of the County or exempt. I do not feel that I could vote for anything that would not
continue to provide Police and Fire protection on Hawaiian homes, and I’m afraid if we exclude you in
some sense, or include you in some special sense, that you may lack that help.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: Then may I just say that if it was your intentions to do that, please let us know, so
we know how to explain it better, if you didn’t understand it. But to ignore us, to ignore us sends that
message. It should have been explained. You got counsel here. He knows absolutely what. This is not
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 12 of 62
his first time sitting here on the Charter Commission. He used to be with the Land Use Commission.
Please avail yourselves. Don’t treat us as second class citizens.
JIM: Let me give you some kind of guidelines of the mandatory law, the General Law of this county, the
local government. It’s very simple. You turn to Article XII, Section 3. It clearly express the
incumbrance. Those are mandated, compelled, by the State and government that you cannot increase the
incumbrance without the authority of government. That’s preempt law by Congress, that you accepted it
under the Compact on Article XII, Section 2. It’s not something that you have to put on the ballot. It’s
something that’s mandatory. Now, if you decide that you – the rumors we have – we find ourselves very
difficult to come before this Board because their concerns is about the Native Hawaiians on the
Constitution uses of the law of the body political, which you are. You don’t belong to us. The
Constitution separates us. Can you come on our land? That tells you no. Can you get a sewer plant come
on our land? Right now the County passed a law. They’re going to buy Waiakea’s sewer plant. Hell,
they are. The Mayor ain’t signing nothing because he cannot receive no land from Hawaiian homes
because your Charter forbid him to even accept the proposal the body political, which is the County
police powers. They can’t. They can make a ruling, come before him to the management. He can’t
without the incumbrance transferred to him, and it can’t be done. We are not trying, here, to make fools
out people. We are trying to let the process to understand it’s impossible without the consent. You are
compelled, the courts, this State, are compelled by Congress. Here they’re off right now – I am giving
you notice. You are liable to exclude us. Thank you.
RAY: Patrick.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: Yes.
RAY: By the way, we not only did not ignore this, we discussed it at some length at our last meeting in
Waimea. We did have an additional correspondence from our legal counsel in regard to this issue, and
we did discuss it in full and grapple with it. I apologize if you did not receive a copy of that.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: We did not receive it.
RAY: But we did discuss this at some length.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: Then let me apologize before you because if we had known, we could have
responded and maybe not -
JIM: Let me put it this way. Just receive it. Within ten days you’ll get a response.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: We’ll be responding within ten days to it.
HERKES: I think it’s we that should apologize to you that you didn’t get that letter sooner, and I
apologize.
KAHAWAIOLA’A: Ma’am, I accept your apologies, with the only fact – forgive me because when we
don’t have it, we assume. And when you assume, you make ass out of you and me. So, thank you very
much.
RAY: That concludes our public testimony unless we have anybody else that wants to sign up. Moving
on.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 13 of 62
Minutes Approval. There are no minutes to approve this evening.
Financial Status Report. Our financial status report is the same as it was on 3/31, showing a balance of
$72,311.48. In regard to finances, just for your information, we did discuss various scenarios and costs
attached to public education and advertising in regard to getting out the proposed Charter Amendments
before the election. So we will be looking at that once we have a sense of remaining funds, just what our
options are and be developing a final budget in regard to that.
Communications. In our packets today are the minutes which we just received; a communication from
Commissioner Irvine in regard to the Department of Environmental Management; a communication
from Commissioner Herkes in regard to a Code of Ethics draft; and correspondence, two letters, one
from Tom Beach and one from Judy Graham.
Moving into Unfinished Business, Review and Final Vote on Tentatively Approved Charter
Amendments. We’re going to go through one-by-one. If it seems a little bit confusing, and we have to,
sort of, start and stop, a number of things were under discussion at our last meeting in Waimea, and so
we don’t have formal changes in front of us in terms of everything that was discussed, so we’re just
going to, kind of, work our way through this, and that’s the process. So, what you’re hearing is our
continuing discussion from the last meeting in Waimea in regard to any proposed changes in regard to
the 19 proposed amendments. We are also going to be entertaining a vote on a couple of proposed
amendments that were not listed previously; one in regard to the Hawaii Redevelopment Agency, and
another in regard to language which would mandate mandatory West Hawaii meetings of the County
Council. So those are two other items that are coming up. The Chair will entertain a motion to delete
items if someone wants to make that motion.
HERKES: Can we amend the agenda to get something else on? I want to put the Preamble on it. Do I
have to wait until next time?
YUEN: Yes, it would be better to do so. Yes.
RAY: If there’s an item that a Commissioner wants to move forward that has not been agendized, then
our counsel has advised us that we would be better off agendizing it and taking it up at another meeting.
SANTANGELO: Mr. Chair.
RAY: Yes.
SANTANGELO: Question. Would you like a format of taking this as they’re numbered, one at a time,
and then accepting a motion for consideration, or not to consider it? Would that be appropriate or you
just want us to go helter-skelter and start grabbing –
RAY: Let’s see how it goes. I’ve always been, kind of, a helter-skelter person.
IRVINE: I don’t know about helter-skelter but we might move to get rid of what we think we might be
able to get rid of right now. I could see that.
SANTANGELO: Rather than accept – okay. Then I’d like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
RAY: Okay.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 14 of 62
SANTANGELO: On item 2, Council to include 3 at-large seats –
HIGASHI: Are we going to go from 1 down or just –
SANTANGELO: Well, that’s what I just asked. We’re going to delete things so I’m jumping in there.
HERKES: He’s making an assumption.
SANTANGELO: Yes.
RAY: So, you’re going through with your deletions, right?
SANTANGELO: I don’t know. Excuse me. I’m in the middle of a motion but I’ll retract that, and I was
asking for guidance and I thought the discussion between you and Sue said let’s get rid of the things
first.
IRVINE: Go for it, John.
SANTANGELO: All right. I move that number 2, Council to include 3 at-large seats not be moved
forward and placed on the ballot. I would ask for a second for these reasons: I think that this is
something I have supported. I’ve seen, in my own heart, a lot of good that this could do. On the other
hand, the overwhelming public testimony opposing this, the lack of understanding, or certainly me being
understood as well as others, and the fact that we may well not be ready for this just yet. We have
moved into nine single member districts and it seems like we just need to get more comfortable with
that. And so, based on a lot of the public, and how I’ve been led to feel, I move that we not include it.
RAY: Okay, do I have a second?
HIGASHI: Second.
RAY: Second from Mr. Higashi. All in favor of deleting it raise your right –
HERKES: No discussion?
RAY: Discussion. Excuse me.
HERKES: I think we all should discuss it. I’m going to change my vote also. I I wanted to get this on the
draft so that we could hear the discussion, so that we could hear the testimony. I really am in favor of it
but there’s no testimony – I got phone calls from all over the island in favor of it, especially from people
in West Hawaii, and I certainly feel that if you can spend $70,000 to get elected in a single member
district, the reason given that it’s cheaper to have single member districts is probably not a good one.
However, there’s no real support from a lot of people who’ve taken the time and trouble to come and
testify before us, and the people who are calling me are not necessarily ones that put it in writing. Some
of them were elected officials. Some of them were state officials. But most of them were people that I
knew in West Hawaii. But I want to change my vote and vote against it.
RAY: Other discussion.
SANTANGELO: Call for the question.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 15 of 62
RAY: Call for the question. Raise your right hand if you’re in favor of deleting.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Okay, we’ll delete. So, we’re deleting; we will not be moving forward the Council to include at-
large seats.
MC CULLOUGH: Was that unanimous?
RAY: Yes. Okay, Mr. Santangelo.
SANTANGELO: No, that was -
HERKES: Do you have another one?
SANTANGELO: No, I’m willing to share.
HERKES: I’d like to put on the table the Legislative Research Office as one not to put on the ballot. Not
because I don’t think it’s a good idea to reorganize it, but the County Council can reorganize that office
anytime they want to. They don’t need a Charter Amendment. Unless they have the will to reorganize
the office, they get to live with what they have and we get to live with it also, and I’d love to see a real
Legislative Research Audit Office, but the County Council does not want one. I will work very hard to
get some Council people elected that can change that office into a research office. But right now,
nobody understands what actually happens in that office. It’s probably just as well.
IRVINE: I’d like to second Marni’s motion, although I’m not sure she really made one.
HERKES: I did. I moved to take it off the ballot.
IRVINE: All right. For the same reasons. We need a real internal audit and we weren’t able to turn that
office into it so I think we should just remove it.
HERKES: Leave it alone.
RAY: More discussion?
SANTANGELO: Just real quick. I know what some of the Chambers that I sit on, and their facts. They
oppose this, and mainly because they misunderstood it, and you and I both sat on the Council. We know
what needs to be done and I think Ms. Herkes articulated it quite well. And it is their mess and they’ll
have to deal with it. I think it was a good try on our part but there’s more important things, and this
doesn’t need to cloud it, so I will be voting against this.
RAY: Any other testimony? All in favor of deleting, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chair, I move to delete number 11.
RAY: Number 11 is the Qualifications of Heads of the Departments of Public Works and Water Supply.
This is the amendment that would delete the requirement that those departments be headed by a
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 16 of 62
registered engineer. So if this is deleted, that requirement would stay in place. We have a second?
ALONZO: Second.
RAY: Discussion?
BESS: I have a question. I understand the sense is that we want to reinsert that both of these people be
professional engineers, and registered engineers, but are we saying that we’re also going to omit ‘the
Director shall have had a minimum of five years experience in an administrative capacity’?
RAY: No, my understanding is that we would delete this one and then in the Department Head
Qualifications, which is number 15 on most people’s list, we would add, so it would still say they would
have to be a registered engineer, but in addition, they would have to have five years of administrative
service.
BESS: All right.
HERKES: Promise.
IRVINE: Yes, with that understanding.
HERKES: Was there a second to that? I’d like to say that I had a lot of input. A lot of people called me
from Commissions that had worked under engineers who said help. You need a CPA, you need a
Human Resource people, you need something else besides engineers. So I think it’s real important to
understand that while it sounds good to have engineers as head of technical bodies, they are not the best
people to administer a hundred people in some personnel things – may not be.
RAY: Other testimony? Mr. Yoshiyama.
YOSHIYAMA: Yes, I would speak against the motion. I don’t think we’re shutting the door on
engineers, or registered engineers. I would like to see us open the doors to other qualified people. I think
that, as Marni said, we are heading in that direction of professional management, and that’s all.
RAY: Other testimony? I’d just say I’ll vote to delete this but I do think it’s a good idea. I think it was
entirely misunderstood, and the input I got from people, a number of whom, and in fact, one who had
served as Chief Engineer, thought this was a terrific idea. But in any case, I’ll vote to delete it because it
has been, I think, so entirely taken the wrong way, and it seems to go contrary towards trying to beef up
professional qualifications overall. Okay, so all in favor of deleting, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Alonzo, Bess, Higashi, Irvine, Kurozawa, Ray, Santangelo.
RAY: Opposed?
HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Herkes, Yoshiyama.
RAY: So two votes opposed. So that’s three. We’re on a roll.
SANTANGELO: Mr. Chair. I would have preferred to second this but there was a pause. Don’t do that.
Number 12, Impeachment. Would move to delete that. Again, for the same reason. I think it’s been
terribly misunderstood, but I have to say that I have been convinced by the testimony brought forward
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 17 of 62
that where I started from probably wasn’t where it is. It really hasn’t been misused per se. It has some
pretty good safeguards in it, and again, I would move to delete that.
RAY: Do we have a second?
BESS: Second.
RAY: Okay. Discussion.
HIGASHI: What would be the main reason for deletion?
SANTANGELO: The main reason for my motion was that basically it hasn’t been abused. I think, and I
don’t want to wade into murky water, but I felt this last attempt maybe wasn’t the most ethical on the
part of the people, but it’s the only time it’s ever been tried that way. Del Pranke brought up the fact that
there is a litigation that takes place. It does incur some expense. And again, I think with some of the
more important things this Commission’s put their energy into, that what we’re trying to do here maybe
be misconstrued as not being in the best interest of the people – that maybe. And I’ve served with this
Commission and have respect for how they feel about it, whether they vote it up or down.
RAY: Ms. Herkes.
HERKES: I go back to the fact that we are not the only body that can amend this Charter. If it is abused,
the County Council can amend the Charter every year, any time they want to; every time there’s an
election, or every two years when there’s an election, so if it starts to be abused then there is an avenue
to stop the abuse.
RAY: Other testimony?
IRVINE: I wasn’t planning to vote to just throw this out, but I think it’s probably quite reasonable. It
hasn’t been -
RAY: Quite reasonable to throw it out?
IRVINE: To throw it out? Yes. We have had a lot of testimony. I don’t think we’re making a lot of
difference with going from the hundred to the 3% if we were voting within districts. If you have to go
outside a district, the way we have it written right now, I don’t think I would probably vote for it. I think
people should be impeached in their own district, and that 3% is only like 240 people.
HERKES: Maybe we’ll work a little harder to elect people who can instill confidence in us and the
integrity of government, that we won’t need an avenue like impeachment.
RAY: I tend to agree. I don’t see it as really that much of a problem, and it’s such a divisive issue, sort
of a target, so I would vote to eliminate it. All in favor of eliminating, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: So we’ve eliminated the Impeachment. What about Planning Department Functions/Planning
Commission Powers?
HERKES: I move we eliminate those because it doesn’t change a thing.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 18 of 62
KUROZAWA: Second.
RAY: Now, we’re looking at two separate amendments. The one, 6 on most of our schedules here, has
to do with the Planning Department functions which would eliminate language that would preclude the
reorganization and create this idea of a Division of Permitting. So we need to deal with that one first. So,
would someone like to make a motion in regard to the Planning –
SANTANGELO: We do have a legal motion on the floor right now, Mr. Chair. Point of order.
HERKES: Was there a second?
SANTANGELO: Yes there was.
KUROZAWA: I seconded it.
HERKES: Okay, sorry.
RAY: Does anybody have a problem with voting on both?
HERKES: I withdraw the motion.
SANTANGELO: Your second has to agree.
KUROZAWA: I withdraw my second.
RAY: Can I have a motion in regard to number 6, if someone would so choose, in regard to the Planning
Department functions?
IRVINE: I move that we remove number 6 from our consideration.
RAY: Do I have a second?
HERKES: Second.
RAY: Would anybody like to speak to that?
SANTANGELO: I would like to ask other Commissioners to comment. The reason I struggle with
dropping that, and I will cooperate, is we’re asking the people to authorize the Council to do something.
It’s not like the people vote and it’s a done deal. It still has to go through the Council. It has to be by
ordinance. And so it’s just simply giving a little bit more guidance and a little more leeway for the
Council to be involved in the restructuring of the government. So I, kind of, struggle with that and I’d
ask for the rationale from others. Thank you.
RAY: I’ll speak to that. In my mind, a future Administration may want to put forth this type of
reorganization, and the County Council will be very much involved in that. And if they do want to, then
the Council can go ahead and amend the Charter in regard to allowing that to happen. But it’s confusing.
It’s putting a confusing amendment forward which may or may not ever be acted on in the future. So for
that reason, I think a more reasonable way is if a future Administration would like to reorganize the
departments in that fashion, and they need a Charter change, and the Council agrees with them, then
they can make the Charter change. Anybody else? Okay, all in favor of eliminating number 6, raise your
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 19 of 62
right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: That was unanimous. Number 10, Planning Commission Powers.
IRVINE: I move we remove this from our consideration as well, due to the large amount of confusion
on the part of the public about what we were doing here.
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
RAY: Would anybody like to speak to that? We’ve had a lot of discussion and input from our legal
counsel. It doesn’t seem to be a substantive issue, and it has caused a lot of confusion. All in favor of
eliminating raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Okay, number 10's eliminated. The other items we discussed, and I don’t really have a sense of
how strongly people feel about them. Oh wait a minute, one for sure; Number 14, the Board of Appeals.
That was connected with number 6, the Planning Department Functions. So I think if we’re going to
eliminate number 6, it makes sense to eliminate number 14.
HERKES: I move we eliminate number 14.
IRVINE: Second.
RAY: Can you say which is -
HERKES: Board of Appeals.
RAY: Moving the Board of Appeals. We have a second. All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Now, the item in regard to the Special Counsel. There was a lot of discussion back and forth on
that at the - We just voted unanimously to eliminate moving the Board of Appeals.
HERKES: I move that we eliminate Special Counsel, number 13.
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
RAY: Discussion.
IRVINE: I think it’s entirely appropriate to remove it in light of the fact that I think it was pointed out to
us that the Corporation Counsel shouldn’t be the ones hiring the attorneys for the other side, so to speak.
That the County Counsel themselves should probably do that.
RAY: That’s really a different issue, but –
IRVINE: No. That was my feeling. I often have a different take.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 20 of 62
RAY: Any other discussion on eliminating amendment number 13 in regard to the Special Counsel?
This was brought forth by Corporation Counsel.
SANTANGELO: Mr. Chair, is it appropriate for Mr. Yuen to refresh our memory on that for some of
the group, maybe, because I see it a little different?
YUEN: Presently the Charter requires that if the County is going to hire any attorneys other than Corp
Counsel, that the hiring of that attorney specifically be authorized by the County Council. So Corp
Counsel has to go to County Council to request that other attorneys be hired. There are situations where
Corporation Counsel is definitely prohibited from representing officers and employees of the County
because of ethical requirements of attorneys, and so they simply cannot represent those officers or
employees. However, the County is required to provide counsel for them. There are situations where
Police Officers are legally required to be represented by counsel paid for by the County, for example.
What the amendment would do, if it were enacted, the Corp Counsel, in those situations where they have
a conflict of interest, they would not have to specifically go to the County Council for the authorization
as long as there had been a blanket appropriation of money for that purpose. They could use that
appropriation and hire the attorney on their own authority without going to the Council.
SANTANGELO: Thank you. And that’s where the conflict comes in with me. Former Councilman Ray
and myself both sat on Councils that went into Executive Session. We dealt with things like this, I think
it was in Executive Session, but it seems so confusing. It’s a matter of a technical thing, and if we have
room going out to the people, I would support this being on because it does have merit. But I have seen
most people misunderstand this and it is difficult to explain.
RAY: Mr. Yuen, to the best of your knowledge, has this ever been a problem in the past?
YUEN: Well, I don’t know if it’s been a problem. I don’t think that the Council has refused to hire
Special Counsel where Corp Counsel had a conflict of interest. I don’t know how much debate and how
much difficulty there was in getting the Council to that point, but I don’t think the Council actually
refused to do it.
RAY: That was my understanding from Mr. Wurdeman, that he thought this was a problem that might
arise in the future, but it hadn’t occurred in the past, if that makes any difference.
SANTANGELO: But just one more question. The reason that I did support this is we had something
similar come up to the Council, as you may remember, Mr. Ray, in which we’ve never had pay raises
disputed either, and we would have pay raises negotiated through binding arbitration even come before
the Council and, as an elected body, we had to vote on that, which meant that we had the right to vote
yes or no. And in one case we did eventually vote no which caused a huge problem. I’m totally willing
to vote it down but my only problem with it was that should that arise, you need to supply Counsel for
these individuals, you need to hire them, and you could get into a situation where we did. Now, if it’s
never been a problem – But that was where I struggled with this.
IRVINE: John, the present wording allows the County Council to hire counsel. We’re just saying that
the Corp Council may employ Special Counsel.
SANTANGELO: Just to explain. There’s situations in which Corp Counsel can’t defend, but the County
needs to defend that person. And they need to hire that attorney. Okay?
IRVINE: Right.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 21 of 62
SANTANGELO: So you need to get Council approval. Okay?
IRVINE: Right.
SANTANGELO: If the Council says no, but you’re obligated by law to do it, but your lawmaker
doesn’t, now you’ve got a real dilemma.
IRVINE: It says ‘the Council may, by two-thirds vote of its entire membership, authorize –
RAY: But it may not, as well.
SANTANGELO: It may not, and yet you’re still legally obliged to defend these people.
IRVINE: Well, then they’re acting outside the law if they don’t because it says in impeachment cases,
that the County cannot defend, etc.
SANTANGELO: Again, I appreciate that, Sue, but what you go back to is if you’ve elected someone to
represent you, they have the right to vote yes or no, so you can’t say you’ve broken the law because you
voted no. You see, it’s a dilemma, and that’s what this was going to address but I think it’s very
complicated and maybe we’ll just let them deal with it.
RAY: Mr. Bess.
BESS: I would speak in favor of this provision. However, in the interest of presenting a ballot to the
public that is small enough and has issues that are of true importance – I mean this is an issue that may
or may not arise, and given the number of amendments that we are proposing to the public, I am voting
to delete.
RAY: All in favor of deleting, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: We’re recording all of this, Jason, if you want to check the record afterwards.
Any other proposals for deletions before we go through?
SANTANGELO: Mr. Chairman, just one little statement for clarification. In deleting these – we’ve
deleted quite a few things here, and I think it’s good for the record to show that a lot of this came up
because people brought it forward and we wanted to give it a fair and open hearing. And this may well
be the result of that fair and open hearing. So anyway, that’s my explanation for going against some of
these things.
RAY: Thank you. I think I’ve stated on numerous occasions that nobody really engages the process until
they have something concrete in front of them. But we erred in that direction to put it out there even
though we knew there’d be a number of changes.
First off, non-partisan elections – And so we’re voting on the proposed amendments as we have
previously voted on and established language around. So I’d like to entertain a motion, and then if
someone would like to propose an amendment, we’ll take that. So, can I have a motion to approve the
non-partisan elections?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 22 of 62
HERKES: So moved.
RAY: Second?
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
IRVINE: Discussion. It came to my attention, after reading through this I didn’t realize when we put this
in that we were following, I think, City and County wording on this which means that someone can be
elected in a Special Election at the same time as we hold our Primary Elections. Maui County wording,
on the same thing, provides that if there are only two people running in a winner-take-all election, they
would both go onto the ballot at the time of the General Election, when we have like 15% more people
actually voting, and I would really like to see us use the Maui County language instead of the Honolulu
County. It changes things a bit, but I do have a copy here of the Maui County, that we all have had for a
while. But I would move that we insert that rather than the City and County of Honolulu, in the interest
of allowing more people to vote.
RAY: So are you moving that as an amendment?
IRVINE: Yes.
RAY: Do we have a second?
HERKES: Well, did we have a motion on the floor?
SANTANGELO: We’re amending the motion so you need to second it.
HERKES: I’ll second.
RAY: Discussion on the proposed amendment.
SANTANGELO: If I’m to understand, Sue, then the intent of this – more voters, but the intent is that in
a General there will be people running for all offices.
IRVINE: Yes.
HERKES: No? Chris is shaking his head.
YUEN: I think, if I’m hearing you correctly, if only two file, then that race is not decided at the Primary
at all, and they both go on to the General. And if there are three or more running, and one person in the
Primary gets the 50% plus one vote, then that’s pau and you’re elected outright.
HERKES: In the Primary?
IRVINE: I don’t think so.
HERKES: So that means we’re back to where we started from.
YUEN: No, it’s a little bit different because the way it was voted on when we first did this was that if
you got 50% plus one in the – we’ll call it the Primary for simplicity; it’s not really the Primary.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 23 of 62
HERKES: In the first election.
YUEN: In the first election, or the Primary, if you got 50% plus one, you’re elected outright, and you
don’t count blank or spoiled ballots. So, the way it was voted on the first time, if there are only two
people running, unless they tie, guarantee somebody’s going to be elected outright at the first election.
The way Maui does it is if there are only two people running for the office, they skip the first election
and they run them off in the General, and I thought that was what the motion was because that’s the way
Maui works. But in Maui, and in the way that we had discussed earlier, if there are three or more
running, and somebody gets 50% plus one out of those three, then they’re elected outright in the first
election and you don’t go on.
HERKES: And that takes them out of the second election, however. It takes both people out of the
second election.
YUEN: That does take it out of the second.
HERKES: Well, it takes all three, but you’re not even taking two into the second election, the top two.
YUEN: Right. You can do it, that you always take the top two into the second election. That’s not been
what has been discussed.
HERKES: Nobody does that now.
YUEN: Right. Let me look at Maui’s again to make absolutely sure, but I’m pretty sure that that’s not
the way they do it in Maui.
HERKES: Sue’s point was a good point, that more people vote in the General Election. You have less
candidates running in the General Election.
IRVINE: The bottom paragraph talks about ties in the Primary.
SANTANGELO: But we could go back to what we just deleted too. That’s that situation when you have
three or more running, very seldom would you have someone get a majority vote.
IRVINE: Yes.
HERKES: Well, getting 50%, yes.
YUEN: Maui is as I discussed it, and if you – No, I’m sorry. Sue is correct. If there are three or more,
they automatically take two into the General. So, if we want to call that, there’s three different ways of
doing it.
SANTANGELO: Adding expense.
IRVINE: I just think people -
YUEN: So I then need to ask if Sue wants to make the amendment so that you automatically take two
into the General – you take the top two into the General, or do you want to only pass two automatically
into the General, if there are only two running?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 24 of 62
IRVINE: What if there’s only two running? Why don’t they just go into the General?
YUEN: That’s the way Maui does it.
HERKES: They will. Mr. Ray, do we want to vote on non-partisan and then vote on how?
SANTANGELO: That’s what we’re doing. No, you have to do it this way.
RAY: We have to amend it if we are, and then vote on the motion as amended, if it is.
YUEN: Let me clarify this. I’m sorry. The way Maui does it is that if there are only two running, you
don’t have an election at all in the Primary. They both run off in the General and the winner wins in the
General. If there are three or more running, they do have an election in the Primary, but the top two go
over into the General.
SANTANGELO: Regardless of one getting a majority?
YUEN: Regardless of one getting the 50% plus one. The way the City and County does it is the way that
was voted on by the Commission the first time through which is that if you get the 50% plus one, no
matter how many are running, if you get that in the first, or Primary, election, you don’t have a race in
the second election. If nobody gets 50% plus one, then the top two go over into the General Election.
RAY: So, does everybody understand the amendment? The amendment is to vote, basically, as Chris
just described, as Sue introduced the method that’s in the Maui County Charter. Okay, we’re going to
vote.
BESS: No, I’m unclear. Can you state what’s in the Maui County Charter again? What’s on the table
here.
YUEN: And let me just say one more thing. The way I read Maui, I think their Mayor is still a partisan
and their Council is non-partisan, just to throw different wrinkle in there. But what I understand the
motion to be, like we had done, we were going to go all non-partisan. The amendment is that if there are
only two candidates running for a particular office, that those two candidates will not appear in the first
election and they will automatically go to the General, and then the winner wins in the General. If there
are three or more candidates running for a particular office, they will be voted on in the first election,
and the top two will always go on to the General to be run off, no matter how many more votes one gets
than the other.
SANTANGELO: I’m going to speak against the amendment simply because, again, there’s been an
awful lot of discussion about money, and I know the 15%, and Sue, we both know that in a Presidential
election, you get a lot more voters. It goes up and down, and it’s really up to the voters to get off their
can. And having been through these elections, I know what it’s like to go through a Primary and then a
General, and if the solution is there, if there’s a majority winner which is what we haven’t had in a while
for a lot of things, in the Primary then let it be and I would vote against this amendment and go for the
original as we had it. And that’s simply a friendly suggestion though.
RAY: Further discussion? All in favor of the amendment, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Herkes, Irvine, Kurozawa.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 25 of 62
RAY: Opposed?
HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Alonzo, Bess, Higashi, Ray, Santangelo, Yoshiyama.
RAY: Okay, the amendment fails to carry. We’re at the main motion in regard to a non-partisan election
as we had originally voted on, and I think everybody understands that. Yes sir, you’d like to speak to the
main motion?
YOSHIYAMA: No, I want to make an amendment. I’d like to propose an amendment that we delete our
proposed Section (e) relating to at-large Council election.
IRVINE: Second.
RAY: All in favor of that amendment, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
SANTANGELO: I’d like to speak to the main motion, just real quick. As a Republican, I’ve had my
Party beat me to death on not supporting non-partisan, and frankly, that’s probably why I am supporting
it. Having served this County, and along with you, John, as a Republican, I felt like that had very little to
do with what I was as an elected official. I felt like once you’re elected, you are there to serve all the
people: Whether they voted or not; whether they’re registered or not; whether they’re male, female,
child or adult; on a County level. On a State and a Federal level, you’re dealing in some very different
territory that’s really working in our lives on a different level, but County, or the services, it’s a different
type of quality of life, and I firmly believe that partisan politics has no place in it, and I, therefore,
support that for that reason.
RAY: Ms. Herkes.
HERKES: I’m a member of a recognized Party that’s also against non-partisan elections, but I am going
to vote in favor of it and, during this discussion, I’ve read a lot of stuff on it. I know it’s the most
popular form in the United States, and all that stuff, but I’ve been especially interested to watch my
reaction in the mayoral race in Honolulu. That is not two Democrats running against each other. It’s two
people running against each other. A very highly visible campaign, very hard fought, and I haven’t
heard the word ‘Democrat’ once. I’ve heard Mufi Hanneman running against Jeremy Harris, and I like
that. I really like that. That gives me a chance to really look at them on their qualifications. I can’t vote
for either one of them, but it’s been an interesting process for me to look at that.
RAY: Any other?
IRVINE: I’d just like to say I’m going to vote against this amendment. I’m not a member of a Party like
some of the rest of you, but I have come to the conclusion, after listening to testimony and doing a lot of
reading, and thinking about it, that it really isn’t a bad idea to have somebody stand on a platform that
indicates their basic philosophy that, even on a County level, there are different ways of handling things
that have to do with basic philosophy, such as the Green Party. National Parties need grassroots support
and it starts at the County level. I just have a feeling that there may be a correlation between non-
partisanship and lack of participation in elections at this time nationally, and I’m just going to vote
against it.
RAY: Other testimony? All in favor of the non-partisan elections, raise your right hand.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 26 of 62
HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Alonzo, Bess, Herkes, Higashi, Kurozawa, Ray, Santangelo,
Yoshiyama.
RAY: Opposed.
HANDS RAISED: Commissioner Irvine.
RAY: Show one opposed.
Moving on to the County Managing Director proposal. Do I have a motion to approve?
BESS: I move that we accept the language as proposed except that in our last meeting, we provided for
the Office of Management. Is that correct? Rather than Department of Management?
RAY: I don’t believe so. We discussed it.
BESS: All right. I move that we accept the language as proposed with the amendment of Office of
Management rather than Department of Management.
HIGASHI: Second.
SANTANGELO: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
RAY: Yes, I think we need to move the motion forward first.
BESS: All right, I’ll move.
SANTANGELO: Second.
BESS: I’d like to move to amend the title of the Department of Management and change that to Office
of Management.
HIGASHI: Second.
IRVINE: Steve, can you give us your reasoning. Is this the Civil Service thing?
BESS: Pardon me?
IRVINE: Is this Civil Service?
BESS: No, it’s not based on Civil Service. It’s just that I know that we received a lot of testimony saying
are we creating another department here, and is this an increase in government. And maybe it makes it
more palatable to the public, and that’s why I’m suggesting that that be the case.
RAY: Other discussion? Marni.
HERKES: There’s no language in here on outcomes and measurement of performance. There’s
evaluation. It may be a little late to bring that up now. I really, kind of, missed – it, kind of, went over
my head that we need some outcomes measurements.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 27 of 62
IRVINE: Actually, I think that whole Section (d) there is absolutely incomprehensible.
HERKES: Yes.
IRVINE: Verbosity. It comes out of City and County, I think, whereas Maui just uses the first sentence
saying ‘evaluate the management and performance of each agency’, period. That’s all they say. I think
we could work on the wording in there, eliminating a lot of the evaluation and analysis. An evaluation to
me presupposes an analysis has been done.
SANTANGELO: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of –
IRVINE: We’re not talking on the issue.
SANTANGELO: We’re, kind of, out of order here. We’re dealing with a motion and I think we need to
deal with that amendment, and then go to the next one because parliamentary really comes in here. So,
personal privilege. Thank you.
RAY: Steve, so you’re amendment is just specifically –
BESS: Merely with regard to title.
RAY: So, Office of Management.
BESS: Office of Management rather than Department.
RAY: And then under 6-1.1, then there would be an Office of Management. Also, Chris, will you
refresh our memory in regard to the requirements. Didn’t we also vote to eliminate that last -
YUEN: Well, yes. When this was originally voted on, this language about the professional experience in
art and science of management, I put that in by mistake. The Commission had actually voted not to have
that in there, so that’s the status.
HERKES: Is that a little personal privilege by the lawyer?
RAY: So, does everybody understand? The motion does not include that.
IRVINE: The art and science.
RAY: Right.
HERKES: In this motion, are we voting on additional changes? Additional change, agency heads,
executive powers, on the next page?
BESS: No, that’s separate. Right?
HERKES: Is that separate?
IRVINE: I think that would happen if we voted this in. Right? Isn’t that why we have -
HERKES: No, it’s qualifications of department heads. And that’s why I want to know if this is all in the
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 28 of 62
same -
BESS: I understood that I was only dealing with the first page. Can we vote on the amendment?
IRVINE: We do need to vote on the amendment, right? My question is we’ve got a department of this,
department of that, but maybe this would be fine to be an office, although I like consistency.
BESS: I really was responding to the public input.
RAY: Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: I agree with the intent of the motion. I want to know is there any effect of changing that
single word, from department to office, other than what Steve put out as the intent.
RAY: Chris.
YUEN: I don’t think it’s different from Civil Service point of view. I think the effect of this is still to
create a separate executive agency.
YOSHIYAMA: Okay, thank you.
SANTANGELO: One of the things that does effect it, though, is in department heads, they are appointed
by the Mayor and they’re confirmed by the Council. Now, in this case, we were trying to get this
Managing Director to be appointed by the Mayor, but confirmed by the Council, wherein the case now
as it is in our Charter, the Mayor hires his or her Managing Director. So there are privileges and
procedures different in a patronage vs. a department, and I just would like clarification on that.
RAY: My understanding is that it wouldn’t change 6-1.2. The Managing Director would still be
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council.
SANTANGELO: So, we’re writing that into this as part of that amendment.
RAY: Right, that’s my understanding.
SANTANGELO: And the other question that came up with departments was staffing. On the other hand,
this Managing Director, once confirmed, is going to serve at the pleasure of the Mayor anyway.
HERKES: Point of personal privilege. Does that have anything to do with the motion?
SANTANGELO: Yes, we’re dealing with departments. Besides being antagonistic, we’re dealing with
department head, right?
HERKES: We’re dealing with the Office of Management.
SANTANGELO: No, the motion is to drop ‘department’, Marni.
RAY: I think that’s a valid line of reasoning to know if by changing it to the Office of Management vs.
the Department of Management, that if that would have any material effect on how this office, or
department, would function. I think we need to understand that.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 29 of 62
HERKES: And Chris’s answer was?
YUEN: No.
HERKES: Thank you.
BESS: One of the things that has been brought up in a number of our meetings is that we really want to
try to strengthen the Managing Director’s position, and I think the title, by calling it Office of
Management, distinguishes it from other departments, and raises it to another status. I want people to
look at the Managing Director’s Office as being much different than it is today.
RAY: Does everybody understand that? Okay.
HERKES: Stephen’s motion is just for one page.
RAY: Right. I’m just going through that.
HERKES: Okay. What are you looking at the other page for, then? Let’s deal with one page because
I’ve got lots of things to say on changes.
RAY: Let’s vote on Mr. Bess’ motion. All in favor, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: That motion carries. Do we have other amendments?
HERKES: Do you want a change for (d) now; ‘evaluate the management and performance of each
executive agency, including the extent to which and the efficiency with which its operating and capital
program and budget have been implemented’? I’ve got some wording.
RAY: Let me ask our counsel that. Can we work on that or do we have to finalize that language this
evening?
YUEN: I don’t think it’s necessary to absolutely finalize the language this evening. I’d always expected
that we would vote this evening on what we were going to do and then we could tinker with exact
language. The major substantive changes that were being proposed with the Managing Director were: to
give the Managing Director a separate department, which is now going to be called an office; provide
for Council confirmation, that’s a significant substantive change; place all agencies of the County under
the Managing Director in the table of organization rather than just Department of Public Works and
Department of Parks and Recreation. If the Commission votes to make those changes then we can come
up with what the exact language would be at a later time. But, to the extent that people know what they
want to do right now, then we can do it now and save ourselves some work later.
RAY: I’d rather work on it a little bit.
IRVINE: I think that’s fine but I really think (d) needs some work.
RAY: Yes, we understand that.
IRVINE: Okay.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 30 of 62
RAY: That’s what we were just talking about. Are there other amendments then, other than working on
the language in (d). If not, all in favor, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Opposed. I want to call a five minute recess.
RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 6:55 p.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 7:03 p.m.
RAY: I’d like to reconvene the meeting. We’re at amendment number 4 on the agenda, the Fire
Commission, and I believe we have some minor suggested changes to that.
HERKES: So John, what are we doing, the executive powers? Additional changes?
RAY: This is on the Fire Commission item. We had several changes. We have informally agreed to
make the Commission nine members and representative of the nine Council districts. That’s probably
the most substantive change. And then we also had language in regard to emergency services. Do you
have that exact language there, Chris?
IRVINE: It was rather than medical services, to put emergency or just plain services.
HERKES: We had emergency and rescue personnel too.
YUEN: I think the basic idea was to just say emergency services rather than emergency medical or
emergency rescue, and that’ll cover it.
RAY: Do we need a separate motion for the nine member?
YUEN: Somebody could make a motion for all the changes in a group. There were two other things that
were discussed at the last meeting as far as changes. One was my suggestion that I had said that this new
department would have ‘any other related functions that may be assigned to it by ordinance’. I wanted to
take the word ‘related’ out so that if the Council wanted to give them another function, they didn’t have
a debate about whether it was related or not to the other functions and leave it up to them not to do
something stupid. And then there was a suggestion – there wasn’t votes taken on this, but there was
discussion about taking out the word ‘advisory’ to the Commission and saying that it can have – the only
powers that are specified in the Charter are to advise. But if the Council wanted to give it other powers,
we would add a clause that says ‘any other powers and responsibilities assigned by law’.
IRVINE: Chris, I think you’re on the Department of Environmental Management.
YUEN: Oh, I am. I’m sorry.
IRVINE: I’m sorry.
YUEN: No, you’re completely right.
HERKES: John, I have that we added, or it was suggested, retired fire person and emergency. Did we
not add that? Is that something that’s still out there?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 31 of 62
IRVINE: No we did not discuss it anymore. But we did discuss, under 6-4.2, the bottom line, we were
told has poor English and we agreed that we’d say, in that last sentence there, ‘in order to achieve this
purpose, the Fire Department shall operate in accordance with the following’ rather than have that ‘be
conducted’.
HERKES: Right.
BESS: Yes.
HERKES: ‘Shall be managed in accordance’.
IRVINE: I said ‘operate in accordance’, but if you want to ‘manage it in accordance’, that’s all right too.
HERKES: ‘Operate’s fine. Tom Beach had, I thought, some excellent comments in the letter that we got
from him tonight. One of the ones was that the Fire Chief must be allowed to respond to the statement of
reasons before being removed by a quorum of this Commission. It doesn’t say anywhere in here, or I
couldn’t find it, where how many it takes to remove the Fire Chief.
YUEN: It would follow the general rule in the Charter which is that a majority of all the members to
which the Commission is entitled are required to take any valid action. There’s a blanket statement in
Article XIII of the Charter on that. So if you had the nine members, it would take five votes to remove,
and five votes to appoint the new one, as well.
BESS: With regard to the 6-4.5, I’m going to change from where I was last meeting. The language that
you provided in Department of Environmental Services with regard to members; ‘consisting of nine
members who shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council, one member shall be a
resident of each Council district’, we need to put that language in 6-4.5 rather than ‘broadly
representative of the community’?
RAY: Yes, I think we had agreed to do that.
IRVINE: Right.
BESS: Okay. We use different kinds of language, but after reading through this thing again, this
language that you drafted, Chris, on Environmental takes care of we want them to be a resident, as well
as coming from each of the Council districts, and that’s what this language does. That’s not always the
case in other Commission language when we’re requiring each of the members come each of the
Council districts, but it doesn’t necessarily say they have to be residents. But anyway, I’m just saying I
like the language.
HIGASHI: And it should be uniform.
BESS: And it should be uniform throughout.
RAY: Okay. Is somebody prepared to make a motion that includes all the things that we seem to have
just agreed on?
BESS: Can I just say one more thing, John? This is in keeping with trying to beef up the power of the
Managing Director, and just how important he is as far as administrative function. On 6-4.6; powers,
duties and functions, this would require the Fire Commission to submit an annual report to the Mayor
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 32 of 62
and the Council. I think it would be a good idea for us to say that they submit annual reports to the
Managing Director, comma, Mayor and the Council.
HERKES: Or maybe just the Managing Director and the Council.
SANTANGELO: We’d better put the Mayor in there.
HERKES: We’re really going to have the Mayor cutting ribbons here.
RAY: How about ‘submit an annual report to the Mayor, the Managing Director, and the Council’? I
mean, the Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer.
BESS: That’s fine. Okay.
RAY: Can anybody sum all that up in one magic motion?
HERKES: I’ll try, and then what I leave out, you guys amend it. 6-4.2 Statement of Policy in the last
line, ‘Fire Department shall be operated in accordance with the following’.
IRVINE: ‘Shall operate’.
HERKES: And in that 6-4.2 also, ‘emergency services’ instead of ‘emergency rescue’ on the third line.
And in 6-4.4 powers, duties and functions, (b) ‘Train, equip, maintain and supervise the force of
firefighting and emergency service personnel’. And in 6-4.5 Fire Commission, ‘five’ should be changed
to ‘nine’, and the wording inserted from the Environmental Services Policy Statement on appointment of
members. And on 6-4.6 powers, duties and functions, (e) ‘Submit an annual report to the Mayor,
Managing Director and the Council’.
RAY: Do I have a second?
IRVINE: Second. Well done.
RAY: Discussion. All in favor, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: It’s listed as Department of Environmental Services, so I think we’re looking at the Department of
Environmental Management.
SANTANGELO: We changed that to Management already.
RAY: So, it would be the Department of Environmental Management; taking out the word ‘advisory’, 6-
5.1; and 6-5.3, taking out the word ‘related’ in the last sentence. Is there anything else?
IRVINE: In 6-5.2, ‘the director will be appointed by Mayor, confirmed by Council, removed by the
Mayor. The director shall have had a minimum of five years administrative experience’ is the way we
said it at this point. Because we are talking about other Department Heads having a little more specific,
or higher, requisite –
HERKES: Qualifications.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 33 of 62
IRVINE: Qualifications, thank you, I thought we might add ‘have a minimum five years administrative
and environmental expertise’ or ‘administrative experience in related fields’.
HIGASHI: ‘In related fields’. I buy that.
IRVINE: I figured Roland would say that. That sounds fine, ‘in related fields’.
HIGASHI: Second.
RAY: Any other? Chris.
YUEN: If the intent is so that the Council could give the Commission other powers in the future, then
you should add a sentence saying, at the end of the section involving the Commission, it would say ‘and
any other powers and functions as may be prescribed by ordinance.’
SANTANGELO: But that would be a different amendment, wouldn’t it?
HERKES: ‘Any other functions’, ‘any other powers’?
IRVINE: The last sentence of Environmental Commission, you said to add ‘such other powers as -‘
SANTANGELO: I thought it was, kind of, a done deal already.
IRVINE: We put it in last time but we didn’t make any motions last time.
YUEN: There was nothing actually voted on. All this was just discussed. If you’re taking out ‘advisory’
from the Commission because you want to have the possibility that they would have some real authority
later, given to it by the Council, then we need to stick in something that gives the Council the authority
to do that.
SANTANGELO: So her motion wouldn’t be just to add that prerequisite to the Director, but also add
that? That would be one motion?
YUEN: I thought you were formulating a motion that was covering everything at once.
IRVINE: We were to add that at the very end of this. We were going to add ‘shall have such other
powers as granted’, I think maybe, ‘by the Council’. I hadn’t seen the minutes, whatever you said. Is that
correct?
SANTANGELO: ‘By ordinance’ or –
IRVINE: ‘As provided by ordinance’.
YUEN: "As provided by ordinance’.
IRVINE: Yes, okay. That was it.
IRVINE: Yes, I did see that word. I have discussed a couple of times, I’ve brought in a couple of
statements, a first draft and then a second draft which a lot of you got e-mailed yesterday, but some
people just got today when we walked in. It was the statement of policy that would, I think, be placed
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 34 of 62
between Section 6-5.1 and 6-5.2. Wherever it’s appropriate, either at the very beginning or maybe there.
‘The Department of Environmental Management is established to protect, preserve, and enhance our
environment by promoting the wise management of our waste for the benefit of current and future
generations. The Department will pursue strategies that promote environmentally sensitive landfill
diversion, wastewater management, and non point source pollution mitigation.’
HERKES: Do you want a motion on that policy statement, or how do you want to handle this?
IRVINE: Well, I’m moving that we add that.
HERKES: But can you move the whole thing at once?
IRVINE: I did say there also that –
RAY: I think we’ve got a little bit too much on the table here. I don’t understand what this statement of
policy says. It doesn’t make any sense to me, so I’d like to look at that separately from the other motion.
IRVINE: Okay. I put it out a month or two ago in, sort of, this form.
RAY: It just seems like, kind of –
SANTANGELO: We’re doing a lot of friendly things and that’s not necessarily considered friendly.
That, to me, requires more discussion by itself.
IRVINE: I had the feeling we were trying to get some policy statements into here, and that’s why I –
SANTANGELO: But let’s take the ones you’re doing that are all friendly and we agreed to, and this can
be a separate one.
IRVINE: Okay.
RAY: Can somebody state the motion that has included everything but this first, and let’s get that on the
table and then we can discuss this separately?
IRVINE: Sure, I’ll do that. Okay, I’d like to move that we put out ‘Department of Environmental
Management’ rather than ‘Services’; removing from Section 6-5.1 ‘advisory’ in front of Environmental,
it would now be Management Commission; in Section 6-5.2, we would add, at the end, ‘in a related
field’; under 6-5.3, we would remove the word ‘related’ in the last line and any other – remove ‘related
functions as prescribed by ordinance’; Section 6-5.4, it would become the Environmental Management
Commission and added to the very last line ‘and shall have such other powers as granted by ordinance’.
RAY: Do I have a second on that motion?
SANTANGELO: Second.
RAY: And now, Sue, do you want to amend that?
YUEN: No, why don’t you just vote on it and then deal with the policy statement.
HERKES: No, let’s pass this first.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 35 of 62
IRVINE: Vote on this and then we were –
RAY: Okay.
SANTANGELO: If we vote on this, aren’t we, kind of, done?
YUEN: No, then deal with the policy – she wants to add a policy – I thought people were not
comfortable with the policy statement and they wanted to vote on–
SANTANGELO: But the motion would be to incorporate that into this and the motion right now – okay,
whatever.
YUEN: No, you can vote on doing it like this and then she can make a motion to add the policy
statement.
IRVINE: Okay.
YOSHIYAMA: I’ve got a question here. I guess I want to address the mandatory nature of this
reorganization, so my question, and is it appropriate to talk about this now, or after this vote?
IRVINE: Better talk about it now. How would you make it non-mandatory?
YOSHIYAMA: I think at the last meeting I asked the question how quickly does this have to be acted
upon, or implemented. I still have that concern. I’m concerned with transition, or need we address
ourselves with transition. I guess it’s, kind of, related.
IRVINE: It’s just part of Public Works that’s going to be spinning off, and the transition would be that
the incoming Mayor would appoint someone to manage that section as a separate department, as far as I
can see.
YOSHIYAMA: Well, that’s why. I don’t know if it’s that simple. That’s the question that I have, and I
don’t want us to say you’ve got to do it without – Should we be providing some transitional language in
there, like we do on the Fire Commission? It’s just a question. I don’t want to throw something out there
and it’s hanging, and it causes a bunch of problems. I’m in agreement with this department. It’s just are
we doing it in an orderly fashion? That’s what I’m concerned about.
HERKES: I think I remember discussions that we had that we thought that this was a really good idea.
But it might be something that the Council needed to pass an ordinance and the Mayor needs to give it
some powers, and the Mayor needs to buy into it, and so the language should give a lot of leeway
because it is a new department. It was something we felt was really important because environmental
management is important to us, and it was a statement that we were going to make that environmental
management is important. So we put it in the Charter but we didn’t mandate it, and I can understand
your concern. I’m not sure how to solve it.
IRVINE: Mr. Boucher, of Solid Waste, and Jiro Sumada – every testimony we’ve had from the
engineers and department have said good idea.
RAY: Wait. Marni, we have mandated it in this language – ‘it shall’. So it is mandated in this language.
There’s no question about –
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 36 of 62
HERKES: We don’t have any time on it. It doesn’t have to be, like, next month.
RAY: Okay, and that’s what Gary brought up, yes. But we have mandated it. But Gary’s question is are
we leaving it unaddressed and might that create a problem. John.
SANTANGELO: The fear would be that if we mandate this, then how much foot dragging, or whatever,
went on. And so then it raises the question do we need to put a specific implementation, it will be
implemented by a certain time, be it a two year period, or an eight year period, or a ten year period. Or
do we just leave it up to the Administration? Once the people vote this in as an amendment for the
Charter, it seems that legally they have to move forward in some sort of a methodical manner, and that’s
what I would ask counsel.
RAY: Just a situation that comes to mind – LESA Legislation, which was mandated in 1976 is
something that’s brought up every year and, apparently, because it is brought up and it is still being
discussed –
IRVINE: We can also vote people out of office if they –
RAY: No, but that’s a very concrete example.
YUEN: We talked about this a little bit, and there really isn’t a great way to solve the foot dragging
problem. I don’t think there’s a great way to do it. It does have to be implemented. It’s supposed to be
implemented. If this gets passed by the voters in it’s present form, anybody can read it and the Council’s
supposed to sit there and, as an early order of business, they have to do a new position classification
plan, and the positions are going to be moved into this new department, and this is all supposed to go
ahead and happen. If they don’t do it, they’re violating the Charter, which they’re supposed to follow. If
you put in a time limit – If you said they should do it in two years, is it any different than if you didn’t
say how long they should take to do it? I don’t know that that really makes that much difference. To say
you shall do it in two years and they don’t do it, then well, they haven’t done it. The same thing now if
you didn’t say how long they should take to do it, they’re supposed to do it. So, I don’t know that much
is gained by setting a deadline for making it happen. The other part of Gary’s question, I think, is not
just the time line, but is there something transitional that we can say in the meantime. I would expect
that the transition issues are the things that would be dealt with in the actual reorganization when they go
to the Council. Because just doing this does not move the position in itself, just saying it in the Charter,
because we’re not reaching into the department and yanking the positions out. It still does have to be
implemented and that’s where the transition is going to take place.
HERKES: And that’s really where we come in. That’s where the voters come in. That’s where the
residents of the County come in. That’s where we can push our Mayor and our Council to implement
this, if we have it in the Charter. It’s hard to push them if you don’t have it in the Charter. But if you
have it in the Charter, it’s up to us to implement it, and I know, John, LESA is out there and that’s up to
us too.
YUEN: I think immediately the Mayor can make the appointment of the Director and can appoint the
Commission, and then there’s just a technical thing that has to happen as far as certain positions are
going to be moved out of the Department of Public Works, and there’s an amendment to his Position
Classification Plan.
YOSHIYAMA: I think I just reminded myself of something. It was a creation of a Data Processing
Department, right? So, okay, I’m okay.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 37 of 62
YUEN: It worked, right?
YOSHIYAMA: It worked.
RAY: Are we ready to vote?
YOSHIYAMA: It’s working.
YUEN: Let me ask about that. Did they pass a follow-up ordinance to move the positions into the Data
Processing?
YOSHIYAMA: I don’t recall.
YUEN: It wasn’t a big humbug, though.
YOSHIYAMA: Yes, okay.
SANTANGELO: And the point is, if they don’t implement it, we only need a hundred signatures.
HERKES: That’s right, we can impeach them all.
RAY: Okay, are we ready to vote on the motion? All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Motion passes. Now, I guess, we’re going to discuss separately Sue’s language in regard to
adding a statement of policy language.
IRVINE: Please.
HERKES: I move we accept the statement of policy for the Environmental Services. How about a
second?
KUROZAWA: Second.
IRVINE: Well, I moved, you seconded?
HERKES: No, Daryl seconded.
SANTANGELO: It’s a nice policy but we put a Commission in there, and we haven’t even got the
Department in place, and I feel it’s inappropriate and wouldn’t support that at this time. I think the
Commission’s going to look at that. They’re going to work with them, and I think we’re just trying to do
the work way ahead of time. I understand the motivation behind it, but my idea is that we’re trying to
put some expertise in an area to deal with a very technical problem, and the policy gets out in some
areas that I’m not comfortable with at this time. So, I speak against it.
RAY: Other testimony?
IRVINE: I’d like to just respond to that. I do think this is actually quite a broad statement. ‘Promote
environmentally sensitive landfill diversion’. Can somebody argue with that?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 38 of 62
RAY: I don’t know what it means.
BESS: I don’t know what diversion means?
IRVINE: Landfill diversion? You don’t know what it means?
HERKES: Recycling.
IRVINE: Environmentally sensitive. That was suggested to me by Mr. Boucher, who said non-
environmentally sensitive, to him, would maybe be trying to nuke all our solid waste, or something. That
would be, kind of, a poor solution to getting rid of our dumps.
RAY: Well, that’s his interpretation.
IRVINE: Yes, that’s his interpretation, but let’s try – okay – Environmentally sensitive –
PRANKE: Don’t dump your garbage in the ocean.
IRVINE: That sort of thing. It is open to interpretation, right, but I was trying to think of a worse case
scenario, but I guess if you want to nuke the garbage, that’s –
HIGASHI: I think it’s nice language but I think to be consistent, we don’t have a policy statement in
each part of our Charter so I’d like to have the Commission –
HERKES: We’re going to have.
IRVINE: I was hoping we would.
HERKES: We’re going to work toward it.
HIGASHI: At this point we don’t have so I want to be consistent.
SANTANGELO: And it occurs to me that in the implementation, if you have something that can cause,
maybe, some division, it could be counterproductive in trying to set up something. And again, I go back
to the Commission. I thought we put the Commission there to be nine people from nine districts that
were going to help advise this and create policy, and create that kind of thing.
RAY: My feeling is we’re making a very strong statement by putting this on the ballot, to create a
separate Department of Environmental Management. I don’t know, to me, this is just flowery fluff.
IRVINE: It comes from the State of Washington.
RAY: It just bothers me and I don’t know exactly why, but it just doesn’t seem consistent with the way
we’re doing other things in the Charter. I think, like I said, by the fact that we’re suggesting creating a
whole new department focusing on these issues, that’s a very strong statement.
HERKES: I think that we’ve taken some heat because we’re creating a whole new department, even
though we’re diverting positions from other departments rather than hiring new people.
RAY: And I think what John was saying is you might take more heat if you put this statement in.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 39 of 62
HERKES: I might take a lot personally, you’re right. But I think also that in that creation of a new
department, we have an opportunity to start a trend of providing policy statements for each department,
as we’re qualifying Department Managers. I would like to see policy statements for each department.
We may not get them in this particular Charter change, but we certainly can work with our Council
people to have them implemented one by one. And as we’re doing a new department, this is the time to
do this.
IRVINE: Okay, I’ve got an idea, folks. What if we just said ‘The Department of Environmental
Management is established to protect, preserve, and enhance our environment by promoting the wise
management of our waste –
HERKES: Period.
IRVINE: Period. Maybe management in there.
BESS: You could even shorten it even further by just saying ‘established to protect, preserve, and
enhance our environment.’
IRVINE: Okay. It’s mostly dealing with waste, but –
BESS: Well, and then it goes on to say what you’re talking about.
IRVINE: Does that become more palatable?
RAY: That’s not what this department is. You’re, like, saying this is the environmental do-good
department to protect our environment.
IRVINE: No I’m not. It’s to manage our waste, yes.
RAY: This is a Public Works Department to handle solid waste, wastewater and maybe some other
things.
IRVINE: All this language comes from Portland, or San Luis Obispo, or San Diego, or a couple of other
places where I looked it up. And this is the kind of statements they make about their solid waste
management areas. But, if we don’t want to have a statement of policy, that’s fine by me.
HERKES: It’s not really fine by you.
IRVINE: That’s true, it’s not.
HERKES: Don’t lie about it. We’re going to vote against it but –
KUROZAWA: I just want to make a quick statement. I actually support what Sue -- I think, in
philosophy, I see what Sue’s trying to get at, and I think, especially, since we’re trying to set up a new
department, we should give them a statement of policy to tell them what we want them to do. For
example, when we set up the Fire Commission, if you look at our last proposal, we have a statement of
policy in there, what we want the Commission to do. So, I think it would make some sense for us to give
them some guidelines. We can make it very general, but I think not to say anything would just – I mean,
what’s the sense. We should actually tell them what we want them to try to do. And if the ultimate goal
in the future is to look at the environment, then we should at least consider that.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 40 of 62
RAY: John.
SANTANGELO: When Sue brought up some of the other ones, I don’t know how they got in there. Was
that through a Charter Amendment? I really feel uncomfortable with this in part of a Charter
Amendment. Again, Sue, I supported you very much in this, and that Commission especially, and I feel
the mechanisms are there. But if you’ll look, one of the shortest statements in the Charter is the Public
Works. It’s a nuts and bolts kind of thing. There’s a lot of nuts and bolts in this solid waste, this
wastewater, and in how we divert it, and I think with the Commission in place, getting this thing there,
and then having a Mayor and a Council have to work together to implement this, the less barriers and the
less that we put in there – and have a little faith that we put in place the mechanisms that will bring that
forward. When you mention these other counties, was that what was put through a Charter Amendment,
or was that something that was brought in over an evolutionary period in implementing a department?
So, I speak strongly against it for that reason, although I support the spirit completely. I’m done.
RAY: First thing we’ve got to identify what’s being proposed, because we’ve talked about the full
version and, I think the non point source pollution mitigation is a problem.
HERKES: And I will withdraw my motion. Daryl will you withdraw your second?
KUROZAWA: Yes.
RAY: That’s for the full statement?
HERKES: For the full statement.
RAY: Okay, so, Sue do you want to –
IRVINE: Yes, I’d like to move that we put ‘The Department of Environmental Management is
established to protect, preserve and enhance our environment by promoting the wise management of our
waste.’ I think we’ll leave waste in there. I think we’re dealing with waste. That’s what we’re talking
about. All sorts.
RAY: Yes, I agree. So, ‘The Department of Environmental Management is established to protect,
preserve and enhance our environment by promoting the wise management of our waste’ period. We do
we have second?
HERKES: Second.
HIGASHI: Sue, are you proposing that this be 6-5.1, to start with that?
IRVINE: I don’t know whether it’s 1 or 2, wherever they get placed. I was looking at the Fire
Department. It would be 2 because, Fire, we put organization first, ‘There shall be a Fire Department’,
and then statement of policy, so that would be what I suggest. Just to let people know, I haven’t a clue
why we have an R&D Department, because it doesn’t say in there why or what their mandate is, and I
think it would be nice.
RAY: Are we ready to vote on the motion? All in favor, raise your right hand.
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 41 of 62
IRVINE: Oh my God, thank you.
RAY: We were just scaring you. Moving on.
Holdover of Boards and Commissions. I don’t think we have any additional language to this. Can I have
a motion to approve?
ALONZO: So moved.
RAY: Second?
SANTANGELO: Second.
RAY: Are we ready to vote? All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Ray, Alonzo, Bess, Higashi, Irvine, Kurozawa Santangelo,
Yoshiyama.
RAY: Opposed?
HANDS RAISED: Commissioner Herkes.
RAY: I’m sorry.
HERKES: I’m going to oppose it, but that’s okay. I can oppose some things.
RAY: So, one vote in opposition, Marni. Is that right?
HERKES: Yes.
RAY: Okay.
IRVINE: I was wondering if we’re changing that, and maybe this has to be at another meeting, but Mr.
Wurdeman had said that under 13-4 (g), that Commission members, right now, are paid. This is all part
of Section 13, and he had suggested that we aren’t paid and that we should either take that out, or
replace with ‘authority to set Board compensation by ordinance’. I wondered if we wanted to – no?
Everybody’s just looking at me.
YUEN: It’s a new subject.
IRVINE: It’s not like we could just say this is what we’re going to do to Section 13, which is Boards and
Commissions?
SANTANGELO: This is holdover. This is a specific part of the holdover.
IRVINE: Just holdover, okay.
RAY: That’s not anything we’ve discussed.
IRVINE: Okay, it was just something that he had brought up to us, and it is true that –
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 42 of 62
RAY: He had brought up a number of things that we decided –
IRVINE: Yes. I just thought if we were voting on 13, we could get rid of some of this trash in our
Charter at the same time.
HERKES: This is another one that’s caused a lot of confusion, and we had some testimony tonight that
there should be – it wasn’t in writing, or I can’t find it in writing, that the Mayor could just write a letter
and say he wanted the term to be extended for 30 days, to the Commission because he couldn’t find
anybody. And I just think it’s something we don’t need to put in here.
RAY: We already voted on it.
HERKES: All right. Go ahead.
RAY: And you voted against it.
HERKES: Okay, I did. You’re right, and I’m still against it. I’m not changing my vote.
RAY: Safety Coordinator.
HERKES: I move we approve.
HIGASHI: Second.
RAY: Okay, any discussion? Mr. Bess.
BESS: For the same reasons that I spoke to before about Managing Director, on Item (f) ‘perform such
other duties as may be requested by the Mayor or Managing Director’, and I would move to amend that
provision.
SANTANGELO: Second.
HERKES: We’re taking that out. That’s going. That whole section is gone.
BESS: All right, that whole section. I’m sorry. I take it back. Sorry.
SANTANGELO: I take it back.
RAY: Okay, we’re voting on the main motion. All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
IRVINE: Although it was pointed out to us –
SANTANGELO: We just voted.
HERKES: We’re through.
IRVINE: No, you guys, wait a minute. The bottom of that page, it said ‘The Safety Coordinator be
abolished’. Somebody tonight, I think, just said should the Safety Coordinator ‘position’ be abolished
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 43 of 62
when we put it on the ballot. Please.
YUEN: We’ll have a meeting to go through the exact ballot language. I want to do a draft and then I
want to have the Commission thrash it over so that you’ll all have your input and clean it up so we have
a real good comprehensive statement.
SANTANGELO: And, in no way, will we erode the spirit of what we voted on today.
YUEN: Oh, absolutely.
RAY: Department Head Qualifications. We have our existing language. We have the additions in regard
to the Chief Engineer and Head of the Water Department, including the language requiring the five
years of administrative service. Was there anything else?
IRVINE: Curt Beck, from the Engineering Association, whatever the name of it is, had said to us that, in
general, they are using ‘licensed’ rather than ‘registered’ engineers at this point. I think, Chris, you’re
looking blank because it was at the hearing in Hilo, and you were not there.
KUROZAWA: Actually, I can probably clarify that a little. I spoke to one of the engineers who’s the
president of the Society right now, because I was curious whether this was a National license or a State
license, and basically what they’re using is a State license which is a test they take to practice in Hawaii.
RAY: That’s why we don’t want engineers running these departments.
KUROZAWA: No, no, but – So the point being about whether they’re qualified or not. It’s just a piece
of paper that they have from the State that they took a test.
HERKES: One of those regulations to keep out those bad boys from the mainland.
RAY: So, I guess the question is do we want to change it from ‘registered’ to ‘licensed’, is that the
issue?
HERKES: I need more expertise than – is it Gary? Who’s an engineer here? Who would know? Does
Civil Service have that qualification?
YUEN: I can check that out for you, but I would suggest that if you actually didn’t want to change it,
that leave it the way it is because I think everybody understands what it is.
HERKES: Okay.
IRVINE: Okay.
YUEN: As a person, a guy, who’s licensed, whatever they call it, in Hawaii. That’s what it means.
IRVINE: I was just trying to be polite to them that have the degrees.
SANTANGELO: But we need a motion, yes?
RAY: Wait a minute. Let’s make sure we’ve got everything included in this. Is part of this motion
moving everything, all the qualifications, in Section 13? So to complete that, I think we just need to
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 44 of 62
move the Finance Director.
YUEN: I’m lost now. I thought that that’s 15, all the qualifications. Are we on 15 now?
RAY: Yes, but we also wanted to clean up –
HERKES: We’re on 12 and 15.
IRVINE: No, we’re on 12, 15 – We canned number 12 actually.
RAY: Excuse me. Wait. We’re on 15, Department Head Qualifications, okay? Is what we’re discussing.
HERKES: Those are all in the Charter now under one section, and I know it probably means we’re
going to rewrite a whole bunch of the Charter, but to me, it would be much clearer if they were under
each department head qualifications that are in 13 point something, whatever they are.
RAY: 13.3, and that’s what I was just bringing up that we discussed at the last meeting. We’ve got
everything now in this new amendment other than the Finance Director. Right?
YUEN: Right.
HERKES: So, we would once again have an amendment where the qualifications are separate from the
department?
IRVINE: No, they would go into the departments if we add Finance and Deputy Finance to number 15
because the other ones are handled. That’s my impression anyway.
YUEN: Right.
HERKES: Okay.
IRVINE: And I just want to stress that if I’m wrong, I hope we do whatever we can to get all of those
out of there.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: In regards to the Department of Public Works and Board of Water Supply, do we move those
people into that same category under Department Head Qualifications?
YUEN: No, I think the suggestion was to keep the qualifications with the department. And what we’re
trying to do is actually get rid of that section in Article XIII by moving everything in Article XIII to the
departments. So, the additional qualifications, that are being proposed to Public Works and Water
Supply, would be in the Public Works and Water Supply sections.
HIGASHI: So the idea was that we were going to keep the registered engineer and also add in
administrative experience in private or public or both.
IRVINE: Yes.
HIGASHI: Is that the intent?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 45 of 62
RAY: Yes.
IRVINE: And that we would move that over to Section 15. I mean, we can vote on all of these at one
time?
RAY: That was the idea, yes.
IRVINE: Okay.
HERKES: So moved.
RAY: Do we have a second?
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
RAY: Steve.
BESS: I have a question just on language here. We have, in some places, where a Director has five years
related experience in the private or public sector, like in Department of Research and Development. And
then in Department of Parks and Recreation we have it ‘or both’, we add on. One, that they should be
consistent. Two, I’m not sure that I understand why ‘or both’ is necessary.
SANTANGELO: Well, two of one and three of another.
BESS: So I would suggest that we just have it all as in Department of Research and Development.
YUEN: Actually, I don’t know that it’s necessary to say ‘public and private sector’.
HERKES: In a related field, or in related experience?
YUEN: Just say ‘in a related field’ and then I think anybody would understand. If you don’t say ‘public
or private sector’, that’s all there is anyway. They’re either public or private sector, as far as I know.
BESS: I agree.
YUEN: So, it simplifies it a little bit. Just say five years experience.
IRVINE: Absolutely. Wonderful idea.
RAY: We have a motion on the floor, seconded.
IRVINE: Steve’s motion?
HERKES: No, my motion. So moved to adopt.
RAY: Does everybody understand all the proposed changes? All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Police Commission, number 16. Do we have a motion?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 46 of 62
HERKES: Move to approve.
YOSHIYAMA: Second.
RAY: Discussion?
HERKES: I would like a discussion. I’d like to say that the Police Commission has been changed to
follow the Fire Commission because we like the Fire Commission wording. There was some testimony
tonight that it was different, and it really isn’t. We use the policy statement out of the Fire Commission
for the Police Commission.
IRVINE: You’re right, and I think we have strengthened, with our statement of policy, this Commission.
BESS: And I know I’ve stated this before. Again, on language, when we’re talking about the nine
members, the language as stated now on Police Commission does not state any resident requirement and
we’re going to use the language that we used in the Environmental Management Department.
HERKES: Is that a friendly amendment?
BESS: Yes it is.
SANTANGELO: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
RAY: Go ahead, John.
SANTANGELO: As I understood our discussion of the Police Commission, we were trying to deal with
the ability to have some accountability and oversight of the Chief. But in that first statement where we
say ‘review the operation’, are we delving into some deeper water? Are we starting to micro manage? I
know we wanted to be able to hire and fire the Chief. I know we wanted to bring accusations, have him
answer them without a trial, but have the opportunity to answer them. But in here, we have that where
‘review the operation of the Police Department and make recommendations to the Chief’.
IRVINE: Where is that?
SANTANGELO: That was in the summation.
HERKES: He’s reading a summary. He doesn’t know where it is.
IRVINE: Oh.
SANTANGELO: I was reading the summary. I don’t have the other.
HERKES: And I don’t know where it is either.
IRVINE: I have to see where it is. I mean, we’re getting down to the end here.
YOSHIYAMA: [e](6), second page.
HERKES: Now, those came out of the City and County of Honolulu, I understand, and they haven’t had
any problem with it. Is that true? I don’t think we changed a lot of those out of the –
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 47 of 62
SANTANGELO: Okay, so I raise that question. I don’t know that.
HIGASHI: It came out of the Fire Commission.
HERKES: Fire Commission, which came out of the City and County of Honolulu, which they think has
worked really well.
SANTANGELO: Except that, again, firemen don’t carry guns, don’t arrest people, and -
IRVINE: Number 9 says ‘except for the purposes of inquiry, neither the Commission nor its members
shall interfere in anyway with the administrative affairs of the department’, if that mitigates.
SANTANGELO: So, how does 6 help or hinder? That’s my question.
KUROZAWA: I think if you recall, when we discussed this first proposal, one of the issues was to
empower the Commission to be able to actually look at the operations and if you go to 7, to do the
annual report to the Mayor, was so they could follow up on that. So I think that’s why this was left in, so
they actually did look at the operations and, in turn, wrote a report to the Mayor to say what was going
on. That was months ago.
SANTANGELO: I understand that. I just, again, raise the question are we leaving opportunity for micro
managing and problems down the road. And if this Commission feels not, I’ll support it, but I have
trepidation about that. I don’t know how we have not served the Commission well by removing that.
HERKES: There’s one of those statements we’ll think about.
SANTANGELO: We’re trying to help the Commission and I don’t see how we water that down by
removing 6.
HERKES: Actually, we’re trying to help us more and have more credibility.
RAY: Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: I would think that in any Commission, be it advisory or otherwise, would need to
review the operations under its jurisdiction.
SANTANGELO: I yield.
RAY: Any other discussion on that? Then I believe Steve wants to add, under the evaluation, to include
the Mayor, the Managing –
BESS: Yes, sure. And [b](2) as well. There’s the review of the annual budget prepared by the Chief of
Police and may make recommendations thereon to the Mayor or Managing Director. Likewise on 7.
RAY: Any other discussion? All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Water Commission. The things we suggested was changing Commission to Board and I think that
was it.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 48 of 62
YUEN: No, the Council membership.
RAY: And the Council membership. One member shall be a resident of each Council district.
YUEN: No, I mean – I’m sorry. That was not a change from what had been voted on. I’m sorry. That
was a change from the present Charter.
RAY: The only addition would be changing the name of the Water Commission to the Water Board to
eliminate any misunderstanding with the State Water Commission.
HERKES: Can I just throw something in here? We said the Chief Engineer. Are we going to have the
Head of the Department of Public Works be the Head of the Department of Public Works, or are we
going to have it the Chief Engineer, even though they have to be a registered engineer? That has always
bothered me because it really is a Department Head, not an engineer. I think that wording should be
changed.
RAY: Where?
HERKES: The fifth or sixth sentence, ‘the Manager of the Department of Water Supply, the Planning
Director and the Chief Engineer of the County’. It really should be the Head of the Department of Public
Works, not the Chief Engineer.
RAY: Well, we’ve left it. We didn’t make that change, so we’ve left it as the Chief Engineer, unless
we’re going to go back and change the –
HERKES: But he’s still the Head of the Department of Public Works. Even though he’s an engineer,
he’s, or she is, the Head of the Department of Public Works.
IRVINE: It might emphasize our management skills rather than engineering skills in these jobs, to
change those. I mean, John, it’s no big problem to change them even though they’re engineers.
RAY: So, you’re suggesting we change the Public Works Department so that the Chief Engineer is no
longer – so you want to call them one thing in one place and something different in another?
HERKES: No. I want to call him the Head of the Department of Public Works wherever he is.
RAY: So, you want to go back and make a change to the Public Works Department. That’s what it
would require.
IRVINE: Under number 15.
HIGASHI: He’d be the Director of Public Works?
HERKES: Yes, Director of Public Works.
IRVINE: Let’s go look. Let’s see what’s there. No, you’ve got to go to 12.
BESS: Is this an item included in the agenda? Might this be a question here? What do you think, Chris?
YUEN: It’s not included in the agenda, no. It would be best to discuss it under New Business and vote
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 49 of 62
on it at a subsequent meeting, I would think. If you want to change the name of the Head of the
Department of Public Works.
HERKES: And read all 36 pages and pick out every place where it says Chief Engineer.
RAY: So is this something you want to agendize in the –
HERKES: Yes.
IRVINE: I certainly wouldn’t add any amendment to what we’re putting out for this type of thing.
RAY: Well, that’s what you’d have to change. You’d have to change it under the Organization. You’d
have to change the Chief Engineer.
IRVINE: We’d have to change what? What?
RAY: Look at the Public Works, Chapter 2, Department of Public Works. Organization lists ‘consisting
of a Chief Engineer, 6-2.2, the Chief Engineer. So you’d have to have an amendment to change that.
IRVINE: I wouldn’t go that far, but we could certainly say the Head of the Department of Public Works
here under Department of Water Supply. I mean it’s the same person. It’s emphasizing that they’re the
head of a department, as are those other people, the Planning Director and the Manager of the –
RAY: I just think you’re really confusing people if you go back into that.
SANTANGELO: The title is Chief Engineer. There is no –
HERKES: But, I want to change the title.
HIGASHI: They’re suggesting changing that.
SANTANGELO: You mean going back to Chapter 2 and changing?
HERKES: Yes. We’re not going to do it today because Chris said we need to agendize it for another
meeting.
IRVINE: All right. I’m going to retract what I just said. As long as it’s Chief Engineer in there, let’s just
leave it that way.
RAY: So, we’re voting on the Department of Water Supply as written with one change, change Water
Commission to Water Board. All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Salary Commission.
HERKES: I move we adopt.
RAY: I don’t think there are any additions to this. Do I have a second?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 50 of 62
HIGASHI: Second.
RAY: All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
IRVINE: You know what?
HERKES: No, no, no.
SANTANGELO: Will you get in there before we vote?
IRVINE: I voted but ‘the Commission shall consist of nine members, six of whom shall be
representative of the County geographical areas’. Do we want to change that to the nine Council districts
the way we’ve done everything else?
HERKES: Yes.
RAY: I’m sorry. I thought we had.
SANTANGELO: I thought we had too, in prior discussions.
IRVINE: Well, we haven’t so it’s time to do it, I guess.
HERKES: No, Chris will do it in the wording.
HIGASHI: I think where we mentioned nine, we would have a standard language.
BESS: Yes.
HIGASHI: Resident of each district –
IRVINE: All right.
BESS: That’s what my understanding is. It’s all standard language. We’re going to use the
Environmental Services –
YUEN: Okay, so we’re going to change this one then? That’s what you want to do? Okay.
IRVINE: Chris, and I was wondering if, instead of that whole sentence ‘appointed a director’, dah, dah,
dah, dah, ‘shall be established by a Salary Commission which shall consist of nine members’, and then
we go ‘appointed in accordance with 13-4(b)’ and then we say ‘they may be removed’. Can’t we just say
‘consist of nine members’, then period. ‘The members shall be appointed and may be removed in the
manner prescribed in Section 13-4(b).’ I mean it’s the same. It changes nothing but it does it in two clear
sentences.
HERKES: We can deal with that wording.
IRVINE: Later. No?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 51 of 62
YUEN: It’s better wording.
IRVINE: Yes. So, if we’re writing this now, let’s do it. Excuse me.
RAY: Cost-of-Government Commission. Steve, do you remember your discussion in regard to –
BESS: What was suggested in the Waimea meeting was that there’s the Cost-of-Government
Commission, and after ‘consisting of nine members’ and I assume again, that we’re going to take care of
that they’re going to be representative of each district, but that we would also add ‘the Managing
Director shall serve as an ex-officio member of the Commission’.
RAY: And then the other is that the -
BESS: And then the other would be on Item 4, it would ‘submit a report of its findings and
recommendations to the Mayor, Managing Director, and Council’. And then lastly, on the term of the
Commission, ‘no member of a Commission shall have served as a member of the preceding
Commission’. I’m suggesting that that be stricken.
RAY: And the four-year term.
BESS: Yes.
IRVINE: That’s up where it says Cost-of-Government Commission.
YUEN: So it would be appointed every four years at the beginning of the second year of the Mayoral
term. Okay.
RAY: Right.
SANTANGELO: That’s a motion, right?
BESS: I move.
SANTANGELO: Second.
RAY: All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: That concludes –
YUEN: Could I ask just one thing, to go back to the Salary Commission and, because you’re changing
the Salary Commission to nine members, one from each Council district, now we have to address the
transitional question of the terms of the Commission members who are presently serving because, as the
Boards are presently constituted, you may have two or three people from the same district, and do they
get kicked out with this? And what I put down for the Water Commission is they continue to serve,
regardless of the residency and the district, and every time a seat becomes vacant, then you have to fill
that from an unrepresented district, so you gradually move to the nine. But, we need to specifically do
that for the Salary Commission.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 52 of 62
SANTANGELO: Chris, how long do you predict that that would take, say, with the Water Commission?
YUEN: I don’t know how long it would take. It takes five years to get a complete turnover of the
members of the Commission, but I don’t know how many are overlapping in a district right now, and
when those particular seats are going to become vacant. You’d have to look at every seat and try to
figure out how long this transition is going to take. The other way to do it is you’ve got to decide, well,
some of these people aren’t going to be able to serve, or you have to disqualify one or the other. If you
have two people in the same district and an unrepresented district, if you don’t say that they can
continue on, you’re going to have to disqualify them, or you’re going to have to shorten their term, or do
something. This needs to be addressed.
SANTANGELO: And I have pretty grave concerns in that area, based that this is a different department.
It’s an enterprise department. They have some pretty heavy responsibilities. And yet, the whole purpose
of changing this was if anything needed a broader base of support and input, it was this Commission, so
my only concern is that it would take a long time because I think there’s some people in West Hawaii,
and areas like that, that would be looking for better representation a little quicker.
IRVINE: It doesn’t sound really possible though, John. I’d like to move that we do this in the same
manner as Chris suggested, that we let terms expire and then fill the vacancies with people from
unrepresented districts.
HERKES: I second the motion. And if I can speak on it, I think it’s in the best interest of everybody in
the County not to have the Water Commission disrupted because I think it would be disruptive for all of
us if we ended up with a whole new Commission, or if we started removing people. It’s just a better
way. It’s a smoother way of transition if people get through their Commission terms. Now, they may
resign. You know, that’s up to them. I would hope that not too many of them would.
SANTANGELO: In speaking to that, given the plethora of alternatives that we were presented, and
having given plenty of time to each one of them, sarcasm included, one of the problems is that, and I
agree, you need the expertise on this Commission. On the other hand, if you were to demand that you
had too many representatives in one district, and only one could stay, and that would hurt the
Commission, that shows the imbalance that’s in the Commission. And my only question was was there
an alternative, and if there’s not, fine, but it didn’t seem like we went very far into it. Otherwise, I’ll go
along with that. Has there ever been any other way of doing it?
YUEN: The alternatives are only limited to our imagination, but I know because it’s been discussed,
with the Water Commission, it does not follow the nine districts now. There’s some imbalance there, so
you have to address what do you do, unless you’re going to let people serve out the term, then you can
say if you have two or more in the Commission from the same district, you can say the one with the
shortest term has to quit; the one with the longest term has to quit; they flip a coin to decide who has to
quit; their terms are shortened by a certain amount of time so that the transition doesn’t take so long.
There are a lot of different alternatives. I brought this up because it’s a technical point that when the
Commission voted the first time to go to the nine Council districts as being the membership, we didn’t
really vote, or consider this. I drafted up the transitional language and stuck it in 17, and I mentioned
that the Commission had not voted on it. And now that we’ve gone with the Salary, I think probably it
would be best since the Commission – I’m not sure we alerted ourselves to this. This was added on
when we voted on the Water Commission, number 17 and I’d like us now to move to vote and add that
on. I think that would be a good idea to take a vote on how you’re going to do that. And then what I
brought up was on 18, now with the Salary Commission, same thing, you have people who are there and
assuming that there are doubling up, or tripling up possibly, in the different Council districts, do you
want to let people serve out their terms and gradually move to the nine single member districts, or do
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 53 of 62
you want to do some other kind of transition? There are many ways of doing it, but I’ve, kind of,
outlined the general things you have to consider, the general things you’d have to do.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chairman, maybe with Sharron’s help, she can visit those departments to see exactly
who’s serving, where they represent, and when their terms expiring, and then we can evaluate if there’s
a problem, or how we can handle the situation.
IRVINE: Rome wasn’t built in a day, and if we have holdover people on a Commission for a few years,
it’s not going to jeopardize the County.
HIGASHI: All I’m saying is let’s look who’s there and how long their terms are.
RAY: So, you’re suggesting that we hold off on this vote?
HERKES: What you are going to do?
RAY: Hold off on the vote in terms of –
SANTANGELO: I just mention one more thing. Sue, one thing to be real careful of is you and I both
come from a district that has a predominance of people on it. I mean we’re here on this side, and I think
over two-thirds of it come from the East side. And if there was ever an issue that’s important now, it’s
Water. I don’t mind going along with what you said if I had a fair amount of assurance that there wasn’t
any other way to do it better.
IRVINE: Okay. Well, I made a motion and it was seconded, so we have to either vote –
RAY: Okay, all in favor?
SANTANGELO: I move to table.
RAY: I think we can –
SANTANGELO: If it gets a second, there’s no discussion.
HIGASHI: Second.
IRVINE: It got a second.
SANTANGELO: I have a second. It has to go to vote.
RAY: Okay, all in favor of tabling?
HANDS RAISED: Commissioners Alonzo, Bess, Higashi, Ray, Santangelo, Yoshiyama.
RAY: Okay.
SANTANGELO: What is it?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 54 of 62
HERKES: Tabled.
YUEN: I think it was six. Basically you’re going to defer the issue. The vote to table means you want to
defer discussion. And do you want Sharron to get a list of who is on the Water Commission and the
Salary Commission now, the length of their remaining terms, and what Council district they live in?
SANTANGELO: Especially the Water.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chairman, something occurred to me as we voted on the last department, the Cost-of-
Government Commission. We need to attach it to somebody so they can operate, whether it’s the Office
of the Mayor or Managing Director, and some mechanism as to who will, kind of, head this department
or who will chair it. Is it totally independent? How does it work? So I think we need to, kind of, address
that.
HERKES: I think it’s totally independent.
RAY: Sue, have you got the Maui County Charter there?
IRVINE: What’s that, on page 28, or does anybody know?
HERKES: 22. I’m looking at it right now. The Mayor, with the approval of the Council, appoints a
Commission. So I would say it goes under the Mayor. We’ve finally given the Mayor something to do
besides cut ribbons. John?
HIGASHI: I think we can decide whatever we want but we have to probably fit it someplace.
YUEN: I think the way it works in Maui, or what’s anticipated, is that they have an organizational
meeting and they appoint a Chair. And I think we’ve decided that the Managing Director would be an
ex-officio member, would actually be the only person from the regular government that actually sits
with them, would be the principal liaison. And they prepare a report, so, in a way, they would function –
Are you asking for administrative purposes?
HIGASHI: That’s right.
YUEN: I think they would work out of the Mayor’s Office. We can say that. You mean for just
administrative assistance like stationery, meeting places, and helping them post notices, and the like?
HIGASHI: Probably right.
YUEN: We could put it in the Charter that it works out of the Mayor’s Office. If we didn’t, I think that’s
where it would function out of.
HERKES: The amendment we voted on says ‘the Mayor, with the approval of the Council’. Now we
had some testimony about San Diego, that they just throw names in a hat, everybody that wants to do it,
and they pick the names out of the hat. Is that–
YUEN: I think what Roland is getting at is –
HERKES: Staffing?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 55 of 62
YUEN: No, is not who is appointed to it, which is specified as the Mayor, but I think, for administrative
purpose, to where is this attached. Like who provides staff support for it, and I think that would be
worthwhile putting it in the Charter, and I think logically it would either be the Office of the Managing
Director or the Office of the Mayor would be responsible for providing the staff support. And just to
mention, for example, like this Charter Commission is not administratively attached to any office, and
the Commissions normally are. So, say for example, the Planning Commission, they don’t have their
own employee but they’re attached to the Planning Department and when they have a meeting and the
agenda, there’s somebody in the Planning Department who puts all that out for them. So, I think the
point is a very good one, that it’s useful to say who they’re attached to for administrative purposes.
That’s what you’re getting at?
HIGASHI: That’s correct. Second question is who appoints the Commissioners?
YUEN: That is specified in what was written. It’s the Mayor. Cost-of-Government Commission is
appointed by the Mayor.
SANTANGELO: Where?
YUEN: No?
HIGASHI: Maybe it was an oversight, but I don’t see it.
HERKES: ‘The Mayor, with the approval of the Council, shall appoint a Cost-of-Government
Commission consisting of nine members in the second year of each mayoral term.’
IRVINE: However, it does not say where they are administratively.
HERKES: No, but it says appoint. Roland asked who.
SANTANGELO: Where is that? Help us out. Where?
HERKES: Cost-of-Government Commission.
KUROZAWA: Second section.
HERKES: First sentence.
HIGASHI: I don’t have the second section here.
HERKES: First sentence, Cost-of-Government Commission.
IRVINE: Second line.
KUROZAWA: Middle of the page.
HIGASHI: Okay. We can’t read too fast. We hadn’t reached that point. Okay, got it. It’s past 8 o’clock.
BESS: I was just going to suggest that – I mean, there’s a toss up here of where it should go for
administrative purposes between the Mayor and the Managing Director, and I’m inclined to put it with
the Mayor’s Office. The Managing Director is charged with running government efficiently, and what
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 56 of 62
have you, and it could be that if his staff was the one that was assisting the Commission to make
government more efficient, that there’s, kind of, a conflict of interest so that I would think that it would
be best to put in the Mayor’s Office.
YUEN: If I could just make a suggestion. I think that the Mayor’s Office does run a number of advisory-
type Commissions and the Managing Director’s Office will probably have a much smaller staff, and this
would be the only Commission that they would run. So from that point of view, it would probably be
better to have it administratively with the Mayor’s Office. It’s really not a policy thing. It’s just who
provides secretarial support and does things like call the members up so you would run that out of the
Mayor’s Office. They do things like that right now.
RAY: Okay, so what do we need to do to include that?
YUEN: Maybe make a motion, just say for administrative purposes, that it be attached to the Mayor’s
Office.
BESS: So moved.
HERKES: Second.
RAY: All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Okay, moving on to Review and Final Vote of Charter Changes Suggested in Public Testimony.
SANTANGELO: What about this redevelopment thing? What are we –
RAY: We’re getting there.
HERKES: Look at your agenda.
SANTANGELO: Excuse me, I put it away because I want to go home. I’ve got to go baking.
RAY: Number C, the Hawaii Redevelopment Agency. The amendment is to –
YUEN: I have a slightly different language if I could – very slightly. I’ll just read it out loud. The same
section, and it deletes the sentence saying ‘The status of the Hawaii Redevelopment Agency shall not be
effected by this Charter’, and it would say ‘The Hawaii Redevelopment Agency shall be abolished and
it’s powers, functions, rules and regulations transferred to the Planning Director on January 1, 2001.’
That’s just to give a date rather than it being immediate.
RAY: All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: And then Mandatory West Hawaii Meetings of the County Council. Do you have anything written
there? This would be the under Legislative Branch, page 3 in our Charter, 3-7 Meetings, the first
sentence, ‘The County Council’, it says,‘shall meet regularly’, same sentence, but at the end of the
sentence ‘establish by rule of the Council’, comma, ‘but shall meet no less than once quarterly in North
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 57 of 62
or South Kona’. The idea is to mandate a quarterly meeting in Kona – that the County Council shall
meet no less than once quarterly in the North and South Kona districts.
HERKES: Is that a motion?
RAY: This is my suggestion, and the reason I’m suggesting this is I think –
HERKES: Discussion comes after the motion.
RAY: Well wait, maybe you don’t want to move it.
HERKES: I want to discuss it.
RAY: I think it would go a long way with just establishing a regular presence for the County Council in
West Hawaii, that folks could count on and interact in, and it’s more than just dealing with day-to-day
Council business. It also has to do with civic organizations, schools, whatever, being able to go and
participate or experience the County Council, which, practically speaking, they can’t do now with the
Council meeting in Hilo. I know the Council meets occasionally in West Hawaii, usually either public
hearings or Planning Committee meetings, but that’s really different than having full Council meetings,
and I think this will also lead towards them probably holding other business in West Hawaii that they
wouldn’t otherwise. In other words, scheduling more committee meetings at the same time they bring
the staff over. So that’s the intent behind this. Do I have a motion?
HERKES: Yes, I was going to make one before you had the discussion. Yes, I move we have Council
meetings meet no less than one time quarterly in North or South Kona.
RAY: Do I have a second?
KUROZAWA: Second.
HIGASHI: Kona or West Hawaii?
HERKES: Now can we have the discussion? Do you have any idea how often the Council has met in the
last 12 months in Kona?
RAY: There’s a lot of difference between a public hearing –
HERKES: That’s why I didn’t ask the question how many times they’ve had a public hearing. How
many times the Council has met.
RAY: I don’t think it ever, I would guess. My answer would be zero.
HERKES: Okay.
IRVINE: I think they used to meet around more when they were more at-large.
SANTANGELO: Don’t say that.
IRVINE: But I think it’s true.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 58 of 62
RAY: There may have been some committee meetings, but I don’t think the full Council has met there.
Is that what you – just to clarify they do?
HERKES: The full Council has been there at several meetings that I’ve been there, but they may have
been committee meetings. You’re right. I was wondering. I don’t know.
RAY: It’s a different, more formal, sort of more inclusive process that I just think would be good civic
involvement.
IRVINE: John, do we need to say North and South Kona, or can we just say West Hawaii?
RAY: The point is to be in Kona. My point is not in Waimea, not in Ka’u, or whatever.
IRVINE: What if you just say Kona? I’m just thinking of simplicity. I don’t know, is Kona Kona?
RAY: Chris suggested defining it as North-South Kona instead of just Kona.
IRVINE: He’s a lawyer. But that’s all right. I forgive him.
RAY: I couldn’t think of any better way, but I was thinking of the central location where the population
base is, which is really the Kailua-Keauhou area, but it’s North-South Kona, was the intent.
SANTANGELO: (indiscernible).
RAY: I don’t know. You got anything worthwhile to say?
SANTANGELO: It’s another one of those ‘I agree with intent’. I’d just like to bring up some
information and some questions, and let us go over it. If there’s anything that I got beat up, especially
from the Portuguese Chamber, was anything that said bigger government or more cost. If you take your
Council to Kona, you’ve got your committees, so you’ll be holding your Tuesday committees there
also?
RAY: No.
SANTANGELO: So the committees held here and then they’d go over the next day for the Council
meeting.
RAY: It could be either way.
SANTANGELO: Okay.
RAY: But it doesn’t mandate that the committees are held there.
SANTANGELO: Because the staff involved in committees is a lot greater than Council because your
resource and stuff. I’m just thinking. That would cut it out for me because if you take your committees,
you’ve got overnight. You’ve got a lot of people and you need some staff to help you write some
amendments. You’ve done that yourself, so, okay. If the intent isn’t – You know, it seems to me that it’d
be better to take the whole darn thing but then you’re really looking at a big expense.
RAY: They could do that.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 59 of 62
KUROZAWA: It’s only a two hour drive from here. We drive this way all the time.
SANTANGELO: No, but Daryl, these guys have gone regularly till 8, 9 o’clock at night.
HERKES: Really? And it’s now 8:30. Guess who has to drive home?
SANTANGELO: Finishing my statement, because there is some serious costs in here, and a lot of times
we run out to do something and there are consequences. And what I’m saying is you go regularly late at
night, you’re taking several vehicles. You may well be staying overnight, but there’s a lot of equipment,
a lot of set up. And I’m just saying it is going to have a cost associated with it, and if it’s okay with
everybody, fine, but there is a cost.
RAY: I think there is going to have a cost associated with it. I don’t think that the Council meetings, on
a regular basis, really run that late in the day, so I don’t think you’re automatically looking at overnight
stays and that type of expense. You could, but as you well know, those of us who had to travel to East
Hawaii often have to spend the night if they’re late meetings, and the Council has to pay those expenses
as well.
HIGASHI: We’re not going to require them to have it televised –
RAY: Of course it’ll be televised.
HIGASHI: Do they have the staff over there?
HERKES: Amazing, we have television cameras in West Hawaii.
RAY: Our present contractor said he would be more than happy to come to West Hawaii.
HIGASHI: Oh, okay –
RAY: Any more discussion? All in favor?
HANDS RAISED: All Commissioners.
RAY: Was that a no?
HIGASHI: Better raise your hand.
HERKES: Portuguese Chamber’s going to get you.
SANTANGELO: They already have. The statement last night was ‘what’s our budget? Wasted every
penny of it.’
RAY: New Business. No new business.
Announcements.
BESS: Hold it. Wait a minute.
RAY: Yes sir?
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 60 of 62
BESS: I’d like to agendize a couple of – on Liquor and Civil Service Commission, the idea of providing
for nine members on each of our Commissions, and making it uniform and more representative. I’d like
to put that on the agenda so that we would increase the number of Commission members on both the
Liquor Commission and Civil Service to nine rather than five.
RAY: Is there a State law in regard to –
YUEN: State Law specifies the Civil Service and there’s a Hawaiian Supreme Court decision that said
that State Law was Civil Service, who preceded the County. Liquor, there’s a State Law but the County
supercedes the State Law on Liquor, so you can change Liquor to how many you want.
BESS: Okay, I just want to agendize it and we’ll talk about it next time. I mean, Civil Service, I’ll strike
that. But Liquor, let’s just let it fly. We’ll talk about it.
RAY: Okay. Marni.
HERKES: I want to agendize the Preamble. I have some suggested wording that I’ve passed out to
everybody. And also the wording for Article XIV, Section 14-1, under Code of Ethics. I brought that up
at the April 1st meeting and wording’s in the minutes, and it’s also been passed out to the Commission.
So, I’d like to agendize that also.
RAY: Any other suggestions? We’re going to have a special meeting here on the 31st.
HERKES: When? John was squeaking his chair. I couldn’t hear.
IRVINE: The 31st?
RAY: A special meeting in this room on the 31st, May 31st, three weeks from now. The reason being
I’m going on vacation on the 6th of June; Chris is going on vacation the 8th of June, so I’d like to get
these votes wrapped up, and that’s the soonest we can hold a meeting and meet the public notice
requirements.
SANTANGELO: So, what’s the date? The 31st.
RAY: So that’s three weeks from Wednesday. Three weeks from today.
HERKES: Will we have the wording for the Commission before that meeting, the wording for the
Charter?
YUEN: I think I can have the exact wording for everything that was passed today ready by then. I might
be able to have a draft of the ballot language. So we were going to put the transition on the agenda as
well. I don’t have an alternative wording right now for that.
HERKES: So if we did the wording for what we passed today on May 31st, and the end of June we
could finalize what goes on the ballot? When are you guys coming back? Are you taking a month or two
weeks?
RAY: I don’t understand your question.
SANTANGELO: Finalize it the 31st.
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 61 of 62
HERKES: I don’t think we’re going to be ready for all that on the 31st.
YUEN: Well, we may be able to finalize everything on the 31st.
HERKES: Okay.
YUEN: Your Board of Ethics, you have the exact language there. The Preamble, you have the exact
language. The Liquor Commission, if you’re going to change it to nine members, that’s pretty easy on
the language. If you want to adopt what I’d written for the transition then it’s ready to go, but if you
want to change it then we’ve got to discuss that.
RAY: That meeting will be at 5 o’clock on the 31st. Also this regular meeting that’s scheduled for June
14th, I’ll be gone and Chris will be gone as well, so we need to decide what to do about that. Shall we
just cancel it? Okay.
SANTANGELO: So the 31st will not be our last meeting? Okay.
RAY: We have a lot more to discuss, John, in terms of developing our budgets, and whole strategy for
public education and marketing this product.
SANTANGELO: Oh, that’s right. Okay.
HIGASHI: But we are getting to the critical part in finishing our work as far as amendments.
RAY: Yes, I think we could very well be done on the 31st.
SANTANGELO: Okay, but we’ve got other work to do. Okay.
RAY: Yes, so we have to have meetings to decide –
HERKES: Charter Commission’s 5 o’clock?
SANTANGELO: Can we do those on a weekday thing because I work in Saturdays, so it’s really eating
up a lot of my Saturdays.
IRVINE: I don’t think we do –
HERKES: Do we have a Saturday scheduled?
RAY: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
SANTANGELO: So moved.
HIGASHI: Second.
The discussion ended at 8:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011
Transcript of Meeting of May 10, 2000Page 62 of 62
Sharron Henry
Secretary-Administrative Assistant
Back To: Home Page | Table of Contents | Charter main page
file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-10-00.html7/1/2011