Laserfiche WebLink
KALANI FLORES <br />(At this time Kalani Flores came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) <br />MR. FLORES: Aloha Commissioners and Chair. My name is Kalani Flores. I am an <br />instructor at Hawaii Community College. I am here representing myself, and I reside here <br />in Waimea. I don't have any written testimony, and I apologize for that, but I just have a <br />few brief comments that I would like to provide. One is regarding CA -18. I oppose this <br />particular amendment for the following reasons. I believe that changing from a two to a <br />four -year term will lesson the accountability to the public of these elected public officials. <br />I believe that if they are elected every two years, then they have to accountable every two <br />years. It is just like going into a job. When you go into a job, you get on probation for a <br />year or two. If you do a fine job, then you get hired on a permanent basis. I think that is <br />how we should look at it. If our Council members are doing a fine and excellent and <br />satisfactory job, then they will get re- elected for another two years and so forth. I think that <br />giving them four years; that is a four year time period, and a lot of things change and <br />happen and the public will not have the opportunity to make them accountable to the end of <br />the four -year term. So, I believe the existing language in the Charter is more than <br />satisfactory. It still gives a Council member eight total years, if the public chooses to vote <br />them in as such. But, to me, the reason why I oppose CA -18, once again, is that it goes <br />back to accountability; and I believe a two -year term will make our Council members more <br />accountable every two years, and the public has the ability to make the decision whether <br />they should be in that office or not. <br />Moving on the next item is CA -24. CA -24 pertains to Boards and Commissions. I also <br />oppose this particular language; the new proposed language, amendment. Particularly, I <br />oppose the language under Section (b) items (1), (2), and (3). The reason why I oppose (1), <br />(2), and (3) is because they speak to the effect of having the County Council select the <br />members on these commissions and boards as well as having the County Council <br />approving their appointment. I believe the way the system is presently set up, where you <br />have the Mayor push forth a need for appointments and you have the County Council <br />approve it, there is a balance of power in the political structure and process that we have <br />now. So, the Mayor presents the name, and the County Council members approve or <br />disapprove that person. What this particular amendment does is it shifts all the power to <br />just the County Council; so there is no check and balance in the power in the way the <br />system would be set up. I've heard some comments previously that the way it is set up, <br />there is favoritism and so forth perhaps by the Mayor. But, that could go for the Council <br />members as well. Just from a personal experience, I believe the system works right now. <br />Presently I sit on the Public Access Open Space and Natural Resources Commission, and <br />when that commission seat became available, I put my name in just like any other applicant <br />could. I had no affiliation with the Mayor. I had no affiliation with anyone in the <br />administration, I just submitted my name based upon my interest in that particular <br />commission, and the Mayor selected my name. So there was no preferential treatment. <br />There was no preference given to me from the Mayor because of any close association; he <br />just picked my name out of the pool of applicants. Then my application went to the County <br />Council for approval. There was a balance there, because the County Council could have <br />10 <br />