MIN CHC 2009-10-09.tif - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Kona. It should also be posted on the internet at the same time. This is not an onerous thing to do. In our Council Rules, which unfortunately aren't followed very well, we are supposed to have this notification out seven days before the meeting, and we don't seem to do that very often. It is hard on the staff, I admit that; but it's not about whether it's hard on the staff and hard on the Council Members, it's about the public's right to know and the public's need to be able to access this information in a reasonable amount of time and the State said six calendar days. I'm saying it is six calendar days with a 4:30 p.m. deadline. I'm going on to Communication 44, regarding standing committees, including the public notice requirements. There is nothing in our Charter at all on Standing Committees of the Council, so I added a section to add Standing Committees, that all Standing Committees shall have all members of the Council on every committee and have voting privileges. Several terms ago, before I ever got on to the Council, there was an attempt to consolidate control of legislation by giving the Chairman of the Standing Committee the right to determine if a particular piece of legislation would ever see the light of day. This goes on at the State right now. A Chairman can legally bury something in the committee and it will never come forward, even if it's a great piece of legislation, would have massive benefits for the public, it can be killed in a committee. That attempt, many terms ago, is something we should not allow. Every single council person should have the right to bring forward legislation, and all legislation has to start through committee process unless it is waived by the committee chairman to the council. We should not be constraining our council members from producing legislation. If we do not pass this law, I think we are going to face this dilemma again in the future. I explain how it would go about happening; I explain about the minimum six calendar days, I explain about the 4:30 p.m. deadline which is exactly the same as it is on the council amendment that I proposed. On Communication 45, I support this exactly the way it is written. I think the ceasing of funding for at least two years is a terrible miscarriage of the public trust. I cannot even begin to describe how terribly hard it is to do an initiative and get something on the ballot, have the people vote in a great majority, and then have the county -- whether it is the administration or the legislative branch--just say, "We're going to change that." That is not the intent that the public went forward with when they did this process. It should be put into the Charter, and it should be funded at all times. On Communication 46 regarding vacancies in office, I like what Ms. Hecht actually wrote. I think it is important that you guys really discuss this one. I think it is unfortunate that the current law says that within the first 30 days, the Council can appoint a person to fill the vacancy, because the Council majority will always put in somebody aligned with them. And, after the 30th day, on the 31st day, then the Council Chairman can assign somebody. Again, that doesn't necessarily give the best representation to the district. I do like Ms. Lively's suggestion that if you are going to choose the second person from the last election -- whether it was the general or the primary- -they should have at least 25% of the vote. That would occur only if there is six months or less left in the term, because the most important thing we do as Americans is vote. We need to have the people of the district choose their elected officials when it is at all possible; but, I've got to tell you frankly, that to pull off an election in two to three months, and then there is only three months left in the term, and to have that 21