Laserfiche WebLink
MR. TUCKER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, it's good to see you all again. The <br />Board of Directors of Friends of Puna's Future has authorized me to speak on behalf of our <br />membership. I would first like to speak to CA -15, on the 2% Fund. I'm going to be a little <br />improvisational here, reacting to the Director of Finance's statements. I really am not <br />convinced that 75% of the County's budget is fixed costs, unless it is including the Highway <br />Fund and the Capital Improvement Funds and some very major multi - million dollar funds <br />that are out there and are subject to ebbs and flows. I don't think the fixed costs are <br />anywhere near 75 %. But as Ms. Crawford, that the County has taken advantage of the <br />flexibility in these funds, I would say that relieves the administration of making some very <br />hard choices in so far as Capital Improvement Funds and as for Highway Funds. We have <br />been the beneficiary now of LAO (Legislative Auditor's Office) reports showing some very <br />general and persistent mismanagement and lack of control over these budgets. We are <br />talking about budgets involving hundreds of millions of dollars. To have the easy fruit out <br />there, with a dedicated fund like the 2% to be tapped alleviates the need to roll up the sleeves <br />and squeeze some of the excess out of these systems that we've been operating, as the LAO <br />has been describing. I also feel that in taking two years of funding from the people's <br />initiative, that it's really going to be a four -year process of recouping from all of that; <br />because while these two years of funds are diverted, it's going to take another two years to <br />recoup and get back on track. <br />I was very disappointed that the administration did not, at least, take the stance of treating <br />this as a borrowing, rather than as a taking, which would have led some credence to the 2% <br />initiative and its ability to find matching funds down the road and show some consistency of <br />intent. While we do not see that consistency of intent there now, I would like to see, and our <br />membership would like to see, the voters to have an opportunity to express this intent again. <br />Guy Enriques, for example, has expressed the fact that, "Well it passed then, I don't know if <br />it would pass now." Let's please find out. It deserves to find out. We are in a four -year <br />process now, with the 2% fund, and the hard work has not been done by the administration in <br />dealing with some really serious and heavy financial issues in the County. So, we are in <br />support of the 2% initiative. <br />Moving on to the vacancies and recall, I have to be enthusiastic about an earlier proposal; <br />and I don't know if it's possible within your commission to take the four -year term - -which <br />we can be rationally supportive of for good reasons - -and combine it with the recall language. <br />They really do support each other, and they make good sense, and I think they will translate <br />well to the public. They will understand the issues that are involved with two -years versus <br />four - years, and alleviating the recall. In some earlier testimony on an earlier date, there was <br />a question about the ease with which a lower percentage of requirements could be obtained. <br />I would really like to stress the fact that there is a substantial difference between a secret <br />ballot on election day, and a publicly signed petition with your name and your address on it. <br />Those are very different moments taking place. I do not really envision recalls being easily <br />acceptable even with the improved language. People think three times before they go signing <br />a recall petition. They will walk into an election booth and vote privately for whoever they <br />feel, very calmly and quickly. That finishes my talk on CA -35. <br />21 <br />