|
with a proposal is that we would allow a one-time exception in 2002, when this kicked
<br />in, to allow any of the seated Council members to run for a four-year term, so if you'd
<br />410 been in office since 1996, and you were allowed to run for a four-year at -large seat in
<br />2002, it means your term would be extended to ten years instead of eight. So that
<br />would be the practical effect of that. But that would also create a term that wouldn't be
<br />concurrent with the Mayor's. So, I like the idea, and I'm going to be arguing but we'll
<br />see how it comes out, for the first at -large term being for two years only. Then it would
<br />be concurrent with the Mayor's and wouldn't conflict with the term limits. But in any
<br />case, all this depends on whether it passes or not, in the first place. Another dilemma
<br />in regard to creating these at -large seats, and doing away with the nine Council seats
<br />is its effect on Boards and Commissions. In other words, presently we have two
<br />Commissions that are tied to the nine Council districts, Planning and Police. We're
<br />also recommending, in here, tying the Water Commission to the nine Council districts,
<br />and we may be expanding that to some other Commissions. So what happens if you
<br />vote in this new scenario, you do away with the nine Council seats. We don't want to
<br />follow the six single member districts and the at -large make-up. We'd like to maintain
<br />the Commission positions tied to the nine Council districts. So, we can come up with
<br />language in the Charter which basically ties it to the nine Council seats as they existed
<br />in the year 2000. Practically that, sort of, addresses it, but it's, sort of, messy too, and it
<br />would make it open to challenge in the future as things change in the future and you no
<br />longer than the nine district seats. In other words, somebody could challenge; well,
<br />does that make sense in the future as the make-up of the population changes, and
<br />whatever. So, we're trying to figure out a way. I think the majority of the Commission
<br />• would like to maintain the Commissions tied to those Council seats, but we're not quite
<br />sure how we're going to deal with it in terms of the proposed language to the Charter.
<br />And there's not a perfect, clean way to deal with it if we are, or if you folks are, to do
<br />away with the at -large seats.
<br />Number 3, it says here Strengthen the Authority of the County Managing Director.
<br />This is another item we spent a lot of our time on, looking at the model of a Council
<br />Manager form of government vs. the strong Mayor form of government. We spent
<br />probably more time looking at this one, and looked at more material than anything else.
<br />The Council Manager form of government, in effect, does away with the Mayor, or
<br />makes it more of a figure head type position, or more attached or involved with the
<br />County Council than the Administration. We chose, instead, to recommend addressing
<br />pretty major changes in the County Charter in regard to the Managing Director, and
<br />hopefully, encouraging the Administration to use the Managing Director more as the
<br />Chief Operating Officer of the County, more the day-to-day, full time operating officer in
<br />charge of the day-to-day business. And the way we've addressed this is we're
<br />suggesting rewriting the entire Executive Section of the County Charter, more along the
<br />lines of how Maui County has organized. And, basically, instead of separate sections
<br />in the Charter which deal with the Office of the Mayor and Departments, and the Office
<br />of Managing Director and Departments, and Departments connected to Boards and
<br />4
<br />
|