Laserfiche WebLink
RECESS: At 3:53 p.m., the Chair called for a 5 minute recess. <br />RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 3:57 p.m. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Before the break, we were discussing CA -38. There is a motion <br />pending to move it at first reading. CA -38 has been amended twice by motions. The <br />discussion I had with the Commission's Attorney, is that in order to create a new <br />proposed amendment which reflects Mr. Unger's motion we would have to put that on <br />the next meeting agenda. So, what do we do with the pending motion, Mr. Hookano? <br />MR. HOOKANO: Technically, it's an improper motion, and it's just not considered by <br />the Commission. <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. So, is there any further discussion on CA -38 as <br />amended? Let's take a vote, and I note that Mr. Kealoha has been excused. <br />MR. FUERTES: Are we voting on the amendment? What are we voting on? <br />CHR. HAITSUKA: We are voting on the first reading of CA -38 as amended by the two <br />previous motions. The two previous motions undeleted the deleted language in <br />subsection (g), changed the word "shall" to "may," and changed the reference "from five - <br />times the state minimum hourly wage" to "two times the state minimum hourly wage." <br />Ms. Kawauchi. <br />MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, can I as a quick question of Mr. Brilhante? Now we are <br />voting on it as amended, are you still in favor of these changes, or not? I'm just trying to <br />get a sense if you are still in favor of the changes. I'm sorry, not the changes, but the <br />actual amendment at this point. <br />MR. BRILHANTE: I appreciate the question. My response to that is that I still have <br />concerns. The intent of forwarding this proposal was to solidify a potential fiscal <br />negative impact that could come forward to the county that we are not currently <br />anticipating or forecasting. With these changes, with this amendment as concluded by <br />this body, it still affords me to have these concerns. Now we are allowing a discretionary <br />act upon the submission of a request by a board or commission member. We're still <br />affording specific language as to what type of pay may be considered. The intent of our <br />submission was to remove those types of situations from occurring. I think historically, <br />the perception of serving on county boards and commissions has been a voluntary act or <br />service to the community as a whole. I understand Ms. Jarman's position that maybe <br />financially everybody might not be able to provide that service to the county because of <br />financial constraints. I think the inverse aspect we need to look at is can we allow this <br />type of financial instability to possibly cause a negative impact on the operating budget of <br />the county. We have numerous board and commission members out there who are <br />C <br />