Laserfiche WebLink
KELLY POMEROY <br />(At this time Kelly Pomeroy came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) <br />MS. POMEROY: Good afternoon. The proposed amendments that are the greatest interest <br />to me are the ones that relate to the most precious and endangered aspects of our society, <br />namely the environment and participatory democracy. Most important of these, I believe, is <br />CA -15, relating to the Land Fund. This is a very personal issue tome because I spent many, <br />many hours collecting signatures on the petitions that put that issue on the ballot. It was a <br />source of great dismay to me to see the contributions to the fund suspended. I believe there <br />were a number of other, more acceptable ways to cut the budget, and their effects would be <br />temporary; whereas open lands lost to development are gone forever. Also, this is a time <br />when land prices are down, so it's a good time for us not to cut back on those funds. I do <br />agree with the earlier speaker who said that there perhaps should be more flexibility in <br />negotiating for some of these lands, and I would urge you to take another look at that and <br />make sure that the County is not hamstrung in making the best deals they can at any given <br />time, given the circumstances. <br />CA -26 expresses similar sentiments in calling for acknowledgement of a public trust function <br />for the government, and should be put on the ballot. Many of the other proposed <br />amendments relate to making government more responsive and transparent. All of the <br />amendments that expand notification requirements and provide for information availability <br />on -line seem useful and perhaps could be combined into one ballot issue. <br />CA -35, which would make recall a more realistic option, is clearly in the public interest I <br />believe. CA -20, which would allow each district to be represented more fairly on each of the <br />standing committees, is also in the public interest. On all of the propositions that give <br />citizens more effective representation and lead to greater transparency, I urge you to let the <br />voters decide. I agree with Mr. Gimpel when he said to err on the side of letting the public <br />decide. <br />I think that one of the most important issues is fair redistricting; I urge you to accept CA -17, <br />which would tighten up redistricting rules. Beyond that I have long felt that the power of one <br />person to make appointments to important boards and commissions, which can lead over <br />time to a pronounced imbalance that sometimes continues even beyond the appointer's <br />tenure, is un- democratic. The Planning Commissions, for example, can be quite powerful in <br />an area that is at the heart of Big Island politics. CA -24 attempts to remedy this, but I think <br />could be formulated to better serve representational democracy. Having the Council as a <br />whole make the selection of Planning Commission members, would not be as democratic as <br />either making the positions elective or allowing the Council member from the district to <br />make the appointment from that district when the seat is open, and leaving the at -large <br />positions to the whole Council or even to the Mayor. <br />Similarly, proposal CA -27, dealing with Council vacancies would make for more democratic <br />representation. I believe that Section 6- 7.5(c) also needs to be changed because it contains a <br />potentially enormous loophole. A developer, who seeks approval of a project that is <br />unpopular with appropriate Planning Commission, may be able to gerrymander the outlines <br />19 <br />