Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CHC 2010-02-12.tif2009 -2010 HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION 12th Session Friday, February 12, 2010 County Council Chambers 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 CALL TO ORDER: CHR. HAITSUKA: Good afternoon. Today is February 12, 2010 and the time is approximately 1:41 p.m. and I call this regular meeting of the Hawaii County Charter Commission to order. We are in the chambers of the Hawaii County Council, located at 25 Aupuni Street in Hilo. ATTENDANCE: Present: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Mr. David Fuertes, Vice Chair Ms. Honma, Commissioner Ms. Jarman, Commissioner Mr. Guy Kaulukukui, Commissioner Ms. Jamae Kawauchi, Commissioner Mr. Joseph Kealoha, Commissioner Mr. Alapaki Nahale -a, Commissioner Mr. Todd Shumway, Commissioner Mr. Scott Unger, Commissioner Excused: Ms. Susie Osborne, Commissioner Also Present: Mr. Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel Mr. William Brilhante, Deputy Corporation Counsel Ms. Kathy Garson, Assistant Corporation Counsel Ms. Deanna Sako, Deputy Finance Director Mr. Randy Kurohara, Dept. of Research and Development Director Ms. Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor Mr. Kenneth Goodenow, County Clerk Ms. Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator Ms. Cori Saiki, Elections Program Specialist Mr. Levi Hookano, Legal Specialist Ms. Donna Leonard, Council Services Ms. Arlene Boteilho, Council Committees Ms. Manu Hanano Council Aide (Waimea) Mr. Dave Hirt, Legislative Assistant (Kona) Ms. Karen Eoff, Secretary STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS CHR. HAITSUKA: Before we start the public testimony, I would like to remind everyone that public testimony is limited to items on the agenda and three minutes on each agenda item. And I would like to remind the Commissioners that we are not going to allow questions to be asked of the testifiers; but if someone wants to have a testifier remain to discuss a particular issue later on our agenda, let me know and we can ask the witness to remain. We are having some technical difficulties, I am told, with connecting to Kona and Waimea, so we will be taking testimony by telephone. We are going to start off with Waimea. MS. HANANO: Our first testifier is Terry Markovitch. TERRY MARKOVITCH (At this time, Terry Markovitch came forward to address members of the Charter Commission MS. MARKOVITCH: I just wanted to say, that if the Commission sees its function, not as making decisions for us, but rather as putting before the voters options that they think the public would likely wish to see adopted, then it is not appropriate to take an item that was already on the ballot and cut by 75 %, what 2/3 rd of the voters approved. It is a real insult to the voters, and it undermines the democratic process. So, I strongly urge you to change that to 2% and let the voters speak again. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Go ahead Manu. MS.HANANO: My next speaker here in Waimea is Gail Jackson and she is here speaking on CA -15 in support. GAIL JACKSON (At this time, Gail Jackson came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. JACKSON: Aloha Charter Commission. I live in Waikoloa and I understand your qualities for the commission include being able to focus on the community needs of the whole, without catering to special or self interests. The 2005 General Plan designates important sites for protection. The Public Access Open Space and Natural Resource Preservation Commission have a 3 '/z page list of properties submitted by the public. Are you aware of the extent of the effort in developing the Community Development Plans? Many people, many community meetings and much time were involved to determine what the people want. When you read through the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP); Kona CDP, South Kohala CDP, and North Kohala CAP, it is clear that residents put high priority in protecting important cultural and historical sites and landscapes; preserving open space; and preserving ocean and mountain access. South Kohala values CDP values include, "We honor the Kupuna by accepting the values and concerns of 2 native Hawaiians who have known for centuries the limits of island resources and the need to protect the `aina." General Policy #1 had, "Preserve the culture and sense of place of South Kohala; and preserve cultural and historic sites and structures." In the Kona CDP guiding principles it says, #1, "Protect Kona's natural resources and culture." North Kohala, CDP has, "Key planning implications related to Kohala's natural and cultural resources, include cultural sites and landscapes should be protected; coastal resources should be protected from development and be accessible to residents." The State Constitution, Section XI, subsection (1), includes the words, "For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources." Please approve the 2% compromise submitted by the Save Our Lands Citizens Committee. Let the voters decide on the 2% Land Fund. MS. HANANO: The next testifier is Karen Clarkson. She is here speaking on CA -15. KAREN CLARKSON (At this time Karen Clarkson came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. CLARKSON: As one of the original members of the Save Our Land Citizens Committee, I ask you to please honor the votes of thousands of people who turned out in 2006 to make a commitment to our future generations; to set aside 2% of our property taxes for open space and land and natural resources. It is a pledge that we believe we are making to our children, our grandchildren, and our future generations that is based on a survey that was done prior to that by the Trust for Public Lands that I believe cost around $10,000 dollars, that said this is what the people wanted. We ask that you give us another opportunity to show that we are sincere in our commitment to this goal and that anything less than that is just too small of an amount. Remember, it's a percentage; so when revenues go up there is more money, but on the other side that means the economy is up and prices are higher. So it is reflective of property values at the time. It is a percentage; it is not a dollar amount. We ask you to please reinstate the 2% language in the Charter amendment for the Land Fund. Thank you very much. MS. HANANO: This is our last testifier which is Margaret Wille and she has several different items on the agenda to speak on. She will identify each item as she moves from one to the other. MARGARET WILLE (At this time Margaret Wille came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILLE: Good afternoon, I am Margaret Wille from Waimea. I would first like to comment on CA -9, 23, and 30, all of which promote timely and effective notice to the public. The rights that the people have in the division of power are basically to hear and be heard. In order to hear and be heard, and those rights may seem small to some but they at least give voice to what voters and residents have to say, it is critical to have notice and information about government decision making. Therefore, I just ask in the interest of maintaining a well informed and participatory public, to encourage you to support CA -9 which relates to electronic notice of meetings hyperlinked to an appropriate county website; CA -23 which relates to requiring public notices to be distributed by electronic medium within the same time frame as newspaper publication; and CA -30 which requires the County to maintain a basic website for each board to include the purpose and authority of the board, information about the membership, posting of agendas and providing summaries of the final actions taken. As has been suggested, these could be put into one single amendment given that they all have the same purpose of an informed public that is in a position to act in a timely fashion. Now I am switching to CA -26. CA -26 memorialized the County's public trust responsibility. This amendment adapts the corresponding public trust provision in the Hawaii Constitution which the Hawaii Supreme Court recently said applies to Counties and not just to the State. For me, this is simply a message to the Counties that they must be mindful of its natural and cultural resource are for the benefit, not just of current generation, but so too for future generations to take care for our children's children. It's basically saying be farsighted and consider Hawaii and the people of Hawaii; and not just for the moment. Next, I want to support CA -29. CA -29 provides for a more educational role for the office of the prosecuting attorney and adds that to his role. I just want to support this kind of preventative action. I worked with the department of corrections in Vermont, and I observed close hand the importance of a preventative, pro- active role by law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys offices. I support the expansion of his role, and thank him for proposing this Charter amendment. Next, I want to oppose CA -37. CA -37 reduces and revises the authority of the office research and development to instead by only the economic development department with a narrower economic focus. I realize this proposed amendment is well intentioned by our Mayor, especially in these economic times, but in essence it pits short-term economic well being as the goal, against the more holistic concept of prosperity which includes social, environmental and long term, as in researched economic well being. You all are the far - sighted entity as I see you, and I hope you keep that viewpoint in mind. Next I have a comment on CA -31. CA -31 removes agriculture and energy from the research and development department and creates a new department for solely agriculture and energy. Were the economy on the upswing, I would be more supportive of continuing to support this Charter amendment; but out of concern for adding more top - end bureaucracy, I've not continued to lobby for this proposal. I am, however, concerned; I was upset to see the research and development department object to the creation of a website for its energy advisory committee, and for the soon to be established Ag food advisory committee. If those two citizen advisory committees don't even deserve to have a website, I don't see that research and development would be doing what they say they are doing and making that these areas are of critical importance. I do believe when I spoke to Randy, that he was more amenable to this proposal, and as I explained to him, there are plenty of people who would do this free of charge, and they can build it and work on it over time. E Also, I am disturbed, through this department or otherwise, is not engaged in an army of pro- active programs to confine the little fire ant colonies spreading around this county. I consider this a crisis; I consider this should be considered an emergency; and I just feel the department should be all over this issue. A year or two ago, I rallied people and involved them, who were working on the new Ag plan, and we put together a request for a county ordinance on this. Pete Hoffmann authored and submitted it - -I think it is 08- 618- -which unanimously passed the Council. There is also going to be more information presented by a State person next week. But, this issue is critical; it is a horrific invasion. It is now in Kona and Waikdloa and the whole west side. People, where this has spread, such as in Florida and areas of Texas, have totally deserted those areas of agriculture, as well as homes. Again, this was just a comment. I think some of these critical issues in terms of Ag and energy are our future and also our survival. So, whatever way, either with a department or part of research and development, I just think they have to be thrust to the forefront. Finally, I want to comment and support inclusion of the Land Fund at 2 %; so I am opposing it at 0.5 %. Under the Charter, as I said, the basic rights for the people, the reserved power, is to be here and be heard. In order to create any law on its own, it is extremely difficult, everything where you can do it on your own; its years of processes that occurred with the 2% Land Fund. To change it to 0.5 %, you can say, well it doesn't mean that the Council has to; but basically that is what it is going to do. This is going to control it; and to think otherwise, that eventually over a period of time it will end up there, is just excessive optimism. Anyways, if this passes, where you take away what the people passed, and not honor and respect that law, it will be an illegitimate law in my view. It will not have the substance, it will not be fair, and it will not be just. Even if you could do it and everyone agreed there is not a problem about it, I don't think it's right. Basically we are saying put 2% into a savings fund for long term economic benefit. You ca tie this into ecotourism, you can do it with trails to different locations. This is the one island that has the least care for the remaining cultural sites. There is a women's heiau in South Kohala, there is the rain rock; there are all of these things that really where nature and culture come together. I just hope you will support it at 2 %. Thank you very much. MS. HANANO: That ends our testifiers here in Waimea. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's go to the testifiers in Kona. MR. HIRT: We are going to begin with Michael Reimer, who will give comment on the Land Fund. MICHAEL REIMER (At this time Michael Reimer, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. REIMER: Good afternoon, Commission members. My name is Michael Reimer. l want to testify on the issue of the Land Fund. I am very pleased that the Commission is considering this as a Charter amendment; however I want to ask them to forget the 0.5 %, and take it back to the 2% that it originally was. I say this because I do not believe it is the prevue of the Charter Commission to try to help balance the budget this year. We are looking at a long -term effort; at least over the next 10 years until the next Commission is embraced. But, I think that the people voted on the 2 %. That is how the Charter should go forward at the 2% level. That is the bulk of my testimony. I will summarize by saying please take this forward at the 2% instead of reducing it. Thank you. MR. HIRT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, our next testifier is Shannon Rudolph, and she is going to make comment on the 2% Fund; she is going to make an opposing statement on CA -37; and is in support of CA -9, 23 & 30. SHANNON RUDOLPH (At this time Shannon Rudolph, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. RUDOLPH: Aloha Commission members. I just want to say that I oppose CA -37. I am in favor of CA -9, 23, and 30; and on the 2 %, I would just like to say that I have been a resident here for 30 years, and I'm here for the long haul, and I also want to thank the Commission for bringing this amendment forward, although I don't agree that it should be 1 %, I think it should be 2 %. I have talked to a lot of people around the island in all districts, of all income levels, and all walks of life in the last few months and specifically asked them if they would change their vote now being as how the economy is not doing very good. There is not a single person that said they would change their vote; they still feel the way that they felt when they voted on this issue. So I just want to make sure that you understand that. I've talked to a lot of people, and none of them have changed their vote. I realize it's apples and oranges between a County Code amendment and a Charter amendment, but the people who vote, still feel the same way. Thank you. MR. HIRT: Our next testifier in Kona is Jake Jacobs to make comment on the 2% Fund. JAKE JACOB S (At this time Jake Jacobs, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. JACOBS: Good afternoon. I testified at the meeting at the Sheraton pretty much the same thing as I am going to say now. I'm at a loss as to how we lost the 2% that we voted for; it makes no sense to me. Talking on the phone where I cannot see you folks; I can't tell whether you are listening to me. I feel like you didn't listen to us the last time because every person in that room testified against the 1/2% and for the 2 %, and yet the vote was against us. Like the previous speaker, everybody that I know is for 2 %. One thing that I pointed out last time, and I will point out again now; if the Council needs to raise money, they are afraid to raise taxes, and they are going to justify cutting this down to' /z% because they need revenue and they can't make it up. The thing is, is that my property tax is under $800 a year; and that is $16. If the Council needs to tax me $16 more a year to cover the 2 %, I am still for it. And I'm unemployed and I haven't worked for over a year, and $16 more a year, $1.33 a month isn't going to make any difference to whether or not I'm going to be able to keep my house. We are sitting here in this room talking among ourselves wondering why and who benefits from this; and we cant' figure R it out. We can't figure out who benefits by taking away the people's 2% for parks and for securing the land for the future. MR. HIRT: Our final testifier here in Kona is Mr. Ben Dysart to make comment on the 2% Land Fund Compromise. BEN DYSART (At this time Ben Dysart came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. DYSART: Aloha. I also testified at the meeting in Kona a couple of weeks ago. I would like to emphasize, well, there is one thing that no one seems to comment on and that is, even though the revenue is way down, so is the 2% way down. It goes up and down with the revenues. No body seems to care about that but I think it ought to be noted. I feel that however the Land Fund is implemented the funds need to be collected in a timely manner. The funds should immediately be placed in an interest bearing account, and the account should be protected in the same way that the principle would be protected. As an investment in the future of the island, the land should be acquired in an economical fashion, open for matching funds, Federal funds and that kind of thing. When they are obtained they should be use for land purchase, by normally accepted methods. If that involves a bond issue, that is fine, but I think the bond issue should be place in a separate fund and should be administered by someone who is responsible. The people who are in favor of the 2% fund - -I'm not even going to comment on the 1/2% fund, that is like $1 million dollars each year and you can't buy anything for $1 million - -which is about $4 million a year, you can select property and over a period of time accumulate enough to purchase the land. If you wait to accumulate $1 million at a time, it is going to be forever. I have no concept of who dreamed up that 1/2% was going to be better than 2 %. That's about it. I think there should be someone in the administration who is responsible to the people and that we can go to him anytime the question comes up and ask what they have done with our money this year. That's about the long and the short of it. Thank you for allowing me to testify. MR. HIRT: Mr. Chair, that was our final testifier here in Kona. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. First up here in Hilo, we have Cory Harden and she is testifying on CA -15. CORY HARDEN (At this time Cory Harden, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. HARDEN: Arlene was doing pictures for me and I hope she is here to put a picture on. I am going to start with talking about CA -7 and CA -12 and with thanking you folks again for all the time you are putting in. For these two, I hope you will drop the residence address requirement for petition signers. Several reasons; one is that some streets are not named yet, so the Count cannot assign addresses. This is according to Merle Iwasaki at the County Planning Department. That happened to me. My street is privately owned by someone in Utah and it took years before he named it. Second reason 7 is that some places have multiple addresses; this is according to Ms. Iwasaki again and Frankie Stapleman, of Puna, who once worked for the census. So how do you know which address to use? Third, there are twice as many taxable parcels, about 140,000, compared to addresses, about 70,000. For many parcels this only means there was no building permit taken out yet, but for some, it could mean they were not assigned an address. The fourth reason, some assigned addresses are incorrect. Once I was told I couldn't vote because election officials didn't have my new address although I had told the Elections Office months earlier. Elections Office finally changed my address to a street that was a mile away from my real house. The Planning Department finally got my street name, gave me an address, but Elections kept sending me post cards saying I lived at the other address. When I voted or signed petitions, I didn't know which address to use. The fifth reason, homeless people don't have addresses. I don't know if they can still vote and sign petitions, but if anyone needs a voice, they do. In short, requiring a residence address is kind of like the Southern states giving literacy tests. It takes away people's voice in government. When the Country Comfort folks start singing that will start my testimony on CA -15; I am supporting 2% and not 1/2% for the Land Fund. (Music and Slides) "Beaches they sell to build their hotels, my fathers and I once knew. Birds all along, sunlight at dawn, singing Waimanalo blues. " CHR. HAITSUKA: Next we have Mr. Rees. TIM REES (At this time Tim Rees came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. REES: Aloha Mr. Chairman and Commission members. I, too, would like to thank you for the work that you all have been doing. As I've stated before, I think you are doing a pretty commendable job, and the fact that you are not paid for it, that you are donating your time is great. I would like to speak first on Comm. 184. I am glad to see that this Commission has asked for more time and that the Council is in accordance with that extended deadline. You have had an enormous amount of work to do, and I appreciate you in every way that you have opened this up to the public forum; adding additional meetings has been great. CA -37, I oppose this simply because not all type of research that is required in this County is directly related to economic development. I think that since we are a university town, we should retain this. We are trying to promote high tech in everything we do nowadays. We are trying to promote ecological sciences. We are always using the buzzwords sustainability. Sometimes those things go hand in hand and other times there are other areas where you need to do conservation research. We need to be utilizing the services of our university much more and to a higher degree, I believe, and I think keeping the name department of research and possibly economic development. I just don't like seeing research being taken out of there. Enough said on that. CA -7, Recall Procedures, I support this. Taking the number back to 25% of the valid votes cast, rather than 25% of the total number of persons who registered in the last election is a more reasonable number. I honestly don't think the public has the power to abuse that process. I think when there is legitimate concern for a public official to be recalled or impeached that is a different story; you can get the public behind you. But, to actually put your name down, and have it verified on a petition saying that you want this person recalled from office, that is a pretty big political statement, and I just don't think the general public takes that lightly. So, I believe in the rare occasion where that does need to happen I think it's good to reduce that threshold. CA -12, I support this, the Initiation of Amendments or Revisions. I mainly like increasing the amount of time the county clerk has to examine the petition for sufficiency from 20 working days to 30 working days. CA -14, Legislative Auditor, Draft 2, I support with the amendment, I just gave the amendment a cursory perusal, and it seems to be a fairly reasonable compromise to address the need where there truly can be a need for an independent counsel. Recently, I've been testifying and observing some of our commissions and I will say that at that level, there are abuses that are occurring right now. Previously I spoke in favor of having corporation counsel just deal with this. It seems that they have the mechanisms and the means to stay truly independent, but I've got to say that since the last time I testified there, I have seen cases of abuse. You can pick this up on the internet reading through the minutes, where you will find that the deputy corporation counsels go far beyond giving legal advice or making sure that the committee, which is generally made up of community members, don't stray off of the legal straight and narrow. A lot of times they will move into areas of policy, and they kind of mask it as procedurally you shouldn't allow this testimony or procedurally you shouldn't do something. So it is a little bit of a dangerous slippery slope, and I think for purposes of the legislative auditor's office, it is important that - - -I like the amendment. CA -15, the Land Fund, I guess I'll preface my comments on this particular amendment by stating that, you know I'm just a nobody. I'm just a guy with a big mouth that comes out and tries to open it once and a while knowing that I have this personality defect. I try to use it for good purposes, and if there is anything noble in my character, maybe it's that. If I were truly noble, I would try working on this habit of talking too much. But, it's not about me, what I want to bring up is that at a former mayoral debate, I spoke with Dan Boylan, who moderated the event at the Naniloa Hotel. I posed the question to him, and to the mayoral candidates about that we know economic hard times are here, what will you do with the existing infrastructure, about his hot topic, highway safety. As we conversed about that, later on, he said, "You know Tim, there is one thing that scares me about the mayoral candidates here. It seems nobody here realizes how much the Big Island has this wonderful economic opportunity to enhance what we still have; that is lost from Maui; that is lost from Oahu." This was Dan Boylan. You folks all know who he is from Island Insights on P.B.S. He is a history professor, Oahu Community College, I believe or West Oahu Campus of the U.H. So I preface it with that opening comment. 9 I think the fact that you can leverage this money -- -There was an earlier testifier who asked who benefits by not having the 2% thing in there. I'll tell you who benefits. It is the government administrators, because if they can take this 2% and put it somewhere else, it alleviates their duty to make the hard decisions and the cuts that need to be made right now. So, clearly, government administrators benefit if you take away this 2% provision. We haven't seen too many of the hard decisions made yet. Believe me, if any of us were in their chairs, we would want to be able to have access to that money. But, for the betterment of the community, it is allowing them off the hook of making the hard, politically, sometimes unpopular decisions. So, I just hope you will keep that 2% in there, and let the public decide how they want to go with it. The last and final matter I wanted to testify on is the most important one to me. I support, wholeheartedly, CA -26, Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources. I am going to refer to some documents quickly here; as quickly as I can. I thank everybody for their patience. What I have in my hand, right here, all of these comments relate to natural resources and cultural resources, and how presently, under our current system, these process that have been set up by our fathers and our uncles that are in the Hawaii Revise Statutes, and the Hawaii County Code; they are not being followed. One quick example is on Reed's Bay Beach Park. What I show you is a map that left every single tree on the property that enhanced the park with all native species. In fact, this first proposal, before the politicians got involved, or whoever got involved, and said to cut down every single tree on the property except for the coconut grove by the ice pond; somehow it got transformed into this process of we need to do this. If we want to be good teachers, we ask children once in a while to show us their work and we ask how they came to that conclusion. Well, I closely this whole S.M.A. (Shoreline Management Area) process. It's the first time I've been involved with the Planning Commission, and I have to say that our Planning Commissioners are getting way too little information when it comes to public resources. I know you probably can't pick this up, but what it came to is this is the X on every single tree existing on that property. So somehow we went from this landscape conceptual plan by the same landscape architect who clearly put forward a design that not only cost way less to implement that respects the natural resources. By the way, some people think that trees are no longer natural resources, they need to Section 205A HRS; they also need to read Chapter 58, Exceptional Trees. Then we got into quite a big plan that the community rejected. So what ended up happening was the community ended up having to fight tooth and nail for every single tree on that property that have long been considered of historic and cultural value. There are other issues there. I've learned how this happens; how this process is deficient. I guess in a nutshell what I would like to say is that if this Charter amendment is passed, it does say to our administration, "Start following the rules that are on the books; start following the laws; quit trying to get around these things, because for whatever purpose you think it is easier for your particular plan. In 14 -61, it says that the lack of designation as exceptional tree does not diminish the responsibility and authority of the planning department and department of public works, building division to recommend trees to be incorporated into a development plan. Chapter 58 has a purpose section that everyone 10 should read that is interested in the preservation of natural and cultural resources. They got it; we need to get our administrators to follow the laws. All of these matters, unfortunately, have to go to court because we don't have a natural cultural resources committee that I could appeal to and I could bring my arguments and other people could bring their opposing arguments before and they could submit that information to the planning committee. We would get much better work out of this government if we could do that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you very much. Next we have Ms. Helen Hemmes. HELEN HEMMES (At this time Helen Hemmes, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. HEMMES: Aloha Chairman Haitsuka and members of the Charter Commission. Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedules to take this testimony today and for all of the work that you have done and will be doing. I'm here representing the League of Women Voters. The testimony is Comm. 213, but I would just like to highlight it for you. Earlier, the League of Women Voters testified in favor of CA -12, including the use of the 4 -digit social security number and the month and date of birth as the only qualifiers besides the signature. We did this on the assumption that the County used the signature as the first and most important item of verification. But, after we meet with Mr. Goodenow and Ms. Nakamoto last week, we understand that the current system does not present the signature on screen. To find the signature, you have to do a micro- fiche search and that is really time consuming. Two fields help the office of the County Clerk gain entry into data about registered voters for purposed of verifying that persons are registered; that's the name and the complete social security number. Petition gatherers cannot ask for the complete social security number on the petition, hence the sole entry into detailed information is by a person's name. And, we learned from the County Clerk, that his office must, according to state law, verify that a person is a registered in Hawaii County; registered and living at the address on file. For this reason, the League of Women Voters now supports the use of the residence address on petitions, along with the printed name and signature. No other information, including the date of signing should be included. We strongly support CA -16, which in respects other than the signature verification requirements, would make the requirement for an elector initiated Charter amendment follow the same process and requirements as for initiative and referendum. Thank you very much. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next we have Ms. Dianna Miller. DIANNA MILLER (At this time Dianna Miller, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. MILLER: Good afternoon. You have probably heard a lot of comments about this already. I'm going to be commenting on CA -15, the Land Fund. I am a registered voter in the State of Hawaii and I did vote for the issue when it came up on the ballot, and I 11 really thought it was a great idea, 2 %, and I don't think it is really that great of an idea to reduce that money. I'm not from Hawaii. I moved here six years ago. I retired from the Air Force and I chose Hawaii because it's a wonderful place; and I'd like to see it stay wonderful. Having two tours on Oahu, where there is not so much open space, we really have something special here and I think we need to take the initiative to preserve property here for our future generations. I'm an old lady, I'm going to be gone; but the future generations could have to deal with some of the things they see on Oahu, which is not really that good. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. John Olson. Good afternoon, sir. (At this time John Olson came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. OLSON: There are a couple of things I would like to address. What I'm about to go into here has ramifications for a number of things that are on your agenda, and that is the issue of people having addresses for voter registration, for recall and other things. The county is way behind, you were not informed during the last meeting of this body, that the county, in issuing these addresses, is deficient; and they have been for decades. It has been an issue in Puna for 30 years that I know of. They seem to believe that you have to have a structure to be using your property as your residence address. You may be houseless, but you are not houseless. There are many people living on their land in different forms that are not receiving their address based on that failure to have pulled a permit. I think that is discriminatory, so you can apply that to a number of things that are going on before you right now. I believe that the legislative auditor does need independence, without a doubt. Things are becoming more complex as time goes along, and we are going to have to see to it that that office has the ability to direct its attention to where it feels it needs to be. Lastly, the Land Fund; quite frankly, '/z% is chump change, plain and simple. I did stay and spend some time here and listened to the discussion that you had at the last meeting, and I did hear some really honest concerns about this issue. In particular, I believe it was Mr. Unger who felt that he wasn't sure if it was this body's function to micro - manage what other bodies here do. I would suggest to him and to all of you here that you look at the number of boards and commissions that are in the Charter, that people who created democracies put out there as checks and balances for the body politic and for the career administrator, and I think yes, that is your function. It is to micro - manage these people. That is why you are there and that is why you are in the Charter. It is a requirement for a functioning democracy that people like you who are willing to volunteer your time, show up, do the best you can, and weigh in, take testimony from the public, and micro - manage these people. The body politic will inevitably begin to read their own campaign literature and believe it. That is why you are here. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Olsen. Next we have Ms. Dursin. Good afternoon. 12 SUSAN DURSIN (At this time Susan Dursin came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. DURSIN: Sue Dursin from Captain Cook, I'm here to testify in favor of CA -16 which would amend Article XV of the Charter. I was a member of the committee that re- wrote Article XI on Initiative and Referendum. That revision, having been approved by voters in 2008, lays out a framework. At this time, you are considering whether to take the amendment and revision process and use that framework, out of Article XI. I have given you a document that is a re -write of Article XV. It is the same process that is use in Article XI. One difference is the signature verification and that, as Ms. Hemmes told you, is the residence address, the printed name, and the signature, and nothing else. Instead of the 20 %, which is shown in the current Charter, we are asking for 15 %, which is the same as in Article XI. That came about because of the difficulties which several testifiers referred to, of residence addresses in this particular county. In any case, that 15% is already higher than many, many jurisdictions where anything from 5% to 10% is normal. So, in any case, that is the basis of the document that I have given to you. The signature verification portion says, "The residence address shall be the printed name, signature, residence address; all of which shall be reasonably similar to what is shown in the general register for that voter." That allows some latitude in those cases where a person will put the name of a street or an avenue but not include the word street or avenue. But, he or she will have the name of the community so that identifies it; also in the case of people who have nick names and don't always go by the full name that they signed on the registration. In any case, I hope you will review that and consider it for its ease of use and its clarity. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Dursin, Ms. Jarman has asked that you remain for the discussion on this topic, thank you. Next, we have Marian Wilkens. Next we have Marian Wilkens. MARIAN WILKENS (At this time Marian Wilkens came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. WILKENS: Good afternoon, Chairman Haitsuka and members of the Commission. I am going to make this very short. I also have been working on this committee and also on the initiative and referendum revision that was passed. I do want to support, and I will ask you to support, our revision of the Charter Article XV. Also, I would like to support the Land Fund, to please restore the amount to 2 %. I hope you do because everyone has eloquently been saying why, so I think you know. Thank you very much. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next we have Rob Tucker. ROB TUCKER (At this time Rob Tucker came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) 13 MR. TUCKER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am President of Friends of Puna's Future. As an individual, though, I would like to start out on this address issue as far as for verifying people's identities. It occurs to me, in my reality as an individual, I live on a street in which the county, last year, changed my house number and my street name. And I'm sitting here right at the moment wondering if I would be a verified signatory based on a street address that the county changed on me, as well as the street number; so I'll have to look into that. But basically, I would like to expand a little bit on our written testimony which Friends of Puna's Future provided regarding CA -15, the 2% Land Fund. I'm hoping you have all had a chance to read it this past week. We have been kind of intrigued by the arguments presented to the Commission regarding the effect on the budget of the 2% Land Fund and how it might reduce the flexibility of the Council; we wrote about that in our testimony. In our testimony that we provided we highlighted some spending habits the county has had and we were showing some examples of some things that were excessive spending in some areas of tens of thousands of dollars and in some areas of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in some areas of millions of dollars, and in some areas of tens of millions of dollars. We submitted our testimony on January 29, 2010 and on February 4, 2010 we were fascinated to read in the Tribune Herald regarding the impact fees being discussed. I'll read one paragraph to you. "The County Council is considering impact fees on new construction as an alternative to the County's current reliance on fair share contributions from developers. The alternative came up Tuesday during a Finance Committee discussion of a report that showed the County has collected only $8.1 million of $108.5 million dollars developers have pledged." Now in addition to the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands we discussed in our written testimony, we now have a report of $100 million dollars falling through the cracks herein the past few years. When Tim Rees testified earlier about the lack of heavy lifting as far as addressing budgets, we really think that trying to apply budget issues to the 2% fund is really missing the point. The County has its own obligations to balance its budget. It has ways and means to do that, which it has not been pursuing as yet; and its really not, in our opinion, appropriate to be weighing, judging, or trying to put on the scale the effect of the 2% Fund from voters. Now, in addition, I have just been reading the Legislative Auditor's report from the Highway Fund. And while I have the Executive Summary here, it is rather interestingly filled with phrases as far as the management of the Highway Fund, which is a substantial part of our budget; phrases like the county has collectively failed to establish recommended practice and practices, have not incorporated industry standards, has historically failed to establish a tone at the top that requires outcome based planning, and in the conclusions from the Legislative Auditor's office, one of the sentences applies to this mission here for our Charter Commission and CA -15, it says we need to know where we want to go as a County, how and when we are going to get there, what tasks need to be completed and when, and what performance measures need to be implemented. Now, this is where the 2% fund is functioning. It is where we want to go, how we are going to 14 get there, what needs to be done. Our support, all of our membership including the subdivisions, are here to tell you that we think the fully restored 2% figure should be applied and should be put to the voters for a fair vote in the election on this subject. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next is Ms. Kahn - Langer. Good afternoon. BARBARA KAHN - LANGER (At this time Barbara Kahn - Langer came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. KAHN- LANGER: Aloha members of the Commission, thank you for the work that you do. I have just a very brief comment. On item number CA -7, I support that. On item CA -9, I support that. On CA -12, I support that as well. On item CA -14, I support the language that would change this item to read, "For the purpose of auditing the county council or the corporation council, the legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain independent legal counsel." I think that is a very important provision and I urge you to adopt that amendment. On CA -15, the Land Fund, I was going to testify from just myself, but today I got a call from my youngest daughter, who has a home in Kona. She and her husband fully intend to move back and live on the island. All of her children, my grandchildren, are Hawaii born, and she was in tears. She said, "Mom there are so many of us who are out in the Seattle area because we cannot find employment in Hawaii. We had to go and find employment in other places. We are coming back and mom, please tell people, we need the land by the ocean, we need those sacred places, please don't just let people come in on a wholesale basis and tear it up like California has been torn up and other places. Please, mom, for our family and our friend's families, please ask that they reinstate the 2 %. That is my testimony at this time. Thank you very much. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next we have Patrick Kawaiola' a. Good afternoon, sir. PATRICK KAWAIOLA'A (At this time Patrick Kawaiola' a came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. KAWAIOLA'A: Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I think you have my written testimony. I would like to thank Karen for allowing me to bring that in. You know, I didn't make the deadline, you know Hawaiians don't read the back of the agenda for deadlines. I was supposed to have it here yesterday, but you have that written testimony so I would just like to reiterate some of the things that are mentioned in it. I was here when the Commission started, I asked the question, maybe the Commission thought I just asked the question; but I believe that the body that is here, your job is to do your due diligence and amendments that are brought to you. Looking in the Charter, which I have here, in Article XV it tells me there are two ways I can have a revision done to the Charter. One is by ordinance by the Council, the other is by petition presented to the Council; notwithstanding, if I cannot get anyone in the Commission to address what I have raised, then I will move to the next process to do that. I would just want all of you that are here, to understand that in this Charter that you are trying to revise, in the preamble it says, "We, the people of the County of Hawaii, in the 15 State of Hawaii, with due respect for and in support of the laws of the land, do adopt this Charter of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawai`i." Then it goes on to say in Article I, that I addressed, in Section 1 -1, Incorporation, "The people of the county of Hawaii shall be and continue as a body politic and corporate by the name of County of Hawaii, hereinafter in this charter called county. By that name it shall have perpetual succession." Section 1 -2, Geographical Limits, "The island of Hawaii and all other islands within the shores thereof and the waters adjacent thereto shall be the county of Hawai`i." It goes on to speak about the powers. That was the question that I raised on behalf of the native Hawaiians because the island of Hawaii and all the islands within it and the shores thereof and the waters adjacent shall be the county of Hawaii. Then I'm going to assume as a native Hawaiian that there is no Hawaiian Homelands; Hawaiian Homelands are now part of the County. However, in the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, that I'm quite sure that all of you are bound to uphold, in Section 3 it mentions that the encumbrance that is authorized to be placed. This document would put encumbrance on the land, taxes, zoning, whatever; it would put encumbrance. The Constitution forbids, the constitution authorizes the encumbrance to be placed on Hawaiian Homelands by officers other than those charged with the administration of said act shall not be increased except with the consent of the United States. Therefore, I ask, if this document is to then say through its governing sections that Hawaiian Homelands is now part of the County, I would now ask on behalf of the native Hawaiian community that I represent, that this body, or the Council, then present to the Hawaiians the consent that was allowed to put the encumbrance onto these lands. Other than that, I would truly wish that the job that you are doing, which is all commendable, that you look to how we can resolve the fact that there is a separation; there is a separation of lands in this county and every county, however, I will put good poi down, that in every county it says this, that there is no distinction between Hawaiian Homelands and the County. Therefore, I thank all of you, and I thank you Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak before you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Next we have Mr. Ken Goodenow, County Clerk. KENNETH GOODENOW (At this time Kenneth Goodenow came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. GOODENOW: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. There was a lot of discussion on CA -12 about residence address. I'll leave that, because I'm sure you will discuss that further. I just didn't want you to overlook in our previous testimony we talked about the language, "votes cast," as being ambiguous and we request that you either change it to, "valid votes cast," or "total ballots cast," just to be clear. If you could fix that language; I didn't want that to get overlooked. I did submit new testimony on CA -17; I just wanted to note that the County does get the census information in March; and then also the comment about the effective date, and that being an issue if it's asking that the Commission be appointed in July. Thank you. 16 CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Goodenow. Are you going to be around when we discuss CA -12? MR. GOODENOW: Yes. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, thank you. Next we have Debbie Hecht. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I have a question. I notice that Ms. Hecht submitted a Communication 181 that appears to be substituting some language concerning CA -15. I'm wondering if we can postpone Ms. Hecht's testimony concerning CA -15 until we bring that up for discussion during our consideration of the second reading of CA -15. I'm wondering if we can do that because I know that it is attempting to substitute some language; if Ms. Hecht is able to stay. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do you want to give your testimony when we discuss CA -15, or do you want to discuss it now, and stay around for the discussion? You also have CA -16 to testify to. DEBBIE HECHT (At this time Debbie Hecht came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. HECHT: Either way is fine. I can do it then, maybe that would be better. CHR. HAITSUKA: Why don't I ask Ms. Hecht to stay around to discuss CA -15, and you can proceed with your testimony now on CA -15 and CA -16. MS. HECHT: Alright. My name is Debbie Hecht. I was also a member of the committee that rewrote Article XI, Initiative and Referendum. I submitted CA -16, which was to use the language from initiative and referendum to be able to revise the Charter. When we did the 2% we ran into incredible problems. We were just a citizens' committee, we did not know what we were getting into. There were problems every step of the way. The County didn't know how to proceed, we didn't know what to use for petitions; so Marian, Sue and I wrote a step by step, in chronological order, in very simple language, not legalize, so that people could honestly understand the process and procedures. So, I think it is real important to do the same with the Charter. Sue worked real hard on Communication 212. Sue Dursin wrote that; she was the past president of the League of Women Voters. This really lays out the process very much similarly. The only thing that was taken out was the part about referendum, because it obviously doesn't apply to amending the Charter. So, I hope you will amend CA -16 that I wrote, with her Communication 212. I know it's very long, but again this is one of the few times that a citizens' group won't probably have the money or the wherewithal to hire an attorney to interpret the Charter for them to proceed. So, we thought it was incredibly important to lay it out in very simple language for citizens' groups. 17 I'll move on to my testimony on the Land Fund amendment, which is CA -15. I was the campaign coordinator since 2006 for the 2% Land Fund, representing the Save Our Lands Committee. I never meant for this to be my life's work, but it certainly seems to be turning into that. And, I thank you, too, for serving on this Commission as representing the citizens of Hawaii County. The 2% for the land fund is really working; the citizens of Hawaii and the government have acquired Waipio Lookout, Kawa Bay, Pa'o'o and other parcels. Recently, 115 acres at Kaiholena have been acquired; I think it was almost $6 million. Pretty soon, the second half of Kawa Bay in Ka`u will be acquired and that will completely deplete the $11 million that is in the land fund. We need 2% or $4 million to continue the acquisition of these properties. When I think about the 2% land fund and the incredible process that we all went through to collect signatures and to get it on the ballot, and do the campaign to get 63% of the voters to approve of it; the bigger issue is really a citizens trust in government. I had one man - -this brings tears to my eyes, honestly, when I tell this story - -a local man who came up to me and said, "Missy, what is this all about ?" So I talked to him and I said, "This is about saving the land; Hawaii island's great places for our kids and their kids; so we don't get paved over like Oahu, we don't end up like Maui. We still have these great places." He said, "I've never voted, but I will go register to vote and come out to vote for that." I was so pleased, and I had a registration form and I said, "Here, fill it out and I'll take it and mail it out for you, or you can mail it." And he looked at me and he looked at down, and I knew that he couldn't read or write, so I sat there and I filled it all out for him, and I said, "Sign here, and I'll mail it for you. But, you have to promise you are going to go vote." And he said yes, he would. That to me is what the 2% did. It empowered voters, it engaged them, it got them up, and it got them really interested in the process. Since the Council suspended the 2% fund, people have said to me, "Why should I vote, nobody listens." That just hurts my heart, it honestly does. When you think about the 2 %, and what a victory it was to get it passed, after the Council wouldn't for two times. So, I ask you to put it on at 2 %, respect voter's wishes, give them another chance, and we'll do that. I'll do the rest when you all talk about it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Hecht. Let's take a ten minute break. RECESS: At 3:00 p.m., the Chair called for a 10- minute recess. RECONVENE The meeting was reconvened at 3:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there a motion to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2010 meeting? W., Ms. Jarman moved to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2010 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? We can note that there are a few typos in the minutes, which have already been explained to our secretary. Let's vote to approve the minutes as amended with the correction of the typos. The motion to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2010 meeting as amended was Carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioner Osborne. COMMUNICATIONS COMM. 183 Memo from Commission Chair Edmund Haitsuka, requesting to amend the minutes from the May, June, August, September, October and November 2009 meetings by changing all references in the roll call section from "absent" to "excused." Ms. Jarman moved to file Comm. 183. Seconded by Mr. Kealoha and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioner Osborne. COMM. 184 Memo from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated February 4, 2010, informing the commission that the county council approved the commission's request to extend the deadline for filing its report with the council. Also attached is a revised timetable for the commission's work with deadline information 19 Ms. Jarman moved to file Comm. 184. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Honma, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioner Osborne. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, does that automatically mean our schedule is changed now, or do we have to take any other action? CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: Your schedule is automatically changed. The timetable that was attached to that communication outlines all the changes. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's move on to New Business. NEW BUSINESS FIRST READING OF THE FOLLOWING CHARTER AMENDMENTS: Please Note: 213'd majority vote of the entire commission is required for CA -37 and CA -38 to be considered. CA -37 NAME CHANGE DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Amends Article VI, Chapter 8, Sections 6 -8.1, 6 -8.2, and 6 -8.3. Replaces all references to "research and development" with "economic development." Additionally replaces "improvement of the county community" with "the economic viability and well being of the county community" in Section 6.8.3. Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: This proposed amendment was submitted after our October 31, 2009 deadline, so it requires a 2/3 rd majority vote of the entire Commission. Do I have a motion to move CA -37 forward for first reading? Mr. Nahale -a moved to consider CA -37 for first reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? We have Mr. Kurohara here. Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I would oppose changing the name from department of research and development to department of economic development. I think we actually had this discussion a long time ago at one of our very first meetings when this came as a 20 communication and nobody made the motion. For all of those same reasons that I was opposed to it that time, I'm still opposed to it at this time. I still think it should be research and development; and writing out research would be a terrible mistake. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Jarman. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, just to clarify for the Commission. In order for this to be discussed, you need a 2/3 rd vote; and once that vote takes place, if that's successful, then this amendment is before the Commission. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, so we need to take that vote now and then discuss it. MR. HOOKANO: Right. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's take a roll -call vote. The motion to consider CA -37 failed due to the following vote: (2 13rd required) Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Jarman and Kawauchi. Absent: Commissioners Honma and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: The vote is 7 ayes, and 2 oppose. MR. HOOKANO: Eight votes is a 2/3 rd majority. MR. NAHALE -A: Point of information. We are not allowed to have discussion on that before we vote? MR. HOOKANO: The discussion would have been on whether to consider it for first reading. Because it came forward after the deadline, it requires two different types of votes. First, there would be the 2/3 rd vote to consider it, and then the majority vote to approve it, if the Commission decides to move forward with it. So the discussion would have been on whether the Commission should even consider this amendment. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, I guess that's it for this proposed amendment. MR. NAHALE -A: But, Mr. Chair, we didn't hold any discussion about whether or not to consider it. MR. HOOKANO: Well, there was some discussion from Ms. Jarman. I was raising the point that in order for it to come before the Commission for approval at first reading, it 21 required a 2/3 rd vote. If the Commission wants to discuss that matter further, there needs to be a motion to reconsider by a person who voted in the prevailing side. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kurohara and Mr. Brilhante. That's it for this particular item. Next we have proposed amendment CA -38. CA -38 VOLUNTARY STATUS OF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS Amends Article XIII, Section 13 -4, relating to Boards and Commissions, item (g). Amendment deletes item (g) and renumbers remaining items. Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: This is another proposed amendment that was submitted after the October 31, 2009 deadline so it requires a 2/3 rd majority vote before we can discuss or consider it. Mr. Nahale -a moved to consider CA -38 for first reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. MR. HOOKANO: You should open up for discussion on whether it should be considered by the Commission. CHR. HAITSUKA: I thought on the previous one we said we couldn't discuss. We can discuss whether or not it should be considered? MR. HOOKANO: Yes. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MS. KAWAUCHI: I would like to discuss whether it should be considered and I would like to know what the intent was behind the proposal. Is there anyone here who could provide us with that information on the intent of the proposal? CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Brilhante. WILLIAM BRILHANTE (At this time William Brilhante, Deputy Corporation Counsel came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. BRILHANTE: Good afternoon Chair and Commissioners; William Brilhante, Office of the Corporation Counsel. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Brilhante, you heard Ms. Kawauchi's question; she wanted to know what was the intent and purpose of this particular proposed amendment. 22 MR. BRILHANTE: The intent of this proposal was just to clarify inconsistencies with how the Charter was currently written as it related to boards and commissions. If you look at item (g) of the Charter, under Section 13 -4, it references language to the effect that members of the boards shall receive no compensation, but shall be reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. And if you go down to the second paragraph after that, it says that members of boards and commissions who do not receive compensation from their employers during the time they are serving on boards and commissions, shall be reimbursed by the county for actual work hours lost at the straight time rate of pay of such members. That was the inconsistency there. In one sense it seems that the board and commission members are serving voluntarily and in the intent of this proposed Charter amendment was to provide consistency throughout, so that board and commission members are volunteer service to the county and the community. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I have a question, because I am a bit confused. So, do you want all of (g) deleted, or just that last sentence that says, "...members of boards and commissions who did not receive compensation... ?" MR. BRILHANTE: In the communication that I submitted, dated October 30, 2009, if you look at item #2 it addresses the issue revision to the general provision Section 13 -4. And in that communication, the administration's request, at that time, was to delete that last section which references the compensation. The first sentence which identified board and commission members as volunteers was to remain intact. MS. JARMAN: So it would read that members shall receive no compensation, blah, blah, blah, necessary expenses may be paid, blah, blah, blah; and that would be the only thing that would be in (g). MR. BRILHANTE: That's correct; the remainder of that section would be deleted. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: A couple of things; first clarify. The draft we have has all of that stricken, so I would just like some clarification on what we are considering. I remember discussing this when we were going through our first review and the big issue was with the "shall" be compensated. I do support striking it all, or just the second half. I also remember that Mr. Unger had raised the issues of striking item (f), which I am also in favor of. I won't propose that until we figure out what we are on. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion or any questions of Mr. Brilhante? Mr. Fuertes. MR. FUERTES: Please explain "compensated." 23 MR. BRILHANTE: I think that is one of the issues, or one of the terms that raises confusion and why we are attempting to clarify. Besides the inconsistency, I think there are some terms here that may have some broad interpretation. Just so that we don't have to go down that road and have any questions or issues regarding what compensation is, I think this revision will attempt to clarify the whole section. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I just wanted to ask a question, or I guess it would be called a point of order. Before we took a roll -call vote, do we then have to clarify what the Charter amendment should say? I think the left side of the page that I have, the (g) looks different. Do we have to clarify that, and then take a vote? Or, does somebody have to move and then we take a vote? Oh, the motion is to consider it. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think you are referring to the last page of Mr. Brilhante's proposed amendment, on the left side. And the Charter amendment we are considering is on the right side. Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: So what can we do to clarify, so we know what we are voting on? I too remember, and I'm glad Alapaki brought that up, that I thought we had voted on that we would strike (f) if this were to move forward. Is there any way we could move forward with some specific language, a motion with some specific language so everyone is on board as to what we are voting for? If so, I would like to propose something. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, I think we have to vote to consider it, and then if that passes, then we vote to amend. MR. HOOKANO: Right. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, is there any further discussion? The motion to consider CA -38 carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma and Osborne. MR. HOOKANO: Now you need a motion to approve at first reading. Mr. Shumway moved to approve CA -38 at first reading. Seconded by Mr. Unger. 24 CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a motion to approve CA -38 at first reading, is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Actually, I'm not totally opposed to doing what you want, but one of the reasons I like it this way, and maybe in practice you never reimburse anybody, but the only reason I can do this is because I'm a law professor, and I'm allowed to come over here and take a day off and my employer doesn't dock it from my pay. But there area lot of people out there that don't have the luxury of that kind of job. And by not leaving that in, so that somebody who has a different kind of job has a different point of view, would never be able to serve on a board or commission. I think that takes out a huge chunk of people from being able to serve on boards and commissions. So, I can understand the reason from a fiscal point of view, but I do really think that most people are not in the position that I'm in, and I'm just very fortunate. So if had my druthers, I think I would keep it in. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Brilhante. MR. BRILHANTE: One of the primary concerns, and I think Commissioner Jarman alluded to it, is the fiscal responsibility. I think with the vagueness of the language as it currently reads, as well as the potential for some significant economic impact on the county if all of a sudden board and commission members would be able to avail themselves to compensation. They could create a very problematic situation for the county as we move forward in this current economic situation with the tight budgetary constraints we have. I think we have been fortunate up to this point that none of our current commissioners or board members or past serving have raised this issue. But now that it is in the public arena and it's under public perception, I think the potential for that changing could be great and that could be the problem as we move down the road. MS. JARMAN: I still think I would like to have a wider range of people being able to serve. But thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Alapaki. MR. NAHALE -A: I agree with commissioner Jarman that we don't want to eliminate folks, so my intention is to change "shall" to "may." That folks may be compensated; that's the problem I have with the language right now. I think if there was a process for folks to ask for compensation, I don't think a lot of folks would avail themselves of it. But it would certainly be nice if folks who needed to could. Right now, I think it is vague, and it does imply that we are supposed to be compensating folks, whether we like it or not, and whether they want to or not. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Alapaki, do you want to make a motion to amend? Do you want to change it to "may ?" I'll vote no with the "shall." 25 MR. UNGER: I would support changing it to "may." Ms. Jarman moved to remove all the deleted language and change "shall" to "may" in Section (g). Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioner Kaulukukui. Absent: Commissioners Honma and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have amended CA -38. Is there any further discussion on CA -38? Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I would like to propose another amendment. What I would like to do is instead of making the compensation rate based on their regular employment, to set it like at two times minimum wage or something like that, so that it addresses some of the cost concerns that corporation counsel has. Also, I think that someone who is serving who is a doctor or an attorney shouldn't necessarily get more than the person sitting next to them who is maybe a laborer or something. I think if we are going to compensate folks on a board or commission, it should be equitable across the board. So I'm going to propose to amend, but I'd like to defer at this time, until I can work out some language. MS. JARMAN: May I address Mr. Nahale -a? Maybe you could change the last, instead of exceeding five times, to exceeding whatever time you want of the state minimum wage. Right now it says whatever the rate of pay is, as long as it is not more than five times. If the five times is more than you would like, you could decide on how many times of the state minimum wage you would be more comfortable with. And that would be a fairly easy amendment. MR. NAHALE -A: Thank you, I like that. Mr. Nahale -a moved to amend CA -38 by changing from "five times" to "two times" the state minimum wage. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MR. UNGER: I have another question about section (f). Can we discuss that now, or is that a separate motion? 26 MR. BRILHANTE: Mr. Chair, may I interject again? I see a problematic issue with the language of "may." May affords discretion, and unfortunately how it's written right now, there is no identification as to who that discretionary body will be making the determination with the compensation. The Charter affords great authority to the Mayor, so I would propose that the language "may" be followed by, "at the discretion of the Mayor." Otherwise, who would be making that determination as to who can qualify and who gets compensation? CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: In my mind, the notion of "may" was that the board or commission member; it was their discretion, whether to ask or not. So, I think your suggestion is that the Mayor could determine whether or not it was an option. In either case, is it problematic in terms of what division or department would process the compensation? Is that also what you are alluding to? MR. BRILHANTE: That's correct, it just kind of opens up a whole potential can of worms as we go down this road. MR. NAHALE -A: Even though it's already in the Charter; what would have happened if I came to the office and said I just saw this and I would like to get compensated? MR. BRILHANTE: Fortunately, I have not been faced with such a situation, and I think that is why we are trying to clean it up; it's to avoid that kind of issue in the future. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: It seems to me the "may" is going to be the Mayor, because the Mayor is the on who initially appoints. He'll say, "Mr. Nahale -a, I'd like you to serve on the board." And Mr. Nahale -a says, "How much ?" And he says, "Nothing, but I could pay you up to two -times the minimum wage if you really need it." And he will say he really needs it and then the Mayor can say yes, or no. I don't think it's so ambiguous. It seems to me that's the way it would result. Compensation from their employer, that's how much you get paid for your job. If you get paid $20 an hour, and you work five hours a day, it's $100. I don't see where it's a big problem, and I think if Mr. Nahale -a wants to change the state minimum wage hour rate from "five times" to "two times," I think that is worthwhile to think about. CHR. HAITSUKA: I read it the same way that Mr. Nahale -a interpreted it, that "may" was at the discretion of the member. So the way I saw it would say, "...may, upon the request of the member, be reimbursed by the county." That's what I thought it would be; at the option of the member, whether or not they wanted to be reimbursed. That's the way I read it. MS. JARMAN: That's how I voted for it. 27 MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, as a proposal, maybe we should move forward on the current proposal; we just change it to "may." We already approved "may" and we are considering "two- times" right now. If we approve that, then since it is only the first reading, we could work on the language between now and second reading. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, is there any further discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: Just a procedural question. If we were to do that; and we were to change it on second reading, do we need a third reading? I'm just worried that we are going to run out of time. Because I think if it is a substantive amendment, we would have to go for a third reading. And I think that would be a substantive amendment; so maybe we should just decide today, since we are already running late on these things. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we have to vote on the present motion which is to amend by changing the "five- times" to "two- times." Then if somebody wants to amend it further, we have to have another motion. Is that right, Mr. Hookano? MR. HOOKANO: That's right. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let's call for the vote on this present motion> The motion to amend CA -38 by changing from "five times" to "two times" the state minimum wage was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Kealoha, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioner Fuertes. Absent: Commissioners Honma and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, so CA -38 has been amended further to change the reference in what was Section 13 -4 (g) from "five times" to "two times." Mr. Unger, did you have some comments regarding a further amendment? Mr. Unger moved to amend CA -38 by striking (f) from Section 13 -4. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I think because this is a new motion on first reading, and we are past the time, I just want to alert everybody we have to have the 2/3 rd vote for us to consider it and W., to be able to talk about it; the same as we had with these other two, it's basically the same rule, so I just wanted to remind everybody of that. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, I think what Ms. Jarman is getting at is that a motion to remove (f) may not be germane to what the main motion is. The subject matter of this amendment is relates to compensation of board and commission members, which is what I think Ms. Jarman is getting at. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: How would people find out if you belong to a certain political party? I don't recall that part of the application where you had to disclose a party. Oh, I didn't recall, but it is on the application. I don't know how political affiliation would really be a requirement of a commissioner. I am tending to be in favor of striking (f), but I'm open to listening more, if other people have other thoughts on that. Maybe Mr. Unger might be able to tell us why he would want to strike (f). MR. UNGER: Just for those reasons. It is not applicable, and it would be difficult to enforce. I don't think I've ever declared a party in my whole life, and I certainly wouldn't want to be asked not to join a board because I'm not part of a particular party. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, in order to proceed with Mr. Unger's motion, we would need 2/3 rd maj ority? MR. HOOKANO: As the Chair, you need to determine if this is a proper amendment to CA -38. Amendments to CA -38 have to be germane. So, the question you have to answer is, is changing the political affiliations of a board or commission applicant relevant to their compensation; which is what this amendment focuses on. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, probably not. MS. JARMAN: I would argue it isn't. But I'm going to vote in favor both ways. I think we should be consistent in our procedures and do the 2/3 rd vote first, and then do the maj ority. MR. HOOKANO: It would essentially create a CA -39 from what Ms. Jarman is saying. It would be a separate amendment that would strike out that, because it is not something that is related to board and commission member's compensation. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, procedurally, we would have to close up the vote on the first reading of CA -3 8, and then do another vote? MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, if we could take a five- minute recess so I could discuss this with you. 29 RECESS: At 3:53 p.m., the Chair called for a 5 minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 3:57 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: Before the break, we were discussing CA -38. There is a motion pending to move it at first reading. CA -38 has been amended twice by motions. The discussion I had with the Commission's Attorney, is that in order to create a new proposed amendment which reflects Mr. Unger's motion we would have to put that on the next meeting agenda. So, what do we do with the pending motion, Mr. Hookano? MR. HOOKANO: Technically, it's an improper motion, and it's just not considered by the Commission. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, thank you. So, is there any further discussion on CA -38 as amended? Let's take a vote, and I note that Mr. Kealoha has been excused. MR. FUERTES: Are we voting on the amendment? What are we voting on? CHR. HAITSUKA: We are voting on the first reading of CA -38 as amended by the two previous motions. The two previous motions undeleted the deleted language in subsection (g), changed the word "shall" to "may," and changed the reference "from five - times the state minimum hourly wage" to "two times the state minimum hourly wage." Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, can I as a quick question of Mr. Brilhante? Now we are voting on it as amended, are you still in favor of these changes, or not? I'm just trying to get a sense if you are still in favor of the changes. I'm sorry, not the changes, but the actual amendment at this point. MR. BRILHANTE: I appreciate the question. My response to that is that I still have concerns. The intent of forwarding this proposal was to solidify a potential fiscal negative impact that could come forward to the county that we are not currently anticipating or forecasting. With these changes, with this amendment as concluded by this body, it still affords me to have these concerns. Now we are allowing a discretionary act upon the submission of a request by a board or commission member. We're still affording specific language as to what type of pay may be considered. The intent of our submission was to remove those types of situations from occurring. I think historically, the perception of serving on county boards and commissions has been a voluntary act or service to the community as a whole. I understand Ms. Jarman's position that maybe financially everybody might not be able to provide that service to the county because of financial constraints. I think the inverse aspect we need to look at is can we allow this type of financial instability to possibly cause a negative impact on the operating budget of the county. We have numerous board and commission members out there who are C currently serving and now that this has been brought out to the public perception, I'm afraid that the flood gates may be open down the road. I'm hoping that won't be the case. That being said, is the current proposed amendment better than how it was written previously? I think that I would opine that, yes, it is. It seems to limit the "shall" language, which seems to be an affirmative act to a discretionary act, by "may," and it reduces the potential hourly rate from five times the current state minimum wage down to two. I think those are two positives, so maybe it might not be the best scenario, but at least it is better than what it was previously. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve CA -38 as amended to undelete the deleted language in subsection (g), change the word "shall" to "may," and change the reference "from five -times the state minimum hourly wage" to "two -times the state minimum hourly wage." was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioner Fuertes and Kaulukukui. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha and Osborne. SECOND READING OF THE FOLLOWING CHARTER AMENDMENTS: CHR. HAITSUKA: I've been asked to take something out of order. A request was made to take CA -15 out of order. Do I have a motion to take CA -15 out of order? MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I would make that motion to take it out of order, but I also wanted to raise that there is also another Charter amendment that we may want to take out of order, which is CA -16, just to have a quick discussion on that. I would ask that we do that first, and then CA -16. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, you want to do CA -16 before we do CA -15? MS. KAWAUCHI: Correct. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do you want to make that motion? Ms. Kawauchi moved to take CA -16 out of order. Seconded by Ms. Jarman and carried by the following vote: 31 Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha and Osborne. (CA -16 taken out of order) CA -16: INITIATION OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS Amends Section 15 -1. The purpose of this amendment is to make the requirements for an elector initiated charter amendment to follow the same process and requirements as for initiative and referendum. Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -16? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -16 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I would like to move to amend CA -16 with language from Comm. 214, which was the suggested language from the League of Women Voters and ask permission also to ask Sue Dursin if she would approach if I get a second on my motion. Thank you. Ms. Jarman moved to amend CA -16 with the contents of Communication 214. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, we have a motion pending to amend CA -16 in accordance with the proposed language in Comm. 214. We have a second. Is there any discussion? Ms. Dursin. SUSAN DURSIN (At this time Susan Dursin came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. JARMAN: In the current version it just says, by petition, which you use the same process as outlined in Article XI. When the League of Women Voters looked through that, they realized that there was some language that would not be appropriate to the Charter. Like, it would say, referendum when it should have said Charter amendment, etcetera. So, what they took upon themselves to do -- and I'm very grateful and thank you 32 for doing that - -is they actually redrafted that language so that we are doing the same thing as what we passed on first reading, but we are actually cleaning up the language so that we have the appropriate language for a Charter amendment versus initiative and referendum. I think it is Communication 214. CHR. HAITSUKA: It's Communication 212. I'm sorry, I misspoke, it is Comm. 212. MS. JARMAN: Okay, Communication 212. Is the 15% different? MS. DURSIN: It's not different from the initiative and referendum. MS. JARMAN: So, that ends up staying the same. So, the only change is making the language consistent, so it is the Charter as opposed to the initiative and referendum. MS. DURSIN: And, the signature verification, which is simply; signature, printed name and residence address. MS. JARMAN: And simplifying it to the signature, the person's name and the residence address. MS. DURSIN: Correct. MS. JARMAN: Can I make an amendment to my amendment? I think I can make one other amendment, because you can have one extra amendment. In response to the County Clerk's request that instead of saying, "the number of persons who voted," he had requested that each time we say that to say, "the number of valid votes cast." Ms. Jarman moved to further amend CA -16 by changing all references to "persons who voted," to "valid votes cast." Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, discussion; Ms. Dursin, you had a comment. MS. DURSIN: I was wondering whether that is "valid votes cast," where and for what? MS. JARMAN: It's the same thing, for the office of the Mayor. That basically takes out all the over votes and all the blank votes. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? I have a question for Mr. Hookano. Mr. Hookano, have you had a chance to review the proposed language from Mr. Dursin? MR. HOOKANO: No, I haven't. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think you submitted a memo to us previously about the present draft being inconsistent with some of the language; you say you haven't had a chance to 33 review Ms. Dursin's draft, so I don't think you can comment on it. Is there any further discussion? MS. JARMAN: I went over it with Ms. Dursin and Ms. Wilkens earlier this morning and it appears to be, with those exceptions that we mentioned, it appears to be now consistent. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. So we have a motion pending to amend Ms. Jarman's previous proposed amendment, we have a second, is there any more discussion? The motion to amend CA -16 to change all references to "persons who voted" to "valid votes cast," was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we are back to the original motion which Ms. Jarman proposed to amend CA -16 with the language from Ms. Dursin in Communication 212. MS. JARMAN: To replace 15 -1 as proposed with this communication from Ms. Dursin. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I would like to see if Corporation Counsel has any comments. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Ms. Dursin. Ms. Ashida. LINCOLN ASHIDA (At this time Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. ASHIDA: I haven't read it, and I cannot comment unless I am given a chance to read it. According to the Clerk, this was just handed out now. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Clerk, I actually meant both our County Clerk and Corporation Counsel. KEN GOODENOW (At this time Ken Goodenow, County Clerk, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) c MR. GOODENOW: Mr. Chair, like Mr. Ashida, I am looking at it now for the first time. I am very grateful that they included residence address, that's a good thing; and I do agree with the valid votes cast. It is quite different; the current procedure doesn't go through the Council, where the Council has a role. This now would be more like an ordinance, where the Council has a role. But, I really can't comment, having just seen it now. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: If this passes today, it still has to go on for another reading at the next meeting, right? Because it is a substantive enough change, even though this is second reading. CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct. MS. JARMAN: So we could pass it today; that would give everybody a chance to read it and then if everybody is fine with it, then we can vote it up at the next meeting. And if there are sufficient concerns, we could always amend it, or vote it down at the next meeting. So I would like to at least get it passed on. Because, if we wait until the next meeting to do it, we will be back up to our time problem. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Alright, we have a motion currently pending. The motion to amend CA -16 and replace Section 15 -1 with the language proposed in Communication 212 and further amended to replace, "persons who voted," with "valid votes cast" was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha and Osborne. MR. HOOKANO: In order to provide closure on the discussion for today, there should be a motion to postpone it to the next meeting. MS. JARMAN: May I ask a question? I thought since our rules said if there is a substantive amendment, it automatically goes to the next meeting. MR. HOOKANO: That is correct, but just in case there are other people who want to make motions at this time regarding this item because discussion isn't technically closed 35 on the item. There is still the possibility that somebody would want to make another amendment to this proposal, or make a further amendment at this time is what I'm saying. Just so we are sure that there is no further discussion. So what I am saying is that if no one else has anything to say on this proposed amendment then it is postponed to the next meeting. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to hear CA -15 right now? Ms. Kawauchi moved to take CA -15 out of order. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha and Osborne. (CA -I5 taken out of order) CA -15: LAND FUND - (Draft 2) Establishes a public access, open space, and natural resources preservation fund and commission and establishes procedures for the lands to be selected for preservation. (Note: There is a pending motion to approve CA -15 at second reading by Ms. Kawauchi and duly seconded by Ms. Osborne.) COMM. 105: From Finance Director Nancy Crawford, dated November 5, 2009, providing alternative language to the amended proposal, as requested by the commission, and transmitting copies of language used by other Hawaii counties in their charters. Postponed: January 21, 2010 MS. KAWAUCHI: There is a pending motion to approve CA -15 at second reading by myself, and seconded by Ms. Osborne; but at this time, I would like to move to amend my motion to approve. Ms. Kawauchi moved to amend the motion to approve CA -15 by changing it's current language from wherever it states, "not less than 0.5 %" to read, "not less than 2 %." CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, would that be a proper motion at this point? We have already discussed that issue. C MR. HOOKANO: This Commission decided that issue twice already. So it is up to the Chair to make a ruling on whether that is a proper amendment or whether it is a dilatory motion. MS. KAWAUCHI: My argument would just be that at the last meeting I moved to amend just the number, and at this meeting I'm moving to amend the language, "not less than 2 %." CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman MS. JARMAN: I wasn't at the last meeting, so at the last meeting your amendment was to change it to a straight 2 %? MS. KAWAUCHI: That's correct, that was my intention. MS. JARMAN: This is not a straight 2% but similar to the other one, but up to 2 %; not less than 2 %. MR. FUERTES: Mr. Chair, was there a second on her motion? CHR. HAITSUKA: No, there is no second. MS. JARMAN: I'll second it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, there is a second. Is there any discussion? MR. HOOKANO: So, Mr. Chair, is it your ruling that this is a proper motion? CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm still trying to understand what the proposed amendment is. I'm looking through the draft right now. MS. KAWAUCHI: Just to fill in if it helps, my intention here today is to move to amend CA -15 to say, "not less than 2 %." The entire language would be, "not less than 2 %." Particularly in paragraph (b) (5) and in the other sections of the amendment that states, "not less than ' /z of 1% (0.5 %). CHR. HAITSUKA: It seems like the same thing to me that we went over at the last meeting. MR. KAULUKUKUI: I think - -and we can double check with Mr. Hookano - -this body twice has considered a 2% amendment to this proposed Charter amendment. Is that correct? Twice in the past; and twice in the past it has failed. 37 MR. HOOKANO: Well, the first time it was considered was when it was amended to read, "not less than 1/2%," and then I believe there was Ms. Kawauchi's motion at a subsequent meeting to raise it back to 2 %, which failed. CHR. HAITSUKA: It seems like it is the same motion again, coming back in a different form. That's what it seems to me, so I'm inclined not to allow it in that form. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair, if we are moving on, then I would like to entertain an amendment to CA -15 to change every place that it currently reads 0.5% or refers to not less than 1/2%, to 2.25 %. I believe we have twice decided what we decided. We didn't pass that 1.5 %, we didn't pass that 2 %, I take that to mean that we thought those were too low, and so I am proposing an amendment to make the changes to 2.25% CHR. HAITSUKA: So all the references in the proposed version of CA -15 to 1/2 of 1% would be changed to 2.25 %. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Yes. Mr. Kaulukukui moved to amend CA -15 by changing all references to, "not less than 0.5 %" to read, "not less than 2.25 %." Seconded by Ms. Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a motion, and we have a second, is there any discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I would like to speak in favor of that motion. I think the overwhelming testimony before this Commission has been not to make it any less than 2 %, and I feel more strongly about it because this went out on initiative and referendum and was voted on by the people. This was something that came to the Council initially, but it did come through the voters. I think we need to honor that, and give them the opportunity to now vote for it as a Charter amendment. If the people don't want it to be 2.25% because of the economic climate then let them say, "No ". But because this came the first time from the people, as initiative and referendum, I think it is more important that we actually honor that as we're putting it in the Charter. Otherwise, don't put it in the Charter at all. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: I too, am in favor to bringing a land fund, an open space fund, to the people. My opposition to what we are trying to vote on right now is basically we are adopting the language from our initial take on this; the first time we looked at it. What I have put together, and at some point I would like to introduce it, is essentially a shorter version, a scaled down version. It is different language. One thing we need to admit to is we are the only County in the State of Hawaii that does not have an open space fund in their Charter. So, what I've done is I've pulled a bunch of the language from the other C Charters and have incorporated it into a substitute amendment that at some point I would like to introduce. At this point, if we are going to go forward at 2.25% with that existing language, then I'm not going to vote for that. My hope is that if and when we do consider my substitute amendment, that addition to the language that we talk about the percentage once again. It is coming in a completely different format and I think we would be able to discuss the percentage all over again. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Fuertes. MR. FUERTES: Mr. Chair and the rest of the Commissioners, I respect all the testimonies that were given and I had many people call me about this, and also emails coming from friends about this 2 %. For me, I go back to what it is I believe is first and foremost the County's responsibility. To me, I think it is health and safety. For me, yes, this is guiding principals. When we talk about open space and public access, and related to natural resource preservation, I think that is part of health. But, my comment - -and I'm just going to say this - -is that when we want something, and when we own it, such as land, then I ask, can we really maintain this? Can we really provide safety, if we are talking about health and safety for all of the people who are on that land? Or, is this a liability? That is number one for me. I look at, for example, the County. We have some facilities, Parks and Recreation facilities for example, that we own; and it's shut down, some of our places, because we don't even have the money to fix it and make it provide safety for our people who walk on that land. So, for me, I'm just going to vote, no, on this. And my friends are going to tell me, Dave, why did you do that? But, the second thing is we, to me, I think we elect government officials; from the Council to the Mayor, to manage this County. And we take 2% or 2.25 %; in this kind of times of economic constraints, I don't see how it can be feasible to balance the budget, and I go back again, to deal with safety and health and welfare of the people. So, I really struggle with this, and so, just to let the Commissioners know, and my colleagues, that I'm going to vote, no, on this. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Ms. Kawauchi, you have Ms. Hecht here. Do you want to have her testify as a matter of courtesy? MS. KAWAUCHI: Yes, why don't we ask Ms. Hecht to come up and then I actually wanted to make some comments and add to the discussion. The questions I had for Ms. Hecht were concerning her Communication 181. Ms. Hecht has been working on this issue for many years, and she has studied it and put in a lot of time. Just listening to her testify, she is here at every meeting, she has stated over and over that she never intended for this to be her life work, but it has kind of become that at this point. I kind of want to address some things that Mr. Fuertes has mentioned, but I don't want to keep you too long, Ms. Hecht. Basically I think you are pretty strong on the fact that moneys in the land fund should be placed in an interest bearing account. DEBBIE HECHT (At this time Debbie Hecht came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) C MS. HECHT: Yes, that is very important, and I proposed that. In Communication 1811 took Nancy Crawford's language, she is the Finance Director, and then I added a few things into sort of tweak it, to make it more consistent with CA -15. One of which was that it should be in an interest bearing account. When I went through all the deposits to the account over the years - -they have a thing right on their web site that shows what the deposits are, what the debits are for land purchases - -and what the interest was, I believe it was $408,000. That is a lot of money since 2006, November. So, it's very important that it be in an interest bearing account. CHR. HAITSUKA: Let me stop you there, Ms. Hecht, I think the motion on the floor is the motion to amend with 2.25 %. I don't know if you want to ask her, I would assume you are in favor of that. MS. HECHT: Can I address Mr. Fuertes's comments? CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay. MS. HECHT: On saving natural resources as a healthful matter, I agree with you on that. I think it's very important for people, especially in hard economic times, to be able to go out and enjoy the outdoors with their family, go recreate. As far as maintenance and providing for health and safety on properties that are acquired, that is an issue; there is no doubt about it. But, and it's an important matter, I think, is that if we preserve the properties now, they can be land banked - -what they call land banking -- meaning set aside for the future when there is money in parks and recreation budget in order to develop those parks. They have over $23 million in their budget, one third of which is for the maintenance of parks. So, that is really up to them in their budget to do that. In terms of cutting the budget, and 2% of the budget being a big important part of the budget; 2% of the budget, or $4 million dollars, is actually, in a revenue stream of almost $400 million dollars is about 1% or a little bit over 1% of the revenue stream of the money coming in to the county. So, there are those issues. I spent three months in front of the council at budget time going over their budget. They started out with 429 funded, but not filled jobs that were there. Then they cut it by 55. So there are big holes in their budget where they can cut. The 2% really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I hope that addresses your concerns. MR. FUERTES: Thank you for sharing that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi, you had more discussion, sorry, I cut you off when Ms. Hecht came up. MS. KAWAUCHI: A few months ago, when we first started talking about the land fund amendment, CA -15, it was on my mind too, not wanting to take away from County resources that are directed towards health and safety concerns, but I just haven't seen any testimony so far that shows that allocating 2 % - -or at this point we have a motion on the floor to amend to 2.5 % - -of the budget for that purpose is not going to impact essential services. I haven't seen that. I haven't seen that allocating 2% or 2.5% is going to .R increase our taxes. I haven't seen any testimony that shows that. I haven't seen that it will cause an increase in budget deficits. In fact, as I noted at the last meeting, the 2% land fund did not cause a budget problem and 2% land fund will not solve the budget problem either. So, to me, I think that the budgetary issues and in particular caring about health and safety, I am very cautious and cognizant of needing to make sure that health, safety and the general welfare of the public is taken care of Again, as Ms. Hecht as testified, conservation, agricultural use, open space, kind of leads into the help and assistance to health and safety and general welfare of the public. In the very beginning I testified as to how our family put food on the table; which was to go fishing and hunting, and basically we ate very well. I was glad to eat lobster when I could. It was a good way to live and it also leads into health and safety and general welfare. I'm not looking to the County to provide those types of resources for our family, but it was available to us because it was open and available. So I look at those two things together, and I weigh the two things together, and I think well, we can have the needs of our community met with the budget as it exists, even with the set aside for the land fund. But we may also enjoy greater benefits from the land fund by setting the money aside because we get other things. There are other ways to meet our needs without looking directly to the County to provide that for the general public. What I really appreciated about that meeting as well was the discussion that we had about whether or not we should add another County department; the department of ag and energy. What really resonated with me from the testimony from Commissioner Nahale -a and Commissioner Fuertes was that the passion that I heard concerning needing the County to concentrate on those areas. Having a department to encourage agriculture and energy conservation and energy production and provide us a body for research and also to promote it, is very important. I see the land fund as part of that. I really think that having those lands set aside for those purposes of public outdoor recreation, education, access to beaches and mountains, preservation of historical or cultural important land areas and sites, natural resources, habitat or ecosystems, forest, beaches, coastal areas, natural beauty and agricultural lands, and protection of water shed lands, and protection of watershed lands to preserve water quality and water supply, this goes directly into those values and those things that you testified as being really important. I want to be consistent, because I too, believe in maintaining and perpetuating and encouraging education and the promotion of ag, conservation and energy on this island. Just to address the issue of maintenance, and are the lands going to be a liability; I have thought about that as well. If we have it, why have a resource if you cannot maintain it, or worse, if it is going to cause more harm to the county than good. But, I just don't get the sense that these lands would cause those types of problems. Also, on balance, I think that preservation and keeping things for the public is going to help. It will be more of a help than it would be a liability. I agree that we elect government officials to manage, and we should trust in them to do the right thing, but I also agree that we need to listen to ourselves, we need to listen to the general public and to what they are testifying as what is needed; and we need to listen to what they voted for. I don't want to necessarily say that government is not doing a good job. In fact at 41 the last meeting I think I said that I think we all do the best j ob that we can. But, I do think that sometimes we need to also consider that a lot of the benefits that are being proposed by the public can also be a help to ourselves too. On the issue of economic constraints, again, I don't think the 2% land fund caused any budget problems, and I don't think it is going to solve them. I don't think there is any harm in putting this before the voters and letting them decide. I don't think that is going to cause any kind of trouble for the County. If I thought it was going to cause trouble, I wouldn't be in favor of having it in the Charter. I am kind of encouraged by the fact that, and I did not know this, that we are the only county without some provision in its Charter regarding open space. So, I'm glad that Commissioner Unger found that out; I think that is an important consideration as well. So, I support and would vote in favor of a Charter amendment that included 2.25 %. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Just a correction to what I think Ms. Kawauchi said; I think she meant 2.25% and she said 2.5 %. But, at any rate, just to make sure we have the right amendment on the floor. Obviously I support 2.25 %. We have heard a tremendous amount of testimony in support of protecting what citizens' voted for in the first place in the last election. Last month there was no testimony from the County in opposition, so I would actually like to ask someone from the County to come to the table right now and respond to the 2.25 %. DEANNASAKO (At this time Deanna Sako, Deputy Finance Director, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. SAKO: I'm sorry, I thought either Finance Director, Nancy Crawford, or myself have been at every meeting. I am Deanna Sako, Deputy Director of Finance, and I guess when you look back at the financial statements, and when the 2% fund was voted in by the voters, we were in high economic times, and it's only recently that we have dropped to a really unprecedented economic times that we are in right now. To take 2.25% of real property tax out would start to impact services. One of the goals has been to cut whatever we can cut and still maintain the level of services. If the 2.25% goes into the land fund, then we probably will not be able to maintain services at the level they are at. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Is there any particular reason that the County, on its own, without coming back to the citizens, couldn't increase our property tax rates or our property tax valuations? 42 MS. SAKO: The valuations are set by market and appraisals and different things. The rates are set by the County Council, and I cannot speak for them. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Okay, but it's not unusual that rates are changed? MS. SAKO: It is unusual that they be changed up. It has only been once or twice in the last 10 years. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: This is a difficult issue, I think, for all of us. I personally do believe strongly in the principle of the open space. I have lived in places where there was open space, and it adds a lot to the quality of life. But, there is another principle here too, and that is the principle of giving our elected officials the flexibility and the trust to manage the County in the times that they have to do it in. I have strong reservations about putting this in the Charter, and basically creating a situation where we have taken the ability of our elected officials and the departments that they appoint to be able to manage, given the changing circumstances. I do believe that there might be a compromise. There is perhaps a place for some funds to be set aside, but I believe that we need to consider the importance of giving our elected officials some flexibility, given changing times. So, for that reason, I think I will also oppose this amendment. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Shumway. Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I'm going to oppose the amendment to 2.25 %. I do believe in putting language in the Charter that ensures we have a land fund and I think that if the amendment passes, I would be forced to vote against the land fund, which would make me sad. I think it is important that we honor the citizens' request and all the work that was done to establish that in our County. I think to do that, it has to be done in a thought through, reasonable manner. I am hoping that we defeat this proposed amendment, and then we can consider options like Mr. Unger's. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have any further questions for Ms. Sako? MS. KAWAUCHI: I do. You said that if 2.25% becomes a Charter amendment and then if the voters pass CA -15, which includes language to appropriate a minimum of 2.25% as so on, you said that that is going to impact County services and that you would not be able to maintain services at the level that you provide now. MS. SAKO: You know, we have not yet submitted our fiscal year 2011 budget to the Council yet; that will be on March 1, 2010. So, unfortunately, the public hasn't seen everything and the full impact that is happening with that. I am just saying that we are looking on every single option, and we have cut where we can cut, and there are many different things proposed in the budget, and it would be difficult to keep the level of services where they re at, if we had to give four or four and a half million dollars to the land fund. 43 MS. KAWAUCHI: But that is not positive, right? I mean if some other area were found; if you were mandated and you had to choose between police and no police, you would say there would be no police? MS. SAKO: I don't know what the Mayor would say. MS. KAWAUCHI: So, if you were mandated, and you were to say, no street signs, would you say no street signs? MS. SAKO: One of the confusions is when people testify that out of the $400 million dollars, which is less than that now, that is the revenue stream into the County; that is counting all of the funds of the government of the County. It is the General Fund that is really operations and goes to public safety like police and fire. Traffic signs, roads; it all comes out of the highway fund and the fuel tax, that we are not allowed to touch. So, those are not the kinds of decisions we are going to be making. It's going to be; keeping the parks open, keeping the fire stations open, and keeping the police stations open. And I'm not going to speak for the Mayor as to what decisions would be made. MS. KAWAUCHI: These funds come out of the - -- MS. SAKO: The general fund, but the general fund does not receive $400 million dollars. MS. KAWAUCHI: What do you receive? MS. SAKO: Maybe $300 million dollars. But in real property taxes, I'm not sure what it is, but probably about $210 million dollars. MS. KAWAUCHI: So, you would say - -if I understand correctly, and I just want to understand - -the impact to County services would not be an impact to moneys that come in from the general fund. Is that right? MS. SAKO: I'm sorry; I don't think I understand the question. MS. KAWAUCHI: Yes, I'm not sure either, if I understand what you testified to. What I'm trying to get at is you had testified that county services would be impacted, and the county would not be able to maintain services at the level that you provide now if there is a budget set aside that is put into the Charter. Is that right? MS. SAKO: Right. MS. KAWAUCHI: So, what I am trying to find out is what type of services are you saying would not be provided? .. MS. SAKO: I'm saying the things we would have to look at - -and I'm saying I'm not going to speak for the Mayor - -is parks, county council, administration; but police and fire, civil defense, planning, and building; they are all covered by the general fund. I'm just saying that when you start talking about roads and traffic signs, those are in a different fund. MS. KAWAUCHI: Okay, that is something different. So, in times of budget crisis - -and I'm not sure if you know the answer, but I'm going to ask it anyways - -how do the other counties who also have open space funds, what to they do to ensure that these services are provided to the public? MS. SAKO: First of all, the other counties that have an open space fund, their Charters mandate only 1/2% or 1 %, I believe. It is not at this level, at the 2.25% that is being proposed. MS. KAWAUCHI: But, those counties are bigger and they bring in more revenue than ours, is that correct? MS. SAKO: Some do have higher land values, some choose to set their tax rates higher than our. Some, like City and County of Honolulu, have increased many of their fees. MS. KAWAUCHI: Okay, that is the first point. So the second point is how do they meet the requirements, the services? MS. SAKO: By increasing the fees. MS. KAWAUCHI: By increasing fees. MS. SAKO: And when economic times are tough, I'm not sure that the Mayor or the Council would be willing to do that on our citizens. MS. KAWAUCHI: So, photocopy charges; they wouldn't want to adjust that? There is nothing that can be done to meet public needs? MS. SAKO: They can adjust them, I'm saying I don't know if they are going to go out there and double the camping permit fees, or the pavilion fees, or things like that. MS. KAWAUCHI: I don't have any more questions. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I am just going to say one last thing because I think it is pretty clear that it doesn't have the votes, but I'm going to vote in favor of it. But I think there has been plenty of testimony from a number of people, and there are ways that the County could be more efficient with its budget. I think if you read some of the recent auditor's reports, they show where the County is spending way too much money on a lot of their contracts. 45 I think that the County has been unwilling to go in and really look at their procedures and how they do it. I think there are a lot of ways that the County could save a lot of money, and this would just be a drop in the bucket compared to that. So, I'm going to vote in favor of this; I suspect it is going to fail and then I'm going to really look forward to hearing what Scott has to say with his amendment. Thank you. MS. KAWAUCHI: Mr. Chair, I see Mr. Tucker in the audience, and I know that he has commented a lot about the budget. I don't know Mr. Tucker, if it would be fair to call you at this point to discuss your - - -I also know you have some private industry background, so do you have anything more to say? CHR. HAITSUKA: Just a minute, are you done with Ms. Sako? MS. SAKO: Can I just clarify one thing? Many of the comments, whether it's the auditor's report or different things, talk about construction; and I'm not saying yes or no, whether we are at fault or not, but the construction is funded by the capital project fund, which is usually through bond money, and has some impact on the operating fund and the general fund, but not at the level that you are being led to believe. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. We have call for the question, is there a second? Mr. Nahale -a called for the vote. Seconded by Mr. Fuertes. MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, you have to first ask if there is any objection on the call for question, because if there is, then it requires a 2/3 rd vote. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, is there any objection to the call for the question? MS. KAWAUCHI: Objection. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have one objection. Is it 2 /3rd of the commission? MR. HOOKANO: It is 2/3 rd of those who are present. The motion to call for the question carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Jarman and Kawauchi. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha, and Osborne. ER CHR. HAITSUKA: So, I'm going to call for the question. What we have pending right now is a motion made by Mr. Kaulukukui to amend CA -15 by changing the references to, "not less than 0.5 %" to "not less than 2.25 %." The motion to amend CA -15 by changing all references to, "not less than 0.5 %" to read, "not less than 2.25 %," failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, and Kawauchi. Noes: Commissioners Fuertes, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, that motion fails, now we are back to the original motion which was to approve CA -15 for second reading. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: Can I make a motion to provide a substitute amendment? Is this the proper time to do it? CHR. HAITSUKA: You can make a motion at this time to amend. Mr. Unger moved to amend CA -15 by substituting the current language with the contents of Communication 218. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shumway. MR. UNGER: Well, since I wrote it and put a decent amount of research into it, let me just give you a little background. First off, I did talk with Debbie on several occasions. I also talked with Nancy Crawford from the Department of Finance on several occasions. Most of this language did come from other Charters that have open space fund sections. So, a lot of language did come from the Maui one actually. But, what I want to do is talk about the percentage very last. I would rather talk about some other issues that I think for the most part, we all should be in agreement; whether you are for the 2% or not, I think in general, some of these other issues, based on my discussions with Debbie and also Nancy, we can have somewhat agreement on. First off, under section (a), one of the concerns was that the County wasn't depositing moneys on a timely basis. Basically, we collect money twice a year through property tax. So what I have proposed here is that we go ahead and deposit into this account, a minimum of twice a year, shortly after we collect the taxes. Nancy wanted a little 47 flexibility, and she wanted to keep it a minimum because she wanted the ability to deposit at a later date as other funds trickle in. The other concern from the land fund committee was that these funds are collected and what are they going to be used for? So, I tried to be as clear as possible in section (c) and basically it's saying it is only for - -I'm not going to read it all- -the purchase of land. Also to pay bonds that are obligated solely for this land fund; not to be co- mingled, not to be part of any other bond distribution or request. So basically the money can be use for two things; purchasing land and handling the bonds that were issued for the land fund exclusively. We also addressed the interest issue in section (d). Basically, the money is to be placed in an interest bearing account. If we go back up to section (b) and we talk about percentage - -you know, I've got to tell you, I'm not stuck on a particular percentage --I will say that 1% is what Maui has. If there is a similar county out there as far as a tax base, it probably is Maui. That is the percent they have for their land fund. The part that I highlighted at the very bottom of this, basically what I am trying to accomplish with that is that, and it is in section (b), is when you get your tax bill, there will be a box that says, "I want to contribute - -- Initially I was going to put in a percentage, but as far as logistically and working that out, the department of finance thought that would be a little bit of an I.T. problem, so we leave that open. If you want to pay over and above your real property tax, you want to donate a certain dollar amount to the fund; you write it in and add it to your bill. This way, essentially for the people who really feel strongly about this, this is their chance to follow through and actually put their money where their mouth is, and then some. We are not limiting you to 2 %, you can put 5 %, you can put 10% if you feel that strongly. Anyhow, that's it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, I will be voting in favor of Mr. Unger's proposed amendment. I think it is a really reasonable compromise position. I think it meets a lot of my concerns with this issue, which I have articulated many times. I do want to say that I am in favor of the land fund. I voted for it as a citizen and I'm in favor of it being in the Charter, and that we listed to our constituents and that we make sure that this is something that our County does. What I haven't appreciated is the fact that as we try to deliberate this decision, and how to do it reasonably, that I and others are couched as "cutting the land fund." That is simply an untruth. The land fund is 2% by law in this County. What we have been kind of dragged into the middle of a fight between those who fought for this land fund valiantly - -and I respect what they accomplished, and I appreciate it as a citizen - -we have been dragged into a fight between those folks and our county administration and council. To be honest, I kind of resent being put in the middle of that fight. As I've said many times, I don't think it is the job of this Charter Commission to govern. If all of the things that folks have said are true about our county administration and council not listening to the people, then they have an out. That is to make that case during election time and change their leadership. I don't like being asked to do that for them. I think it is an important matter in deliberating because we, as a Charter Commission, first and foremost, have to ask ourselves what is our role. Not what we want speed limits to be, or what we want land use to be; but what is our role? Our role is to provide a framework within which good governance can occur. That has been the thing I have been saying from day one. I think Mr. Unger's proposal creates that framework. It guarantees our citizens that there will be a land fund. Trust me, the administration is not going to like being mandated to contribute 1 %; they would like to reduce it, which they did. But we are forcing them to do that. The folks that want 2% are not going to like the fact that it is 1 %. I think now we are talking about us fulfilling our role or providing some checks and balances on both sides, without picking sides. I don't want to be the judge or jury. I just want to create a framework within which those folks who the people elect to be in office can make the best decisions they can and then be held accountable for the results. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. UNGER: I, too, am going to support this amendment. It provides the flexibility that I think is necessary. I was going to say a lot of things, but Nahale -a just said it more eloquently than I could. The main thing is, once again, the ordinance still exists; the 2% land fund set aside is there. I do think that for those who are most concerned about this issue, the way to address this is through their council members, through the Mayor; I don't think this is an issue that the Charter should be spending too much time with. I agree that some set aside is good, we are consistent with Maui. I appreciate Mr. Unger's efforts; I think he did a really good job and I think it is a nice compromise. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I wanted to say that I'm really sorry after listening to Mr. Nahale -a and Mr. Shumway, I want to say that I'm very sorry that you have those feelings. I don't think that is pleasant, and I don't really think that when we started off as a Commission what we were about or we were hoping to accomplish. If people have been lobbying you excessively, or if you felt under a lot of pressure from the community, and it hasn't been pleasant. I note that we haven't had any conversations privately, but I wanted to express that from my standpoint, I'm very sorry to hear that you feel that way. I think there are still concerns about Mr. Unger's proposal, but I would like an opportunity to take a look at it a little bit more closely. You just gave it to us now, so I haven't really had a chance to look at it. I appreciate the effort that you have put into it, because I know how much time all the meetings take, and you are probably extremely busy. But I am not ready to entertain this. What I have looked at, because we were given things earlier, was Ms. Crawford's communication, and I've also looked at Ms. Hecht's communication, Comm. 181. Those are the proposals that I am familiar with. If I have i • to consider this, I think we might need another postponement, because I really haven't had the chance to look at it yet. I don't know if we want to take a recess so I can look at it, or if we want to just postpone this for another meeting. I kind of hesitate to postpone it any further, because we have had a lot of discussion. But, I just don't feel comfortable voting on this at this point. If I had to vote for it, I'd have to vote no, because I haven't read it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: Actually, I meant to start off by apologizing for not getting this out sooner. My intent was to get it out a couple of days ago, I've been working on this for a couple of weeks, and the reality is I just finished it this morning. I completely apologize, and I know where you are coming from, but it's just the way it worked out. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I would also like to thank Scott for putting this together. I am just looking at it for the first time, and as you all know I prefer the 2 %. But, I'm going to vote in favor of it. We are going to have to have another reading on it anyways, so, I don't want to postpone it because we run up against the same time problem. I sort of want to address that issue of the Council and the Mayor could actually do these things. The only reason we have a 2% is because the people and Debbie and a lot of people went out and collected almost 10,000 signatures to put it on the ballot, because the Council refused to pass it after a couple of attempts. That's what the initiative and referendum process is for. It's so when our elected officials are not responsive, then the people get the opportunity to get enough names, get it on the ballot; and that is what happened in that instance. The Council doesn't always do the will of the majority for any number of reasons, and that's why I'm happy we have the initiative and referendum process. That's why I've been a little bit more supportive of the 2 %, because it did come up that way. This was something the people did. That being said, I do agree it's good to have it in the Charter because the Council could get rid of it altogether. So, I really appreciate everybody's efforts to get it in the Charter. I think 1% is better than 0.5 %, and so at this point and time, I don't think I'm going to get my way at 2 %, and I'm going to go for the 1 %, even though I would prefer it otherwise. And, I would like to thank Scott again for his efforts. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you Ms. Jarman. Mr. Fuertes. MR. FUERTES: I want to mahalo Scott for trying to put this thing together and trying to find a compromise, I think it's important. I like preface by saying, Ms. Kawauchi, that I'm not opposed to the philosophy of open space. I want to let you know that my family comes from hunting and fishing, and we sustain ourselves. I'm a rancher, and I enjoy the land as much as you did when you were young; and it's a part of my life. But, again, I'm not willing to jeopardize some of the public safety for purchasing the land. I just want to 50 be clear with that. I just want to let you know that because of economic constraints right now, we need to really think this thoroughly. Do we accommodate more land to jeopardize the health and safety of our people? I'm not willing to do that right now. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Fuertes. Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I just wanted to say I don't think Mr. Unger should apologize. It's okay that you gave it to us now. The problem is, I'm still having trouble. Again, I looked at the other proposals much more closely, and I haven't had a chance to look at yours closely. One thing I note is that in section (b), you have taken out the sale of general obligation funds, so I'm not sure why you did that; maybe just to make it consistent with what other counties Charters have said. But I'm not convinced that the other counties Charters are better than an amendment that was proposed by Ms. Hecht or proposed by Ms. Crawford. So, I just wanted to say that. I haven't had a chance to look at it. I'm a little concerned about passing something that I haven't looked at very well. I'm also concerned about passing something that somebody who has worked on this for a long time and spent a lot of time thinking about. I'm also concerned about passing something that is different than what Ms. Crawford has proposed. My third concern is about passing something that is not the same as what was passed the first time around by 63% of the voters because if we put something else as part of our Charter amendments, there may be some additional concern or confusion related to that. Those are some of my concerns. I don't want to revisit the number again, because I think we have talked about it a lot. So I'm not going to talk about it at this point, although I'm still not satisfied with explanations regarding the budget. From my own standpoint, I still feel like the money can be found. Having said that, what really concerns me, as well, is that a type of fund like this, in general, is always going to be something that is out there that is available to use. There really isn't to me any incentive to fund this. Even if we put it into the Charter, as Mr. Nahale -a has said, no one is going to be happy. And that to me is not satisfactory. That's it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you Ms. Kawauchi. Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I did want to add - -I left it out of my earlier rant - -I think the folks who have been pushing the 2% really deserve a lot of credit. They have been here consistently from day one. They have traveled across the island to provide testimony, they have mailed it in. They have generated a lot of testimony, and to be real frank, I'm disappointed that those who think it is too high haven't written, haven't come to testify. We certainly have had the department of finance, but I would ask where everybody else is? I think that is something that folks who don't want to see it go to 2% should think about between now, and next meeting. I have gotten calls from folks who think it's too high and agree, but they should do the same kind of diligent work that the other folks are doing. I also want to say again, that I support 2 %; I just think that is already inexistence in the code. I would like folks to use that process to push this issue. The fact that they 51 are not getting results with the Council is not my issue. They should take that up with the Council and they should get candidates to run that support the 2% land fund. In fact, we could, by ordinance, create restrictions to cutting it below 2 %. You could put language in the County Code that said it would require a 2/3 rd vote to cut it from 2 %. There is so much room within the ordinance to prioritize this on our island. I think that is where the work belongs. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: I did, unintentionally, omit the section on the bonds. It was in there, I took it out, I went back -- -It's inconsistent, because I talk about bonds down in section (c) about paying the bonds that were issued specifically for the land fund. I'm trying to find the language that I had taken out, because I would like to - - -I don't know how we are going to handle that? Should I come up with some language right now, or if this does pass, it would be my intent to include language on bond issues. Because it was my intent to include it and I'm glad you pointed that out. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, can he make a motion to amend? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, it would be a secondary amendment. MR. UNGER: Do I need to come up with that now? I'm trying to find - -- CHR. HAITSUKA: You took this off of Ms. Crawford's Communication 105. While you are working on that why don't we take some additional comments? Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I guess another point that is concerning me about moving it - -I know I said I wouldn't talk about the percentage at this point - -is that I am concerned about another section which says that, "Additional revenue may consist of grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section." Additional revenue and voluntary contributions may be made, but how do we know that the County is actually going to spend it for this purpose? The only way we were assured that we were going to have at least 2% that people wanted to contribute to the land fund was to keep it at that number. We're not at that number anymore, so I don't know if we should have a section saying that additional revenue may consist of grants and private contributions intended. It would be great to have that, but I don't know how we would have an assurance of what would be paid because now the ordinance says 2 %, and something else in the Charter is going to say 1 %. Maybe I'm off base, and somebody can explain it to me. I'm willing to listen to further discussion. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: It is not inconsistent with the Charter because it says, "a minimum of 1 %." So that makes it consistent with the current ordinance because it says a minimum of. So I think it is consistent. But, I would like to ask Scott; this additional revenue may 52 consist of, do you mean that in addition to the minimum of 1% they could also augment that by these other things? MR. UNGER: Yes. MS. JARMAN: So, I think it would be worthwhile to maybe say that "The fund coming from the tax revenue could be augmented by...." I think that would make it clear that it means over and above; I think that is one of the problems Ms. Kawauchi was talking about. Then, put back in your language for the bonds. CHR. HAITSUKA: I think we have Mr. Kaulukukui next. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Thank you Mr. Chair and thanks to Mr. Unger for the time and effort he put into this. I am going to be supportive of this. I am also not going to argue the percentage point at this point in time; we are going to have time to be able to look into that. I'm a little worried that might be a bit on the low side, but would appreciate the opportunity to find that out. My concern is if we don't pass this amendment, we fall back in the wrong direction and this is a move in the right direction. So I am supportive of this amendment and I would like us to call the question today, rather than trying to defer this. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: Okay, a couple of things. Casey, as far as using language to augment-- - It's pretty clear to me. In the first sentence of paragraph (b) it says, "Funding shall consist of a minimum of 1% of actual revenue received in the fiscal year. Additional revenue...." It's pretty clear to me, but I'm open if you want to come up with some language to further clarify that, that is fine. The one sentence I would like to add language to is the last sentence in (b) which would then read, "Additional revenue may consist of grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section, proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds authorized and issued for the purpose of this section, and voluntary contributions of any amount as specified on the real property tax bill; and any other source of revenue." So that's what I'm proposing. One more time: "Additional revenue may consist of grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section, general obligation bonds authorized and issued for the purpose of this section, and voluntary contributions of any amount as specified on the real property tax bill; and any other source of revenue." Jamae, does that sound like it makes sense? MS. KAWAUCHI: I guess the concern I have -- I actually think that sounds good - -I'm wondering if you would have an objection to adding the language that, "Additional council appropriations for purposes of this section may also be added in." The other part that I'm concerned about is, let's say, the grants and private contributions. Maybe someone has some insight into this. Grants and contributions I would think would say-- - You know, many of these grants and contributions you have to apply ahead of time. If they are willing to give matching funds, how do they know how much in matching funds they are supposed to provide if we say - - -I guess they can give a minimum of 1% in 53 matching funds. Let's say in 2010 you apply for a grant for matching funds. You would say you give us a minimum of 1% of whatever we have allocated last year. I'm not really sure how that works, so I guess finance people can tell us. MS. SAKO: Currently, right now we do get grants, that's the term I use, from other places to help pay for the land that is being purchased and it actually goes directly into escrow to help pay for it. I think I would be hesitant to put a percentage on the matching funds. Right now, we are looking at matching funds as a way on each particular piece of property that we are purchasing to maximize the use of the fund. But there could also be times when we just want to purchase the land and maybe someone else is trying to purchase the land at the same time, that we may not have the luxury of going out for matching funds. MS. HECHT: I would like to also add to that. For instance, like on Kawa Bay, there was a $1 million dollar grant from U.S. Fish and Wildlife. So we need $1 million dollars in the fund in order to do that. So by setting it at 1 %, you would get $2 million dollars a year, so that's what she is talking about. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any more discussion? Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: Just to conclude, do you have any objection to adding back in, "Additional council appropriations for the purpose of this section ?" MR. UNGER: No. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, so Mr. Unger, you have a motion pending to amend. Let me read this back to you and you tell me if this is correct. The language is, "Additional revenue may consist of grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section, additional council appropriations for the purpose of this section, general obligation bonds authorized and issued for the purpose of this section, and any other sources of revenue." MR. UNGER: Let me try to read it back to you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Sure. MR. UNGER: "Additional revenue may consist of grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section, proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds authorized and issued for the purpose of this section, council appropriations for the purpose of this section, and grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section, and any other source of revenue." Mr. Unger moved to amend Comm. 218 by changing the second sentence in paragraph (b) to read, "Additional revenue may consist of grants and private contributions intended for 54 the purpose of this section, proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds authorized and issued for the purpose of this section, council appropriations for the purpose of this section, and grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section, and any other source of revenue." Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any other discussion? Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: Sorry. I'm seeing some other portions that don't appear to be very clear. I don't know if this is the right time to do it, but if we are going to make an amendment we might as well do it all at once. Paragraph (a), the last sentence, reads, "Deposits to the fund will occur at a minimum of twice a year but directly after the majority of the taxes have been collected." The first part is okay, but, "...directly after the majority of the taxes have been collected" is not as clear as saying, "and as soon as the tax amounts are certified." I don't know when the cutoff point is for the majority of taxes collected and if that is too ambiguous. So it looks like we have someone from finance again. MS. JARMAN: Before we do that, as a matter of procedure, because that really doesn't have to do with this amendment, we can vote this amendment up or down, and once that is done, then you can make another proposed amendment. I think we need to talk about and vote on this amendment first. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the proposed amendment before us right now? Let's take a vote. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: So the motion carries and what we have before us is proposed amendment CA -15 as amended by Mr. Unger. Actually we have a motion. MR. HOOKANO: Yes, there is still the pending motion to substitute. So right now, you are working off of Communication 218, which is Mr. Unger's communication, with section (b) amended as stated by Mr. Unger about including the obligation bonds and council appropriations. 55 CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Ms. Kawauchi. MS. KAWAUCHI: I just am trying to figure out when it would be appropriate to discuss that language change, if any. Right now, what I am concerned about - -- CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Sako. MS. SAKO: I wanted to clarify that the real tax values are certified in April, the tax revenue is not technically certified and the two main collection dates are August 20th and February 20th. So right now, even the way it is in the County Code, restricting us to December and June, we actually are probably losing out on revenue, and there are times we would actually rather transfer the money sooner so it can be utilized in the fund. So, I guess the more flexible it is the better. But if you want to clarify the language that's fine, but to those of us in finance we kind of know that it would probably be in September and March that the transfers would be made; as soon as the deposits have all been recorded. As a matter of policy, we would generally transfer whatever additional funds may have come in or be due to the fund in June before we close the books. MS. KAWAUCHI: If the language was left as is in the last sentence of paragraph (a), "Deposits to the fund will occur at a minimum of twice a year but directly after the majority of the taxes have been collected." What would be your interpretation of deposit to the fund based on that language? MS. SAKO: Much like it is now, except that we would probably be doing it earlier in September, right after the August 20th collection point when we have a time to actually get all the remittances from the bank and other areas. So we would probably do it in September and then again in March right after the February 20th collection period. But then because it says a minimum of twice a year, we can also transfer funds at any point during the year, including June 30th, to make sure we have transferred everything that has come in during the year. MS. KAWAUCHI: What do you refer to the August and the February tax collections? MS. SAKO: When we bill real property taxes, it actually goes out in July. The taxes are due ' /z on August 20th and ' /z on February 20th of the fiscal year. MS. KAWAUCHI: What do you call that? Do you just call that tax collection? MS. SAKO: Due dates or payment dates. MS. KAWAUCHI: I have a question for Mr. Unger. That last sentence, what was your intention for, "directly after the majority...?" MR. UNGER: I'm not clear on your question; one more time. 56 MS. KAWAUCHI: I'm trying to get to when the majority of the taxes have been collected. So was your intention just to be flexible? Once the balance sheet is done, then that's when you know the majority has come in, or how do you know? MR. UNGER: This did pretty much come from the department of finance, again, I was just trying to make sure we do collect at least twice a year, give them some flexibility, so that when the funds are collected, that shortly thereafter we can go ahead and transfer those into this fund. My intent was to rely on the department of finance to figure out the best way to get the money in as quickly as possible; and to account for all of the money. But yes, I deferred to the department of finance and I think they are the ones to defer to in this instance. MS. KAWAUCHI: I would think at the time when you are assured that the majority of the funding is there so they can decide how much 1% is going to be; is that right? CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, is there any further discussion? Are we ready for the vote? The motion to amend CA -15 by substituting it with the language contained in Comm. 218 and with the additional amendment to change the last sentence in Comm. 218 paragraph (b) to read, "Additional revenue may consist of grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section, proceeds from the sale of general obligation bonds authorized and issued for the purpose of this section, council appropriations for the purpose of this section, and grants and private contributions intended for the purpose of this section, and any other source of revenue," was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Kawauchi, Nahale -a, Shumway and Unger. Noes: Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kealoha, and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Now we are back to the original motion which is the motion - -- MS. JARMAN: I think we are done for today. Now it will go to second reading again at the next meeting. We just voted on the substitution amendment as amended, correct? CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct. 57 MS. JARMAN: So it just goes onto second reading now. MR. HOOKANO: Yes, the substantive amendment provision of our rules; this will be held over. So this is CA -15 here. CHR. HAITSUKA: So CA -15 is Mr. Unger's proposed language in Communication 218 as amended. Let's move on to CA -7, Recall Procedures. CA -7 RECALL PROCEDURES - (Draft 2) Amends Sections 12 -1.1, 12 -1.3, 12 -1.5, 12 -1.6. Changes County's recall procedure by (1) amending the information required from signers of a recall petition; (2) amending the requirement that the number of signatures required be 25% percent of the valid votes cast, rather than 25% of the total number of persons who registered in the last election; (3) allowing the clerk more time to review supplemental petitions; (4) amending the number of votes required for an official to be successfully recalled, and (5) increases the amount of time for signatures to be collected for a recall petition. CA -7, Draft 2, transmitted by Communication 180, dated February 2, 2010, from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano. Amended and Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -7 at second reading. Seconded by Ms. Kawauchi. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: Does this have the right language for the valid votes cast? We have been through this so many times now, is this correct? MR. GOODENOW: Ken Goodenow, County Clerk. Yes, you did amend this to, "valid votes cast." Either total ballots, or valid votes; it's clear, thank you. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, if I may point out one thing. The language was amended to give the clerk more time to certify the petition, but it says 120 days in the case of recall of the Mayor. The Prosecuting Attorney is also an elected official that is subject to recall, who is elected by an island wide vote, the same as the Mayor. So, I would recommend the changing of the "Mayor," to "an official elected island wide." There is some kind of similar language in other sections of the Charter. MR. GOODENOW: That's correct. Let me find a sample here. If you could give me a few minutes, I'll find it in the Charter. CHR. HAITSUKA: Why don't we take a ten minute break. RECESS: At 5:37 p.m., the Chair called for a 10 minute recess. RECONVENE: The meeting was reconvened at 5:48 p.m. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Clerk, you were going to look through the Charter for other sections. MR. GOODENOW: I think Mr. Hookano raised a very good suggestion. If you are going to pass this, you should first amend it on the second page under Section 12 -1.4. It currently reads - -the underlined portion - -120 days in the case of recall of the mayor and 90 days in the case of recall of a council member. Instead of mayor, I suggest you substitute that with, "an elected official at large." 120 days in the case of recall of an elected official at large would mirror the other language in the Charter. Mr. Nahale -a moved to amend Section 12 -1.4 to replace, "mayor" with "an elected official at large." Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: So, right now we have before us the motion to approve CA -7 as amended. Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve CA -7 as amended was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. 59 CA -9 SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENT (Draft 2) Amends Section 13 -20, subsection (c). Adds language to require that electronic notice of special meetings be linked on the appropriate council, board or commission webpage, if possible. CA -9, Draft 2, transmitted by Communication 180, dated February 2, 2010, from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano. Amended and Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to approve CA -9 for the second reading? Mr. Shumway moved to approve CA -9 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CA -12 INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS - (Draft 2) Amends Section 15 -1 of the Hawaii County Charter by amending the required information to be collected from a person signing a petition in support of a charter amendment and increases the amount of time the county clerk has to examine the petition for sufficiency from twenty working days to thirty working days. Postponed: January 21, 2010 (Note: There is a pending motion to approve CA -12 at second reading by Mr. Unger and duly seconded by Ms. Kawauchi, and there is a pending motion by Mr. Shumway and duly seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui to amend CA -12 by removing "residence address" from the requirements for signers on a petition.) MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chair, can I withdraw that amendment at this point? CHR. HAITSUKA: You want to withdraw the motion? MR. SHUMWAY: My motion to amend, yes. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, is that appropriate for him to withdraw a motion? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, the maker of a motion can withdraw their motion at any time. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, so Mr. Shumway, you wish to withdraw your motion? .e] MR. SHUMWAY: Correct. MR. HOOKANO: So now you are back on the main motion. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion on the main motion, which is to approve CA -12 for second reading? MS. JARMAN: I'm confused. CA -12 is the Charter amendment one, right? CHR. HAITSUKA: That's correct. MS. JARMAN: And we have already voted earlier for a significant amendment to the Charter amendments; does that mean we have to vote, "no" on this one? CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you have an opinion on that? MR. HOOKANO: The two provisions basically do conflict with each other. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Clerk, you have a comment? MR. GOODENOW: Because we got CA -16 kind of at the last minute, it is the first time we've seen it. I would prefer that you keep this one alive in the event that you prefer it over CA -16. I was hoping that this would be amended to change the language from, "votes cast" to either "total ballots cast," or "valid votes cast," as we have discussed before. So, I do ask for that amendment if you are going to pass this. I have serious concerns, looking more at CA -16, now that I've had a little time to look at it. I would prefer that this vehicle be kept alive as well. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: So this is on second reading, right? CHR. HAITSUKA: That is correct. MS. JARMAN: So if we are going to keep it alive, we would need to postpone it to the next meeting, right? If we vote on this and it passes, then the other one becomes moot, so we need to keep them both alive until the next meeting? I'm just asking that question. So that you get a chance to look at the other one and make some opinion on which is better. MR. GOODENOW: In my opinion, either pass this one or postpone it, so we can look at both; I agree. MS. JARMAN: But, if we pass this on second reading, then it goes on the ballot, right? 61 MR. GOODENOW: That would be true, so if you want to keep both options open, then you should postpone. Ms. Jarman moved to postpone CA -12. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a. MR. GOODENOW: Could I ask that you amend it first? Amend it to say, "valid votes cast." I would hate to have to hold it up later over that point. MS. JARMAN: I withdraw my motion to postpone. Ms. Jarman moved to amend CA -12 by substituting, "registered voters" with "valid votes cast." Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: That motion passes. Ms. Jarman moved to postpone CA -12. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CA -14: LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR - (Draft 2) Amends Section 13 -18 of the Hawaii County Charter by allowing the legislative auditor to retain independent legal counsel without having to go to the county council for approval, exempts the legislative auditor from the provisions of Section 6 -5.5 of the charter, and amends Section 10 -13 of the Hawaii County Charter by removing the mandatory provision that an audit or investigation be conducted upon the death, resignation, removal or expiration of the term of any county administrative officer and making this provision discretionary. Postponed: January 21, 2010 62 (Note: There is a pending motion to approve CA -14 at second reading by Mr. Unger and duly seconded by Ms. Kawauchi, and there is a pending motion by Mr. Unger and duly seconded by Ms. Osborne to amend CA -14 by replacing the language in subsection (f)(5) with the language, "For the purpose of auditing the county council or the corporation counsel, the legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain independent counsel. ") CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion? Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: Mr. Chairman, before we go any further, for the same reasons as the last meeting, I would like to recuse myself from discussion and voting on this issue. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, Mr. Shumway has recused himself. MS. JARMAN: Is there a motion on the floor at this point? CHR. HAITSUKA: We do have a motion pending; the motion by Mr. Unger to amend CA -14. MS. JARMAN: Could we ask the Legislative Auditor, Ms. Schrandt, and Kathy Garson to approach? CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Schrandt, Ms. Garson. COLLEEN SCHRANDT and KATHY GARSON (At this time Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor and Kathy Garson, Corporation Counsel, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MS. JARMAN: Would you like to make any comments on what is before us? Is it acceptable, or do we need to amend it any further? MS. SCHRANDT: The amendment that we proposed last time was kind of on the fly, so in looking at it after the fact, the language probably isn't consistent with the rest of the paragraph. So we did have some proposed change in the wording in order to make it consistent with the rest of the paragraph. MS. JARMAN: What would that be? MS. SCHRANDT: The authority to retain legal counsel for the limited purpose of rendering legal advise when carrying out an audit of the county council, or corporation counsel. MS. JARMAN: So, it is essentially the same, but worded a little bit differently to make it consistent? MS. SCHRANDT: Right. MS. JARMAN: Thank you. Ms. Garson, do you have any comments? 63 MS. GARSON: Kathy Garson, Assistant Corporation Counsel. Sorry about the language the last time. We got the numbers switched, so it didn't flow properly from how the beginning of the section was worded. MS. JARMAN: I'll move to amend CA -14 with the language just proposed by the legislative auditor. MS. GARSON: One thing we wanted to make clear, and I'm not sure if it's clear from the CA -14 that is there, is that we are also leaving in the language that was bracketed. That was something that was brought up at the last meeting, but I wanted to make sure that everybody understood that. MS. JARMAN: So we are going to leave in (f)(4), the last sentence in (f)(4) because that would authorize her to do it the way the current procedures are for other circumstances and then just add this for purposes of when there might be a conflict with the corporation counsel or the council. So my motion would be to reinstate the last sentence of (f)(4) and to amend (f)(5) with the language just proposed by the Legislative Auditor. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, just to be clear. Is this a secondary amendment to the pending motion to amend? If Ms. Jarman could respond to that, just so I'm clear. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: How about if I withdraw my motion. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright. Mr. Unger has withdrawn the pending motion and Ms. Jarman is making a new motion to amend based upon the language proposed by the Legislative Auditor and also un- deleting the last sentence of subsection (f)(4) Ms. Jarman moved to amend CA -14 by un- deleting the last sentence of subsection (f)(4) and also replacing the language in subsection (f)(5) with the language, "The legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain legal counsel for the limited purpose of rendering legal advice when carrying out an audit of the county council, or corporation counsel." Seconded by Mr. Unger and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: We are back to the original motion to approve CA -14 as amended at second reading. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Clerk. MR. GOODENOW: This is for second reading. Are you saying this is a non - substantive amendment? I may have comments; I was going to wait until second reading so I could review it, but if you are going to make a vote on second reading now, I may hazard a few from the hip comments. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: Is that question posed to me? CHR. HAITSUKA: It's deferred to you. MR. HOOKANO: It's really not my call on whether it's a substantive amendment. It's the Commission's decision on whether it is substantive. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do you have any opinion as to whether it is? MR. HOOKANO: I would suggest for now you let the County Clerk say his comments. MR. GOODENOW: Well, I would prefer to prepare them. But, I would say I think it might be a substantive amendment in that the fact that before it where it was just the authority to retain independent legal counsel was much broader. This is a substantial limitation over what you were looking at last time. MS. JARMAN: No it is not. MR. GOODENOW: Could you clarify that? MS. JARMAN: Actually, the authority to retain independent counsel was already amended and taken out for the other language. So the change, basically, is the way they worded the authority to retain limited counsel for the purposes of rendering legal advice. But it is still has the same impact; just the wording of it is changed. MR. GOODENOW: I would say from a purely legal standpoint, you could say it is non - substantive, because of course, if you are auditing the council or the corporation counsel, there would be a conflict anyways, and you would go through the special council procedures. So, I suppose in that sense, you might say it is not substantive. I guess it is not my call so I'll make my comments. I'm just kind of interested in - - -I can understand the auditor maybe auditing the clerk's office, which is part of the council; as far as travel vouchers and per diem. But I think it is a little odd to say that the auditor would have the right to audit the council, which is purely a policy making body. I can't see why you would necessarily do that, but I think it 65 could be hazardous in the sense that these are elected officials; they are the ones that are elected by the people, and all they do is make policy. So if you are going to comment that it's wrong that things don't go through committee prior to first reading, or something like that; that clearly wouldn't be appropriate for the auditor to make. Maybe she means the office of the county clerk. But to me, the term council is problematic. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Schrandt. MS. SCHRANDT: I believe the authority of the office to audit the clerk, the council or any other department or agency is already clearly established in the existing Charter. So, I don't really think that is relevant to this. This is only looking at the possibility of situations where an audit might be conducted, and a conflict of interest might occur. And we are trying to address that in advance. It is not saying we are going to audit anyone. It is just trying to address in advance, the possibilities. MR. GOODENOW: If I may ask then, the specific question to Ms. Schrandt; what exactly of the council beyond the county clerk's office would you ever audit? What is there that would be subject to an audit? That is the real question I pose. MS. SCHRANDT: I'm not sure that that's appropriate for this arena. There are a number of things that could be audited, but I'm not sure that is necessary to be discussed in this venue. MR. GOODENOW: If I could respond to that. The council is a policy making body, elected by the people. Now, if you are going to want to audit how we manage our spending, that it the clerk's office, that is not the council. And surely, it might be appropriate to audit the clerk's office, but I see no reason why, or any situation where it would be appropriate. Hiring is done by the clerk's office. If you are going to allege that certain council members are squelching the minority, or something like that; you go into a political arena where it is certainly not appropriate for the auditor to be involved. And, I do note that the auditor is part of the legislative branch, under the authority of the council. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: This is a question for either of you. Is there ever a situation where a sitting council member can allocate county funds without the approval of the other council members? MR. GOODENOW: Each council member is given a district allowance. Right now, it is at $5,000. However, it needs approval both of the clerk and the chair. It is really considered clerk's office money. It is in the budget belonging to the clerk. So while we do grant them discretion, we do review it, and there have been cases where say it's political or something, we do not allow it. But, they really have no control as an - individual. Only the body can make decisions. It is really the clerk and the clerk's office that handles things like procurement and those types of matters. MR. KAULUKUKUI: So, in that situation, then, if there was some question about how a council member allocated those funds, the audit could be done of the clerk's office, since the clerk's office would have provided approval. MR. GOODENOW: Correct. MS. SCHRANDT: If I may. This is the actual Charter for the City and County of Honolulu. Under number (5) in this section, it says, "For the purpose of this section, and section 3 -114, agency or operation of the city includes any executive agency semi- autonomous agency, council office, and other establishment of city government supported in whole or in part by city or public funds. Council office includes the council itself, the office of a council member and the council member's immediate staff, the office of the city clerk, the office of council services, a reapportionment commission, and a charter commission. This definition applies only to those sections." So, I don't think it is out of line or unheard of for an auditor to audit more than the clerk's office. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I think there could be instances where there could be an audit of the county council. The county clerk manages the business of the county council; that is kind of what their j ob is. So there is likelihood that if you are auditing the council, you are also auditing the county clerk's office, and vice versa. In many ways they are inseparable. So, I don't see where there really is a conflict here. I think it's essentially the same thing. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Goodenow. MR. GOODENOW: I would appreciate a concrete example. It's fine to say other charters do it, but when would an audit be done of the council as a body, as opposed to the clerk's office? MS. JARMAN: I think the council, as a body, includes the clerk's office. That is how I read it. That is why I see there is no issue; I think it includes it. MR. GOODENOW: I agree, but why go on a dangerous path where it could be interpreted that you are looking at something else, like council rules, or other procedures; when really you are looking at financial regularities, efficiency. I think it is dangerous to say that our elected officials have the possibility of that; it is just not appropriate. Of course, the clerk's office is part of the council, I agree. But why include the council? Can I have an example where it is not the clerk's office? 67 MS. SCHRANDT: If I may. Audits do appropriately go in and look at compliance, not only with legal authorities, but compliance with an agency or a department with its own rules. That is an appropriate audit, and it happens all the time. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Fuertes. MR. FUERTES: I want to hear from Corporation Counsel. It looks like you are eager to say something. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Garson. MS. GARSON: I was going to say that I thought it was going a little bit beyond what was before the Charter Commission, and actually I thought our clerk was getting a little confrontational, so I just wanted to have him treat Ms. Schrandt with some respect. MR. GOODENOW: I'm sorry. MS. GARSON: But, I do think that is a little bit beyond the scope of even what the amendment was asking. The amendment was basically asking just for the authority to hire outside counsel should that happen. The clerk's office is part of the council; there are other instances where she may want to. I don't this we are talking about the scope of the audit right now. We are talking about her right to have independent counsel, if she does. Maybe part of the job of that independent counsel is to tell her what she can and can not audit in the council. So that is all that we are asking now. Not whether or not she can audit, or what she can audit for the county council. That is what I wanted to point out. MR. FUERTES: So, who pays for this independent counsel? MS. GARSON: It would come out of the legislative auditor's budget. It is discretionary. We want to be very clear that it is not a full time position; it is a "may." I think that came up last time; it is discretionary. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I think there are significant issues and I would move to postpone. Again, this is the kind of issue where we are saying that it is the council that is affected, so I'm curious what they think. I would like to think this merits them coming in to give their opinion. Mr. Nahale -a moved to postpone CA -14 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a second? Mr. Fuertes. MR. FUERTES: I'm sorry, Alapaki. I hate to see when we go out to vote, we are going to have twenty - something things to vote on. I know all of these are important, and we .: need to really realize what is really important so the voters don't get confused. I think we really need to look at what are our priorities. I just wanted to make that comment. CHR. HAITSUKA: The reason this ends up being a problem is if under the current Charter, if she were to audit the county council, she would have to go and get, potentially, special counsel; and you can only get special counsel by asking the county council, under our current Charter. So this just basically says if in that limited circumstance, and there turns out to be a conflict, she has the ability to do it. Otherwise, you have the fox guarding the hen house. They could say, "No, we don't want you hire somebody else to give you advice on auditing us." So, that is all this is saying and I just think we have to get rid of that conflict; and it is corporation counsel that put us in this situation, because he made the claim that she just can't have independent counsel, which I actually happen to disagree with. But, in an effort not to get into a debate with corporation counsel, and because this compromise seemed to have been worked out, this seems to make a lot of sense to me. And it doesn't matter what the council thinks about it because it's just to keep that conflict, so they don't have to go to the council for permission to get an attorney to give them advice about auditing the council. LINCOLN ASHIDA (At this time Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. ASHIDA: Mr. Chair, can I say something in response to that? For the record, I never opposed this. If you look at my communication I submitted, I supported this. All I said was I didn't know what independent legal counsel was. I think that Mr. Hookano addressed that in his memo. So, I wanted the record to be clear. I never objected to this. As a matter of fact, the record reflects that I supported this. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Ashida, do you still support it the way we have the current amendment? MR. ASHIDA: I have no dog in the fight, Mr. Chairman, so whatever you decide is fine with me. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Unger. MR. LINGER: I just think it is a very important issue, and it is one we need to put out to the voters. This is not one of those we would be bogging down the voters with; this is a pretty important issue. MR. FUERTES: Mr. Chair, I call for the question. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have a call for the question, are there any objections? MR. NAHALE -A: Point of information, just so I understand. So if it passes second reading, what is our ability to tweak this language going forward? we MR. HOOKANO: This is the last opportunity to tweak the language if it is passed at second reading; that is what is going to go on the ballot. MR. NAHALE-A: So I object to call for the question. CHR. HAITSUKA: So we need to vote. There was an objection, so we would need a 2/3 rd vote to have the question called. The call for the question failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Kaulukukui and Nahale -a. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: So we have opposition, at least 1/3 rd so is there any further discussion? MS. JARMAN: May I address Mr. Nahale -a? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes. MS. JARMAN: If we were to postpone it, what further information would you want; since corporation counsel is fine with it and the legislative auditor is fine with it? What are your concerns at this point? MR. NAHALE -A: I think the clerk has expressed that he wanted some time to work on his comments, and I don't see a problem with getting it. I think his question about a concrete example -- -Look, I'm inclined to vote for it, but my bigger concern is if we pass it and then we can't play with the language; that's more my concern. I want to get it right. So, for the record, I'm all for it, I just want to make sure we get it right before we move it forward. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I just think we have it right. With corporation counsel, and the counsel representing the legislative auditor being in favor, I just don't see where there is an issue. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Garson. 70 MS. GARSON: Actually, I just want to point out that the language, "county council," that was in there from the last meeting. If we are only talking about that, it's been there. It was part of the other amendment. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Clerk, can I ask you a question. I just want to know what objection, if any, you have to this proposed amendment at this point. MR. GOODENOW: First, I'd like to say that I'm not sure that corporation counsel is saying that they support it. Maybe I'm misspeaking, but I think they don't take a position, I think this is really the auditor's office that is bringing this forward. All I'm saying is if you put in the Charter on a question on the vote, that they should have a right to audit the council - -have their own attorney when they audit the council - -I think that is misleading, number one, because I don't think there is anything that you can audit the council. It is an independent policy making body, and if they are asserting that they have that authority, I certainly would disagree with that. And this might actually give support for the concept, "yes, we can audit the council, see it's right here." I don't think that is necessarily clear. I would like the opportunity - -- As I said, I don't want to shoot from the hip, which I kind of am now. What is wrong with a postponement? I can go talk to the council members; I can do some legal research on my own. I don't see a reason to rush. MS. SCHRANDT: If your question is on the authority of the auditor's office to audit the council, should that not have been addressed with the prior Charter amendments that the voter's passed? That was where the authority was given. Number two, if that authority is there; is it really proper for the council to determine whether the voters get to choose if I can have legal counsel during that audit? MR. GOODENOW: Are you asking me a question? Mr. Chair, may I respond? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, you may respond. MR. GOODENOW: Again, I think it is not clear, and I'm just asking for more time to clarify. For example, let's say she wants to audit the council over the budget procedure on funding for the legislative auditor. I just would like more time. I just want to talk to my council members. There is no rush; I don't see why you have to discuss this today. Again, I didn't even want to comment on this, but since it was second reading, and it wasn't being held over, I thought I would like to at least go back to my bosses, the council members and get their input. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, I guess for me, since I wasn't at the last meeting, and so I feel a little bit behind on this issue. From my understanding, there is new language; if there wasn't new language, I would be inclined to move forward. If somebody can correct me, if that is not accurate, then I'd be willing to move. If there is new language, I think the clerk's office deserves a chance to respond. 71 CHR. HAITSUKA: I think the language was proposed at the last meeting when you weren't here, and the language already covers this. From my reading of Section 3 -18, and this is my opinion, I think that the legislative auditor has the authority to audit the council. What is says there in subsection (d)(2) it says, "The legislative auditor shall conduct or cause to be conducted: (2) Performance and /or financial audits of the funds, programs, services, and operations of any county agency, executive agency, or program, as set forth by the legislative auditor in an annual audit plan that shall be transmitted to the county council and the mayor and filed with the county clerk as a public record." County agency or executive agency is defined in subsection (e) as "...any office, department, board, commission, agency, semi - autonomous agency, or other governmental unit of the county in the executive or legislative branch that is supported, in whole or in part, by county funds." To me, this gives the auditor the authority. MR. GOODENOW: I think that is a reasonable interpretation, but that may not be. I don't want to say that I agree with that. You could say that it says, unit of the county in the legislative branch; well the council is the legislative branch. I agree, it probably is an agency just like analogizing saying in State law. But again, it has no - -- County funds all go to the clerk's office. The council, in and of itself, really doesn't have - -it does in the sense that the clerk's office is under it, but it's the clerk's office that manages all funds. So, I think that is open to debate; I would like to look at it further, do some legal research, and you know, it may have been at the last meeting, but I'll note that there was substantial testimony by corporation counsel. In fact, that proposal didn't go, so I didn't feel the need to testify at the last meeting, because there was so much testimony from corporation counsel. I'm just asking for some time. I may come back and say the council members have no problem, but I would feel remiss if I just let it go without saying that I would like more time to look at it. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I would like to address Mr. Nahale -a. This actually is substantively the exact same motion, it's just the order of the language is changed. The county clerk has had a month to look at this, or however long it has been since our last meeting to look at this. I agree with the Chairman, that the language clearly gives the auditor the opportunity to do it. So, I think we should just vote on it and move on. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve CA -14 as amended at second reading as amended by un- deleting the last sentence of subsection (f)(4) and also replacing the language in subsection (f)(5) with the language, "The legislative auditor shall have the authority to retain legal counsel for the limited purpose of rendering legal advice when carrying out an audit of the county council, or corporation counsel." The motion failed due to the following vote: 72 Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioner Fuertes. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. Recused: Commissioner Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: The motion to approve CA -14 is one vote short, so this motion does not carry. CA -17: REAPPORTIONMENT TO REDISTRICTING Amends Section 3 -17. This amendment is to change the name of the Reapportionment Commission to "Redistricting Commission" to make the name consistent with the practice of redrawing district lines. Additionally, provisions are being added so that the commission shall adhere to the four redistricting criteria instead of being "guided" by them. Public hearing requirements are being added as well as a required report to the mayor and council about the commission's activities and progress. Last, the commission is to be appointed and confirmed by July 1 prior to the census year to give the commission more time to complete their work. Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -17 at second reading? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve CA -17 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Unger. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, one thing I would like to note about CA -17 is the effective date. Currently it reads that it will be effective upon approval by the electorate; however, one of the provisions says that the Commission is supposed to be seated by July 1st of the year prior. Next year is a Reapportionment year; so if this amendment is approved by the voters in November, we have already failed in our duties because they would have had to have been appointed by July 1, 2010, which is impossible. So I think the effective date should be amended to a time later than the next Reapportionment Commission is being appointed. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do you have some proposed language for amending Section 2? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, it would be amending Section 2 to maybe January 1, 2012 because by then the next Reapportionment Commission would have already been completed. It is mostly because they cannot be seated by July 1st of this year. 73 CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Clerk. MR. GOODENOW: I would definitely concur with that. Again, our office takes no position on this; but we did provide a few comments. One is the effective date; the other is that the census data really isn't available to the county until March. So, I suppose that between July and March, the Commission members could educate themselves, but that is a factor to consider. There are costs involved; we've given you a breakdown of the costs with the last Commission in 2001. But, the main issue is the effective date. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: If the effective date only really applies to getting the redistricting commission set up - - -I'm sorry, I had to go out for a minute, so I got confused. I would like the redistricting commission to have to follow the next redistricting commission, so maybe we could just say, for the redistricting commission, the first one would get constituted at such and such a date, and thereafter -- -They only meet every ten years, so it would be another ten years before they would have to follow the rest of our criteria. MR. SHUMWAY: It is also true that this will always be after a Charter revision too, so potentially if the next Charter Commission chose to do that you would keep running into that. So I don't know if there is another way without specifying the first time, if there is a way to make it simpler than that. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, perhaps you would like to take a brief 5- minute recess on this matter and I'll come up with some language in the meantime. CHR. HAITSUKA: Unless we want to pass over it and move on to the next one. MR. HOOKANO: In other words, postpone it to the end of the agenda; is that what you mean, Mr. Chair. CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, we can do that. Ms. Jarman moved to postpone CA -17 to the end of the agenda. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioner Fuertes. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. 74 CA -23: ELECTRONIC NOTICE WITH NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS Amends Sections 3-10(c)(3),3-10(h), 6- 7.5(a)(4), 10 -4, 11 -4(p), 13- 20(c), 15 -2, and 15- 3. Whenever a public notice is required by charter or by ordinance to be published in a daily newspaper, the public notice shall also be distributed via an electronic medium, such as the Internet, within the same time frame as newspaper publication. Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -23? Mr. Kaulukukui moved to approve CA -23 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, I'm going to vote, "no" because I don't want to clutter up the ballot and I think these are things that the administration will go on their own without being mandated. MR. SHUMWAY: I understand his point, but I think that this is important because I think we need to keep the Charter current. They may, in fact, do that, but the fact that the newspaper is in the Charter right now, to me it will soon be outdated. One of our obligations, even through it seems kind of manini and annoying, I think that we need to look at the Charter and update it as things change so it stays a current and viable document. That is why I proposed this. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Shumway. Is there any further discussion? Are we ready for the vote? We'll take it by roll call. The motion to approve CA -23 at second reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CA -26: CONSERVATION OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Adds a new section to Article XIII, General Provisions. The purpose of this amendment is to memorialize the county's responsibility under the state constitution to ensure development of the natural resources of the county is done in a manner consistent with their conservation and to add cultural resources to this responsibility. Postponed: January 21, 2010 75 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do we have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -26? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -26 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? MS. JARMAN: Mr. Chair, I would like to make an amendment. When we heard this on first reading, I think a good suggestion was made; and that was to change the title to, "Conservation of Natural and Cultural Resources," since I added that, essentially. And the last sentence to say, "All public natural and cultural resources are held in trust Ms. Jarman moved to amend CA -26 by adding, "and cultural" to the title and to the last sentence after the word "natural." Seconded by Mr. Unger and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: So now we have before us the original motion to approve CA -26 at second reading as amended. The motion to approve CA -26 as amended at second reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CA -29: PROSECUTING ATTORNEY POWERS Amends Section 9 -3. The proposed amendment would give the prosecuting attorney additional discretionary powers relating to crime research, prevention and education. Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -29 at second reading? 76 Mr. Unger moved to approve CA -29 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CA -30: BOARD AND COMMISSION WEBSITES Amends Section 13 -4. The proposed amendment would require boards and commissions to maintain websites. Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve CA -30 at second reading? Ms. Jarman moved to approve CA -30 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: Some opposition was raised to this because of the cost for individual commissions to have their own websites. Mr. Kurohara was one person that - - -Do you want to come up and talk about it? Thank you. RANDY KUROHARA (At this time Randy Kurohara, Research and Development Director, came forward to address members of the Charter Commission.) MR. KUROHARA: Basically, my response to this was more along the lines of creating a separate stand alone website and maintaining it just for the purpose of the commission. I was willing to say that we could just put a link from our regular site to the county site that has the updates and all the minutes and all of that for each of the meetings, so people can find it that way. But to actually try and navigate and let people know about a separate stand alone site, to me, I don't know how good that would do when we already have our own web sites that already exist. These minutes and these notices can already be found on the county site. So, it's not to me something that I felt was the best use of the limited resources that we already have. 77 CHR. HAITSUKA: What if we put in language like, "... shall maintain a website or a link to a website." Would that address your concerns? MR. KUROHARA: It already exists on the county website. So, one thing to make it a little bit easier was if each department could put a link to that exact page that housed that; that might make it easier as opposed to a stand alone site. MR. SHUMWAY: Would you object if we amended this to say, "The County shall maintain a website or a link." Is that okay with you? MR. KUROHARA: The County already has a website, so I think what this was asking for was that every commission has its own website that we would have to build and administer. That is what I felt was something that was already there and if it was for ease of navigation, then each department that houses the commission, that site could have a link. MR. SHUMWAY: So, if we add that language it would be alright with you? MR. KUROHARA: That would be alright with me. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger. MR. UNGER: So what is in existence right now? There are links to all the boards and commissions? MR. KUROHARA: There is a County site that houses all the minutes, that has the commission's updates, meetings, all the announcements and so forth. MR. UNGER: Minutes, everything? MR. KUROHARA: Yes. MR. UNGER: And it is in existence right now? MR. KUROHARA: Yes. It is already there. MS. JARMAN: So, if I got on the County website right now, somewhere there would be listed every board and commission and the authorities, powers and purposes of each of them, and who is on it, and their biographical information, the contact person, their agenda and all of that? You are saying that is all there right now. MR. KUROHARA: I cannot confirm every piece of that information, but I would assume that most of that is there. MR. ASHIDA: It's there. On the County website, you go to the Board and Commission link, and there is every board and commission there and a PDF document with a little background of each board or commission, what they do, what the requirements for service are. The only thing that is not updated regularly - -which we should update more regularly - -is the current vacancies. But, that is our responsibility; we need to get a little bit more vigilant about that. It does exist. That information exists now. CHR. HAITSUKA: This proposed amendment is kind of specific. I'm wondering if whatever exists contains the information that we have. Because once we push this forward, and if it's voted in by the voters, there would be a lot of responsibilities. You would have to have the minutes of the meetings, summaries of decisions or actions of the board or commission. Do you know if that kind of information is already on the sites? MR. ASHIDA: I would say the vast majority of boards and commissions don't have that information. I think what Mr. Kurohara was talking about was that there isn't any objection in principle to having at least some of this type of information available; he was more concerned about each board and commission having to construct their own site, because a lot of them are just annexed to the departments. Some that don't have a home are just on the County's general website. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Just to confirm, we have to have seven votes for any of these to move forward, correct? MS. JARMAN: Six. MR. NAHALE -A: Six. MS. JARMAN: When I read it, it says, "The County shall maintain a website for each board and commission...." I took that to mean what you already have; that you really wouldn't need a separate website for each one. To me, if you have the link on the County website, I think that is the same thing. That's how I would have read this. It seems like the only thing that you don't have right now is necessarily the minutes for every single board or commission. But mostly, you have everything else. MR. ASHIDA: Under the Sunshine Law they are required to be prepared within 30 days. This would put an additional burden or responsibility of actually posting them. Presumably the minutes are created. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I'm going to vote, "no." I would like this to be just best practice. I think there are consequences when we put it in the Charter and it doesn't meet a deadline, there may be legal ramifications. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. 79 MR. KAULUKUKUI: I think contrary to Mr. Shumway's comments on CA -23 where we were talking about adding the internet because the newspaper was already in there and it would be keeping up with technology and the times. I think this is one that we don't want to cloud the ballot with. So, I'll be in opposition also. CHR. HAITSUKA: Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I'm willing to vote against it for those same reasons; but I would like to ask the County to once those minutes are available, I think it's really important to get them up on the website for people to easily access. MR. ASHIDA: No problem, but whoa, Casey; once you leave the County, you talk big, like "you guys, the County, you guys do this." MS. JARMAN: You know, my biggest challenge when I was County Clerk was to get our minutes out in 30 days. My goal was that by the time I left we would have all of the minutes caught up; and I failed miserably. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: I was going to echo some of those comments. I'm most concerned that the way it is written it would require all of the boards and commissions to go through the work to establish websites which I know first hand is way more work than a lot of people think it is. It's using up valuable resources that should be used elsewhere. Thank you. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion? Let's take a vote. The motion to approve CA -30 at second reading failed due to the following vote: Ayes: Chair Haitsuka. Noes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, and Unger. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CA -31: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ENERGY Adds a new chapter to Article VI. The proposed charter amendment would create a new department to encompass certain services currently provided at a modest level by the department of research and development, but not delineated Postponed: January 21, 2010 (Note: There is a pending motion to approve CA -31 at second reading by Mr. Unger and duly seconded by Mr. Kaulukukui.) :@ CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion, we have the pending motion. Mr. Kurohara, did you have some comments? MR. KUROHARA: Actually not much more than what I shared at the last meeting in Kona. Basically my concern was just the cost of what this would mean to establish a separate department. I mentioned at the last meeting that there was a study done and I mentioned some numbers done when this had come before the County before; and just the minimum staff to create a department was close to '/z million dollars without even counting the cost of office space and all that kind of stuff as well. So in light of all of this, we felt that taxpayer's money best be used to try and get more money into the current department, to the current programs that we already have in existence that are already doing the job that it needs to be doing. But adding more resources towards those programs and maybe some additional staff as well can be something we can work towards instead of having to create a separate department. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you. Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: First, thanks to both of you for staying here so long on this long weekend. This must mean you have no place else to go, so I feel sad for you. MR. KUROHARA: I was going to say the same thing. Your eyes look a little bit glazed over at this point. MR. KAULUKUKUI: Trying to get serious again. Maybe, one of the things you could do for us - -and you mentioned this the last time - -if you could give us some details about how you might be able to reconfigure or appropriate resources, including human resources, within the existing department to undertake the kinds of things we had envisioned this department doing with regards to agriculture and energy. MR. KUROHARA: There is obviously the dream that we can do everything we want, but in reality it's working with the resources that we currently have. Reallocating some of the staff that we have, a certain amount of each person's time will be handled covering certain items in regard to agriculture and energy is where we are working right now within the department. Currently in place are plans that are moving forward with this exact thought in mind; allocating more staff to handle items regarding agriculture and energy. And it's the same way in regards to funds within the department. We have also put forth a budget that has increased funds in both of those programs. Whether or not it goes all the way through, we don't know yet, but it has been put forth already. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Kaulukukui. MR. KAULUKUKUI: What I wanted to say is that in the previous reading of this proposed amendment, I was in support of it, but I am going to be voting in opposition to it this time because I have seen the effort that the administration is making to try to undertake these kinds of activities within the constraints of its current resources. I think they said they were going to do it, and they are starting to do it; so I'm going to be in opposition to this. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chair, it was my proposal, but I am also going to be voting against it. I'm disappointed that we killed CA -37, because I thought it was a good move forward to try to articulate agriculture as a specific priority within the department, so not having that proposal go forward disappoints me because I'm not so worried about this administration, but I wanted to give guidance to all future administrations that agriculture was critical. A couple of things mattered to me. One was that we got very little testimony on this bill and that surprised me. I expected to get more from the agricultural community if they thought it was worthwhile. And them not speaking up, says a lot to me. I also got a lot of feedback from folks I respect that have been in the County business a long time saying this is really going to suck resources. So, I am going to vote against it; I really wish that we would have chewed this up more and gotten more deliberation. I think it is an interesting topic, but at this point maybe not worth our energies. Mahalo. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any further discussion on CA -31? The motion to approve CA -31 at second reading failed due to the following vote: Ayes: None. Noes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CA -36: "HOUSEKEEPING" AMENDMENTS Amends various sections of the charter and would do the following: (1) Include proper Hawaiian language diacritical marks; (2) Include omitted words; (3) Correct spelling errors; (4) Correct grammatical errors; and (5) Correct formatting errors. Postponed: January 21, 2010 CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to approve the second reading of CA -36? Mr. Nahale -a moved to approve CA -36 at second reading. Seconded by Mr. Shumway. CHR. HAITSUKA: Is there any discussion? Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: I actually have some housekeeping amendments to this housekeeping amendment. In Section 49 there is a word in there, "Island," that is uppercase. It should be lower case. And there should be a strikethrough on Hawaii County in that same Section 49. Then in Section 61, in the last paragraph, there should be an underscore underneath county building, to illustrate that was a change. CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to amend CA -36 in accordance with the items that were mentioned by Mr. Hookano. Ms. Jarman moved to amend CA -36 in accordance with the items that were mentioned by Mr. Hookano. Seconded by Mr. Nahale -a and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, now we are back on the original motion to approve CA -36 at second reading as amended. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: Mr. Chairman, you know we took Mr. Kawaiola'a's testimony today, and we had kind of given the instruction that we were not going to hear any testimony on matters that were not on the agenda. And if you look at this section, it does cover the area that he had concerns about. So I'm torn. I believe he is asking us to respond to his testimony. This would obviously be the opportunity to do it, so I am asking for an opinion on whether that is possible or not. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Hookano, do you have any comments on that? MR. HOOKANO: This is just meant to be a housekeeping amendment to clear up all the grammar and all the formatting errors in the Charter. I think that what Mr. Nahale -a is proposing is a substantive proposal that would not be germane to this amendment. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Nahale -a. MR. NAHALE -A: I would accept that ruling. I guess I would ask, as we did on an earlier issue, if there is an option to consider the request. CHR. HAITSUKA: I thought we discussed this when we had our committee and then they presented the report. I thought that was covered already. MS. JARMAN: Yes, that is what I thought. That issue was looked at by the committee, and the committee made a report and their recommendation was to not change that. So, I think we already did discuss that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Alright, any further discussion? We are considering the second reading of CA -36 as amended. The motion to approve CA -36 as amended at second reading carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: That is the end of our new business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS COMM. 136 Memo from Commission Attorney, Levi Hookano, dated January 12, 2010, transmitting a Report on Combining Proposed Amendments which recommends consolidating (1) CA -2, CA -3, and CA -36; (2) CA -9, CA -23, and CA -30, (3) CA -12 and CA -13, Postponed: January 21, 2010 and; COMM. 136.1 Memo from Commission Secretary, Karen Eoff, dated February 2, 2010 regarding Proposed Charter Amendments that passed 2nd reading at the January 21, 2010 meeting that may be discussed as part of Comm. 136. CA -1: Renames the manager of the department of water supply to "manager -chief engineer;" CA -2: Moves Data Systems to Article VI and changes the name to Department of Information Technology; CA -3: Moves Fire Department to Article VII; CA -4: Civil Service Amendment; CA -5: Merit Appeals Board Staggered Terms; CA -6: Removal of Directors Serving Under Commissions; CA -10: Expands the Powers, Duties, Functions of Department of Environmental Management; CA- 11: Requirements of the Director of Department of Environmental Management; and CA- 13: Mandatory Charter Review. CHR. HAITSUKA: I'm not sure if these have all survived. MR. SHUMWAY: I'm not sure that they are all still around anymore and if so, then what. MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, if I may make a statement on that. CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, Mr. Hookano. MR. HOOKANO: Those were provided as illustrations as what could be combined. That may not hold true throughout the whole process. The whole point of this communication is for the Charter Commission to determine which ones should be grouped together. They are not tied to what was stated in the communication. MR. SHUMWAY: So, if we approve this? MR. HOOKANO: It would be to file the communication; but because there are still some Charter amendments outstanding for second reading, it still wouldn't be appropriate to file this at this time. I think a motion to postpone would be proper. Mr. Shumway moved to postpone Comm. 136. Seconded by Ms. Jarman and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. (Returning to CA -17 which was postponed to the end of the agenda.) MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, you still have CA -17, which was postponed to the end of the agenda. CHR. HAITSUKA: Thank you, Mr. Hookano. You were going to get some language for us. MR. HOOKANO: Yes. I think it would be appropriate to add another section which would become Section 2, to CA -17 to read, "The provision of appointing the members of the redistricting commission by July 1st of the year immediately proceeding the redistricting year shall not apply to the 2011 redistricting commission. The 2011 redistricting commission shall be appointed in the manner of Section 3 -17(d) of the 2008 edition of the Charter." It basically says that the 2011 redistricting commission will be appointed by March 1, 2011. Ms. Jarman moved to amend CA -17 with the language proposed by Mr. Hookano. Seconded by Mr. Unger and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Clerk, you have some comments? MR. GOODENOW: On the main motion, I have some information that I didn't include in my testimony. Pat Nakamoto from our elections division did a little research; the State reapportionment commission doesn't start until May. That is just something to consider. We are giving it back to July, you don't get the census results until March, the State doesn't really start until May; but again, it's not really - -- That's for you to decide what is appropriate. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, thank you. Is there any further discussion? The motion to approve CA -17 as amended at second reading was carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. REPORTS CHR. HAITSUKA: We have no reports. REFERRALS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION CHR. HAITSUKA: We have no referrals. ANNOUNCEMENTS CHR. HAITSUKA: Our next regularly scheduled meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 12, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Hilo. Mr. Hookano, as far as our timeline, will we have to schedule additional meetings? :. MR. HOOKANO: At a minimum, I believe there will have to be at least one other meeting in addition to that March 12, 2010 meeting. I believe you will need at least two more meetings between now and the April 13, 2010 deadline. CHR. HAITSUKA: So we would have to have a meeting after the March 12, 2010, before the April the 13, 2010 deadline? MR. HOOKANO: Correct. The reason I believe there would be a need for one more meeting is because the Commission still has to come up with a report to submit to the County Council and I get the impression that I am going to be the one to draft it. I would like to submit it to the Commission for their approval, which can only happen after all other business is completed. So, that is why I think there will need to be at least two meetings between now and April. CHR. HAITSUKA: Any preference of setting another meeting in February or in March? MR. UNGER: I will tell you that I won't be here on March 12, 2010. CHR. HAITSUKA: Anyone else who cannot be her on March 12,2010? Ms. Jarman. MS. JARMAN: I can attend on March 12, 2010. But are we talking about a second meeting? CHR. HAITSUKA: Yes, either before or after March 12, 2010. MS. JARMAN: Before March 12, 2010 would be impossible for me; after March 12th would be possible. CHR. HAITSUKA: We have at least two commissioners who cannot make it before March 12th MR. UNGER: Yes, I don't think I would be able to either. MR. HOOKANO: March 26, 2010 is Kuhio day. MR. SHUMWAY: I would be gone on the 25th and 26th of March. MS. JARMAN: I am going to be on island that whole week because of spring break, so any day that week would work for me. CHR. HAITSUKA: The week of March 22, 2010 through March 26,2010? MS. JARMAN: Yes. MR. SHUMWAY: I'm gone the 25th and 26th, but I'm here before that. CHR. HAITSUKA: If we move it forward, then agenda wise, we would have to get the agenda out by the 16tH MR. HOOKANO: Mr. Chair, it could also be held in April, any time before April 13th as well. CHR. HAITSUKA: Okay, April 13, 2010 is a Tuesday, the 9th of April is the regularly scheduled meeting. Would that be sufficient? MR. HOOKANO: Yes, April 9, 2010 will work. MR. SHUMWAY: Right now we just have our regularly scheduled March meeting and our regularly scheduled April meeting, and no additional meetings? MR. HOOKANO: That could work. CHR. HAITSUKA: That could work because our regularly scheduled meeting is before the deadline to submit the report. MR. HOOKANO: So long as you guys don't make any changes to the report at that time, or don't mind whatever is in there; it will be fine. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Unger said he could not make it on March 12th. Can everybody else make it on March 12, 2010? MR. HOOKANO: That sounds good. CHR. HAITSUKA: So our next regularly scheduled meeting will be March 12, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Hilo. ADJOURNMENT CHR. HAITSUKA: Do I have a motion to adjourn? MR. FUERTES: Before we adjourn, Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment that I enjoy being on this Commission with all of you. We are so passionate about certain things, but yet we can all look at each other and really feel civil about it. I thank you very much for being part of the `ohana. CHR. HAITSUKA: Mr. Shumway. MR. SHUMWAY: Was that a motion? I'll second it. MR. FUERTES: And, I move to adjourn. -I There being no further business, at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Fuertes moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded Mr. Shumway and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Fuertes, Jarman, Kaulukukui, Nahale -a, Shumway, Unger and Chair Haitsuka. Noes: None. Absent: Commissioners Honma, Kawauchi, Kealoha and Osborne. CHR. HAITSUKA: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Respectfully Submitted, Karen Eoff, Secretary Approved: Mr. Ed Haitsuka, Chair Hawaii County Charter Commission :•