HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 2000-01-15MEETING OF THE
HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION
SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 2000
ALPHABETICAL INDEX
Subject Page numbers
Adjournment 89
Administrative Branch 13, 64, 80
Agenda 71
Amendments 88
Ballot Question 88
Digest 88
Exact Language 88
Animal Control 37, 39, 42, 44, 54
Attendance 1
Boards and Commissions 3, 37, 40, 41, 47, 50,
65, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85
Budget 57, 58, 60, 68, 69, 73,
77, 78, 80
Building Department
Inspection
35, 36, 39, 42
35, 36, 39, 42
Calendar 86
CaII to Order
Chief Engineer 57, 81
City/Council Manager form of Government 3, 14, 43, 64, 70
Civil Defense 35, 39, 40, 41
Civil Service 40, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 72
Commission 57, 60, 84
Communications 3, 89
Corporation Counsel
County Charter Articles/Chapters
Article III
3-12
Article V
Article VI
6-4
Article VII
7-2
County Clerk
County Council
At -large
Make -Up
Council Services Office
Districts
Six -Three
Single member districts
Terms
Department Heads
Qualifications
Deputy County Clerk
Deputy Department Heads
41, 50, 52, 53, 62, 80, 81
40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 80
80
80
40
40, 45
45, 46, 47, 48, 49
40, 46
46
55, 57, 58, 59, 73, 74,
75, 76, 79
1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
33, 45, 46, 55, 56, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65,
66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,
75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,
82, 83, 84, 85, 86
2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 33
1, 32, 82
73
82, 83, 84
15, 16, 17, 18, 22,
32, 33, 82, 83, 84
18, 20, 25, 26, 31,
82, 83
16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 27, 28, 72, 80
1,
23, 28,
17,
15,
55,
61,
55, 58,
56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
62, 64, 65, 66, 67,
70, 76, 80, 81
80, 81
59, 73, 75, 77, 79
55, 61
Elections 15, 16, 30, 31, 32, 33
General 15, 30, 31, 32, 33
Primary 15, 16, 30, 31, 32, 33
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 44
Environmental Management 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,
11, 12, 13, 38
Commission 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13
Department 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12
Executive Branch
Finance Committee
Finance Department
Finance Director
Financial Status Report
Fire Commission
Fire Department
Fire Chief
Deputy Fire Chief
12, 60
37
44, 78
78
3
3, 35, 37, 41, 44, 45,
46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54
35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42,
44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 62
38, 45, 46, 49, 52, 62
46
General Review of the Charter 71
Geographic Districts 82
Legislative Auditor's Office 55, 59, 71, 72, 73, 74,
75, 76, 77, 78, 79
Term 72, 75
Legislative Branch 12, 58
Legislative Reference Bureau 79
Liquor Commission 82, 84
Liquor Control Department 38, 40
Managed Competition 8, 12
Managing Director 14, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44,
63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 87
Mayor 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28,
30, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41,
43, 45, 46, 56, 58, 60,
65, 66, 67, 68, 80, 82
Meetings 86, 88
Minutes 2
Nonpartisan elections 1, 14, 15, 30, 31, 32, 33
Pamphlet, Amendment Information 87
Parks and Recreation Department 41, 44
Performance Based Outcomes 51, 78
Permitting 13, 35, 36
Planning Commission 82, 83, 84, 85
Planning Department 2, 13, 41
Police Commission 35, 37, 41, 45, 46, 47,
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 82,
83, 84
Police Department
Police Chief
Statement of Reasons
35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42,
43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 52,
53, 54, 62
38, 40, 46, 50, 51, 52,
53, 62
51, 52, 53
Privatization 8, 10, 12
Program Reviews 80
Prosecuting Attorney 62, 63
Public Hearings 14, 33, 86, 87, 88
Public Safety Commission 35, 37, 43
Public Safety Department 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
41,42,43,44
Department Head 38
Public Utilities Commission 6
Public Waste 10
Public Works Department 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13,
• 37, 38, 41, 60, 81
Publicity
Research and Development Department
Salary Commission
Salary Ordinance
Solid Waste Commission
State Collective Bargaining Law
State Health Department
Statements from the Public
Term Limits
88
58
55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 63
61
8
62
8
1
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30
Unfinished Business 3, 15
Wastewater 38
Water Commission 40, 41, 81, 83
Water Supply Department 38, 81
Attendance:
HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION
Transcript of Meeting of January 15, 2000
Waimea Civic Center
Waimea, Hawaii
J. Ray, S. Bess, M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D.
Kurozawa, G. Martin (from 9:30 a.m.), J. Santangelo,
G. Yoshiyama, Counsel C. Yuen
Absent: E. Alonzo, K. Balog
And 2 members of the public in attendance.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m.
RAY: I'd like to call the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission
meeting to order. It's January 15th, Saturday, 9:05 a.m., and we're in Waimea.
Attendance. Present today myself John Ray, Chair; Roland Higashi, Vice Chair; Steve
Bess; Marni Herkes; Sue Irvine; Dr. Daryl Kurozawa; John Santangelo; and Gary
Yoshiyama; and we're expecting one or two more people presently.
Statements from the Public. We have one person here, Jay West, and so we'll go
ahead and take her testimony. Jay.
WEST: My name's Jay West. I'm a business owner and a long time
resident here in Waimea. I'm also a home owner. And, I came here to testify - mainly I
just wanted to see what you guys were up to. I'd read little things in the paper - but,
concerning the make-up of the County Council. I didn't know you were considering
non-partisan. I like that. I think it's long past over due. I think it will take care of a lot of
them, us, we, they; that sort of thing. So, I'm definitely in favor of that.
And, also with the 6-3 Council make-up. My concern about that is that we have such
large districts on this island, and John explained to me about how it would be broken
up, the same as the State Representative Districts are made up, and that we have such
fast growth here that I feel like, still to have the separate nine members, all voted within
their district, that live within those districts, would still be the way to go. I still believe,
too, when you're looking at some of these agendas, some of these items, and you're
putting it toward the voters, that they should be separate and not combined as in one
Amendment, or whatever you do here. And John told me, in this case, non-partisan
and the Council make-up would be separate. That's always been a problem with me
when we go to vote, and I remember when we did term limits a while back, and it took
us about three times to get it straight, so if you could break up any of these things as
much as a yes and no to one issue, and not have more than one issue on the agendas
1
to vote on.
And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
RAY: Jay, you might want to stick around.
WEST: Yes, 1 was going to.
RAY: One of the things we're going to talk about is the idea of a
committee, or a Commission, on solid waste and the environment, and Jay's very
involved in manufacturing recycled glass, and she's been at the forefront of some of
these discussions for a long time. So that would be helpful if you'd stick around.
HIGASHI: I have a question.
RAY: Yes sir, Roland.
HIGASHI: Jay, there was a situation over in Kona where they had a
subdivision that was approved by the Council, where the community wanted to have
another access road mauka-makai, and if you had at -large Council people, you'd be
their constituents. I think, in that case, it may be an opportunity for people to pressure
those people a lot more because they would also have to run in your district. So, one
of the benefits of having at -large, you would have more Council people. l mean, you'd
be their constituency.
WEST: Yes, however, I feel as though, with the population as diverse as it
is, it's hard for a person to say, yes, I represent the whole island, when it's so hard to
get around the whole island, and to be able to represent those people. So that's why I
feel strongly about that. That thing with that subdivision deal, that's a planning deal.
That's just poor planning.
HIGASHI: Yes, but those Council people are going to be the ones who are
making the decisions. And many of the controversies within the Council are planning
issues.
RAY: That concludes the public testimony for right now. We are
expecting at least one additional person. A gentleman; Phil Bruce, from Waikaloa,
called and said he'd be here, so if he does come, we'll probably go ahead and take
him.
Minutes Approval. We have two sets of minutes to approve. December 4th. Can I have
a motion?
HERKES: Move for approval.
2
HIGASHI: Second.
• RAY: Any discussion?
HERKES: They're the most deadly things to read. I can't read those minutes
in one sitting. Any of them.
RAY: All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Opposed? December 8th minutes.
HERKES: Move to approve.
IRVINE: Second.
RAY: Discussion? All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Okay. Minutes approved.
Financial Status Report: As of 12/31/99, we have the two fund balances; from last
year's encumbered funds, $13,884.66, and from this budget year $80,852.98. So we're
still in good shape but I wouldn't assume, necessarily, that there's going to be a lot of
access money. I think the real expensive things; lots of public meetings and notices,
and, of course, the whole issue of publicizing the final printing and distribution, and
whatever, of all that, as well as our legal counsel. A whole lot of his work will be
coming once we clear some of these items up, that we want to move forward with.
Communications: We've received a number of communications; some internally from
the County, and others from members of the public. We received a letter from Rudy
Legaspi in regard to some language on Boards and Commissions. We received,
from one our members, Gary Yoshiyama, a great piece of work on establishing a Fire
Commission. Thank you, Gary. We received letters from Mr. Jim Otterson, Pat
Lescher, PhD Bruce, Curtis Tyler, Tom Russi and Christine Paul; all dealing with the
Council -Manager form of government. The ones from Mr.Tyler and Mr. Russi, we just
got today. And basically, they're all in favor of the Council -Manager form of
government. And, we also have a letter from Patrick Kahawaiola'a in regard to the letter
that our Legal Counsel sent him, so we've got a response from that. So I just wanted to
point those out.
Unfinished Business: Committee Reports. Why don't we, since Jay is here, deal with
this Environmental Committee. John, you're listed here as the presenter. You or Sue
can speak to this issue.
SANTANGELO: At this time, I'd like to call on Sue Irvine. And I think what we were
talking about, just to bring you up to speed, is there was a suggestion that there be a
committee or a Commission, and that sparked some thought here of what about a
Department. And so, just trying to address the environmental concerns of the island,
we are in an infancy compared to a lot of mainland cities, and so we can really get
ahead of the thing and Sue did a lot of work on this.
IRVINE:
very final.
Unfortunately, 1 did a lot of work rather late so I don't have anything
SANTANGELO: What you have is good.
IRVINE: But, I did go out on the Internet and actually spoke with some
people on the phone, as well. And Portland, Oregon seems to have one of the most
progressive systems for dealing with their solid waste. They have a Bureau of Water
which is separate from their Department of Environmental Services, but Environmental
Services does cover water quality protection, sewage treatment, wastewater collection,
sewer installation, solid waste collection, and recycling services. They franchise out, I
think, the solid waste and recycling, but it's pretty much required, if you're in the city, I
think, to partake of all of these services.
One of the other places I looked was San Luis Obispo where they have a Utilities
Department, which is separate from Public Works. Public Works does the sort of
things like trees on the streets, and street resurfacing, capital improvements. But the
Utilities Division does water, wastewater, and administers, also, the refuse and
recycling franchises.
I think we need to look for some places that are more rural, which of course, we are. I
don't know anything about the statistics on our island, of how many people actually hire
somebody to pick up their garbage vs. how many people bring in their own. I definitely
feel we need to provide some kind of emphasis on global recycling before we get done
with our Commission, but whether we can just assign a Commission to look into this, or
whether we need to actually find a Division within our Public Works that would be
headed by somebody from the professional environmental community, I'm not sure.
RAY: Let me interject. We're talking about Charter recommendations
here, and a lot of these things would really be administrative initiatives, if the Mayor
wants to, and the Mayor already has that authority to appoint a Committee or -
HERKES: A department?
RAY: Well -
HERKES: He can't create a department.
4
IRVINE:
• RAY:
No, he can't create a department.
No, that would be something significant to look at.
SANTANGELO: What I wanted to add, John, is that if you look at the Charter, even
if you look at the Department of Public Works, which is just a real little bit, in it's
duties and powers, as prescribed by ordinance. We're not going to write that
ordinance. As a Commission, as I understand it, could establish a Department of
Environmental or Department of Utilities, but then that ordinance would then be
written, or brought together, by whom? Would that be the Council?
HERKES: Ordinances are written by the Council, right?
SANTANGELO: Yes. So, whether it's going to address recycling, this or that, or the
other thing, would become a process unto itself. We would just simply make the
decision whether we felt it was important to have a department. We can't tell it that it's
going to recycle. We can't tell it these other things, right?
HERKES: We can say Environmental Services Department will manage
solid waste, wastewater, recycling and sewers, or whatever we want to say. I mean, as
an example, that might be the kind of wording that you can put in the Charter, and then
you can put managed by an administrator, and you can actually describe. Some of
• them describe fairly well the kinds of things that they do, some of the descriptions that
are in the Charter now, of the departments.
IRVINE: And certainly, the information 1 have does say Environmental
Services is a city owned utility providing Portland residents with wastewater quality
protection, sewage treatment, wastewater collection, sewer installation, solid waste
collection, and recycling services. You could make a statement something like that. I
have not yet found actual enabling legislation on these websites, or with anybody that I
talked to.
SANTANGELO: But I think the point being is if we put that before the voters, they
voted that, then it would be incumbent upon the government, then, to go ahead and do
that.
HERKES: It would be in the Charter. They'd have to do it. Sue, what's the
definition of a utility? 1 don't have my dictionary with me and I don't really know.
IRVINE: It seems to me it varies. Like with San Luis Obispo, that has a
Utilities Department, and to me, that is the same department that usually is called, sort
of, Environmental Services in Portland. The Utilities Department here has
responsibility for citizens' water and sewer systems, as well as for the administration of
the refuse franchise and the recycling activities.
HERKES:
telephone.
IRVINE: Yes. Well, these folks consider this other stuff utilities as well,
which they often are.
We have a Public Utilities Commission and that's electricity and
YUEN: Yes, I think I can explain it.
IRVINE: Oh, good.
YUEN: I think the example that Sue just gave of San Luis Obispo, I think
that's just a name that they're calling their service.
HERKES: There's not really a definition?
YUEN: Right. When you speak of a public utility in the State of Hawaii,
there is a Public Utilities Commission and there's certain companies that are franchised
as public utilities, like the electric company and the phone company, and a few others
that are regulated and provide these services, but in fact, they're basically private
organizations. There's the theoretical regulation and control by the government, but
they're 98% privately run. And that example, in San Luis Obispo, that's just what
they're calling their organization there.
HERKES: Okay, thank you.
SANTANGELO: And I think the question came up for us, when we looked at this
Commission, and maybe I'm mistaken, but that really wasn't something we were going
to deal with. That again, like John said, that's the Mayor or the Council, and so we
started looking at the department more, because to me, the Commission has little or
no teeth at all. And where I'm coming from, and I'd really like to know from the other
members here is, are we interested in having our environmental issues handled
separately with different expertise, and therefore, are we inclined to look at a
department?
IRVINE:
not ready, yet -
Or a Division within Public Works. I mean mandate a Division. I'm
SANTANGELO: I, personally, would like to see it to be not within Public Works.
IRVINE: Well, depending if we're going to leave, quote, Engineer in charge
of Public Works or whether we were going to more of a management person, and then
underneath that, have the expertise in the various fields.
SANTANGELO: But you, yourself, in everything you've found, has it separate.
6
HIGASHI: I would favor a separate department. But, within the description, I
would favor the franchising, or privatizing a lot of the issues, if it's possible within the
Charter.
IRVINE: These things are private right now, and what they say in here is
that they're in charge of the administration of the refuse franchise and recycling
activities, so that the government would be in charge of hiring somebody to do it, and
saying -
HIGASHI: I probably would favor language that would spell it out, or
whichever is most financially responsible.
HERKES: Managed competition?
IRVINE: Maybe we need to talk some more with Recycle Hawaii. They must
have at least a handle on what percentage of people do their own garbage.
HIGASHI: But the bigger issue is, like, talking to Waste Management. Are
they making money? Can private people handle this?
IRVINE: Waste Management presently, if you've read about their stock and
whatnot, there's major -
• HIGASHI: I don't want to get into their stock, but if there are other companies
and whether private people are financially able to handle that.
IRVINE: How would we go about that, Roland? How do you think we should
HERKES: Look up in your phone book under Waste Disposal Firms. Call
them up. Talk to Rick Walton. Talk to them.
IRVINE: Do we have some here?
HERKES: Yes, we have some and they do condominiums a lot. That's a big
part of their business is picking up refuse from condominiums.
SANTANGELO: One thing I'd like to interject. When I was looking at this and went
to the LA Sanitation District, where they had that. One of the things we were warned,
and they're marvelous people, and frankly, we could get one here if we so desired, and
they're running one of the biggest in the nation, And they had a separation. When it
came to the picking up, and all that kind of stuff, that you left private, but you never let
that come into the actual dealing with it, because the dealing with it had such
technology involved, and you know I'm one that's home rule, but sometimes
• government does things a little bit better in having that expertise within your
department, and not being held hostage by it at some point. So, there was, in their
7
recommendation, a separation. And then, if you had the refuse, and you let that get too
• far in there, there was impacts financially on the public that were very negative and
they could articulate that a lot better than I can, but there was very clear areas where
they departed.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chair.
RAY: Yes?
HIGASHI: Is there a sense of support to having this department, and we kind
of take it to the next step in terms of committee work? Is that where we should go? It
seems there's a lot of small questions.
RAY: I'm a little bit taken off guard. We had two communications from
Recycle Hawaii, and one, and I thought we were focusing on that a little more, was a
committee or a Commission for solid waste and the environment. But in an earlier
communication, they had talked about a Department of the Environment, so both are
certainly possibilities. So, it sounds like there's certainly a level of interest, that we
should explore this.
HERKES: I think there is. I don't know. Gary?
• YOSHIYAMA: Let me interject a couple of things. First of all, regarding
privatization or managed competition. These are being discussed, or handled, right
now in the State government because last year, I believe, a bill was passed that
created a Commission, or Board, to talk about privatization and moving, at least State
Government, and we've got to follow some of those laws, or setting up a mechanism for
managed competition, and setting limits, or parameters, for privatization. So that is
being done, and it's supposed to make a report to the Legislature this 2000 legislative
session.
Regarding Department or Commission. I'm a little stuck here because I don't know
whether or not our County has a policy on the disposition of waste and recycling. And
so, without some kind of direction, or policy, I would lean towards a Commission, rather
than setting up a department, because all of us here may have a different idea as to
what's the function of the department. So, anyway, that's where I'm at right now.
WEST: Could I say something to maybe clear a few things up?
RAY: Sure.
WEST: I would shy away from the word 'environmental' because you're
also dealing with air quality. The State Health Department seems to have the run of
things, and also within the State Health Department, they have a Recycling
Department, and so the whole word 'environmental' is another animal that, I think, the
State Health Department is handling very well. And, within the State Health
Department, they also handle the Federal regulations. We don't have a Federal Health
Department here, as such. So 1 think they're handling it and I hate to see a lot of
duplication of things. Recycle Hawaii has a lot of good information, and they are in the
midst of changing Executive Directors right now, so there's a little lag in there. As with
the Solid Waste Department, they changed heads I don't know how many times in the
last years, and to ask them about things, and those sort of deals, they don't have that
information. They never had, until Recycle Hawaii came up, how much it costs per ton
for the County to handle solid waste. So, within the department, it's tough, if you have
Recycle Hawaii who has already had grants to go for this information and to research
the community, and have public meetings on all this sort of things. And they've got
various reports on all kinds of things so make use of them.
RAY: Marni.
HERKES: I have a really good brochure from Maui's recycling program that's
excellent, and I'll mail it to you because it really lays out all of their policies, and I don't
know what their structure is, but I would think that maybe that would be something - I
think that my experience with recycling is that the private sector has not behaved well,
and I can remember cars, first we had oil, then we had waste, now we have waste
mixed with oil. We had some glass problems. So, I think that there's some
enforcement, or some structure, that needs to be fairly strong, dealing with public
• waste. This is public waste, and I'm not necessarily against managed competition, or
privatization, but structure is lacking here. I don't know why. Portland can handle it so
well. Oregon can handle it. It seems Maui's handling it really well. But we just keep
failing to handle it well, and I think that we don't have a commitment to handle it.
IRVINE: I guess that's why we're trying to mandate a commitment.
HERKES: Yes, that's why I'm trying to look at how that commitment's going to
look.
•
IRVINE:
job -
HERKES: It's a private - Maui Recycling, and they're the one that's doing bio -
waste. They're doing a bunch of stuff that we keep failing to do, or we just can't figure
out how to do, and these are private sector people that are not figuring it out.
RAY: But, she's just pointing out that that's something that's an
administrative, public decision.
It's not in the Maui Charter. I'II say that. So, if they're doing a good
HERKES:
RAY:
Yes.
John.
SANTANGELO: Again, you could look at some of this and be sorry we brought it up
at all. I don't know if privatization - I would hate to see this thing held hostage by that.
For me, personally, I'm looking at do we feel, on this island, and I was a member of the
Pay -As -You -Throw Committee, and worked with recycle there. I've been involved with
this for a while, and it occurred to me that these are special issues that need to be
addressed a certain way. It's kind of like the City Manager. Are we ready to rewrite the
whole Charter? I don't think so. But by the same token, how much energy do we need
to devote to this? If we make a decision, based on the information available from other
entities, that a department does well in handling this, and that there's a process that
flushes that out, then can we decide to do it that way, and I don't know that
privatization's a part of it, or any of this other. To me, it's much simpler than that, and
maybe I'm wrong. And if it is as simple as I think it is, I'd like to see us move forward,
and if it's not, I'd be against it.
IRVINE:
now.
It's hard to call it privatization when it's all in the private sector right
SANTANGELO: But Sue, why are we even dealing with that? What can we do as a
Commission? Can't we put up a department? How it's handled, we don't dictate that.
I don't see how the Charter - and if it does, why don't we go into Public Works and
demand that be private? And mind you, I'm into privatization, but not here. This is
something that's so interwoven in the State that it's got to be handled the way it is. So,
are we interested in a department to handle environmentals, or are we going to do it
from -
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: I must say I'm not ready to make a recommendation at this point. I
hesitate to develop new departments, myself. On the other hand, I think we really need
something to be done, and whether we have to mandate it under Public Works, as one
of their focuses, or whether you can say you must hire somebody that has some
experience in refuse management and recycling, I don't know.
HERKES: Are you looking for a commitment from us to elevate the issue of
public waste in the County Charter?
IRVINE: Sure. Okay.
HERKES: Okay, you've got the commitment.
IRVINE: I'II keep looking into this. Can we just take it up again on February
501. Roland said that maybe we should contact the people that are in Waste
Management here. John's been in contact with Environment Hawaii. I've been to some
of their meetings too, and I know they have an agenda that they're going to the County
• Council with, which is quite separate from this as far as I'm concerned.
10
SANTANGELO: Right, and we don't need to deal with that either. This is something
that deals with all of that later on. To me, it's real simple.
RAY: Go ahead, Roland.
HIGASHI: My whole idea on this initiative was at least to have it in the
Charter so that, as we move along in the future, we have an opportunity to either plan
for that department - Maybe we're not ready to do it now, but if it's in the Charter, and
we need to have language to allow it to happen, and if our legal counsel can, kind of,
put some language in there that would reflect that, because if it's not in the Charter,
we'll be faced with the same problem we have now.
YUEN: You can authorize a separate department, which would then have
an implementing ordinance, at some point down the road, when the people who are a
little closer to how the thing is actually going to be run, have a better idea of what
they're going to do. We've talked a little bit about the operations of a department like
this, whether it would handle recycling and solid waste, and naturally, the operations
and the structure need to go together. And I don't know that the Charter Commission is
going to be able to get their hands on how something like this is actually going to work
in practice. So, without too much trouble, we could authorize a department. We could
say something about recycling being a function of the new department, or if they don't
create the new department, that Public Works is supposed to pay a little more
attention to it. Because I think that that's where a lot of the groups that have been
involved in recycling are more concerned about, rather than is there a separate
department. It's that they feel that it hasn't worked for them with the people that they
have to work through in the County, rather than how the organization chart works. It's
just that the operation hasn't happened right. As far as your question, can I do that?
Yes, that's something that can be done without a great deal of detail and additional
kinds of research and decision making, because we're not going to be spelling out
organizational structure that moves over.
HIGASHI: And I think the Charter should be broad, but we should define a
responsibility if we can. And, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask legal counsel, with the consent of
everybody, to, kind of, formalize some parameters to begin with, because right now,
we're getting into the detailed things of operational, and this and that.
RAY: Okay. Chris, are you comfortable going ahead on that basis?
YUEN: Yes, I can do that. I've heard enough of what people are trying to
get toward to put up something.
IRVINE:
departments.
I have a lot of papers here with descriptions of these various
RAY: So, do we want to take any sort of preliminary vote on this, or wait
till we get some language, and see where it's headed?
11
HERKES: How does Chris feel about that? Do you need a vote, Chris? Would
you feel more comfortable?
YUEN: No, I think it's all right at this stage. I think that people are
interested, and you can always vote.
RAY: I'd rather not vote today. It's just, kind of, caught me off guard. I'm
not sure just where we're heading. I'd like to see it shape up a little bit.
HERKES: I think rather than mentioning managed competition or
privatization, which are buzz words, we'd like to look at partnerships that will make this
work; public and private partnerships.
HIGASHI: Again, I think we're getting into managing the operation itself. The
concept of the Charter is to have broad language in there which allow responsible
people to develop programs.
YUEN: I would say that you don't want the Charter to be an obstacle
toward how things are implemented. If you leave it open in the Charter, then whatever
is legal under whatever changes might be made in the next few years, then can be put
into place. If you put that you're supposed to emphasize a certain form, and that's not
where the State legislation goes in the future, then you've stuck yourself into a corner
again. It's for the people that put it into effect to determine what is going to be the most
efficient at the time; maybe all private operators; maybe they decide they want to go
municipal; but one way or the other, this has got to last for a while.
RAY: John.
SANTANGELO: Chris, so say this department's put in; we create that; it's on the
ballot; it's passed, as ordained by ordinance. Then, that would be the Executive and
Legislative that would bang that out, and it would be a public process, and Council
members would all get -
YUEN: Right, because there has to be some Council authorization when
positions are moved back and forth, anyway. That's when that would happen, as to
exactly what bodies, when. Because when you talk about reorganizations, we're not
talking here about something that would result in the County hiring 40 new people.
We're talking about something that moves a line of people from the Department of
Public Works into another organization, and there's going to be ordinances involved,
and there's going to be funding to pay for all these people going over there. So, there
has to be cooperation in the future. Even if we mandated it in the Charter, that there
has to be this split, then actually, which people go over and which lines in the
department, that's still going to be worked out later with the Council and the Mayor.
SANTANGELO: Thank you.
12
RAY: Isn't that kind of the approach we're taking with this Division of
Permitting? In other words, making a change in the Charter to enable the
Administration to come forth with a proposal, and then they work it out?
YUEN: That's right. To take all the obstacles in the Charter away from
reorganizing within the County Government so that the Council and the Mayor, who
are, actually every day in the building, trying to get the job done, are never going to be
stuck by something in the Charter.
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: I thought there was some move to reconsider that business about
permitting. Was that not true? We voted to accept the proposal by the Planning
Department to move it. Did we change our mind on that later?
RAY: Yes.
IRVINE: Okay.
RAY: We decided, rather than us mandating, we would remove language
so that the Administration could come forth with that proposal and then the same
process would take place.
• IRVINE: Okay, 1 had just seen where we had this preliminary vote, and then
we did change our minds.
YUEN: It's not really inconsistent with what was voted on. But at that time,
when we voted, Planning was saying mandate it, and then I met with Planning, and I
think John talked with them as well, and it seemed like what they wanted to do could be
done just as efficiently by giving them the authorization to move people between
Planning and Public Works, and perhaps even share people in areas so you can have
different satellite offices and people might be cross -trained or cross -listed. And also
acknowledging that they still would need implementing action by the Council and the
Mayor, even if it was mandated. So, just take the language out that makes it seem like
subdivisions have to be in the Planning Department, and then they can, by
administratively, move functions back and forth more easily. So, 1 think that that's
where we ended up with that. But, that one there, I've never presented a final draft for
the Commission to vote on and, and we'll be doing that, I don't know when, but pretty
soon some time, I'II do that one.
RAY: Any more discussion on this department, or committee, or
Commission of Environment? Okay, good. Well, I think we've made some good
progress there.
• We have another member of the public who has shown up to submit testimony, so let's
13
go ahead and do that. Ginger Towle. Ginger.
TOWLE: I'm here representing myself, however, I belong to a number of
organizations in Kona; Kona Crime Prevention, Kona Property Owners Association,
and West Hawaii Humane Society, and so forth. And I seem to be one of these people
that people call to find out what's going on, and 'would you please tell those people
certain things', and the thing that comes to me from many people that said are you
going to go to that meeting, is two main things that seem to be uppermost in people's
mind is they want a County Manager and they want non-partisan voting. And those
are the two things they keep coming to me. And then I came because I want to be
informed, and if I can help in any way. Unfortunately, most of the public don't come
forward. They tell somebody 'would you tell those guys'. So, that's my message and I
feel that this is something that would be helpful to our county, and 1 think they feel that
those two items would help County government run more smoothly. So, that's my
message.
RAY: Just so you know, we've taken preliminary votes on both those
items, and what that does, is it triggers our legal counsel to come up with some sort of
language that, presumably, will produce a preliminary slate of recommendations, and
then we'll go out for public hearing and input and whatever, on those. And in regard to
the non-partisan elections, we have voted to pursue that. In regard to the Council
Manager form of government, we have voted not to pursue that, but we are discussing,
and it's on the agenda today, some pretty significant language changes in regard to the
Managing Director position, to try to make that more of a City Manager type of
position. So, if you'll sit around, I'm sure you'll be interested in that. So rather than go
into the Council Manager, it would still be a Manager under the Mayor. The Mayor
would still be the CEO, but that manager would, hopefully, be more of a City Manager
type. And so, anyway, we're going to be talking about that in just a few minutes.
TOWLE: Good. I think what people have said is that they'd like the Mayor
just to cut ribbons, but they'd like someone in there that has the experience to run the
County. So, thank you very much.
RAY: Marni.
HERKES: Thank you, Ginger. I would encourage your friends to write letters if
they don't want to come in person. Also, 1 think that, in the interest of information, you
should know that we are discussing a different structure of voting, of representation;
6-3 with 3 island -wide and 6 district specific. I'm in favor of that because West Hawaii
doesn't get the representation, and I live in West Hawaii, so I could say why I'm in favor
of it. However, I wasn't the one that proposed it, and we have several reasons, but it
may be a good discussion item for your group, along with non-partisan and City
Manager. Thank you.
TOWLE: Thank you. If Marni doesn't know the answers, then they call me.
14
HERKES: They don't call me because I'm on the Commission.
RAY: I'd like to wait till Steve gets back before we go into the Managing
Director. He should be back. Let's take a brief recess.
RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 9:55 a.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:03 a.m.
RAY: I'd like to call the meeting back to order. Under Unfinished
Business, a couple of items listed here in regard to the vote we took on the 6-3
Council terms, and some stuff we need to discuss further, as far as the mechanics of
that; how it would work. The term limits is one, and then how non-partisan voting
would work. In other words, if the non-partisan gets voted in, then for instance, how do
the Council persons at -large get elected under the non-partisan scenario. Chris, you
want to go over this, and bring up, if there's anything else. As part of that overall
suggested Amendment, I assume these would be lumped together. In other words, if
we're recommending 6-3, how it would work, so we need to give Chris some direction
on that.
Sue.
IRVINE: Did you just say that 6-3 and non-partisanship would be lumped
together?
YUEN: Is Roland coming back? Because he made the motion to do that.
Why don't we wait till Roland comes back on that.
RAY: Okay.
MARTIN: As I was mentioning to the Chair outside, if I may.
RAY: Sure.
MARTIN: Because he's not back, but it's on the non-partisan. I was talking
to our counsel from the stairs the other day, and two ideas came up to me regarding the
non-partisan. If a person runs unopposed, they should only run in the Primary, and
they be bound over as elected, and wouldn't have to run in the General, therefore
saving money on the printing of the next ballot. Also, if two people run, the same thing.
RAY: Wasn't it last time that they didn't even go on the ballot. Don't you
remember that? Because Dominic was all upset because he didn't even get on the
ballot because he ran unopposed.
YUEN: Yes, if you're unopposed, you don't go on the second ballot.
15
MARTIN: Right. If you run only two people. You and I run, and you beat me,
you should, right there, be bound over as elected. Why should yoU run again and have
the same result again? And cost factor is what I'm looking at, to the County.
YUEN: You're elected outright. And this was your motion on the non-
partisan, and this is the way we wrote it up that it would work, exactly like that.
MARTIN: Okay. As long as it's written because you know how our public
works it sometimes.
YUEN: Actually, it's guaranteed if you only have two, one would be elected
outright in the first election, for simplicity's sake, we'll call the Primary Election
because it would be held at the time of the Primary, but because blanks and spoils are
not counted, with two people, somebody's got to win. And so, that will not carry over.
We started this discussion a minute ago when Roland was out, and I wanted you to
come back. I think there's two details left on the 6-3 that passed, that the Commission
just needs to give me a little direction on so that I can finalize that item. And the two
issues are: Are there term limits for the 3 at -larges, and if so, how does that work? Is
it going to be four terms of two years? Two times four years? And I really wasn't sure
from reading the minutes how the Commission wanted to go on that.
RAY: Another thing in regard to term limits that we need to explore is do
we want to make any exception on the eight-year term limit to accommodate the
Council persons at -Targe. In other words, if you've served 3 two-year terms, could you
run Council at -large and, in essence, serve - because that's another -
HIGASHI: Another office.
IRVINE: John, it would seem to me that it's pretty obviously a different office.
if it's the at -large seat. Isn't it?
RAY: I don't think it's entirely obvious to anybody, and one of the big
issues in regard to term limits had to do with vesting retirement, so that's very much on
the -
HERKES: Isn't it funny the voters didn't think about that a lot.
YUEN: Not something that they were really worried about.
RAY: But, isn't that something else we need to consider?
YUEN: You're absolutely right, and because this is something that's new, it
needs just to be decided, and John is right to add that on there. It can be done either
way, but it should be spelled out so the people look at it and there's no uncertainty. And
16
•
is it going to be considered as a new office if you do your eight years as a district
Council member, and you're looking at, oh, I want to stay on the Council, can you run
for at -large, whether it's two or four, and is that going to count. Any way is legal. It's up
to the Commission to make a decision, and those are the options, really.
RAY: Okay.
HIGASHI: I would say, if you would send us a memo in writing and having it
addressed categorically, then we can eliminate those questions one by one at our next
meeting.
RAY: I'd like to hear what people are thinking. To me, I think the at -large
seats, which I'm not in favor of, but if there are going to be at -large seats, I think they
should be four-year terms vs. two-year terms. So, that's one thing we need to decide.
And then I'm not as sure on the term limit thing regarding a new office.
HIGASHI: On the new office. If there is a term limit, then we need to decide.
I think it would be two separate issues. No term limit may appear on the ballot if we
decide to test whether a term limit is required. Every two years is an election. And if a
term limit does exist, then we need to make sure we have language in there. If the term
limit is eliminated, then it becomes, whether we have it in, it just be eliminated. A new
office thing, I think is more intriguing than the 4 two-year.
RAY: Marni.
HERKES: I, kind of, think of elections as term limits. I don't think of term
limits per se, but I'm not against them. It's just not something that 1 think is important
because elections are term limits. But, 1 think that the at -large seats are different
constituency. It's a larger constituency. It's a different office, and therefore, I don't think
the at -large should be tied into the term limits for the single member districts.
RAY: George.
MARTIN: I disagree with that, and I think that we're talking about a Council
person, as the old system used to be, running at -large, and still a Council person. If
you're going to call it something different, then call it something different. But, as long
as it's a Council person, and that's what we're talking about, then the term limits
should stand. How we deal with it, whether it be two-four, or I've even heard somebody
mention two -four -two. However we deal with it is fine, but the term limit at eight years
has got to stand because the public spoke two or three elections in concession, that
they wanted a term limit. To make a change now, we're fooling ourselves. That ain't
going to happen.
RAY: I'm glad you brought that up. I forgot to acknowledge Councilman
Elarinoff who did send in testimony in regard to a possible suggestion, and the two -
17
•
four -two scenario. So I wanted to acknowledge him for that, Okay, John.
SANTANGELO: I agree that it's two separate elections and therefore, I would
separate the term limits because an at -large is a different constituency. In talking to
the public, again, it's hot and cold, in that you get people that are vehemently against
this because they feel like, again, that there's a thing going on. But, people who did
support it were more in tune with the two-year vs. the four-year, so you keep the
continuity of the two-year. And again, it's public perception vs. reality. I favor the 6-3
because I think it's fair in government, having served there. And just for the purpose of
dialoguing, the way elections are done today, and the lack of participation, any group of
people on this island that feels like Hilo holds the power, the leverage, because they
elect, if in any district, you could get 10% or 15% more to vote, because it's always
50% or less, any district could have that leverage. So, it really is up, to the public
apathy, and I don't know how that's going to translate when we put it on the ballot,
because when you put it on the ballot, I feel it's doomed to failure. And if you put four-
year and two-year, a lot of this may carry the weight with it.
RAY: I'm not sure what you're saying. Just spell it out for me, under this
6-3 scenario, what are you suggesting in regard to term limits?
SANTANGELO: Okay. Six single member, three at -large, two-year terms with
separate term limits. So if you're serving as a two-year single member representative,
you have an eight-year limit. You run for an at -large, you start over again.
RAY: Okay, that's what you're saying.
SANTANGELO: Wasn't that what was suggested before?
HIGASHI: But, in any event, if there is a term limit, we'll stay with the eight-
year term limit, and he would begin a new term, 2 four-year terms would be maximum
for the at -large.
RAY: So, you're suggesting that you could serve 4 two-year terms and
then an additional 2 four-year terms?
HERKES: If you can get elected.
RAY: Is that what you're saying?
HIGASHI: Yes, if you serve for two -
RAY: 4 two-year terms.
HIGASHI: 4 two-year terms.
18
•
RAY: Then you could run for an additional 2 four-year terms?
HIGASHI: It's a different office. Right now, if you live in Hilo and you move to
Hamakua, you .could probably run for office again.
HERKES: Keep moving around the island, you could -
HIGASHI: I think so. I mean, your title is Councilman, Hamakua. Anyway,
that's some legal question.
YUEN: No, it's not.
IRVINE: You don't think so, Chris?
YUEN: No, 1 don't think so because the term limits is really directed at the
individual. In the terms of the Council members, every time you are serving a new
term, but I think they're looking at you as a Council member. In the present Charter, I
would have to say it's a gray area that was passed in '96. Whatever we do, it's best to
spell it out. And so, I understand what you're saying and that can be spelled out,
exactly what you're saying. Your proposal would really enable somebody to serve 16
years, as long as they went district to at -large, and I understand that, and that could be
spelled out plainly, if that's the sense of all the Commission members.
RAY: Daryl, did you have something to say?
KUROZAWA: I just had a question. Can you talk a little about the two -four -two
thing, or do I want to know?
RAY: That was a letter, and I don't know that I have it.
KUROZAWA: No, I have it all here. I just need a summary. I have all the
correspondence.
IRVINE: In a two -four -two proposal, a Council person will be elected to a
first term of two years. In his second bid for office, he runs for a four-year term, and
then go back to two.
MARTIN: What was the reasoning behind that? He wrote down some
reasoning behind it.
IRVINE: The four-year term will convey the message that the constituents
are satisfied with the first two-year term performance, thereby granting him a longer
term. When the four years are up, the candidate may run for another two-year term, if
elected, still conclude his term of office within the eight maximum as practiced today.
19
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chair, so upon adoption of this Amendment, we could be very
specific, as of this date, a person can run for two -four -two, or whatever, but cannot
exceed eight years from that point. Is that something that would be workable?
HERKES: As a member of the Council?
YUEN:
just discussed.
That's another alternative. That's different than the one that you
HIGASHI: Right.
YUEN: All these things can be done. You could go with at -large being
four years, and you can serve eight years total, and then that's it. That's an alternative
that can be spelled out.
HIGASHI: But it's specific. If the two-year people chose to run, they would still
go under the old term limit. I mean, that could be specific too, right?
YUEN: Right. As it stands, you need to spell that out, how this applies to
people who have been running under the district system. But, if we go back to the way
you talked about it a couple of minutes ago, where you could do your district term limits
and then you'd have a new set of term limits for the at -large, if it were done that way,
then somebody in the present Council who had used up their limits, could then go
again for at -large. This is another issue we would be talking about, whether you would
implement this in 2002 or 2004, but whenever -
HIGASHI: But language could be specific upon adoption of the Charter, the
person moving from the two-year term to a four-year term still cannot exceed eight
years. 1 mean, that can be spelled out, too, right?
YUEN: Yes, either way it can be spelled out.
RAY: We could research some other jurisdictions; Lexington, Kentucky,
they have different term limits for single member and at -large, for instance, and see
how they do that, but my pretty strong sense is that the public's spoken very strongly,
about term limits, and I'm not in favor of it anyway, so go ahead, put it out there. But if
we extend the term limits that way, I just can't imagine that would pass. But, there are
inconsistencies in there that don't make sense either. I mean, you serve three terms
and you couldn't run for an at -large, which is a shame. You serve two years, then you
serve one at -large, then you couldn't serve another at -large term, because your term
limits would limit you to two years, so that doesn't seem to make sense either.
IRVINE: Maybe this crew wants to reconsider their at -large position.
20
•
HERKES: So, are we moving toward a limit of 16 years, let's say eight years
or 16 years serving on the County Council, no matter where you're from or what district.
you're from? Are we moving toward some kind of end limit?
RAY: My sense is that the public has very much established an end limit,
and I don't think you're going to change that.
HERKES: No, that's fine, but how do we phrase it? How do we put it in here?
RAY: My sense is the only thing that would pass would be leave it at the
eight-year term limit.
HERKES: On the County Council, period.
RAY: Right. But, that's just a personal opinion.
HERKES: I understand that. I'm just trying to figure out the phrasing.
RAY: So that means that you could serve no more than the 2 two-year
terms to run for -
HERKES: Or 2 four-year terms.
RAY: Yes, you could.
IRVINE: John, does Chris feel that we would need to put in here that the
term limit applies to an individual rather than a given office within the County Council?
YUEN: I need to know exactly what the Commission wants on this, and it's
good that we're having this discussion because it does have to be spelled out.
Basically, there are two ways to do it. You either count them together or you don't, and
it's not really for me to decide which, but it needs to be spelled out. Otherwise, these
people are going to have this big argument when they finish their eight years. They'll
say, well, I'm going to run for another office, and then people will be digging out our
minutes from January, 2000, and they'll say, what the hell, and why didn't they spell this
out, and where was Yuen.
RAY: John.
SANTANGELO: And, that's consecutive.
YUEN: Right. I think under the present Charter, it's consecutive, and you
can start over again after a break. And the reason I say that is that the general rule is
there isn't a limit unless there says there's a limit. So, if it says there's a four
consecutive two-year term limit, then it doesn't say anything against running again
21
after a break, so you can do that.
SANTANGELO: The reason I bring that up, for fun, you run for eight years. Now
you go to the at -large, and you run for four. Can you go back to the two-year and run
for another eight?
YUEN: It depends how you write it. There's two, if you want to call them,
proposals, or two alternatives, that have been put out, and one is eight years, and
that's it, no matter whether you're at -Targe, and I guess everybody seems to be on the
idea of the at -large as being four years. I'm getting body language that that's where
people are at, so let's talk about that rather than confusing it.
SANTANGELO: So, for me, what I've heard here today that appeals to me, that's
new, is you keep it at eight years because I personally feel that 6-3 works better for all
people, and so you run 2 two-year terms, and if you want to run at -large, go for the
four, but you're limited to the eight. And that wasn't something that was in my mind
when I came in here today, but that seems to be something that maybe people
understand, that nobody's trying to pull a fast one.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: Since we have committees, you want to form another committee
• and work together with Chris and come up with several languages for, probably, two
meetings from now?
YUEN: I think it's clear in everybody's mind what the alternatives are. I
think, if we want to discuss it more, but I think people should come to a decision. I don't
know that there's much more to be said about where this goes. I would say that the
reasoning does become a little bit different when you have two separate offices. I
mean, the outcome of having term limits, if you're in a district, is that you do have the
turnover. There's two ways of looking at it. How long do you want the same person in.
And then there's also, do you want to have a vacancy so that somebody else has a
chance on the spot. If the person runs for a different office, say they go to at -large,
they are opening up the district, and in that sense, that one aspect of term limits has
been fulfilled that nobody is just going to sit there in their district, representing that
district for 20 years or so, or 16 years.
HERKES: Even if their district wants them.
YUEN: But, that's the result of term limits, that no matter how popular the
person may turn out to be, you always have to get rid of them.
HERKES: I understand.
YUEN: What I'm suggesting, though, is there's not a study that tells you
22
what the pros and cons are. It's a decision that has to be made, whether it's just going
to be an eight year cap or whether it's going to go potentially to sixteen years.
RAY: George.
MARTIN: The two-year hiatus, if someone is popular, gives them the
opportunity to run again, and if they are that good, they'll be re-elected. It's just a
comment. I guess a motion is in order to have Chris to write it as eight year cap in both
manners; the person and the position, so that there be no finagling done, or say, well,
they talked about the person, and as I heard mention over here, if you move district,
then it changes. So the person and the position, eight year max. Now, we can still play
with the 6-3, which I think is a great idea, and if we want to put a four-year, that, in
itself, is a different issue. If we put four years on the at -Targe, no problem, but there's
still an eight year max, no matter which way you look at it.
IRVINE: Eight consecutive, right?
MARTIN: Consecutive, correct.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: I don't have a problem with eight consecutive years, upon adoption
of this Amendment, where the at -large person would begin for eight consecutive years.
I think we need to, kind of, establish the beginning date. If a person is already six
years in office, it would preclude him from running for the at -large.
MARTIN: Correct.
HIGASHI: And I think we shouldn't preclude anybody from running for office
at the beginning. After that, eight consecutive years, I have no problem with that, if
there is term limits. I'm one that probably proposed that no term limit as another
Amendment, all by itself. I mean, it's not tied in, just maybe have a term limit, but if the
Amendment with no term limits would pass -
RAY: We looked at this in all these different permutations and
combinations because I introduced the four-year term limits, so how that would effect
people in office and whatever, and one way you might look at that, Roland, is that if
you'd been in office for three terms, or six years, the one exception would be you could
run for an additional four-year term, because it's really hard to make it fair for
everybody, wherever they might be, and in whatever cycle.
HERKES: Because it's not fair. Basically, it's not fair.
RAY: I remember we couldn't make it come out perfectly because of
when the term limits had taken place, which, to the shock of everybody in office, was
the day they were voted on in 1996, that's when the 4 two-year terms started, and
23
everybody had thought it was going to take place, or start, in the next election, but
there was no language in regard to that, so actually, the clock started ticking on the 4
two-year terms in November, whatever, 1996. But anyway, trying to accommodate all
those types of things, a similar discussion we had was you could create that one
exception. Maybe that's a fair way to do it so if somebody had been in office for six
years, it wouldn't preclude them from running for one at -large term. So that way, then
if that happened, then they would be able to serve ten years vs. eight years.
SANTANGELO: That happened anyway, when they set up the eight-year, because
there was some people already on it.
RAY: You know you can't make it work out perfectly, but I'm just throwing
that out there as a possible suggestion.
HERKES: Can I ask Chris a question? Chris, has there ever been an
enterprising legal challenge to term limits because voters have been disenfranchised?
You're taking away my opportunity to vote for a candidate that I want.
YUEN: Term limits are legal on a State level down. The congressional.
term limits are unconstitutional, when States have passed limits on how many times you
can re-elect your own Congress member, but on the local level, it's legal.
HERKES: Nobody's challenged it?
YUEN: Oh, I'm sure there's been challenges, but the public has the right to
create term limits unless there is some overriding law that says you can't, and it's not
prohibited by the Federal Constitution, which has a term limit for the President. It's not
prohibited by the State Constitution in this State, at least. Probably not in any state.
And so, at the Charter level, the voters are free to put in whatever term limits they want
because the individual who's in office - their right to stay in office is at the end of every
term, so they don't have a right to stay in a particular office forever, and the public
doesn't have the right to keep voting for somebody that they like, if the public, in the
past, made a decision that they were going to impose term limits across the board, they
didn't put any exceptions. If they want to keep the people in, they may have to change
that Charter provision.
RAY: George.
MARTIN: On what you were saying, John, I agree that an individual would
not have his or her opportunity on the at -large if, in fact, we do go with it, and the
public accepts it, and it's a four-year situation. But I believe we can write into the
Charter, and because there's only, I believe, six individuals that this would pertain to,
those individuals that would have that opportunity, once they're out of office, it would no
longer be an issue.
• RAY: We did have six new people come in in '96 so all those six, if
24
they're still in office, would be effected by this. That means all those six, when this
would take place, presumably in 2002, none of those six could run for at -large seats
under the present term limits, so that's -
HERKES: Let's pass it. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
RAY: Which does seem contrary to the - so anyhow, I'm just bringing that
up. So that just points out the six people, presumably, in terms of their experience and
what they could contribute, all six would be precluded from running for a four-year term,
and presumably, those people, if they've been elected, and could get elected, are the
six people you'd most want to be elected, I would think.
MARTIN:
able to win.
But we have only three positions. Only three of them would be
RAY: I understand. Sue.
IRVINE: Lexington Charter does not seem to address this problem, either
the transition or whether the term limits apply from the single member districts to the
at -large. They just seem to be separate in here, and it doesn't address what we're
worrying about.
• RAY: It would be interesting to see if they are treated as separate offices,
and how that works in other. - I'd be interested. Daryl.
KUROZAWA: There's actually one other option. If you don't want to mess with
the term limits, the other option would be that an at -large be run at six years,but they
would have to step down in two years. We're just saying that if they know they have an
eight-year limit, they can run after their second term of their two-year term.
RAY: Yes. We want to make this as simple as possible, so the harder it
is to understand, the more confusing it is in the ballot booth, and the more chances are
that people are just going to throw up their hands and just, kind of, give up and mark it
willy nilly, which probably, most people, on most of these things, do anyway. Roland.
HIGASHI: So, where are we going to begin with the draft?
MARTIN: I thought I made a motion.
YOSHIYAMA: It died lack of a second.
HIGASHI: I didn't hear any motion.
RAY: I thought George had made a motion to -
25
MARTIN: The motion was pretty simple, to write it as an eight-year cap, with
both scenarios, the person and the position, whether it be at -large and/or district..
YUEN: I understand. What George'smotion is is an eight-year max limit,
and it's not treated as a separate office so if you've been in the district for eight years,
you cannot run at -large. If you've been at -large eight years, you cannot run for the
district.
MARTIN: And then the discussion came about, what about these individuals
that possibly have six. By the time this is implemented, would they not have the
opportunity, and therefore, the discussion. But as Gary was saying, the motion wasn't
seconded.
RAY: Well, do we have a second?
IRVINE: I'll second it.
RAY: Okay. Discussion.
YOSHIYAMA: Clarification purposes. That's with the understanding that the at -
large seat is for four years and the single member two. Okay, thank you.
HIGASHI: Has it been established that the four-year is a new office?
YUEN: It would not be considered a new office under George's proposal.
His motion is that any individual would have eight years on the Council, no matter
whether they were at -large or district.
HIGASHI: So the person that's serving six years now would be precluded
from running for the at -large office. Is that a correct assumption?
YUEN: After he made that motion, then that was the discussion we started
off on, and I think the way that the motion was stated, it would not allow the person to
go six plus four. It's up to you folks, of course, whether you want to allow the six plus
four, but if you are going to allow six plus four, it should be not just for the Council
members who happen to be in office now going into the transition, but it should be
applicable on into the future because if you want to allow a Council member to serve
ten years, why should that apply to just the Council members who happen to be on two-
year terms now, as opposed to ten years from now if somebody served six years in the
district and they want to go to a four-year term. I don't know why you would, in effect,
treat the existing Council members differently than the Council members in the future.
IRVINE: Because they were unaware of this law at the time that they ran for
their third term, whereas they might have gone at -large at that time. They're in a
different situation because they didn't know that we had this new law changing the
26
rules.
MARTIN: Pre-existing. Grandfathering.
IRVINE: Yes, grandfathering.
RAY:, John.
SANTANGELO: And, conversely, if someone who is fortunate to onlybe four years,
then they would have that opportunity to run for that, and that would give them
advantage over the other Council member that didn't, so 1 don't know, Chris, I may
agree with you, but not for that reason. I would be not condoning ten-year terms,
period, but maybe on a changeover time, an adjustment period, because we did that.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: The language can be very clear on adoption. We could allow the
present Councilmen to run for a four-year term, and language could be had where
anybody else would - eight-year term -
RAY: As a one time exception, at the most, it could effect three people,
but only if they could get elected, so it doesn't seem like it's as big a deal as -
SANTANGELO: As we're making it out to be.
RAY: When you first said it. You are just recognizing the changeover
and, sort of, grandfathering in an exception to recognize that.
HERKES: Can't we just say limits begin in 2002, if accepted?
MARTIN: Then it jumps on a four-year term.
IRVINE: We already have term limits.
HERKES: Term limits will begin -
RAY: We're already in term limits.
HERKES: I know, but term limits for the new Council district offices will begin
in 2002.
YUEN: Now we've been talking about this transition, I think that was the
assumption that was being discussed. There is another question that's now a related
question. If the voters in the next election go to a 6-3, whether you want to start that in
2002 or 2004. The issue becomes do you want to tie it in with the cycle of the Mayor's,
27
election or do you want to tie it in with the off cycle of the Mayor's election, or you could
start with a two-year in 2002, and then go to four years in 2004, if you want. It
complicates it. There's not really a legal reason, but it's more to look at the practicality
of it. I'm trying to just raise, as part of the practicalities, that perhaps some of your
mayoral candidates will come from the ranks of the three at -Targe, and if their terms
are co -extensive with the Mayor's term, then their term ends, they run for Mayor. If it's
on the off cycle, then in the mid-term of their four-year term, then they run for Mayor.
And there's dynamics either way. I just want to point that out.
HERKES: But none of those dynamics are things that voters understand, and
the problem is that kind of thinking leads us into language on a ballot that the voters
cannot understand. It leads us into a whole bunch of things that voters don't care
about. They want it clear; when does this start; you're leading the language, you're
personalizing it. Just simple language is what we want on our ballot.
RAY: Let me ask Chris another question, too. Just the whole idea of a
four-year delay for implement - that's a real negative. Things change so much in four
years, it just -
HERKES:
to do.
Yes, let's do it. Yes, in four years, we'll think of something different
• YUEN: I definitely agree that delaying implementation to 2004 is a
negative. I'm bringing up when it takes place and the political connection with the
Mayor's term, just as a practical issue that will play a role in the politics of the future,
depending upon how this is decided.
RAY: No, I think that's a good point to bring up. George.
MARTIN: With that implementation and staggering it, whether two or four, if
in fact we write it, could it be implemented - no, it couldn't be implemented in this
election.
RAY: John.
SANTANGELO: Understanding that I left the room for a moment, then, if we go to
the six and three, the four-year on the at -large, and just set it at eight years, and you
can't, no matter what, then it's equally unfair to anybody.
RAY: That's the motion that's on the floor right now.
SANTANGELO: Oh good. So, that's what happened when I was out of the room? I
support it.
KUROZAWA: But you were here when the motion was made.
28
SANTANGELO: No, but we were still discussing a crossover and this is just there is
none.
RAY: Does anybody want to amend that with the one exception for the -
HIGASHI:
Amendment.
I want to defeat it and then start all over. It is more than this one
HERKES: I want it in writing.
RAY: Well, go ahead and discuss what -
HIGASHI: That's why I wanted him to come up with a draft that we can look at
something, and then amend that and move along. You know, with several scenarios. I
think he has the gist of what we're thinking about.
RAY: Well, maybe, could you do it in more of an informal note form?
HIGASHI: John, that's what he's been doing up to now and we've been taking
votes after that.
YUEN: I can draw up four or five options. I could draw up eight max. I can
• draw up eight max with a one time exception for six-year district Council members to
go to ten. I can draw up eight plus eight, for a total of sixteen. Any other alternatives?
Does nobody want eight plus eight?
IRVINE: Was anybody thinking eight plus eight?
YUEN: Nobody wants eight plus eight, so I'II forget that one.
HIGASHI: I'm not saying eight plus eight. It's a new office, eight consecutive
years, maybe. I mean, a person may be only in office for only two years now. A person
may be in office for two years and he could run at -large and be only eight consecutive
years. It's not eight plus eight.
YUEN: But I'm saying eight plus eight as a simplified way because those
are the main scenarios I've heard discussed so far, and I can imagine a few more, but
those -
HIGASHI: I think you've covered most of them.
MARTIN: There's always the two -four -two.
RAY: So, we have a motion on the floor. I guess we should vote on that.
HIGASHI: I say we withdraw this motion.
29
•
MARTIN: Sorry, sir, I'm not withdrawing it.
SANTANGELO: I would speak against the motion, then, so that we can allow Chris
to do what he's doing, because, for me, it's about better government, and we need to
try to put something out there that people perceive as better government. And this
whole discussion started because of how Council members were acting in terms of just
territorial parochialism.
RAY: Let's vote on that motion. Does everybody understand the motion
on the floor? George's motion to strictly limit it to the eight years. All in favor, raise
your hand.
HANDS RAISED: G. Martin.
RAY: One. Opposed?
HANDS RAISED: All other Commission members present.
RAY: Okay, so we're opposed to that and Chris will come up with some
different options.
SANTANGELO: Only for the time beim.
RAY: Yes, and we could very well go back to that.
SANTANGELO: Because that's what I would vote for.
RAY: We also needed to work out, or discuss, the language in regard to
the non-partisan part of the at -large seats. In other words, if non-partisan elections
get voted in, how are we going to treat the non-partisan seats in terms of the specifics
of how that works in the Primary vs. the General.
YUEN: This would all be folded into the non-partisan question. It wouldn't
greatly complicate the whole thing. The issue is we voted on the non-partisan, and as
far as the single offices like the Mayor or the district Council members, 50% plus 1
vote in the first election gets you elected outright. If nobody is elected outright, the top
2 go on and run against each other in the General. With the 3 member at -large
running, I think the idea has been that you don't have 3 at -large races, but you have a
3 candidate pool. It's like a multi -member district. And then the decision has to be
made. I'm sure, logically, that you all intend that anybody who got 50% plus 1 of the
people walking in and casting a ballot for any of those 3 seats would then be elected
outright.
RAY:
still.
So, if you get 50% plus 1, you're elected outright in the Primary
30
HERKES: That's Oahu, right?
• YUEN: That's the way Oahu works. Well, Oahu doesn't have any multi-
member -
RAY: This is bi-partisan and this is the Council at -large seats we're
talking about.
HIGASHI: Yes, multiple race.
HERKES: Non-partisan.
YUEN: Right. Because you have multiple races. Let's just give this out.
Nobody is elected outright, so you're going to have 3 people selected in the General.
How many carry over from your pool of candidates in the Primary? You might have 15
candidates in the Primary, and logically, you could go vacant seats plus one. You
could go double, and it's up to the - again, there's no right way, there's no wrong way to
do it.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: Under the single member district, we have double, one member,
the highest two, which is double.
RAY: Top two, right, move forward.
HIGASHI: So, stands to reason we could go with double. If you have three,
and three don't have 50% or more, then the top six would move up. If one has 50% or
more, the next two would move up, so it would be four. Is that something that people
can live with?
RAY: So, does everybody understand what Roland's saying? Whoever
moves forward, you just double the numbers.
SANTANGELO: In terms of the top vote getters.
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: Does anybody know what's generally done? Because you could
either double or you could go the number of vacant seats plus one. If we went for, like,
six, might we still have people elected with a very small plurality of the vote? That's
what I'm wondering. If everybody got almost the same number of votes, the three
elected wouldn't have a great deal of support throughout the island. You know what I
mean?
31
RAY: Yes, I don't have any gut sense of the -
IRVINE: That's what I was wondering. Is there any way -
YUEN: I don't think there's a standard way of doing this. There's no right
way and there's no wrong way, and the implications, again, are more political than
legal, but the implications are the more you carry to the General, then the more the
General counts rather than the Primary. If you only carry one over, then, of course,
there's a bigger scramble than the Primary to get, because the candidate may figure,
well, I'll be in the top six and I'll spend my money in the General. So, as I say, there's
no right way, there's no wrong way. Now, what is the clearest way to do it. You're right,
the more people you carry into the General, then the fewer votes you can win with. On
the other hand, these are people that are winning. This is your chance to vote, and
they're ahead and -
IRVINE: Yes.
WEST: Since my concern was this non-partisan and the 6-3 and nine
whatever Council members make-up, and my concern, once again, is that you're
putting in one - correct me if I'm wrong here - You're putting into one item on the ballot,
that would talk about non-partisan and at the same time, talk about 6 members and 3
at -large. Is that right?
YUEN: No.
WEST: It would be separate?
YUEN: Those are easy to separate.
WEST: Okay.
YUEN: And the way it would be done is that the language concerning the
at -large members, that would be put into the non-partisan section, would simply be
deleted if the 6-3 did not pass. It just would not roll over into the Charter. People
would pass -
WEST: Either people would want non-partisan or not, yes or no.
YUEN: Yes.
WEST: And then they want 6-3 or not.
YUEN: Yes or no. Yes.
WEST: Okay. Then the other issue about how they're elected and the 50%
32
plus one, would that even be on as a voter item?
YUEN: No, that's all in the non-partisan section. How many get carried
on into the General is all in a separate question, totally dealing with the non-partisan
elections.
WEST: Okay, I've got you. Simple, plain language, right?
YUEN: And, then the 6-3 is on a separate item. So, if you stayed with
partisan elections, the voters could pass a 6-3 and then they'll just have Primary and
General. But if they passed a non-partisan Amendment, and they pass a 6-3 at the
same time, then they'll know what to do.
HERKES: When I'm thinking of standing there in the voting booth, looking at
this ballot, that has four people on it, or sixpeople on it, on an at -large spectrum, I only
get to vote for one person of the six, but I'm voting for three at -large, and I can put
together three that I think will work in my best interest. And I like having a broader
choice of the six people, rather than the four, so I'm going to say double is a better way
to go because then, out of six people, I have a better opportunity to pick three that will
fit what I want to be done.
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: 1 guess I'd like to say that if we could all come back prepared to
vote on this next time, rather than taking a vote right now, if we could just let us think a
little bit. I'm not sure what I think is best right at this moment.
RAY: The other thing is these are preliminary votes. When we go out for
public hearing in the general public, we could very well have some really provocative,
expert testimony that brings up all sorts of things we haven't thought about, that could
alter our thinking on some of these.
SANTANGELO: Question. To go into with what some of the public concern that's
been voiced here, in that how the non-partisan works, can that not be tied to the multi-
member vote and then, if it passes, be incorporated into the non-partisan? Because I
understand what was brought up. Some people might read non-partisan, see an
implication of multi -member, and reject it out of hand, not understanding.
YUEN: There's a possibility that they'll do that, but it's much simpler to
have all the non-partisan provisions in one ballot. Because 1 suspect is what people
will focus on primarily is not how many people get carried from the Primary to the
General, but are we going non-partisan. From theCommission's level, where you're
getting into more detail, you need to spell that out. Some people will be, unfortunately,
confused whatever we do.
33
RAY: Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: I'II second Roland's motion.
IRVINE: Which was?
YOSHIYAMA: He can repeat it, but I know Chris was taking notes.
HIGASHI: That we have double the amount of vacancies if no one has 50
plus one vote.
RAY: Okay. So, we're all clear on that? I guess we can take a
preliminary vote. All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Okay. Was there anything, Chris, in regard to -
YUEN: Well, that handles the non-partisan. I know exactly what to do
there. So, no, I think that's it.
RAY: Okay.
YUEN: The other one, I'm going to do options for the members.
SANTANGELO: Let's jump to the Salary Commission.
RAY: We're getting there.
SANTANGELO: Okay. I didn't see it on here.
RAY: Does anyone want to take a break, or keep going? Five minute
break? Two minute break.
RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 10:55 a.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:00 a.m.
RAY: Can we get started again? First, I want to continue this discussion,
and hopefully get some resolution on the idea of a Department of Public Safety.
Marni had been following up on this, and so let's see if we can get that out of the way,
as far as whether we're going to pursue that further or not, because we also want to
talk about the Fire Commission today. So, before we do that, let's go on to this
Department of Public Safety. Marni.
HERKES: And I took this right out of Lexington, so you all have this. It's in
34
the Lexington Charter. The Police, the Fire, the Civil Defense, the Building
• Department, the Detention, Animal Control, EMS, Industrial Safety is all - well,
Industrial Safety is not, that's in ours, but that would be under Public Safety. All of
those are under Public Safety Department. I made a comment at breakfast this
morning that if we had a Senior Administrative Officer that we probably wouldn't need
all the Commissions that we have, because we'd have departments that were run
professionally. And I read the Annual Report for the County. I read the description of
every Commission, and I wasn't impressed. But, it is a perception of the public that
they can have input into the process by the Commissions. So I'm not, at this time,
saying Commissions are bad, and when you talk about the Public Safety Department,
then you have a Police Commission, a Fire Commission, and all of those things that
would be difficult under one department, to have a lot of Commissions. But we do it
now, so we probably could do it later. The Police Department is now under the
Mayor. I'm suggesting a Department of Public Safety with Police, Fire, Civil
Defense, and even the Building Department. Lexington put Building under there.
I think you, probably, in the past, have heard some testimony, or some discussion, on
the fact that engineers and architects should be able to just stamp plans, and
inspections should be spot inspections. That we don't quite need so many inspections.
In my reading the Annual Report, I found that we have 17,000 to 18,000 permits that
are issued every year. I can't imagine. That's 1,400, 1,500 a month. I can't imagine
how you count that, or what you do with it, but we do building inspections for public
• safety. We do building inspections to make sure that buildings are safe. Now, there
are some jurisdictions that do building inspections for energy efficiency. There are
some electric companies that grant building permits. There's a lot of different ways to
do this, but I think, when you're talking about Public Safety, that's what they do, is to
make sure that they're safe. They're not a planning issue. They are a safety issue. So,
under the Department of Public Safety, I would suggest that we also put buildings.
This is a suggestion. It's a different way of looking at public safety. As I've said before,
I look at it from my viewpoint, from a personal viewpoint. It's my safety that the
government is in charge of, not necessarily a lot of different entities that give people
opportunities to build power structures.
IRVINE: So, Marni, in essence, in this whole business of building, we kind
of do away with having to get permits for building something?
HERKES: The architects and engineers testified very strongly against that.
We have not been able to get that passed yet, but it is, basically, a goal to have spot
inspections done, and big fines if you get caught not doing things according to plan.
Like when an engineer stamps a plan, it's supposed to be according to County Code.
And then, when the contractors build it, it's supposed to be according to the architects,
which is supposed to be according to County Code. When I was trying to think, why
would they put Building under Public Safety, that's what I came up with, that we do
give permits because of public safety. In some instances, we have permits because of
• amenities, like sign permits in Kailua Village and those kinds of things, but for the most
35
part, permits are public safety.
RAY: The Division of Building inspection, under the Department of
Public Safety, performs all the duties and functions pertaining to the inspection and
safety of buildings, and they administer and enforce all zoning ordinances, so they're
the inspection group. They're not the permitting group.
HERKES: Right.
RAY: So, it's not moving the Building Department, no?
HERKES: Well -
RAY: The Building Department's not under the Department of Public
Safety. The zoning enforcement and inspection function is under the Department of
Public Safety.
HERKES: Okay, the inspection function, building inspection. Okay.
RAY:
about.
John. This is under the Lexington Charter that Marni's talking
• SANTANGELO: I was curious when Marni brought up something because it is true
that architects and architect stamps come with a liability. The contractors, to get their
license, have to pass a test, and understand what the rules and the laws are. So,
they're supposed to be able to build safely from plans that are approved by a person
that knows how to design safely.
RAY: Like I said, this is not permitting. That still stays.
SANTANGELO: Right, but she talked about permitting. And it seems like permitting
is a redundancy, so did somebody suggest that fact that we could get rid of permitting?
Because that's what caught my attention.
HERKES: That might be a long range goal, but it's probably not something
you're going to be able to do in the Charter at this time.
SANTANGELO: You could pass it. You bet you could pass it.
HIGASHI: So, do you want to discourage any discussion at this time?
HERKES: No, we can have a discussion, but I'm not sure that we can get rid
of permitting per se.
RAY: Wait. Let's focus on this Department of Public Safety. And one
36
of the functions under the Lexington model is the inspection and enforcing zoning
ordinances, and under our current system, that might not be a bad idea as far as the
responsibility of that function, but anyway, Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: Marni, did you say something about Commissions? What was
your proposal, or wanting us to think about?
HERKES: Well, you'd still have Commissions under this. You'd have a
Police Commission and a Fire Commission, and I think those are the only two that
have Commissions, would be under this. Would just be under a different department.
YOSHIYAMA: As I look at the present Charter, our Charter, we've got Fire,
Police, and Public Works under the Managing Director, presently.
HERKES:
my problems.
The Police is under the Mayor. Believe me, I did it. That's one of
YOSHIYAMA: Okay, sorry. Who would be over the Department of Public
Safety? Would that be the Managing Director?
HERKES: I would suggest the Managing Director.
YOSHIYAMA: Okay.
HERKES: We haven't had that discussion yet, but I would suggest it would be
under that. I forgot to mention, also, that Sharron made up this wonderful Henry County
Department of Public Safety, which actually is a County Department. When I read it, 1
thought, oh look, Sharron's made this up. Wonderful. But they have a Public Safety
Staff, and they have descriptions of their whole staff, and it actually is in Virginia. It's
actually in Virginia. But, there are Public Safety Departments.
RAY: Ginger.
TOWLE: I was very happy to hear Marni mention Animal Control under the
Safety Committee because it's floundering around all over. It used to be under the
Police Department until 1991, and then Harry Takahashi made a recommendation,
when he was Legislative Auditor, that it seemed to be basically a financial problem, so
it then went under the Finance Committee, and it isn't working. It really is not working.
I spent about an hour talking to the Mayor yesterday. There's no reviews. There's no
nothing. There's no animal control. It definitely needs a home where someone is
really evaluating the job being done, as well as the financial end of it. And so,
someone needs it and no one wants it so it would be nice to have a home where
someone is interested in reviewing it and making sure they did the job right.
RAY: Further discussion on this proposed Department of Public
37
Safety? George.
MARTIN: As being mentioned, with the idea, and it's not that far fetched of
an idea, the Managing Director, as being mentioned by Gary here, that, if, in fact,
we're going to move in the direction to strengthen that position, this would be the way
to do it. I see some possibilities with it. What the possibilities are, I think, is going to
take further discussion, possibly some in depth discussion. But some possibilities, yes?
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: I was wondering, in some sense, if this new department was just
adding another layer of oversight of Police, Fire?
HERKES: It's taking it out of other departments, and rearranging it.
IRVINE: You mean, we'd still have the Chief of Police and head of the
Fire Department?
HERKES: Yes.
IRVINE: And then there'd be a head of Public Safety between the
Managing Director and the -
HERKES: There'd be a head of Public Safety.
IRVINE: And a little further over on your chart, you have Water and
Wastewater in the middle of the page there, Liquor.
HERKES: Those were just kind of like this.
IRVINE: You don't know what to do with -
HERKES: When we do Environmental Services, as we get along in that,
some of those could go there.
IRVINE: Okay. If Public Works were separated out from, say,
Environmental Services or Utilities.
HERKES: Yes.
RAY: So, what's the reaction? This is a pretty significant proposal in
terms of the implications for the Charter.
HIGASHI: I guess whether we create another department or just be specific in
strengthening up the Managing Director's responsibility under these areas, is a
38
question in my mind. Because if it's going to be under the Managing Director anyway,
• then maybe we're creating something that we need not have happen.
RAY: How does, currently, the Civil Defense Department work? I'm
trying to remember. I can't recall.
HERKES: All by itself.
RAY: How are they tied in with the State? I thought I'd always heard that
his real boss was General Richardson, in terms of some functions.
HERKES: The Mayor.
HIGASHI: The Mayor is the boss and delegates the authority to Harry Kim, I
guess.
IRVINE: Is he mentioned in the Charter at all? The Civil Defense?
HERKES: Yes.
IRVINE: Under Miscellaneous?
• MARTIN: No, right here, Article V. No, I'm sorry I'm wrong. It used to be.
HERKES: Mr. Ray?
RAY: Yes.
HERKES: If you don't actually set up a department, you will still have the
Police under the Mayor. You will still have the Civil Defense under the Mayor. You will
still have EMS under the State and the Fire. You won't have a building inspection.
You'll still have Animal Control sitting around. Actually, what this does is this
consolidates that Public Safety entity, and I never thought I would be suggesting
another layer of government, but in the spectrum of things, when I set all this out, 1 took
some things away from other places, and I think this is a more efficient way of
operating, and it also makes the public feel that safety is important. And it also makes
the public feel that they have input into a department, and it elevates safety in
importance. And frankly, that's what I think the government ought to be doing. One of
the most important things government does.
IRVINE: Marni, on this industrial safety here, we already voted in
preliminary manner to send that to -
HERKES: Yes, we already did that. I lost my head at about 9:30 last night.
39
IRVINE: Okay, to send that to Civil Service, right?
HERKES: Right. I was going through the Annual Report and it popped up.
RAY: John.
SANTANGELO: Point of clarification. I'm back to your question. Where does Civil
Defense fall? I assumed it was under the Mayor but that's an assumption that may be
flawed.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: I just asked Marni who would administer that department, and she
indicated to me her idea was to hire an administrator, and I would have a problem with
that, having an administrator over the Police Department, Fire Department. I mean,
the rest I don't care, but to have an administrator over both departments would, kind of,
make me feel uncomfortable.
HERKES: Rather than the Managing Director?
HIGASHI: If it's under the Managing Director, I think I'd feel more comfortable
with that because already they're under the Mayor or Managing Director.
RAY: Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: I don't get this. I see an Article V, Agencies Under the Mayor. I
see Article VI, Agencies Under the Managing Director, and I see Article VII,
Agencies under Commissions. And so, if we're going to continue to have
dommission, we could rewrite this. So, I guess I'm back to the Police. Article VII
says Police is under Commission, not under the Mayor.
YUEN: What it says is that the Police Department is under the general
supervision of the Mayor. That's another one of those gray area types of things, and I
think the other Commissions, they probably all say that somewhere. So, what it
means, is that the Commission appoints the Director, the head of the department like
the Police Chief or the Department of Liquor Control or Water Commission, rather
than being appointed by the Mayor. They do not answer to the Mayor through the
Managing Director under the current organization. And the Mayor's role becomes,
certainly, much Tess direct because the administrator, or the head person, is not directly
accountable to the Mayor. The Police Chief, for example, is not directly accountable to
the Mayor. And when the Charter says 'general supervision', I think that implies the
Mayor does not have a direct role in the operation of the department, the ones that are
under Commissions.
• IRVINE: Chris, it seems to me that we have line agencies that are under the
40
direct supervision of the Mayor, and staff agencies under the Managing Director. Is
that a common way of, sort of, dividing things up?
YUEN: It's the way it was done in this Charter from quite some time back,
and I suppose, if you'll notice, there's no absolute rule as to how you do these things,
but the departments with a lot of bodies in them, that are running around and doing
things, day-to-day work in County, tend to be under the Managing Director. By that I
mean, Public Works and Parks and Recreation, they're actually out there. They have
a lot of blue collar people that are picking up stuff. They're cutting the grass, and
they're not so much policy setting organizations. The things that are shown as being
directly under the Mayor have more of an administrative, or policy type, function and
are more white collar, regulatory type offices, and so you'll see Corp Counsel's in
there, that reports directly to the Mayor. Planning Department is in there, reports
directly to the Mayor, and it's not formally set up to report through the Managing
Director. I can't give you an exact reason for the breakdown of these various
departments, why some are formally under the Managing Director and others are not,
but that's the closest I can come as to a logical explanation. As far as what's under
Commissions, I think when it was first put in, some of it is tradition and political. I can
tell you that in the '60's when the Charter was being reviewed for the first time, Water
was under a Commission, and the Water Commission was very protective of it's
independence, or it's quasi -independence with strong support from the people that
worked within the Water Commission, and so although there was some talk about it, it
turned out that the Charter would be much more difficult to pass if Water were not kept
under a Commission. I can tell you that was the mechanics there. I'm not sure about
why you have a Police Commission and not a Fire Commission. It was probably a
political thing, but that's some of the background.
RAY: John.
SANTANGELO: Yes, I had asked the question, and I would still like to get the
answer because it was mentioned. Where is Civil Defense?
YUEN: I think Civil Defense is statutory. It's outside the Charter.
SANTANGELO: Okay, thank you.
RAY: How would we incorporate it into the Department of Public
Safety?
YUEN: I haven't looked at that, whether it can be done. I think it can be
done, but I'm not '100% sure.
RAY: Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: I get the sense that putting Public Safety agencies under one roof,
41
1 guess, for what, law enforcement purposes, coordination purposes.
• HERKES: Importance purposes.
YOSHIYAMA: Importance purposes?
HERKES: Yes, to raise the level of consciousness.
RAY: I really question that. Why is the Police Department more
important, as a part of a Department of Public Safety, than as a stand alone agency?
That doesn't elevate it in importance in my mind. It elevates building inspections, if
you put them in there, because not all that's being done anyway, zoning enforcement,
whatever. And it would be good for Animal Control. Maybe you could argue that, but I
don't see that it elevates the status of the Police or Fire Department, to put them in a
Department of Public Safety. I mean, just looking at that. I'm not saying that I think
it's good or bad, being that way, but I don't see it elevates the importance. In fact, it
seems like, as a stand alone agency, in the public 's eye, they're probably more visible
and more obvious, whether it's all the programs that the Police Department get into,
and whatever, but maybe, an overall consciousness toward public safety.
HERKES: There you go. An overall elevation of public safety rather than the
little stand alone departments that have the opportunity to build their power on their
own, rather than as a public safety entity. Thank you, John.
RAY: Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: I guess, from my limited view, I see these public safety agencies
working by themselves, where they could work, in my view again, much more efficiently
together. Again my view, Police and Fire, where they have overlapping
responsibilities, or they react to public emergencies, etc. And they're supposed to be
working cooperatively, but I don't think they are. And so, I can see the value of public
safety being together, again, for efficiency and for cooperation.
HERKES: In partnerships.
YOSHIYAMA: Yes. So, again, I was asking the question, where is this proposal
coming from and what are we trying to accomplish?
HERKES: Well, I think you answered your own question.
RAY: Ginger.
TOWLE: I've had a long dialogue with the Chief about please taking the
Animal Control back under the Police Department becaifse it's enforcement of the
State and County laws, and I felt that that is where it should be, and so, he hasn't said
42
no, but as you know, everything is kind of on hold around, and so I've talked to the
• Mayor about that too, but it's one more chore and it really needs reviewing, so
somebody has to mandate that somebody is responsible. And I feel that, in some
areas, Police Departments do handle that, and it is law enforcement. Thank you.
•
RAY: Other comments? Just logistically, if this is something we want to
embark on, we're kind of behind the curve, just timing wise, because we really haven't
brought this up.
HERKES: I brought it up a whole bunch of times.
RAY: Okay, but we really haven't sought comments or brought any of
these other departments into the discussion. So in all fairness, this is not as big as
Council Manager, but it's on that same level of magnitude with it's effect on the
Charter. This is a major reorganization, so I'm saying we really heed to make up our
minds quickly, if this is the direction we want to go in.
HERKES: Are you asking for a motion?
RAY: No, I'm just, kind of, thinking out loud.
HERKES: Okay. We're willing to make a motion.
SANTANGELO: So, we've moved from - I thought what we were discussing was a
Commission. Today, it's been a department, just like with this environmental thing.
We went from a Commission to a department. So, we're talking a department? Okay.
RAY:
department.
No, I think we've always, in my mind, been talking about a
SANTANGELO: Of Public Safety?
HERKES; Yes.
RAY: I just hadn't, personally, really focused on it.
HIGASHI: I had always been under the impression it was a Public Safety
Commission that would set policy for the different departments. I never envisioned a
Department.
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: I really don't have anything to say. In some sense, it makes more
sense than this organization of line and staff which doesn't seem to apply to anything,
as far as I can tell, other than blue collar and white collar.
43
HERKES: And how many people you have.
IRVINE: Yes.
HERKES: Or whether you cut the grass or not.
IRVINE: Right. But, I'm not ready to say that we need a Public Safety
Department because I do feel that Police and Fire should be able to be coordinated,
say, by the Managing Director. I definitely feel like Animal Control needs to be, back
under the Police, or something, and not in the Finance Department, where I think
they're trying to throw a lot of these things now. And I'm not quite, also, sure, like
Parks and Rec. Public Safety?
HERKES: No. That's a separate department. It doesn't go under Public
Safety. It goes under the Managing Director, though.
IRVINE: What is under Public Safety? How far down this list then?
HERKES: EMS.
IRVINE: Just to EMS. Okay, thank you.
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: Another topic that's going to be brought up later is the Managing
Director. If we move some things under the Managing Director, then it will eliminate
this question, is that fair to say?
HERKES: No. I'm not giving up that easy.
RAY: I'm not sure the relationship, but in the Lexington Charter, their
Managing Director, Office of Administrative Services, is not in charge of the
Department of Public Safety.
HERKES: But that's all right. We don't have to follow everything.
RAY: Okay, so where do we want to go with this? Do you want to just
give us until the February meeting to digest all this and think it through, because
obviously, other than Marni, most of us aren't prepared to deal with this. So, the
Lexington Charter, which we all have, it's on page 13, Section 6.07, is a reference that
she's been referring to. Okay?
And we are going to be discussing some other applicable things today that maybe will
clarify that. I guess, since we're talking about public safety, let's go into something in
that same arena, and that's the Fire Commission proposal, and Gary furnished us all
with specific language. So, Gary, you want to go over that?
YOSHIYAMA: The model for the draft is the City and County of Honolulu Charter,
specifically their Charter proposal, and what I did was then incorporate, and modify,
those provisions that are contained in our Charter. What I tried to do, also, was to
collect from the County Council, the Office of the Clerk anyway, applicable ordinance or
fire code because the Charter does mention that 'duties and functions of the Fire
Department shall be prescribed by ordinance and shall be exercised and performed by
the department' so I felt that you needed some background information as to
ordinances and fire code, but I don't know how to treat that. I did make a general
statement in there, that the duties and functions of the Fire Department shall be such
and such, and I put the catchall `as prescribed by ordinance'. Anyway, this is pretty
much straight forward, the language.
RAY: Would you like to make a motion in regard to this now?
YOSHIYAMA: I'll make a motion for us to - it's not a matter of adoption - place on
the ballot.
HERKES: I'II second.
RAY: Discussion?
HERKES: I have a couple of questions. Under 6-4.6 Powers and Duties
and Functions: Review the annual budget prepared by the Fire Chief and make
recommendations thereon to the Mayor and the Council. The Fire Commission
reviews the budget and makes recommendations to the Mayor and the Council? They
don't make recommendations to the Fire Chief to change the budget? They go over
the Fire Chief to the Mayor and the Council?
YOSHIYAMA: I don't have any feeling one way or the other. I think that what I
used here, again, was the model from the City and County of Honolulu.
HERKES: That's what it says?
YOSHIYAMA: Yes. And I can only say my impression was that this is something
similar to the Police Commission, on the view of budget, but I don't think it's that exact
language about review of the budget.
RAY: John.
SANTANGELO: I'm not necessarily speaking in favor of that, but I don't have a
problem with that either. Your Commission is set up in terms of oversight. The Chief
comes up with his budget and runs it through. the Commission. The Commission then
is the lobbying agent for that, and that's part of policy. Policy and budget almost always
45
go together. In fact, maybe the Police Department could operate a little bit differently
and be better off. So, I don't have a problem with that , but I'm not attached to it either.
RAY: Okay. George.
MARTIN: I have a question for Gary. In implementing this, or arriving at what
you've written and sent to us, did you have any discussion with any of the Fire
Department personnel, or representatives?
YOSHIYAMA: Yes I did. They provided input.
IRVINE; Gary, the one thing I noticed in the very beginning of this, under
1(a), Section 6-4.1, at just the very beginning: Organization; There shall be a Fire
Department consisting of a Fire Chief, and then we have underlined, a Deputy Fire
Chief, a Fire Commission and the necessary staff. We are adding a Deputy Fire
Chief to our Charter with this.
YOSHIYAMA: Right. This is part of the input from the Fire Union. Also, in looking
at, I think, attached on the Fire Ordinance, within the ordinance, you have the specific
mention of a Deputy Fire Chief. So, again, it's incorporating in the Charter what is
stated in ordinance. So, you can leave it in or take it out. I found, under Article VII,
Section 7-2.2(b), this is Police Commission, 'Review the annual budget prepared by
the Chief of Police and may make recommendations thereon to the Mayor.
HERKES: And may make.
YOSHIYAMA: Yes, may make. So, either way, whatever the case.
RAY: I like that. I know, just in my limited experience on the Council in
terms of budget items, there have been some fairly controversial projects that maybe
the Chief, I won't say which one, might have been recommending, or whatever, and I
think it would be good, real healthy, to have input from the Commission in regard to
some of those. I can think of one, in particular. It was like a realty expensive training
facility that was, kind of, controversial, and it didn't seem to make sense whether we
really needed this, or that's where the money should to be spent priority -wise. And I'd
like to see the Commission have input on things like that.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chair, under Section 6-4, under item (e), I think reviewing
personnel actions within the department, for a Commission to do that, may be
somewhat laborious, and beyond the scope of a Commission's work. I think if there are
personnel actions or grievances, there are avenues within County government to take
care of that.
RAY: They're just reviewing the standards really, right? And the
appropriate policies and standards.
46
IRVINE: It says 'review personnel actions'.
SANTANGELO: Under 6-4.2.
RAY: Under 6-4.2.
SANTANGELO: Promotions and training.
HIGASHI: 'Promotions and other personnel actions shall be based on fair and
appropriate standards of merit'. You know that's a kind of broad range, and people may
disagree on the standards that they be judged on.
RAY: To me, this is the most important function.
IRVINE: But this is where our Police Commission is having trouble right
now, or they feel they are. And I think, if we're going to set up any more
Commissions, we either empower them to be able to compel attendance of witnesses,
compel production of evidence.
RAY: I think these all very noncontroversial in my mind. Just 'standards
for recruitment shall be designed to attract high degrees of education, intelligence,
personal stability. Promotions and other personnel actions shall be based on fair and
411 appropriate standards of merit, ability, and work performance'. I mean, that's exactly
the kind of oversight - I think that's why you have a Commission.
•
IRVINE:
RAY:
He was looking two pages over, at Section 6-4.6.
Right, which refers back to 6-4.2.
IRVINE: Yes, except - 6-4.2, I was going to say, looks really good to me. I
would agree, absolutely.
RAY: That's what number (e) refers to. 'Review personnel for
conformance with the policies under Section 6-4.2.
SANTANGELO: So the limiting factor is 6-4.2.
IRVINE: Except you're reviewing personnel actions, and I think that's fine,
personally.
RAY: For conformance. Okay, let Chris address this.
YUEN: I think that the way this is written, it would definitely empower the
Commission to review individual personnel actions, and that's up to this Commission
to decide whether you want to empower the Fire Commission, if you have one, to do
47
that, but I really do read this as enabling the Commission to review the promotion of
somebody from a Lieutenant to a Captain, on an individual basis, because it says it can
review personnel actions, and then it says 'in conformance with this 6-4.2'. The review
can be, was the promotion of Capt. Jones over Capt. Smith done in conformance with
fair and appropriate standards of merit, ability and work performance? And so, I do
think, that under this wording, it certainly does give the Commission the ability to
review individual actions. If you want it to be like that, then you can leave it like this. If
you want it to just be broader, then it has to be changed.
RAY: I haven't had extensive discussions with people in Honolulu, but
the ones I have, is that this thing seems to be working well, and it hasn't caused a lot of
problems, or any sort of major departure, but it seems to be working well. It's not
problematic that I'm aware of. So that's as good a model, or comparison, as you could
get, same state.
HIGASHI: I have no problem with all of the other sections, but in practicality,
what may happen is people who want to get promoted would go to the Commissioners,
and that's what I'm afraid of. That's something that may never surface in a discussion
in public, but, in practicality, if they're empowered to review actions, then you have five
Commissioners -
RAY: But I think we could look to the City and County and see if that has,
in fact, been the case, and opened up a real can of worms. Then that's worth checking
out.
IRVINE: This is directly from the Honolulu Charter?
RAY: Right.
IRVINE: And things seem to work there.
RAY: I'm not aware of it causing a bunch of lawsuits and problems with
the process over there, but it's certainly worth exploring if it's causing problems, or if
people are taking advantage of it.
MARTIN: What was the intent, Gary, behind that? You guys, in writing this,
following the Honolulu one, but because of the possible controversy being discussed
right now, was your intent to have this written in this manner?
RAY: Didn't you just take it out of there?
YOSHIYAMA: Yes. I can make my own assumptions but I cannot speak to the
intent of this.
• MARTIN: So you just wrote it specifically from there to here because it's
there?
48
YOSHIYAMA: Right.
MARTIN: Okay.
YOSHIYAMA: And I think, for myself, it was just more general citizen participation
in the process. I think Roland was referring to that subsection, or item (e): I think item
(f) draws the parameters as far as what do you do when you hear of complaints, or take
up concerns from citizens or the department's personnel. And the route is make
recommendations to the Fire Chief on appropriate corrective action. So, it's not a
matter of the Fire Commission making independent judgments on personnel actions.
Their ultimate responsibility is, if they think something is wrong, say on standards or
something, they've got to refer it to the Fire Chief. It says here 'recommendations'.
One of the things that you may want to address, and again, it was taken straight out of
the model of City and County of Honolulu, is the proposed Section 6-4.5, where it calls
for five Commissioners. You may want to massage that.
SANTANGELO: John, with what Roland brought up, and Chris. Sometimes isn't
there like a due diligence where you have someone who says that you can refer this
conformance, and then that puts pressure on the department to have in place
procedures that then meet the merit, and so that's really the checks and balances. It's
not a micro management so much as there's pressure to make sure the process is
documented and you've done your due diligence from front to back?
YUEN: Under the wording of the draft, it's how far the Commission wants
to take it's role would be quite open ended.
SANTANGELO: So in a case like that, if you had more people on that Commission,
it might dilute the ability to aberrant or to mess with the process?
YUEN: It's not a matter of how many people are on the Commission. It's
that the wording under this draft gives the Commission a great deal of authority,
including the authority to review individual personnel actions like individual hirings,
firings, and other disciplinary actions. Your future Commission may choose not to go
that far, but it would be authorized to go that far. Under the next one, 'Hearing
complaints of citizens', under this wording, the Commission could do as little as hear
the complaint, and say, Chief, investigate this and do something about it, or it could do
as much as have a full hearing and recommend disciplinary action. So, it gives a lot of
power to the Commission and is quite open ended. 1 just wanted to give an idea, from
my legal point of view, how far they could go with this wording.
SANTANGELO: Because we're making assumptions in terms of people's motives,
and sometimes - We can assume that the people on this Commission are there for
good, public representation reasons, and therefore, they would wield this responsibility,
or power, responsibly, or we can snake the assumption that they're conniving, or they're
• for self-interest, and use that in a different way.
49
YUEN: Well, I would always assume that they're a good group of people
�i just like the present Charter Commission, and all the Commissions, and I'm sure they're
going to want to do well. It's just that in looking forward, and looking ahead at how this
is going to work, I want to lay out what the possible powers and authority would be
under the draft language.
HERKES: Mr. Ray. We seem to have a consensus of support for this Fire
Commission, and it seems to cover a lot of the problems that we've seen with previous
Commissions. And from a person that started this meeting wanting to abolish all
Commissions, I'd like to now suggest that it might be appropriate to take this wording
and insert it in the Police Commission. That it might be the same kind of direction
that we want to see in all of our Commissions,
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: I think Marni's right, but I'd like to ask our attorney. Right now the
Police Commission has to ask our Corporation Counsel how far they can go with
asking questions, or whatever. They feel they can't do anything because the Corp
Counsel has told them they can't ask certain questions. To me, if we're going to have
these Commissions, they ought to have the power to - I don't know if it's the power to
subpoena, or what, but to tell people, you will come and testify or you're going to be in
contempt. Does this make any sense?
YUEN: People, personnel in the - ?
IRVINE: Personnel, yes. Right now there's nothing that says a police officer
has to come and talk to the Commission at all, if they don't want to. They apparently
do.
YUEN: You're talking about making them testify before the Commission on
a disciplinary situation. I think that if you were not talking about a disciplinary situation,
and the Commission wanted a certain police officer to explain something that was
being done, like they were concerned about the way something was being handled out
of the Waimea station, and they wanted the head of the Waimea station to come into
the Commission, I hope that it would not be necessary for them to subpoena that
person, given that they are the Commission for the Police Department, and the Police
Chief and all the personnel are under the Police Commission. That shouldn't be a
problem. I don't know if it is, but it shouldn't be a problem.
RAY: It apparently has been a problem. What kind of questions can they
ask, and can't, and various interpretations, and then, whether the Chief of Police, for
example, has to tell them anything about his motives for hiring or firing somebody, or
something, so that they can evaluate what he did. To me, they've been saying that
they can't get information with which to do their job, and I don't want to set up another
Commission that feels the same way, even though 1 can't imagine Fire personnel
50
having as much trouble with public complaints about what they do. If they come and
,, put out your house fire, you don't file a complaint usually.
RAY: It seems like, my sense is, we have pretty strong support for
creating a Fire Commission, and we're really talking about some minor adjustments, if
that, in the language, so can we have a preliminary vote on that?
MARTIN: Do you need a motion?
RAY: Already made, so all in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
RAY: Opposed? Okay. Gary, could you get some information, maybe
out of the City and County, maybe more specific in terms of how the Fire Commission
has worked in regard to personnel, policy review, or if that's been a problem, or if that's
opened up a can of worms in terms of disgruntled people trying to take advantage of
that. John.
SANTANGELO: With this and the Police, and this wording, my question was in the
hiring, it says that it shall appoint. Now, when we heard from the Police Commission,
it sounded almost like they wanted some ability to do a performance based contract,
or anything like that, and this doesn't specifically say you will evaluate. Does this
preclude this? Does this help this? Where does this lie with that kind of concern, Chris?
YUEN: I think that, both, under this draft and under the present Police
Department sections of the Charter, the Commission can periodically review the
Chief, and the Police Chief, right now, is basically what we call an at -will employee,
and does not have a set job tenure. The Commission can decide that they're going to
do an annual review, an every two-year review, an every three-year review, but as it
stands, if the Commission wants to discuss getting rid of the Police Chief, they just
have to put it on the agenda, and then if somebody wants to get rid of the Police Chief,
they have to have a motion to do so. The Charter requires a statement of reasons,
which is a little bit different, and I'm going to talk about the significance of that. The
Fire Commission section here says a statement of charges. And then, under the
Police Chief, the Chief has to have an opportunity to respond. It does not specifically
saya hearing, and that's another technical point. And then the Police Commission
takes a vote, and it's completely up to the Police Commission whether they think the
reasons are good reasons or bad reasons.
SANTANGELO: But when we talked to the Police Commission, they felt that there
was a problem with establishing any sort of fact because they had no performance
based, or nothing up front. So, does this help something like that, or it's a non -entity?
In other words, when you go to evaluate -
51
YUEN: I think that there's language in this Fire draft that makes it more
clear that the Commission has the opportunity to do an ongoing review and evaluation
of a Chief. I think that that exists under the Police Commission as well, but they've
been having some difficulty with Corp Counsel about that. If I can synthesize
everything that was said, and what we had in writing, because we had a long letter from
the Police Chief since then: I think the gist of it is that Corp Counsel gave an Opinion
that you can ask the Police Chief what the Chief is doing on various administrative
functions like work comp, to give an example that I used last time, or how much of your
patrol peoples' time is spent out on patrol vs. how much is spent doing paperwork. You
can ask all those questions of the Chief but you cannot, the term used in the Opinion
was 'hold it against the Chief in doing an evaluation'. I disagree with that. I think that,
as a Commission, how can you evaluate somebody on their job unless you can hold
their performance against them. In other words, the Opinion seemed to be that you
could ask all these questions, you could get a response, but you could not give any
feedback, which I just disagree with. I understand the reason that they're saying that is
that they're not supposed to interfere in the administrative functioning, and the idea
being, well, if you can criticize the Chief for what the Chief is doing, then that's
interfering with the administrative policies. I have to disagree with that. But on the
Police Commission side, that could be cleared up by a little bit of language in the
Charter, if necessary. On this Fire Commission, the way it's written, I think it's quite
clear that the Commission will have the opportunity to periodically evaluate and review
the performance of the Chief.
4111
I do want to say something. I don't have to say it right now. I'll give Sue a chance to
say something, but I wanted to say something about the tenure of the Police Chief and
the tenure of the Fire Chief, and to make a slight suggestion about how this is stated
here, as far as the Fire Chief. The statement of reasons, and there was a rationale
for having the word 'reasons' instead of 'charges', which, in the Fire one here, it says
'statement of charges'. 'Statement of charges' implies some kind of wrong doing on the
part of the individual, whereas a reason for removing the Fire Chief might be
something like you have not moved quickly enough in adopting new technology for the
Fire Department. That doesn't sound like a 'charge' like you have neglected your
duties and you're playing golf five days a week, and that's a 'charge' against
somebody. And so, with the Police Commission, it was to make it as broad as
possible, the idea being that there should be some `statement of reason' so that the
Commission, itself, is accountable to the public in why they did something. This is
actually a change in the Charter for the Police Commission from ten years ago.
Before that, you could have a meeting on the Police Commission, as long as it's on the
agenda, Evaluation or Chiefs Tenure. Somebody raises his hand; I move to remove
the Chief. Somebody seconds the motion. Any discussion. No. All in favor of. Aye. All
opposed. Nay. And the public is kind of wondering, well, what did old so and so do to
deserve this. Now, you have a `statement of reason'. So there has to be some
justification so the public knows why the voting, but it's still entirely up to the
Commission as to whether that's a good idea or not. So given, I wanted to explain
• that as a difference. The term 'hearing' in a personnel action - it can imply that there's
52
some possibility of judicial review afterward, and in the case of the Police
Commission, the idea was that it's entirely up to the Commission to decide whether
this looks like a good idea or a bad idea. If there's been a `statement of reasons', a
proper vote, an opportunity for the police to respond, and a proper vote, the Police
Chief cannot file a lawsuit in court and say, gee, those weren't very good reasons,
Judge, or I'm not guilty of what the Police Commission thought, and the Charter
Commission looking at this ten years ago did not want to have the opportunity for a
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission would be final. So, if
that's what this Commission wants to do, then I would suggest, rather than a 'hearing',
an `opportunity to respond' or some other kind of language.
RAY: Sue.
IRVINE: I know that we asked our attorney to write up the simple changes in
language concerning the Police Commission, which would allow for Commission
evaluation of certain policies and the Police Chief's tenure -
RAY: She said Police.
IRVINE: For the Police, to make it more in line with the Fire, whatever
needs to be done. Chris said it would be quite simple to clarify what the argument is,
right now, between the Commission and the Corporation Counsel's Office.
YUEN: That would be. That part would be a one liner or two liner.
IRVINE: Could we hear it now?
RAY: In regard to incorporating similar language, or changes, to the
Police Commission, just in terms of cleaning up this document and making it more
user friendly. It really does throw people off. Numbers of Commission members, why
this one's different, why this one's written differently this way and that way, and
whatever, so I'm just kind of throwing that out there. You come across a model that
seems like it's much cleaner, clearer, easier to understand language. It might be good
to use that in other sections as well.
IRVINE: Like just use the Fire for the Police?
RAY: Well, to incorporate some of that. I like the way it reads.
HERKES: So, how do we proceed?
RAY: We're already moving on the Fire Commission, and Sue is
suggesting, because of this discussion, some language changes in regard to the
Police Commission?
53
IRVINE: Yes, if our attorney could write up -
RAY: Then I brought up looking at incorporating even more of the
language, just for discussion. Roland.
HIGASHI: I would rather finish the Fire Commission language and
suggestions, and clear that up, and another day review the whole Police Commission,
instead of just looking at one line now.
RAY: Okay.
HIGASHI: So if his suggestions are acceptable to the Commission, in his
redrafting of the bill, maybe it should reflect his suggestions in regards to hearings or
reasons.
YUEN: That can be a simple change to what Gary has done.
HIGASHI: I guess, if there's no objections, we can proceed with that. And as
far as the Police Commission, if we can do that another time.
RAY: See how this shapes up.
HIGASHI: Right.
RAY: Okay. It's noon. How is everybody feeling about breaking for
lunch, or working a while longer? How's everybody feeling?
HIGASHI: What else do we have?
HERKES: The Managing Director.
TOWLE: I'd like to clarify one thing about Animal Control. The County and
State provides for Humane Societies to have the contract, so I'm not saying the police
should suddenly become animal control officers. That's a totally different discipline.
But the contract should fall under the responsibility of the Police Department for
review. That's the sort of thing handled there. Thank you.
RAY: There are three things more I want to get done. One is talk about
the Salary Commission, the Managing Director, for all of us to very quickly go through
the Charter and see if we can ID stuff that may have slipped between the cracks, or
target future things that we need to work on. And then also, a little bit of discussion
about our schedule and where we stand time -wise, as far as getting a preliminary slate
of recommendations ready to go out for public comment, because we really need to
anticipate that and work backwards, and because of all of our schedules, that's going to
• be a lot more time, and talk about that a little bit.
54
IRVINE: John, unless somebody's going golfing or something important this
afternoon, l think we should break for lunch and really spend some serious time.
HERKES:
IRVINE:
The question is, if we broke for lunch, how many would leave?
Is everybody here for the day?
RAY: We could probably finish in another hour, if you want to go straight
through. Can everybody hold on? Let's take a couple of minutes break.
RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 12:04 p.m.
RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 12:10 p.m.
RAY: Let's continue our discussion. The next item I'd like to talk about is
the Salary Commission. I apologized to Michael Benn and these guys. That one,
kind of, slipped through the cracks. That was one of the first recommendations we got.
I really had forgotten about it. But, anyway, I think the basic change they're
recommending is that the Salary Commission would set the salary levels for the
Department Heads and the Deputies. Is that?
IRVINE: I don't know if he mentioned the Deputies.
RAY: I guess that it would set the salary levels for Department Heads
and other appointed positions, which, I guess, is the Deputies.
GARY: Secretaries.
RAY: And I wonder would they have jurisdiction over the County
Council positions, for instance.
HERKES: The Legislative Auditor.
RAY: The County Clerk and Deputy Clerk and Legislative Auditor and
all those positions. But anyway, let's just talk about, in theory, whether there's support
among this group for that. So, I'II just open that to discussion. I'll be glad to share my
opinion, if you'd like.
IRVINE: Okay.
RAY: I've sit through a number of these. I like the idea, actually, of the
Salary Commission setting these levels. I just think they can do it on a more
professional, non-political basis, and I was talking to Linda Lingle last week about
something else. I just mentioned it to her and she commented that they did do that in
Maui a few years ago, and that it's worked real well. She felt like it's been a real good
55
input. I'm sure we're all aware of the problem that exists between Civil Service
positions and the disincentive for accepting lower salaries to be Department Heads.
That's just one thing. But I think a Commission can look at things from a more private
sector kind of perceptive and makes these recommendations, so I'm generally in favor
of it.
SANTANGELO: Ditto.
IRVINE: Right now Salary Commission does County elected officials and
who sets the salary for the Department Heads and other executives?
HERKES: The Mayor.
SANTANGELO: The Mayor, with the approval of the Council.
IRVINE: Okay, and you'd be turning this over to the Commission instead of
the other way around.
HIGASHI: I support that. I think it's a good idea.
SANTANGELO: But, does the Commission really set the Council's salary?
IRVINE: It says the Council shall review -
YUEN: Yes.
SANTANGELO: And the Council doesn't vote on it or anything? They don't vote on
their own pay?
HIGASHI:
own salary.
Except for their own salary, right? The Council doesn't vote on it's
IRVINE: Page 32.
YUEN: No, the Salary Commission sets the salary for all elected officials.
So, the Council doesn't vote on it except in the sense of voting a budget item to cover
their own salaries. If they didn't vote to pay it, it wouldn't get paid. But otherwise,
they're not involved anymore.
SANTANGELO: So, if the Commission came forward now and said, we're going to
change the salary of the Council members to $50,000 a year, then there's no way the
Council can undo that?
MARTIN: Sure. Vote it down.
56
YUEN: You can always not take some of your salary, I think.
SANTANGELO: No, no, no, that's not the point. There's no way they can not
change - Okay, I didn't realize that.
YUEN: Unless they voluntarily reimburse the treasury.
IRVINE: It does say that they're supposed to have a reasonable relationship
with salaries of Civil Service employees given due consideration to the duties and
responsibilities of the officials.
SANTANGELO: That's fine.
HERKES: So, in reading that sentence, that brings up the relationship
between Civil Service employees, Council members, Department Heads, and the
County budget. How do we decide what we can afford? What kind of expertise, or
what kind of background does the Salary Commission have to set salaries in
relationship to a County budget? Probably similar to the Civil Service Commission, it
doesn't have too much of a relationship, or sets salaries that are statewide, so I'm just
trying to figure this out in my head. I know there's a problem and I'd like to see some
solutions to the problem. I just am trying to put it in a context of the County budget,
and who should make that decision, and how does it relate to the County budget.
• There's a Civil Service negotiation. Right, Gary? That makes the decision on Civil
Service employees, on their salary. We have a Commission that sets the Council
members' salaries in relation to the Civil Service salaries. So, then the Department
Heads' salaries are set in relation. I would think if we added some language, the
language would say, it is set in relationship to Civil Service salaries. So, that makes it
real important what the Civil Service salaries are. Is that the benchmark we want?
RAY: To me that definitely needs to be a consideration, and part of the
equation, but it's certainly not the overall driving consideration. To me, who you're
competing with is the private sector, to bring in qualified Department Heads.
HERKES: Well, maybe we should put, instead of in relationship to the Civil
Service, we should put in relation to the private sector.
RAY: So, when you're looking at the Chief Engineer, you've really got to
compete with the private sector for a position like that, and to me, that's what needs to
be brought to the table more. The other thing that always frustrated me, and Gary may
feel differently, is setting all these salaries at the same level. It made no sense to me
that you're paying the Chief Engineer the same thing you're paying, for instance, the
County Clerk.
IRVINE: Let's redo this today.
57
RAY: I'd really like to see a Salary Commission have the ability to get
involved in that, because, in terms of professional qualifications and responsibilities,
some of these departments clearly, in my mind, the compensation should reflect the job
qualifications and responsibility. One that came up when I was on the Council that was
kind of interesting was R&D. Yes, it's a small department, or whatever, but the Mayor
made the argument, which I think held a lot of water, that Diane Quitiquit more than
paid for herself. She was a very competent person, was key in negotiations over direct
flights to Kona, and da da da da da, so theoretically, you get the right person, real
dynamic in terms of what they could do for investment in the County, and whatever, and
they might be worth more, so there are exceptions to all that. I'd like, at least, that to be
able to be considered, and that's why, I guess, I brought up the Legislative Branch. I
don't know how that all works, as far as those jobs. They're treated as Department
Heads and so they automatically get the same compensation as other Department
Heads, which are uniform across the board, and I never liked any of that, anyway.
IRVINE: Maybe we need to do something about, like, Council services or
those people that are under the Council are not really the same as Department Heads,
because to have a County Clerk and an Assistant County Clerk that are getting the
kind of salaries that Diane Quitiquit, or somebody who actually produces something, is
RAY: Right, but, they could, and that was an argument that I made in the
• County Council that I wanted to see the Deputy Clerk be a Chief Information Officer
more for the County, and bring in somebody with those skill sets, and really be a
spokesperson for the County, or whatever. But in any case, I'd rather let the Council
deal with that. Let them have to justify who they put in and what they compensate them.
IRVINE: Rather than having the Salary Commission deal with those?
RAY: Maybe, yes.
IRVINE: On the other hand, maybe we should do some rewriting of these
positions under the County Council.
RAY: What are people's thoughts on opening this up to the Salary
Commission? John.
SANTANGELO: I support everything you've said in spirit. When it comes to the
Council, and I think Marni brought something like that up, if this Commission also set
the salaries of the appointed, or the patronage, positions, the way I see it working is the
Council would get a budget. They always do. And they would have to hire or layoff to
match that budget, but the salaries would be set based on the job descriptions that
could be in there, or just leave it alone and let the Council deal with it like they do now.
But definitely, in terms of the Legislative -
58
RAY: The Salary Commission doesn't set those.
SANTANGELO: No, but -
RAY: The only two that are tied in are the County Clerk and the Deputy
Clerk. I'm not sure the LA gets pegged to the Deputy Clerk salary.
IRVINE: Who is pegged to the Deputy?
SANTANGELO: Legislative Auditor.
RAY: But I think that's just the way the Council does it. I don't know if
it's by -
HIGASHI: It's not in the Charter specifically.
HERKES: What's in the Charter is tied with the relationship for the County
elected officials to the salaries of Civil Service employees. I would like to -
RAY: I think that should definitely be part of the consideration but -
HERKES: I would like to suggest the wording be changed to relationship to
salaries in the private sector with like responsibilities.
IRVINE: Amen.
HERKES: Now you figure out the responsibilities.
HIGASHI: Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to see is that the Salary Commission's
recommendations take into effect upon the report.
RAY: Upon what?
HIGASHI: The salary recommendations that they make, right now, require
Council approval, and I'd like to see some mechanism that doesn't require Council
approval.
RAY: Right, that's what we're talking about.
HIGASHI:
about it directly.
So how do we write that in the Charter? I mean, we've never talked
RAY: That they set the salaries. It's not up to the Council because right
now, it's politically, just about impossible for the Council to give these raises, and that's
what you see when it goes years and years and years that the Department Heads
59
didn't get any raises, and then, of course, the Civil Service positions go up on a
regular basis. So, that's one problem. But the other is, it seems to me an independent
Commission evaluation, in terms of what the job requirements are, what the market is,
competition with the private sector, that that should be part of the decision, and clearly,
especially a professional engineer. In Public Works, and all, we're out of whack with
the private sector on that position.
HERKES: Where does it say that the salary recommendations have to be
approved by the Council? I can't read it in the Charter. It doesn't say, does it?
YUEN: The Salary Commission has been making recommendations
about Department Heads. It's non-binding and it's not actually a function that is given
to it in the Charter presently. So, Mike Benn's proposal was to give them that function.
I don't think that Mike Benn's proposal went so far as all appointed positions, which is a
much broader group of people, including - people in the Office of the Mayor are
appointed, the information officers, and the secretaries, and the like.
RAY: And I don't think it should. You make your arguments for your
budget and you work it out as far as -
SANTANGELO: Internally.
RAY: Yes.
IRVINE: Executive, yes.
HERKES: So, who do they make recommendations to?
RAY: The Council.
HERKES: Why? Why don't they make recommendations to the Mayor and
he puts it in the budget and raises the salary?
YUEN: The Mayor needs Council approval to spend that money.
HERKES: To have the budget approved.
YUEN: Right.
HERKES: I understand that, but has he ever put any of the recommendations
in the budget and had the Council not approve them?
RAY: Yes.
SANTANGELO: Absolutely, every time.
60
•
HERKES: Okay.
RAY: Gary.
YOSHIYAMA: Marni, 1 think they do it primarily through the Salary Ordinance. It's
required that a Salary Ordinance be -
YUEN: One more thing. Under present law, I think the Council can
compensate the various Department Heads differently, if it so chooses.
HERKES: The Council can, now.
YUEN: They can pass an Ordinance that would compensate one
Department Head differently than another, based on the office, not the person.
SANTANGELO: And we're asking the Commission to do that.
YOSHIYAMA: I think that, for the salary portion, we can say something to the
effect that reasonable relationship to the private and public sector, and that should
cover the whole bases.
RAY: Right. I think it should be both. Did you hear what Gary said?
HERKES: No.
IRVINE: Yes.
YOSHIYAMA: Some kind of reasonable relationship with the public and private
sector. That will cover all the bases.
HERKES: Okay, good, good.
YOSHIYAMA: I'd like to know exactly what positions we're talking about because
RAY: I think we're talking about the Department and Deputy
Department Heads. That's what I'm talking about, but I'm not sure if -
IRVINE: It says Department Heads and other executives, so it's not
including secretaries.
RAY: Well, we need to clarify that.
YOSHIYAMA: And then he goes on to say that Wurdeman talked about setting
• the salaries for those positions, for which there is no process for determining
61
appropriate salaries. Is that the same thing?
RAY: I'm trying to remember that. There is an exception in there,
something that wasn't covered. Do you remember what that was, John?
SANTANGELO: No, I don't, and I was going to ask Gary. Gary, there's this whole
group that are not represented by a bargaining unit.
YOSHIYAMA: That's right. We have a collective bargaining law that we would
negotiate, or those people in collective bargaining units, would negotiate over salary,
and hopefully, come to some agreement. The State Collective Bargaining Law also
provides that those that are excluded from collective bargaining, but have their
counterparts in collective bargaining units, who will receive no Tess than their
counterparts. So, that takes care of both those in and out. They may or may not be
Civil Service.
SANTANGELO: But some there in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, wasn't it?
YOSHIYAMA: There are a lot of people all over the place who are Civil Service
employees, but not covered by collective bargaining, but receive the same benefits.
RAY: Okay.
YOSHIYAMA: And that's why it gets kind of complicated. That's why I'm asking
this question. I want to know what we're addressing specifically.
RAY: Maybe you could help and follow up on that.
YOSHIYAMA: My next one was to ask Mike Benn to give us a listing, and then
we'll know.
RAY: Okay.
YUEN: The Commission can decide; can name a list, or describe
generically, like Department Heads. I'm not sure what he meant by other executives,
whether the Police Chief, for example, the Fire Chief.
YOSHIYAMA: How about attorneys for Corp Counsel, or Prosecuting Attorney?
Is that included in this?
RAY: We need to find out. I don't know.
YOSHIYAMA: That was just a question.
• KUROZAWA: (indiscernible).
62
YUEN: In what Mike Benn wants to -
• KUROZAWA: No, I'm sorry. On the Salary Commission.
YUEN: They've been making a recommendation about the deputies and
the attorneys offices as well as the head person. I didn't know that.
SANTANGELO: But, like with the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, doesn't, say a
person like Jay Kimura, doesn't he have a lot of problems trying to be able to get the
salary for many of his people because they're not involved, right? And it's at the will of
the Council when he's really taken some lickings on that one.
YOSHIYAMA: I can ask Mike Benn for a listing, if that's what you want. I'm going
to ask him because I'm curious.
RAY: Do we have a consensus that this is something that we'd like to
look at and explore?
IRVINE: Yes.
HERKES; Yes.
RAY: So, let's, for the next meeting, let's tell Mike that we're interested
and we'd like to get as much detailed information to discuss as possible. Is that okay?
Okay.
Well, I guess Steve isn't coming back so, this morning we had our committee meeting
prior to this, so Roland, Marni and I are here, so hopefully, we can represent what we
were thinking about in regard to the Managing Director. And let me just say, after the
last meeting, I sent off some information from different Charters within the State, Maui
and Kauai, I don't remember, City and County, in regard to language around their
Managing Director position, as well as the section from the Lexington, Kentucky, as
well as the section from the National Civic League, which describes the different
options of Manager, Administrator, Council Manager, da, da, da, da, da, kind of what
the trends are there. In regard to their comments, this is the Civic League in regard to,
kind of, where we're headed. I think, basically, the reasons why we're looking at this,
or pretty much the reasons that exist in other jurisdictions, is just wanting to see more
professionalism and better management of government. So, I think that's the
motivation there. So anyway, we have discussed, and looked at, these different models
and are of the opinion that we do want to include some language in the Charter to beef
up the Managing Director position in regard to professional credentials and
responsibilities, and whatever. So, Marni, you want to lead off.
HERKES: I would start out with the citizen mastery from the League of Cities
about the major advantage of having some kind of an administrative officer, is it's
63
simplicity, which makes it easier for citizens to be masters of their own government. It
becomes more difficult to pass the buck, and impossible for those in government to
pass the buck, and citizens are more likely to participate. So, I think that was one thing
we, kind of, wanted to do, as well as efficient, simple government. We looked at a
Managing Director, and I copied two pages full of things that was mostly the Chief
Administrative Officer. One that would be head of an Administrative Branch. I like the
MBA. John doesn't. But, that's a discussion point as to whether they would have an
MBA or not. But they would have demonstrable education and professional
experience, maybe five years in an administrative capacity, private or public. They'd
have executive and administrative qualifications. They could appoint, suspend, or
remove Department Heads and officers - no, that's too much.
RAY: Before we leave that. As far as those credentials, the other
language was 'shall possess demonstrable educational and/or professional experience
in the art and science of government management as required by this office'. In other
words, heading in the direction of we want to hire somebody with City Manager type
experience. The thing that appeals to me about a position like that, or hiring somebody
out of that field, is that it's guaranteed they bring to the table all that experience with
solid waste, with wastewater, with all the public works stuff, I mean that every
jurisdiction deals with. So, anyway, that's another thing to think about when we talk
about those credentials.
IRVINE: Just a clarification. You were talking about the possibility of an
MBA, but actually, there is a course or a degree in City Management that these people
often have.
RAY: Yes, but all I was saying was if Assistant City Manager from St.
Louis applied for the job here, and he didn't happen to have an MBA, but he had been
the assistant administrator of a jurisdiction, and had all these skills, that's something -
IRVINE: It's not an MBA. It's some other degree.
HERKES: Or comparable. You can use comparable.
RAY: I'm more interested in the real life experience in city management.
IRVINE: I agree.
HIGASHI: I can support any kind of detailed experience level. There was
some other language we talked about which was more generic.
IRVINE: He had demonstrable government management experience.
RAY: Marni.
HERKES: Experience in accepted best practices. There's a whole bunch of
64
language out there but I think maybe what we want to know now is this the way we want
to go. This is not a Council Manager or a City Manager. It's elevating the Managing
Director. It's still hired by the Mayor so it's in the direction but it's not there yet. So, I'd
just would like to know, from the discussion, if that's something that people are thinking
they might like to pursue. And then we get into talking about what do they do. Do they
supervise agencies and departments? Do they evaluate management and
performance, and prescribe standards of administrative practices for agencies? Is that
something that a Managing Director, in this level, would do?
RAY: In Maui, some of the language is 'supervise the administrative
functions of those agencies, departments, Boards and Commissions; evaluate the
management and performance of each agency; prescribe standards of administrative
practice to be followed by the agencies under their•supervision'. Under City and
County, similarly, 'evaluate the management and performance of each executive
agency, including the extent to which, and the efficiency with which, it's operating and
capital program and budget have been implemented; appoint the necessary staff to
assist in such evaluation and analysis; and to assist the executive agencies in
improving their performance, and make reports to the Mayor on the findings and
recommendations of such evaluation and analysis; prescribe standards of
administrative practice to be followed by all agencies under the Managing Director's
supervision'. This is interesting. They have two sections here: 'Attend meetings of the
Council and of any Board, Commission when requested by the Mayor, (a); and (b)
attend meetings of the Council and its committees upon request, and make available
such information as they require'. In other words, an extra section that says the
Council can routinely request.
IRVINE: Is this from Code you are reading, or is this out of the Charter?
RAY: This is Charter for City and County.
IRVINE: Okay, it's Charter, wow.
RAY: So anyway, these are some of the language sections we are
looking at which could add to the responsibilities, but still, it's a position hired by the
Mayor. The other shift which I'm in favor of is the present Managing Director is not
subject to confirmation by the County Council, and I'd like to see it be subject to the
Council confirmation. So in other words, the Council would have beefed up standards,
criteria to hang their hat on and this person would be subject to confirmation as are the
other Department Heads. So that empowers the Council more in the process of
getting the right person aboard.
MARTIN: What about removal of the individual? At present, it lies with the
Mayor.
RAY: In the National League, or whatever it is, they talk about different
65
models, and in a number of jurisdictions, they do tie in the Council to the removal
• process. But whether we'd want to do that or not, I don't know. We didn't talk about
that, and aren't recommending that on a preliminary basis.
HIGASHI: The Chair and I differed on the confirmation part.
RAY: I said "I". I didn't say "we".
HIGASHI: Yes, I know. I said you and I differed. I didn't say I differed with
the committee.
MARTIN: I can see, not so much a problem, but a potential problem if, in fact,
the Council is oversight on hiring and only the Mayor is the one to remove.
RAY: That's the way all the Department Heads work.
HIGASHI: I have one question.
MARTIN: Yes, but the Mayor's the one that appoints. You know what I'm
saying, it's at his suggestion.
HIGASHI: Chris, if this is adopted, when is it implemented? I mean, we have
a Mayor's election coming up. It's elected.
RAY: I would say immediately.
YUEN: Yes, there would be no reason not to implement it immediately
because the old Managing Director is out with the old Mayor as well, and you have a
clean slate. So, if it went with John's suggestion of Council confirmation, the new
Mayor, in December of 2000, would send, along with the other department
nominations, the Managing Director's to the Council for confirmation. Whereas,
under the present system, the Mayor sends the other ones but gets the Managing
Director as the Mayor's own pick.
RAY: We all know that all the candidates are going to say this is a great
idea. They don't have any choice.
HIGASHI: The Mayor will be running for a 'kissing the baby' position, and this
is my Managing Director, by the way.
SANTANGELO: John, I want to support that. I like the process because the Mayor
still runs an election. He or she has to go out and set a policy before the people. The
people are electing them for that direction. They put Department Heads in, and what
we want is the more professional person. So, I think, with the requirements in there, I
• would really support this.
66
•
HIGASHI: I'm just very careful in saying 'more professional'. I think some of
our people have run government before. Our Managing Directors are very efficient and
effective people. I think we've had a level of peaks and valleys, but I think, by and
Targe, we've had effective and good people being our Managing Directors.
SANTANGELO: But that's where you have that 'or equivalent experience'.
HIGASHI: No, what I'm saying is 'more effective', and maybe better educated
or some other qualifications, but I think Fred Koehnen and Meg Kon, and some of these
people have done outstanding jobs.
RAY: I think it all depends, like you say, most importantly, who's in office.
And different people have entirely different management skills. You could get
somebody that had no government experience whatsoever, that could be just a
motivational and administrative giant, and you get good Department Heads in there,
and you'd have the best managed government in the world.
HERKES: Here, read from the League of Cities, 'a politician capable of
winning an election is not necessarily an experienced executive'. That's the crux of it.
RAY: And I think that's the gap you're trying to fill. That arguably, you
get the Mayor elected, has little or no background, and so you're trying to guarantee
that the Chief Operating Officer, or whatever, is somebody that has those credentials
and that skill set. But all I'm saying is that Roland makes a good point. You get
another good administrative person in there as Managing Director, and you get good
Department Heads, and it could work just as well. But I like the idea of having a
professional Managing Director.
IRVINE: John, we're talking having the Managing Director then appoint
Department Heads.
RAY: No, I don't think we're talking about that, but there are models, I
think, in Lexington - You just spell out that that person is part of the process. Whether
the Mayor listens to those recommendations or not, it's still up to him. But in terms of
the Department Heads, and I think there is specific language -
IRVINE: Well then, the main thing you would be doing would be beefing up
RAY: Like 'all appointments involving Department Commissioners
submitted to the Councilfor confirmation shall be accompanied by a written statement
by the Mayor and the Chief Administrative Officer', I mean, the Managing Director
'indicating the qualifications of the proposed appointee'. So they put them in the
process in that way.
67
IRVINE: Should we ask our attorneyto write up new qualifications for the
• Managing Director position?
RAY: The biggest organizational issue that needs to be addressed is all
these Charters spell out which departments are where in the chain of command, and
that's a dilemma for us because I think we ail talked about financial management,
budgeting, and stuff like that, being real important for the Chief Administrative Officer,
but in all these models, that's a function under the Mayor, not under the -
HERKES: In all what models?
RAY: All these ones we are looking at. All the budgeting.
HERKES: Maui?
RAY: Yes. And in City and County, the Finance Department is under the
Managing Director, but they have a Department of Budgeting, which is under the
Mayor. There's language in here that the Managing Director's involved in helping the
Mayor develop the budget, da, da, da, da, da, but the Mayor, in all these models, is the
guy that submits the budget. So, anyway, how we work that out, and you were talking
about how it's spelled out in the Charter; which departments are where. The City and
County I like the most because it has the most under the Managing Director, but it has
just the Departments of Planning, Corporation Counsel, and the Budget report directly
to the Mayor, and everything else reports directly to the Managing Director, as principal
administrative aide to the Mayor.
HIGASHI: But in terms of planning, they also have another Division of Land
Use Utilization, or something.
RAY: Yes, they've redone their whole
HIGASHI: I don't know how it stands now, but they had a reorganization.
RAY: So anyway, that's our report. So any thoughts on this? First off, is
there general consensus that we'd like to pursue looking at some of these job
qualifications, and functions, and stuff, in terms of the Charter language?
HIGASHI: I think we should review the Office of Managing Director. Make a
total review of what he's doing; what can be added on.
RAY: So, how do you want to go in terms of us giving Chris a better idea
of where to go with this? Marni.
HERKES: Can we take your suggestion and have him take the Honolulu City
and County Office of Managing Director and see how it fits? I think it fits rather well with
our Charter.
68
•
SANTANGELO: What are the qualifications of that?
RAY: I think it's pretty much identical to ours. We pulled out ours from
theirs. I think it's a five-year administrative experience; something like that. I've looked
at it. So it's not nearly as specific to government administrative -
HERKES: Five years of experience, yes, in an administrative capacity.
SANTANGELO: But is there will or want to tie it to something like 'you had to have
been a president of a company, or you had to have been in a County that dealt with a
budget equal to ours, or something like that?
RAY: Well that's a question. The Maui is the same, `shall have had five
years of experience in an administrative capacity, either in the private or public sector,
or both'.
HIGASHI: Seems like both Oahu and Maui have been working all right, so
maybe we can follow that as a beginning point for the draft.
RAY: Well, that's no change from our existing. I mean, they're all the
same language. But I think if you beef up under the Powers and Duties, then you do
give the Council, assuming they're in the process, a little more to hang their hat on in
• terms of the type of person. So in other words, if it's the will of the Council that they
want somebody like this, you at least give them a little more power to make a case for
certain types of qualifications vs. others, so maybe that's the -
HIGASHI: If it's confirmation, do we have a statement of reasons, or
something, before you discipline?
RAY: You know, the Council could very well make the call that this
person's qualifications, and how they fit in, seems to fit the bill.
HIGASHI: But they could also disapprove them for no reason at all. Five
votes and they're pau.
HERKES: True, but they do that anyway.
HIGASHI: (indiscernible) Department Heads. (indiscernible) the key guy.
They cannot manage government from the side door.
RAY: I think that would be really irresponsible and I don't see that
happening. I think they've really got to have a strong reason. I mean, there are a
couple of people, but that's not a majority.
IRVINE: I guess one of the things we need to decide is are we going to
have the Council approve or not. That's a shift.
69
•
•
SANTANGELO: Checks and balances.
RAY: Well, you want to take a preliminary vote?
HIGASHI: At this point, I don't support having it approved. If we had the
whole package together, then I think we need to look at the whole package, rather than
change one single thing, whether it's approved or not approved.
HERKES: I don't need the whole package at this point, but I think it's a good
idea because I think that Council buy -in is major in the management of the County.
RAY: Especially if we're looking at the model we were discussing is the
Council/Manager form of government. In that case, the Council is hiring the
Manager who is the Chief Executive Officer of the County, so to -
HIGASHI: Some of you may have been looking at that, but not everybody.
IRVINE: It seems like the public's been asking us to look at it and we've
sort of said, well, we'll try.
RAY: I don't think it's critical that we vote on that today. That's just part
of the language. I think where Chris needs more from us is on, and I'll be - You know,
we could just pull some stuff out of this and give you some -
HIGASHI: Chris has a lot of work already.
YUEN: So far, there have been three different issues raised with the
Managing Director: What are the qualifications; should there be Council confirmation;
and then, should the range of departments under the Managing Director be expanded.
The qualifications, if you ask me to work on it, I would probably just take something
from one of the National organizations, if that was the sense of the Commission,
because there really isn't magic language. There's no set formula, so what's been used
elsewhere is probably as good as we're going to get. The question of should there be
Council confirmation. That's a question that you'll have to decide one way or
another. And then, the third is the Department Heads; which departments should be
expanded. Again, that's straight for the Commission to decide.
IRVINE: I thought we were going to do that. Department thing next time
since we've kind of looked at it already, but I do think we need to tell the attorney
whether we want to have Council approval or not.
SANTANGELO: Doesn't the process also work that if, what Chris just said, those
three things are brought together, then when we want to put it together, we can up or
down the various elements. I mean, there's not a lot of wording. It goes to Council for
confirmation, that we know.
70
YUEN: There's not a lot of wording necessary.
• SANTANGELO: Yes, so if you brought the others forward, we took that and said,
yes, that's the way we're going to go, these are the qualifications, ta da, ta da. Then
we could finesse it.
IRVINE: Sure.
RAY: Chris, you want a set of this, or do you have all this stuff? I've got
extra sets right here.
YUEN: I'II check with you after the meeting and look through that really
quickly and see if there's anything I need.
RAY: So, you want to defer going any further on this until the next
meeting? And also, too, there's a bunch of people who aren't here, and especially
Steve. We need to get his input.
That covers what we had on the agenda, as far as specifics. In terms of General
Review of the Charter, George brought up something during the break, asking Chris,
that there's a bunch of smaller, just kind of more manini, things that Chris needs to go
through, and of course, any input we can give him, as far as red flagging any changes
from misspelling to things more substantive, or whatever, that's one category. And
• then, other than those today, if there's anything that anybody can point out that we
haven't covered - I made a couple of lists last week that 1 just red flagged - , so that we
can kind of go through very quickly and just make sure we aren't missing things like the
Salary Commission thing. That's something we got input on four months ago, and we
just kind of let slip through the cracks.
What did we decide on the Legislative Auditor? We got that whole packet from
Connie and we got some suggested language from her in regard to the appointment of
the position.
IRVINE: We got language?
RAY: Yes, that was part of the packet. I have it here. Is there a general
consensus that we're in favor of making some changes along the lines of her
suggestions, to the Legislative Auditor? I believe there is. Would you like me to read
you her language?
IRVINE: Yes.
SANTANGELO: Where is that, John? I have it here.
RAY: It's the last page in the first section towards the middle. And it
says, 'The council may establish an office of the legislative auditor and create such
positions therein as it deems necessary to assist it in the exercise of its legislative
71
power, provided the positions shall be exempt from civil service laws. The legislative
auditor shall be appointed by a majority of the County Council for a six-year term.
The council may remove or suspend the legislative auditor by a two-thirds vote.' And
then it's just language over the kinds of things they do. So, the major change would be
the appointment for a six-year term, and then the other language just, kind of, beefs up
the function and independence of the Legislative Auditor, so that if issues arise,
they've got this to hang their hat on in the County Charter to go back to in terms of the
way they function. I think this is good language and worth considering. John.
SANTANGELO: Question, John. In this, how did you see this addressing the ability
of the Auditor to manage it properly, and not be interfered with by individual Council
members over a certain thing?
RAY: It doesn't really.
IRVINE: No, she has no control over her employees.
SANTANGELO: Would it be going too far afield to have her approved by the
Council and that individual, it's a her now, but that individual then fill those positions
based on -
IRVINE:
to -
SANTANGELO:
people.
Well, the Council's not going to like that if they want these people
They're not going to be the ones voting on it. It's going to be the
IRVINE: Right, and I think we need a Legislative Auditor who actually
plays a Marian Higa role in auditing what goes on. We need someone who drafts
legislation. And then, we need Council services.
SANTANGELO: Even now they do real well, but there is an ability of certain
individuals to interfere with, and corrupt, the overall process and leave the Auditor
powerless. And I would like to see that changed. I think government would be better
served, and John knows a lot more about it, per se, than I do.
IRVINE: Further in here, she has model language 'to implement the Charter
provisions establishing a legislative local government auditor, internal audit' which
some of us have been talking about.
RAY: That's really creating, tike, a new department.
IRVINE:
of -
Well, it might just be appointing, making one staff person in charge
RAY: When you look at the program review language, obviously, one
staff person can't deal with - just that language in the Charter. We're talking about, I
72
don't know, 200 and something programs being reviewed every four years.
HIGASHI: Mr. Ray, having some experience in the County Council, would it
be beyond anybody's imagination that the County Clerk should be in charge of drafting
all these bills, and supporting the Council people? He has a staff. They have a Deputy
Clerk. And then the Legislative Auditor can be assigned, or redefined, her duties, to
doing more auditing, or program review, or stuff like that.
IRVINE: Or more auditing. That's a good idea, but, if they're doing auditing,
then the positions in that department cannot be assigned to County -
RAY: I don't think, realistically, the budgets and the personnel could
address that because, really, the Council Services Office - I think, in all fairness, the
Council persons do need Council Aides to deal with their constituents.
IRVINE: Do they have those on the other side?
RAY: Right.
IRVINE: Yes.
RAY: So, I'm just saying, those people don't have the qualifications or
the salary level to service the committees and prepare legislation. So, in other words, if
you took the LA's Office and made them an auditing office, those are the people -
IRVINE: Then we'd have to have non-political appointees staffing the office.
RAY: We'd have to have another set of people, I think.
IRVINE: But John, you just said that the County Council already has
people on the other side.
RAY: They have Aides, right. But they don't prepare the legislation.
IRVINE: No, but Roland's suggestion -
RAY: If you turn the Auditor's Office into a real financial audit office,
that's all they'd be doing. They wouldn't be doing -
IRVINE: Right, but a whole finance and program, as an auditing office -
RAY: So, who would prepare the legislation?
IRVINE: The County Clerk and -
RAY: A County Clerk?
73
IRVINE: No, a County Clerk - you can split that staff in half,
RAY: Roland.
HIGASHI: Maybe it's beyond the Council's capability, but reassigning some
people in the Auditor's Office under the County Clerk to doing legislation, and
redefining the Legislative Auditor's Office to a different role.
RAY:
Auditor.
They already are. The County Clerk appoints the Legislative
IRVINE: And then the County Council appoints the whole staff, so that the
Legislative Auditor has, essentially, no staff under her to do anything, as far as I can
tell. They're always out there taking care of barking dogs.
RAY: That's not true. Barking dogs interfere but they don't , you know.
IRVINE: I just can't see naming something a Legislative Auditor's Office if
they're political appointees of somebody else that's not even in the department.
RAY: The language is -
IRVINE: Weird.
HERKES: The practice is weird.
IRVINE: Yes.
RAY: In regard to the proposed language that we have here from the
Legislative Auditor -
YOSHIYAMA: Sounds good to me.
SANTANGELO: Sounds great to me also. John, do you think it can be taken even
further though, to where the positions within it - do you see the merit in that, where
there's more autonomy in the Legislative Auditor's Office. Council members need
people who will research and have the expertise and the time and the tools to research
and get information, but I'm just taking away from this abuse part.
RAY: All it takes is five votes to make it work right, so maybe this is a
step in the right direction.
SANTANGELO: Okay.
RAY: To get five votes to make it work right.
SANTANGELO: So, you're happy with it?
74
RAY: All it takes is a simple majority to change things over night.
IRVINE: I don't know whether anybody is ready to make a motion. You
were saying, like, right here we could change things over night, or are you talking about
the County Council?
RAY: I'm talking about the County Council.
IRVINE: Yes.
RAY: And to me, that's where we need to look, our elected officials to get
things right in County government, not the Charter.
IRVINE: Well, I just wondered if there wasn't something we could do. 1
really kind of like -
RAY: Well, I think this is something.
SANTANGELO: Just looking at how the Auditor gets there in the first place.
RAY: I think this is a big step in the right direction. I mean, an Auditor
elected for a six-year term. Right there, with two-year term limits.
• IRVINE: Then that's about the only real change.
SANTANGELO: That's.a big change.
RAY: That's a pretty big one.
SANTANGELO: Considering that if you're the Chair, and how you become the
Chair, and then how does your County Clerk and Deputy Clerk and Auditor come into
that picture.
RAY: It also puts this additional language into the Charter which, there
again, Council folks can hang their hat on in terms of directing the functions of the
Legislative Auditor's Office.
IRVINE: Except that she's still got nothing but non -civil service positions
under her, as far as their loyalty is not to their boss. I mean, she's not their boss.
HERKES:
issue?
IRVINE:
But I wonder. Is that a Charter issue? Is that a management
There's no way you're going to solve it with the present structure.
• HERKES: But, we won't have the present structure. It's a Council mandate,
not a Charter mandate, right? That's the five votes. So, I think the discussion today
75
will probably highlight some of the perceived problems, or the problems.
IRVINE: Possibly, but I can't see them getting solved as long as the people
are beholden to the County Council, rather than to the people who are head of their
office.
HERKES: No, but isn't what you want to do is move them back to the County
Council and out of the Auditor's Office?
RAY: Who do you think the Department Heads work for?
IRVINE: You're right. We may be helping.
SANTANGELO: May not go as far, but it helps.
IRVINE: It might. I guess if Connie thinks it might, it might. But, it doesn't go
as far as I'd like to see it go.
RAY: Chris, do you have any thoughts on this? Did you talk to Connie
after this came out?
YUEN: Yes, we talked for quite a bit.
RAY:
this language?
YUEN: I think that what she presented was, to some extent, a compromise
between What she really would have ideally wanted and what she thought is possible
under the present system. I think, clearly, a person in her position ideally would like
the power to actually appoint this staff, and I really can't remember exactly what her
suggestion was, but I remember we did discuss that, perhaps, people that were
expected to work directly for a Council member should be so assigned, rather than
interposing the Legislative Auditor, in formal terms, when the Legislative Auditor did
not actually have a great deal of power to supervise such people.
RAY: They don't work for that person. They do service the committee,
and the person that heads up that committee is a specific Council person, but. like I
say, all it takes is five votes to have it really work that way. I mean in real life. I was
Chairman of a committee and the person in the Legislative Auditor's Office that
serviced my committee, serviced the committee. He didn't work for me.
Did anything come out of that discussion other than suggestions to
IRVINE: I believe that.
RAY: So, anybody had equal access other than the time it took to make
sure agendas were straight and to deal with whatever.
IRVINE: Part of the problem that I see here is we do have a County Clerk
76
•
and a Deputy County Clerk. There are really not two full time jobs there, at this point,
as far as I'm concerned. I've worked with the County Clerk's Office for years. During
elections, you need the Deputy County Clerk working on elections. The County Clerk
probably could head up a legislative reference bureau type thing, doing legislation.
Whereas, then the County Auditor could actually audit, and maybe, each staff person
needs to take care of two committees. Is that a possibility? And the rest of the staff go
to the auditing?
SANTANGELO: A lot of stuff comes through there.
RAY: I think if you were really going to take on an independent auditing
function, you're talking about more bodies and more skills.
IRVINE:
have to have -
Internal auditing, I mean. Certainly the person at the head would
RAY: Let's go back to more the issue of what the function is now in
regard to the authority of the Legislative Auditor position. Do we want to explore that
person -
SANTANGELO: The Legislative Auditor?
RAY: Hire or appoint -
SANTANGELO: Their staff? I'd like to see them hire their own staff, and then
assign to committees, like you said. And John, you were a perfect model of how that
should work, and I would really find myself hard pressed to go against your
recommendation, but if a Legislative Auditor is appointed the way it's recommended in
here, and then was able to staff through that individual's decision who was in there, 1
don't see how it wouldn't work any different than it does now except you'd have the
control. You'd still have the people assigned to the committees, helping with the
legislation, doing the research, but it seems to me, in a much more efficient manner.
Now, that's my perception. What do you think?
RAY: They wouldn't control the budget, so I'm not sure just how that
would function. In other words, the pocket strings would, I think, still dictate things.
SANTANGELO: You'd set up more animosity than cooperation?
RAY: I'm not sure.
SANTANGELO: It's true. Budgets are strong ropes.
HERKES: So, what do we want a Legislative Auditor to do? Because my
reading through the Charter, I discovered that I didn't come up with a performance
review.
77
•
RAY: I think what they do now is a valid function. It's a whole other issue
of - the words are what throw you off. They're not really an auditing officer.
HERKES: What do they really do now?
RAY: They're a legislative services officer or office.
HERKES: They're a legislative reference bureau.
RAY: Like that, yes.
YUEN: There's some Council services combined with the kinds of things
that a legislative reference bureau does at the Legislature, which is bill drafting, and
the confusion to, probably, the public comes from the fact that it is quite different than
what the State Legislative Auditor does. There's no function in the County government
currently being filled that is equivalent to that function.
HIGASHI: Chris, didn't it start basically doing the budget review for the
Council; three people in there; Harry Takahashi and a couple of these guys?
YUEN: That was more true ten to fifteen years ago, that the idea was that
they were more of a budgetary analysis -
HIGASHI: Like a Finance Committee.
YUEN: Right, that the Council would have a semi-permanent staff that
had budget expertise of it's own, and would not completely be at the mercy of the
Finance Director, in knowing what was going where. I think that's a very accurate
thing to say.
TOWLE: I'd like to add that there needs to be some remedy to contracts that
are supposed to be performance reviewed at least every four years, and the answer I
got was, well, there aren't enough people to do that. So either that has to be eliminated
or something has to be done so that all contracts have some type of review. Because if
this isn't being done, it's totally inadequate. I don't know the answer, but I just thought
if it was written in, that you're supposed to have a review at least four years, and it's not
happening with many, many organizations.
RAY: Yes, we're aware of that. You want to table this one for right now,
and maybe I can explore it a little bit further. But, you've got to realize this is part of the
County Council and County Council budget. They control the budget, the way it
works right now so you talk about an independent Auditor's Office. Well, set up that
way, and doing independent audits is one thing, but being just another County Council
department, or whatever, they've pretty much got to buy in and make it right, and make
the change, in my mind.
IRVINE: We have this every four years, every program that has to be
78
audited. We'd probably like to throw that out of our Charter, if we could, but I don't
think we could.
HERKES: Not me.
TOWLE: No, me neither.
IRVINE: Everybody's complaining we've got 200 programs and you can't
audit those every four years, but you can set in place an Auditor who would look at
broader areas than just one contract, or whatever, every four years and, on an ongoing
basis, get to auditing these programs every four years without -having to say each
program has to be audited.
HERKES: I suppose that one way to solve this is to rename the office, and
rename it a Legislative Reference Bureau, rather than an auditor, because then you
don't have the Auditor, you don't have the feeling that it's a Marian Higa. You don't
have those. Because Marian Higa has some very specific rules and she also has an
extremely professional staff, hard to emulate. But, we need to look at where the
County Clerk lies, where the Legislative Auditor, whether it's a Legislative
Reference Bureau, or exactly what they're doing, and what we expect them to do. I
don't have a good handle on that.
IRVINE: What does the County Clerk do? The Assistant County Clerk
• manages elections.
RAY: I'd say a lot of personnel supervision. They have a large staff, so
they run that whole office. And then, as far as just handling the agendas and the
paperwork that come through the committees and the County Council. That's major.
IRVINE: The County Clerk's in charge of that.
RAY: Yes.
IRVINE: When you say managing the staff, you mean -
RAY: The County Clerk's in charge of the whole office, as far as how it
functions, how it deals with the public, lots of meetings, lots of paperwork, and just
being in charge of that whole system and all the personnel that are assigned to the
committees. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that the County Clerk - there's that
much to do, or that it's worth the money, and the Deputy Clerk doesn't do anything
other than elections.
HIGASHI: Are we in the process of reviewing all the Council services, or
going to act on this, or do you want to defer it?
RAY: Let's defer it for a couple of weeks. I think we've got consensus
that we want to move forward with, at least, this type of language, right?
79
SANTANGELO: Yes.
• RAY: And then we'll -
YOSHIYAMA: I'm ready.
HIGASHI: I'm ready. If you're looking for a motion, I guess.
RAY: 1'd rather hold off and let me work on this a little bit more.
So, everybody just flip through your Charter and see if there - in terms of the balance of
power between the Mayor, the Administration and the County Council, we've had
suggestions from Harry Takahashi, from Curtis Tyler, in terms of some specific things, if
anybody wants to pursue that.
We've heard a lot in Section 3.12 Submission of Bills to the Mayor. In terms of the
veto process, we've talked about that.
Curtis presented us with the option of interdepartmental transfers, having a limit on
them.
Keola Childs, if you go back to the stuff that he submitted in regard to the budget
process, there was some specific suggestions, so we need to think if there's anything
we want to do there.
Mandatory Program Review: we all know it's problematic. We have kind of punted on
that so far.
Chris, on inserting the Department Head job qualifications in the specific chapters,
moving it out of that lump sum section, is that something worth messing with?
YUEN: I wrote you a letter on why this got done that way. To change it,
there is two ways to do it. One would be to actually put a ballot proposal to the voters to
just move them, and the other way would be to give somebody, like the County Clerk
or the Corporation Counsel Office, the power to make non -substantive changes to
the Charter to improve it's comprehensibility, or reorganize where sections are, and this
would include the power to take out things that don't fit anymore because of things that
have been passed in the meantime. Typos and doubled words, which are in there,
those could be changed in the next printing without any authorization. Those are
mistakes that actually crept in during the reprinting process, for the most part - the
typos, the doubled words. I don't know exactly how but the voters passed something
that we would sit there and read it, and it's correct, and then somehow, in the printing of
this blue '91 volume, there are a few typos. There's some typos that have been there
from before. Then there are a few things that no longer fit, one of them being that
there's a provision for what you do if there's a vacancy in a four-year Council term,
and now you only have two-year Council terms. But, let's not take that out now
because next time we might have four-year Council terms, so you might as well leave
80
that one in there. That's an example of the kind of thing that I would recommend you
give somebody the power to snip those things out, that you don't need, and are not in
• there anymore, rather than having to submit them to the voters, because things tike that
will crop up. It's very hard, when you make one change, to see where it fits in. There
may be nine places that also need to be changed. That's my job, but maybe I get eight
of them, and I didn't get the ninth one, and it's still floating out there. So, I think that
would be the better way to go about eradicating some of the little problems. Many of
the little problems are just things that are little glitches in there and are not really
causing any confusion to anybody at the present time. For the four-year thing, for
example, I don't think that makes anybody think that you still have four-year Council
terms. Everybody understands you have two-year Council terms. It's just something
that doesn't fit in there anymore.
IRVINE:
power to?
Chris, do you have a suggestion as to whom we should give this
YUEN: 1 think the Corp Counsel's Office should be given the power,
when a new Charter pamphlet is printed, to take out provisions that don't belong; things
that are obsolete, clearly not there. Not to change the actual Charter itself, but to do a
few of these highly technical things that don't need to be submitted to the voters all the
time. I think it's very confusing to the voters.
RAY: A couple of things that we had talked about, and I'm not sure we
• had closure on. Both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Water
Supply: the Chief Engineer as a registered engineer; and same thing, the Manager of
the Water Department, the Manager shall be a registered engineer. Roland, both the
Public Works and the Water Department, the qualification of a registered engineer
having to head the department. You know we talked about those as possibilities. I
don't think we ever decided anything. I'm just bringing those up.
Another one is Water Commission: I'd like to see representation from the nine
districts, as part of the Water Commission, and I know that -
SANTANGELO: Weren't we looking at doing that to all of the Commissions so that
we had continuity?
RAY:
HERKES:
IRVINE:
here.
I don't remember that. But, I'm just bringing that up so that we can
How about the six districts as we're going to six districts.
Water has nine. You're thinking of something else. I made a list
RAY: No, Water has nine Commissioners but they're not the single
• member districts. It's very heavily weighted towards East Hawaii, the way that
language reads.
81
MARTIN: Puna, Ka'u, Kona, Kohala, Hamakua and Hilo.
RAY:
Commission.
There are only two Commissioners from West Hawaii on the
IRVINE: Water is not the only one that's like that. Liquor is like that as
well, even though it's only seven members representing the community areas of Puna,
Ka'u, Kona, Kohala, Hamakua and Hilo, which was our old County Council divisions.
RAY:
changes on.
Those are the things we need to decide if we want to recommend
IRVINE: On the Charter Review, it is six plus three.
YUEN: A little light just went on in my head. We need to decide, with the
6-3, what we're going to do about the Commissions that are currently nine members,
and say, they're one from each of the nine districts. Several of the important
Commissions are done like that. Police and Planning come to mind, and I'm not sure,
there may be a couple of others.
MARTIN: Change the word from 'council' because that's what you're referring
to is council districts to `geographic' districts, and leave them the same. Is it
possible? Isn't geographic districts -
• YUEN: Well, the nine districts currently exist only as council districts.
One way to do it would be you could define nine districts, but they would not coincide
anymore with the council districts. Another way to do it would be to have six district
Commissioners and three at -Targe.
RAY: You're talking about if we go -
YUEN: Right. I can't think of how else you would do it. You wouldn't be
able to keep the same number and follow the council districts anymore.
SANTANGELO: Why couldn't you, though. Why couldn't it say that it will be as the
council make-up, so if it's six with three at -large, it would be 6 and 3. If it were nine
single member - because it would always match.
YUEN: You could say that, but that's a change that needs to made to each
of these Commissions that currently follows the council districts. You could go to
one from each of the six districts and three at -large, but it needs to be changed.
RAY: Then you've got the IVlayor appointing the three at -Targe?
YUEN: - No, the Mayor would appoint all nine as the Mayor currently does
• it.
82
IRVINE: Chris, can't we just say, like John said, that it will follow our
council districts, whatever they may be. It may be six and three, orit may be all
nine, because that's exactly what our Charter has always done with way more than just
that one Commission. A lot of them are appointed as the County Council.
YUEN: Well, let's take the Planning Commission. If we had a 6-3
council, you still want. nine Planning Commissioners?
IRVINE: Yes, that's what we had before. That's why we're 6-3. This
Commission is 6-3. That's the way we were appointed:
YUEN:
IRVINE:
blah.
No, there is eleven on this Commission, the Charter.
But I think the Charter Review was representative of blah, blah,
YUEN: There's some Commissions that have a rather broad, and vague,
geographical requirement.
RAY: The Water Commission is more so than the nine specific districts.
MARTIN: Puna, Ka'u, Kohala, Kona, Hamakua, Hilo.
YUEN: Before we had the nine council districts, all the geographic
descriptions were this broad and vague type. You had to be representative of the
districts, but they were not precisely defined. What is Puna? There wasn't a specific
definition that says , well, you're supposed to have somebody from Puna, but it doesn't
exactly tell you what Puna is. There's a judicial district of Puna. I suppose it would
follow that. When the County went to the nine single member districts, as a follow-up
to that, a couple of the Commissions, I know Planning and Police which are very major
Commissions, were changed so that you had to specifically have one from each of the
nine council districts. And if you go to a 6-3 Council, you have to say what happens
to those Commissions.
MARTIN: If you look where the districts lie, Hamakua is actually past Ookala.
Then you have North Hilo, which is that side boundary, so again, if you're being
specific, if that's your fear, John, as I'm hearing it, if it reads Ka'u, Kohala, Hamakua,
you got three people from this side automatically.
SANTANGELO:
MARTIN:
SANTANGELO:
RAY:
How you figure? Pahala's nowhere near it. Neither is Naalehu.
What is that?
I said, Pahala and Naalehu is nowhere near West Hawaii.
George.
83
MARTIN:
come out of.
RAY:
HIGASHI:
What I'm saying is is technically it is. It all depends on where you
Okay, Roland.
My question is to our legal counsel.
YUEN: The only ones that it's specifically true of is Police and Planning.
The others are more vaguely defined, and so it would not have to be changed. And
what I see as the possible options are you go six, with one from each of the districts,
and three at -Targe. I'm talking about Commission members. Or, you go with a vaguer
definition of where they all come from, which is like representative of the various
districts, and then the other one -
KUROZAWA: The Police Commission isn't set by council districts. It's spelled
out by -
YUEN: This was changed. There's a looseleaf that changes it to nine.
KUROZAWA: In the back. Or something like this -
YUEN: This is an alternative. To change them back to the way they were,
which was a vaguer definition. The final possibility is to come up with nine districts,
which you then have to decide how you draww the boundaries of those nine districts.
HIGASHI: My question, Chris. Do we have one Amendment that unifies all
Commissions? I mean, we have specific numbers now, and it's inconsistent, so is
there a Charter Amendment that all Commissions shall be whatever we decide. Put it
before the people, either nine, and we define, or 6-3, or give them multiple choice, or
what? It's got to be consistent. Or it should be consistent?
HERKES: Well, it's not consistent so it doesn't have to be consistent.
HIGASHI: I think that's the point he's trying to make. It's our charge to put the
formula together that applies to all of the Commissions, or not.
YUEN: I'm sorry to always keep adding wrinkles to this, but at least two of
the Commissions, there's a State Statute that talks about how many members they're
supposed to have. That's the Civil Service and the Liquor. So, the County is free to
have as many members as they want for any of the other Commissions. So, if you
wanted to have a consistent, like 9, on all the other Commissions, that could be done
as one Charter Amendment. Forget the 6-3 for a moment. There could be a Charter
Amendment that says that all Commissions, aside from the ones I talked about, have
nine, and it's one from each council district, or you could say that they're all going to
have nine, and they're 6 and 3, or follow however the Council is -
HIGASHI: Or it could be council districts period. Because if the 6-3 doesn't
84
pass, it's nine.
YUEN:
RAY:
Yes, it can be done that way.
Okay, let's try to wrap it up. Sue.
IRVINE: When we were appointed, there was a complaint about the fact
that we weren't representative of the County Council, and we did a lot of talking about
are we going to ask County Council people to suggest people for Boards and
Commissions, or whatnot. Have we abandoned that, or are we thinking that County
Council people would have jurisdiction, or be a place to go to look for Commission
members?
MARTIN: They already can do it, can't they?
SANTANGELO: No.
MARTIN: What?
IRVINE: If you have nine members, and you have nine people on the
County Council, then each Council person could say, I'd like this person to be on the
Commission. We could have them appoint them if we wanted to.
SANTANGELO: Take this Council as an example.
RAY: Wait. We did have testimony in regard to appointing the Planning
Commission, partially earned hold by council, so we have had that, and I think maybe
other Commissions, but there's been no movement by the Commission members to
bring that forward. And we've had lots of discussions about the dynamics of who
applies, or doesn't apply, for Boards and Commissions, and why that works, or
doesn't work.
One thing before we leave, and just for your input, and Chris, Kevin has dropped out of
the loop. I don't know if he's going to participate, but I just want to bring it up, that right
now, we're functioning as a 10 -person Commission. We could be getting down to some
close votes, and I'd hate to be into tie votes, so we'll make every effort to contact Kevin
and see if we can get him back on board. If we can't, then I think that potentially is an
issue. I don't know just how we deal with it.
MARTIN: We deal with it as you being the Chair, and you don't have a vote
unless it's to break a tie.
HERKES: No, I think we appoint another Commissioner. That's where the
legal - so I think that's if he doesn't want to participate.
410 RAY: But anyway, do you know, Chris?
85
YUEN: I don't know.
RAY: But, if you guys are talking to Kevin, just let him know we're getting
down to short strokes and appointing stuff, and we need to have the votes here. With
Kevin, Sharron hasn't even been able to get in touch with him for the past couple of
months. So, if you see him, just give him a heads up.
Calendar: February 5th, which is our next scheduled meeting, here. I just want you to
know that's Cherry Blossom Day and the Outdoor Circle Plant Sale, which is a nice
time to be here. You can take a break and walk across the street. Lots of good food
and stuff. I'm still up for meeting on that day, but I just wanted to make you aware of it.
Traffic will be horrendous and stuff, so that may be a little bit of an imposition.
IRVINE: Start earlier.
SANTANGELO: Unless we have some huge storm, like last year.
RAY: Also, we talked about trying to wrap things up in February, as far
as having a preliminary slate so we can schedule public meetings for some time in
March. I don't think we're that far away in terms of addressing most stuff. Do you want
to schedule another Saturday meeting in February? We meet, what, the 9t? That's
our evening meeting, right? Yes.
MARTIN: It's at five?
RAY: That's our regularly scheduled one so we've got to leave that.
HERKES: The 9th of February. And we meet the 26th?
RAY: I'd rather do it sooner. I'd rather do it like the 19th
MARTIN: I'II be in Honolulu.
HERKES: I'm gone.
IRVINE: Not great for me.
HERKES: Don't we have a meeting on the 26th? Is that a 3 o'clock meeting?
IRVINE: I don't think we have one.
HENRY: My understanding is that we discontinued the second meeting in
lieu of Saturday.
IRVINE: Right.
• HERKES: I guess I missed that somewhere.
86
RAY: Let's think about -
• HIGASHI: Let's do the 5th and see how far we go. If we need another
meeting.
SANTANGELO: But you're saying possibly do another Saturday?
RAY: It's not just because it's in Waimea. I'll go to Hilo, but I just always
think we get so much more done. It's so much more productive during the daytime.
IRVINE: I'd go for the 26th. I don't know about the week before.
RAY: Chris, let me ask you this. As far as going out to public hearing, if
we just had a draft of things that looks like we're considering, that's fine to go out with,
right? In other words, everything doesn't have to be perfect. I'm just thinking if we want
to make our schedule, that we can go ahead and start working on that, and lining up
dates and places, and then we just go out with whatever we've got. What do you think?
How far along do we have to be to go out for public meetings? We don't have to, by
ordinance or anything, do we?
YUEN: We've had a round of public hearings. So, on several things,
you're far enough along that anybody could come and understand exactly what the
Commission is doing. On other things, the decision needs to be made, like the options
for the Managing Director. At this point, this Commission is still really talking about it
and hasn't made a decision on the changes.
HERKES: Before we start talking about the next round of public hearings, is
that going to be the last round of public hearings, or are we going to do two more
rounds of public hearings? I think that is how I would make the decision as to when the
next round is.
RAY: My thought is that we were going to do one more round of public
hearings. We get input. We come up with our final recommendations, including the
specific language, hopefully by June or so, and then myself and others, or whatever,
would take it out on the road for this is what it is.
HERKES: So that's another round of public hearings.
RAY: Well, I wasn't thinking of scheduling Commission public hearings.
It's more individual presentations to civic clubs.
YUEN: What I was going to say is that I don't think there is time for two
rounds of public hearings before the Commission takes its final votes on what goes on
the ballot. There's time to have one set of meetings, I think, because what the
Commission is going to need to do is have the exact language, and take a final vote on
it, and basically, at that point it closes up shop. Because once that's shipped out to the
Clerk's Office, it goes on the ballot. The only things left for the Commission would be
to, probably, approve an informational pamphlet which would be prepared, and to
87
have some discussion about what kind of publicity would be prepared, and probably
authorize the contents of that, and review that, and send it out. 98% of your job is just
to get the proposals to the Clerk for the ballot.
HIGASHI: Do we do the drafting of the question and the digest?,
YUEN: Yes we do. You get to approve the exact language that gets put
on the ballot, in the form of the ballot.
SANTANGELO: John, did I understand that individuals would go out?
RAY: Well, I don't want to have to be the only person answering all these
requests to talk to every Rotary Club and Lions Club, and whatever, on the island. So,
I'm not sure just how that will work.
SANTANGELO: I'd be uncomfortable with me, or any Commissioner, going out and
lobbying for or against something that -
RAY: You're not lobbying. You're presenting what it is that the
Commission is proposing.
MARTIN: The lobbying is over once it's sent to a vote form.
RAY: You're presenting it. I'm going to be presenting the 6-3 thing. I'm
not in favor of it. I'm going to say this is what it is and this is why we came up with it.
IRVINE: John, were we talking March for these public hearings before?
RAY: We were.
IRVINE: We ought to be able to make it if we have February 5th and
February 9th and maybe one more February Saturday meeting. We might be there.
RAY: I don't know how everybody feels when we start thinking about it,
as far as the public hearings. I'd much rather do them on Saturdays than during the
week. I'm on call at the Legislature. Gary is too.
HERKES: They have Saturday meetings too.
RAY: I know they do, but it's just hard for me to schedule.
IRVINE: The public shouldn't object to Saturday meetings.
YUEN: Usually that's what they want.
IRVINE: Usually that's what they want?
88
RAY: And we could just go around and hit Saturday mornings.
SANTANGELO:
major areas?
RAY:
Are we doing every nook and cranny, or are we doing like the
When we talked about it, we talked about only four vs. six, but
whatever you guys want.
HERKES: Your problem is that major organizational groups do not have
meetings on Saturday mornings.
RAY: I know, but we can talk to other groups individually.
TOWLE: With Kona Crime Prevention and the Property Owners Association,
I have already paid rent on the Outdoor Circle Building and had to cancel, so I would
be willing to schedule something for some Saturday for this, John, if you'd let me know
ahead of time so I could make sure it was available.
MARTIN: One final thing. Because I came late, I apologize. On the
Communications, I'm sure you read this. I'm sure everybody read it. Is there any
validity to it?
YUEN: No.
• MARTIN:
it's valid or not.
RAY:
YOSHIYAMA:
RAY:
SANTANGELO:
RAY:
It's just that they bring up some points, and I just wanted to know if
Don't forget the Cherry Blossom next time. Motion to adjourn?
So moved.
Second?
Second.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
The discussion ended at 1:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharron Henry
Secretary -Administrative Assistant
89